Peter Kenyon

Democratic Audit 2012 - write off political parties? What a cheek!

Eye-catching headlines are stock in trade for any media. Yesterday, my attention was grabbed by British democracy in terminal decline, warns report in The Guardian newspaper. So I have read it. Not just the Guardian account, but the report itself from the Democratic Audit - How Democratic is the UK? The 2012 Audit . Not every word (yet) I confess. The expression 'terminal decline' only appears once, in the Executive Summary, and not at all in the main body of the report. But let's not quibble, it got people reading. To get through 463 pages asap, my technique was to use 'Find' on the keywords 'parties' and then in the key section for me: 2.2 Democratic role of political parties, where I switched to the keyword 'members'. Very revealing it proved too.

I immediately spotted a factual error about Labour Party membership trends in the mid-1990s. Part of the NuLab myth is that a recovery in Labour Party membership was brief and wholly attributable to newly elected Leader Tony Blair. The authors of the Democratic Audit (DA) repeated it, even though Figure 2.2f in its report shows Labour Party membership increasing from 1992 onwards until 1997, ie pre-Blair. (That prompted a brief exchange with DA on Twitter, in which my observations were acknowledged. My hope is this will lead to a constructive dialogue about broadening and deepening democratic audit work inside our mainstream political parties.)

That should not detract from a critique of the report, which could be read as writing off political parties. I had a similar problem with the Power Report (2007). Without that detailed democratic audit work of the political parties themselves, it is relatively easy to misunderstand membership trends in Britain and elsewhere among western democracies.

There is no mention in the DA Report of the LabOUR Commission Interim Report (2007), or the issues it raised about party democracy inside the Labour Party based on evidence. Nor was there any reference to the Electoral Commission report on the funding of political parties (2004).

Instead, we have, what have become for the dwindling band of party democrats like myself, a series of familiar assertions. I will cite a few examples - in Sn 2 Representative and accountable government, paragraph 6. is headed:

Continued dysfunctionality of the 'first past the post’ electoral system for the House of Commons.

To which the obvious question is what 'dysfunctionality'? Did the electorate, to a woman and man, boycott the polls? Did they all put numbers in orders of preference against candidates standing for election, instead of 'X'? No, of course not - this is elite-speak for 'proportional representation' being a better voting system in a democracy than 'first-past-the-post'.

In Sn 2.1.3 Candidates & parties: registration and media access

it is important to note a number of long-term trends in party campaigning and political communications which have important implications for measures intended to promote fair access for candidates and parties to media and communications.

Well that may have been the case until former Labour Leader, Tony Blair, nearly bankrupted the Labour Party after the 2005 General Election. but since? A rather different set of considerations have been in play that have reshaped campaigning and political communication due to a shortage of money.

Then in Sn 2.2 Democratic role of political parties, DA recall:

In our 2002 Audit we suggested that 'British political parties are not likely to increase in size ever again’ (Beetham et al., 2002, p. 114). The evidence we have compiled for this Audit reaffirms our past assessment that declining party membership may prove irreversible, not least because the problem may be greater than we were previously aware. As Childs (2006, p. 69) notes, 'the era of mass parties is clearly over’. It is not just party membership which is in decline, but also party activism (Driver, 2011)

Well, is that really surprising in the absence of no political party leader actively championing political party membership since before the 1997 General Election, stripping out members' rights to have a say either in policy-making or increasingly in candidate selection? 

Then the the final insult for us democratic socialists, in Sn 2.2.4 Funding of political parties which concludes:

Some means of channelling state funding so that it bolsters the efforts of parties to recruit more members and engage more widely with the electorate is therefore essential (Wilks-Heeg and Crone, 2010a).

Why? Why should taxpayers money, which would be better used (IMHO) relieving poverty and encouraging growth and jobs be used to subsidise political parties recruit, when members don't have a say, all for the benefit of well-paid careerists who have not only voted themselves gilt-edged pensions, but had their hands in the till and still can't be trusted? End of rant.

In the absence of serious and regular audit of the workings of our political parties, no-one can be certain that our democracy is in terminal decline, the era of mass membership political parties is over, or that channelling state funding to political parties is essential. That includes the DA.

As for the future, there is an interesting clue in the Introduction to Sn 1.2 The rule of law and access to justice, the DA asserts:

The rule of law is widely accepted as essential to the functioning of democracy.

Indeed. And which institutions' internal affairs are not directly regulated by the rule of law? Political parties. This is not a path which I personal wish to advocate. But unless our political parties submit to open and transparent democratic audit, then maybe that is the only remedy left to regulate them in the interests of democracy.

In the meantime, I would hope more curiosity can be aroused in the academic community than has been evidenced in DA report 2012 about how our political parties have been hollowed out, and how they might be revived. Why bother? Well, I can't think of any other institution in our society able to form governments.

 

Angela Eagle sets out her stall

Congratulations to Angela Eagle on having her name put forward by Labour Leader Ed Miliband to replace Peter Hain as chair of the National Policy Forum.

I worked with her on the LabOUR Commission in 2006/07. This is her Foreword to the Commission's Interim Report - Renewal a two-way process for the 21st century, published in 2007:

Foreword – Angela Eagle MP

Labour has to renew its financial, organisational and political vigour to secure a fourth term in Government . The loss of four million votes and half of our membership since 1997 sounds the warning bells clearly enough. Political culture is changing and we must respond. The era of Labour as an over centralised ‘command party’ - see Figure 1 opposite - which replaced the chaos of the 1980s with a winning formula, has now become counter-productive. It has bred cynicism and stifled activism. The urgent question now is: What should replace it? The forthcoming Leader/Deputy Leader elections will help to define this new era for our Party. The LabOUR Commission’s Interim recommendations presented here are based onthe findings of the first representative study of Labour Party members’ views since Labour’s landslide victory in 1997. Both lapsed and current members were contacted. A crucial lesson from our research is that Labour in Government has not trusted Party members enough. Our research findings show that the Labour Party has changed. Labour Party members are pragmatic and they want Labour to be in Government. They understand how important it is to win. In return, they expect to be trusted to help shape policies to win support from the communities Labour seeks to serve.This Interim Report suggests a model of Party organisation which will serve Labour well in the future. As a Party seeking to empower all sections of our society, we know we cannot rely on the kind of mercenary multi-millionaire donors now currently filling Tory party coffers. Labour will always need its activists who go door knocking whatever the weather. Members, both individuals and those from our affiliated organisations, are Labour's most precious resource. Our interim recommendations should be seen against the background of rising and wasteful election spending on billboard advertising, and remote professional canvassing. That is why all year round election spending limits are essential. This would create a level playing field between the main political parties for the first time in British political history.As a member of the Labour Party’s National Executive Committee, I know we have it within our power to reinvigorate Labour and remake our Party structures with members at the centre and accountability re-established. People join the Labour Party to change the world and make our society a better place for us all to live in. I hope our Interim Report will provide fresh hope to Labour Party members throughout Britain. Our recommendations show how renewal is possible, and that under new leadership it must be achieved by a genuine dialogue.

May 2007

The full report is available here.

"Mess left by Labour" - no, not the economy - the party

Even some right-wing commentators think Labour's leader, Ed Miliband, has had a good week, thanks mainly to Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite the Union. I disagree. But it would be easy to get distracted by events. After the supposed repositioning of the Labour Party's economic policy, I blogged last week about the "Mess left by Labour" - Voters need to know ConDem mess is worse, and worsening , with a promise ..to be continued.

While most commentators are focused on the Westminster village, media positioning, individual performances as measured by opinion polls, I'm more interested in the structures and processes that shape modern politics.

Having listened to, and read endless speeches and interviews, I'm fed up of my party being blamed for a mess that never was. But after nearly nine years of looking closely at the Labour Party itself, I'm convinced the real mess plaguing Labour's electability is the party itself. Ed Miliband had an opportunity when elected to start to clear up that mess. Instead, he has been making it worse. 

There is only one piece of serious empirical research about party membership in the last 10 years that I know about. It was conducted by the LabOUR Commission and still available from the Labour Democratic Network website here . The main conclusion was that both current and lapsed members expected a say in Labour Party policy-making. That was back in 2006, and I doubt the expectation is much different today. For the avoidance of doubt, that's a say, not the right to dictate to or tie the hands of the Leadership. Instead, Labour Party members remain effectively gagged as I set out earlier this month here. Their directly elected representatives on the National Policy Forum  for 2010/2012 have not had the courtesy of a single NPF meeting to deliberate policy. Worse, there are sitting members of the National Executive Committee and hopeful candidates bombarding members with election materials, without so much as an apology for having failed to secure a date for an NPF meeting before the ballot papers are issued for the 2012/14 NPF term of office which starts later this year. 

This reflects misplaced loyalty to party colleagues. We are members of a democratic socialist party, not a glee club. Think on it. (to be continued.)

 

Killer questions for Peter Hain and why Refounding Labour should be remitted

Ed Miliband's election as Labour Party leader a year ago was hailed by Neil Kinnock with the words, "We've got our Party back". Well how wrong can you be? Party head office (HO) took nearly six months to set out its thinking about the future of the Party. My own advice to Peter Hain MP , the apponted elected chair of the National Policy Forum was to look at the recommendations of the LabOUR Commission set out in an interim report in 2007, and the request to HO to access internal data to look more closely at the state of the Party on the Ground. He ignored the work of the 16 Labour Party members involved, and the evidence based approach adopted.

Two particular questions would have been posed in an audit of membership and organisational data:

1. How many electoral wards in the UK are there no Labour Party members

2. How many electoral wards in the UK has the Labour Party got an established branch that matches those boundaries?

At the time I don't think that anyone could have answered the first question, though I'm happy to be corrected. But I do know that today a report can be generated from Member Centre by any e-literate CLP officer to show in which electoral wards the Labour Party has members and how many.

Labour's electoral success increasingly depends on being able to optimise the vote whereever it is - in parliamentary, devolved assembly, or regional government elections with a PR component. That ought to have underpinned Refounding Labour with data provided by HO to help provide essential reality checks to that debate.

Instead both our new Leader, Ed Miliband and his chosen henchman,Peter Hain who replaced Pat McFadden MP as NPF chair, have allowed themselves to be sidetracked by vested interests. Not I hasten to add in the trade union movement, but in the Parliamentary Labour Party, and the Association of Labour Councillors aided by the siren call of community organisers such as the recently ennobled Maurice Glasman, and the Movement for Change, together with comforting reassurance from Labour First's John Spellar and its secretary and NEC constituency representative, Luke Akehurst.

To the extent that there is anything worth salvaging from the proposals as set out are the sections on Party Finances, and the easing of the HO stranglehold over Young Labour. At least there is a recognition of something completely rotten in the way in which HO has dealt with both membership subscriptions and YL for a long time.

But there is no strategy for rebuilding the party using the resources it has from the electoral ward up. That is/ought to be the basic building block for party organisation and financial strategy. If Party officials haven't got their brains round that in the light of the proposed reduction in parliamentary seat and reviews every parliament, then they should and very quickly. Far too much stress has been placed on CLPs many of which are likely to be wiped out before the next General Election. Too little attention has been paid to organisational/accountability issues for local government.  Refounding Labour has simply caved in to representations from leading sitting councillors to abolish Local Government Committees.

For any inquisitive journalist wanting to dig a little deeper into the harsh realities of this bungled consultation, there are delicate questions about who controls the levies currently paid, for example, by Labour local councillors - the incumbents ie sitting councillors, the LGC or local parties? No prizes for guessing.

The national Labour Party as proposed under Refounding Labour will be a stronger agent for the Leader, incumbent elected representatives and those who aspire to follow in their footsteps. I have come to the view that they are getting the services of volunteer members on the cheap. Members are in effect being asked to help the careers of their elected representative without even getting an on going say in the policies of the party, nationally, regionally or in many cases locally. The proposed levies on the elected representatives need, arguably, to be far higher given the model of party organisation proposed.

Peter Hain in his covering letter sent to all e-literate members yesterday said:

We want to open up our process of making policy, both to give party members greater say and to enable supporters and voters to feed in their ideas, so that the party leadership keeps in much closer touch with public opinion.

Well, I'm sorry, Peter, you had your chance with the Refounding Labour consultation and you failed. Why should we believe you? Inquisitive journalists might want to ask him whether any open and transparent consultation systems were proposed at the outset, and why they were refused, not just once but repeatedly through from October 2010 until the present. We even have the unedifying spectacle of Ed Miliband promising on Twitter on 16 July 2011 that Refounding Labour submissions where possible should be published. We are still waiting with less than 72 hours to go before the proposed soviet-style vote on the Refounding Labour package

Scandalous.

At this very late stage in the process, there are few options open to those with doubts. The Campaign for Labour Party Democracy is circulating an Emergency Resolution calling for the vote to be deferred to end of Conference. My own view is that a Resolution from Bridgend calling for a Special Conference made more sense. Though in the absence of publication of submissions (still), my own branch (City of London) took the view next Spring would be better to allow adequate time for reflection.

Of course, no reasonable loyal member of the Labour Party want to see its Leader publicly humiliated at Conference. Equally, no reasonable loyal member of the Labour Party wants to sacrifice the Party again to save a Leader's face. If we have not learned that from the Blair/Brown era, I fear we are doomed to be out of office for a while longer.

So who's the Party's 'national treasure' who will step up to the rostrum in Liverpool on Sunday afternoon to move remittence of the proposals? If Ed wants to regain the initiative, he could do it himself or be a ready seconder.

 

 

 

If....Labour's new Leader wants members to have a proper voice

Ed Miliband stated his ambition to give members a 'proper voice' last month at the Labour Party's Annual Conference. If I were asked where to start, what would I advise? 'Sacking' Pat McFadden MP as the chair of the National Policy Forum is not where I would have started. Don't get me wrong, I am not shedding any tears for Pat himself. But the Party's whole policy-making process is so seriously flawed that there are some members would like to scrap it and return to formulating resolutions. That would be a mistake IMHO.

Some serious thought was given to the process by the unofficial LabOUR Commission in the wake of the 2005 General Election. Primary research was undertaken resulting in two LabOUR/YouGov polls in 2006 - the findings can still be downloaded from here . An Interim Report was published after the 2007 local elections and can be downloaded here.

The specific recommendations on policy making were:

6.16. Proposed reforms:
a) The NPF should be reconstituted as an openly elected body on a one member one vote (OMOV) principle from relevant constituent parts. Constituency section members should be elected by OMOV,
probably on a regional basis.
b) The Party should aim to make sure that the final policy document is fully reflected in the Labour Party manifesto in according with the Rules and Constitution.
c) Democratic participatory policy formulation will require a new Secretariat at arm's length from the Party in Government with a transparency protocol for the NPF and NEC.
d) The chair of each policy commission should be an NPF member elected by the NPF.
e) The JPC should be reconstituted as an elected organisational body to ensure effective coordination of policy making in a timely fashion. It should not have powers to alter NPF policy recommendations. Its members should be elected from within the NPF by the NPF.
f) The JPC should establish a clear timetable for the rolling programme set for each parliamentary cycle. This should be communicated to all CLPs, Branches, Labour Groups and posted on the web.
g) Consultative reports should be despatched to all Party units with an invitation to respond and a (suggested) template for responses allowing time for proper consideration of the proposals.
h) All Branches – either individually, grouped or through a CLP all members’ forum as considered appropriate locally – should be encouraged to have a special meeting to consider policy documents. There should also be a one page summary and briefing sheet for Branch Chairs/Political Education Officers (PEOs).
i) The contact details of all NPF members should be available so they can be invited to speak at the local policy forums.
j) Publication of all submissions on the Party website so other parties, members and affiliates can access submissions and cross fertilise ideas.
k) All parties sending submissions should receive an (electronic) acknowledgement and link to where it is posted within a month. After the closing date, an independent analysis of all submissions
should be posted on the website and, together with the response and actions of both the Policy Commission and NPF, circulated to parties submitting. Thus there is a clear audit trail.
l) When a PiP dialogue focuses on contemporary issues (e.g. the decision to invade Iraq), CLPs should continue to make formal submissions and send resolutions as they feel fit, but these should
be acknowledged, published and – on key issues – analysed. Branches should be encouraged to conduct the dialogue through their CLP in a collective democratic endeavour, which incidentally
would make the process more manageable.
m) Individual members and Branches who make submissions on policy issues electronically or in writing should always be acknowledged and provided with a response where possible. They should also be advised that if they are dissatisfied with the response that they can ask their Constituency Party to make a formal submission.
n) In the event of policy differences at the NPF, minority reports should be drawn up for debate at Annual Conference and/or CLPs and affiliated bodies should have the right of amendment to NPF
documents by resolution to Conference.
o) In the event of policy differences between the Party in Government and Conference, a new mechanism is required to enable the NEC to appoint a special working party comprising  representatives of government, and the NPF to secure resolution within a limited time period after Annual Conference.

As of today, over three and a half years later, the NEC has yet to agree procedures for nomination and election to any Joint Policy Committee, National Policy Forum or Policy Commission positions. Nor has it embraced readily available web-based techniques to provide an audit trail for submissions. An example of how transparency might be achieved can be seen here.

Peter Hain, MP who is Ed Miliband's nominee to replace Pat McFaddan as chair of the National Policy Forum and possible joint convenor of the Joint Policy Committee will, if elected, face an uphill struggle to restore members' confidence in the party's policy-making process.

If I were him, I would be making sure that that the new Leader was seized of the need to put a plausible nomination and election procedure in place well before the NPF meets on 27 November. That is easier said than done as there is no National Executive Committee meeting until the following Tuesday, 30 November. Sorting this pdq would send a clear message to the party that policy making will be overseen by Labour people with democratic legitamacy, willing to be held to account.