Running the Party: What can we do about governance

alexhilton Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 01:42:24 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

I have had quite a few helpful "words in my ear" recently from people close to the great and the good wondering where I was going with this post on the future of the NEC.



It has been made pretty clear to me that the union movement will not countenance any reduction in their percentage of the NEC that would come from increasing the number of CLP places.

Firstly, I'm convinced there is a problem of governance in the party and the regular emails we receive from HQ contain no message giving me the impression there is any move to do anything about it.

But one point was raised with me in private. Before we look at changing the composition of the NEC, we have to make sure we use those places we have on the NEC to best effect.

The outright competition for the six CLP spaces does tend to mean most of the six perform pretty well and are representative of the members. I have heard suggestion that one member tends to fall asleep at NEC meetings but I'll leave you to guess who that might be.

I have also heard that the Youth Rep Stephanie Peacock has impressed people with her work rate and dedication - though calls for the Youth rep to be elected by young members by OMOV do make sense.

It does surprise me though that Keith Vaz, an establishment figure if ever there was one, is one of the two Socialist Society delegates. And while again I have a lot of time for our two councillor delegates, they too very much represent the establishment rather than the membership.

However, above all, I have heard nothing to mitigate the criticisms of Labour Party Treasurer Jack Dromey. That post absolutely requires someone who will provide oversight and spend time and energy ensuring the NEC is aware of things the professional party might wish to keep obscure. And highlighting problems to the NEC is the mission, not spouting off to the media for the post-holder's own political purposes.

The Party Treasurer, elected every two years, is up for election at this party conference and it must be time for someone to take this role who will be prepared to do the job properly.

Anyone up for it? I'll help however I can.


tags: , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Running the Party: What can we do about governance | 5 comments (5 topical)

Treasurer post should be full-time (#1)

by rwendland on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 05:12:32 PM GMT

The Treasurer post offers us the opportunity of creating a proper check & balance to the General Secretary, a post that has made some poor decisions over recent years. I think the elected Treasurer should be offered a two-year employed position, with line-manager (and hire & promotion) responsibility for the finance staff, so information will flow to him/her directly rather than filtered by the General Secretary to which the finance staff currently report to.

This will give the Treasurer the proper time to:

  1. be an independent second conduit of information and actions for the NEC
  2. act as a real check & balance to the GenSec
  3. take on the "Registered Treasurer" role for the Electoral Commission, with the PPERA legal responsibilities
  4. so giving clarity inside and outside the party with a single Treasurer, rather than the confusing "Registered Treasurer" and elected "Party Treasurer" dual roles we currently have
  5. have time to solicit extra funds

I don't think such a change would need any constitution or rule changes, so could be applied from when the next Treasurer is elected.

Now is the time to push for this, if it is thought desirable. It is an opportunity to turn an unsuccessful role into something good.


Unions act against the interests of party members (#2)

by TrueLabour on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:35:55 AM GMT

There are too many NEC places chosen by the Leader and by the Unions.   These large blocks frequently act against the interests of the ordinary Labour party members.   Just look at how the Party Conference (of the members) has been weakened through NEC decisions backed by Union votes.

The NEC is also too big to be a functional body.   Something under 15 members is the ideal.

As to the Treasurer post it has brought ridicule upon the party.   Just cut out the post and slim down the NEC.

 


Re: Unions (#4)

by Simon Morley on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:01:15 PM GMT

Here we hit the issue that it is the leader and the unions who in general recognise the issues faced by ordinary people, because they want the party in government, and although I would say so do most party members, that is not necessarily the case. It seems to me it is good that all members get to contribute to debates, but in all parties the activists tend to pull the party away from the electoral centre ground needed to win elections. All this is the nature of democratic politics, and there can be the need for adjustments in governance to adjust to the changing political landscape. For example, maybe now we need more numerous, legitimate and independent local government members. Any what about devolved parliament/assembly members?


[ Parent ]

Re: Running the Party: Call No. 10 (#3)

by Peter Kenyon on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:35:05 AM GMT

Dear Alex


Let's not be distracted by words in ears. The Party is still controlled by No. 10.


No amount of fiddling with the composition of the NEC, or the method of selection of the Treasurer is going to wrest back control of the Party. The lead has to come from .... the Leader, surrendering powers of patronage. That's going to be difficult when Gordon Brown extended his powers of party patronage by not only 'appointing' Harriet Harman as Party Chiar, but adding six Vice-Chairs from the PLP. I'm running a series of blogs here highlighting the extent of Party Patronage.


I don't think the vast majority of members have any idea how deep this problem concerning the governance of the Party now runs.


The LabOUR Commission highlights it in its Interim Report. Perhaps we could collaborate on how this could be used to detail the Map of Labour.




Running the Party (#5)

by Captain Spaulding on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 12:24:30 PM GMT

Keep up the campaign.

It is all very well for our union comrades to make a fuss about hanging on to their representation, but then they need to put up good people. I have a very high regard for Diana Holland but some of the other union reps are a waste of space. What I notice is how some of them appear on public platforms/demos etc and make stirring speeches but when they interact with Ministers they turn into pussycats and basically, do whatever they are told. My impression is that many of them basically lack confidence but equally they get sort of flattered by their position, and hence they are easily manipulated. I think the wider membership would be surprised by the amount of creeping that goes on.

Yes, the Treasurer post is the main problem but it should remain an honorary job and I reckon there are any number of people in the Labour Party who have the experience to do this effectively. But not Mr Dromey.


Running the Party: What can we do about governance | 5 comments (5 topical)