Peter Kenyon

Modernising the Labour Party: Blair was right, but achieved so little

Dragging my way through 'A Journey', former Labour Party leader Tony Blair's account of himself, I came across two sentences on p.42 with which I agreed. He states:

As I surveyed the wreckage of the Labour Party in the aftermath of the 1983 election, I knew change had to come about. The trade union base could not support a modern political party if it was to be a governing party.

The first sentence was screamingly obvious to everyone and anyone who was politically involved at the time. But I cite it as it implies that Blair came to a conclusion about the role of the TUs inside the Labour Party at that time too.

As I prepare for a meeting of the party's National Executive Committee tomorrow Tuesday 21 September, it got me thinking about just how little progress Blair made in practice in the intervening 27 years to create a sustainable base for a modern political party capable of governing.

That remains the challenge for our new leader to be declared on Saturday in Manchester. I believe in Labour's federal structure, linking affiliated trade unions, socialist societies and individual members. It highlights collective action in the workplace and our special interests - binding them to the values we seek to promote through the power of elected office. But there are too few voters who are both politically active through TUism or special interest groups as Labour Party members and supporters to enable Labour to pay its way. My dictums are therefore:

As I survey the wreckage of the Labour Party following the 2010 election, I know change has to come about. A new financial and political model has to be established to support a modern political party if it is to be a governing party.

I see my colleagues in the affiliated TUs, and their candidate for the Party Treasurer post, Diana Holland as potential allies in the process of developing that model. I know whoever succeeds Gordon Brown as leader will want to too. Without being overly cynical they will have to. Thanks to Blair's contempt for individual members, making undeliverable promises to rich people and near bankrupting the Party to fight the 2005 General Election, the Labour Party has become once again overly dependent financially on the TUs. It is not sustainable. Union political funds are under great pressure from increasingly impatient levy-payers and designs of the ConDem coalition. Public perceptions of old Labour have been revived.

On tomorrow's NEC agenda there is to be a set of proposals concerning assets (mainly property) held by constituency and branch labour parties. I shall be seeking deferment pending a thorough review of the options facing the Party. It is not impossible that the NEC will be advised of the absolute necessity of immediate action. I hope there are sufficient members of the current NEC who remember how they and subsequently Conference were bounced into a 50% increase in fees for full rate members back in 2006. By then individual membership was already 50% lower than it had been in 1997. Those remaining were what the economist would describe as price elastic or willing to put up with it in sufficient numbers to boost income. So it proved.

With property, the issues are different. My speculation was and remains that these assets are being used to fulfil purposes related to the fact that the Party's debt centrally exceeds its centrally owed assets. Their possible use as collateral to support Labour HQ increasing its borrowing was flatly denied at the last NEC meeting in July, though I can find no reference to such assurances in the minutes of that meeting.

The genesis of CLP/BLP assets goes back to individual and collective decisions bound in trust. As matters stand I do not trust the Labour Party with my membershi8p subscription, let alone a share of my estate. So my plea to my colleagues tomorrow is to think before we act.

As anyone with any interest in their community knows - places to meet and converse are vital hubs. While there has been some consideration during the leadership debate about community organisation, there has been little comment about where Labour people can get together. Some reflection out of the box is needed. If we as NEC members forget the critical importance of trust in that process of building new income streams - then the job of creating that alternative financial and political model will be much harder, and inevitably take much longer.

Are you listening, comrades?

Prezza 'near bankrupcy' claim risks Labour Party financial recovery

Former Deputy Leader John (Lord) Prescott's imprudent proclamation about the Labour Party's 'near bankruptcy' grabbed the headlines last week, presumably in the hope of boosting his vote in the election campaign to be the next Party Treasurer. For Labour Party members awaiting a sheaf of ballot papers in the post next week, it ought to give pause for thought.

When have the Labour Party's finances ever been anything other than precarious? So what's the news in Prescott's claim? The only worthy story line to my mind is: 'Labour Party Treasurer's job made near impossible'. The irony which appears to being lost on the 4th estate is that the closest the Labour Party has been to bankruptcy in the recent past was when Prescott himself was Deputy Leader, and a senior member of the National Executive Committee. It really was a bit rich of him to have a poke at outgoing Treasurer, Jack Dromey's ignorance, when Prescott himself appears to have been no better informed. Or was he? I think the General Secretary at the time Peter Watt should tell us. Though that's unlikely as he is now backing Prezza4Treasurer.

Prescott acknowledges that the current National Executive Committee has taken the Labour Party back from the brink, but lashes out in his Guardian article on 19 August, 2010 at the electoral consequences claiming:

".....under the NEC's deficit reduction plan in 2008, we will clear our debts by 2016, but at the expense of campaigning for next year's Scottish, Welsh and local elections and the 2015 general election."

What's worrying about his approach is that Prescott apparently still thinks elections are won by throwing money at them. That's what Conservative Party financier, Lord Ashcroft thought. Now, at least some of us know the limits of that strategy.. Mercifully, the British electorate also appears reluctant to be bought. Prescott makes a gesture towards increased membership. But that alone is unlikely to put the Labour Party's finances on a sound-footing in the foreseeable future. More likely it will take at least a generation to build a new financial settlement inside the Labour Party's federal and regional structures to guarantee solvency from one electoral cycle to another. 

To succeed, the new Leader, Treasurer and National Executive Committee need to come clean with members asap. As far as the Party's finances are concerned we are all in this together, rich and poor. Each of us, individually and severally (as the lawyers say) is liable for the Labour Party's debts. For those Labour Party members of modest means, there is nothing to worry about in practice - creditors want their money back in the event of bankrputcy. So, they only chase those with money from whom there is a chance of recovery. Of course, Prescott, is one of those NEC members, like former Leader Tony Blair, who could have been prime targets in any recovery proceedings back in 2006/07. (I should add, as a member of the NEC for the last two years, I have been careful to establish an audit trail to demonstrate that I have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the Party's finances are being managed properly.)

Looking to the future, the new Leadership needs to put an immediate stop to the pretence that there is something unique about they way the national Labour Party can account for its finances. In organisational terms, the Labour Party is an unincorporated voluntary association.  Hence, members fce unlimited liabilities in the eyes of the law.

If local parties have to hold annual general meetings, elect officers and receive audited accounts, why doesn't the Labour Party do the same, instead of pretending a general session at its Annual Conference covers the requirement? These requirements are the means of providing accountability, building and sustaining trust.

The siren calls of more state-funding, or greater reliance on rich people/the trade unions are old politics. They definitely will not help endear Labour to the electorate again.

What better way to underwrite solvency and going concern than for the new Treasurer to come forward with a financial model embracing grassroots collective responsibility? Party funding should be linked through the electoral cycle to the need for active local membership, campaigning and fundraising for local, regional, national and European elections. It should not be the sum of battlebus itineraries and costly billboard proclamations.

A fresh approach requires a fresh candidate, even though her nomination is mired by old trade union customs and practice (a subject for another day). Sorry John, you have shown some contrition through the Go4th campaign, but I shall be voting Diana4Treasurer.