Peter Kenyon

Labour preaches living wage, but remains wanting on public sector pay

Whenever I mouthed off as a child my parents encouraged me, in a kindly manner, to always practice what I preached. Today, I hope every member of Labour's front-bench will do likewise.

Uppermost in the minds of us labelled as the left of British politics is the victory of Syriza in yesterday's Greek general election - a victory for hope. The speed with which it concluded negotiations this morning to form a government - one hour - reinforces that message.

Syriza's leader, Alexis Tsipras, has taken political ambition to new heights, by taking on both the global neo-liberal and the Greek establishment. We all owe him heartfelt thanks. In comparison, the British Labour Party's ambitions are ambiguous to say the least. 

Most recently, its shadow works and pensions secretary, Rachel Reeves, is quoted in today's Guardian newspaper applauding the London Borough of Brent for its innovative plan to cut the business rates bill for accredited Living Wage employers within its boundaries.

Speaking at the launch, she reportedly said:

“I want councils across the country to follow Brent’s lead by cutting business rates for companies who pay their staff a Living Wage. It’s a brilliant idea to tackle low pay which is good for everyone - workers, employers and taxpayers.

“It’s a scandal that one in five people who does the right thing, works hard and contributes,  doesn’t earn enough to pay their bills. Low pay is driving up the benefits bill and leading to more Tory Welfare Waste and is making it harder to get the deficit down, with income tax receipts across the Parliament £70 billion lower than forecast in 2010.

“A Labour government will tackle low pay by raising the Minimum Wage to at least £8 hour before 2020, bringing in Make Work Pay contracts to get more workers paid a Living Wage and banning exploitative zero-hours contracts.”

Not a word about Labour's own pay policy towards the public sector other than a measly commitment to lift the National Minimum Wage (NMW) to £8/hour before 2020. Correction, that is a slight improvement on the original wording which was 'by 2020', revealed in an interview with the Observer published on 20 September 2014. 

The standfirst for that piece proclaimed:

Labour leader says he would raise minimum wage to £8 by 2020 in move that 'reveals core party values'

Those of us with economic degrees know that you don't need one to know that inflation is likely to propel the NMW towards £8/hour by 2020, if not before. That, emphatically in my view, does not reveal core Labour Party values.

Core Labour values demand a more ambitious policy towards pay. The preaching has got to stop, until a coherent pay policy is agreed. Any journalist that misses the opportunity to challenge Labour Party spox about this should go straight back to journalism school.

I set out the case for a more ambitious approach over three months ago here. It is increasingly embarrassing to have Labour Party spox encouraging businesses and local government to adopt living wage policies, but remain silent about public sector pay in central government and other public bodies.

Labour must be honest with the electorate and show that the cost-of-living crisis is going to be tackled head on in, as Labour Leader Ed Miliband said in his New Year message, a 'Recovery for All'. That could be the start of offering real hope to UK voters.

 

 

 

Despair: back of the class for Balls

Happy New Year, comrades.Tory-lite thinking is alive and well in Ed Miliband's shadow cabinet. It is too late for me to revise my ranking of our PM wannabe in Labour List's end of year survey. He would have got a Poor rating instead of Excellent for associating himself and my party with Ed Balls thought disordered contribution to the debate on welfare reform published on the PoliticsHome website here in the early hours of this monring.

Just consider the headline: Britain needs welfare reform that is tough, fair and that works. To what level of prejudice and ignorance does the Labour Party have to stoop to secure an overall majority at the next election?

Wouldn't a headline such as : 'Britain needs real welfare reform that is universal, consensual and compassionate' have struck a more appropriate note?

Balls fails to address the underlying causes of either long-term unemployment or benefit dependency in his capacity as shadow chancellor of the exchequer (SCHX to the political cogniscenti). He should have spent a bit of time over the Christmas holiday rereading Harold Wilson's 1963 conference speech in which he said:

"the Britain that is going to be forged in the white heat of this [technological] revolution will be no place for restrictive practices or for outdated measures on either side of industry"

The technological revolution continues apace and Balls wants to offer more call-centre/shelf-packing jobs to those plagued by long-term unemployment, with no guarantee of a living wage, or a career. He fails to address the continued dependence of business on state-subsidies. Worse there is a presumption that:

Of course we need spending cuts and tax rises to get the deficit down, but with the flatlining economy sending borrowing up by 10 per cent so far this financial year it’s clearer than ever that you cannot get the deficit down without a plan for jobs and growth which works.

We only need spending cuts, because the economy has been flatlining under the ConDem coalition, and successive governments, including new Labour, failed to address, not just, unfairness in the tax system, but a breakdown in the tax collection system to the benefit of the rich.

Balls then posits three tests for welfare reform:

First, it must pay more to be in work than live on benefits, both for the individual and the Exchequer.

Second we must get tough on the scourge of long-term unemployment by matching rights with responsibilities.

Our third and final test is this: any welfare reforms must be fair to those who are in work or genuinely want to work.

All of this is predicated on a mythical mass of scroungers. Balls fails to tackle what most reasonable people recognised a long-time ago. Britain needs a universal child care system free at the point of delivery - both to encourage a work-ethic in the young, and enable everyone who wants and is able to work to do so without crippling child-care fees.

As for the Tory dog-whistle about rights and responsibilities, isn't it the responsibility of the state to ensure, for example, the economy is delivering full and long-term employment? What's Balls got to say about that - a job guarantee to stack shelves... A guarantee that cannot by definition be delivered by government in a mixed economy. Worse, he promises that tackling long-term unemployment will be a top priority. Well, I suppose that's understandable if it were in the context of restarting the economy, universal childcare, living wage, fair taxes. I could go on.

I have lost count of the number of schemes dreamed up in Whitehall to tackle long-term unemployment which in too many instances have proved to be revolving-door capsules for those affected.

Then Balls adds insult to injury by rounding on 'the minority who try to cheat the system'. Was that addressed to the financial services sector, or the dining clubs of Westminister and Pall Mall? No, of course not. They were and remain the untouchables.

Back of the class for Balls.

Does the ASA's remit extend to the Labour Party +1 scheme?

Tomorrow, time permitting between a whistle stop trip to Birmingham and a double Prom, I'll be asking the Advertising Standards Authority whether its remit extends to political parties and their recruitment literature.

Unelected Labour Party deputy chair Tom Watson asked earlier on hisTwitter feed whether I would be his Labour Party +1 (hint, hint - if every Labour Party member recruited a member membership would be doubled). It's a long while since the Labour Party sought to recruit members, except while electing a new leader.

What worries people like me is the bare-faced lie about membership here:

As a Labour member you'll be able to have a clear say in our future policies and direction, as well as being able to stand for elected office in your area.

Excuse me. Which/what cosmic power filled the black hole that is Labour Party policy making?

Is Ed cosying up to Tony to pop the question? Payback time

Today, Labour's National Executive Committee is doing what has become an all too familiar routine two month's before the Labour Party's Annual Conference - nodding through the arrangements to fleece members and deny them a voice. Or may be not. We'll find out soon enough. 

Meanwhile, I have been trying to make sense of last week's headlines following a fundraiser at the Emirates organised by former No 10 director of communications, Alistair Campbell and featuring a reported return to active Labour Party service of his former boss, Tony Blair.

Inevitably this set the wires humming and the tent flapping. Is the Labour Party really going to benefit by a public display of gritted teeth? The official line is that the former prime minister is to advise on the post-Olympics legacy. I can't help wondering if the continued fragility of the Party's finances isn't the real driver. Labour's 2011 accounts are due to published shortly via the Electoral Commission website. There was still a substantial seven figure sum of unsecured debt to be repaid according to the 2010 accounts. All of it was incurred on Blair's watch to finance the 2005 General Election campaign. Even I who regularly remind my avid readers that Blair nearly bankrupted his party, financially and politically, would be more forgiving, if Ed's cosying led to payback time.

£10 million, Mr Blair, that would do nicely.

Labour Party ruling NEC meets Tuesday - another Conference stitch-up?

Labour's ruling [sic] national executive committee (NEC) meets on Tuesday. With luck its members will have received papers in advance. At this point in its annual meeting cycle there should be a report on Conference 2012 arrangements and recommendations on possible changes to the Stitch-up Handbook aka as the Labour Party Rule Book.

You can't search the main Labour Party website. But I Googled:

labour party 2012 Annual Conference Rule change proposals

Some helpful hits appeared including one to the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy's Grassroots Labour site via The Socialist Campaign to Stop the Tories and the Fascists, which posted a pre-Conference 2011 report by Jon Lansman on the fate of constituency rule changes proposed the previous year.

Apologies for the long-winded account of the obstacles faced by mere members following procedure as set out in the Stitch-Up handbook. Lansman reported on 6 September 2011 rpt 2011:

So far, Refounding Labour has meant proposing to dilute the influence of party members by enfranchising non-members who become “registered supporters”, attacking union influence, seeking to prevent proper debate and decision-making by having just one vote on a single package of reforms, and failing to publish submissions to the review. Now party officials have found a new scam to prevent constituency parties having an input to the party structure — ruling out of order several rule changes proposed by constituency parties themselves, without any discussion by the Conference Arrangements Committee and just days before they met.

So the question for the Labour Party leadership, and members' elected representatives - whether from the trades unions or constituency sections - is it going to be stitch-up as usual or a fresh open and transparent approach?

Immediate publication of proposed NEC recommendations to Rule Changes to enable members to see what is going on would be a first step in the right direction.

Aung San Suu Kyi opening Labour HQ doesn't mask party's democratic failings

News this morning that Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi has opened the new Labour Party HQ in Brewer's Green left me gasping. Has she any inking of the anti-democratic practices operated by the nomenklatura of this great movement of ours?

Only last week, the results of internal elections were published without any details of the numbers of ballot papers issued, returned, valid, or spoiled.

Need I say more?

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.

 

Still no turnout figures a day after Labour Party declares NEC/NPF results

Why has the Labour Party failed (at the time of writing) to publish turnout figures for its 2012 internal elections? I hope there is an innocent explanation, like an administrative oversight or something similar.

Or is it that the Labour Party high command knows that they will be used as a proxy for current fully paid up membership? After all there have been some rather extravagant claims made by the nomenklatura about the net increase in membership since the 2010 General Election. My last posting on this subject was nine months ago here.

I yearn for a mass membership Labour Party. I don't think that cause is helped by a dogged determination on the part of the Leadership to be less than forthright about what current membership is, and what the latest trends are together with a clear analysis of what is shaping current recruitment methods.

Instead the Leadership needs to be up front and encouraging paid membership, and dropping the ludicrous Labour Supporters scheme, in its present form, which leaves too many people wondering what is the point of being a member in the first place.

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.

Labour, Ken Livingstone and elected mayors: abolish....

For the avoidance of confusion, It's elected mayors, I'm after. Ken, or his proxies, at Labour Party Head Office, have just sent an eMail to CLP secretaries extending thanks to all involved in the campaign just ended. There are lessons to be learned. 

Why is Labour tolerating elected mayors in the first place?

Why is it allowing elected Labour representatives in public governmental office more than two terms?

I replied to Ken:

I can only speak in a personal capacity:

Labour should legislate to end all Mayoral positions

You sd hv called it a day after two terms.

The greatest service you can do your party is promote democratic socialism for the 21st century.

First test: speak out for open, transparent policy making and against the Peter (Black Hole) Hain method of consultation. 

Yours in hope of 'sinners' repenting.