Who do we want for our General Secretary?

SocialDemocrat Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 09:40:35 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

The just published edition of the New Statesman carries a cover article by MPs Jon Trickett and Jon Cruddas which argues that the Labour Party needs to become more independent of the Parliamentary leadership and that a good place to start is the appointment of an automous general secretary, so who do Labour bloggers think that new general secretary should be?



In an interesting piece, Cruddas, the former deputy leadership contender, and Trickett, who managed Cruddas' campaign and is chair of the Compass parliamentary group, say:
"the senior officers of the Labour Party must become independent of the parliamentary leadership, starting with the appointment of a new general secretary with real operating autonomy. We should also demand the separation of the deputy leadership from a properly elected party chair."

I think they are spot on.  It is in neither the party or the leader's interests to have a general secretary and party machine subservient to the whim and will of No. 10, if anything because when things go wrong, the leader will be blamed more so than ever, as is the case now.

But the very big question is WHO?  Who has the personality, standing and gravitas to do the job and do so independently and in the interests of Labour?  

The appointment will probably be the result of the usual machine politics crap and back doors wheeler dealing by people who should know better but it would be interesting to know what members think?
 



tags: , , , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Who do we want for our General Secretary? | 32 comments (32 topical)

Re: Who do we want for our General Secretary? (#1)

by HenryG on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 09:53:57 AM GMT

Anyone but Chris Lennie.


Re: Who do we want for our General Secretary? (#2)

by swatantra on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:03:21 AM GMT

Its just occurred to me that we know absolutely nothing about the 'Party Machine' and who is running it, so it's difficult to say. Perhaps we should be told who is in the running.


[ Parent ]

Re: Who do we want for our General Secretary? (#4)

by rwendland on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:14:34 PM GMT

Christopher Lennie has been appointed as "Registered Treasurer" with the Electoral Commission by the party, as a replacement for Peter Watt, with apparently no publicity whatsover.

Christopher Lennie calls himself "Deputy General Secretary, The Labour Party" in the Register of Interests of Members' Secretaries and Research Assistants, despite no such post existing in the Labour Party constitution or rule book. Chris is down as an assistant to Alan Campbell MP, presumably mainly so he can get a Commons pass.

So my take is that if Chris Lennie gets voted in as GenSec by the NEC it will be business as usual, or that there are skeletons in the cupboard that no-one else wants to risk seeing.

Anyone but Lennie I say. We need a democrat rather than an inside operator as GenSec following the current shambles, to sweep out the mess.

NB In designating Christopher Lennie as "Registered Treasurer", it is not clear that the Labour Party constitution or  rule book were followed. Constitutional Rule Clause VII.2B says "the registration of a person
or persons as statutory officers shall be subject to the approval of the NEC", but I think Lennie was registered before a full NEC meeting was held - which does not sound correct to me, though it depends on if you think "subject to the approval of the NEC" is something you can do after an action takes place.


[ Parent ]

Re: Who do we want for our General Secretary? (#12)

by repub on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 08:41:32 AM GMT

From Kevin Maguire's 'The Whispers' in New Statesman:

Names are emerging of the trade union apparatchiks jostling to step into Peter "Low" Watt's clodhoppers as Labour Party general secretary. Those sniffing around the post include the GMB's Debbie Coulter, Unison's Keith Sonnet and the Amicus pair, Mike Griffiths and Tony Dubbins. The appointment will be made by the NEC on 31 January. Word at No 10 is that the Supreme Leader is toying with the idea of asking Larry Whitty, often described as the party's last heavyweight general secretary, to fill in for a couple of years after completing his probe into the "cash for what?" scandal. Lord Whitty, mutter his supporters, is unpersuaded if not yet unpersuadable.


[ Parent ]

Re: Who do we want for our General Secretary? (#3)

by NeilF on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:09:49 AM GMT

I think the most important part of the Cruddas and Trickett article is:


"the retention of the union link is a red line that cannot be crossed - not for reasons of factional interest, but to ensure that Labour remains in touch with the kinds of concerns that Westminster can all too easily forget."


I'm not sure who should be Labour's General Secretary but I don't think we should necessarily rush into an instant replacement.


Re: Who do we want for our General Secretary? (#5)

by alexhilton on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 02:04:28 PM GMT

I have said before that I rated Peter Watt highly but we are moving on now. Being realistic, we need someone who knows the party in some form, a dedicated and high-performing campaigner and someone with unimpeachable ethics. There are naturally certain names in the frame and Chris Lennie would be one of them, and even though he is highly effective, he is also very close (politically as deputy) to the recent difficulties, which I think rules him out.

Here's some possible names, who I would rule in or out plus a few more blue sky thoughts.

IN
Andy Bagnall, SpAd to Hazel Blears
Carole Linforth
Julian Ellerby, Former London Regional Director

OUT
Tracy Paul
Hillary Perrin
Chris Lennie

Blue Sky - Unusually, a political appointment at this time would give us the benefit of a person who would not risk the damage to their own reputation that would come from allowing the slightest bit of dodginess. Plus they would have the independence and gravity to withstand pressures from ministers and other interests if necessary. I don't believe now is the time for another anonymous functionary when we need to display to the public our contrition and commitment to changing our approach. Sadly I don't think any of those below would accept the job.

Lord Geoff Rooker
Baroness Amos
Lord Kinnock


Re: Who do we want for our General Secretary? (#13)

by NeilF on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 08:44:37 AM GMT

I'm not sure it's helpful or appropriate to comment on individual Labour staff members and in particular who should be 'in and out'.  I think most of us know that our party staff work incredibly hard and often in very demanding and testing circumstances. Politicians and aspiring candidates are fair game for comment, but staff can't answer back and left out of it.


[ Parent ]

Should General Secretary be Registered Treasurer? (#6)

by rwendland on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 02:33:49 PM GMT

It has been the habit since PPERA came into force to register the GenSec as Treasurer with the Electoral Commission, so a full-time employee (the GenSec) is legally responsible for the PPERA returns. So Labour has had two treasurers of late:

  • the "Registered Treasurer" who is a full-time employee as GenSec, responsible for every-day finances
  • the "Party Treasurer" (Jack Dromey), elected and unpaid, a member of the NEC, chairing the "Business Board" which "is responsible for overseeing the business functions of the organisation including the management of the finances". There is also an "Audit Committee" chaired by someone else.

I think this confusing situation should be ended, for:

  1. clarity inside and outside the party
  2. so the treasurer can act as a real check & balance to the GenSec
  3. so we can appoint a more political GenSec who need not have such a level of financial skills

To do this, I think the elected Party Treasurer (Jack Dromey's current position) should be made a full time employee, so can devote him/herself to the party finances, and so reasonably can become responsible for the legal aspects of PPERA.

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 - who would need to be aware he/she is now standing for a 2 year fixed-term employed post. 


Re: Who do we want for our General Secretary? (#7)

by doctordunc on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 04:11:33 PM GMT

Well I'm always up for a challenge!


I don't know but... (#8)

by JoeRoberts on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 05:30:22 PM GMT

I'm not an insider, just an active party member, so I don't know enough about the various names in the frame to make a recommendation.

However, I know what qualities I am looking for.

First and foremost, the role of General Secretary should be about administration and political organising, so experience in these fields should be the over-riding consideration. I think that some very loose and lax procedures, and ignorance of the rules, among people at the top of the party machine (not the Government) which have got us into the current donorgate fiasco.

Administrative and organisational competence should decide who gets it, not personal popularity, being mates with the right people, or being a 'mover and shaker'.

I also think what Cruddas and Trickett seem to be suggesting - that the Gen Sec should be the leader of an internal, intra-party opposition to the Government, is ridiculous. Quite apart from the fact that the last thing we need is more people on TV gobbing off against the Government, it misses the point. The General Secretary shouldn't be a politician, but a political administrator.


I don't know but... (#9)

by JoeRoberts on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 05:30:29 PM GMT

I'm not an insider, just an active party member, so I don't know enough about the various names in the frame to make a recommendation.

However, I know what qualities I am looking for.

First and foremost, the role of General Secretary should be about administration and political organising, so experience in these fields should be the over-riding consideration. I think that some very loose and lax procedures, and ignorance of the rules, among people at the top of the party machine (not the Government) which have got us into the current donorgate fiasco.

Administrative and organisational competence should decide who gets it, not personal popularity, being mates with the right people, or being a 'mover and shaker'.

I also think what Cruddas and Trickett seem to be suggesting - that the Gen Sec should be the leader of an internal, intra-party opposition to the Government, is ridiculous. Quite apart from the fact that the last thing we need is more people on TV gobbing off against the Government, it misses the point. The General Secretary shouldn't be a politician, but a political administrator.


Re: I don't know but... (#10)

by doctordunc on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:11:10 PM GMT

I think their point is that the general secretary should not be chosen in a process dominated by the PLP leadership, which seems sensible.

I also am pleased to hear their point about a properly elected party chair (I'm slightly surprised to read it, as Jon C was wanting to be make the Deputy Leader post equivalent to an elected chair position, which seemed just slightly off the mark - I'm much happier with this approach).

It is absolutely essential that the party regains its own character, semi-autonomous from the party in parliament/the government - some of us have been arguing for such a thing for years, and the more converts to that view the better!


[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know but... (#11)

by alexhilton on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 05:56:40 AM GMT

On the other hand, a logical extension would be that the registered treasurer of the party should be a paid and qualified finance director of the organisation, leaving the traditional elected position defunct. All NEC members could fill a role equivalent to corporate non-executive directors of the party.


[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know but... (#14)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 05:05:41 PM GMT

The position of Deputy Leader should be scrapped altoghether and just replaced with an elected Chair (who would effectively double up as a Deputy leader).


[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know but... (#16)

by swatantra on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 03:38:56 PM GMT

Yes to an elected Chair, not in the Cabinet; by OMOV and no block votes. The Chair would appoint the General Secretary and oversee the Party's administration.


[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know but... (#17)

by repub on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 09:43:56 AM GMT

What role would the affiliated trade unions have if there were no block vote?


Would they not be allowed to vote?


[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know but... (#19)

by swatantra on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 10:34:12 AM GMT

Members of the LP. OMOV.


[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know but... (#22)

by repub on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 11:07:23 AM GMT

So you're cutting out the affiliates?


[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know but... (#25)

by swatantra on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:10:49 PM GMT

Yes. Why should they influence the vote? If they want a vote let them be members of the LP.


[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know but... (#23)

by repub on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 11:09:14 AM GMT

Not even a vote for levy-payers?


[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know but... (#26)

by swatantra on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:11:50 PM GMT

No. Just full members of the LP.


[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know but... (#18)

by repub on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 09:45:13 AM GMT

Presumably you wouldn't limit the elected Chair to being an MP?

So who would be Deputy Leader in the Commons?


[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know but... (#20)

by swatantra on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 10:35:34 AM GMT

NO DL; just a DPM, appointed by the PM.


[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know but... (#21)

by swatantra on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 10:41:05 AM GMT

The Chair could or could not be an MP; anyone could put their name forward; but it would be physically difficult to hold the two posts and do justice. The Vice Chair would be picked by the Chair.


[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know but... (#24)

by NorthernMonkey on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 11:43:57 AM GMT

No, I think an elected Chair should be an MP who would effectively be the deputy leader of the party.

It should be a written rule that the Chair should also be the Deputy Prime Minister or Deputy Leader of the Opposition to give the position a bit more weight.


[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know but... (#27)

by swatantra on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:20:46 PM GMT

What we have to try is two parallel strands running alongside each other, the Parliamentary LP and the LP members in the country. The latter should have a bit more clout in voicing policy onto the Parlimentary Party At the moment it doesn't work because of the patronage of the PM in appointing the Chair of the Party and DPM to their posts.  We have to create another power base to challenge that of the PM. An MP as Chair or DL or VC would find themselves compromised to some degree. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Who do we want for our General Secretary? (#15)

by Captain Spaulding on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 02:29:36 PM GMT

Alex you said, "All NEC members could fill a role equivalent to corporate non-executive directors of the party."

I thought that was what they did now, obviously I was naive.

If you're a non-executive director or charity trustee you have to ask questions, insist on getting information, impose your authority. I see no evidence that those who have been responsible for finance and audit on the NEC have been doing this.

I am still amazed that individuals are claiming as an excuse that they didn't know or that things were concealed from them. It was their business to know.

I have become utterly disillusioned with the NEC - as far as I can see they couldn't manage a p*ss-up in a brewery. Perhaps we should think again about how we elect people to the NEC.


Re: Who do we want for our General Secretary? (#28)

by AndrewHenderson on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 08:35:06 AM GMT

Abolish the post, it's a rather outdated title.


[ Parent ]

Re: Who do we want for our General Secretary? (#29)

by HOWLERMONKEY on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 04:58:19 PM GMT

Anna Bunt.


Re: Who do we want for our General Secretary? (#30)

by rwendland on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 05:07:31 PM GMT

Tribune has an article on GenSec possibles today. Says a complete break is favoured: someone "who has no connections with the current national executive or internal party structure", likely a senior trade union official. Tribune lists:

  • Keith Sonnet, deputy general secretary of Unison - "left-wing, anti-corruption candidate", "bring weight to the role and stand up for the party against Downing Street"
  • Mike Griffiths, Amicus - safe right-of-centre leadership preference
  • Debbie Coulter, GMB - unconfirmed
  • Diana Holland, Unite T&G - unconfirmed
  • Ray Collins, Unite T&G, runner-up last time - was Blair's favoured candidate, possible candidate


Re: Who do we want for our General Secretary? (#31)

by Parishpumpspin on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:39:24 AM GMT

Ken Clarke....you heard it here first.


[ Parent ]

Re: Who do we want for our General Secretary? (#32)

by Reasonablesocialist on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:46:52 PM GMT

STOP THIS MADNESS!

I agree with a lot that Cruddas says but surely he knows that a division between the LP in Parliament and LP in the country has historically been what has always torn us apart and let the Tories walk all over us. 

Why we would voluntarily go back to all that??


[ Parent ]

Who do we want for our General Secretary? | 32 comments (32 topical)