Peter Kenyon

Gloves off, time for a no confidence vote in Peter Hain

Why Peter Hain?

For a fuller explanation, please refer to my article, Labour - a lost cause?  in the latest edition of Chartist - the bimonthly for democratic socialism. The piece was written two weeks before the May elections, and I admit I under-estimated the capacity of the Scottish Labour Party to grasp victory from the jaws of defeat. But that should not detract from the thrust of my thesis about the danger to Labour of professional politicians, whom Peter Hain epitomises.

I concluded:  

While the Labour Party continues to be dominated by the salaried and aspiring political class, its ability to 'reconnect' will be compromised... I'll be voting for any NEC or NPF candidate willing to move an NEC vote of no confidence against Peter Hain, and/or run a campaign to rebuild paid membership electoral ward by electoral ward, and give members an effective say in policy making.

With the benefit of hindsight, I should have gone back to his pamphlet, The Future Party, published by the trade union funded think-tank Catalyst in 2004, and done a proper demolition job.

For a more recent account of Peter's Refounding success, check out his interview last month in The Australian:  Brotherly advice: reform or die 

Last year, Hain authored a 10,000 word report, Refounding Labour, for Labour leader Ed Miliband that canvassed systemic reforms to revitalise the party in a changing political world.

When you have finished spluttering into your cup of Horlicks, you will be aware that the Labour Party is far too polite to allow a motion of no confidence in any of the 'self-select'. But if anyone is any doubt about whether Peter Hain should go or not check out the next set of Partnership in Power policy documents and arrangements for the National Policy Forum in Birmingham in June.

Political party funding - lost in Refounding Labour fog?

Why have Labour Party's fixers delayed revealing their latest thinking on Refounding Labour until the eve of Annual Conference 2011? Why did stories appear at the beginning of the August silly season about Ed Miliband taking on the trade unions' hold over Labour?  Could this conceiveable have anything to do with the funding of political parties?

My curiosity has been aroused by revelations about a plan to change the formulae for handing Labour Party membership subscriptions. Details were first revealed by Ann Black, doyen of constituency representatives on the party's National Executive Committee, in an eMail to her contacts, subsequently published on Labour List and the newly formed Labour Democratic Network websites.

It is proposed that first, all national [sic] debts incurred up to 2010 would be written off, so that every CLP would start with a clean slate. Second, a higher proportion of membership income would be retained centrally.

As set out these financial proposals risk provoking a knee-jerk reaction. Any proposals allowing Head Office more control are like the proverbial red rag to a bull. I'll confess that was my first reaction. But researching my piece for the latest edition of Chartist (due out next weekend) I entered a Google search with the words: 'Chartist Hayden Phillips'. I have tried to keep my finger on the issue of political party funding since 2003. There is a partial chronicle on this blog here.

Of particular relevance today is the expected publication of the latest official inquiry immediately after this year's political party Conference season in October. I'm not sure that is well founded as authors of official inquiries prefer to appeal to a political consensus. This one has been conducted by Sir Christopher Kelly and his Committee on Standards in Public Life. We know the LibDems want to raid the public purse. We know the Tories want to wreck the affililated TU link with the Labour Party. We know the Blairites went to astonishing lengths to follow the Tory-agenda. Judging by the silly season headlines, they are still at what they do best: being Tories.

So what should the position of rank-and-file Labour Party members be? Can we afford a principled position about our Party and its finances? Can we help our leader find a considered position? More importantly, can that be achieved in time for a crucial pre-Conference NEC on 20 September? 

Ann Black and Ellie Reeves, another CLP representative on the NEC are right to flag up the Head Office financial proposals. Our job is to advance the case for a comprehensive rebuilding strategy to emerge from the Refounding Labour consultation, of which reforming the way in which membership subscriptions are distributed should form part.

We need our Leader to use the opportunity of Conference to remind everyone that he believes in a mass-membership Labour Party. To change the public perception of political party, membership has to be starting point. Poignantly, this weekend's media has been strewn with revelations of a new Labour strategy for challenging the Tories starts with casting their leader, David Cameron, as an old Tory. Ed Miliband should beware of being cast as another old 'top-down' Labour leader battling it out with the Trades Unions.

Labour should set itself a goal of financial independence from the state if it is win back people's trust as a party of government. That really would give Refounding Labour meaning.

 

Labour Party plotters led by Patricia and Geoff who?

I'm listening to news that a letter signed by two former Blairite cabinet ministers both of whom are leaving Parliament - Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon has been circulated to the PLP. This is a class of treachery reminiscent of Hazel Blears notorious resignation ahead of the Euro-elections. It should reinforce the view that the Parliamentary Labour Party's role in the election of Labour Party leaders must be neutered pdq. This does not require any change in the Rules. It just requires a commitment from the NEC to activate Rule 4.2 B. ii. The Leader/deputy leader nomination papers would be circulated after the General Election. In the meantime we have an election to fight.

BBC lobby correspondent James Lansdale is reporting scepticism about the move from Labour backbenchers with a future to worry about. Quite so. A check on the former defence secretary's expenses record and the former health secretary's extra parliamentary activities helps put their real interests in perspective.

Standards in Public Life confused with party funding

Sir Christopher Kelly, the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life risks torching his own reputation by opining about a recent inquiry into the funding of political parties.

According to the BBC report of his press conference earlier today about a survey into public trust in our politicians:

Sir Christopher told a press conference in Westminster this morning that he was concerned by the lack of resolution within Parliament over party funding.

He called for political parties "to have the courage to work together to reach a consensus" and said it was "a matter of great dismay that this has not happened and may not happen until after the next election".

Interviewed later on the BBC TV One o'clock news he explicitly refered to the doomed Hayden Phillips Inquiry. I shall be sending him copies of my main pieces on party funding published in Chartist, here , here and, if you have access to a proper library, Chartist #212 when I reviewed the Electoral Commission report on party political funding (2004). I warned prior to publication of Hayden Phillips updated report in 2007:

The unsuspecting public should beware. This is no innocent inquiry.

I look forward to your graceful retraction, Sir Christopher, pending proper consideration as would become someone in your position with a reputation to consider as much as any politician.

Polls, shoals and steerage for Labour

Today's YouGov poll in the Sun with the Labour Party only 10 points behind the Tories reminded me of a Martin Rowson cover cartoon Boing on the September/October 2007 cover of Chartist, just before Labour started plummetting in the eyes of public opinion. Here's the link to the gallery highlighting all of Martin's covers capturing the direction of travel for democratic socialists (remember the words on your party card? The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party.) You can see that by May/June 2008 we all had that sinking feeling - that was before the May elections took place, or the Crewe and Nantwich and the Glasgow East by-elections.

Following the 2008 Conference bounce, we need to beware the shoals that lie ahead - quite apart from the Conservative Party conference next week, the Glenrothes by-election sometime before Christmas, there is the remaining legislation lurking in the current Parliament immediately after the Conference season comes to end in a week's time. In the light of recent developments, I not convinced there is any effectively strategic thinking going on around the Prime Minister looking at the politics of the policies in the context of closing the gap in the polls and winning a 4th term.

Let's hope the departure of Ruth Kelly from Transport will herald an appointment of someone tasked with dropping the third runway at Heathrow when the latest consultation comes to an end and improving the Party's appeal to the environmentally-aware. I'm not optimistic. (That would be just one infrastructure investment too far when the economy is being plunged into recession and oil prices are on a sharp upward trend recession or not.) The possible departure of Geoff Hoon to replace Peter Mandelson as Britain's European Commissioner will leave the position of chief whip open. The right in the Party are on the ascendent inside government. I can't see any evidence of Gordon Brown wanting to drop either 42-day detention plans for alleged terrorists, or ID cards, impose a windfall tax or be openly redistributive when it comes to the pre-budget report later this Autumn.

Just like a leading member of the Campaign Group of Socialist MPs whom I spoke to at some length at Conference, I wouldn't get hung up about a windfall tax as long as the PBR heralds significant redistribution through the tax and national insurance systems to low and middle income people from the rich.

This time last year, I suggested the Humpty Dumpty idea for Martin's cartoon for Chartist's November/December 2007 issue. If you look very carefully at Brown's right hand his fingers are crossed. That was Martin, not me. I feared Gordon couldn't recover. The next few weeks are going to require highly skilled, and possibly unprecedented, political steerage by our Prime Minister to navigate the shoals and see the polling gap narrowed and reversed.

Rediscovering winning ways - Parliament

How can anyone take the Houses of Parliament seriously when leaders of all parties have been feathering their own nests with such abandon?

Is this now the time to revisit the idea of annual Parliamentary elections, the only main demand of the 19th century Chartist movement not to be achieved?

Where Chartist leads Tribune follows: Labour GS

The latest issue of the bi-monthly magazine Chartist carries a 4-page series of articles about Labour's current crises. In a piece authored by Andy Howell and myself we opined:

The NEC must include an essential requirement in the Personal Specification for the General Secretary post to demonstrate proven ability to run the Party in partnership with, but not at the whim of No. 10 Downing Street.

In today's Tribune, I see that the Editorial concludes:

It is to be hoped that an essential requirement for the post is a provable ability to run the party for the party, in partnership iwth Downing Street but not at the whim of the Prime Minister.

Quite so. Keep abreast of the best - subscribe to Chartist!

Tribune also has a well informed report of the recruitment process. It contains further evidence of the extent to which party staff are out of control. Tribune confirms my suspicion that staff failed to circulate the proposed GS recruitment material to most members of the ruling (sic) National Executive Committee before publication in the national press.

Chartist - sharpening thinking on the centre-left

The latest edition of Chartist featuring an original Martin Rowson cartoon includes an interview with Naomi Klein, an analysis of the Northern Rock crisis by leading academic Prof Prem Sikka, a timely assessment of Britain's relationship with Saudi Arabia by Andy Gregg, a prediction on Brown's Party tricks by Labour Party NEC member Ann Black, and the latest on Immigration policy by Don Flynn.

Regular Greenwatch columnist Dave Toke exposes the Tories in their true colours concerning nuclear power.

Published bi-monthly, Chartist offers a friendly but critical view of policy from a centre-left perspective. Subscriptions can be taken out online here. Under-25s can sign up for a fiver.

Why did Rowson draw Brown as Humpty Dumpty falling with his fingers crossed? It's only a nursery rhyme.