Peter Kenyon

PM speech: Towards a new politics - reality checks for Labour

Prime Minister Gordon Brown's speech to IPPR yesterday was well-crafted. But for me it omitted simple reality checks for the Labour Party - a democratic socialist party. Our politics demands among other things mutual respect, meticulous record-keeping and a willingness to accept the outcome of a vote when decisions are required. New Labour lacked all three. Our Labour leader's speech lacked any reference to those requirements too, in the context in which I think they are relevant to the task Brown set out:

So we will change both the Commons and the Lords, because we are so profoundly committed to the renewal of parliamentary democracy. We will ensure that the new politics will be delivered in the House of Commons, and we will do more to restore the relationship of mutual respect between MPs and those who elect them.

I see this as work in progress between now and the election. But if we neglect the machinery of government, the patronage exercised by the Prime Minister, the deployment of the Whips, political party infrastructure and so on, Labour will continue to fail to convince.

That is why as a member of the Labour Party National Executive Committee, I am calling for any member of the Labour Party's Special Selection Panel to be debarred from applying to run as a PPC in the General Election in less than 100 days time. It will simply be seen as 'parachuting' by the local electorate.

That's why having seen an internal report on Stoke Labour Parties, I am calling for an urgent review to enable members to unite to fight the BNP, and the other opposition parties.

That's why Save the Labour Party continues to campaign for an ethical, solvent, democratically run, mass membership organisation. Many say, rightly, it never has been. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't aspire to those goals. On the contrary, a radical manifesto presented to the electorate in less than 100 days time by such a party would be far more credible with the electorate than farcical efforts to revive 'New Labour'.

An austerity Parliament: Labour's opportunity

Baying for blood might increase newspaper circulation. It is not going to save parliamentary democracy. Calls for Speaker Martin's head are an inglorious distraction from thinking though who and what must follow the rotten, corrupt state of our party politics.

Rank-and-file members of political parties are virtually the only people who remain truly honorable in our party political democracy. It is they who should have a dominant say in how events unfold. The industrial wing of the Labour  Party - the trade unions will hopeful take the opportunity to remind both government ministers and PLP representatives of how many of their members are at risk of summary dismissal for making an error on an expenses claim, let alone an extravagant or fraudulent one.

Weeding out the wannabees in Labour's ranks is the task of the moment. But not on the back of Torygraph reports. I'm currently getting stick from Labour Party members for putting too much faith in the review of MPs expenses back five-years to be overseen (I understand) by the National Audit Office. The Labour Party (whether it's Head Office, regional offices or CLPs) does not have the resources to weed out the possible frauds and even the property scams. Extravagant claims are probably easier to spot. I first called for NEC action involving CLPs last Sunday here. The 'within the rules' defence was shot long before this scandal broke by the Green Book guide to parliamentary allowances, for anyone who had bothered to read it. Ministers who persist in using that defence deserve summary dismissal from government. Failure to repay must occasion deselection, with the worst offenders banned from restanding at all. I have admiration for the voluntary repayers where there is no question of misleading the Fees Office. But it should be left to CLPs to decide in the first instance.

However, that only deals with the past. What about the future? Is the public really going to stomach second-home purchases at the tax-payers expenses? That's a subject about which the Tories are currently unremarkably quiet. Oh yes, extravagant claims must be repaid, but building a property portfolio from the public purse, oh, no - wholly and necessarily incurred on parliamentary duties. Does the Labour Party want to continue to field candidates for Parliament that have Establishment aspirations? This touches on levels of pay, as well as expectations about London accommodation for out-of-London MPs. I suggested a lodging allowance linked to voting records here. Then there are questions about the size of Parliament itself and the Executive (or government). Personally, I would not follow the Conservative herd demanding a cull - fewer MPs in the next Parliament. Instead there should be a major reduction in members of the second chamber. A constitutional reform package ending prime ministerial patronage, slashing the size of the Executive and minsters pay and perks, abolition of the House of Lords, the creation of an-elected slimmed down second chamber, recall rights to enable citizens to demand by-elections to hold elected members of both chambers to account, reduced roles for the Whips would all seem essential to improve accountability and reduce costs. This is a national debate Labour should be leading. 

Austerity for the nation demands an austerity Parliament and executive starting now. If that means some MPs have to take out new mortgages to pay back some of their ill-gotten gains - tough. At least they will learn first hand another practical lesson about what the credit crunch means for working people when your income is frozen, cut, or gone.

Change has arrived - for the Labour Party?

Skimming the blogosphere after a catching up with some beauty sleep, I have just been reminded on my Blackberry that Change has arrived by Compass, thanks Gavin, I was awake just after 2am when Pennsylvania was called for Obama and McCain was history. Tom Miller welcomed back sanity:

The big story, then, is that unlike every democratic victory since LBJ, it was won on a platform of fundamental change. Labour hasn't done this effectively since the 1960s. My generation of Labour activists believe that it is time.

Well, Tom I hope you won't mind me taking issue with you. it is not just your generation that believes it is time. My generation too includes people who understand the power of the Internet and traditional organisational skills to achieve change and think it is time.

Obama and the majority of the US electorate who voted for him have cleansed a stain from the US Constitution as set out by the founding fathers who owned slaves. We in the UK have yet to cleanse the stain from our unwritten constitution that allows a Prime Minister monarchical powers. When Labour sets out how no Labour Prime Minister will ever be allowed the powers of patronage and executive license aka the Royal Prerogative exercised in my lifetime by Brown, Blair, Major, Thatcher, Callaghan, Wilson, Heath, Douglas Home, Macmillan, Eden, Churchill and Attlee then we will know that change has arrived here too.

What are Gordon's plans for Labour Party renewal?

A week on Monday the Labour Party's ruling (sic) National Executive Committee (NEC ) starts a two-day meeting to review the future. According to insiders no papers have been circulated (yet). But no renewal plan is expected. Am I alone in finding this surprising? Gordon can't possibly believe that the gagging of Conference 'Extending and renewing party democracy' is going to renew the Party, can he? I was at a meeting with a senior party official recently and noted that our straw poll suggested national membership, now significantly lower than when Ramsay MacDonald was leader, is back on its 11-year downward trajectory. So here's hoping that the NEC now that Dianne Hayter is in the chair can be more business-like and encourage Gordon to extend his vision to rebuilding Labour's membership pdq.

Party funding - what has Labour got in mind?

Well there we have it. Her Majesty confirmed that Her Government will propose regulation of party finance and expenditure. Commentators confirmed they have not got any spin guidance about how Labour proposes to go about it. Manifesto election supremo Ed Miliband in the BBC studio in the Houses of Parliament for the State Opening confirmed the government wants to find a a way to cap election spending not just in the year before an election. Rather than start with Hayden Phillips as recommended in today's Guardian editorial here, I hope the government goes back to the Electoral Commission report in 2004 - at least that was conceived by the statutory body responsible for regulating political parties, unlike HP's efforts conceived in No 10 to mask the stench of cash for honours. A key recommendation concerned encouraging political party membership - and leading indictor of the health of our democracy (IMHO).  General Election spending the EC proposed should be cut to £15 million. Earlier in the Queen's Speech she said her government proposed a draft bill on citizenship - it would only take a smidgeon of vision for joined up thinking to link the two and, hey presto, we could have a charter of members' rights inside the Labour Party as proposed here.

It's not too late to clean up British politics

This week is expected to see the back of the Hayden Phillips Inquiry - a shameful adventure by Labour's previous leader in the wake of the Cash for Honours scandal. Last week saw the Public Administration Committee interviewing Yates of the Yard. It gives me no pleasure to pick up on Simon Jenkin's piece in today's Sunday Times here. He concludes:

If Brown really wants to import into public life the ethics of Calvin and Knox, he has an uphill road ahead of him. He talks liberal on constitutional change yet he shirks the detail, such as Lords reform, party financing, cleansing the honours system and ending the MPs’ expenses racket.

I don't think its too late for Brown to pick up the detail and confound his critics.

Jenkins, however, has a different view:

The reason, it has become increasingly clear, is that Britain’s new prime minister is all mouth and no muscle.

Your call, Gordon.

Does Brown vision extend to Members' Rights?

If Gordon Brown really wants to restore public confidence in party politics through constitutional reform, wouldn't he be more credible if he practised what he preached in the Labour Party, which he leads?

A Bill of Rights may be a good idea to add to the debate about UK constitutional reform as reported in today's Guardian. But he has had a comprehensive set of ideas for Labour Party reform including a Charter for Members' Rights on his desk since the polls closed on 3 May 2007. The LabOUR Commission Interim report can be found here.

Opportunity knocks, Gordon.

Five democratic tests for Brown's Labour reforms

Today's Labour Party National Executive Committee risks illustrating once again fundamental governance failures.

Papers will be tabled. The vast majority of members will not have had a chance to read and reflect, let alone consult their respective constituencies.

Crucially, this meeting will be faced with questions about Gordon Brown's proposals for "Extending and renewing party democracy" bounced through a pre-coronation meeting in Manchester on 24 June.

Following good practice, the NEC should set five democratic tests

Save the Labour Party sees the first test, the need for Labour Party democracy to result in rising membership, activism and electoral support, as the "touchstone" towards the building of a successful mass membership political party.

It says this must be achieved in a "sustainable and durable" way.

It says that to be passed, the Labour Party must:

• have reversed its 11-year declining membership
• be shown to have change public perception of party political membership
• show the change is capable of being sustained
• have sufficient flexibility to adapt to change and unexpected political events

With apologies to HM Treasury - as reported here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2423783.stm

(New) Labour, New Politics - GB

GB's speech to the National Council of Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) full text here sounds encouraging. He wants to re-engage people in the political process.

I believe Britain has been held back too long by three great failings in our political system:

- that political parties have not reached out enough to the people, so we have to rise to the challenge of forging a better party politics;

- that the political system too often ignores or neglects the new ideas that flow from outside  Westminster and often in the past has failed to listen  and learn, so we have to rise to the challenge of opening up our political system to new ideas;

- and that our participatory democracy is too weak at a local level, so we have to rise to the new challenge of engagement.

On 24 June he told the Labour Party National Executive Committee that he wanted local Labour Parties to organise Local Policy Forums to secure re-engagement. Local Labour Parties are mainly run by volunteers.

Today, he promised Citizen Juries, starting this week! They will be chosen independently and offering information that is independently verifiable.

I am off to find out who has got the contracts for organising these juries and how much they are worth.

Labour gratitude, grovelling and governance

Large donations to the Labour Party pose particular issues for the party seeking to represent the many not the few. Luke Akehurst here is grateful, ever so grateful; humbly yours, ever so grateful. I agree with the sentiment: if rich people want to make a six/seven figure sum contribution to the political party representing  working people, then they are at liberty to do so. The difficulty is that that the majority of Labour Party members (download the results and go to row 264) think that these people have much more say over Labour Party policy than civil servants, backbenchers, trade unions or Labour Party members. so while Luke is tugging his forelock, some of us think we need to rebuild the Labour Party's finances based on small donations...and that the effort would be worthwhile politically - a modest ambition for a democratic socialist party.