Peter Kenyon

Debating AV: a Labour Party opportunity to reach out from within

This is easy to fudge. Labour Party did not debate the issue of electoral reform at its Annual Conference 2010. But its Clause V committee agreed to include a commitment to the Alternative Vote (AV) in the party's 2010 General Election manifesto. So that's it. Silence, peasants. It's agreed.

There are far more pressing problems affecting millions of people, like employment prospects, tax hikes, public service cuts. Who in the Labour Party has the time to bother with a trifling electoral reform to flatter the Liberal Democrats, junior partners in the Conservative government?

A couple of days ago between stories for grandchildren and other festive delights, I spotted a twittering by LabourList about how the Labour Party was 'hopelessly divided' over AV. To which I replied:

@LabourList AV let's keep a sense of proportion. Hopelessly divided? Noooo Plenty of time for debate and resolution. Opp for practice. 7:08 PM Dec 29th

AV is not a matter of individual conscience within the understanding of the Party's Rules about policy and party discipline. Or at least I can't think of any such argument to support the case for a 'free vote'. Our elected and unelected representatives in both Houses of Parliament are already taking sides. Though Labour's new leader is currently less conspicuous in the public discussion than previously unless I have missed something in a festive haze.

Among reactions to my tweet

alexsobel replied: @PeterKenyon @LabourList Peter you are right a good time to practise our pluralism and democratic credentials. Let's have a proper debate 8:15 PM Dec 29th

another called for the Leadership to moderate the 'Yes' campaigners:

KevinMorton1966 said: @PeterKenyon Would show mature leadership for EM to distance himself from this infantile smear from the Yes campaign http://bit.ly/hj2Ga4

While @sallybercow thought I was just whistling in the wind:

SallyBercow @PeterKenyon we ain't gonna get a collective stance in the party. IMHO. Too many vested interests.

Researching what has already been written on the subject, I came across a Comment is Free contribution from Denis MacShane making the case for an internal debate six months ago. Personally, I'm agnostic or #meh2AV. Meh = a grunt suggesting am I bovvered? Not about AV itself. But most emphatically about Labour Party policy making.

Apart from isolated cases there is little appetite for debate inside the Party structures. There are too many members who used to spend time on policy only to be ignored. Ed Miliband should be sufficiently concerned to be looking for opportunities to rekindle political discussion. AV is low hanging fruit. I shall be tabling a resolution at my next branch meeting to pluck it, and see how far it gets. As we have no other elections in London this year (by-elections excepted), it may even be an opportunity for public meetings (not at the expense of campaign against the cuts) but to encourage the idea that Labour is a democratic socialist party.

Everyone has a say, and is willing to abide by the majority decision in keeping with our Labour Values. For those who disagreed and find themselves in the minority, there will always be an opportunity to reopen discussion after a reasonable period of time has lapsed.

Leadership on that cannot come too soon.

Labour Party: lowering MPs expenses - lodgings

Divining how the constitutional crisis now engulfing the Mother of Parliaments is going to come to an end, Pat (my wife) and I were pondering earlier today how to move forward. We are both passionate believers in the role of political parties in our parliamentary democracy. Having heard Clare Short's lamentable excuses on the Today Programme this morning, I suggested a lodging, rather than a second home, allowance.

Why should an MP have an expectation of a second home funded by the taxpayer? Pat instantly expanded on how that might help keep MPs focussed on their constituencies, as well as lower the costs of Parliamentary Allowances. With the reforms to Parliamentary hours brought in by Labour, most days that Parliament sits are within commuting distance for lots of MPs not just those representing Greater London constituencies. A lodging allowance might also reduce the risk of extra-marital affairs, encouraging those MPs with families to get home as quickly and often as possible. And so on.

We then drifted on to how MPs might clock in and out to be eligible for such an allowance. I recalled a presentation at the last Labour Party NEC meeting from the chief whip, Nick Brown, about which my lips were sealed. At least that was until the telephone rang a moment ago. It was the political editor of a daily newspaper. Apparently, No 10 is doing some briefing which has a strong link to a very interesting idea about MPs actually doing the job we elected them to do - namely, vote. One of the problems facing the Labour Whips' Office is (I'm led to understand)  'unauthorised absence', that is Labour MPs, who are meant to be in the House of Commons to vote, just not turning up. Here we are not talking about the rebels. Apparently these MPs don't even bother to tell the Whips' Office that they are not going to be in the House at the appointed hour for a division.

So instead of a daily allowance for signing in (widely condemned by the media and opposition MPs as bringing the Brussels gravy train to Westminster), maybe there is a case for a lodging allowance linked to Hansard's record of voting in divisions - 100% allowance for 100% voting record, tapered for unauthorised absence to zero, depending on the number of divisions on the sitting day in question. Or maybe deductions for unauthorised absences?

Just another thought for Sir Christopher Kelly and his Committee on Standards in Public Life to ponder.

Labour Party realities 2009

To encourage everyone to vote Labour in 2009 is not going to be easy. Where to start?

As I said in my NEC report No.2, I remain to be convinced that its Terms of Reference are fit for purpose. Making them so remains a key goal. The NEC next meets on 27 January. Then there are the policies that will help rally both members, supporters and the millions of voters that deserted the Labour Party at the 2001 and 2005 General Elections - the Labour Party's National Policy Forum next meets on 28 February. Finally, there is the role of Labour in local government in helping that vital mobilisation. The Labour Party's Joint Local Government Committee next meets on 12 January. 

Will there be focussed debate about how to rebuild? I'll be reporting back at each step of the way for those who are interested. Keep the ideas coming. Happy New Year.

Careless talk costs Labour votes and members

As our new General Secretary prepares to take up his post, one of the trickiest issues will be how to encourage elected representatives to weigh their words more carefully so as not to damage efforts to rebuild Labour's electoral standing and membership base.

After months of banter on Facebook, I got a message at 6.43 this morning from a local Labour Party branch member poised to renew membership having been lapsed, telling me:

Have just woken up to hear that my children will have to pledge allegiance to the crown. On top of having to carry an ID card. I can't rejoin.

She was not alone in being outraged as evidenced on Political Futures, or in the august columns of the Guardian.

Politically, Hutton's is the most extreme of a series of recent demarches by the retro Blairites - Flint, Purnell, Straw, McFadden - outdoing each other in promoting counterintuitive, counter-Labour policies by being toughest on the weakest. But in the how-Tory-can-you-be stakes, Hutton has hit the jackpot. As they seize the nasty party mantle, this is a challenge to Brown's authority. The decent faction in the cabinet - Cooper, Harman, Johnson, Alexander and the Milibands - may wonder: where is the clunking fist to restrain these increasingly out of order boot boys? This is a gathering heart-and-soul storm.

Gordon Brown should be under illusions if he wants to be re-elected and rebuild the Labour Party, he has got to deal with careless talk.

Labour or Tory? It's in our genes!

Choosing whether to vote Conservative or Labour could all be in the genes, scientists have claimed. Back to the campaign laboratory. (Daily Mail report lifted from New Scientist)

Policy votes dominate Labour affiliate Fabian event

A sign of things to come? Ed Miliband MP, Labour's election manifesto maestro played MC for two sessions at the Fabian Society 'Change the World' event yesterday in London. At lunchtime he held a Manifesto Surgery behind closed doors. No, it was in the Exhibition Area, attracting a crowd of around 100 and invited ideas. I asked whether the Party was ready to break recent habits, post the next round of policy consultation on the internet and enable transparent responses, amendment and redrafting. Mmm, something to ponder, mused Ed. Avid readers of this blog will know the technology exists. It was offered to the Party in September. But I digress, the final session 'One idea to change the World' chaired by himself. Five ideas. Two and half minutes to present. Klaxon horn to keep to time. Instant reaction from Dragon's Den type judges - audience speakers in favour and against - right of reply - final assessment from the judges and then - a vote! Could this possibly herald a return of voting at Labour's Annual Conference?

Vote Labour..... and become a millionaire

In the midst of the Donorgate affair you couldn't make this one up.  An esteemed former Labour Council leader is recommending that a Labour government should legislate to reward voters financially to boost turnout. This is according to a report in today's Observer here

A ground-breaking idea to enter voters in a special lottery will be one of the main recommendations in a government report that aims to increase the turnout at elections.

And which charitable causes will be sacrificed to pay for the prizes? Or is this another wheeze to fleece the taxpayer?