Peter Kenyon

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?

Refounding Labour – five basic options (on one-side of A4)

This consultation represents an opportunity for Labour Party members to shape an organisation to lead progressive politics in the UK and help consolidate a progressive majority not just at home, but in the wider world, extending out to the European Union, where democratic accountability needs to be strengthened.

 The document issued by the Labour Party entitled Refounding Labour does not set out the issues in those terms. But having read it and abstracted all 126 questions posed, that should not inhibit us members from thinking bigger and more clearly.

 The five basic options are:

1. Organisational structure

   A federated membership organisation (individual members, TUs and socialist societies) with rights, responsibilities and clear lines of accountability based on local/parliamentary electoral boundaries, or a loosely defined supporters club for political careerists funded by rich individuals, large TU donations and increased state-aid ?

2. Political education

   Re-establish political education / promotion of democracy forums to reach out to young people, local communities, TU branches and single-issue pressure groups to counter the right-wing media and encourage Labour Party membership, or surrender politics to media tycoons in perpetuity?

3. Policy making

   Establish ways for members through branches, constituencies and their elected delegates to contribute to and decide policy in partnership with elected representatives, or continue with take it or leave it top-down policy making by diktat?

4. Accountability of representatives

   Require elected representatives to submit to compulsory reselection and ensure local accountability is free of vested interests, or condone a 'jobs for life' political culture?

5. Values

   Identify policies that reflect Labour Values and the aspirations of a progressive majority even if that means admitting errors in government between 1997 and 2010 or continue to deny how opportunities were missed and values betrayed?

 There are a some rule changes required at Annual Conference 2011 to establish the future direction of the Labour Party arising from which ever options are chosen.

City of London branch in 2009 proposed, for example, the adoption of a standard Annual General Meeting on the eve of or during the first session of Annual Conference, which was supported by our CLP but ruled out of order by the Conference Arrangements Committee. The point was to make clear to the electorate that in law the Labour Party is very similar to tens of thousands of other voluntary organisations, and its leadership was happy to demonstrate a readiness to be accountable to its members.

The Labour Party will need a small number of headline catching proposals for debate and decision at Annual Conference 2011 to make itself an organisation progressives want to join and stay with as the vehicle for their politics in the UK, EU and internationally.

Let me know if this approach will help focus debate in your branch/CLP, and whether you have ideas for further improvement.

Labour Party sets tight d/l for rule changes: deliberate or thoughtless?

The following reminder has just been sent out by Labour Party Head Office:

IMPORTANT: Conference 2011 - Nominations and Constitutional Amendments

To CLP Secretaries

Dear Colleague

You will recall our first letter (sent in December) about arrangements for appointing delegates and also inviting nominations for this year's elections and for submission of constitutional amendments.

I thought it would be useful to remind you about the arrangements for submitting nominations and constitutional amendments.

Nominations and Constitutional Amendments

The deadline for submitting nominations and constitutional amendments is Friday 24 June 2011.

To which I replied:

Many thanks for the reminder. Why 24 June? Why not at least 1 July, so that all CLPs meeting monthly have just under two full monthly meeting cycles to consider any submissions/nominations from the time of the 2011 elections?

My own CLP will be obliged to complete any proposed constitutional amendments in the May cycle, as we meet on the 4th Tuesday. In June that day falls after 24 June.

As a consequence that will leave virtually no time for consideration of the substantive issues by branches/members who are being asked/encouraged to assist in local elections campaigns. Our May branch meetings will take place the week immediately after the local elections.

The timetable would only be managable for CLPs meeting monthly on the fourth Wednesday/Thursday. All I would request is that the timetable is optimised for the benefit of volunteer members. An extra week will make a big difference by enabling more time for debate.

With best wishes

Peter Kenyon
secretary, Cities of London and Westminster CLP

Would you prefer more time? Especially as Peter Hain is planning to issue a consultative document on Party reform possibly by the end of March. With elections looming, that is a very tight timetable anyway.

Is your CLP adversely affected like mine? Should we care, given members' submissions are invariably ruled out of order, whether it is a Rule change or a 'contemporary' motion?