Peter Kenyon

No Labour Party chair? But machine grinds, on. No NEC until 30 Nov.

I can't help wondering whether or not our new Leader, Ed Miliband, has dropped the pretence of Party Chair.

No one was listed as such in the Shadow Cabinet line up yesterday.

If he has, it will be another small step for Party democracy.

There is a big job to be done on party renewal as I blogged about here. Extending a constitutional fiction by patronage, which is what such an appointment amounted to, is not the way forward. An early meeting of the National Executive Committee is needed to discuss and agree a programme for Party renewal. Contrary to what I was told by General Secretary Ray Collins that body is now not meeting until 30 November. That leaves the machine in control of the National Palicy Forum (NPF). Its chair, mandate long expired, Pat McFadden received a ringing vote of confidence (not) from the PLP in the Shadow Cabinet elections.

If that doesn't ring alarm bells in the new Leader's office. Then I hope this little snippet below does.

I'm told that the NPF has now been put back a week until 27 November as London Head Office overlooked an important event in the Welsh Labour Party calendar leading up to next May's Assembly elections. Talking to newly elected members in Manchester during Conference most had no idea what was being planned and when.

Hopefully, that will change soon.

 

 

Why Labour's new leader should invite his Deputy to lead on Party renewal

With the ballot for the Shadow Cabinet closing today, who will be assigned to look after the Labour Party? Continuing my check-list theme for assessing whether Ed Miliband is his own person or in the thrall of the Party machine comes the contentious issue of a Party Chair. The position does not exist in the Labour Party Rule Book. It never has, though the defeated leadership candidate, David Miliband had ambitions to create the post. And fallen leftie idol, Jon Cruddas has made no secret of wanting to be crowned the same.

Ed Miliband seeks a mass membership party. After 13 consecutive years of declining membership, he needs a senior figure to champion the role of members in the Party both as contributors to the Party's finances, policy making and campaigning capacity. It is an enormous job in its own right.

During the Deputy Leadership campaign in 2007, Jon Cruddas led on making that position the vehicle for rebuilding the party. The eventual winner Harriet Harman portrayed herself as a unifying force who would take the Party to victory at the next election. But rather than focus on the Party, she accepted a sheaf of ministerial responsibilities ranging from Leader of the House, to Minister for Equalities and Women, as well as taking the courtesy title of Party Chair, originally created by Tony Blair after the 2001 general election.

Given the welcome and spontaneous interest in Labour Party membership since the May 2010 general election, this will need encouraging and nurturing if the new joiners are to renew in 12 months time. The Party also need to mobilise more candidates to run for local council seats in May next year, as well as a senior Party figure to oversee giving members a say in policy making, possibly as chair of the National Policy Forum. These tasks must be tackled now to position Labour to win the next General Election.

The only person with the necessary democratic legitimacy to do that job is Deputy Leader Harriet Harman. She doesn't need a the insult of a courtesy title like Party Chair to get on with it, as I'm sure the Party machine will be urging.

Avid readers of this blog, who include her husband Jack Dromey, now MP for Birmingham, Erdington, may be somewhat surprised by my advocating Harriet for this task. After all it was only yesterday I was reiterating my contempt for her clinging on to the position of Deputy Leader. (She declining the opportunity even to open nominations for Deputy Leader after Gordon Brown stepped down as Leader in May.) It was a pity she didn't run. I'm convinced she would have been unopposed. But in any event that's history. We have to move on. Her readiness to take on a Party focussed role would also help clarify whether there is any point in  the position of Deputy Leader. The alternative would be to delete the Deputy post and create a position of elected Chair with an unambiguous job description instead.

So I hope Ed Miliband will show his mettle by inviting her to use her unifying skills as the Party's Deputy Leader and take on that vital role of rebuilding the Party from the grassroots. And, of course, I am sure that she will recognise the massive job that needs to be done and accept the challenge graciously.

Have Harman and Cruddas done a 'deal' over their futures in the Labour Party?

A media blitz this weekend here, here and here with Jon Cruddas at the forefront of calls for the election of a Labour Party Chair (all neatly parcelled on LabourList) have got me wondering: what has been going on?

The post does not exist in the Labour Party Rule Book as we currently know it. It was a patronage device invented by former Leader, Tony Blair, in the wake of the 2001 General Election when he appointed Charles Clarke Minister without Portfolio and Party Chair. It has been bestowed since by the Leader on a person of his choice ever since, with little protest (except from obscure organisations like Save the Labour Party, in which I declare an interest as a member and currently chair). The most recent holder of this 'courtesy title' was/is Harriet Harman, who was named Party Chair by former Party Leader Gordon Brown after her election as Deputy Leader in June 2007. I say 'was/is' as I do not know if Harriet in her capacity as Interim Leader has relinquished the title or not.

What is certain is that to date there has been no open debate or resolution at Party Conference about what the job entails and how it relates to the elected positions of Leader, Deputy Leader or chair of the National Executive Committee.

The most revealing report was that on the BBC News website of an interview conducted with Jon Cruddas on Sky News by Adam Boulton in which Cruddas is reported by the BBC as follows:

Mr Cruddas told Sky News that he and stand-in leader Harriet Harman both backed the change, and that he would be interested in running for the job.

How can that be? In what decision-making forum can this have been discussed? My speculation is that the genesis of this idea for an elected Party Chair now goes back to the days immediately after Gordon Brown's resignation and a Shadow Cabinet discussion about the management of the succession. In that process, Harriet Harman ruled herself out as a possible leadership contender. The General Secretary of the Labour Party obliged by not enforcing Rule 4.2.B ii requiring nomination papers for Deputy Leader to be circulated to CLPs, and affiliated organisations. That has enabled Harriet Harman to remain in office as Deputy Leader without any opportunity for members to hold her to account for her period in office in that capacity. Worse, as matters stand she can remain Deputy Leader for as long as she likes until a Labour MP announces her/his intention to challenge her and secures 52 nominations from other Labour MPs. (That figure of 52 represents 20% of the current number of Labour MPs required for a valid nomination as either Leader or Deputy Leader in the event of NO VACANCY.)

I spoke to Jon about him running for Deputy Leader around the same time. Quick as a flash he replied, "There is no vacancy." True, but irrelevant if you believe in accountability and the need for Rules to be followed. Of course, there are occasions when there are good reasons why a rule may be set aside in particular circumstances. (Like the qualification period of membership to take part in the forthcoming Leadership election has been waived to encourage people to join the Labour Party and take part until 8 September.) But to deny members an opportunity to hold an elected postholder to account is different.

To appreciate the significance of these developments for the future probably involves revisiting the Deputy Leadership election campaign in 2007, and the promises of the respective candidates, in particular Harriet, to rebuild the party.

Here's what Harriet said on the Compass website in 2007:

To renew the Party and the government we have to rebuild the trust and confidence of the Party and the public. The key is always local activity, and active local parties. I am proud that Camberwell and Peckham has increased membership to around 800, and crucially that it reflects the community. We are constantly out on the doorstep, listening to people and recruiting new members.....

We cannot have one-way traffic between the Party organisation and its members. People must be allowed to say things that provoke, so that what we say is authentic and comes from real discussion. For example, we need to engage in debate amongst members about the future for our Foreign Policy.

Some say that winning is not enough in itself to bring the progressive policies we want. But the fact remains that out of government we can do nothing for hard-pressed communities like those in my constituency of Camberwell and Peckham. I’m standing for the post of deputy because I want to help Gordon Brown win a fourth term for Labour, so that we can not only debate our policies, but put them into action.

Put bluntly, Harriet, you failed. You should have resigned and stood for relection. As matters stand, is it unreasonable to suppose that Jon has reached an 'understanding' with Harriet that he will not run against Harriet for deputy leader, in return for support for the creation of a new post of elected Party chair?

The impact of this on the Party and the challenge for the new Leader should not be trivialised. The new Leader will have to work with a Deputy who has failed to seek, let alone secure, a renewed mandate for the challenges of opposition and winning a return to power in Westminster.

In his speech to the Labour Friends of Searchlight on 17 July, Jon spoke about electing the Party Chair at Conference. Well, that looks innocent enough, except that the Party adopted the principle of one-member-one-vote (OMOV) for such positions nearly 20 years ago. Today, members have every right to ask: "What is going on?" It is technically possible for the NEC to move a rule change to create this post in three months' time at Annual Conference 2010. Though, I am hoping that a majority of the NEC would say, hang on this has not been discussed in the Party.

So that puts a Rule change to create the post back to 2011 at the earliest. Then there is a process of calling for nominations and an election to arrange. By which time it will be 2012 before a Party chair could have been created and elected democratically.

Or is Jon suggesting this should be done on the floor of Conference and a Party Chair elected by acclaim?

The alternative is evident. There is a concensus emerging about the need for rebuilding the Party. But members are being denied the opportunity to decide for themselves who is best suited to that task NOW. It is not too late. It just needs one member of the PLP to wake up and challenge the incumbency, and another 51 to back him/her as a candidate for the Deputy Leadership. At least that post exists, and can be elected by 25 September 2010.

Are you up for it, Jon? Or have you reverted to being what you were for Tony Blair, a fixer? Or is Harriet seeking to fix it for Jon? Or was Jon's speech on Saturday and his media interventions worthy of Machiavelli in enabling these matters to be flushed out?

Jon Cruddas's democratic socialist supporters on the centre-left of the Labour Party have a right to know.

Labour Party still caught in the Saviour syndrome

Labour Party members should be wary, very wary. Sixteen years ago the Party was suckered (in a manner of speaking) into believing that just one person, and only one could lead it to victory in a General Election, defeating the Tories. His name was Tony Blair.  

These sagas of New Labour were being retold just this morning by fabled spinmeister, Peter Mandelson. He recounted how under New Labour the Labour Party had been rebuilt, won three elections, and everything in the the world was just so, until that nasty Mr Brown agitated and plotted against the Saviour eventually replaced him.

Us Labour Party members, well we all had to go along with this. Ten years had passed. Then an elected one by the name of Gordon Brown was hailed by over 300 Labour Members of Parliament as the only one.

For it was writ on the tablets of Labourism that only the elected ones could name a Saviour, and so it proved. A cry went up: "The Saviour is dead, long live the Saviour". A coronation was staged. And all was well. The Saviour managed fire and flood. Until the pestilence of the Account came to pass. The curse of the unelected Saviour descended. The New Labour cherubs murmered, "Saviour, it is time to allow the people a say." "Your powers will be greatly increased." "Your opponents will be overcome". But the Saviour was content. Another year passed and a plague of bankers descended in the land. All was not well. The Treasury was stripped bare. The Saviour was forced to visit the land of the lenders to feed the people. Then it was time for the Account. The curse of the Act descended and there was no escape. The people had to be reconciled. And they were - to ConDemNation.

So the house of the Labourites was without a Saviour. The elected ones in the shadows decreed an early coronation. But the brothers and sisters in the wilderness demanded time to reflect - 40 days became more than 80. And so it came to pass. The servants of the New Labour house continued to weave and spin. Suddenly, a cry went up for another Saviour - a Party chair. How can this be, one asked. Is it writ on the the tablets of Labourism? So the scribes busied themselves and it was writ. And all was well. 

Labour Party patronage purge plan

Today's Guardian report of the findings of the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee reminded me of a plan published earlier this year by the LabOUR Commission.

The diagram shown sets out the Commission's understanding of the current state of the Labour Party in government.

Gordon Brown ignored this report on taking up the invitation of Her Majesty to form a government - his words not mine.

But in the light of MPs recommendations, Gordon, why not be decisive and purge patronage from the Labour Party too?

More detailed diagrams of what will have to change will be published here in the run up to Christmas.

Brown rides out first wave of PMQs

Gordon Brown rode out the first wave of PMQs today with welcome calm. Harriet Harman was at his side and Brown made a robust sounding defence of Jon Mendelsohn, the Labour Party's volunteer Director of General Election Resources. He issued a statement which is here in full. More later.

Is Labour's Harriet going to repay the £5,000? Yes

Following Gordon Brown's statement at his monthly press conference earlier about the return of unlawful donations to the Labour Party, will Labour Party  Deputy Leader Harriet Harman do the same with the £5,000 donated to her election campaign? Or is she holding out? And is that the reason why Gordon Brown was less than fulsome in his support for her at his press conference earlier as chronicled here? Accepting a donation in "good faith" as stated in a statement issued on Harriet's behalf is not an excuse for not following procedures for verification as set out in the Party's Legal and Treasurers' Handbooks. Brown was at pains to point out how his campaign team had adopted a rule not to accept money from anyone whom they did not know. Smart, Gordon. Over to you, Harriet.

Update 1715 BBC News ticker is reporting that she will repay the £5K. Will that be the end of the matter?

Has anyone told PLP chair Tony Lloyd?

Among the nuggets at yesterday's Labour Party National Executive Committee was an apparent reluctance to recognise Gordon Brown's titles of Party Chair or vice-chairs (six). As far as the NEC is concerned, Harriet Harman is Deputy Leader - a position she stood for and was elected as. As for the vice-chairs, NEC chair Mike Griffiths gruffly dismissed them as vice-chairs of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP). I wonder if anyone bothered to ask Tony Lloyd, chair of the PLP.

Psst Hazel, its OK to change your website

While waiting for news from the Labour Party NEC meeting today, I decided to do a little housekeeping. What happened to the websites of the Leader and Deputy Leader candidates that I added to my favorites during the campaign? Gordon Brown redirects straight through to the Labour Party website, Harriet Harman says thanks, as does John Cruddas and Hilary Benn, Alan Johnson is frozen in time, Peter Hain has been zapped, and Hazel Blears - well she has reverted to her regular site, but still describes herself as Party Chair and Minister without Portfolio. Oops.

Is GB gearing up for a fight with his Party?

A week ago I asked if GB, in his capacity as Leader Party leader, was going to try and out-do his predecessor in creating fictional Labour Party positions. Kevin Maguire wrote here in the Daily Mirror of four Labour Party vice-chairs. Instead, the Labour Party website today announces the names of SIX MPs appointed as vice-chairs , plus a distinguished list of 14 MPs as Manifesto Groups (sic).

I don't want to be churlish, but I have developed a 'thing' about a lack of governance in general, and particularly in the Labour Party as membership has more than halved, money has been squandered, debt have piled up and due process has been abandoned. As a member of the Labour Party with a smidgin of e-literacy I have exercised my right to Comment here.

Establishing closer links between members of the PLP and Labour Party policy making might have positive outcomes for the Party's electoral prospects in future elections. But was this proposal put to the last meeting of the National Executive Committee? If not, what is the status of these people ?

Will the next meeting of the Labour Party NEC have the political courage to hold the new Leader and Deputy Leader to account about this? I am not sure, that is one of the reasons why I am standing for the National Constitutional Committee in an election that is due to take place at the 2007 Annual Conference.