Harriet and Jon – a deal?

By Peter Kenyon / @peterkenyon

A media blitz this weekend here, here and here with Jon Cruddas at the forefront of calls for the election of a Labour Party chair (all neatly parcelled on LabourList) have got me wondering: what has been going on?

The post does not exist in the Labour Party Rule Book as we currently know it. It was a patronage device invented by former leader, Tony Blair, in the wake of the 2001 general election when he appointed Charles Clarke minister without portfolio and party chair. It has been bestowed since by the leader on a person of his choice ever since, with little protest (except from obscure organisations like Save the Labour Party, in which I declare an interest as a member and currently chair). The most recent holder of this ‘courtesy title’ was/is Harriet Harman, who was named party chair by former party leader Gordon Brown after her election as deputy leader in June 2007. I say ‘was/is’ as I do not know if Harriet in her capacity as interim leader has relinquished the title or not.

What is certain is that to date there has been no open debate or resolution at party conference about what the job entails and how it relates to the elected positions of leader, deputy leader or chair of the National Executive Committee.

The most revealing report was that on the BBC News website of an interview conducted with Jon Cruddas on Sky News by Adam Boulton, reported by the BBC as follows:

“Mr Cruddas told Sky News that he and stand-in leader Harriet Harman both backed the change, and that he would be interested in running for the job.”

How can that be? In what decision-making forum can this have been discussed? My speculation is that the genesis of this idea for an elected party chair now goes back to the days immediately after Gordon Brown’s resignation and a shadow cabinet discussion about the management of the succession. In that process, Harriet Harman ruled herself out as a possible leadership contender. The general secretary of the Labour Party obliged by not enforcing Rule 4.2.B ii requiring nomination papers for deputy leader to be circulated to CLPs, and affiliated organisations. That has enabled Harriet Harman to remain in office as deputy leader without any opportunity for members to hold her to account for her period in office in that capacity. Worse, as matters stand she can remain deputy leader for as long as she likes until a Labour MP announces her/his intention to challenge her and secures 52 nominations from other Labour MPs. (That figure of 52 represents 20% of the current number of Labour MPs required for a valid nomination as either Leader or Deputy Leader in the event of NO VACANCY.)

I spoke to Jon about him running for deputy leader around the same time. Quick as a flash he replied, “There is no vacancy.” True, but irrelevant if you believe in accountability and the need for rules to be followed. Of course, there are occasions when there are good reasons why a rule may be set aside in particular circumstances. (Like the qualification period of membership to take part in the forthcoming Leadership election has been waived to encourage people to join the Labour Party and take part until 8 September.) But to deny members an opportunity to hold an elected postholder to account is different.

To appreciate the significance of these developments for the future probably involves revisiting the deputy leadership election campaign in 2007, and the promises of the respective candidates, in particular Harriet, to rebuild the party.

Here’s what Harriet said on the Compass website in 2007:

“To renew the party and the government we have to rebuild the trust and confidence of the party and the public. The key is always local activity, and active local parties. I am proud that Camberwell and Peckham has increased membership to around 800, and crucially that it reflects the community. We are constantly out on the doorstep, listening to people and recruiting new members…..”

“We cannot have one-way traffic between the party organisation and its members. People must be allowed to say things that provoke, so that what we say is authentic and comes from real discussion. For example, we need to engage in debate amongst members about the future for our Foreign Policy.”

“Some say that winning is not enough in itself to bring the progressive policies we want. But the fact remains that out of government we can do nothing for hard-pressed communities like those in my constituency of Camberwell and Peckham. I’m standing for the post of deputy because I want to help Gordon Brown win a fourth term for Labour, so that we can not only debate our policies, but put them into action.”

Put bluntly, Harriet, you failed. You should have resigned and stood for re-election. As matters stand, is it unreasonable to suppose that Jon has reached an ‘understanding’ with Harriet that he will not run against Harriet for deputy leader, in return for support for the creation of a new post of elected party chair?

The impact of this on the party and the challenge for the new Leader should not be trivialised. The new leader will have to work with a deputy who has failed to seek, let alone secure, a renewed mandate for the challenges of opposition and winning a return to power in Westminster.

In his speech to the Labour Friends of Searchlight on 17 July, Jon spoke about electing the party chair at conference. Well, that looks innocent enough, except that the party adopted the principle of one-member-one-vote (OMOV) for such positions nearly 20 years ago. Today, members have every right to ask: “What is going on?” It is technically possible for the NEC to move a rule change to create this post in three months’ time at Annual Conference 2010. Though, I am hoping that a majority of the NEC would say, hang on this has not been discussed in the party.

So that puts a rule change to create the post back to 2011 at the earliest. Then there is a process of calling for nominations and an election to arrange. By which time it will be 2012 before a party chair could have been created and elected democratically.

Or is Jon suggesting this should be done on the floor of conference and a party chair elected by acclaim?

The alternative is evident. There is a concensus emerging about the need for rebuilding the party. But members are being denied the opportunity to decide for themselves who is best suited to that task NOW. It is not too late. It just needs one member of the PLP to wake up and challenge the incumbency, and another 51 to back him/her as a candidate for the deputy leadership. At least that post exists, and can be elected by 25 September 2010.

Are you up for it, Jon? Or have you reverted to being what you were for Tony Blair, a fixer? Or is Harriet seeking to fix it for Jon? Or was Jon’s speech on saturday and his media interventions worthy of Machiavelli in enabling these matters to be flushed out?

Jon Cruddas’s democratic socialist supporters on the centre-left of the Labour Party have a right to know.