Peter Kenyon

Labour's winning combination: policies, passion, processes and party democracy

Admittedly, current opinion polling data is not encouraging for the Labour Party. At least not for the faint hearted. But then think about who's paying for those polls and publishing - a largely hostile media. Meanwhile, in the real world, there are the markets, places of work, leisure and home. And for political party activists, a relentless work programme from an electoral ward in a local authority to capturing the attention of electorate nationally.

This is an election when contrary to the siren calls of those who claim that most votes don't count in a first-past-the post election, every single vote will count in 2010 - wherever it is cast.

Living in a Conservative held parliamentary seat (Cities of London and Westminster), and a place where local council elections took place last year (City of London), I've still been mobilising members in my own Labour Party branch. Some are keeping our Labour candidate for the General Election in the limelight by delivering leaflets, others like me are also canvassing in a neighbouring electoral ward Bunhill Ward in Islington South. Membership alone is not the driver. Nor dreams about possible outcomes. Organisation and policies are key within a framework of party democracy. Having rebuild a local branch, we have members who understand the importance of a political narrative, regular voter identification, messages for postal voters, canvassing of PVers, members to take polling numbers on election day, others to knock to Get Out The Vote. With polling stations open from 7 am to 10 pm breaking up the day into one-hour shifts - a small army is required in every branch, not just constituency to optimise the vote.

Bunhill Ward, like most electoral wards in London has three polling stations. That is 13 - one-hour shifts times three making 39 shifts just to collect numbers,. Then there are runners to pick up, committee room staff to enter and produce 'Knocking-up' sheets for those additional members with the most stamina to walk/jog/run  round reminding 'promises' to actually vote. (There is scope for efficiencies using electronic devices, but that's another story.) It should be done with 20 people/ branch, ideally more. So across a densely populated urban constituency that would be some 200 volunteers - and that's just on polling day. 

So tiring it might be, but 'tired old politics' - oh no. This is the stuff of real politics that reflects our policies, passion, process and party democracy. Parliamentary democracy is not just about a vote when a General Election is called. It's about on-going debate reflecting values - the bedrock of tackling events. If anyone wants to clean up British politics, then their plans have to encompass accountability, party AND parliamentary democracy. All three main political party leaders have shown themselves wanting in that regard. None of them readily embraces party democracy. If Brown really wants to win he will show he understands he owes his career to the Labour Party. It is the Labour Party that has brought fairness to the many. it is the Labour Party that thanks to its members and supporters has a manifesto to offer 'A future fair for all'. 

The economy is on the mend. Today's International Herald Tribune carries some very encouraging words:

Policy Exchange, a British research organization, has written: “Though many people find it hard to believe, the United Kingdom is still a major manufacturing economy — the sixth in the world,” whose output is about equal to Italy’s and a bit bigger than that of France. Although Britain’s deficit, according to the E.U.’s statistical agency, is troublingly high at 11.5 percent compared with Germany’s 3.3 percent, its debt as a percentage of G.D.P. is smaller, 68 percent versus 73.2 percent. And so was its March unemployment rate, 8 percent in Britain against 8.5 percent in Germany, where Rainer Bruderle, the German economics minister, branded “our little Job Miracle” the envy of the world. The International Monetary Fund even projects growth in Britain as out-doing the euro-zone average this year and next. 

Not bad. 

I'd say. So Labour Party Leader, Gordon Brown's job in the remaining 9 days of the campaign is to empathise with the electorate seeking reassurance. He needs to focus on the benefits of public sector investment, the banks back in profit, recapitalised able and more willing to lend, and look forward to rising tax revenues from growth to help reduce the fiscal deficit without draconian public spending cuts or massive tax hikes. 

He should also take some credit for helping stimulate interest in our politics by agreeing to the TV debates. But that will only be credible if he sets himself and his party firmly on the side of ongoing political engagement and collegiate policy making, rather than concentrating more power in the hands of the party leaders and their power brokers (m'lord Mandelson, take note).

Can/will the electorate 'conspire' to dump Labour's Brown?

With 12-days to go British Prime Minister and Labour Party leader Gordon Brown is facing a pincer movement by the other two competing egos seeking to govern Britain. Brown's legitimacy as party leader was compromised in 2007 when he assumed the leadership of his party in what many commentators described as a 'coronation'. That was the inevitable outcome of a process that resulted in no other member of the parliamentary labour party being able to secure the 44 backers needed to force an election. Labour Party members and affiliates that form the other two parts of Labour's leadership electoral college consequently had no say. This will all come into play if Labour fails to secure the largest share of the popular vote and a majority of seats in the new House of Commons when the counting is finished after 6 May 2010.

Labour election strategy hangs on its ability to get across a simple message. "It's the economy, stupid." "We saved you from the abyss" is not as compelling as "You've never had it so good". Brown reduced the campaigning slogan to : 'Jobs, jobs, jobs' immediately after the second televised prime ministerial debate. The bedrock of Britain's parliamentary democracy - political party mass membership has crumbled in the post war period. The country faces a 'game change' moment when the professional political class stages another coup to further distance the electorate from the elected.

Contraditions abound. The advocates of proportional representation (PR) for elections to the House of Commons have been claiming of decades that votes don't count. There is even a campaign for PR called 'Make votes count' run by a Liberal Democrat. Yet here we are on the eve of a General Election under first past the post (FPTP) when the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are positioning themselves in the post-electoral scene in which the proportion of votes cast for each party WILL COUNT. Brown's claim to remain prime minister will depend on how many votes are cast for Labour Party candidates, IRRESPECTIVE of whether the seat has traditionally been Conservative, Liberal (Democrat), and more recently Scottish Nationalist or Plaid Cymru. Ever fleet of electoral foot m'Lord Mandelson has spotted that too, and opined accordingly. 2010 is not the year for tactical voting.

To win Labour has a mountain to climb. Whilst I'm glad Mandelson has spotted the blindingly obvious in that regard, he has been exceptionally slow and ridiculously stubborn in acknowledging the catastrophic blunders made by New Labour under former Prime Minister Tony Blair. Brown's only chance of remaining prime minister, and Labour winning a fresh mandate is if he and his allies are candid with the electorate.

As Labour Foreign Secretary David Miliband conceded in a foreign affairs debate with the Conservatives' William Hague and Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat spokemen when asked if he would still have supported the invasion of Iraq if he had known then what was known now, he said:

“Obviously there would have been no such decision.

“Because if we had known then what we know now, if we'd have known that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, there would have been no UN resolutions and no vote in the House of Commons.

Brown needs to be similarly forthright about his handling of the economy. Major errors were made by New Labour which relied too heavily on the private sector, especially the financial sector. A major shortage of affordable housing was another blunder of the New Labour ideologists. Remarkably Britain is still a major world manufacturer, despite having no strategic industrial policy for 10 years under New Labour. All that has been changed on Brown's watch. Britain is out of Iraq. (No one questions the legitimacy of the was in Afghanistan, just the tactics.) Brown steered not just Britain, but the world out of the 2008 banking crisis, and subsequent recession. No question. Yes, recovery is fragile. But the adverse consequences in terms of jobs and repossessions were far less than forecast 18 months ago. The banking system did not collapse. We were able to continue drawing cash from the ATMs.

Yes, the cost of recovery has been increased public borrowing. But that is what government's are for. That's the lesson of the last century. At last in Brown and the Labour Party, Britain has a prime minister and political party that understands what government is for. The public finances are not in meltdown. The only real risks to jobs, homes, schools and the NHS arise arguably from a Conservative government, or the uncertainty arising from a possible Tory/Lib-Dem administration. (Even a scant knowledge of their respective positions on the economy and electoral reform screams - polls apart!)

What Labour election strategists have to grapple with is who are the best advocates of these messages. We are stuck with another televised debate. But for some of the electorate election day has already come and gone, some postal votes have already been delivered, filled in and returned. Labour supporters are going to have to use crowd techniques to get easily understood messages across in the final few days. Brown has got to be contrite and collegiate. Lord Mandelson ditto. Team Labour has to be allowed to speak.

Parliamentary seat engineering: Hunt for Stoke Central - update 2

Longlisting for Stoke Central to decide who will replace sitting MP Mark Fisher as Labour's candidate is expected to take place today.

Word has is that Tom Watson MP (who mysteriously sits on the Labour Party's ruling (sic) national executive committee as a government representative even though he's been out of government since July last year) has been stopped from chairing any more of the three-member selection panels. 

The baton to ensure a particular outcome may have been passed to Deputy Leader Harriet Harman, it is alleged, who, since husband Jack Dromey won the All Male Shortlisted ballot in Birmingham, Erdington, is free once again to take part in parliamentary seat engineering, as I call it. Her name is being linked to a private understanding with m'lord Mandelson in a bid to secure seats for favoured candidates.

I can't attest to the voracity of these suggestions. But knowing those who are making them, I consider they must be aired in the hope that sanity will prevail. An open and transparent process could have avoided these suspicions, which are extremely damaging to member morale, and to Labour's electoral prospects.

A shortlist for Stoke Central that offers local members genuine choice in the ballot that will take place shortly will be a real test for the Labour leadership. Is it focussed on winning the election or more concerned about positioning ahead of a leadership contest that would follow defeat?

UPDATE: 0903 Friday 26 March - Harriet Harman is not on the three-member panel that will be interviewing and shortlisting candidates on Monday afternoon, which I understand will comprise Keith Vaz MP, Cllr Ann Lucas and USDAW's Paddy Lillis.

Choice for local members has already been compromised by the omission of Mark Seddon, former editor of Tribune and NEC member from the long-list. Given their full right's would Seddon have got some nominations from members? But in the faux democracy deeply engrained in the upper echelons of the Labour Party, those members' rights now count for little, if anything at all. Shameful.

Labour Party NEC: Mandelson mystery lecture

As you might expect yesterday's Labour Party National Executive Committee was focussed on the forthcoming General Election, whenever that might be before 3 June. In the absence of the Prime Minister and Labour Leader Gordon Brown in Northern Ireland the Agenda was rearranged. Deputy Leader Harriet Harman and Election Manifesto coordinator Ed Miliband were both scheduled to report, listen to debate and answer NEC members' questions. But nothing by way of either advance notice or explanation helped clarify a mystery 30-minute lecture by m'Lord Mandelson on Labour's electoral prospects - all of which IMHO had been rather better covered by Harriet and Ed. The most telling question came from a colleague who must remain nameless about whether there were ideological lessons to be learned by Labour from the banking crisis, credit crunch and subsequent recession. In the light of the obfuscation that followed from m'Lord, the famous rebuke offered by former Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee to former party chair, Harold Laski came to mind. Attlee is reported to have written:

"I can assure you there is widespread resentment in the Party at your activities and a period of silence on your part would be welcome."

I can't help thinking that m'Lord's latest idea reported earlier today that former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair will join the election campaign, had it been put to a vote in the NEC might have revealed a less than enthusiastic response. And after Friday, and Blair's scheduled appearance infront of the Chilcott Inquiry, phew!

Pleural plaques: Another Labour Party own goal?

Adequate compensation for plural plaques sufferers being sought by campaigners is reportedly at risk. This report blames Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown. I wonder if m'Lord Mandelson has had a quite word. Whatever, the upshot (if true) is another let down in the making for Labour's core vote, at least in England and Wales. That should liven up next week's National Executive Committee meeting on the day the Westminster (increasingly English as far as domestic policy is concerned) Parliament goes into recess.

Labour's NEC - a broken reed?

Today, the Guardian published a letter I wrote last week in response to a Comment piece on the Labour Party by Simon Jenkins in which among other things Jenkins described its National Executive Committee as 'a broken reed'. 

I challenged his analysis, writing:

The Labour party's shortcomings are governance failures. Just like those that took Britain to war in Iraq, and led to the near collapse of the banking system and the MPs' allowances scandal. The result has been alien policies, membership and local council representation cut by over 50%, and massive debts.

Save the Labour Party's call for an extra NEC meeting has been rejected by the powers that the on the grounds that it was not possible to arrange. That's a problem with a body that only meets every two months and is never given any meaningful management information either about its finances, membership or organisational capacity. What's the point?

I'm still waiting for confirmation that the Statement of Accounts for 2008 has been sent to the Electoral Commission, and that it will also be sent to members this month for consideration at July meetings. I hope that our Auditors have given an unqualified opinion as to the state of the Party's finances. But it can only be a hope, as I have never seen any information as a member of the NEC that would assure me that they will. With affiliated trade unions, the Party's financial mainstay, threatening to reduce funding or in extreme cases, such as the Communications Workers' Union, disaffiliate, there must be questions about going-concern. Yesterday's announcement by m'Lord Mandleson cancelling the part-privatisation of the Post Office at least removes one potential threat to the Labour Party's finances, for the time being. In any normal organisation, the NEC would have had an opportunity to consider the draft accounts with the Auditor present. My request for such a meeting before 30 June has been ignored.

Underlying these concerns, which I will readily admit are a minority interest, are worries that 'the powers that be' in the Labour Party think they are law unto themselves, just like Members of Parliament, and bankers. It is time this view was challenged more loudly, and very publicly, if 'the powers that be' hope to win back the trust of party members and the electorate.

Gordon still needs a Willie

Just before the PM's announcement of the terms of Second Iraq War Inquiry I blogged asserting among other things:

Any attempt to save his predecessor's blushes, his own or those of the opposition Conservative Party are unlikely to endear him to the electorate, or the vast majority of Labour Party members.

So it proved. Worse, the Sunday papers have outed the First Secretary of State m'Lord Mandelson and former Prime Minister Tony Blair as the main influences on what has proved to be another unmitigated PR disaster for Gordon Brown.

This has prompted me to think about how former Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher coped when she was isolated. Step forward Willie Whitelaw. There is a rather good account of his role in a review of his official biography by Malcolm Rifkind published in the Staggers. Brown is of urgent need of a counterbalance inside the Cabinet to m'Lord Mandelson to reconnect with his Party, core vote and electoral coalition on whom his acclaimed place in history will depend. If the events of this week haven't persuaded him, we on the Left should all be worried. As if we weren't worried enough already.

Time to lash up the loose can(n)ons in the Lords

No sooner had I relished my barber's embracing a 50% tax band for those on over £150K a year, than the Thunderer reports:

50p tax on rich may be temporary, Labour ministers hint

And who might the source be? None other than the unelected, reverse transfer from the capital of unaccountability, m'Lord Mandelson of Hartlepool and Foy. Let's have a national debate about Labour taxation policy before the next election and offer the country a clear choice. This is not about a return to Denis Healey's taxing the rich until the pips squeak, it is about fairness.

Never has it been simpler to make the case for a living income for the low-paid (they tend to spend, big plus in times of recession) and question the claims of senior executives to mega-salaries (it's the risks, except when they miscalculate, then they expect the rest of us mere low-paid mortals to pick up the bill via government).

Time to lash up the loose can(n)ons in the Lords and bring on an elected second chamber.

Last post sounds for Labour's unloved Lord

Mandy's strident calls against the Communications Workers' Union reported earlier today in the Sunday papers has put paid to former leader Tony Blair's ambitions that his project would only be complete when the Labour Party learned to love Peter [now Lord] Mandelson

Is this the last post for the latterly enobled Lord Mandelson of Hartlepool and Foy?

New Labour not dead - Mandelson...mmm

Sky News is reporting a curtain raiser on Business Secretary Peter Mandelson's speech to the Institute of Directors tonight in which he is reported to dispute claims that New Labour is dead. I still see the words on Labour Party Head Office stationery, but I'll have to confess that I have not used them on branch or CLP stationery, election literature or newsletters for years. We have a durable brand with an updated image as shown.