Peter Kenyon

In the public interest? Straw vetos publication of more Cabinet minutes

Labour's Justice Secretary Jack Straw has been reported by the BBC as having vetoed the publication of yet another set of Cabinet ministers. I have already blogged about the contrast between Cabinet minutes and those of the Bank of England monetary policy committee here. Can anyone explain what conceivable justification there is for this convention other than to cover up contributions (or not) to Cabinet debate and resulting votes that are embarrassing to particular members of the Cabinet?

Not good on a day when there are further suspicions about the reluctance of MPs to publish full details of their expense claims, and a Labour minister Quentin Davies, and former Tory, features prominently for claims allegedly to pay for bell-tower repairs!

Pesky Labour Party expectations: accounts with an auditor

Unaccustomed as I am to causing public mischief, the treatment of the Labour Party accounts needs closer examination. In my experience, albeit only after 63 years on the planet mainly under English law, the members of any organisation, incorporated or unincorporated are entitled to a copy of the Annual Accounts. Often unincorporated bodies present their accounts to members with the auditor present. (I wouldn't claim this happens universally. But I would insist it is good practice.)

There is a notorious example of audited accounts being presented without the auditor present when the 'clean bill of health' was forged. Hence the practice of having an auditor present to 'account' for the veracity of the ....accounts.

And when does this happen in the proceedings of the Labour Party? Well, it's a relevant question. At least it is in my mind. Whether it is a good one depends on whether you are a pupil of good governance or ...beholden to an expectation too far.

Labour's NEC - a broken reed?

Today, the Guardian published a letter I wrote last week in response to a Comment piece on the Labour Party by Simon Jenkins in which among other things Jenkins described its National Executive Committee as 'a broken reed'. 

I challenged his analysis, writing:

The Labour party's shortcomings are governance failures. Just like those that took Britain to war in Iraq, and led to the near collapse of the banking system and the MPs' allowances scandal. The result has been alien policies, membership and local council representation cut by over 50%, and massive debts.

Save the Labour Party's call for an extra NEC meeting has been rejected by the powers that the on the grounds that it was not possible to arrange. That's a problem with a body that only meets every two months and is never given any meaningful management information either about its finances, membership or organisational capacity. What's the point?

I'm still waiting for confirmation that the Statement of Accounts for 2008 has been sent to the Electoral Commission, and that it will also be sent to members this month for consideration at July meetings. I hope that our Auditors have given an unqualified opinion as to the state of the Party's finances. But it can only be a hope, as I have never seen any information as a member of the NEC that would assure me that they will. With affiliated trade unions, the Party's financial mainstay, threatening to reduce funding or in extreme cases, such as the Communications Workers' Union, disaffiliate, there must be questions about going-concern. Yesterday's announcement by m'Lord Mandleson cancelling the part-privatisation of the Post Office at least removes one potential threat to the Labour Party's finances, for the time being. In any normal organisation, the NEC would have had an opportunity to consider the draft accounts with the Auditor present. My request for such a meeting before 30 June has been ignored.

Underlying these concerns, which I will readily admit are a minority interest, are worries that 'the powers that be' in the Labour Party think they are law unto themselves, just like Members of Parliament, and bankers. It is time this view was challenged more loudly, and very publicly, if 'the powers that be' hope to win back the trust of party members and the electorate.

Labour's future: power, party or pals?

It's tough at the top. This is an occasion when the prospect of Gordon Brown and the Labour Party retaining power has to be weighed on the opposite side of the scales to tribalism, ideology and pals.

Reviewing the events of Gordon Brown's premiership, there are his expressions of vision. And there are the realities. Extending and Renewing party democracy announced the day he was named Leader. But up pops the machine and forces through more central control. The Governance of Britain promised constitutional reform. But up popped the naysays to restrain progress. So today with Cameron out on the front foot again,  could sleaze finally liberate Gordon?  Will that moral compass point in the right direction and courage prevail? Is it the end for MPs that resisted reform of expenses, New Labour mantras and his 'pals' in government that have disgraced the Labour Party with their wanton greed?

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.

Labour Party needs to act over its MPs' expenses - poll

Among the issues arising from revelations about MPs' expenses, is what should the Labour Party be doing about its own elected representatives currently in Parliament and those Prospective Parliamentary Candidates (PPCs) who hope to represent it in future?

I have been fulsome, some might say slavish, in my unprompted praise for our Leader, Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his controversial decision to force changes to MPs' expenses entitlements onto the agenda. Given the constitutional niceties, he is free to take direct action against any minister deemed to have been 'milking the system' to 'feather their own nest'. It is contemptible that Labour MPs, especially cabinet minister(s) are retreating behind the excuse that 'it was within the rules'. That is no different than saying 'I was only obeying orders' - indefensible.

What I want to explore are the other layers of governance and accountability within the Labour Party itself. What are the officers of CLPs in, for example, Salford considering in the light of revelations about their MP, Hazel Blears? For those of us, Labour Party members,  who do go out on the doorsteps, canvassing and delivering leaflets, this is very much our business. Why should any of us volunteer our time to enable someone on the make to get into Parliament?

And in its turn, what is the Labour Party's National Executive Committee going to do? It has extensive powers to tackle members who allegedly bring the Party into 'disrepute'. When we meet on 19 May, I don't think we can let the matter pass. I just hope I am not alone in thinking we have to act, and act now before the June elections. Speed is needed to progress, however painfully, the rebuilding of public trust in parliamentary democracy, in general, and the Labour Party in particular.

UPDATE 1310 - For Labour Party members who would prefer to comment in the relative privacy of Membersnet go here.

UPDATE 1345 - For anyone wanting to vote on this issue, Mike Ion has set up a poll on Labourhome here.

Time to rally round Brown, and reconnect with voters - update

Speculation about a stalking-horse to run against Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown makes me think it is time to rally round our Leader. I was asked on Sky TV the day Mr Brown announced on You Tube his commitment to reform of MPs expenses what I thought. Without any briefing to shape my reply, I said repeatedly I thought it was the right thing for a Prime Minister to do, when it was so obvious that public hostility to MPs' extravagent and inappropriate expense claims had to be addressed.

There may be disagreements about defining out of town MPs legitimate expenses and how they should be reimbursed. But there shouldn't be any doubt that MPs living in easy commuting distance should not be entitled to a second homes allowance, or that incomes from other employment should be declared in full or that MPs office staff should be direct employees of the House. Indeed, the Conservative front bench is reported here as supporting all those parts of the Prime Minister's proposal.

And for the avoidance of doubt was the interim per diem allowance such a bad idea pending the outcome of the inquiry by the Committee on Standards in Public Life? Given that the House will be in recess most of the time before that Committee reports, MPs would not be eligible for the allowance as soon as the long, oh, so long summer recess starts, anyway. Though I am assuming Sir Christopher Kelly is going to get on with taking evidence and making recommendations sooner rather than later.

Mr Brown should be given full credit for having forced a vote on those issues now. We in the Labour Party, especially on its National Executive Committee, should be mapping out how we can use this initiative, the introduction of the 50p tax rate, imminent withdrawal from Iraq, and the forthcoming Euro-elections (amongst other things) to reconnect with Labour voters. How else are we going to reverse an 11-year trend in declining membership and win back millions of voters?

Personally, I hope that the Chief Whip's office is lining up Labour ministers and any Labour MPs seeking re-election, to repay taxpayers' money that the court of public opinion regards as 'larding it'. Voluntary repayments by any other member of the PLP (not covered above) would be widely welcomed as a means of restoring our elected representatives' sullied reputations.

Update 1236 - apparently David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party has bottled out of supporting the PM over second incomes. Hat-tip Labourboy

What's the difference between bankers and Labour's NEC?

Listening to the Prime Minister Gordon Brown being interviewed on the BBC 1 TV's Andrew Marr Show, I now know.

The PM acknowledges that bank boards were kept in the dark about the risks to their businesses. I have yet to to be convinced that the Labour Party's National Executive Committee Terms of Reference are fit for purpose in that regard.

New Year preparations - Labour Party branch AGMs

One way of working off the mince pies post-Christmas for me has been preparing for local Labour Party branch Annual General Meetings. My predecessor as secretary for the Cities of London and Westminster Constituency Labour Party, Jason Thomas Williams left an excellent set of ideas in his files to assist his counterparts at the branch level. It includes times, deadlines, posts to be filled to share out the work,'job descriptions' and a set of the standing orders to help ensure the business is conducted systematically - or at least that's the theory. I have just amended them for 2009 and despatched them to my counterparts and the chairs of branches, including a reminder to branches to prepare audited accounts if they are raising/spending and holding money.

It became fashionable under our previous Labour Party leader to scorn these routines. Checks and balances are a vital part of our society, not just our democracy. Having seen the banking system come close to collapse worldwide, my wish for 2009 is that our new Labour Party leader will make clear his appreciation of the role of branch officers, including those who account for the money. We need lots more people in local communities who understand the importance of these functions. Many used to gain their apprenticeships as chairs, secretaries, organisers and treasurers in trade union and Labour Party branches.

Let's consign sofa government to the dustbin of history in 2009.

What would you put on your wish list for Labour?

If you were fired up by the Obama victory, ecstatic about the Labour Party retaining Glenrothes so emphatically, what would be on your wish list for the NEC meeting on 17/18 November when it discusses aims and objectives for 2009 and beyond?

I have posted some ideas in a piece in the latest STLP newsletter reproduced in part below:

I have put together a set of suggestions for the NEC, which I hope can form the basis for a consensus between the leadership, the unions and constituencies about how we can rebuild. These include:

• the governance of the Labour Party – how it accounts to its members for its organisation, fund-raising and policy-making

• a re-opening of policy-making for the next election so that all members and interested parties have a real opportunity to participate, and differences can be openly debated and resolved

• a radical change to Labour Party organisation rebuilding from the electoral ward/branch up to enable every member to take part in winning power for Labour elected representatives at all levels of government – local, regional, national and European

• adopting a new fundraising strategy based on small donations of willing members and supporters of the Labour Party and affiliated trades unions and socialist societies

The Obama campaign in the US Presidential elections has shown what’s possible in terms of fund-raising, local organisation and electoral results by trusting people. If Labour’s NEC can agree that the Party has to learn to trust its members, STLP will have proved its worth. The next task is to make sure the word gets out so the rebuilding can start throughout the Labour Party.

If you think these proposals are a bit thin, I agree. But are they an appropriate starting point for party renewal? If not, what would you suggest?