Peter Kenyon

Why Labour's new leader should invite his Deputy to lead on Party renewal

With the ballot for the Shadow Cabinet closing today, who will be assigned to look after the Labour Party? Continuing my check-list theme for assessing whether Ed Miliband is his own person or in the thrall of the Party machine comes the contentious issue of a Party Chair. The position does not exist in the Labour Party Rule Book. It never has, though the defeated leadership candidate, David Miliband had ambitions to create the post. And fallen leftie idol, Jon Cruddas has made no secret of wanting to be crowned the same.

Ed Miliband seeks a mass membership party. After 13 consecutive years of declining membership, he needs a senior figure to champion the role of members in the Party both as contributors to the Party's finances, policy making and campaigning capacity. It is an enormous job in its own right.

During the Deputy Leadership campaign in 2007, Jon Cruddas led on making that position the vehicle for rebuilding the party. The eventual winner Harriet Harman portrayed herself as a unifying force who would take the Party to victory at the next election. But rather than focus on the Party, she accepted a sheaf of ministerial responsibilities ranging from Leader of the House, to Minister for Equalities and Women, as well as taking the courtesy title of Party Chair, originally created by Tony Blair after the 2001 general election.

Given the welcome and spontaneous interest in Labour Party membership since the May 2010 general election, this will need encouraging and nurturing if the new joiners are to renew in 12 months time. The Party also need to mobilise more candidates to run for local council seats in May next year, as well as a senior Party figure to oversee giving members a say in policy making, possibly as chair of the National Policy Forum. These tasks must be tackled now to position Labour to win the next General Election.

The only person with the necessary democratic legitimacy to do that job is Deputy Leader Harriet Harman. She doesn't need a the insult of a courtesy title like Party Chair to get on with it, as I'm sure the Party machine will be urging.

Avid readers of this blog, who include her husband Jack Dromey, now MP for Birmingham, Erdington, may be somewhat surprised by my advocating Harriet for this task. After all it was only yesterday I was reiterating my contempt for her clinging on to the position of Deputy Leader. (She declining the opportunity even to open nominations for Deputy Leader after Gordon Brown stepped down as Leader in May.) It was a pity she didn't run. I'm convinced she would have been unopposed. But in any event that's history. We have to move on. Her readiness to take on a Party focussed role would also help clarify whether there is any point in  the position of Deputy Leader. The alternative would be to delete the Deputy post and create a position of elected Chair with an unambiguous job description instead.

So I hope Ed Miliband will show his mettle by inviting her to use her unifying skills as the Party's Deputy Leader and take on that vital role of rebuilding the Party from the grassroots. And, of course, I am sure that she will recognise the massive job that needs to be done and accept the challenge graciously.

Unity pleas must not mask a deep rift over how the Labour Party is run

A HH:MM:SS countdown to the Labour Party Leadership announcement adorns its website. A gradual swell of pleas for unity can be anticipated ahead and after the declaration. The political fight has to be taken to the Tories. Who could disagree? Livelihoods of millions of people whether in or out of work for whatever reason are under threat from the ConDem's mismanagement of the budget deficit.

All the more reason to expose and seek to heal a long-standing rift over how the Labour Party itself is run. Rift? What rift? It's between the democratic centralisers and the democratic socialists. There was a time, it is said, when Party staff served all sections of the Party. No longer. Throughout Tony Blair's period in office as Leader, Party staff were deployed to serve the Leader; and with increasing ruthlessness. Remember the fiascos over the leadership of the Welsh Assembly, and who should run in 2000 as Labour's candidate for London Mayor?

The lingering stench of democratic centralism continues to pollute the Party as was all too evident at this week's pre-Conference National Executive Committee. A prolonged campaign of interference in the rights of Labour Party members in Tower Hamlets to select their own candidates for public office reached fever pitch with a mini-hysteria led by Acting Leader, Harriet Harman, her husband, Jack Dromey, aided and abetted by NEC chair Ann Black (seeking re-election on the self-styled Grassroots Labour slate) and the General Secretary Ray Collins. Swift action by the new leader to replace Collins and other HO staff has been called for on Left Futures. That's easier said than done. There is a deeply engrained democratic centralist culture espoused not just by Labour Party grandees and HO staff, but supporters at every level of the Party. John Harris in the Guardian on Wednesday caught a facet of this culture in his Comment piece Labour's right will roar back. He asked:

What has happened to the party's right? Most of its remaining number are clustered around MiliD, and aside from the odd pop at "Red" MiliE, keeping shtoom. But do not be fooled: they are as fired up as ever, and preparing for a return once the membership gets back to leaflets and balloons.

Note Harris's appreciation of members as sentient beings. The centre-left has no coherent vision or message for members disenfranchised in constituency parties frozen in time by the National Executive Committee awaiting the outcome of a ConDem government boundary review, which will take years. The machine's dogged resistence to parliamentary prospective candidate reselection needs to be recognised for what it is - a sitting MP's insurance scheme. I'm a Chartist. I support annual parliamentary elections as the most effective means of holding our elected representatives to account. But given recent experience the least Labour could do is reintroduce compulsory reselection. Where  there is no Labour MP, CLPs should be encouraged to come up with not just consituency, but branch development plans. These should link fundraising, local/national campaigning and political education to fight every parish, town, district, local and regional government seat. Alliances can be forged with community groups. It is a mammoth task. The new Leader should seek a rapid start on this work.

In doing so s/he will have to be mindful of what the NEC is actually proposing at Conference in Manchester. To encourage local initiative (not), it is proposing a rule change to oblige all party units to transfer any property it holds in trust or owns into the name of the Labour Party. It is sequestration in defiance of the wishes of countless benefactors dead or alive. Why? To bolster the national Labour Party's balance sheet increasing its assets at no financial cost. I doubt my ability to organise a sufficiently vocal protest to get  the proposed Rule change withdrawn. But if the new Leader wants to send a clear message to members s/he could useful insist at the NEC meeting on Sunday that sequestration is deferred pending an open and transparent consultation.

As I said at the NEC on Tuesday soundings undertaken by the outgoing Treasurer Jack Dromey were utterly cynical. They took place over the summer holiday period between the second half of July and 17 September. Worse, sound reasons for having a coherent property policy are being used to cover up the scandalous breakdown in financial governance arrangements of the Labour Party without the lessons being fully aired, understood and addressed. In the absence of proper budgets and management accounts, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that I should not  trust HO with my membership subscription, let alone a bequest . 

In the quest for change in the Party, relations between Leader and individual member and political levy payer/affiliate awakened by the 4-1/2 month long campaign have to be built on further. Reform of policy-making and encouragement of debate taking on the Tories should not be confined to Westminster but extended to everywhere people live and work. Here there is an opportunity to rebalance the Party's federal structure. New Labour squeezed the affiliated trades unions' representation on the National Policy Forum - to around 1/6th. But it left the TUs holding a disproportionate number of NEC seats - 13/33 who continue to fulfil a praetorian guard function for the Leadership. That compares with just 6/33 for constituency reps. TU representatives also hold the whiphand on the NEC organisation committee. Those whom I have encountered in my two year term on the NEC are temperamentally unsuited to managing discipline in a voluntary organisation. Put simply they have forgotten the need for carrots. Sadly, they have abandoned any regard for natural justice as evidenced in former MP Ian Gibson's deselection last year, and latterly over Tower Hamlets. There should be equal representation of affiliates and CLP representatives on the Organisation Committee, and in the coming year it should be chaired by a CLP representative.

A really bold Leader would tackle the representation of women in the Party's structures head on. An opportunity to set a 50% minimum for elected places in the Shadow Cabinet was lost on Tuesday thanks to the sisterhood. Acting Leader Harriet Harman failed to secure the votes in the PLP ballot. The NEC failed to hold the PLP to account. When I questioned the status of the PLP inside the Party, i was told by self-professed equalities champion and General Secretary Ray Collins that standing orders were outside the scope of the Rule. Not true, every CLP and local government groups SOs have to be approved by the NEC. When I protested NEC vice-chair Norma Stephenson moved next business, which was promptly adopted by NEC chair Ann Black. There are sound reasons for the PLP to be brought explicitly within the scope of the Labour Party's Rule Book when it comes to Party policy and financial governance arrangements. A thoughtful Leader on Sunday morning would ask for a rethink and suggest that the PLP SO changes should be put to Conference with an NEC recommendation for immediate adoption of a minimum of 50% elected places for women. Then a political education programme is needed to both encourage women to stand as Labour candidates, and branches and constituency parties to choose them.

Finally, there is the question of accountability of the Leadership. The Party hierarchy has already fixed an indefinite term of office, contrary to Rule, for Deputy Leader Harriet Harman. Nomination papers for Leader and Deputy Leader should be issued each year. The democratic centralists have ignored this since 1997. If the new Leader wants to reconnect with members s/he should insist that nomination papers are sent out. it gives every member the chance to say: "You are doing a great job, I will renominate you" or "Hang on, you are not, I will nominate another member of the PLP". The democratic centrist fear chaos, and bizarrely are proposing a Rule change in Manchester. That has been  described by Left Futures as a "wreckers' charter". If that is intended to stir up effective opposition, it is to be applauded. But not at the expense of securing a commitment from our new Leader to be accountable regularly to the membership as well as the electorate.

After seven years of campaigning for membership and our critical importance getting Labour's messages across on the doorstep, I hope our new Leader will not just put the Blair/Brown years behind, but the democratic centralist practices that prolonged them beyond the electorate's patience.

Former Labour GS joins fray re Deputy Leadership no-contest

Let nobody say Twitter doesn't fulfil a function. At 0001 this morning Peter Watt, former Labour Party General Secretary joined my tweeter-flush with Tom Harris MP on the subject of whether or not nomination papers for Deputy Leader should have been issued shortly after the 2010 General Election campaign. His contributions can be followed @peterwatt123 on Twitter

Will Labour's leadership contestants come clean about the Deputy?

Within a couple of weeks, the ballot papers for the Labour Party's new Leader, Treasurer, and constituency section representatives on its National Executive Committee will have been delivered to individual members. But there will not be one for the Deputy Leadership. By 'royal' decree - there is no vacancy.

I blogged about the Deputy Leadership issue shortly after Labour lost the General Election here, here and here and failed to provoke much debate. The Labour Party machine swung into brass monkey mode and Harriet Harman was deemed to be entitled to remain in position as Deputy Leader.

I proposed at the May NEC meeting that the nomination papers should be issued as required by Rule. My proposal was seconded by Christine Shawcroft. She and I were the only NEC members to vote in favour of a simple democratic mechanism giving Labour Party members the means of exercising their right to make up their own minds up as to whether she should remain in office or not.

So what are the contenders saying about this issue? Just like the Labour Party machine - apparently, it's brass monkey time for Leadership wannabees too. Yesterday Ed Balls published a 10-point plan here. Andy Burnham tweeted to announce a 20+ page manifesto some time today. Ed Miliband's Decca Aitkenhead interview appeared in the Guardian today here. Lots of fine words, which deserve closer scrutiny. But no mention of the democratic socialist party's little secret fix - the Deputy Leadership.   

I am not holding my breath. These people aspire to lead a political party whose purpose is to govern and make laws. Yet so far none of them is prepared to speak out in defence of the 'laws' of their own party. Not even when it comes to a position that carries the authority of the position of Deputy Leader. If anyone wants to sustain interest in the Leadership contest, then let's be having the contenders on the record about this last gasp of the royal pretender in the Labour Party - the Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC MP.

Have Harman and Cruddas done a 'deal' over their futures in the Labour Party?

A media blitz this weekend here, here and here with Jon Cruddas at the forefront of calls for the election of a Labour Party Chair (all neatly parcelled on LabourList) have got me wondering: what has been going on?

The post does not exist in the Labour Party Rule Book as we currently know it. It was a patronage device invented by former Leader, Tony Blair, in the wake of the 2001 General Election when he appointed Charles Clarke Minister without Portfolio and Party Chair. It has been bestowed since by the Leader on a person of his choice ever since, with little protest (except from obscure organisations like Save the Labour Party, in which I declare an interest as a member and currently chair). The most recent holder of this 'courtesy title' was/is Harriet Harman, who was named Party Chair by former Party Leader Gordon Brown after her election as Deputy Leader in June 2007. I say 'was/is' as I do not know if Harriet in her capacity as Interim Leader has relinquished the title or not.

What is certain is that to date there has been no open debate or resolution at Party Conference about what the job entails and how it relates to the elected positions of Leader, Deputy Leader or chair of the National Executive Committee.

The most revealing report was that on the BBC News website of an interview conducted with Jon Cruddas on Sky News by Adam Boulton in which Cruddas is reported by the BBC as follows:

Mr Cruddas told Sky News that he and stand-in leader Harriet Harman both backed the change, and that he would be interested in running for the job.

How can that be? In what decision-making forum can this have been discussed? My speculation is that the genesis of this idea for an elected Party Chair now goes back to the days immediately after Gordon Brown's resignation and a Shadow Cabinet discussion about the management of the succession. In that process, Harriet Harman ruled herself out as a possible leadership contender. The General Secretary of the Labour Party obliged by not enforcing Rule 4.2.B ii requiring nomination papers for Deputy Leader to be circulated to CLPs, and affiliated organisations. That has enabled Harriet Harman to remain in office as Deputy Leader without any opportunity for members to hold her to account for her period in office in that capacity. Worse, as matters stand she can remain Deputy Leader for as long as she likes until a Labour MP announces her/his intention to challenge her and secures 52 nominations from other Labour MPs. (That figure of 52 represents 20% of the current number of Labour MPs required for a valid nomination as either Leader or Deputy Leader in the event of NO VACANCY.)

I spoke to Jon about him running for Deputy Leader around the same time. Quick as a flash he replied, "There is no vacancy." True, but irrelevant if you believe in accountability and the need for Rules to be followed. Of course, there are occasions when there are good reasons why a rule may be set aside in particular circumstances. (Like the qualification period of membership to take part in the forthcoming Leadership election has been waived to encourage people to join the Labour Party and take part until 8 September.) But to deny members an opportunity to hold an elected postholder to account is different.

To appreciate the significance of these developments for the future probably involves revisiting the Deputy Leadership election campaign in 2007, and the promises of the respective candidates, in particular Harriet, to rebuild the party.

Here's what Harriet said on the Compass website in 2007:

To renew the Party and the government we have to rebuild the trust and confidence of the Party and the public. The key is always local activity, and active local parties. I am proud that Camberwell and Peckham has increased membership to around 800, and crucially that it reflects the community. We are constantly out on the doorstep, listening to people and recruiting new members.....

We cannot have one-way traffic between the Party organisation and its members. People must be allowed to say things that provoke, so that what we say is authentic and comes from real discussion. For example, we need to engage in debate amongst members about the future for our Foreign Policy.

Some say that winning is not enough in itself to bring the progressive policies we want. But the fact remains that out of government we can do nothing for hard-pressed communities like those in my constituency of Camberwell and Peckham. I’m standing for the post of deputy because I want to help Gordon Brown win a fourth term for Labour, so that we can not only debate our policies, but put them into action.

Put bluntly, Harriet, you failed. You should have resigned and stood for relection. As matters stand, is it unreasonable to suppose that Jon has reached an 'understanding' with Harriet that he will not run against Harriet for deputy leader, in return for support for the creation of a new post of elected Party chair?

The impact of this on the Party and the challenge for the new Leader should not be trivialised. The new Leader will have to work with a Deputy who has failed to seek, let alone secure, a renewed mandate for the challenges of opposition and winning a return to power in Westminster.

In his speech to the Labour Friends of Searchlight on 17 July, Jon spoke about electing the Party Chair at Conference. Well, that looks innocent enough, except that the Party adopted the principle of one-member-one-vote (OMOV) for such positions nearly 20 years ago. Today, members have every right to ask: "What is going on?" It is technically possible for the NEC to move a rule change to create this post in three months' time at Annual Conference 2010. Though, I am hoping that a majority of the NEC would say, hang on this has not been discussed in the Party.

So that puts a Rule change to create the post back to 2011 at the earliest. Then there is a process of calling for nominations and an election to arrange. By which time it will be 2012 before a Party chair could have been created and elected democratically.

Or is Jon suggesting this should be done on the floor of Conference and a Party Chair elected by acclaim?

The alternative is evident. There is a concensus emerging about the need for rebuilding the Party. But members are being denied the opportunity to decide for themselves who is best suited to that task NOW. It is not too late. It just needs one member of the PLP to wake up and challenge the incumbency, and another 51 to back him/her as a candidate for the Deputy Leadership. At least that post exists, and can be elected by 25 September 2010.

Are you up for it, Jon? Or have you reverted to being what you were for Tony Blair, a fixer? Or is Harriet seeking to fix it for Jon? Or was Jon's speech on Saturday and his media interventions worthy of Machiavelli in enabling these matters to be flushed out?

Jon Cruddas's democratic socialist supporters on the centre-left of the Labour Party have a right to know.

Labour's dirty washing: time to purge the TB/GBs...and lots more besides

M'lord Mandelson should be being praised by the Labour Party for his vainglorious revelations, not vilified. I should confess that I have no intention of paying for the Times Online to read extracts from his soon to be published memoirs, entitled 'The Third Man, and so vividly illustrated by Steve Bell's cartoon in today's Guardian, so I will have to be careful about what I say. But the more we know about the recollections of the key characters in the New Labour drama, the more likely the centre-left is going to appreciate what has to be done to ensure a return to winning ways.

The idea of choosing a Leader and abandoning any form of accountability should be stone dead after 13 years of New Labour, otherwise the Labour Party is in serious trouble. David and Ed Miliband favour the creation of a post of party chair elected by the whole membership. It is too eary to say whether that is an appropriate response, as it could so easily obscure the need for reflection.  The Party Chair idea, I fear, has more in common with the Westminster habit of legislating in haste. If we haven't learned that lesson either, we will be in further trouble. We should avoid knee-jerk reactions to the plight we find ourselves in. 

So is the Labour Party currently empowered to hold its Leaders to account? Indeed, it is. But the NEC, in its wisdom, put one means of doing so on ice back in 1997. Individual members and affiliates in the trade unions were all denied the means of registering a protest about the Leadership. As a result members left in droves. On 18 May 2010, the NEC had an opportunity to make it possible for all members to have a say in the Leadership of the Party. It messed up the timetable by setting a ridiculously short deadline for PLP nominations, and refused to offer members maximum choice by changing the threshold for PLP nominations. Worse, the majority of members of the 32-member body (one less than usual until a new Leader is elected) voted against issuing nomination papers for the Deputy Leadership.

What have nomination papers got to do with accountability? They encapsulate the rights of a member to vote in favour of an incumbent by proposing her/his nomination, or, if I am dissatisfied with that person, propose an alternative. This needs to put centre stage. And it could be at any time by any of the leadership candidates or the NEC itself.

A Damascene-conversion to the merits of the annual issue of Leader/Deputy Leader nomination papers would further animate the debate about the future of government, not just of the Party, but the country. The ConDem coalition is led by two white forty-something men who both think that they know better than their respective parties what is best for the country. Sounds and feels very familiar to anyone who has endured 13-years of New Labour. The ConDems are planning to bed in for five years.

To break the mould I suggested here on this blog that Deputy Leader Harriet Harman should lead the way. She declined. Worse, given her legal training and qualifications, she allowed the General Secretary to rely on some 'legal advice' unseen by NEC members to justify not issuing the nomination papers for her position. 

The NEC has a chance next week to shed it role as the Praetorian Guard for the Leadership, and (re-)adopt the mantle of stewardship for the Labour Party on behalf of all stakeholders between Conferences. That really could bury the TB/GBs sooner rather than later. More importantly, it would show the country that Labour now understands the importance of holding its Leaders to account annually to stop power corrupting them, which led directly to catastrophes like Iraq, and the privatisation of public services.

But who is going to have a quiet word in Harriet's ear?

Labour leadership candidates - watch those expenses

I am not sure of the wisdom of early declarations by Labour Leadership wannabes before the timetable or rules for the contest have been agreed by Labour's ruling National Executive Committee (NEC). The last Leader/Deputy elections were mired with issues about campaign donations as candidates amassed five and six-figure sums to woo Labour Party members.

According to report at the time the Deputy Leadership candidates war chests were as little as £4,000 declared by Hilary Benn to an eye-watering £180,000-£200,000 by Peter Hain. A similarly large sum was raised by the only valid candidate for the Leadership - Gordon Brown.

In the wake of the anonymous donations scandal to the Labour Party itself which swept away General Secretary Peter Watt in controversial crcumstances, now interim Labour Party Leader Harriet Harman was forced to pay back £5,000 given to her by a property developer who has secretly bankrolled Labour to the tune of £600,000. Peter Hain was obliged to resign as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to defend himself in the face of a police inquiry into his campaign donations triggered by the Electoral Commission. And he did so successfully, but it took a long time.

So the best advice to all concerned would be proceed with caution, and making sure you keep very good records of both donations and expenses.

Will Harriet lead the Labour Party by example?

Labour's ruling National Executive Committee meets in five days time to decide the timetable for the election of its next leader. There are three options now in play: fast track before the summer recess, normal procedure in time for Conference, Tory 2005 model using Conference for TV test ballot after.

Being a 'harpy' for accountability myself, shamelessly rule guided, if not bound, I support the timetable arising from the Rule Book . The Labour Party has already budgetted a modest £500,000 to conduct a postal ballot of its members to elect constituency representatives to its NEC and National Policy Forum, which are conducted under the 'one-member-one-vote' system. A mailout to constituencies, and affiliated trades unions and socialist societies is imminent calling for nominations. The deadline is 30 July, with a ballot during August and the first half of September.

Under Rule 4.2.B.ii nomination papers for Leader/Deputy should also be distributed where there in no vacancy. And thereby hang a couple of tales. First, the NEC in its wisdom after the 1997 put that rule in the deep-freeze. Second, it cited 'advice', which maintained the rule only applied when Labour was in opposition.

Obviously, there is now a vacancy for Leader. So a process is in train, save for the options cited by me above, only one of which is tenable IMHO, namely - normal procedure as set out in the Rule Book.

With regard to the Deputy Leader post, no one can claim we are not in opposition. So I hope Harriet Harman, our new interim Leader will lead by example and insist that nomination papers for the post of Deputy Leader are issued with the rest in accordance with the Rule Book. This does not mean there will be a challenger and an election. But this would be a clear sign from her that accountability matters. By doing so she would be drawing a line under 13-years of evasion under New Labour.

Harriet Harman now Labour Party leader pro-tem

Following Gordon Brown's announcement in Downing Street of his resignation as Leader of the Labour Party prior to tendering his resignation as Prime Minister to Her Majesty the Queen, Harriet Harman becomes leader pro-tem.

The Labour Party Rule Book Clause 4. 2. B. iv says:

When the party is in opposition and the party leader, for whatever reason becomes permanently unavailable, the deputy leader shall automatically become party leader on a pro-tem basis. The NEC shall decide whether to hold an immediate ballot as provided under E above or to elect a new leader at the next annual session of party conference.

And opposition is where we are as expected here.

The timetable decision for the election of a new leader will be taken next week. However, there are scurrilous suggestions that the timetable should be brought forward together with the planned National Executive Committee and National Policy Forum elections in the constituency section. Expect strong resistence from this quarter.

Selection in the spotlight: Nottingham East - Jolly good show or crying shame?

Tomorrow, the Labour Party will interview nine candidates and select one to represent it in the Nottingham East parliamentary constituency. Controversially, its Special Selection Panel (SSP) voted 8 to 7 last week to impose a candidate on the constituency.

CLP officers, Nottingham City Council Labour Group members and the outgoing MP, John Heppell met yesterday in Birmingham on the margins of the Labour Party 2010 Manifesto launch to help shortlist for interview from some 100 applicants. Congratulations to local CLP members for successfully lobbying for 1) an OPEN selection, and 2) getting a say at least for their CLP officers and local councillors. They have definitely got local candidates short-listed for interview. They include Councillors Jon Collins, Brian Parbutt and Jane Urquhart. In addition, four black asian and minority ethnic candidates have made the cut, plus two rival 'national' names, former MP Chris Leslie and the Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison national secretary, Byron Taylor.

Tomorrow, the interviewing panel of five NEC members have an opportunity to make partial amends for local members being denied a say. They can ensure an open and fair selection on merit. It's a choice between the new and old politics. A narrowing of opinion inside the Labour's NEC was demonstrated by the closeness of the vote to impose a candidate last Thursday. It was only carried by the votes of Leader Gordon Brown and Deputy Leader Harriet Harman. Had either one of them voted in favour of, retaining members' rights to a say then there would have been no need for this blog.

They and their advisers all have a chance to rethink their positions.

Their difficulties with regard to Nottingham East arise from persistent rumours that No 10 (ie. Gordon Brown) wants former MP Chris Leslie to be the next MP for the seat, That line was blogged again yesterday by BBC Newsnight political editor Michael Crick. The interview panel could wrest back some of its tarnished reputation by not bothering to consult with No. 10 about whom they are minded to impose select. According to the Nottingham Evening Post:

A spokesman for the Prime Minister told the Evening Post that Mr Brown had no preferred candidate.

As Gordon Brown himself reminded everyone at the Manifesto launch yesterday:

- And which is the party of political reform, offering more democratic change than at any time in 100 years and more? .... the party with the plan for the future. And I say to you today: the future will be progressive or conservative, but it will not be both.

Quite so. The age of deference is over. What better place to demonstrate precisely what that means than the selection of candidates to fight the general election.

So its up to Deputy Leader Harriet Harman, USDAW's Paddy Lillis, Keith Vaz MP, NEC chair Ann Black and her vice chair, Norma Stephenson to do the decent thing. We know that both Ann and Norma voted last week AGAINST imposing a candidate. Of the three imposers on the NEC panel, Keith Vaz represents the Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic section.  He has aroused considerable controversy by his role in selections to date, and faces allegations after the election from that constituency of not ensuring a robust equalities approach. Tomorrow is his chance to show he embraces the new politics, and that the age of prime ministerial patronage is over. Quite what unionised shopworkers will make of Paddy Lillis, their deputy general secretary's forelock tugging to No. 10 beats me. As for Harriet, she has much to answer for concerning these fast track selections chronicled here and elsewhere. 

This 2010 election is, as we were reminded repeatedly yesterday, about 'people not posters'. Well, where better to start than with the people who are signed up as members of the Labour Party in Nottingham East, and those whose votes they seek to ensure a Labour MP in the next Parliament?

As the interviews will be taking place in the Jolly St Ermins Hotel in London, it will either be a jolly good show, or a crying shame. A decision is expected mid-afternoon.