A new Labour Party web presence – an opening gambit

October 6, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Earlier this year I attended the Netroots UK event organised by Sunny and friends. I did a pitch in a workshop for what became known as the Labour Transparency Project.

This has been flickering in the background waiting for a lead from the top to agree to release some of the Party’s internal datasets to support its development.

Here’s what I wrote on 11 January 2011:

Project: Carrot and stick

The Who, what, why, where and when of the Labour Party

 Summary: a member is entitled to:

  • an overview of the Party

  • be enabled to see how s/he might fit in at a glance, and

  • hold those in elected office to account

the proposed web-based service aims to address those requirements

The Who?

 Leader [NB to win had to seek members' votes in a Leadership election, expected to lead in Parliament, the media and the party, but still ....accountable?]

Hi – I’m Ed. I was elected in 2010 to lead the Party

Hi – We’re the National Executive Committee. We are elected to run the national party on your behalf between Annual Conferences

Hi – I’m [ ] the General Secretary. You employ me to manage the national party on your behalf. I also manage the staff that support local volunteers like you.

Hi – I’m [ ] your local regional/district/constituency/branch secretary. My job together with other volunteers is to organise regional/district/constituency/branch party meetings to mount campaigns, socials, debates, fundraising and business on your behalf between Annual General Meetings

[Lots of pages Who's who in the Labour Party from bottom up/top down to support scripts enabling user whether cap doffer or upstart to get info sought]

The WHAT describes the relationship between the individual and the WHO

Leader can set/shape expectation/hope for members, whether individually or collectively at all levels of party activity.

So what’s the message/what are the messages?

Motives for being in membership range from showing support by paying a subscription to [being] an aspiring future leader

In the first instance as a branch/CLP activist all I would ask is that members keep personal details up to date so that we can keep in touch.

Up to date personal details are vital to inform members about their rights to have a say in policy making, and elections.

These messages could be expressed by the leader/key stakeholders – national or local to:

  • raise member awareness

  • underlining his personal commitment to accountability

  • encourage a sense of mutual commitment to the party

In addition he could invite members to offer:

  • expertise to policy making

  • time to run as candidates for elected office

as well as the conventional volunteer offer of time and/or money

Available data sets:

 MemberCentre now holds Member details linked to electoral ward, develoved nation, parliamentary, Euro constituencies

 This offers prospect of showing an individual [when] electoral contests [will take place] well in advance, important when too many remain uncontested. Dates of elections, nomination/selection deadlines, party campaign timetables/schedules could be added.

A further layer (to be added) could link to electoral cycle budgeting/fundraising at a ward/branch/CLP level

MemberCentre also hold branch and CLP officer details. But not meetings/dates and times. Though some are published on MembersNet. PPC selections are published but usually too late for anyone other than a well-placed insider.

Top down details are going to need to be assembled

The shadow cabinet list is available. Ditto the NEC, But even NEC member pages will have to be assembled. Ditto regional boards, district officers, and when and where these bodies meet. Securing access to their agendas, supporting papers and minutes unless approved at the top and agreed to locally will be a challenge.

As for details of regional staff, an audit will be required starting with what is available on their websites/local knowledge.

pk

11 January 2011

editing changes today in [ ]

Filed Under: Blog, News, Resources

Refounding Labour — the Damp Squid. Members are as Important as Ever — Yet They Are Leaving Us Again

September 26, 2011 By 1 Comment

The first wave of Refounding Labour reforms were voted through yesterday after deals were done between the leadership and the unions. But does any of this amount to much at all? The watered-down proposals on restored supporters really does not amount to much at all to the point that I wonder what on earth is the point of it all?

By all accounts the NEC itself had precious little time to debate the Refounding Labour proposals so I suppose we can’t be surprised that conference didn’t either. At the NEC meeting three members voted against the proposals, Ann Black, Christine Shawcross and  Johanna Baxter. All three did so because of the weight of heir (e)mailbags — all of which were massively hostile to the proposals. Given where the Party is at the moment it may seem weird to ignore such hostility but in reality this was nothing like Ed’s Clause 4 moment.

Just how practical is any of this stuff? Registered members get 3% of the electoral college come a leadership election. Is this really significant? There are real practical problems in opening up more localised selections — Councillors and MPs — to include registered supporters. A selection meeting in my part of the world can take hours because of the problems in verifying membership. This is also a part of the world in which we have constant problems with the buying of mass memberships, particularly amongst those who qualify of the reduced weight. What’s to stop anyone using community organisations registered with Labour to do precisely the same thing?

Last night I put some of these concerns to a long-standing member of the NEC. I was told that in all probability these changes will never actually happen because they will be so difficult to implement in practice. Indeed, the NEC has spend much of the last few years quietly disposing of the ideas of Gordon Brown for Party reform which were simply impractical.

Which brings us back to members. Remember the great days of last year when membership was booming? Not so now, in fact, the Party has lost over 10,000 members I believe since the early summer, despite Ed’s heroics over Murdoch, etc.

Membership will continue to fall while Members themselves get nothing for their Membership and where their views and opinions have such little value.

Labour must see Members as one the key building blocks in Party renewal. This will mean doing things differently and no doubt reforming our structures and procedures. But it has to be seen that members are seen as important partners and not just cheap Labour for leafleting and voter ID (as important as those are).

With membership falling again this Party faces the same problem that it has faced for a decade or so now, that more and more work falls on less and less people.

I have no sense that Labour supporters — let alone members — really favour a  US style system and presidential politics. Nor is there any sense that the vast number of members are anything but massively opposed to the State Funding of political parties, and suspicion remains that we are holding on for Christopher Kelly to recommend such a system.

Our renewal — our future — will depend on members. Our task is to make their voice count and to the inspiration from their passion and political drive.

More than ever — despite refunding Labour:

Labour =  members.

 

Filed Under: Blog, Conference 2011

Update – Refounding Labour negotiations

September 18, 2011 By 2 Comments
Yesterday general secretary Ray Collins mailed members following
the NEC’s organisation committee on 16 September.  In some areas
constituency representatives have been fully involved and consensus
reached.   In others changes are generally sensible, though more
time and thought could improve them. 
However I am concerned about some outstanding issues where we
are told that “further negotiations are continuing”, and where despite
promises to the NEC, constituency representatives have not been
included.  It is seven days to the vote.  There is no time for us to
consult our electorate, or for conference delegates to confer with
local parties.  A process of unprecedented engagement could see all
the good work undone at the final stage if it is handled badly and if it
ignores what members say.
Constituency Funding:  a Model of Consultation
In August I outlined proposals under which the Euro-levy, election
insurance and Contact Creator would be paid centrally for every
constituency party (CLP).  A total of £1 per national member
(currently around £193,000) would be distributed to CLPs, with each
receiving the same amount.  The rest of the income from
membership would go into two NEC-administered funds, to promote
democracy and diversity and to support campaigning.  The few CLPs
with longstanding debts would have these written off. 
Feedback was encouraging, including from those who would lose,
but many argued that funding should remain partly linked to
numbers.  During the summer CLP representatives were involved in
intensive discussions with party officers, and the following changes
were agreed:
-           adding one free conference delegate pass to the CLP package,
taking its value to over £1,200
-           increasing the amount returned to CLPs from £1 per member to
£1.50 per member
-           distributing this amount according to the number of members,
regardless of what rate they pay
-           phasing in the change for CLPs who lose, so their income will
drop by half in 2012 and the full amount only in 2013.  Gainers will
benefit immediately
            
While not everyone will be happy, I am confident in commending
these proposals precisely because we had the opportunity to
consider, consult and amend.  Would that this approach had been
copied in other areas. 
Membership Rates
Most of these were also discussed with NEC constituency
representatives.  Recommendations are for
-           the standard rate to stay at £41, rising with inflation, with the
reduced rate at half the standard rate
-           a local joining rate of £15, also applying to registered supporters
and trade union members
-           the minimum joining age to be reduced from 15 to 14
-           a youth rate at £1 a year for ages 14 to 19, and £12 a year for
ages 20 to 26
-           members on low initial rates to move first to the reduced rate,
and in the next year to the full rate
-           higher payment according to income to be encouraged
An additional idea, promoted in the Guardian, for current and former
members of the armed forces to join at £1 a year was generally
supported by the organisation committee. 
These proposals do not answer concerns that rates are too high,
though apparently those who pay more are actually less likely to
leave.  However given the importance of membership as a source of
income I did not feel that we could cut rates without evidence that
this would be compensated by more joiners.
What’s in a Name?
There is new flexibility for constituencies to organise according to
local circumstances, allowing delegate-based structures, all-member
meetings, or other options.  Similarly they are free to choose officers
to suit their needs.  These changes are, I believe, permissive and
helpful.  Development action plans are already in the rulebook, and I
have asked for clarification on how the January / December
accounting year would fit with moving annual general meetings to the
autumn.
In contrast, draft rules to replace local government committees
(LGCs) with local campaign forums (LCFs) specified a rigid one-size-
fits-all structure.  At the organisation committee some said that many
councillors see no overlap between local and national concerns and
want to exclude MPs from any role, while for others their MP is an
integral part of Team Labour.  And many members do not have the
luxury of Labour MPs, or sometimes even Labour councillors, which
is why constituency representatives should have been involved
earlier in this area, to speak for those who have no other voice.
We did make progress on flexibility in the structure of LCFs, but did
not fully to explore the role of LGCs / LCFs in maintaining
communication and debating policy, rather than as purely
campaigning units.  This is important:  yesterday my concerns were
reinforced by the following, from the north-west:
“Until May 2011 three of the four constituencies in our county
area did not have Labour councillors. The LGC was an essential
link in keeping members up to date with council business and
alerting them to proposals to cut or restrict services.  What is
proposed may well work in close-knit urban communities but is
unrealistic where larger rural areas are concerned.”
So we may end up, unnecessarily, with rules which will not meet all
needs, or will simply be ignored.
Contracts for candidates drew support in principle, though some
recalled admirable councillors who never knocked on doors, fearing
an over-prescriptive approach.  The devil will be in the detail, and the
responsibilities of candidates must be balanced by equally significant
rights.
Turning to parliamentary selections, the NEC guidance for selections
after the last boundary review would be replaced by the new
guidance agreed recently.  At some point we need to separate the
general processes for conducting selections from their application in
particular circumstances, but this will be best done when the early
selections have been completed and the pilot procedures reviewed.
Probably OK?
The proposed addition to Clause I states
“The party shall bring together members and supporters who
share its values to develop policies, make communities stronger
through collective action and support and promote the election
of Labour representatives at all levels of the democratic
process.” 
While some might like to fiddle with the words and the syntax, I can’t
see major objections.
Refounding Labour would allowing members to take part in selecting
local and national candidates after six months’ party membership in
any area.  I support this.  There were complaints last year from
members able to vote immediately for the leader, but prevented from
selecting their council candidate.  The party has to balance the
expectations of the majority against the risk of mass factional
recruitment.  I do not believe that swathes of existing members
change their address simply to gain a vote, and where there are
problems the NEC can require a longer qualifying period or take
direct control.
In the Melting Pot
A new appendix covers registered supporters.   There is agreement
on the need to reach beyond our members to helpers and
sympathisers, particularly trade unionists.  However the organisation
committee opposed giving them a vote for the party leader, and this
reflects the submissions which I have read.  Also constituencies do
not want new rights for outside organisations at conference, because
their delegates already feel crowded out by shadow ministers,
platform speakers, presentations and videos. 
On electing the leader, feedback took two general approaches.  One
would keep a three-part electoral college, perhaps with minor
variations.  The other would move to pure one-member-one-vote. 
Very few support the current plan to give most members two votes,
one as an individual and one in the affiliate section.  Linked to this is
a contentious proposal that the association of Labour councillors and
Young Labour should become formal affiliates, which would give
every councillor and young member two votes.
On voting at conference, few submissions wanted to change the
50/50 split between constituencies and affiliates, or suggested other
groups which should get a share.  Even fewer commented on the
make-up of the conference arrangements committee, though I
believe it should remain independent of the NEC.
On the composition of the NEC itself there have been moves for
some years to add Scottish and Welsh representatives, but
differences on who and how.  The disabled members group and
LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) Labour are also
bidding for places.  Refounding Labour already recommends that
final decisions on gender balance in the leadership team should be
postponed to 2012, and it is sensible to handle this and other
unresolved issues in the same way.
So I believe that we should focus the 90% that unites us, agree this
at the start of conference, and then turn to the main business of
Labour in opposition:  attacking the worst excesses of the coalition,
setting out in broad terms the positive Labour alternative, and starting
the fightback.  
Ann Black, 88 Howard Street, Oxford OX4 3BE, 07956-637958,
annblack50@btinternet.com
..
–
Ann Black
88 Howard Street
Oxford OX4 3BE
01865-722230(h)  07956-637958 (m)
annblack50@btinternet.com / annblack50@yahoo.co.uk
Filed Under: Blog, News

Refounding Labour proposals are worth exploring, but controversial

August 15, 2011 By 1 Comment

Three weeks after the NEC meeting significant gaps remain, and even NEC members will not see detailed proposals till September 15th at the earliest, with the conference debate scheduled for Sunday September 25th. I am increasingly concerned at putting such a complex project – the draft section on Young Labour alone runs to more than four pages – to a single Yes/No vote. However I also accept that another year of self-examination would be a distraction from taking on the Tories and promoting clear and attractive Labour alternatives. I hope it is not too late to rescue the baby from the bathwater, endorse the many areas where there is agreement, and defer the few contentious issues to next year, or perhaps to a special conference as Tony Blair did with Clause IV.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Blog, Policy Review Tagged With: ,

Refounding Labour – a Member’s Charter in the works

August 12, 2011 By Leave a Comment

In the battle to decide what sort of Labour Party is needed to represent the progressive majority it would be easy to overlook grassroots initiatives that pre-date Anno Ed (AE). As followers of Refounding Labour know, it is proving a struggle to keep track of those that post date AE. Among the recommendations in the LabOUR Commission interim report (2007) were proposals for a Charter of Member’s Rights, an Ombudsperson and a Code of Ethics.

In the bundle of Rule changes proposed by members that is on the Agenda for Conference 2011 is this one from Hyndburn CLP in Lancashire for a Charter of Member’s Rights. The Labour Democratic Network committee, which met in Birmingham last Saturday, urges the NEC Organisation Committee (aka Org Sub) to make sure this is incorporated into the Refounding Labour package to be put to members either at Conference 2011 (or a special Conference)as a means of securing a broad consensus about how to reshape the party to better represent the electorate. Here is the Hyndburn CLP rule change:

To Establish a Charter of Labour Party individual and trades union affiliated member’s rights

Add new Rule 2B 5 as follows:

There shall be a Charter of Labour Party Individual and Trades Union Member’s Rights to guarantee the rights of both individual and trades union affiliated members of the Party. This Charter shall be drafted by the National Executive Committee and shall be approved by Conference following full consultation. This Charter shall make provision for the following matters:

  • The right of individual and trades union affiliated Party members to inspect the financial records of the Party on giving reasonable notice
  • The right of individual and trades union affiliated Party members to be provided with full information about the party’s finances on an annual basis.
  • The right of individual and trades union affiliated Party members to determine the Party’s donations policy under the sovereign authority of Conference.
  • The right of individual and trades union affiliated Party members to participate fully in the selection of candidates to represent the Party in elections to public office on an equal opportunities basis and in accordance with the Party rules.
  • The right of individual and trades union party members to be considered for nomination as a Party candidate for election to public office, on satisfying prescribed qual ifying conditions
  • The right of individual and trades union affiliated Party members to participate in the selection and election of all persons nominated to represent the Party in the House of Lords or replacement upper chamber.
  • The right of all individual and trades union affiliated Party members to participate in local and national party governance by taking part through being elected as delegates to appropriate institutional bodies including Constituency General Committees (where these exist) Labour Regional Boards, the National Policy Forum, the National Executive Committee and the Party Annual Conference
  • The right of individual and trades union affiliated Party members to participate in the development of party policy, under the sovereign authority of Conference, and the right not to be excluded there-from except in accordance with the rules of the Party.
  • The right of individual and trades union affiliated Party members to transparency in the policy making process, including clear audit trails and feed-back.
  • The trades unions affiliated to the Labour Party shall collectively continue to enjoy their collective rights under the current Labour Party rules including 50% of the votes at the Labour Party Conference one third of the votes in the party electoral colleges for the Leadership etc.
  • The right of trades union affiliated and individual members of the Party and of affiliated trades unions collectively to complain to the Labour Party Ombudsperson (when appointed) about conduct of party officers, party employees, party representatives, party contractors and party members alleged to be in breach of (i) the Labour Party Constitution or (ii) The Labour Party Code of Ethics(when in place) and to be informed of the outcome of such a complaint.
  • The right of individual and trades union affiliated party members not to be unreasonably disciplined or expelled from the Party, including a right not to be disciplined or expelled for exercising rights contained in this Charter.

proposed by Hyndburn CLP agreed at GC on 16/07/2010

 

Filed Under: Blog, Conference 2011, Conference Briefing

Bridgend CLP calls for Refounding Labour special Conference

August 4, 2011 By 4 Comments

Bridgend CLP General Management Committee held an emergency meeting on Tuesday 2nd August 2011 at 7.00pm in the OCLP Club Bryntirion, to consider an Emergency Resolution on the Refounding Labour Consultation, recommendations and planned rule changes. The Emergency Resolution detailed below was carried unanimously by the GMC.

  1. Bridgend CLP requests that the planned rule changes and recommendations arising from the Refounding Labour consultation should not be decided by the NEC meeting on 15th September or by the Annual Conference from 24th September onwards but should be decided by a Special One Day Refounding Labour Conference to be held in London in November 2011 after CLPs and Labour Party members have seen the proposed rule changes, and be allowed to respond to them as part of the final stages of the Refounding consultation. Bridgend CLP requests that the NEC and the NPF representatives support this resolution. A precedent for this type of one day conference was set in 1997.
  1. Bridgend CLP requests that the party use the period from the end of the Annual Conference (September 2011) through to the Special One Day Refounding Labour Conference in November 2011 to facilitate full engagement and participation by members and party units and publicise and make accessible all Refounding Labour submissions to inform members and help them further to contribute constructively to the refinement of rule changes and implementation of Refounding Labour recommendations.
  1. Bridgend CLP recommended as part of the Refounding Labour consultation that the policy making process within the party be made more open, transparent, democratic and accountable and is deeply disappointed by the lack of detail in the Summary report to respond to our call and calls from party members generally to democratise the policy making process within the party.
  1. Bridgend CLP requests that a specific statement on the party’s historical commitment to socialist values, ideas and principles be included in the Refounding recommendations and rule changes.
  1. Bridgend CLP greatly appreciates constructive proposals in the summary report such as engaging with communities, development plans, better communication arrangements, creating flexible local structures, empowering younger members and numerous other constructive proposals to ensure the party facilitates political engagement and participation.

Edith Hughes

Bridgend CLP Secretary

 

Hopkin Thomas

Bridgend CLP Chair

Filed Under: Blog, Conference 2011, Conference Briefing, News

Refounding Labour: Party members to be kept in dark

August 1, 2011 By 2 Comments

Labour Party members are to be denied sight of rule changes arising from the Refounding Labour consultation triggered by Ed Miliband’s election ten months ago.

According to veteran constituency Labour Party (CLP) representative on the ruling National Executive Committee, Ann Black, any rule changes to be put to Conference will not be decided until the NEC’s next meeting on 20 September. Annual Conference 2011 starts in Liverpool four days later.

In her covering note to her unofficial NEC report, Ann wrote:

As explained below, final recommendations will not be agreed by the NEC until 20 September, and these are likely to include some of the most contentious areas.  So there will be no time for delegates to consult with their local parties before annual conference. In addition current plans are that no amendments will be allowed and the document will be voted on a whole, Yes or No, including any rule changes.

Members need to find their voice to stop this attempted pre-Conference fix. I have drafted an Emergency resolution:

This CLP:

1. Notes the publication of a summary report about the Refounding Labour consultation following the NEC July meeting
2. Welcomes support for strategic planning by CLPs, more differentiated membership rates, progress under consideration regarding equality and Young Labour structures.
 3. Remains concerned about the apparent absence of measures to respond to members’ calls for more democratic and accountable policy-making. This is now urgent with less than nine weeks before Conference 2011.
4. Is alarmed about the registered supporters proposals, especially voting rights in leadership elections which we doubt was reflected in submissions and has undermined our confidence in the consultation process.
We therefore request our NEC/NPF representatives to press for:
A. the distribution to all CLP secretaries of the planned Refounding Labour paper at the same time as it is despatched to the September Organisation Sub* to enable members to be consulted and our representatives to be advised  
B. the publication all Refounding Labour submissions at the same time to start to rebuild confidence in the Labour Party’s consultation processes
  
*due to meet on 6 September
This has now been overtaken by events, NEC officers in their determination to prevent you having a say have postponed the Org Sub until Thursday 15 September.
That is unless you create such a fuss, HO is forced to change its self-serving timetable and rethink its strategy.

 

Filed Under: Blog

Whither our LGCs?

July 18, 2011 By 5 Comments

Rumour has it that the NEC is considering abandoning the Local Government Committee and handing over local policy formulation to Labour Groups!

A fig-leaf of a local co-ordinating forum would take on the role of panel formulation, candidate selection supervision and election oversight.

 This was not a specific issue flagged up in the Refounding Labour consultation and has come rather left-field at the instigation apparently of the LGA Labour Group.

 Our Local Government Committees, previously called County, District or Borough Parties are charged with holding the Labour Groups on those councils to account and ensuring collaboration between the party and Labour Group.  They are just as vital in the many areas where we are devoid of Labour councillors or have a sole or just a handful of councillors who need and appreciate support.

 Now, I am not going to the barricades over preserving LGCs; there are arguments for smaller co-ordinating forums in many areas.  But there are two vital principles at stake here:

 1)      Deliberative policy making and transparency – it is far too early to rush a change through before there has been a wide debate in the Party on whether this is a desirable move and how an alternative might work.  There should be some assessment of how effective LGCs are in fulfilling their functions and the wider objectives of the party before imposing into ill-thought out changes.  And we must ensure that any change has genuinely wide and transparent support from throughout the party – this is not clear as it was not a specific question and responses to Refounding Labour have yet to be published.

2)      Accountability – it was David Blunkett who established the current rules of groups and LGCs to focus on collaboration and accountability on policy – in many ways a fore-runner to Partnership in Power.  At its best, this can work very well with open and deliberative policy making including members and councillors at local level leading to a high quality manifesto with significant consensus – backed up by an ongoing policy dialogues on contemporary issues.  Under the proposals, we could go back to pre-Blunkett days where the Group and the Party can be locked in a confrontational, adversarial relationship without any real accountability.

 So there is a case for some reform or allowing some flexibility but just abolishing LGCs is not the way forward.  In a county council area, and many of the counties only have a few Labour councillors, an LGC is a tremendous way to bring the CLPs together with the few councillors to support their opposition and to inform local parties about county issues and to help co-ordinate county wide campaigns.  In Labour areas, it brings the party and group together and can provide a reality check for councillors who can (occasionally) become cocooned in the Town/City /County Hall or sometimes have not considered wider issues or implications.

 Of course, the LGC can lead to duplication sometimes, there can be too many meetings and bureaucracy, and can divert us rather than support campaigning.  But, there are other ways of overcoming these challenges.  Let us be very careful before we throw out the baby with the bathwater – and let’s have a democratic debate before any changes.

 David L Gardner, Vice Chair, Labour Democratic Network

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , ,

Labour’s new General Secretary: a battle for the soul of the Party

July 17, 2011 By Leave a Comment

>Behind the scenes a batle is underway for the soul of the Labour Party. In a week’s time its national executive will be in full swing. Top of its agenda will be deciding who is to be the next general secretary. The short-listing panel has offered the 33-member body a simple choice between head of fundraising and former acting general secretary, Chris Lennie and the GMB union’s national political officer, Iain McNicol.
[Read more...]

Filed Under: Blog

A Better Future for Britain — Consulting on Policy Reviews

July 17, 2011 By Leave a Comment

At this year’s Party Conference at Liverpool, delegates will be asked to vote on two major reviews, the Refounding Labour review of structure and process and the review of policy, A Better Future for Britain.

It is tempting to see these two reviews as seperate but in rality they are two sides of the same coin. One of Labour’s major challenges is to understand how members can have a meaningful role in policy review.

In her blog post Lucy Anderson. a London representative on the National Policy Forum, takes a first look at the Better Future for Britain review.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Blog, Policy Review