Peter Kenyon

Don't be fooled: there has been NO opening up of Labour policy-making yet

Some issues are worth pursuing. I would urge all Labour Party members who regard having a say in policy making as an inalienable right to be cautious about declarations of hope following last weekend's National Policy Forum.

The latest glowing report was published earlier today on Labour List authored by Stephen Twigg MP, former chair and now honorary president of Progress. Twigg proclaimed:

I left Birmingham with a feeling that the NPF has a renewed sense of purpose.

This is to the credit of the representatives and Party members across the country who responded to the Partnership into Power consultation documents published in May. I co-chair the Education and Skills Commission with Mary Turner of the GMB and was particularly impressed by the number of responses received to our consultation document from individuals, CLPs and affiliates. 

So, Stephen, how many responses were there? How many from individual members or affiliates? How many from party units? How many from outside bodies? And when will you publish them?

He went on:

Those responses informed constructive discussions in our five workshops over the course of the weekend. It is also to the credit of Party staff who are working tirelessly to open up the process as widely as possible as we build towards our next manifesto.

Well, I'm all in favour of giving credit where it is due. But we know the former Deputy General Secretary Alicia Kennedy expressly refused to open up the process. Former NPF chair Peter Hain lacked the ego-strength to challenge her. Judging by the message sent out in the name of the new National Policy Forum chair, Angela Eagle, earlier this week party staff are still administering a 'black hole' stategy for submissions.

I have been asked personally to have faith. And I will. But only when the method of inviting submissions is open and transparent to members. Those processes have to be linked to practical schedules of meetings for the NPF, and its policy commissions. The work of the top-down appointee as policy coordinator, Jon Cruddas has to be incorporated into that framework and accountable to the NPF.

Then there might be reason for supposing something has been learned.

 

Labour's NPF: a paradigm shift? How can we be sure?

Delegate reports from this weekend's Labour Party National Policy Forum are eagerly awaited by those of us who worry as much about how policy is made as the outcomes to win the next Westminster election. My twitter feed is littered with plaudits for both Cruddas and 'newly-elected' NPF chair Angela Eagle. Alon Or-bach a London Region members' directly elected representative tweeted on Sunday:

Alon Or-bach ‏@alonorbach Now being addressed by @JonCruddasMP - a real paradigm shift! :-)#NPF

Martin Rathfelder ‏@rathfelder @angelaeagle Excellent job this weekend. You've got a lot of support behind you.

My own take on Cruddas's appointment is here. I doubt that Or-bach was lauding the method of that appointment either. So what has changed?

Or-bach revealed late Sunday there was a real buzz on opening up Labour policy making and shaping an alternative vision for our next Labour government. That needs explaining, so I asked him to elaborate. He recalled there had been widespread calls for accountable tracking of submissions, adding: "Very hopeful it will actually happen." That prompted Fabian Society Deputy General Secretary, Marcus Roberts to observe: 

Marcus A. Roberts ‏@marcusaroberts @alonorbach @peterkenyon transparency key to legitimacy in Lab policy making. But we've been burned by this before so bar set high now! #npf

So that is one indicator we can look for - tools for open and transparent policy making.

Now is not the time to cast doubt, but show how easily and cheaply it can be achieved. The rewards of showing that as a Labour Party member you can have a say, and your contribution doesn't get lost will be there for all to see in increased membership, activism, and electoral success at all levels of government.

Jon Cruddas - another Labour Party top down appointment

This is not news to avid followers of the internal machinations of the Labour Party. But for me and those like me, who cherish party democracy and accountability, we need to make public that Jon Cruddas's role as policy co-ordinator inside the Party is by appointment of the Leader. As yet I have to hear any coherent account of how this job fits in to the agreed, albeit deeply flawed, Partnership into Power policy making structure.

Today, the Observer newspaper has published an interview with Cruddas here. Such is the quality of Guardian group journalism that none of the questions arising for the likes of me about about the provenance of the role was asked by the interviewers: Toby Helm and Julian Coman. Or if they were, they weren't reported. Legitimacy is presumed.

But at least we read some interesting news.

After just a month in his new post Cruddas has already "changed gear". He has torn up Labour's previous policy-making machinery of the past two years, replacing 29 separate policy groups with just three – on the economy, society and politics. He says what the Labour party has lacked since the last election is an "over-arching story".

Labour Party policy making for nearly two decades has been the preserve of the nomenklatura, not the members.

What this latest news means is that the work started in late 2010 by Liam Byrne MP after Ed Miliband's election as Leader has been binned. To put it into context requires some appreciation of the ongoing tension between Labour's elected representatives in the Westminster Parliament and the rest of the Party's sadly diminished membership. 

I shall be following news from the National Policy Forum in Birmingham for enlightment about how that exercise fits into its properly constituted Policy Commissions and their work undertaken by directly elected representatives of the wider membership. Will there ever be a meeting of minds about how the Party makes policy, let alone the policies with which to win the next election?

BTW Ed , the ends do not justify the means.

 

 

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.

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 leadership - proper debate impossible without more brotherly love

Listening to the Labour Party leadership coverage to date, I have come to the conclusion that an evident appetite for the widest possible reflection and proper debate will be impossible without a rethink - not of the rules, but how the principal players behave in the circumstances. We need even more brotherly love.

As set out the Labour Party rules concerning valid nominations have come to dominate Leadership contests. Labour MPs (members of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP)) have the whip hand. They and they alone can determine who can and cannot get on the ballot paper. In the event of a vacancy, Rule 4.2.B.i says that 12.5% of Labour MPs must nominate to ensure a place on the ballot paper. In the event of no vacancy, under Rule 4.2.B.ii says that 20% of Labour MPs are required. It need not be like that.

David and Ed have had their Mother Miliband moment, eshewed deals and guaranteed an election for the next Leader of the Labour Party. Both seem confident of getting the necessary nominations. For that they deserve genuine applause and gratitude. After listening to Ed Miliband declare his candidacy yesterday at the Fabian Society post-election conference, I went to an alternative Labour movement event organised by the Labour Representation Committee and Labour Briefing at which there was a discussion about the prospects of getting John McDonnell MP on the ballot paper. I doubt that his prospects are any better even with a smaller PLP, than they were in 2007. But in winding up a workshop debate on 'Fighting for Labour's future - A Left turn', I committed to playing my part to try and achieve that aim. Not because I necessarily agree with John, but because I believe there is a significant proportion of party members (both individuals and affiliates) and people in the wider Labour movement, who do. They deserve to be heard in this debate. But will the Party be offered real choice? I think not. That would be wrong, both as a matter or principle and in practice. There is also a question of how the Party is going to be funded. We need to persuade those hundreds of thousands of former members who have resigned or lapsed to come back, and those thinking of joining anew to put their money where their mouths are and sign a direct debit to show real commitment.

So, the power brokers, and in this I include the affiliated trades unions and Unite the Union in particular, need to think very carefully about how they exercise their influence between now and the close of nominations.

To be valid Leadership candidate requires the backing of 33 Labour MPs on a nomination paper (NB not 32 as I have peviously blogged and tweeted incorrectly by rounding down instead of up). That part of the process does not have to be a popularity contest among prospective candidates inside the PLP itself. (Though human nature being what it is, the prospects of changing that state of affairs is not great. So I not under any illusions.)

However, in the search for the most diverse and widest possible contest, I will persist, however, foolishly.  Who are the power brokers I am referring to? Well in the first instance, there are the candidates themselves. On the basis of current information, there will be no woman, and/or no Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic candidates. That in itself is a serious indictment of Labour Party political progress in its 100-year plus history. Nor will all the political wings of the Labour Party be represented. What we are facing is the prospect of continuity candidates with different trills of mea cupla.

What can possibly be done? The Miliband brothers have already demonstrated a way forward through brotherly love. We now need more of that in the form of comradely behaviour, ideally before the nomination papers for the positions of Labour Leader and Deputy are issued. All it needs is just one candidate not just to acknowledge the need for both diversity, and political breadth. But do something about it. That would help transform the nature of the contest.

What to do? The next step would be a big ask of their PLP supporters. As soon as a Labour leader candidate gets 33 nominations, every extra MP nomination is a wasted vote. Which of the declared candidate will invite candidates from other political wings of the Labour Party to stand and offer to lend 'wasted' PLP nomination votes to enable such candidates get on the ballot paper?

As matters stand, there is a very serious risk the widest possible debate will be reduced to grades of the proverbial Rizla paper, as illustrated here. So who is up for challenge? Ed, David? Or Ed Balls, or Andy Burnham or Jon Cruddas or whoever else thinks they can make the cut. To be credible it has to come from a candidate able to show 33 nominees now. So who is it?

Labour Party NEC - pre-meeting warm-up: Barking and Dagenham

There were lots of volunteers today in Barking and Dagenham to deliver leaflets for 'Hope not Hate'. Labour Party activists were out in force too, delivering direct mail for Jon Cruddas MP in the Dagenham constituency. I know. I was out with them all day.

Next Tuesday, I hope to be able to persuade my colleagues on the Labour Party National Executive Committee to compare the capacity of the 'Party on the Ground' in Stoke-on-Trent with that of B&D. There is a history of interventions by the Party heirarchy in both locations, protracted in S-o-T. It has got to stop. People don't join the Labour Party to be told what to think by hired hands, whether they are in the employment of the Labour Party itself, or one of its affiliated organisations.

There has to be discipline, yes. But, in any event, that does not extend to threatening disciplinary action against members who mobilised public opinion to oppose policies imposed by former Labour leader Tony Blair. I am assured by colleagues on the Org Sub that there is no-one on that body (that is 'managing' S-o-T) that supports the 'elected mayoral' model for local government. That's very encouraging. So why are Labour Party stalwarts that organised the successful community-based referendum campaign to get rid of the elected mayor in Stoke in 2008 (Democracy4Stoke) being hounded by the Labour Party NEC today in 2010? 

There is a time and a place for everything. It is said. Now is not the time for shooting ourselves in the foot. Listening to BNP newspaper deliverers in Blake Avenue, Barking was a stark reminder of how much prominence Labour must give to home building and job creation in its next Manifesto. As important is the task of rebuilding the Labour Party on the ground. That challenge was not helped last week by a regional Labour Party officer wrongly instructing CLPs not to hold AGMs this side of the election. If there is a suspicion that 'outsiders' are rigging outcomes in the Labour Party, why would anyone want to join, if only to campaign? 

That's the real nature of the challenge facing Labour in the General Election, not David Cameron.