Peter Kenyon

Labour Party ruling NEC meets Tuesday - another Conference stitch-up?

Labour's ruling [sic] national executive committee (NEC) meets on Tuesday. With luck its members will have received papers in advance. At this point in its annual meeting cycle there should be a report on Conference 2012 arrangements and recommendations on possible changes to the Stitch-up Handbook aka as the Labour Party Rule Book.

You can't search the main Labour Party website. But I Googled:

labour party 2012 Annual Conference Rule change proposals

Some helpful hits appeared including one to the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy's Grassroots Labour site via The Socialist Campaign to Stop the Tories and the Fascists, which posted a pre-Conference 2011 report by Jon Lansman on the fate of constituency rule changes proposed the previous year.

Apologies for the long-winded account of the obstacles faced by mere members following procedure as set out in the Stitch-Up handbook. Lansman reported on 6 September 2011 rpt 2011:

So far, Refounding Labour has meant proposing to dilute the influence of party members by enfranchising non-members who become “registered supporters”, attacking union influence, seeking to prevent proper debate and decision-making by having just one vote on a single package of reforms, and failing to publish submissions to the review. Now party officials have found a new scam to prevent constituency parties having an input to the party structure — ruling out of order several rule changes proposed by constituency parties themselves, without any discussion by the Conference Arrangements Committee and just days before they met.

So the question for the Labour Party leadership, and members' elected representatives - whether from the trades unions or constituency sections - is it going to be stitch-up as usual or a fresh open and transparent approach?

Immediate publication of proposed NEC recommendations to Rule Changes to enable members to see what is going on would be a first step in the right direction.

What would a constitutional lawyer say about 2011 Labour Party rule changes?

Did the Labour Party 2011 Conference have the power to change its Rule Book in the manner in which did in Liverpool?

That is a question posed by former-MP Harry Barnes commenting on my previous blog proposing a constituency labour party (CLP) boycott of next year's event in Manchester, unless the national executive committee agrees to a radical change in the format to enable proper debate. 

Harry wrote:

I can't see in the old or new rules where the NEC has the authority to put these changes to Conference in the way that it did - and without the proposals being circulated in advance to CLPs and affiliated bodies for proper consideration. The method of changing the rules seems to me to be a violation of the natural rights of the membership and are probably in conflict with Human Rights legislation. Furthermore, I do not remember us being informed at the time that the endorsement of the conclusions to the Refounding Labour exercise (which was itself untaken in a entirely undemocratic way) would immediately be crowned by rule changes. We could do with a sympathetic Labour Lawyer looking into these matters.

Any volunteers?

Labour Party PPC selections: time for urgent reform?

Two women MPs standing down today as a result of the MPs expenses scandal provides a timely reminder to us activists that it could mean even fewer women MPs in the next Parliament.

Labour has by far and away the best record of the mainstream political parties on seeking to get more women elected to the House of Commons. (Footnote to 50+% of the electorate - which party is on your side?). There have recently been some very difficult to explain decisions on the part of the National Executive Committee's Organisation sub-committee allowing open selections in winnable seats, rather than insisting on all-women shortlists. (The Tory MP Julie Kirkbride's case threw up some questions about childcare and MPs expenses, which shouldn't be lost sight of either.)

But my main concern and that of my colleagues in Save the Labour Party is that of the perception that favoured candidates able to lavish unlimited expenses to win votes can be parachuted into winnable seats by a party machine. This did not prove to be the case in Erith and Thamesmead, but the reputational damage to Labour was done by weeks of media speculation some unfounded about the candidacy of Georgia Gould, in particular.

Should the Party stagger on relying on its present rules faced with the possibility, if GMB general secretary, Paul Kenny's estimate of another 50 MPs standing down? Or is it time for an urgent review? I'd like to hear you views.

Rule 4.2.B makes the BBC headlines!

We, the little people.... Are the days of utter contempt for rules about to come to an end? Imagine my delight this morning when the precise reference to the Labour Party rules concerning Leader/Deputy nomination procedures was cited on BBC Radio 4's Today programme news headlines at 8 am this morning. The subject is expected to be discussed at tomorrow's Labour Party National Executive Committee according to the BBC report. I had better make sure my correspondence with Ray Collins the new General Secretary elect is widely circulated. Party officials claim to have taken legal advice justifying no nominations while Labour is in government. I hope sight of that advice is demanded by all 33 members. Save the Labour Party has suggested expert arbitration by a Labour Party member with unimpeachable constitutional expertise, in the absence of any wish to resort to expensive lawyers whose political sympathies could be suspect, or an internally appointed Ombudsman to rule on such matters, as proposed by the LabOUR Commission chaired by Angela Eagle MP while still a backbencher.

There is nothing in the Labour Party Rules that sets out different procedures when Labour is in government as opposed to opposition. As for the Guardian's reporter Allegra Stratton who thinks the practice was to send out nomination papers just before conference - I think you are being misinformed. The nomination papers, if I remember correctly, were sent out in the first Conference mailing calling for delegates. These are now despatched just before Christmas for the following Autumn. The expert advice sought by STLP ruled that 4.2.B.iii does not oblige the General Secretary to send out nomination papers  to CLPs, affiliates and Labour MEPs, but does provide for them in constitutional terms to e ALLOWED. ie those stakeholders have a RIGHT to nominate. Administratively, the obligation to send out nomination papers to Labour MPs under 4.2.B ii and the obligation to allow under 4.2.B. iii were treated the same - despatch of nomination papers to all stakeholders franchised to take part in nominating Leader/Deputy.

The General Secretary's job description requires the postholder to uphold the constitution. Ray Collins faces a real test of his mettle in this regard.