Peter Kenyon

Devolution: Labour action - branch resolution, waste of time?

Labour Party leader Tony Blair sought to kill off the art of resolution writing by imposing a new method of policy-making, misleadingly called Partnership in Power. The system was adopted by the 1997 Annual Conference after a historic UK General Election victory. Hapless members or at least their Conference delegates, carried along by the euphoria, suspended critical judgment and signed away collective freedom of expression.

In future policy was to be made through commissions, and deliberations of the National Policy Forum (NPF). The NPF was and remains dominated by leadership placepersons or self-appointed loyalists. That is despite the introduction of one-member-one-vote elections for constituency Labour Party delegates, in the full face of leadership opposition in 2009.

The last remaining vestiges of resolution-writing persist in the form of Contemporary Issues (no more than 10 words) with a 250-word backgrounder aka a resolution, or an Emergency Motion.

So how are members of a local Labour Party branch expected to get their heads round a seemingly complex issue like devolution and the aftermath of the Scottish independence referendum? From a leadership point of view, we are not expected to. Fullstop. Shut up and accept the leadership line. To a greater degree that works with the Parliamentary Labour Party.

So there in a few sentences is a process-driven insight into calls for devolution. Treat people like idiots and there is a risk of revolt.

The resolution I published yesterday here followed concerns raised pre-Conference by branch members about the lack of debate inside the Labour Party about of either demands for devolution or action required post-referendum, and my own reflections since. One of my comrades who was most keen to see the issues discussed emailed me after the result of the referendum highlighting the results for independence in local authority areas that form part of the so-called Labour heartlands in Scotland.

Risks to the Labour vote in Scotland in the run-up to the 2015 General Election can not be understated. To rise to the challenge, Labour leader Ed Miliband needs to hear from disparate voices inside his party and those that support Labour's values.

Resolutions are one way of providing such expression. Amendments are a transparent means of highlighting differing points of view to that proposed.

 

 

 

Peter (Black Hole) Hain sets out Partnership into Power timetable

Patrick Moore's 700th Sky at Night is being (re)screened on BBC Four. All that talk of black holes couldn't help reminding me of Peter Hain MP, Chair of the National Policy Forum. Earlier today I , along with every other e-literate Labour Party member, received an invitation from the man himself. Peter, that is, not Patrick. Patrick is interested in informing, enlightening and enthusing. I'm not convinced we can say the same about Peter.

Peter's eMail asserts:

...Labour is changing to ensure that we can deliver fairness, even in tough times, by making different choices and tackling the vested interests that hold Britain back. The documents look at some key areas where Labour is setting out a new approach – and we want to hear your views.

Your ideas and comments will feed into our policy making process, Partnership into Power, helping to shape our manifesto for the next election. Everything we hear will shape discussions in our policy commissions and at a summer meeting of the National Policy Forum – before the documents go to Annual Conference..... 

Peter is offering exactly the same format for responding that has left members with no confidence in Partnership in(to) Power, and me personally with no confidence in Peter Hain.

One clue is in the format. We submit, but can't see any other submission, can't enter into debate, and consequently can't be sure that what emerges from the consultation process bears any relationship to the submissions.

Secondly, consider the timetable:

We’d like as many submissions as possible by Friday 8 June. Submissions which reach us by this date will help to inform discussions at the National Policy Forum meeting on 16-17 June. Submissions received after this date will still be considered – with those received by the end of June informing policy commission when documents are redrafted ahead of Annual Conference.

My own CLP's branches that are meeting monthly have already either met or issued agendas in the May cycle. The deadline is before any branch will meet in June. In short, it is impossible at such short notice to organise any meaningful discussion across the range of policy issues set out in the six policy consultation documents issued tonight, in the time allowed by Peter Hain. 

I have already called for the NEC to propose and vote for a motion of confidence in Peter here. (Ditto NEC constituency section wannabes.) In the light of his letter to e-literate members, do you need any further convincing? 

 

Gloves off, time for a no confidence vote in Peter Hain

Why Peter Hain?

For a fuller explanation, please refer to my article, Labour - a lost cause?  in the latest edition of Chartist - the bimonthly for democratic socialism. The piece was written two weeks before the May elections, and I admit I under-estimated the capacity of the Scottish Labour Party to grasp victory from the jaws of defeat. But that should not detract from the thrust of my thesis about the danger to Labour of professional politicians, whom Peter Hain epitomises.

I concluded:  

While the Labour Party continues to be dominated by the salaried and aspiring political class, its ability to 'reconnect' will be compromised... I'll be voting for any NEC or NPF candidate willing to move an NEC vote of no confidence against Peter Hain, and/or run a campaign to rebuild paid membership electoral ward by electoral ward, and give members an effective say in policy making.

With the benefit of hindsight, I should have gone back to his pamphlet, The Future Party, published by the trade union funded think-tank Catalyst in 2004, and done a proper demolition job.

For a more recent account of Peter's Refounding success, check out his interview last month in The Australian:  Brotherly advice: reform or die 

Last year, Hain authored a 10,000 word report, Refounding Labour, for Labour leader Ed Miliband that canvassed systemic reforms to revitalise the party in a changing political world.

When you have finished spluttering into your cup of Horlicks, you will be aware that the Labour Party is far too polite to allow a motion of no confidence in any of the 'self-select'. But if anyone is any doubt about whether Peter Hain should go or not check out the next set of Partnership in Power policy documents and arrangements for the National Policy Forum in Birmingham in June.

Labour GS continuity candidate to run party? Shome mishtake shurely, Ed!

It's time to take stock of the Party, Ed. On Tuesday, you and the other members of the National Executive Committee will decide who will be the next General Secretary. You will also have a report on the Refounding Labour consultation. That report appears to have been written before the submissions were read or analysed. Furthermore, it is not impossible that someone will raise the fiasco of a National Policy Forum held in Wrexham four weeks ago. On that occasion A better future for Britain was sent to representatives just 36 hours, without NPF elected representatives having sight of submissions either. As one senior parliamentarian put it very bluntly to me last week: "It's rubbish." That was in reference to the content, not its late delivery.

You can not hope to reach out until you tackle the vested interests in our party.

And no, I'm not talking about the trade unions. You need to concentrate this weekend on the other vested interests at work corroding the integrity of our democratic socialist party, and our representative democracy - whether in the Westminster parliament, our devolved nations/regions or our town halls.

The most damaging influence in the Labour Party is a combination of the current senior management team, and those elected representatives at all levels who rely on their services. In the two reviews you commissioned after being elected leader, grassroots members have sadly experienced more of the same. You have been betrayed. And those of us who voted for you now feel that we are being betrayed by you too, unless you can show decisive Leadership and restore integrity to:

• our consultation processes
• our policy making, and 
• our selection of candidates for public elected office

You may or may not remember that I personally handed you a copy of the LabOUR Commission interim report in 2007. Accompanying that was a covering letter dated 25 April 2007 written by Angela Eagle MP, to the then National Executive Committee chair, Mike Griffiths. It was an evidenced based interim report. Interim because the Commission recognised it needed access to internal party data to take its work further. This was the key paragraph:

The [LabOUR] Commission would very much like to work with the NEC to build on this body of research; for example, with an audit of CLPs’ organisational capacity, analysis of membership trends, and in consultation with the Party Treasurer the formulation of measures to rebuild the Party's finances. I very much hope that we can work with the NEC on the important task of rebuilding our Party.

The Refounding Labour exercise failed to undertake a systematic assessment of our Party's organisational structures. Why? Because it is not in the interests of staff or those who depend on their services to expose either the hollowed out state of much of our party across the country, or highlight what really works. Good practice is often achieved despite Labour Party staff. If you want to get a whiff of this ask any CLP/or BLP secretary whether they rely on the National Database for membership contact details. Rightly or wrongly, a significant proportion of members do not trust the national Labour Party with their full contact details.

Labour Uncut today published a piece by Kevin Meagher which touches on this issue:

First, we need to create greater incentive for members to be involved locally. After all, the party’s poor bloody infantry are taken for granted – and always have been. Constituency chairs, secretaries and treasurers keep the show on the road, but no-one in their right mind would want to do these jobs. Responsibility without power or prestige is never a winning offer.

Yet these are the people who robustly refuse to be drawn on criticising the party when the Sunday Times phones up now and again inviting them to do so. They are the party’s centre of gravity and deserve a bigger and more defined role and some good old fashioned gratitude.

You may not have been fully aware of it, but the answer you gave to @SarahEvansk on Twitter on Thursday could prove decisive to liberating yourself and your Leadership form the malign forces at work inside the Labour Party.

She asked:

@Ed_Miliband will we ever get to see all the submissions from #RefoundingLabour? #askedm

@Ed_Miliband replied:

@sarahevansk yes, we should do what we can to make them public. #asked

For those of us with an inkling of how simple and straightforward it will be to publish those submissions, the obvious question is not if, but when?

There are just 10 weeks to go before Annual Conference 2011. To date there is no clear guidance for members about how to contribute to the policy debate so urgently needed in Liverpool in late September. Under the Rules, only contemporary issues i.e. matters arising from 1 August to 16 September 2011 can be cited to be ruled in order by the Conference Arrangements Committee. The NEC on Tuesday needs to ensure that any matter arising from A better future for Britain can be used to formulate a resolution. In addition, the Priorities Ballot needs to be administered so that at least eight issues can be debated under the 4+4 rule.

As for Refounding Labour, the Leader's Office is stuck in a right-wing Blairite/Daily Mail/Murdoch time warp wanting to take on the unions again. As set out above the real enemies of Next Generation Labour are within the heart of the machine. So if you do nothing else this weekend: just ask for the results of an internal audit of organisational capacity CLP/CLP, and a date for publication on Membersnet of all Refounding Labour and PiP submissions. If the answers are: we haven't done an audit, and publication's not possible, then you know who to vote for as the next general secretary.

 

 

 

 

Labour Party policy-making: a suitable case for treatment

Daniel Blaney writing on LabourList challenges Ed Miliband on the return of party democracy to policy making. I think the questions should apply to all the leadership candidates.  Personally, I'm not convinced that what the Party needs is a return to resolution based policy making pre-1997. That view was shared by the LabOUR Commission, which made detailed recommendations in 2007 about reforming the policy making process. Though I am aware that there is talk of a return to the old ways among affiliated TU political committees and the like, as well as among some members in the constituencies.

There is no doubt Partnership in Power (as the revised arrangements agreed in 1997 were known) was hi-jacked by No. 10. A matter about which one of the Leadership candidates, David Miliband, has particular knowledge and experience of, and about which he in particular should be challenged.

If it is to survive the deliberative policy making process will no doubt be renamed Partnership into Power. However, there are serious and urgent challenges that need to be addressed asap by the NEC which are as follows:

1. an immediate restoration of contemporary resolutions for debate at Conference 2010,

2. acceptance of any resolution arising from defeat, the formation of the ConDem coalition and its policies and Labour's flawed 2010 Manifesto (bearing in mind the NPF hasn't met since February 2009, and the Clause V meeting was in mid-April 2010 and no policy commissions have met since the General Election).

3. the Priorities Ballot should be run on a 4+4 basis so that at least 8 contemporary issues are debated following compositing, and then voted on by card vote to establish Conference's support/opposition precisely

4. a founding meeting of the newly elected National Policy Forum should be convened asap (if possible at Conference) to:

   1. elect a chair

   2. agree the formation of policy commissions

   3. elect representatives to them

   4. agree a work programme

   5. harness the policy expertise of all interested members

   6. use electronic media to enable any member to comment on proposals as they emerge, and surveys and opinion polling to maximise participation and representative sampling of both members and the electorate

5. a budget to support policy development and service the above

6. protocols to ensure that the requirements of effect policy opposition in the Houses of Parliament and policy development of Labour's future election manifestos are established between the new Leader, the PLP and the JPC, and regularly monitored by the NEC between Conferences

The NEC should not wait for the election of a new Leader to get on with this business. Prompt action pre-Conference is one way of reminding the Leadership candidates that it is the National Executive Committee - representing all stakeholders - that is responsible for the stewardship of the Party between Conferences - not the Leader alone.