Peter Kenyon

Labour's first post-election budget: how to avoid a Balls up

Britain needs a payrise. I would go further. The world needs a pay rise. The challenge is where to start. With less than 200 days to go to the next UK General Election, there is much to do. As set out the UK Labour Party's economic policies do not add up. This is not because of profligate, irresponsible policy commitments. Labour as the only prospective party of government post-May 2015 can not afford that luxury.

Extravagant tax giveaways as proclaimed by outgoing Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron at his party Conference last month are just that, giveaways that you have no hope of delivering. His only hope and that of his flailing party is that enough of the electorate will believe him to reduce an inevitable loss of seats in just over six months' time.

So the electorate needs help to refocus on jobs and growth. Ed Miliband made an interesting appointment last night bringing back Pat McFadden MP on to Labour's frontbench to lead on Europe. Britain's membership of the European Union is the bedrock of future jobs and growth. Miliband reminded people of that in his Conference speech, remembered sadly more for what he forgot to say than what he uttered.

Unless I'm mistaken, he did say:

David Cameron doesn’t lie awake at night thinking about the United Kingdom. He lies awake at night thinking about the United Kingdom Independence Party. UKIP. That is why he is doing it friends and I say pandering to them is just one more reason why he is not fit to be the Prime Minister of this great country.

Better together, across the United Kingdom. But also better together, true to our traditions of internationalism. And nowhere is that more true than when it comes to Europe and the European Union. Friends, let me say it plainly: our future lies inside not outside the European Union.

We need to reform Europe. We need to reform Europe on the economy, on immigration, on benefits, on all of these big issues. But here is the question for Britain. How do we reform Europe? Do we reform Europe by building alliances or by burning alliances?

Indeed. So Labour is up for a head-to-head on EU membership with UKIP and UKIP-lite (formerly the Conservative and Unionist Party). Cameron's kami-kazi tactics over EU immigration levels are a big boost for Labour general election strategists. As suggested by Polly Toynbee in today's Guardian newspaper,  Cameron has reached a point of no return:

David Cameron has crossed the Rubicon. There is no going back. By proposing to limit free movement of labour from the EU he has planted himself on the side of the outs, as José Manuel Barroso made crystal clear in his Chatham House speech on Monday. The other 27 nations will never agree: if limiting national insurance numbers for EU workers is Cameron’s new red line then he has joined the Ukip wing of his party, who won’t let him renege.

This is very unsettling for UK jobs and growth. But every cloud has a silver lining. Labour has an opportunity to be much clearer about its relationship with business, and the role of markets.

Miliband set out a theme in his 2011 Conference speech, a year after being elected Leader:

Let me tell you what the 21st century choice is:

 Are you on the side of the wealth creators or the asset strippers? The producers or the predators? Producers train, invest, invent, sell. Things Britain does brilliantly.

Predators are just interested in the fast buck, taking what they can out of the business.

This isn’t about one industry that’s good and another that isn’t. Or one firm always destined to be a predator and another to be a producer.It’s about different ways of doing business, ways that the rules of our economy can favour or discourage.

Now is the time to spell out more precisely what that means for UK-based businesses and what is in store in terms of an emergency budget next summer. Will it be austerity-lite or Growth4All?

Miliband has to create scope for liberating the UK economy, and local government in particular from the tyranny of Conservative and Liberal Democrat budget cuts. That in part depends on building alliances in the EU that encourage the SDP, Labour's sister party in Germany, and part of a grand coalition led by Chancellor Angela Merkel to back growth measures to help the Eurozone avoid Japanese-style deflation.

Miliband's uncompromising stance pro-EU membership is a start. This will be welcomed by British business. But as they would say: "There is no such thing as a free-lunch." The relative "success" of the UK economy in terms of growth, compared to our EU-partners, masks a dirty little secret - a historic prolonged fall in real wages in the UK, which directly affects millions of UK voters.

There is an understanding to be reached with both business and voters. Labour will set out a strategy to ensure a payrise for Britain. In doing so it will help make the case for a payrise in Europe too. Business can not be expected to agree a living wage plan if government is not practising what it preaches. Ed Balls should be tasked with setting out a budgetary plan to enable all government departments and other levels of government to pay a living wage by 2020, or sooner should economic conditions permit. Firms willing to pay their staff a living wage should be offered a tax break for each financial year the government works towards its own implementation target. Firms that claim poverty beyond that date should be put on notice of the introduction of an Ecuadorian.

That's the moment HMRC will be empowered to check the books of any business claiming poverty to see just where its money is going.

In the meantime, any business with staff obliged to claim working tax credits to make ends meet should expect to have the details of what the wage subsidy adds up to published annually in a report to the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee. That should keep journalists on the red-tops busy with business scrounger stories in the meantime.

Over to you, Ed.

PS. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about the role of collective bargaining and sectoral arrangements in helping people secure better terms and conditions to cope with cost of living increases.

Ditto: investment especially in housing.

 

 

 

If....Labour's new Leader wants members to have a proper voice

Ed Miliband stated his ambition to give members a 'proper voice' last month at the Labour Party's Annual Conference. If I were asked where to start, what would I advise? 'Sacking' Pat McFadden MP as the chair of the National Policy Forum is not where I would have started. Don't get me wrong, I am not shedding any tears for Pat himself. But the Party's whole policy-making process is so seriously flawed that there are some members would like to scrap it and return to formulating resolutions. That would be a mistake IMHO.

Some serious thought was given to the process by the unofficial LabOUR Commission in the wake of the 2005 General Election. Primary research was undertaken resulting in two LabOUR/YouGov polls in 2006 - the findings can still be downloaded from here . An Interim Report was published after the 2007 local elections and can be downloaded here.

The specific recommendations on policy making were:

6.16. Proposed reforms:
a) The NPF should be reconstituted as an openly elected body on a one member one vote (OMOV) principle from relevant constituent parts. Constituency section members should be elected by OMOV,
probably on a regional basis.
b) The Party should aim to make sure that the final policy document is fully reflected in the Labour Party manifesto in according with the Rules and Constitution.
c) Democratic participatory policy formulation will require a new Secretariat at arm's length from the Party in Government with a transparency protocol for the NPF and NEC.
d) The chair of each policy commission should be an NPF member elected by the NPF.
e) The JPC should be reconstituted as an elected organisational body to ensure effective coordination of policy making in a timely fashion. It should not have powers to alter NPF policy recommendations. Its members should be elected from within the NPF by the NPF.
f) The JPC should establish a clear timetable for the rolling programme set for each parliamentary cycle. This should be communicated to all CLPs, Branches, Labour Groups and posted on the web.
g) Consultative reports should be despatched to all Party units with an invitation to respond and a (suggested) template for responses allowing time for proper consideration of the proposals.
h) All Branches – either individually, grouped or through a CLP all members’ forum as considered appropriate locally – should be encouraged to have a special meeting to consider policy documents. There should also be a one page summary and briefing sheet for Branch Chairs/Political Education Officers (PEOs).
i) The contact details of all NPF members should be available so they can be invited to speak at the local policy forums.
j) Publication of all submissions on the Party website so other parties, members and affiliates can access submissions and cross fertilise ideas.
k) All parties sending submissions should receive an (electronic) acknowledgement and link to where it is posted within a month. After the closing date, an independent analysis of all submissions
should be posted on the website and, together with the response and actions of both the Policy Commission and NPF, circulated to parties submitting. Thus there is a clear audit trail.
l) When a PiP dialogue focuses on contemporary issues (e.g. the decision to invade Iraq), CLPs should continue to make formal submissions and send resolutions as they feel fit, but these should
be acknowledged, published and – on key issues – analysed. Branches should be encouraged to conduct the dialogue through their CLP in a collective democratic endeavour, which incidentally
would make the process more manageable.
m) Individual members and Branches who make submissions on policy issues electronically or in writing should always be acknowledged and provided with a response where possible. They should also be advised that if they are dissatisfied with the response that they can ask their Constituency Party to make a formal submission.
n) In the event of policy differences at the NPF, minority reports should be drawn up for debate at Annual Conference and/or CLPs and affiliated bodies should have the right of amendment to NPF
documents by resolution to Conference.
o) In the event of policy differences between the Party in Government and Conference, a new mechanism is required to enable the NEC to appoint a special working party comprising  representatives of government, and the NPF to secure resolution within a limited time period after Annual Conference.

As of today, over three and a half years later, the NEC has yet to agree procedures for nomination and election to any Joint Policy Committee, National Policy Forum or Policy Commission positions. Nor has it embraced readily available web-based techniques to provide an audit trail for submissions. An example of how transparency might be achieved can be seen here.

Peter Hain, MP who is Ed Miliband's nominee to replace Pat McFaddan as chair of the National Policy Forum and possible joint convenor of the Joint Policy Committee will, if elected, face an uphill struggle to restore members' confidence in the party's policy-making process.

If I were him, I would be making sure that that the new Leader was seized of the need to put a plausible nomination and election procedure in place well before the NPF meets on 27 November. That is easier said than done as there is no National Executive Committee meeting until the following Tuesday, 30 November. Sorting this pdq would send a clear message to the party that policy making will be overseen by Labour people with democratic legitamacy, willing to be held to account.

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.

 

 

Labour Party machine is sucking MiliE in: check list item NPF

Ed Miliband first 10 days in office as Leader of the Labour Party have been cathartic. Of course, he had to put a brave face on brother David's decision not to stand for election to the shadow cabinet. Of course, he had to extend glowing praise to cling-on deputy leader Harriet Harman. Of course, he had to keep silent about a Conference rule change to sequester constituency and branch properties to cover up Mr Harman's oversights as Party Treasurer. Of course, he couldn't comment about the abandonment of natural justice by the national party in its dealings with the Tower Hamlets Labour Party. Labour was conducting its business in public.

Ed allowed himself one deft move at Conference.  Nick Brown, former leader, Gordon Brown's loyal lieutenant was 'asked' not to stand as Chief Whip. Ed proclaimed an ambition to build a mass-membership party and his 'self-perpetuated' deputy weighed in during her closing speech proclaiming members have to have a say. For that repositioning, as chair of Save the Labour Party on behalf of our members, I should be grateful, very humbly grateful. And, I am.

But the machine grinds on, relentless. Yesterday, an invitation was issued to Party members by eMail signed by Pat McFadden, National Policy Forum chair to contribute to a review of Party policy-making. By his own admission at the last pre-Conference NEC the Labour Party lacks staff resources to process too many submissions. So what does he do? He invites contributions in the most secretive, labour-intensive consultation format known to sentient beings.

Pat McFaddon's mandate as NPF chair expired in July 2009. For administrative convenience his mandate and that of every other NPF delegate was extended for a year pending an OMOV ballot for regional representatives in the constituency section. That took place at the same time as the leadership contest just ended. Throughout that period the NPF never met.

The next meeting of the NPF has been scheduled by the machine for 20 November 2010 at a venue TBA. At my penultimate National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting, I asked when a paper setting out the nomination procedures for posts on the Joint Policy Committee and the National Policy Forum would be put before the NEC. I was ruled out of order by outgoing NEC chair Ann Black re-elected on the Grassroots Labour slate promoted by the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (CLPD). Technically, Ann was right. But the facts are:

1. that there are no agreed procedures for election of chairs and vice-chairs of the NPF

2. Pat McFadden was nominated as chair in 2007 by open call at an NPF meeting. His name was put forward by prior arrangement of the machine

3. the NEC is not meeting again until the week before the NPF in November 2010 (ie too late)

So Ed, if you want to make your mark, ask for a nomination procedure to be drawn up this week which gives all NPF members a genuine, open opportunity to consider who is best equipped to lead the Party policy making process. (The NEC is able to consider and agree such a procedure by telephone conference/eMail. As you will recall when some of us were agitating for a special NEC meeting after the General Election it took place on the Tuesday (three working days later)).

If you don't take this opportunity to get a grip on Partnership into Power and the NPF on behalf of members, we'll know the machine has triumphed again.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/sectors/financial/news/aviva-puts-customers-centre-stage/3018888.article