Peter Kenyon

Labour Party accounts - members will have to wait

City of London Labour Party met last night for its monthly meeting of debate and campaign planning. As usual there was an item on the Agenda for National Labour Party business. My comrades were shocked to hear me report that the General Secretary, Ray Collins had effectively rejected our request for earlier publication of the Statement of Accounts. There is no obligation on the GS to arrange early publication. The Rule Book Chapter 1, Clause VIII. G says one of the jobs of the NEC is::

to present to the regular annual meeting of party conference a report covering the work and progress of the party during its period of office, together with a report on the work of the NEC committees, a financial statement and duly audited accounts. This report, financial statement and accounts shall be sent to CLPs and affiliated organisations at least two clear weeks before the opening of party conference

That means forget about them until mid-September. But a Labour law to clean up British politics, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act passed in 2000, yes that's nine years ago, requires political parties with a turnover in excess of £250k/annum to file a Statement of Accounts within 7 days of 30 June in the year following the accounting period in question.

I think members should get them at the same time, so does my branch and so does my CLP which has a Rule change resolution down for the 2009 Conference. Devotees of this blog will perhaps recall comments at around this time last year from 'tory boys never grow up' questioning whether my assertion that there was no reason why members could not receive them at the same time as the Electoral Commission, ie now. I thought (mistakenly) that  a little quiet diplomacy on the NEC with the GS might result in my wish being fulfilled despite 'tory boys never grow up' strident assertions. It will come as no surprise that my optimism was (as is often the case) premature. But I have not given up, I have gone back to the GS querying whom he took advice from in coming to his decision not to publish immediately.

Openness and accountability underpins how most of us decide to spend our time and money, often in ways we are not even conscious of at any particular moment. Labour Party membership, commercial income and donation trends, whether small, high value, corporate or trade union will all be affected by how well the NEC is seen managing the Party's affairs. I'm not suggesting anything material is being hidden in the 2008 Accounts. Though, bearing in mind it is only just over 18 months since over £20 million of hidden unsecured loans were discovered dating back to the Blair era as Leader, one can't be too careful.

Standards in Public Life confused with party funding

Sir Christopher Kelly, the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life risks torching his own reputation by opining about a recent inquiry into the funding of political parties.

According to the BBC report of his press conference earlier today about a survey into public trust in our politicians:

Sir Christopher told a press conference in Westminster this morning that he was concerned by the lack of resolution within Parliament over party funding.

He called for political parties "to have the courage to work together to reach a consensus" and said it was "a matter of great dismay that this has not happened and may not happen until after the next election".

Interviewed later on the BBC TV One o'clock news he explicitly refered to the doomed Hayden Phillips Inquiry. I shall be sending him copies of my main pieces on party funding published in Chartist, here , here and, if you have access to a proper library, Chartist #212 when I reviewed the Electoral Commission report on party political funding (2004). I warned prior to publication of Hayden Phillips updated report in 2007:

The unsuspecting public should beware. This is no innocent inquiry.

I look forward to your graceful retraction, Sir Christopher, pending proper consideration as would become someone in your position with a reputation to consider as much as any politician.

Hain should resign Labour whip if charged

Twelve years ago when Labour was still in opposition in Westminster, I was appointed Chief Whip of the LB Hackney Labour Group by Terry Ashton then Regional Secretary of the Greater London Labour Party acting on behalf of the then Labour Party General Secretary Tom Sawyer.

Shortly afterwards I took a telephone call from the then chief Executive of Hackney Council informing me that one of our members was about to be arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence. (Charges from which the member concerned was eventually acquitted.) However, I was advised by Party officials that we should require the member concerned to resign the whip while the person concerned sought to clear their name. The aim was to demonstrate, unequivocally, the Labour Party's commitment to the highest standards of probity, openness and accountability in public life . The member refused. The Labour Group resolved to suspend in line with the advice received.

Of course, we must all presume Peter Hain's innocence, until (should there be a case to answer) it is proven otherwise. Nevertheless, in the light of my experience, I think, if charged, he should resign the Labour whip in the House of Commons immediately to reinforce further his readiness to distance the Party from the issues arising from receipt of donations to his deputy leadership campaign.

Or should MPs be treated differently from a backbench councillor in a London borough?

'Baldrick' applies his broom to Labour's Augean stable

Tony Robinson tipped me off earlier today that he has taken Labour to task in a piece published on the New Statesman online service.

The latest funding scandal has been portrayed even by its fiercest party critics as an aberration, a cock-up bound to happen, brought about by an inexperienced general secretary and government ministers who failed to manage him properly.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

His first hand-experience of Labour's National Executive Committee was invaluble to the work of the LabOUR Commission - he was the unsung originator of the Interim Report's 10-point plan, still sitting in Gordon Brown's in-tray. Robinson commenting on the hidden donations scandal concludes:

The challenge that Gordon Brown and his team face in confronting this dysfunctional culture both within themselves and within those who surround them is monumental.

It will take real political courage for Brown to embrace the issues raised LabOUR Plan.

Labour membership dwindles - lawyers cash-in

Labour Party membership is its future. I'm hoping with the end of the year approaching, and that annual review of standing orders pending, someone at Head Office, if not in No. 10, is sparing a thought for the faithful few who remain in membership. And better still, how to reverse that 11-year downward trend in memberhip since 1997. As was reported to the NEC last month that slump was not even arrested by Tony Blair's departure. It would be good to think that someone during the round of Christmas hospitality now being served up in Westminster and Whitehall ,thought it important to encourage members to keep with Labour, and offer hope for the New Year. This would be in sharp contract to the disparaging remarks encouraging thoughts from Luke Akehurst here.

Instead it looks as though the only coffers that will continue to be swelled will be those of the lawyers. Even the former General Secretary, Peter Watt, looks incline to add to their income, if this account in today's Independent here is accurate.

Labour to face police inquiry - no surprise then

The surprise would have been if the Electoral Commission had not referred the hidden donations affair to the police.