Peter Kenyon

Beware of former General Secretaries bearing advice

Former General Secretary, Peter Watt has offered his reflections on the tug of war between the Leader of the Labour Party's office, Head Office Staff and the new General Secretary on Labour Uncut.

Ever anxious to safeguard his reputation, Peter makes claims about his role introducing the concept of governance to the National Executive Committee, and by implication the Leader's Office.

I have penned a comment, which at the time of writing is still await approval by Labour Uncut's moderator.

So here it is:

Dear Peter

Before your claims of introducing governance to the Labour Party's NEC  become enshrined in urban myth, I suggest you read a copy of the Development Trust Association (now Locality)'s Early Warning Guide. 

I declare an interest as a member of the working group that compiled the key performance indicators for executives and non-executives.

I also declare an interest as a former member of the NEC whose first requests having been elected were a) to attend the Warwick 2 National Policy Forum as an observer - refused by the then acting General Secretary Chris Lennie, and b) copies of the 2008 budget, management accounts and staff/organisation organigram(s) - refused by the then Director of Finance and Compliance, Roy (now Lord) Kennedy married to former deputy General Secretary, Alicia Kennedy.

Good governance comes from each member understanding their roles, and responsibilities. Is there any evidence that anyone either in the Leader's Office or the National Executive Committee has a grasp of the most basic principles of governance - good or bad?

I'd be happy to be enlightened.

Yours with happy memories of being told by you some years ago that I was part of the problem

Peter Kenyon

In a word - beware.

Labour at a crossroads - control freaks rally

There are two competing visions of the Labour Party. I exaggerate. But for the sake of debate, consider: the Manchester Declaration 2011, and two posts in the last 24 hours one from a former general secretary, Peter Watt yesterday, and the other from the secretary of Labour First, Luke Akehurst.

Peter wants us to believe politics is boring and irrelevant. Luke is providing a smokescreen for party staff acting in defiance of and to the detriment of Ed Miliband's leadership. We will see a lot more of this before Conference 2011.

In the meantime, the authors of the Manchester Declaration 2011 are seeking to offer a vision of the future Labour Party focussed around four core themes:

• A Healthy and Dynamic Party
• An Inclusive Party where everyone is welcome, living our values and representative of our communities
• A Campaigning Party rooted in our communities and making a difference
• A Democratic Party with open, informed policy debate — a partnership of equals

If you want to express your preference for this sort of party, please sign up now on the Labour Democratic Network website.

 

Prezza 'near bankrupcy' claim risks Labour Party financial recovery

Former Deputy Leader John (Lord) Prescott's imprudent proclamation about the Labour Party's 'near bankruptcy' grabbed the headlines last week, presumably in the hope of boosting his vote in the election campaign to be the next Party Treasurer. For Labour Party members awaiting a sheaf of ballot papers in the post next week, it ought to give pause for thought.

When have the Labour Party's finances ever been anything other than precarious? So what's the news in Prescott's claim? The only worthy story line to my mind is: 'Labour Party Treasurer's job made near impossible'. The irony which appears to being lost on the 4th estate is that the closest the Labour Party has been to bankruptcy in the recent past was when Prescott himself was Deputy Leader, and a senior member of the National Executive Committee. It really was a bit rich of him to have a poke at outgoing Treasurer, Jack Dromey's ignorance, when Prescott himself appears to have been no better informed. Or was he? I think the General Secretary at the time Peter Watt should tell us. Though that's unlikely as he is now backing Prezza4Treasurer.

Prescott acknowledges that the current National Executive Committee has taken the Labour Party back from the brink, but lashes out in his Guardian article on 19 August, 2010 at the electoral consequences claiming:

".....under the NEC's deficit reduction plan in 2008, we will clear our debts by 2016, but at the expense of campaigning for next year's Scottish, Welsh and local elections and the 2015 general election."

What's worrying about his approach is that Prescott apparently still thinks elections are won by throwing money at them. That's what Conservative Party financier, Lord Ashcroft thought. Now, at least some of us know the limits of that strategy.. Mercifully, the British electorate also appears reluctant to be bought. Prescott makes a gesture towards increased membership. But that alone is unlikely to put the Labour Party's finances on a sound-footing in the foreseeable future. More likely it will take at least a generation to build a new financial settlement inside the Labour Party's federal and regional structures to guarantee solvency from one electoral cycle to another. 

To succeed, the new Leader, Treasurer and National Executive Committee need to come clean with members asap. As far as the Party's finances are concerned we are all in this together, rich and poor. Each of us, individually and severally (as the lawyers say) is liable for the Labour Party's debts. For those Labour Party members of modest means, there is nothing to worry about in practice - creditors want their money back in the event of bankrputcy. So, they only chase those with money from whom there is a chance of recovery. Of course, Prescott, is one of those NEC members, like former Leader Tony Blair, who could have been prime targets in any recovery proceedings back in 2006/07. (I should add, as a member of the NEC for the last two years, I have been careful to establish an audit trail to demonstrate that I have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the Party's finances are being managed properly.)

Looking to the future, the new Leadership needs to put an immediate stop to the pretence that there is something unique about they way the national Labour Party can account for its finances. In organisational terms, the Labour Party is an unincorporated voluntary association.  Hence, members fce unlimited liabilities in the eyes of the law.

If local parties have to hold annual general meetings, elect officers and receive audited accounts, why doesn't the Labour Party do the same, instead of pretending a general session at its Annual Conference covers the requirement? These requirements are the means of providing accountability, building and sustaining trust.

The siren calls of more state-funding, or greater reliance on rich people/the trade unions are old politics. They definitely will not help endear Labour to the electorate again.

What better way to underwrite solvency and going concern than for the new Treasurer to come forward with a financial model embracing grassroots collective responsibility? Party funding should be linked through the electoral cycle to the need for active local membership, campaigning and fundraising for local, regional, national and European elections. It should not be the sum of battlebus itineraries and costly billboard proclamations.

A fresh approach requires a fresh candidate, even though her nomination is mired by old trade union customs and practice (a subject for another day). Sorry John, you have shown some contrition through the Go4th campaign, but I shall be voting Diana4Treasurer.

Former Labour GS joins fray re Deputy Leadership no-contest

Let nobody say Twitter doesn't fulfil a function. At 0001 this morning Peter Watt, former Labour Party General Secretary joined my tweeter-flush with Tom Harris MP on the subject of whether or not nomination papers for Deputy Leader should have been issued shortly after the 2010 General Election campaign. His contributions can be followed @peterwatt123 on Twitter

If the Maltese Labour Party can do it, why not the British?

The ultimate riposte to Peter Watt and his ilk?

State funding of political parties 'inevitable' - ex-GS Peter Watt

Watching ex-Labour Party General Secretary Peter Watt on the Andrew Marr Show on BBC1 was repulsive, but compulsive viewing for me. I only met him one. It was in my capacity as Chair of Save the Labour Party. He was standing in for Matt Carter. He concluding our meeting by dismissing me as "part of the problem".

He was right. Invididual members like me regard our right to speak out as sacrocanct. My wife and I had already put our views opposing state-funding on the public record in evidence to the Electoral Commission's (EC) inquiry into the funding of political parties. Save the Labour Party adopted the same position rejecting the idea that taxpayers should fund political parties. And of course the EC rejected the pleadings of the mainstream political parties for state-alms. That goes a little way to explain the dislike, and even hostility towards the EC from the Labour Party on Peter Watt's ill-fated watch as General Secretary.

The Labour Party is an unincorporated voluntary association. Watt displayed his ignorance in stating on screen that technically members of the National Executive Committee are responsible for the Party's debts. Wrong. As anyone involved in the governance of unincorporated voluntary associations knows - technically EVERY member is liable for the debts, not just its management committee.

State-funding is the ultimate refuge of the political scoundrel, the snake-oil salesperson unable to persuade enough people of the merits of their political programme. Labour would be well advised to reject the idea as part of its Manifesto commitment to clean up British politics. It would be a good way to stress our confidence in our Labour values and our ability to raise enough money to remain solvent and win elections without relying on the state taxpayer.

UPDATE 1415 Monday - Too True!