Peter Kenyon

Labour's dirty washing: time to purge the TB/GBs...and lots more besides

M'lord Mandelson should be being praised by the Labour Party for his vainglorious revelations, not vilified. I should confess that I have no intention of paying for the Times Online to read extracts from his soon to be published memoirs, entitled 'The Third Man, and so vividly illustrated by Steve Bell's cartoon in today's Guardian, so I will have to be careful about what I say. But the more we know about the recollections of the key characters in the New Labour drama, the more likely the centre-left is going to appreciate what has to be done to ensure a return to winning ways.

The idea of choosing a Leader and abandoning any form of accountability should be stone dead after 13 years of New Labour, otherwise the Labour Party is in serious trouble. David and Ed Miliband favour the creation of a post of party chair elected by the whole membership. It is too eary to say whether that is an appropriate response, as it could so easily obscure the need for reflection.  The Party Chair idea, I fear, has more in common with the Westminster habit of legislating in haste. If we haven't learned that lesson either, we will be in further trouble. We should avoid knee-jerk reactions to the plight we find ourselves in. 

So is the Labour Party currently empowered to hold its Leaders to account? Indeed, it is. But the NEC, in its wisdom, put one means of doing so on ice back in 1997. Individual members and affiliates in the trade unions were all denied the means of registering a protest about the Leadership. As a result members left in droves. On 18 May 2010, the NEC had an opportunity to make it possible for all members to have a say in the Leadership of the Party. It messed up the timetable by setting a ridiculously short deadline for PLP nominations, and refused to offer members maximum choice by changing the threshold for PLP nominations. Worse, the majority of members of the 32-member body (one less than usual until a new Leader is elected) voted against issuing nomination papers for the Deputy Leadership.

What have nomination papers got to do with accountability? They encapsulate the rights of a member to vote in favour of an incumbent by proposing her/his nomination, or, if I am dissatisfied with that person, propose an alternative. This needs to put centre stage. And it could be at any time by any of the leadership candidates or the NEC itself.

A Damascene-conversion to the merits of the annual issue of Leader/Deputy Leader nomination papers would further animate the debate about the future of government, not just of the Party, but the country. The ConDem coalition is led by two white forty-something men who both think that they know better than their respective parties what is best for the country. Sounds and feels very familiar to anyone who has endured 13-years of New Labour. The ConDems are planning to bed in for five years.

To break the mould I suggested here on this blog that Deputy Leader Harriet Harman should lead the way. She declined. Worse, given her legal training and qualifications, she allowed the General Secretary to rely on some 'legal advice' unseen by NEC members to justify not issuing the nomination papers for her position. 

The NEC has a chance next week to shed it role as the Praetorian Guard for the Leadership, and (re-)adopt the mantle of stewardship for the Labour Party on behalf of all stakeholders between Conferences. That really could bury the TB/GBs sooner rather than later. More importantly, it would show the country that Labour now understands the importance of holding its Leaders to account annually to stop power corrupting them, which led directly to catastrophes like Iraq, and the privatisation of public services.

But who is going to have a quiet word in Harriet's ear?

Patronage is polluting Labour's leadership contest

Ask yourself, how do we know about the declared Labour leadership contenders in the first place? Four of them who achieved cabinet status in the governments of previous Labour leaders are without doubt talented people, but they are the creatures of patronage. Those who know me will appreciate that in drawing attention to this I am not seeking to get personal. But it is a fact that Labour in government adopts the constitutional conventions of the state, and not democratic socialism. The Labour leader selects a government. The Queen gives them their seals of office. The practice of electing a shadow cabinet, required when Labour is in opposition, is abandoned. And indeed it has been throughout the last 13 years.

I have already highlighted the Rules of the Labour Party that ought to have been followed by the General Secretary, Ray Collins, and the National Executive Committee (of which I am a member) when it set the timetable and the codes to apply to the Leadership election to replace Gordon Brown last Tuesday. Within two days the 9-day nomination timetable plan was in tatters. The deadline was extended by nearly a fortnight in the face of opposition particularly from MPs and TUs. It is still too short.

If there is one lesson that ought to have been learned by Labour in the wake of our defeat on 6 May, it is that the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) lost its exclusive nomination rights for the Leadership in crowning Gordon Brown leader in 2007. The absence of debate within the Party following the resignation of Tony Blair left everyone struggling to make sense of what Labour stood for. So it proved on 6 May.

Labour MPs should now be under no pressure whatsoever to secure the necessary 33 nominations from their colleagues in the PLP. As was pointed out to beleaguered General Secretary Ray Collins the proposed nine-day deadline left no opportunity to consult local members. Astonishingly, Collins told then they had no obligation to do so. So much for promoting the widest possible discussion in the Labour Party of how it lost power, and what it must do to make itself re-electable across the whole of the United Kingdom.

What the Labour Party needs is the widest possible debate. There are now six declared candidates - gender, ethnic and political diversity has been added at a stroke by Diane Abbott, and the political spectrum of views has been extended to the left of the Party by John McDonnell. They and any other Labour MP should all be encouraged to take part in hustings between now and the second half of July.

CLPs and affiliated bodies are entitled under Rule to nominate whom they want. It is then beholden on such nominees to obtain the necessary PLP support two clear weeks before the ballot. Just imagine the uproar that is going to befall the Labour Party come Wednesday 9 June if Diane Abbott fails to achieve the necessary 33 nominations as required under the current NEC ruling. How can it hope to continue to recruit new members and encourage former members back if the Labour Party elite shuts out the candidates that had the political courage to oppose the Iraq War in the first place? In the meantime, the patronage candidates are waging a war of words about how it was wrong to go to war against Saddam Hussein. Sorry, which lobby did they go into. (Apologies Miliband E - I know you were studying in the US at the time. But you did not speak out then.)

The present timetable is not sustainable. My NEC colleagues all heard Collins claim on Tuesday that the proposals were legally sound. They all heard him cite the name of the lawyer concerned. I have asked Collins to produce the written opinion or dated office note to support that claim. If he can't produce it by first thing Monday morning, there should be an emergency NEC Procedures Committee, if not an emergency NEC to review the situation.

I sought to amend the Rules on Tuesday my intention was to remove all references to the fictitious 'supporting nominations' provisions. There is still time to overturn the constitutional coup staged by the Party's elite. The future of the Party depends on it.

Wanted: pro bono Constitutional Lawyer - Labour Party membership essential

In the annals of hopeless causes Save the Labour Party might feature as a footnote. Alternatively, with the right skill set, we might succeed. As I write the Labour Party's Procedures Committee is reviewing 'blue touch paper' issues concerning the Leadership contest, triggered by Gordon Brown's resignation both as Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour Party with immeidate effect last Tuesday.

They are the timetable for nominations, and a ban on endorsements by affiliated unions and MPs for candidates other that supporting nominations.

An extention of the nomination deadline until 9 June from 27 May has just been announced. But it still has no constitutional basis.

I spoke to the Labour friendly lawyer who has previously advised the Party about constitutional issues this morning, though he is better known in his professional as a property lawyer - and indeed the Party leadership is once again eyeing the property portfolio of Constituency and Branch Labour Parties to bolster the national Party's balance sheet - so such expertise is not unwelcome. However, I digress.

The central issue for me as a member of the NEC is that legal advice was cited and the lawyer named to support the proposals, which my own understanding of the Rule Book tells me is fundamentally flawed.

The lawyer concerned told me this morning that he had NOT been consulted about the proposals presented to the NEC, nor had he been approached in the recent past. I am convinced that the advice he has tendered previously to the Party on the conduct of Leadership elections relates exclusively to when Labour was in government, and not opposition as is the case today.

So those of us committed to party democracy are left with the need for the requisite number of MPs to nominate both Leader before the hustings have barely started. As for the Deputy Leader nomination papers, it is a case of DIY nominations, make the case, and hope that a candidate is forthcoming from the PLP with the necessary 52 nominations to force a contest.

If there happens to be a constitutional lawyer out there with a Party Card and readiness to work pro bono, please get in touch.

At last Labour's leadership contest blown open - Diane Abbott declares

Diane Abbott has transformed Labour's Leadership election into a proper contest. Her declaration on BBC Radio 4 galvanised the listening public and rendered her interviewer momentarily speechless. I had the privilege in 1987 of helping organise her campaign in the Brownswood Ward of Hackney North and Stoke Newington - a modest contribution to the election of Britain's first black woman MP. 

She has a rare political talent - an ability to connect to people, understand their concerns and articulate them as their elected representative. I applauded the Miliband brothers for agreeing to differ and both run for election - guaranteeing an election, not a coronation. So I applaud Diane for electrifying the debate with the promise of diversity - both gender and ethnicity. Left-winger John McDonnell's declaration earlier this week brought the promise of a wider range of political views. How long that lasts may depend on the race for the necessary 33 nominations.

The Labour Party's Procedures Committee meets today to reconsider the rules including a controversial decision (opposed at the NEC by Christine Shawcoft and myself from the Centre Left Grassroots Alliance) to impose a 27 May deadline for nominations by Labour MPs. Pressure is mounting for an extension. My reading of the Rules is that should be until end July enabling any declared candidate to take part in hustings.

Was Labour's NEC misdirected by its General Secretary?

Yesterday, I attended the 33-member Labour's National Executive Committee to consider and decide on the rules for the forthcoming Leadership election. No papers had been circulated in advance. A not uncommon occurrence, but an understandable one in the immediate aftermath of Labour's General Election defeat.

Sadly, as I expected following prior discussions with colleagues, there was no reference in the laid-round papers to the issue of nomination papers for deputy leader, or even a contingency plan in the event of a valid nomination requiring 52 Labour MPs' signatures on a Deputy Leader nomination paper. I had blogged last week inviting interim Leader Harriet Harman to make sure that the said papers were issued. All to no avail. 

Worse the NEC papers contained a recommended time and date for the closure of Leader nominations by the Parliamentary Labour Party of 12.30 pm on Thursday 27May - just 9 days away. Leadership contenders only require 33 signatories as there is a vacancy following the resignation of former Leader and Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

It was an audacious constitutional coup for the retention of power and influence by the ruling elite inside the Labour Party. It could cost the Party dearly in terms of recruitment potential, future electoral prospects and possibly threaten its future financial viability.

In contention are the Rules governing Leader/Deputy elections. The key ones are set out in Chapter 4. Paragraph 2, which I have reproduced in order below.

B. Nomination

i. In the case of a vacancy for leader or deputy leader, each nomination must be supported by 12.5 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void.

This applies to the vacancy that has arisen.

The Rule Book goes on, and states:

ii. Where there is no vacancy, nominations shall be sought each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP.  Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void.

This would appear to apply to the position of Deputy Leader where, indeed, there is no vacancy. Ray Collins, Labour's General Secretary cited a Labour friendly lawyer's opinion to insist that nomination papers should not be issued and that the only way that a contest could be triggered would be if 52 Labour MPs signed a nomination paper for someone other that Harriet Harman.

That in itself begs the question of whether nomination papers are being issued to the PLP. But that is a side issue. The key question is WHEN should the PLP nomination threshold should be achieved?

The Rule Book goes on further, and states:

iii. Affiliated organisations, CLPs and Labour Members of the European Parliament may also nominate for each of the offices of leader and deputy leader. All nominees must be Commons members of the PLP.

The Rule Book makes no reference to such nominations having to have reached a threshold BEFORE being decided by either affiliated organisations, CLPs and Labour member of the European Parliament. 

Let's suppose my understanding of the Rule is correct. It is clearly incumbent on any Party unit seeking to nominate to lobby and secure enough PLP support in time to get that person's name on the ballot paper. That would apply to both the Leader election and the possibility of a contest for Deputy.

So when might that be? Very helpfully, the Rule Book states in the next sub-section:

iv. Nominees shall inform the General Secretary in writing of the acceptance or otherwise of their nomination at least two clear weeks before the commencement of the procedures for voting laid out in rule C below. Unless written consent to nomination is received, nominations shall be rendered
null and void.

Under the timetable agreed by the NEC, which I sought to amend, but was disallowed by the Chair, the ballot papers are not due to be issued until 16 August. A strict interpretation of the Rule would imply 30 July for the filing of valid nominations.

So what are we to conclude from this?

1) Debate and the possibility of a campaign to identify a reluctant, but popular candidate by affiliated unions, CLPs and even Labour MEPs has been denied by the Party's ruling elite, having set a deadline of 27 May, not 30 July for valid nominations.

2) The refusal of the NEC to agreed to the issue of Deputy Leadership nomination papers is to abandon accountability and contrary to Rule

Toryboysnevergrowup commenting on my earlier posting mocked me:

Of course the Labour Party NEC may not have anything better to do than send out nomination papers to CLPs 

If only s/he had just taken the trouble to read the section as a whole. Just the like the rest of the NEC. All I ask is that the Labour Party Procedures Committee, which is now charged with the conduct of the election(s), reflects and challenges the advice tendered on Tuesday. I would hope that my colleagues accept that:

1) any Commons member of the PLP seeking nomination should take part in the hustings from now until a new close of nominations in two months time.

20 nomination papers for Deputy Leader should be issued. Just imagine if any CLP chair told the AGM: no elections this year, there's no vacancy. Monsterous.

Both changes would underline the Party's resolute commitment to openness and accountability, and the widest possible debate ahead of the election(s) in the run up to our 2010 Conference in late September.

They would have a measurable impact on the Party's capacity to recruit new members, not just from among disaffected Liberal-Democrats, but the hundreds of thousands of members, who resigned or lapsed in protest against New Labour and potentially many more too young to remember Thatcher, but who yearn for a new politics, which only Labour can offer.

Let's do it.

Oh, BTW the NEC papers are littered with references to "supporting nominations". They are a fiction in this context. There are only two references to the term in the Rule Book, and both are in the context of CLPs supporting nominations in NEC elections.

1815 UPDATE Just been tipped off that the Procedures Committee which meets tomorrow will discuss the timetable, and is in listening mode!!!!

Labour Party - post election priorities - local organisation then leadership

Last night I attended the first 'business' meeting of my local Constituency Labour Party since the election. I hope my brief account doesn't put off any of those 13,000 new recruits since Tory/Lib-Dem nuptials were consummated. On the contrary, this is the stuff of democratic politics - deeply steeped in the need for accountability, opportunities to let off steam, learn lessons and kindle new ideas - all focussed on winning more votes next time.

It was our Executive Committee comprising the CLP officers, and delegates from each of the local party adminstrative branches (not to be confused with electoral wards). In the first place, a week earlier, as secretary of the CLP following consultation with the chair, I had assembled an Agenda - a list of the issues to be tackled. Requests for reports from the agents for the local and general elections were requested, the Treasurer offered to update on finance now the election spend has been totalled, as Secretary I flagged up forthcoming national Party elections.

The reports duly arrived, too late for some to have had time to print off between work and meeting. But copies were shared as each item arose. Frustrations over the inevitable election-tide cock-ups were aired. Then the moment arrived for deciding what was to be said to the CLP's General Committee - a larger gathering which ultimately governs the affairs of the Labour Party locally. So, I asked is it to be recriminations or recommendations?

Sanity prevailed - so I had better get on with the minutes, and assemble the agenda for the GC before events bowl me over. That evidence-based blog whirling round my brain on why the General Secretary of the Labour Party misdirected the NEC about the conduct of the Labour Party leadership elections yesterday will just have to wait until after lunch.

Will Harriet lead the Labour Party by example?

Labour's ruling National Executive Committee meets in five days time to decide the timetable for the election of its next leader. There are three options now in play: fast track before the summer recess, normal procedure in time for Conference, Tory 2005 model using Conference for TV test ballot after.

Being a 'harpy' for accountability myself, shamelessly rule guided, if not bound, I support the timetable arising from the Rule Book . The Labour Party has already budgetted a modest £500,000 to conduct a postal ballot of its members to elect constituency representatives to its NEC and National Policy Forum, which are conducted under the 'one-member-one-vote' system. A mailout to constituencies, and affiliated trades unions and socialist societies is imminent calling for nominations. The deadline is 30 July, with a ballot during August and the first half of September.

Under Rule 4.2.B.ii nomination papers for Leader/Deputy should also be distributed where there in no vacancy. And thereby hang a couple of tales. First, the NEC in its wisdom after the 1997 put that rule in the deep-freeze. Second, it cited 'advice', which maintained the rule only applied when Labour was in opposition.

Obviously, there is now a vacancy for Leader. So a process is in train, save for the options cited by me above, only one of which is tenable IMHO, namely - normal procedure as set out in the Rule Book.

With regard to the Deputy Leader post, no one can claim we are not in opposition. So I hope Harriet Harman, our new interim Leader will lead by example and insist that nomination papers for the post of Deputy Leader are issued with the rest in accordance with the Rule Book. This does not mean there will be a challenger and an election. But this would be a clear sign from her that accountability matters. By doing so she would be drawing a line under 13-years of evasion under New Labour.

Labour Party's MPs and members proactive - following 2010 GE

Just as Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs and grassroots activists are clamouring for a say in shaping the next government, Labour Party MPs and members have been active too. Media reports of a growing chorus for British Prime Minister and Labour Party leader Gordon Brown to resign now are greatly exaggerated. Statements from re-elected Labour MPs John Mann, Graham Stringer, and most recently Kate Hoey all calling for Brown to go now, are not representative of party opinion as I understand it, not while there is still a possibility of Labour playing a role governing the UK.

There are reports of Cabinet ministers meeting later this afternoon. The Cabinet now has no authority to act on behalf of the Labour Party. Brown is a caretaker Prime Minister and his government likewise. Ideas that the Cabinet plotters could exploit a provision in the Labour Party Rule Book to change leader as reported by this week's Tribune is fanciful in the extreme. Yes, public opinion garnered by the Murdoch media says nearly two-thirds of those polled want Brown to resign - surprise, surprise. (Capital punishment was supported by nearly half of those polled last time a representative UK sample was conducted.)

I have been calling for a meeting of the party's National Executive Committee (NEC) this coming week. Last night, notice of a conference call was circulated. Since half the NEC is due to meet on other business in London that day, a proper meeting ought to be within the Party's capabilities. Formal requests have been submitted. Newly elected MPs, as arrangements stand currently, are going to have to wait until next week before they have their first Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) meeting. Apparently, the ever thoughful whips suggested they should all grab a well-earned holiday since Parliament doesn't reassemble for a couple of weeks. Of course, they are not the sort of people who might want a say in shaping events after the election. So the plotters thought. We'll see.

It is vital that the Labour Party's position whether in government or opposition, is properly discussed; not just in the Parliamentary Labour Party, and the NEC, but with the Party's members around the country. This would be best achieved if the chair of the PLP and the NEC both had roles in any talks with other parties.

PLP elections will be held as soon as it meets. The Rule Book does not cover the possibilty of a coalition. In the circumstances there would seem to be a very good case for using the rules that apply when the party is in opposition, further cutting off oxygen to the plotters. That would give all Labour MPs the opportunity to vote not just for the PLP chair, but the 19 members of the 'shadow cabinet' creating a talent pool from which ministers could be selected if Labour finds itself continuing in government. Nominations for the position of Leader and Deputy should be invited whatever, as required under Rule 4 2 B ii. This will help restore the legitimacy of the Party's leader/deputy, whomever they might be. If Labour can continue in government, Brown would deserve and should get the Party's backing to cement recovery and pave the way for major political reform as set out in our 2010 Manifesto. But that would not preclude a leadership election within 6 to 18 months, given the uncertainty likely to surround the new government. Who leads the Labour Party is our decision, if anyone out there wants to 'Join In' the next leadership contest, is very welcome to Join Us (and that includes Nick Clegg.)

Labour Party: winning strategy - forget the sofa, take to the streets

Labour's prospects of clutching victory from the jaws of defeat appear to be diminishing according to most recent opinion polls, just when the latest economic indicators suggest the country has been saved from the worst ravages of recession thanks to Labour policies.

Whether a slide from 'sofa government' to 'sofa electioneering' as reported in today's Guardian is going to help reinforce Labour's message of 'A future fair for all' depends on how important personality is with the electorate, as opposed to its policies - past, present and future.

Next week's budget is much more likely to seal the campaign in the minds of voters. Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling has an opportunity to set out Labour's strategy to deliver that future. To be successful, he has to deliver a means of achieving fairer income distribution and income tax collection, and affordable housing - on a far greater scale than currently planned. Given the fragile state of recovery, but effectiveness of policy to protect jobs and homes, there is wriggle room in the public finances as today's public borrowing figures for February illustrate. He also faces a difficult judgement call re the fuel tax escalator, Labour's green credentials and the electoral impact of a £1.20 litre of fuel at the pumps.

The dividing lines between Labour and Tory couldn't be clearer. The banking crisis would have been cataclysmic under the Tories. Forget recession, we would be in deep depression by now if Messers (sic) Cameron and Osborne had had their way. But that is very much a minority message. Most of us prefer not to think about how bad it could have been. Reassurance can be found in what has happened in the last 18 months, and in particular what is emerging now from official data.

In the meantime, Labour's programme for the next five years is still being shaped by manifesto coordinator, Ed Miliband. Online endeavours have failed to achieve levels of participation, openness and transparency needed to change the zeitgeist. Though there are signs of increased interest in volunteering and membership, David Blunkett's dream of raising an additional £10 million for Labour through small donations still, sadly, appears just that, a dream.

Labour could have managed its affairs differently in the campaign to date. The refusual of the Party's National Executive Committee to protect members' selection rights whilst speeding up the process has left a trail of suspicion leading to either No 10, Unite the union, the unions in general or any combination of those involved.  We will never know whether some Labour PPCs won their nomination fairly. Not very clever for a Party promoting 'A future fair for all'.

Those shenanigans have sadly further impeded the prospects of restoring trust in either the Labour Party or our parliamentary democracy. That sense of business as usual is being compounded by Prime Minister Gordon Brown himself proclaiming his determination to remain in office whatever the outcome of the General Election. Such reminders that the Labour Party is 'institutionally undemocractic' are particularly unwelcome just when all the party election strategists want to maximise mobilisation on the streets. With the media having had its way luring the main political party leaders into televised debates the electorate could be forgiven for thinking they are going to be voting for a prime minister.

The party leader that stamps on quietly rebuts that idea repeatedly throughout the campaign will deserve the trust of the electorate for understanding the British constitution. Brown has already rehearsed lines reminding voters that 'this election is about their future, not his', and MPs that he is 'one of a team, not a team of one'.  If he uses 'sofa electioneering'  to cement that idea in the public's mind, he will do himself and the Labour Party credit. But it would only be credible, if he insisted on reinstating members' right to nominate Labour's leader and deputy leader every year from now on as set out in the Party's Rule Book.

I have already pledged to lead a write-in campaign for him if he wins the 2010 General Election. But the idea that he has a divine right to dictate whether he remains leader or not is ludicrous in a democratic socialist party. All he is doing is fuelling the Conservative idea 'Vote for Change'.

Something for next week's Labour Party National Executive Committee to resolve, the day before the Budget?

Political leverage: a directly elected mandate helps

Post-snowflake plotting analysis has led to reports of alleged 'disloyal' behaviour on the part of Labour Party Deputy Leader Harriet Harman. I declare an interest. She was my second preference for that position after John Cruddas. The Daily [plotters] Telegraph forgets that Harriet Harman, unlike Gordon Brown, enjoys a directly elected mandate.

That means political leverage. It is a lesson Gordon Brown could well learn. All he has to do is ensure the ludicrous 'legal' advice used by Labour Party HQ to bury Rule 4.2.B.ii is promptly ..er...buried with a commitment to issue Leader/deputy nomination papers to all stakeholders immediately after the General Election.