Peter Kenyon

Election readiness - an opportunity for Labour, but threat to control freaks

Labour's leader Jeremy Corbyn wants members to decide who will be their prospective parliamentary candidate at the next General Election. Given the Tories inability to govern that opportunity might not be far away. Reactions to Ian Lavery MP's recent pronouncements suggest that the age of entitlement in the Labour Party is not over (yet). Let me untangle these issues.

Ahead of the shock, surprise May 2017 General Election, Labour was so ill-prepared that the NEC took upon itself the power to select candidates. Serial rebel MPs in the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) were given a 'Get out of Jail' card. However much local disquiet to a sitting MP standing again for re-election - tough. Labour's rebels have much to thank Tory PM Theresa May for her decision to call a snap election. Their candidacy was safe. Though in some isolated places previously safe Labour seats were lost.

With the Tories in disarray over how to govern (full stop), never mind Brexit, the prospects of another General Election in 2017 require decisive action on the part of Labour CLPs and the NEC. The mantra is that nothing can be done without the authority of the NEC. I find that jobsworth approach utterly depressing. The Labour Party needs candidates in place for both local, regional and national elections much earlier than has been common practice.

National contingency planning needs to focus on the full panoply of opportunity - national, regional, local and, dare I add, European elections. If the NEC is unable to provide detailed guidance ahead of the July meeting cycle for local parties, IMHO CLPs should get on and ask the June 2017 PPCs whether they wish to stand again. In the absence of an acceptable 'sitting candidate', then CLPs should invite expressions of interest and enable all their members to take part in a selection process.

This may mean some ruffling of feathers among Labour MPs with an inflated sense of entitlement, tough. Members are entitled to decide. It is in the rules. What is the problem? Oh, yes - entitlement. Well, sorry peeps, it's time to get real.

 

No thanks from Labour's GS Iain McNicol as Refounding Labour cuts bite

As previously reported the Labour Party Head Office is moving to Brewer's Green, earlier today I learned Friday is the day. As if further evidence of couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery were needed, I also received an eMail from General Secetary, Iain McNicol setting out changes to my constituency labour party (CLP) income. The proportion of membership subscriptions being remitted to local parties is being slashed in some instances from one-third to nearly one-thirtieth. 

The changes arise from the notorious top down stitchup agreed at last year's party conference mislabelled Refounding Labour. They mask a lamentable and wholly avoidable failure on the part of the leadership and the National Executive Committee to rethink the way the Labour Party pays its way as a mainstream political party. Instead we have more hankering after state-funding (see Party funding rules face overhaul as talks continue http://bit.ly/Hx4jw0) , and a clampdown on local parties' finances to fill the holes in Head Office accounts. To add insult to injury, there was not a word of thanks, appreciation or recognition of any effort expended by members administering the party on the ground.

I had expected better when Iain was elected. Oh, BTW the citation should have been 'Dear Comrade', not 'Dear friend'. 

 

Could a CLP boycott of Labour Party conference 2012 force change?

To date no information has been released to the best of my knowledge about how many constituency Labour parties (CLPs) sent delegates to Annual Conference 2011 in Liverpool.

Critical and controversial decisions were taken at that event within hours of being published by former Liberal Party member, now Labour MP Peter Hain. Questions remain about their democratic legitimacy. 

Unlike the early 1980s, Labour Party members are now mainly loyal..to a fault - of letting their elected leader behave like a 16th century monarch. This is regrettable. It, in part, accounts for the inability of the Labour Party to recruit and retain members. There is only a limited number of people who can hold sway in the court of King Ed. So far Labour First led by John Spellar MP, with scribe Luke Akehurst, elected to the NEC last year on a joint ticket with Progess, is doing well. 

Data on previous year's Conference CLP delegates suggests a downward trend, like that of membership from 1997 until the 2010 General Election. A question arising from Conference 2011 is whether the stitchup was so blatant that a significant number of CLPs will decide not to bother to send a delegate to Conference 2012.

Even though I am no longer a member of the National Executive Committee, I was rung by the secretary of a CLP in a solid Tory seat to tell me: "never again", not on the grounds of anti-democratic behaviour by the Labour leadership, but because the CLP financial settlement buried in the minutia of Refounding Labour had blown a massive hole in the CLP's budget to fight local elections.

My own branch is minded for ideological reasons to support a Conference 2012 boycott on the grounds of 'No say, No pay' and that applies as much to membership subscriptions as conference delegate fees. Nothing has been formalised yet. But it would not take much more nonsense from the Leader , Ed Miliband, his appointed shadow cabinet and other party apparachniks to tip the balance in that direction.

Whether that could force change towards the staging of a deliberative assembly at Conference 2012, instead of a Nuremberg-style rally, is a moot point.

 

Members: keeping track, staying in the loop and social media illusions

Labour Party General secretary designate Iain McNicol calling all members. LabourList picked up a new videoclip just released linked to the London elections next year and asked: More like this please

It is a refreshing change making use of social media to encourage members to get involved in a key campaign for Labour in 2012 (though not the only one). Like LabourList editor Mark Ferguson I hope there is more use of such facilities to get messages across to those members and supporters that are devotees of new media facilites and social networking.

There are lessons for our new GS across the piece. To date most Labour Party forays into new media and social networking has been blighted by top down command and control requirements imposed by Head Office. Refounding Labour is just the latest fiasco in that regard. But there are some features of current IT functionality that are worth preserving and enhancing.

Yesterday, I persuaded a new member at my third attempt to register on the Party's intranet facility called Membersnet and add an eMail address to Personal Details. Any member can access that facility with their membership number. Old cynics will no doubt worry that this could trigger a torrent of spam eMail generate by Head Office. Well, you can always Unsubscribe from that traffic. But Head Office are now not the exclusive users of that data. Through a facility called MemberCentre every constituency labour party (CLP) secretary, and every branch labour party (BLP) can access their members data.

That is an excellent basis for improving party communication locally. In my own constituency the Womens and Youth officers also have access as do branch chairs who have requested it. But there is a residual problem arising from mistrust of Head Office (ab)use of personal data. Consequently, many long-standing members refuse to update their Personal Details. According to memberCentre data only 75% of my branch members are on eMail. Yet my own database has eMails for 94%. That's because of personal contact. I know there is one member left who has an eMail address, but its work and too complicated. The rest just don't have email including a 98-year old - who insists on paying the full rate and appreciates getting copies of notice, minutes, supporting papers and newsletters. Four out of the five members are within easy walking distance of my flat, so it's one stamp a month.

This is part of the process of reaching out into our communities. That is why I launched an appeal on Twitter to all Labour Party members to update their personal details on Membersnet - get your membership card ready to register. I invite the Leader and the GS-designate to retweet.

Reaching out involves organisational capacity as well as campigning, if we forget that in the pre-Conference rush to find a consensus around Refounding Labour, Labour risks problems getting re-elected nationally. Better to start rebuilding the organisational and campaigning infrastucture now than spending time rewriting rules in ignorance of the load already carried by volunteers despite Head Office and its Regional Directors. They may put on a good show for Conference. But they have made an extraordinary mess of the Party on the Ground in too many parts of the country.

Labour's unbeatable offer to members - submit a motion

As a constituency labour party (CLP) secretary, I have recently received an invitation from Head Office on behalf of the CLP to submit a contemporary motion for consideration at Annual Conference 2011. 

On first sight this is an excellent and timely reminder of a welcome opportunity. Members getting to have a say. But as the worldly wise know, read the small print. So here's the section of the HO memo relating to how the Conference Arrangements Committee (CAC) will decide what is valid and what is not.

 2. CAC's criteria for deciding if a motion is contemporary

In deciding if a contemporary motion is valid (contemporary) the CAC will consider the following points:

• Is the issue already addressed in the Conference agenda?
• Has the issue been dealt with by the NPF and Policy Commissions in their reports to Conference?
• Could the issue have been sent to the NPF, Policy Commissions or the NEC before they published their work?

A motion will be deemed to be contemporary if:

a) It is 250 words or less and deals with one subject.

b) It deals with a topic which arose after the publication of the reports of the National Policy Forum (NPF), Policy Commissions or National Executive Committee on 31 July or has not been substantively addressed in those reports. Copies of the reports will be sent to delegates in early September. In the meantime a list of the subjects dealt with by the policy commissions in 2011 is enclosed together with a summary of the contents of the NEC Report to 2011 Conference.

c) The issue could not otherwise have been raised through the Partnership in Power process.

d) It does not seek to bypass either the National Policy Forum policy-making or National Executive Committee decision-making processes or to overturn or revisit the Party Policy Programme as agreed through the Partnership in Power process, including issues defeated at the NPF which failed to achieve the status of an alternative position at the NPF.

The annual reports of the National Executive Committee, the National Policy Forum and the Policy Forums will be sent to delegates in early September. In the meantime please find attached lists of the topics to be covered on the Conference Agenda and in the various reports.

 

All clear? Now, I thought the NPF failed to agree anything at its meeting in Wrexham on 25 June 2011, as a report on policy was tabled too late to be given proper consideration. So does this mean anything goes? I think we should be told.

In any event, I am a bit puzzled by HO's timetable. They are proposing to send the appropriate reports to delegates, not CLP secretaries. So what I am meant to tell our members ahead of their branch meetings in the first week of September?. For the eagle eyed and logistically minded, that means my missive has to be despatched to branch secretaries before the August Bank holiday.

Ooh, I am going to have fun explaining this in plain language in my next Secretary's letter to branches, and retaining the will to live. 

Refounding Labour: NEC member fears a pre-Conference fix

Labour Party members are to be denied sight of rule changes arising from the Refounding Labour consultation triggered by Ed Miliband's election ten months ago.

According to veteran constituency Labour Party (CLP) representative on the ruling National Executive Committee, Ann Black, any rule changes to be put to Conference will not be decided until the NEC's next meeting on 20 September. Annual Conference 2011 starts in Liverpool four days later.

In her covering note to her unofficial NEC report, Ann wrote:

As explained below, final recommendations will not be agreed by the NEC until 20 September, and these are likely to include some of the most contentious areas.  So there will be no time for delegates to consult with their local parties before annual conference. In addition current plans are that no amendments will be allowed and the document will be voted on a whole, Yes or No, including any rule changes.

Members need to find their voice to stop this attempted pre-Conference fix. I am going to my General Committee tonight with an Emergency resolution:

This CLP:

1. Notes the publication of a summary report about the Refounding Labour consultation following the NEC July meeting

2. Welcomes support for strategic planning by CLPs, more differentiated membership rates, progress under consideration regarding equality and Young Labour structures.

 3. Remains concerned about the apparent absence of measures to respond to members' calls for more democratic and accountable policy-making. This is now urgent with less than nine weeks before Conference 2011.

4. Is alarmed about the registered supporters proposals, especially voting rights in leadership elections which we doubt was reflected in submissions and has undermined our confidence in the consultation process.

We therefore request our NEC/NPF representatives to press for:

A. the distribution to all CLP secretaries of the planned Refounding Labour paper at the same time as it is despatched to the September Organisation Sub* to enable members to be consulted and our representatives to be advised  

B. the publication all Refounding Labour submissions at the same time to start to rebuild confidence in the Labour Party's consultation processes

  

*due to meet on 6 September

 I will no doubt get roundly criticised for wasting their time, as no one takes any notice of members full stop. We'll see.

Labour GS continuity candidate to run party? Shome mishtake shurely, Ed!

It's time to take stock of the Party, Ed. On Tuesday, you and the other members of the National Executive Committee will decide who will be the next General Secretary. You will also have a report on the Refounding Labour consultation. That report appears to have been written before the submissions were read or analysed. Furthermore, it is not impossible that someone will raise the fiasco of a National Policy Forum held in Wrexham four weeks ago. On that occasion A better future for Britain was sent to representatives just 36 hours, without NPF elected representatives having sight of submissions either. As one senior parliamentarian put it very bluntly to me last week: "It's rubbish." That was in reference to the content, not its late delivery.

You can not hope to reach out until you tackle the vested interests in our party.

And no, I'm not talking about the trade unions. You need to concentrate this weekend on the other vested interests at work corroding the integrity of our democratic socialist party, and our representative democracy - whether in the Westminster parliament, our devolved nations/regions or our town halls.

The most damaging influence in the Labour Party is a combination of the current senior management team, and those elected representatives at all levels who rely on their services. In the two reviews you commissioned after being elected leader, grassroots members have sadly experienced more of the same. You have been betrayed. And those of us who voted for you now feel that we are being betrayed by you too, unless you can show decisive Leadership and restore integrity to:

• our consultation processes
• our policy making, and 
• our selection of candidates for public elected office

You may or may not remember that I personally handed you a copy of the LabOUR Commission interim report in 2007. Accompanying that was a covering letter dated 25 April 2007 written by Angela Eagle MP, to the then National Executive Committee chair, Mike Griffiths. It was an evidenced based interim report. Interim because the Commission recognised it needed access to internal party data to take its work further. This was the key paragraph:

The [LabOUR] Commission would very much like to work with the NEC to build on this body of research; for example, with an audit of CLPs’ organisational capacity, analysis of membership trends, and in consultation with the Party Treasurer the formulation of measures to rebuild the Party's finances. I very much hope that we can work with the NEC on the important task of rebuilding our Party.

The Refounding Labour exercise failed to undertake a systematic assessment of our Party's organisational structures. Why? Because it is not in the interests of staff or those who depend on their services to expose either the hollowed out state of much of our party across the country, or highlight what really works. Good practice is often achieved despite Labour Party staff. If you want to get a whiff of this ask any CLP/or BLP secretary whether they rely on the National Database for membership contact details. Rightly or wrongly, a significant proportion of members do not trust the national Labour Party with their full contact details.

Labour Uncut today published a piece by Kevin Meagher which touches on this issue:

First, we need to create greater incentive for members to be involved locally. After all, the party’s poor bloody infantry are taken for granted – and always have been. Constituency chairs, secretaries and treasurers keep the show on the road, but no-one in their right mind would want to do these jobs. Responsibility without power or prestige is never a winning offer.

Yet these are the people who robustly refuse to be drawn on criticising the party when the Sunday Times phones up now and again inviting them to do so. They are the party’s centre of gravity and deserve a bigger and more defined role and some good old fashioned gratitude.

You may not have been fully aware of it, but the answer you gave to @SarahEvansk on Twitter on Thursday could prove decisive to liberating yourself and your Leadership form the malign forces at work inside the Labour Party.

She asked:

@Ed_Miliband will we ever get to see all the submissions from #RefoundingLabour? #askedm

@Ed_Miliband replied:

@sarahevansk yes, we should do what we can to make them public. #asked

For those of us with an inkling of how simple and straightforward it will be to publish those submissions, the obvious question is not if, but when?

There are just 10 weeks to go before Annual Conference 2011. To date there is no clear guidance for members about how to contribute to the policy debate so urgently needed in Liverpool in late September. Under the Rules, only contemporary issues i.e. matters arising from 1 August to 16 September 2011 can be cited to be ruled in order by the Conference Arrangements Committee. The NEC on Tuesday needs to ensure that any matter arising from A better future for Britain can be used to formulate a resolution. In addition, the Priorities Ballot needs to be administered so that at least eight issues can be debated under the 4+4 rule.

As for Refounding Labour, the Leader's Office is stuck in a right-wing Blairite/Daily Mail/Murdoch time warp wanting to take on the unions again. As set out above the real enemies of Next Generation Labour are within the heart of the machine. So if you do nothing else this weekend: just ask for the results of an internal audit of organisational capacity CLP/CLP, and a date for publication on Membersnet of all Refounding Labour and PiP submissions. If the answers are: we haven't done an audit, and publication's not possible, then you know who to vote for as the next general secretary.

 

 

 

 

Refounding Labour – five basic options (on one-side of A4)

This consultation represents an opportunity for Labour Party members to shape an organisation to lead progressive politics in the UK and help consolidate a progressive majority not just at home, but in the wider world, extending out to the European Union, where democratic accountability needs to be strengthened.

 The document issued by the Labour Party entitled Refounding Labour does not set out the issues in those terms. But having read it and abstracted all 126 questions posed, that should not inhibit us members from thinking bigger and more clearly.

 The five basic options are:

1. Organisational structure

   A federated membership organisation (individual members, TUs and socialist societies) with rights, responsibilities and clear lines of accountability based on local/parliamentary electoral boundaries, or a loosely defined supporters club for political careerists funded by rich individuals, large TU donations and increased state-aid ?

2. Political education

   Re-establish political education / promotion of democracy forums to reach out to young people, local communities, TU branches and single-issue pressure groups to counter the right-wing media and encourage Labour Party membership, or surrender politics to media tycoons in perpetuity?

3. Policy making

   Establish ways for members through branches, constituencies and their elected delegates to contribute to and decide policy in partnership with elected representatives, or continue with take it or leave it top-down policy making by diktat?

4. Accountability of representatives

   Require elected representatives to submit to compulsory reselection and ensure local accountability is free of vested interests, or condone a 'jobs for life' political culture?

5. Values

   Identify policies that reflect Labour Values and the aspirations of a progressive majority even if that means admitting errors in government between 1997 and 2010 or continue to deny how opportunities were missed and values betrayed?

 There are a some rule changes required at Annual Conference 2011 to establish the future direction of the Labour Party arising from which ever options are chosen.

City of London branch in 2009 proposed, for example, the adoption of a standard Annual General Meeting on the eve of or during the first session of Annual Conference, which was supported by our CLP but ruled out of order by the Conference Arrangements Committee. The point was to make clear to the electorate that in law the Labour Party is very similar to tens of thousands of other voluntary organisations, and its leadership was happy to demonstrate a readiness to be accountable to its members.

The Labour Party will need a small number of headline catching proposals for debate and decision at Annual Conference 2011 to make itself an organisation progressives want to join and stay with as the vehicle for their politics in the UK, EU and internationally.

Let me know if this approach will help focus debate in your branch/CLP, and whether you have ideas for further improvement.

Will the search for a new Labour Party GS be triggered this week?

Labour's 'ruling' National Executive Committee meets on Tuesday. Key question is will the long-awaited search for a new General Secretary to replace Ray (now m'Lord) Collins be triggered? Talk on the March for the Alternative suggested it might.

Not before time either, the Party needs fresh ideas to modernise itself and develop a new financial settlement in which dependence on rich individuals becomes a feature of the past, and membership subscriptions, affiliation fees and small donations make up the vast majority of the Party's income.

Rebuilding from branches based on electoral wards is IMHO will be an essential of the Labour Party of the future.

Constituency Labour Party development plans - where to start?

My Constituency Labour Party (CLP) agreed by a big majority at its 2011 AGM to introduce the concept of a Development Plan.

So as CLP secretary, it has fallen to me to kick-start the process. Being a great believer in learning from others and not reinventing the wheel, I put a search into Google: labour party constituency development plan.

Here are the first three results:

1. Constituency development plans - UNISON | The public service trade ...

   The UNISON Labour-Link has 67 Constituency Development Plans, ... level - to the benefit of both local UNISON branches and Constituency Labour Parties. ...
   www.unison.org.uk/labourlink/pages_view.asp?did=91 - Cached - Similar
   ►

2. a Stratford Conservative: Why Labour blocked party funding reform

   30 Mar 2010 ... Trade unions pay £1 million a year to the Labour Party at a local and ... Party branches through binding “Constituency Development Plans”. ...
   stratfordconservative.blogspot.com/.../why-labour-blocked-party-funding-reform.html - Cached

3. The Conservative Party | News | News | Secret papers reveal ...

   30 Mar 2010 ... "These documents expose the Labour Party's addiction to union cash". ... Party branches through binding "Constituency Development Plans". ...
   www.conservatives.com/.../Secret_papers_reveal_Labours_dependency_on_union_cash.aspx - Cached

Bit embarrassing that Conservative sites take 2nd and 3rd spots. I will refer to the Unison result, but what about official guidance? So, I went to the Labour Party official website. That has no search facility. But I knew that as a nerdy member. So I went to the search facility on Membersnet and entered: CLP development plan.

Yes, you'v e guess, no help there either. Here are the first three results:

Project Game Plan See what you can do by clicking the icons below     ...

How do we tackle the challenges of global poverty and development? ...

Training - A strategic approach to print and direct mail Tuesday 23 September - 10.30amExchange 1 We'll help you deliver an effective, targeted communication...

So if your CLP has a model I could use, please let me know. In the meantime, I'm going to develop an outline one for 2011/16 - old politics - a five-year plan, but wait until you see it before passing judge. For any colleagues worried about our political opponents getting wised up, don't fret. I will be selective about what gets into the public domain. But let's all agree on one thing: Taking on the Tories in Westminster has got to be very public if it is to have any chance of succeeding.