Peter Kenyon

Corbynmania: from euphoria to electability

Nineteen weeks ago I posted in the wake of Labour's latest electoral setback. The response of Labour Party members to the need to elect a new Leader was quite unexpected. Well until serial rebel Jeremy Corbyn MP entered the race, when the mood changed and hundreds of thousands flocked to join whether as members, registered supporters or affiliates.

Now luxuriating in his first party conference, Corbyn continues to demonstrate political skills that are reaching out - providing encouragement to those of us who don't rule out a return to two-party politics in the UK. 

Grumbling from the with the Parliamentary Labour Party - frontbenchers and backbenchers alike continues. This is in part fuelled by local doorstep activity since 12 September (when Corbyn was pronounced decisive winner of Labour's 2015 leadership contest). These soundings backed by opinion polling suggest a significant proportion of Labour voters would abandon the party led by Corbyn at the ballot box.

Well, if we take our political cues from the rabid right-wing print media, and the biased broadcasting company BBC), that might seem inevitable. But Labour has fresh recruits (some of whom are old hands) to help counter that bilious onslaught to be active campaigners?

Our challenge is to find effective ways of rebutting the Daily Mail (to name one of the rest offered) same day combining Head Office/Leader's office resources with those active in local communities and on social media.

 

 

 

No to scrapping shadow cabinet elections, reinstate yearly

Dear Ed 

Mass membership and shadow cabinet elections 

So you want to scrap Shadow Cabinet elections and appoint your front bench. Before tonight's Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) spare a moment to consider the damage done to the Party by uncritical loyalty sought and granted to previous Labour leaders, especially your immediate predecessors, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. If that doesn't give you pause for thought, just ask yourself whether your proposed model of leadership could ever work at a Labour Party branch level.

I am opposed to your proposal. I refuse to compromise my commitment to Labour Values as a paid up member, just because you as a recently elected Leader have issued a diktat. I am reliably informed that some people closer to you, than I, feel hopelessly compromised, ie. unable to speak out. Worse, some despite misgivings have already gone into the public domain in support of this foolhardy idea. If they didn't they might leave you more exposed to factions inside the PLP that are not so loyal to you.

There are sound reasons why the Labour Party should not only have annual shadow cabinet elections, but apply the practice when in government. The Labour Party is a political party, not a business corporation. Its existence depends on its capacity to attract large numbers of people who can win more votes in elections than our opponents. In that mix the 'brand'/values, and competences/calibre of its candidates feature prominently.

Just remember the context in which the last Shadow Cabinet elections took place (the first since 1996). Newly elected Labour MPs were actively discouraged by sitting members from standing at all. Worse, the PLP standing orders were changed to scrap annual elections in favour of biennial ones. At a stroke, you as newly elected leader were stuck with an elected Shadow Cabinet of 'experienced' Labour MPs able to command votes from internal slates.

I tried as an elected member of the constituency section of the NEC to get the proposed changes to the PLP SOs brought to the NEC with a view to reinstating annual elections and securing Conference's sovereign right to decide the rules under which our elected representatives to the Westminster Parliament operate.

Rather than annual frontbench elections being a distraction, they could be a vital link in that process of reaching out and engaging as well as performance managing (to coin a phrase from the business community) our front bench team; but distinctively democratic, rather than managerial.

What better means have you at your disposal for enabling members and the wider public to broaden their understanding of the reasons why it says on all our Party membership cards: The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party?

I'm not looking for a directly elected frontbench. But I would like an open and transparent process with each candidate having to publish a statement, declare interests and secure nominations,and seconders, prior to the election. Afterwards each Labour MPs voting record should be published. In between the close of nominations and the ballot, there would be an opportunity for each Labour MP to consult their local members, and interested constituents, as well as the wider public.

Wouldn't our politics be richer for a broader understanding of how our representative democracy works? An effective front bench is important to securing re-election, but so is a motivated, engaged, mass-membership party.

It would be another reason to be a member of the Labour Party. And as I mentioned above appointment forms no part of Labour Party branch governance arrangements, or any other level of party activity. As volunteers, we have to work with whoever has paid their dues and turns up. We seek election for the offices we hold and fulfil on behalf of members, and are accountable to them. The branch Labour party is live schooling in representative democracy, especially when linked to one electoral ward boundary.

So, cutting to the chase, the only question today is whether you have the political courage to recognise and admit that you have not been as well advised as you might on the matter of the Shadow Cabinet, and that there may be alternatives to harnessing talent in the PLP and opposing the Conservative-led coalition?

Yours in socialism

Peter Kenyon

secretary, Cities of London and Westminster CLP (personal capacity)

 

 

Labour's Joint Policy Commission meets tomorrow - fixers or facilitators?

Ed Miliband's leadership faces a key test tomorrow. It is unlikely to be reported in the conventional media. But it concerns preparations for forthcoming set piece events. A week on Saturday the Labour Party's National Policy Forum meets in Wrexham. Three months later Annual Conference takes place in Liverpool.

At the centre of a web of Labour Party policy making bodies is the Joint Policy Commission bringing together representatives of the Parliamentary Labour Party, National Executive Committee and the National Policy Forum. It sounds balanced and altogether reasonable. But. There always is a but. Since its inception the JPC has failed party members. Instead of enabling debate, the JPC become part of the machine's apparatus to stifle members' contributions.

Put simply the question for Ed, is will you take the opportunity tomorrow to nobble the fixers, and herald openness and transparency?

New PLP rules require Labour Conference debate and decision

Following the Parliamentary Labour Party's (PLP) decision to effectively ignore party policy regarding gender balance its freedom to manage its own affairs should be terminated as soon as possible. Labour Party members and supporters don't give of their time and money to support a boys' club.

Yesterday, a majority of the 257 Labour MPs voted to restrict a proposed increase in the quota of women in the 19-member Shadow Cabinet to just six for the duration of the current Parliament. This was a slap in the face to campaigners calling for a radical move to show the electorate that Labour is the only political party serious about equality.

Some commentators are worried that the PLP by voting to retain a 100% elected shadow cabinet the hands of the new Leader are being tied. Absolutely, that it the point of elections. By presenting the Leader with an elected  list of Labour MPs, our elected representatives are encouraging team work and reducing the scope for pedestal politics. But by opting for biennial shadow cabinet elections, accountability for performance has been eroded - compared with the previous practice in Opposition of an annual contest. These issues can not be left unchallenged by the party's ruling National Executive Committee (NEC).

As a member of the NEC, I shall be calling for a report to the next NEC meeting and proposing that the PLP proposals are subject to debate and final decision at Conference. In addition, I shall be proposing that the NEC recommend to Conference an immediate 50% quote for women in the Shadow Cabinet elections due to start during Conference itself.

Did the PLP conspire not to challenge Labour's Deputy Leader?

An amusing exchange is taking place on Twitter concerning my last posting on this site between yours truly @PeterKenyon and Tom Harris MP @TomHarrisMP. In his lasting tweet, Tom reports:

As we know, leadership nomination papers aren't normally sent out unless requested by MPs. I'm not aware of any such requests.

To which I replied:

 I respectfully suggest you read the Rule Book.

I'm gagging for his response.

Patronage is polluting Labour's leadership contest

Ask yourself, how do we know about the declared Labour leadership contenders in the first place? Four of them who achieved cabinet status in the governments of previous Labour leaders are without doubt talented people, but they are the creatures of patronage. Those who know me will appreciate that in drawing attention to this I am not seeking to get personal. But it is a fact that Labour in government adopts the constitutional conventions of the state, and not democratic socialism. The Labour leader selects a government. The Queen gives them their seals of office. The practice of electing a shadow cabinet, required when Labour is in opposition, is abandoned. And indeed it has been throughout the last 13 years.

I have already highlighted the Rules of the Labour Party that ought to have been followed by the General Secretary, Ray Collins, and the National Executive Committee (of which I am a member) when it set the timetable and the codes to apply to the Leadership election to replace Gordon Brown last Tuesday. Within two days the 9-day nomination timetable plan was in tatters. The deadline was extended by nearly a fortnight in the face of opposition particularly from MPs and TUs. It is still too short.

If there is one lesson that ought to have been learned by Labour in the wake of our defeat on 6 May, it is that the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) lost its exclusive nomination rights for the Leadership in crowning Gordon Brown leader in 2007. The absence of debate within the Party following the resignation of Tony Blair left everyone struggling to make sense of what Labour stood for. So it proved on 6 May.

Labour MPs should now be under no pressure whatsoever to secure the necessary 33 nominations from their colleagues in the PLP. As was pointed out to beleaguered General Secretary Ray Collins the proposed nine-day deadline left no opportunity to consult local members. Astonishingly, Collins told then they had no obligation to do so. So much for promoting the widest possible discussion in the Labour Party of how it lost power, and what it must do to make itself re-electable across the whole of the United Kingdom.

What the Labour Party needs is the widest possible debate. There are now six declared candidates - gender, ethnic and political diversity has been added at a stroke by Diane Abbott, and the political spectrum of views has been extended to the left of the Party by John McDonnell. They and any other Labour MP should all be encouraged to take part in hustings between now and the second half of July.

CLPs and affiliated bodies are entitled under Rule to nominate whom they want. It is then beholden on such nominees to obtain the necessary PLP support two clear weeks before the ballot. Just imagine the uproar that is going to befall the Labour Party come Wednesday 9 June if Diane Abbott fails to achieve the necessary 33 nominations as required under the current NEC ruling. How can it hope to continue to recruit new members and encourage former members back if the Labour Party elite shuts out the candidates that had the political courage to oppose the Iraq War in the first place? In the meantime, the patronage candidates are waging a war of words about how it was wrong to go to war against Saddam Hussein. Sorry, which lobby did they go into. (Apologies Miliband E - I know you were studying in the US at the time. But you did not speak out then.)

The present timetable is not sustainable. My NEC colleagues all heard Collins claim on Tuesday that the proposals were legally sound. They all heard him cite the name of the lawyer concerned. I have asked Collins to produce the written opinion or dated office note to support that claim. If he can't produce it by first thing Monday morning, there should be an emergency NEC Procedures Committee, if not an emergency NEC to review the situation.

I sought to amend the Rules on Tuesday my intention was to remove all references to the fictitious 'supporting nominations' provisions. There is still time to overturn the constitutional coup staged by the Party's elite. The future of the Party depends on it.

Left Futures points up PLP elections, diversity remains an opportunity

Newly launched hub for forward thinking for the democratic Left - Left Futures today carries a timely reminder about the 'other' elections inside the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) written by Jon Lansman titled, " 'Democracy' returns to the PLP". Dates have not been set, but the PLP shadow cabinet elections should take place well before those for the Labour Leadership.

What the PLP standing orders either on timing or the conduct of the elections themselves, I don't know. Getting information about how the Labour really functions remains a challenge. But it occurred to me on Saturday listening to Ed Miliband, unable to give a crisp answer to a question about diversity, that the PLP as early as tonight (Monday, assuming it's meeting tonight) has a wonderful opportunity to transform the diversity agenda inside the Party overnight.

There are 19 places for the Shadow Cabinet on the Parliamentary Committee when in Opposition if my sources are correct. If it isn't already embedded in the Standing Orders (SOs) I hope that the PLP brothers and sisters will propose and vote for the Shadow Cabinet places to be subject to the following quotas: 9 places for women, 8 places for men and two places for Black, Asian and Ethnic Minority candidates (one woman, one man) - these would be extra to any places secured by BAME candidates in either the female or male 'colleges' getting enough votes to secure a shadow cabinet place anyway.

I'm sure the NEC would not have any problem agreeing to such a change tomorrow without further ado.

I promise an update as soon as I can get confirmation about the current SOs and hopefully a proposer for the quotas, if necessary.

I wonder how many toes will be trodden on and careers launched, if such modest changes were adopted.

Labour leadership - proper debate impossible without more brotherly love

Listening to the Labour Party leadership coverage to date, I have come to the conclusion that an evident appetite for the widest possible reflection and proper debate will be impossible without a rethink - not of the rules, but how the principal players behave in the circumstances. We need even more brotherly love.

As set out the Labour Party rules concerning valid nominations have come to dominate Leadership contests. Labour MPs (members of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP)) have the whip hand. They and they alone can determine who can and cannot get on the ballot paper. In the event of a vacancy, Rule 4.2.B.i says that 12.5% of Labour MPs must nominate to ensure a place on the ballot paper. In the event of no vacancy, under Rule 4.2.B.ii says that 20% of Labour MPs are required. It need not be like that.

David and Ed have had their Mother Miliband moment, eshewed deals and guaranteed an election for the next Leader of the Labour Party. Both seem confident of getting the necessary nominations. For that they deserve genuine applause and gratitude. After listening to Ed Miliband declare his candidacy yesterday at the Fabian Society post-election conference, I went to an alternative Labour movement event organised by the Labour Representation Committee and Labour Briefing at which there was a discussion about the prospects of getting John McDonnell MP on the ballot paper. I doubt that his prospects are any better even with a smaller PLP, than they were in 2007. But in winding up a workshop debate on 'Fighting for Labour's future - A Left turn', I committed to playing my part to try and achieve that aim. Not because I necessarily agree with John, but because I believe there is a significant proportion of party members (both individuals and affiliates) and people in the wider Labour movement, who do. They deserve to be heard in this debate. But will the Party be offered real choice? I think not. That would be wrong, both as a matter or principle and in practice. There is also a question of how the Party is going to be funded. We need to persuade those hundreds of thousands of former members who have resigned or lapsed to come back, and those thinking of joining anew to put their money where their mouths are and sign a direct debit to show real commitment.

So, the power brokers, and in this I include the affiliated trades unions and Unite the Union in particular, need to think very carefully about how they exercise their influence between now and the close of nominations.

To be valid Leadership candidate requires the backing of 33 Labour MPs on a nomination paper (NB not 32 as I have peviously blogged and tweeted incorrectly by rounding down instead of up). That part of the process does not have to be a popularity contest among prospective candidates inside the PLP itself. (Though human nature being what it is, the prospects of changing that state of affairs is not great. So I not under any illusions.)

However, in the search for the most diverse and widest possible contest, I will persist, however, foolishly.  Who are the power brokers I am referring to? Well in the first instance, there are the candidates themselves. On the basis of current information, there will be no woman, and/or no Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic candidates. That in itself is a serious indictment of Labour Party political progress in its 100-year plus history. Nor will all the political wings of the Labour Party be represented. What we are facing is the prospect of continuity candidates with different trills of mea cupla.

What can possibly be done? The Miliband brothers have already demonstrated a way forward through brotherly love. We now need more of that in the form of comradely behaviour, ideally before the nomination papers for the positions of Labour Leader and Deputy are issued. All it needs is just one candidate not just to acknowledge the need for both diversity, and political breadth. But do something about it. That would help transform the nature of the contest.

What to do? The next step would be a big ask of their PLP supporters. As soon as a Labour leader candidate gets 33 nominations, every extra MP nomination is a wasted vote. Which of the declared candidate will invite candidates from other political wings of the Labour Party to stand and offer to lend 'wasted' PLP nomination votes to enable such candidates get on the ballot paper?

As matters stand, there is a very serious risk the widest possible debate will be reduced to grades of the proverbial Rizla paper, as illustrated here. So who is up for challenge? Ed, David? Or Ed Balls, or Andy Burnham or Jon Cruddas or whoever else thinks they can make the cut. To be credible it has to come from a candidate able to show 33 nominees now. So who is it?

Labour Party's MPs and members proactive - following 2010 GE

Just as Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs and grassroots activists are clamouring for a say in shaping the next government, Labour Party MPs and members have been active too. Media reports of a growing chorus for British Prime Minister and Labour Party leader Gordon Brown to resign now are greatly exaggerated. Statements from re-elected Labour MPs John Mann, Graham Stringer, and most recently Kate Hoey all calling for Brown to go now, are not representative of party opinion as I understand it, not while there is still a possibility of Labour playing a role governing the UK.

There are reports of Cabinet ministers meeting later this afternoon. The Cabinet now has no authority to act on behalf of the Labour Party. Brown is a caretaker Prime Minister and his government likewise. Ideas that the Cabinet plotters could exploit a provision in the Labour Party Rule Book to change leader as reported by this week's Tribune is fanciful in the extreme. Yes, public opinion garnered by the Murdoch media says nearly two-thirds of those polled want Brown to resign - surprise, surprise. (Capital punishment was supported by nearly half of those polled last time a representative UK sample was conducted.)

I have been calling for a meeting of the party's National Executive Committee (NEC) this coming week. Last night, notice of a conference call was circulated. Since half the NEC is due to meet on other business in London that day, a proper meeting ought to be within the Party's capabilities. Formal requests have been submitted. Newly elected MPs, as arrangements stand currently, are going to have to wait until next week before they have their first Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) meeting. Apparently, the ever thoughful whips suggested they should all grab a well-earned holiday since Parliament doesn't reassemble for a couple of weeks. Of course, they are not the sort of people who might want a say in shaping events after the election. So the plotters thought. We'll see.

It is vital that the Labour Party's position whether in government or opposition, is properly discussed; not just in the Parliamentary Labour Party, and the NEC, but with the Party's members around the country. This would be best achieved if the chair of the PLP and the NEC both had roles in any talks with other parties.

PLP elections will be held as soon as it meets. The Rule Book does not cover the possibilty of a coalition. In the circumstances there would seem to be a very good case for using the rules that apply when the party is in opposition, further cutting off oxygen to the plotters. That would give all Labour MPs the opportunity to vote not just for the PLP chair, but the 19 members of the 'shadow cabinet' creating a talent pool from which ministers could be selected if Labour finds itself continuing in government. Nominations for the position of Leader and Deputy should be invited whatever, as required under Rule 4 2 B ii. This will help restore the legitimacy of the Party's leader/deputy, whomever they might be. If Labour can continue in government, Brown would deserve and should get the Party's backing to cement recovery and pave the way for major political reform as set out in our 2010 Manifesto. But that would not preclude a leadership election within 6 to 18 months, given the uncertainty likely to surround the new government. Who leads the Labour Party is our decision, if anyone out there wants to 'Join In' the next leadership contest, is very welcome to Join Us (and that includes Nick Clegg.)

AV - Tory blogger speculates GB could lose the vote

If there is a smidgeon of truth in this story on Tory blogger Iain Dale's Diary, I'm not sure I'll get fussed. Prime Minister Gordon Brown needs to learn that he is not a tin-pot dictator, but the leader of a democratic socialist party, as well as an appointee of Her Majesty the Queen. Personally, I'm sympathetic to the idea of AV. But there has been no debate in the Labour Party about it, or electoral reform more generally.

When the idea popped up in his 2009 Conference Leader's Report, I got a message from someone, who in my days in the Parliamentary Lobby for Reuters I would have described as a source close to the Prime Minister. It read:

GB v clear that manifesto says av and labour party supports yes vote

Quick as my fingers could fly across my iPod screen, I texted:

To which my reply is find out what your party thinks first!

Of course, GB has form thinking that the PLP is a proxy for the Labour Party. We know that from the conduct of the Leadership 'election' in 2007, when the heavy brigade made sure that there was no candidate able to secure the necessary nominations to contest the election other than GB himself.

Next week, we may find out whether the self-same heavies led by Chief Whip Nick Brown can still deliver for GB.