Peter Kenyon

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?

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'. 

 

Beware of former General Secretaries bearing advice

Former General Secretary, Peter Watt has offered his reflections on the tug of war between the Leader of the Labour Party's office, Head Office Staff and the new General Secretary on Labour Uncut.

Ever anxious to safeguard his reputation, Peter makes claims about his role introducing the concept of governance to the National Executive Committee, and by implication the Leader's Office.

I have penned a comment, which at the time of writing is still await approval by Labour Uncut's moderator.

So here it is:

Dear Peter

Before your claims of introducing governance to the Labour Party's NEC  become enshrined in urban myth, I suggest you read a copy of the Development Trust Association (now Locality)'s Early Warning Guide. 

I declare an interest as a member of the working group that compiled the key performance indicators for executives and non-executives.

I also declare an interest as a former member of the NEC whose first requests having been elected were a) to attend the Warwick 2 National Policy Forum as an observer - refused by the then acting General Secretary Chris Lennie, and b) copies of the 2008 budget, management accounts and staff/organisation organigram(s) - refused by the then Director of Finance and Compliance, Roy (now Lord) Kennedy married to former deputy General Secretary, Alicia Kennedy.

Good governance comes from each member understanding their roles, and responsibilities. Is there any evidence that anyone either in the Leader's Office or the National Executive Committee has a grasp of the most basic principles of governance - good or bad?

I'd be happy to be enlightened.

Yours with happy memories of being told by you some years ago that I was part of the problem

Peter Kenyon

In a word - beware.

OccupyLSX stirs Labour Party City abolitionists

Labour Party policy towards to the City of London as a local government unit pre-1997 was simple and straightforward - abolition. At least that is how some of those who were prominent on the left at the time remember matters. Under former leader Tony Blair that policy was abandoned in favour of an renewed licence for the City continuing to run its local affairs as set out in the City of London (Ward Elections) Act 2002.

I should declare an interest, I have lived in the City of London since 2004 and am secretary of the local Labour Party branch. Rather than taking our lead from Labour in government, branch members took a tactical decision to fight the 2009 Common Council (local government) election as Labour candidates. Our manifesto recognised the role of City luminaries who are either elected as Aldermen or Common councillors in sustaining neo-liberalism, banking excesses and corporate greed. We sought to make an impact by exposing the City of London Corporation's  failure to pay a London living wage to hundreds of its own contract staff i.e. people whose employment contracts were administered by the City rather than third-parties.

Today I was asked in the Twittersphere to conjure figures about the number of business voters are enfranchised to take part in Common Council and Aldermanic elections, while Labour Representation Committee chair, John McDonnell MP reminded his followers of Labour's policy pre-Blair. It has taken #OccupyLSX to stir the abolitionist into remembering.

It would be easy to jump on the bandwagon. But rather than abolish the City of London Corporation as a local government unit, my personal view is that this democratically elected entity is a vital tool for the global demos seeking a new settlement between the 99% and the remainder. A theme for many more posts. But first of all, I have been charged by my branch with designing and conducting a City of London Labour Party membership survey about whether we should run a slate in 2013, and if so whether the Labour Party hierarchy will let us, as they did in 2009.

Labour's unbeatable offer to members - submit a motion

As a constituency labour party (CLP) secretary, I have recently received an invitation from Head Office on behalf of the CLP to submit a contemporary motion for consideration at Annual Conference 2011. 

On first sight this is an excellent and timely reminder of a welcome opportunity. Members getting to have a say. But as the worldly wise know, read the small print. So here's the section of the HO memo relating to how the Conference Arrangements Committee (CAC) will decide what is valid and what is not.

 2. CAC's criteria for deciding if a motion is contemporary

In deciding if a contemporary motion is valid (contemporary) the CAC will consider the following points:

• Is the issue already addressed in the Conference agenda?
• Has the issue been dealt with by the NPF and Policy Commissions in their reports to Conference?
• Could the issue have been sent to the NPF, Policy Commissions or the NEC before they published their work?

A motion will be deemed to be contemporary if:

a) It is 250 words or less and deals with one subject.

b) It deals with a topic which arose after the publication of the reports of the National Policy Forum (NPF), Policy Commissions or National Executive Committee on 31 July or has not been substantively addressed in those reports. Copies of the reports will be sent to delegates in early September. In the meantime a list of the subjects dealt with by the policy commissions in 2011 is enclosed together with a summary of the contents of the NEC Report to 2011 Conference.

c) The issue could not otherwise have been raised through the Partnership in Power process.

d) It does not seek to bypass either the National Policy Forum policy-making or National Executive Committee decision-making processes or to overturn or revisit the Party Policy Programme as agreed through the Partnership in Power process, including issues defeated at the NPF which failed to achieve the status of an alternative position at the NPF.

The annual reports of the National Executive Committee, the National Policy Forum and the Policy Forums will be sent to delegates in early September. In the meantime please find attached lists of the topics to be covered on the Conference Agenda and in the various reports.

 

All clear? Now, I thought the NPF failed to agree anything at its meeting in Wrexham on 25 June 2011, as a report on policy was tabled too late to be given proper consideration. So does this mean anything goes? I think we should be told.

In any event, I am a bit puzzled by HO's timetable. They are proposing to send the appropriate reports to delegates, not CLP secretaries. So what I am meant to tell our members ahead of their branch meetings in the first week of September?. For the eagle eyed and logistically minded, that means my missive has to be despatched to branch secretaries before the August Bank holiday.

Ooh, I am going to have fun explaining this in plain language in my next Secretary's letter to branches, and retaining the will to live. 

Refounding Labour: Defer 12 mths or call special conference?

The odds on a Refounding Labour quick fix to change the Labour Party's rules at its 2011 Conference are lengthening rapidly. A ham-fisted attempt by the Lib-Dem media mouthpiece, the Guardian on Tuesday to lock Labour Leader Ed Miliband on a collision course with the affiliated trade unions, aided and abetted by unnamed sources is doomed to failure. The fingerprints of antediluvian-Blairite apparatchiks were all over the front page splash by political editor Patrick Wintour, and a pompous editorial, headed 'Brotherly love'. 

Time to move on. Refounding Labour as a consultation with members has been bungled from start to date by Labour Party staff, not helped by the absence of weak direction from Ed Miliband's personal appointee, whoops, nominee for the post of National Policy Forum chair and i/c Refounding Labour. It is alleged that Peter Hain has had a' Wizard of Oz' moment, found courage, and is now seeking publication of the submissions. 

Even if he succeeds tomorrow, we are now less than eight weeks away from the start of Conference in Liverpool. Given the brouhaha, serious consideration will undoubtedly being given to simply deferring any decisions arising from Refounding Labour consultation a year until Conference 2012. Most local Labour Parties will not be meeting again until early/mid September. Scope for formulating compromise positions has all but gone.

There is an alternative approach. No doubt Ed Miliband himself and his advisors will be keen to show firm leadership. But of what sort? Authority that is going to help reposition Labour as a national electoral force is needed. At the same time Ed needs the Party behind him in support, not wielding daggers. One strand of opinion evident in informal discussion concerns London-domination of the Labour Party. This reflects the absence of representation on the Party's National Executive Committee from the devolved nations, or any English regions, north of London and the South-East. But it also reflects frustration with London-centric policy making, and rigged candidate selections. 

Immediate publication of all submissions both to the Refounding Labour consultations, and those to the multitude of policy reviews undertaken under another Ed appointee, Liam Byrne, would abruptly end the farce of current Labour Party policy making and belatedly herald an era of openness and transparency. That has to be done within days for maximum effect. Prospects of members actually being heard will take time to filter through into new membership interest, and greater activism. But that would set the scene for more open debate in Liverpool about the issues that matter to voters.

In parallel, consideration is needed of how the Party is structured and governed. My immediate reaction to the 'appointment' of former ITV chief Charles Allen to review management structures and commercial activity was somewhat jaundiced: what does he know about branches and constituencies? However, a professional business-like review as set out is to be welcomed. Outstanding is how do members fit in? If reform of the party's national executive committee to create parity between affiliate and CLP representatives is seen as part of the answer, then the Party's rules will need to be changed before the end of 2011. NEC elections are on a bi-annual cycle and the next ones are due in 2012, the call for nominations will start in December. Delay consideration of Refounding Labour a year and that means the new rules would not apply until 2014. 

That is why a special conference in late 2011 focussed on Refounding Labour might be the way forward. Two weeks ago I deluded myself into thinking that there would be time for due consideration if draft proposals were circulated to members at the same time as to the National Executive Committee's Organisation Sub-Committee due to meet on 6 September. I drafted an emergency resolution to that effect. Today I learned the risk of a fix had been picked up by Bridgend CLP general committee (GC). After due deliberation, it decided on a different course of action; namely, a special conference in November. The full details are available on the Labour Democratic Network website. In Bridgend CLP GC's view, and in this regard I am speculating, there is simply not enough time between now and Conference 2011 to enable ordinary mortals time for proper consideration of the outcomes of Refounding Labour.

Hopefully, this idea will not escape the attention of the Member of Parliament for the neighbouring constituency of Neath, Peter Hain MP.

 

 

Ed and the mystery of unpublished Refounding Labour submissions

Come on. It's the silly season. How many Labour Party members does it take to publish what they think? More than are currently paid up. On present showing, Labour can't afford openness and transparency, it's still paying off its debts.

Oh, how Ed must yearn for the days of "Tony wants", and "Gordon says". Remember the election that never was in 2007, when reportedly some £1.5 million was spent in preparation for the mockery that was to befall the party? In the 10 months that have elapsed since Ed Miliband was elected leader of the Labour Party, he has faced some formidable internal obstacles to delivering the change he wants.

None is more poignant than the fate of Labour Party members' submissions to the two reviews he ordered into the Party and how it functions and the policies that help ensure defeat in the 2010 general election. They remain secret. For Labour HO eyes only. 

Quite how that squares with those stirring Leader commitments sent soaring on the wings of victory into the vastness of the Manchester Conference Centre last Autumn is the stuff of a Monty Python revival. It's four years since I personally introduced the concept of open and transparent consultations to the Labour Party machine. Yes, Peter, the serpent tongue hissed: Best kept for the NEC only. True to form not even the NEC was given a look in, neither then nor now, with the exception of one or two individuals.

So here we are in the year of the rabbit. Whoever is staring into the headlights deserves what might befall them. I want to know why when the Leader of my political party, to which I pay my dues, says that submissions to the Refounding Labour consultation should be published, and yet I am still waiting.

One excuse cited by one of the constituency labour party (CLP) representatives on the party's national executive committee (NEC) Luke Akehurst is that some submissions are marked confidential not for publication. Well frankly, anyone in a democratic socialist party who is not prepared to defend their submissions in public deserves to have their contribution binned. Though on second thoughts maybe there is the 'whistleblower' type submission that would be best kept offline and used for performance management purposes, rather than an excuse for holding up publication of the rest.

Then there is the question about everyone else who gritted their teeth, ignored previous experience of submissions disappearing into a black hole and took the trouble to set out a few home truths. Were they asked explicitly for permission to publish, remain anonymous, or off the record and not for publication? Someone in Labour Party HO must know why provision was not built in for such considerations in the first place. Was it an administrative oversight? Was it deliberate? At this juncture, I couldn't give a monkey's. I just want to see my personal submissions, my CLP's and everyone else's in the public domain. As a democratic socialist, I can't imagine consultations being any other way.

So, Ed. Remember your last #AskEd twitter session? Your pledge made on Thursday 14 July 2011 was recorded for posterity here . Is there a project plan? I'm happy to volunteer to telephone round the few who don't like to share their email addresses with HO. But that's another story. I'm sure there are enough like me who are happy to crank out up to 50 calls an hour to ask permission. If cost is a worry, I'll be rash and volunteer to raise the necessary funds to cover the costs of scanning hardcopy submissions. For the avoidance of doubt, I'll underwrite the scanning costs now, so that your ambitions can be fulfilled.

Just publish and be praised. All that is at stake is your reputation for keeping your word.

 

Your call, Ed. You want to show who's boss? Sack Byrne and Hain

Immediately on becoming leader of the Labour Party Ed Miliband — in his acceptance speech — laid down the values and the principles that he felt must underpin Labour’s programme in rebuilding after one of the most party’s most serious election defeats. The speech acknowledged the need to take stock of policy and to deal with our failings in office as well as simply trumpeting our achievements. But the speech also began to set out the new Leader’s vision for a re-vitalised Labour Party one that was firmly rooted in community and based around an active membership.

Ed Miliband quickly instituted two reviews, the first on policy led by Liam Byrne MP, and the second on organisation — Refounding Labour  — led by Peter Hain, MP. In establishing these processes, Ed Miliband spoke eloquently and passionately about how vibrant local Labour Parties are key to competing with the Tories.

Nine months on both Byrne and Hain have been swallowed up by the Victoria Street machine and delivered more of the same top down command and control proposals that lost Labour five million votes, and quarter of a million members.

Members' elected representatives on the National Policy Forum were sent an agenda and a document entitled:  A better future for Britain 36 hours before the event in Wrexham on 25 June. If that isn't a sackable offence in its own right, I don't know what is.

As for Hain, he has had all the advice necessary to know the difference between an open and transparent consultation, and the black hole that is Victoria Street. Refounding Labour as set out in the private and confidential paper before the NEC on Tuesday means the end of members' rights in selections, no accountability of Labour Groups to local members and no point to being a fully paid up member of the Labour Party. Is that the new Leader's ambition? Is that what members said they wanted in their submissions?

What Ed Miliband's own staff think they are playing at, in advancing the case for continuity, is a mystery, other than to make sure they are on the right side of Victoria Street when it comes to looking after their future careers in the Labour Party. 

Ed may have played a blinder against Murdoch. But to date against the Labour Party machine, he has proved seemingly powerless. Maybe a way forward is for him to sack his nominees for failing to deliver in a manner consistent with reaching out and rebuilding an active membership. That at least would be consistent with the abolition of shadow cabinet elections.