Peter Kenyon

Election readiness - an opportunity for Labour, but threat to control freaks

Labour's leader Jeremy Corbyn wants members to decide who will be their prospective parliamentary candidate at the next General Election. Given the Tories inability to govern that opportunity might not be far away. Reactions to Ian Lavery MP's recent pronouncements suggest that the age of entitlement in the Labour Party is not over (yet). Let me untangle these issues.

Ahead of the shock, surprise May 2017 General Election, Labour was so ill-prepared that the NEC took upon itself the power to select candidates. Serial rebel MPs in the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) were given a 'Get out of Jail' card. However much local disquiet to a sitting MP standing again for re-election - tough. Labour's rebels have much to thank Tory PM Theresa May for her decision to call a snap election. Their candidacy was safe. Though in some isolated places previously safe Labour seats were lost.

With the Tories in disarray over how to govern (full stop), never mind Brexit, the prospects of another General Election in 2017 require decisive action on the part of Labour CLPs and the NEC. The mantra is that nothing can be done without the authority of the NEC. I find that jobsworth approach utterly depressing. The Labour Party needs candidates in place for both local, regional and national elections much earlier than has been common practice.

National contingency planning needs to focus on the full panoply of opportunity - national, regional, local and, dare I add, European elections. If the NEC is unable to provide detailed guidance ahead of the July meeting cycle for local parties, IMHO CLPs should get on and ask the June 2017 PPCs whether they wish to stand again. In the absence of an acceptable 'sitting candidate', then CLPs should invite expressions of interest and enable all their members to take part in a selection process.

This may mean some ruffling of feathers among Labour MPs with an inflated sense of entitlement, tough. Members are entitled to decide. It is in the rules. What is the problem? Oh, yes - entitlement. Well, sorry peeps, it's time to get real.

 

Labour's NEC/NPF candidates should have an all-member eMail slot

Today, the Labour Party National Executive Committee (NEC) has been meeting. In the wake of complaints about certain candidates for internal elected office having access to all-members contact details, by fair means or foul, I wondered whether consideration was given to a comradely gesture.

Instead of a witch-hunt, did our NEC representatives consider following a precedent established during the 2010 leadership election campaign and grant all candidates an opportunity to make a personalised communication to all members? NB. This does not require releasing membership details to all candidates, but use of the national membership datebase, and a modicum of staff time forwarding to members one communication per candidate (willing to gamble the risk of alienation in the hope of securing an extra vote). 

If not, it must be within the powers of the General Secretary, Iain McNicol, to ensure a more level playing field for the NEC and National Policy Forum 2012 elections now underway?

Even though ballot papers have gone out to most members, a gentle reminder in the former of personalised communications between now and the close of polls at 5pm on Wednesday 13 June 2012 might even increase turnout.

 

 

No thanks from Labour's GS Iain McNicol as Refounding Labour cuts bite

As previously reported the Labour Party Head Office is moving to Brewer's Green, earlier today I learned Friday is the day. As if further evidence of couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery were needed, I also received an eMail from General Secetary, Iain McNicol setting out changes to my constituency labour party (CLP) income. The proportion of membership subscriptions being remitted to local parties is being slashed in some instances from one-third to nearly one-thirtieth. 

The changes arise from the notorious top down stitchup agreed at last year's party conference mislabelled Refounding Labour. They mask a lamentable and wholly avoidable failure on the part of the leadership and the National Executive Committee to rethink the way the Labour Party pays its way as a mainstream political party. Instead we have more hankering after state-funding (see Party funding rules face overhaul as talks continue http://bit.ly/Hx4jw0) , and a clampdown on local parties' finances to fill the holes in Head Office accounts. To add insult to injury, there was not a word of thanks, appreciation or recognition of any effort expended by members administering the party on the ground.

I had expected better when Iain was elected. Oh, BTW the citation should have been 'Dear Comrade', not 'Dear friend'. 

 

An alternative to state funding - electoral ward political party branch budgeting

This is as stoggy as a hot cross bun. Read no further. Debate about how political parties should be funded has been rekindled by yet another scandal. The latest involves cash for access and co-treasurer of the Conservative Party, Peter Cruddas, who promptly resigned. Attempts by Labour to score political points are unlikely to impress the vast majority of the electorate. Most of the debate focuses on the motives of donors and the base practices of party fund-raisers. Few if any commentators, let alone voters, give a moment's thought to when, where and how often political parties need money.

Democratic societies need political parties. They are generally the only institutions capable of forming governing bodies at whatever level - national, regional or local government. (There are some worrying departures in the European Union following the Eurozone crisis, but that should not detract from the norm.) If you want power, or a handle on power, or to enable others to exercise power on your behalf, then joining a political party is the way to go. There was a time in the UK when money played a direct part in securing a seat in Parliament. The notorious "Spendthrift election" came in Northamptonshire in 1768, when three earls spent over ₤100,000 each to win a seat. These blessed isles saw the light about politics with the introduction of rules to limit spending on elections at a local ward/constituency level. Though it took over 200 years to introduce limits on national spending in General Elections. Such rules are now bundled with a regulatory body, the Electoral Commission (EC), into law. People at the centre of party politics came to see the legislation enact by Labour in 2000 as the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act as a curse. That includes Labour. It is worth dwelling for a moment on why. The EC took a rather silly view about the role of treasurers in political parties, placing what seemed to be overly onerous requirements even on constituencies accounts. The absence of anyone with any experience of active party membership on the Commission itself didn't help. But it did have some sound ideas, which really irked the professional political class. In its requirements for annual reporting by registered political parties, the EC suggested membership should be included in the annual Statement of Accounts. As one if its first decisions, the Commission embarked on an Inquiry into the funding of political parties. In its recommendations published in December 2004, the EC concluded there was no case for state-funding, but that there were issues for political parties concerning membership and small donations. Given the presumptions of the political class, and that includes Labour's upper echelons, the EC recommendatons were buried. The then Leader of the House of Commons Peter Hain failed to make parliamentary time available. Yes, the same Peter Hain who presided over the bungled exercise to Refound Labour last year, adn who is still in an influential party position as chair of the National Policy Forum.

This is unfinished business. Labour doesn't have to wait for the other political parties. It has an opportunity to reconnect with its core vote and build the Party on the Ground.

This is not a hopeless cause, or one lacking possible traction either with the new general secretary or members of the parliamentary labour party. There is a strong case for looking at the issue of political party funding through the other end of the telescope. You just have to ask: how many Labour members of parliament elected in 2010 won their seats thanks to above average levels of local campaigning activity undertaken by volunteers, with or without professional organisational support? In which seats did Labour win a higher percentage of the vote than the national average? 

What the 2010 general election campaign highighted for Labour were different models of local political organisation -  an often cited example was Birmingham, Edgbaston where the sitting MP Gisela Stuart secured re-election with a slightly lower share of the vote and a modest 1.3% swing to Conservative from Labour. This compared with a national swing against Labour of 6.2%. Much more deserving of study is the result in Oxford East where sitting MP Andrew Smith was relected with a 6.5% increased share of the vote and a swing TO Labour of 4.2%. Whereas Stuart's victory was MP/organiser campaign led, Smith's was underpinned by an active local party and a local councillor-base/Labour group that had seen off the Liberal Demcrats on the city council. This is not an exact science. But it is a pointer to the future.

Layering community activity, and the way it is organised and accounted for is critical to rebuilding the Party on the Ground, winning future elections and burying the threat to our democratic socialist party from the Tories and the Liberal Democrats. A possible place to start is using the national agreed limits to start building election-cycle budgets and fundraising strategies to match political goals overtime. After the May elections, of course. Someone in your CLP will be filling in the forms for election expenses. Those limits matter, both for accounting and future budgeting. Think about it. 

Bradford West - a lifeline or noose for Labour leader Ed Miliband?

Ed Miliband interviewed in today's Observer newspaper just might be starting to ask pertinent questions about the Labour Party on the ground. According to the paper's political editor, Toby Helm:

At the top of a list of questions he will want to answer is why Labour's canvassing, on the eve of polling, was still showing the party way ahead. "Even by late Wednesday our canvass returns were suggesting that we would win."

The failure to gauge what was happening is part of a wider challenge Miliband wants to address – how to ensure Labour engages better with local people and supporters.

I should point out that I am not the Labour Party's leading expert on canvassing. But I have done my fair share in the last 40 years. Local organisational capacity was my starting point in the Twittersphere as soon as it became evident an upset was in prospect on Thursday night/Friday morning of last week. I asked Fabian Society deputy general secretary @marcusaroberts who was minded to cross his fingers for a Labour retain:

Done CLP audit / electoral ward, membership / campaigning / fundraising capacity? No point crossing fingers.#bradfordwest

This provoked a twitterslapdown from Labour First campaigning guru Luke Akehurst:

@PeterKenyon the Bradford West CLP is extremely active and large so problem not organisational

That compounds the issues that our Leader is going to have to review, and not before time in my view. If a constituency labour party (CLP) that is "extremely active" and "large" to quote Luke can't spot a looming loss of 10,000 votes, then it is not unreasonable to speculate that the Party is suffering systemic failure. NB Luke is seeking re-election to Labour's National Executive Committee. 

Labour has invested heavily in IT support for voter identification in New Labour speak or canvassing as, I'm glad to see, Ed called it in his interview. So it should be possible to analyse the canvass returns by electoral ward/date/canvasser. Let's be clear this is an art, not a science. Critical dates for reviewing Labour's standing might be pre-last date for postal vote applications, last day of canvassing. What were the canvass results (if any) from postal voters? The overarching problem in any canvassing is quality control - filtering out canvasser's inclinations (for example: to pose leading questions, record what they want to hear, discount what they don't want to hear) is impossible at the point of data entry.

High levels of volunteer commitment and dedication are required to reduce the risk of error, and maintain records in a timely fashion on Contact Creator. I would be surprised if any canvassing of representative samples was conducted in key wards in the final week of the campaign. (I have vivid memories of straw poll sampling Labour voters in Brownwood Ward in the last days of the 1992 general election campaign and picking up switching in the wake of the Tories' devastating Tax Bombshell advertising. By then it was too late and we were doomed, as it turned out to another five years' in opposition.)

If nothing else, Ed will learn more about canvassing. He has also promised to revisit the constituency and listen. Very commendable, but who does he listen to? People 'volunteered' by party staff, or a representative sample of Labour core voters as recorded on the canvass returns?

Next there is that bizarre message to staff co-signed by Ed and party general secretary, Iain McNicol issued the day after the by-election. There was no mention of volunteers. What on earth is going in their heads? What more eloquent proof of just how disconnected the Leadership is than a read of this indictment of Labour's political class? We know there are problems with party staff, but this herogram is absurd in the circumstances.

Our staff in Bradford were fantastic. As always our staff give everything for Labour and Bradford West was no exception. Staff can hold their heads high about their performance, we shoulder these problems as one party and we fight back as one party. 

What is it about the Labour Party that performance management doesn't apply to party staff? Then you realise the Leadership is so wedded to the paid-hands model of modern political organisation that with the London Mayoral elections now only weeks ago they have got to keep staff on side. The party on the ground (i.e. volunteers) remain a resource to be developed.

So those of us who thought Ed might be able to save the Labour Party are going to have to go along with the warm words, and, as Marcus did on Thursday night, keep our fingers crossed for 3 May. But that should not detract from the need for a radical new approach to party organisation based on building up from the electoral ward level the Labour Party's volunteer-based membership/campaigning/fundraising capacity with professional support (not control).

If the Bradford West inquest leads Ed to that conclusion, it will represent a lifeline. Continued dependence on the Refounding Labour command and control professional praetorian guard model will prove a noose.

 

Iain McNicol's first 100 days - will he herald cultural change?

While some mourn the passing of New Labour co-architect Philip Gould, I have been wrestling with the practical problems of organising a branch meeting outside St. Paul's Cathedral, and a faulty national membership database.

Membership services are not a central feature of the current Labour Party apparatus. After an exchange with Johanna Baxter on Twitter earlier today, it occurred to me that the clock is ticking for our new general secretary, Iain McNicol.

My colleagues in the Labour Democratic Network share a vision of the Labour Party, which is set out in our Manchester Declaration. Iain McNicol was served up Refounding Labour by the old New Labour guard. They were desperate to consolidate anti-democractic centralist practices as the prevailing force inside the party, and the majority of the national executive committee fell for it.

Contradictions between the stated ambitions of the leadership to attempt to run a Labour candidate for every public office anywhere in the country - the so called 'No no-go areas' policy has to be matched with an organisational/fundraising strategy (short/medium/long-term) to enable Labour vote maximisation.

That is one of the many challenges facing our new GS, and his first 100 days are up on 9 January or thereabouts (assuming his official start date was 1 October). Fixing the IT system to support local organisation is critical to enabling that shift in culture to being member friendly, and improve retention and recruitment. Of course, there is a lot more to the job than that, but it would help.

Which reminds me, I must get the ward notices out to members still relying on the post. None of them currently attend meetings, but it's their right to know what's going on in their branch, even if they don't trust Head Office with their eMail address. (That's something us branch secretaries just have to live with, for the moment.)

Bring on the future, Mr McNicol.

Decoding Iain McNicol, the Labour Party's new general secretary - correction

In two week's  Sometime this month, may be today, maybe in four weeks' time, Labour's new general secretary Iain McNicol, is expected to set out to the full national executive committee (NEC) strategic proposals to consolidate the party's position in the mainstream of British politics poised to win the next general election. (Correcting timescale - some NEC sources hint at today, some later in the month. Whenever, change can not come soon enough.)

His annual conference speech was I was told by his supporters a must read. Yesterday At the weekend in a speech to the Scottish Labour special conference, drawing on his own experience as a Labour Party and TU organiser he insisted:

You have to get organised.

You need to raise funds.

You need to knock on doors.

You need to listen.

You need great candidates rooted in their communities.

You need policies which speak to working people’s aspirations and dreams.

Let's hope every member of the PLP and every aspiring candidate for public office as a representative of the Labour Party get's a grip on that. Careerists beware.

He then went on to set out three insights inspired by Labour's Victorian founders:

The first is that the Labour Party was created as a specific reaction to the failure of the Liberal Party to deliver progressive change for working people...The second insight is the amount of effort the Labour pioneers spent on calibrating the right organisation for their new party....The third insight from our founders was their great sense of optimism.

Not surprisingly for my avid readers, I'm interested in how he developed his insight into organisation. Iain offered a glimpse:

The key insight is that Hardie and the rest created a form of organisation suited to their times. The system of branches and delegates mirrored the other organisations they were involved in: the churches, the unions, the Temperance Movement.

This begs a question are forms of civil organisation any different today? for those Labour Party members who are so engaged, the answer has to be not a lot. I attend church. It has a parish council. It has agendas and minutes. Ditto the house group in the block of flats in which I live. Ditto the arts association. Ditto the social enterprises that I am or have been involved in. Ditto my trade union branch.

Paradoxically, or may be not, Iain did not continue in that vein. Instead he said:

For most socialists back then, attending a Labour Party meeting would feel familiar and normal, because so much else was organised on similar lines.

I don’t believe we can honestly say that about today’s Labour Party structures. They don’t feel familiar to our new members, they can feel bewildering and alien.

Few would disagree with him in that regard. But why are they unfamiliar? Professionalisation and the emergence of a political class dominating mainstream political parties, trade unions and civil society in general may account for that lack of familiarity with the structures. Lines of accountability have become blurred. Scope for members to have a say have been stifled. Annual conference has become a political trade fair run for profit, not the deliberative assembly our founding forebears would have recognised. 

With a flourish in the direction of social media, Iain concluded his remarks about organisation proclaiming:

So our structures need to reflect the way people live their lives.

I regularly interact with members via Twitter. I talk with our party staff via email. We are embracing the digital revolution in politics, and it changes us.

So of course we need to reflect these changes in the way we conduct our campaigning.

Campaigning, it has to be remembered, is a facet of organisation. On that note Iain gave little away. But then he was in Scotland and the state of Labour Party organisation on the ground is what might be loosely described as thin.

Returning to his opening call, how should Labour members respond? As secretary of the Labour Democratic Network (LDN), I found myself thinking, Iain, if you really mean what you say, then the Labour Party has to organise from the electoral ward up. In that regard, I recommend reading LDN's Manchester Declaration signing up and get organising. 

 

 

 

Write to Ed: please explain why I should remain a Labour Party member

I do my best to save the Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband from himself. As branch secretary one of my jobs is to compile and circulate the agenda. Being post-Conference it was report back time. But I studiously omitted any explicit reference to Refounding Labour. Our submission was studiously ignored by Head Office. I even missed off Any Other Business. That fooled no-one. As we were about to adjourn to our fundraising supper a colleague asked, "Did that Labour supporters proposal go through? Fortunately, no one was clutching a glass of red wine or masticating the buttersquash/lentil stew, otherwise our host's carpet would have been in a sorry state. "Batty", "insane", "mad", members splutted in disbelief. "Financial disaster...what's the point of being a fully paid-up member?"

Indeed, which prompted a proposal to launch a write-in campaign to Ed and the new General Secretary, Iain McNicol: please explain why I should remain a Labour Party member.

It is all very well for the newly appointed unelected deputy chair Tom Watson to launch a financial appeal to members. But it only takes 400 members currently paying the full rate to drop their subscription to the reduced rate (a loss of £20/head) and the Labour Party has lost £8,000 a year. That happens to be the amount Tom is reported to have raised in the first few days of his appeal. 

On a personal note, and in total exasperation about the mismanagement of the party as a democratic socialist body, I have already cancelled my membership Direct Debit. I propose paying by cheque at the reduced rate until the Leadership wakes up. If the Labour Party is being refounded then it needs to plan an Annual Conference as a deliberative assembly, and hold a proper AGM at which the NEC opens itself to member scrutiny. As for sending a constituency delegate to Conference, I will be voting against for the same reasons. The offer of a free delegate pass bundled into Refounding Labour for every CLP is only the tip of the cost iceberg. Speaking personally, I'll be saying thanks, but no thanks until members get a say. That will mean the NEC and the Conference Arrangements Committee transforming the planned event for Manchester in 2012 over the next few months. 

As for the money I'll save, that's going to my local branch. We have an election campaign to fight in 2013. 

Labour Party GS on Twitter: Strange goings on in Stevenage

This could either be the kiss of death or the beginning of something very different from what we have become sadly used to from our Party's most senior member of staff.

Earlier this evening spotted this on Twitter:

IainMcNicol Iain McNicol @Scarletstand @janburnell drop me a line and I will look into.

This was in response to an exasperated tweet from @janburnell, a comrade and personal friend who lives in Stevenage, which said:

@janburnell Jan Burnell MP Selection in StevenageCLP. Told the EC 'not allowed' 2 reveal shortlist #thatsjuststupid

That prompted Jan's daughter Emma, who tweets as @scarletstand to make a suggestion:

@Scarletstand Emma Burnell janburnell might be best to write to @IainMcNicol for clarification first.

Hey presto.

 

 

 

 

Comrade McNicol delivers a message to Labour Party members

For the glossy version go to the Labour Party Conference guide. But a couple of days ago when I was checking out MemberCentre, I had a thought. MemberCentre is part of the internal Labour Party IT offer.  For those good democractic socialist volunteers who give their time to keep other members informed about local issues, meetings, campaigning and fundraising activity it offers genuine value - realtime access to members' details.

I blogged and tweeted about its shortcomings and how they might be improved a couple of days ago and issued an invitation to our new general secretary designate and also our Leader. In the first instance local communication capacity depends on each member taking on a responsibility. I wrote:

That is why I launched an appeal on Twitter to all Labour Party members to update their personal details on Membersnet - get your membership card ready to register. I invite the Leader and the GS-designate to retweet.

I had written about my impressions of Iain shortly after his appointment here. I started my piece with:

I welcome Iain McNicol's election as the Labour Party's next General Secretary. I would not describe him as a buddy, or close personal friend. Iain is a comrade. And I would like to share two experiences that highlight why.

So I was not exactly surprised when last night, in true comradely fashion, @Iainmcnicol retweeted my appeal.

Iain McNicol @IainMcNicol retweeted to 2,082 followers: PeterKenyon Peter Kenyon @IainMcNicol Will you RT my appeal to #Labour party members to update details on Membersnet. Helps volunteer officers keep members in loop Sep 08, 6:25 PM via web

View @IainMcNicol’s Tweets

I am now attempting to pass this message on to every CLP in the country. It hasn't required a change in the Labour Party rules for me to attempt this task. But if you can help, please let me know. In their turn I hope every CLP will pass it on to every branch, and every branch to every member - even those who currently don't declare an eMail address. As I discovered in City of London branch some 20% of members actually had one, but had never disclosed it previously to the Labour Party.

It is partly about trust. So here's a practical way in which we can start to Refound the Labour Party, in line with the Manchester Declaration and the aims of the Labour Democratic Network. of which I am secretary.