You are here: Home » News »

Party finalises internal restructure to ensure Labour is “one party…capable of winning the election in 2015″

August 10, 2012 8:00 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

Today the Labour Party has confirmed the restructure of staffing at Labour HQ. This follows the initial restructuring of the party to create an Executive Board back in March, and follows a number of voluntary redundancies in recent weeks. Crucially though, the party seem hopeful that there will be no further compulsory redundancies as a result of the new restructure.

The finalised restructure is also believed to be saving the party a significant sum of money each year. The party carried over a debt of £1.7 million from 2011 and the aim is to eliminate that debt by the end of 2013.The restructure of staffing is seen as a key part of Miliband and McNicols party reform programme. That involves changing both the way the party campaigns (with organising “guru” Arnie Graf seen as crucial in this regard), selects its candidates (which regular LabourList readers will know is something we’re passionate about reforming), the policy process through the NPF and a new “policy hub” and getting organisers and candidates selected early for the next election.
A Labour source told me this afternoon that:

“The basic aim of this whole restructuring process is to get established in fact and in organisation that we are one party – leader’s office, parliamentary party and one Brewer’s Green – capable of winning the election in 2015″

Uniting the party under one structure is key to these plans – and is a significant undertaking which has often been ignored in the media comment around internal party changes. The relationship between different sections of the party – particularly the leader’s office and Labour HQ – has not always been an easy one (to say the least), but by pulling key sections of the party which have often been split – such as policy and rebuttal and communications – together under one unified structure, these relationships seem to have improved. Morale amongst party staff certainly seems to have picked up in recent months, despite voluntary redundancies.

This has been complex process (with a complete restructure of the party and an office move) but the party seems to be heading towards a model that the leadership are confident can deliver a successful election campaign. The next challenge of course, is to deliver just that, and in a way that involves members in a genuine, effective and democratic way.

Related posts:

  1. Some suggestions for internal party reforms
  2. What the internal response to Blue Labour can teach us as a party
  3. Fair Pay is Key to a Labour Election Victory in 2015
  4. Iain McNicol responds to reports on party restructure
  5. Internal election and selection results – when are they coming?
  • Chris Winters

    This reads like all spin and no substance to me. Any details of what has actually been done or how staff were involved in the restructure?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

      I’m sorry to say that LL has read more and more like this in recent months.  I rather wonder if the last round of funding came “with strings”.

  • Joe Mccrea

    I may have been out of the loop for a long time, being a veteran of 1997 as Dobbo’s researcher and then Special Adviser – but since when were policy, rebuttal and communications split?  That way madness lies!  When we first introduced rapid rebuttal, for the 1995 local elections, it started with me as Frank’s Shadow Cabinet researcher and Adrian McMenamin, who at that time was our lead press officer.  As the capacity developed, Mathew Taylor worked closely with the communications Special Advisers to ensure policy, rebuttal and comms worked seamlessly….mad it ever was allowed to become disconnected….   Joe McCrea – Shadow Cabinet Researcher 1994-97, Special Adviser 1997-99, Downing Street 2000

  • ThePurpleBooker

    I think we need more party reform. We need to abolish all normal CLP meetings and instead that could be done via the Internet, what weekly meetings should be about is developing local strategy and community organising. We need all Labour members to be community organisers in their constituencies. We need to have the Mayor of London selection as an open primary and we need to start piloting open and closed primaries in many of target seats. We need a BAME A-List so that the leadership will pick 30 or so Black and ethnic minotiry canidates to stand in winnable seats. We need to ensure that there is a Movement for Change branch in every CLP to strengthen community organising within the party. We need all our selections for marginal seats done by the end of the year – ALL of them.

    • derek

      What we need is a party that’s true to it’s words and true to the principles of fairness and equality in the job market for all, as for branch leadership, I’d settle for a @Peter Barnard in every ward, on song on message and absolutely in tune with a comprehensive economic outlook!, give the no-voters something to vote for and they may just miss an episode of eastenders to cast their vote.

      • ThePurpleBooker

        That is a bit patronising. Firstly, many people watch EastEnders and vote during the day time. We won’t have a strategy focused on non-voters. We need community organising.

    • Brumanuensis

      The internet is no substitute for face-to-face interaction. Imagine if we applied the same principle to door-to-door canvassing.

  • uglyfatbloke

    There must be staff shortages though…try emailing Ed and see if you ever get a reply?

  • LordElpus

    Joe Public couldn’t give a toss about the restructuring at HQ – they want to see policies that resonate with them, (and then to see them carried out). They want to see the Labour party is doing something other than moving the deckchairs around on the Titanic.

    As has been said, more NuLabour spin than substance.

  • http://twitter.com/shibleylondon Shibs

    Very interesting article, Mark. 

  • http://twitter.com/shibleylondon Shibs

    Very interesting article, Mark, thanks. The elimination of debt at that speed looks very ambitious, but I hope is achievable.

    • hp

      ‘Ambitious’? Ludicrous!
      We need a Plan B.
      Borrow more!  Rack up the debt!  Call it ‘imvestment’ and our kids can pick up the bill when we’re gone.

  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    So the party grossly overspent, now has a debt of £1.7 million, has decided to do something about it and among other measures, reduce costs (also known as “cuts”).

    Why did Labour not adopt this approach to the public finances of the UK from 2000 to 2010?  If it had, we would not be in the poor position we are now.

    • John Ruddy

      Because, that wasnt what happened to the country – as you have been told many times before, but refuse to listen, the proportion of debt to GDP in 2007 – before the financial crash – was LOWER than it was when Labour took over in 1997.

      The amount that the Government spent did not cause the crash – nor was it unsustainable – and even now is at historically low values.

      Oh and the other difference is that the Labour party cant print its own money…

      • jaime taurosangastre candelas

        I never said that the deficit did cause the crash, nor was the proportion of debt responsible.  Neither was related to the crash.  Why do you think they were?  

        I simply observe that the last Government – and in particular the ghastly Brown, both as Chancellor and as PM, allowed the Government to spend 120% of revenue for nearly ten years.

        I’m not really bothered by how many times you think I have been told something, if what you tell me is a logical nonsense, or non-sequitur.  I’m perfectly capable of following a line of logic – it would appear that you are not.

        As it appears, the Labour Party are now discovering that you cannot overspend forever, you need to do something about over-spending (and that is called “cuts”).  The irony is delicious.  It would be perfect if the perpetrator of the over-spending was in jail.

        • trotters57

          “allowed the Government to spend 120% of revenue for nearly ten years.”
          Can you substantiate this statement?

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            See the ONS for the full gory and shocking details.

            But as indicative data, our annual overspending since 2000:

            2001 +£8.4 B
            2002 -£19 B
            2003 – £35 B
            2004 – £38 B
            2005 – £43 B
            2006 – £32 B
            2007 – £36 B
            2008 – £54 B
            2009 – £120 B
            2010 – £94 B

            Those minus numbers indicate spending beyond revenue.  You’ll notice that much of the overspending occurred before the financial crash in 2008.

          • John Ruddy

            Jaime – the Labour Government in 13 years had a bigger surplus than the previous Tory Government did in 18 years.

            Now stop making a fool of yourself.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            I don’t much care what the stupid tory government did.  All I care about is any government spending like drunkards, which both appeared to do.

            Now stop thinking that you know what is important to me, and trying to make some little private joke about my foolishness.

          • John Ruddy

            The point is, very few Governments since the 18th century have done what you expect them to do. To expect one to do so now, at a time when debt is actually at very low levels historically is actually very stupid, tantamount to bringing on a depression worse than the 1930s….

          • John Dore

            Please can you post where you looked this up?

          • John Ruddy

            Its pretty widely available, everywhere from ONS, to HMRC, to the Guardian. 

            Theres even a website called ukpublicspending.co.uk which allows to to look at all the data in all sorts of ways.

          • Guest

            Two things about these numbers that are dodgy:

            1) You’re assuming that the long term number for the deficit is zero. But in fact, it isn’t the total debt as a number that matters but the debt to GDP ratio. (In much the same way we’d include inflation when thinking about an individual’s debt, but here growth is a better factor to use because it clarifies exactly why –  an increase in debt isn’t a problem for credit worthiness etc. if it would still take exactly the same “sacrifice” for the nation to repay it all instantly.)

            In the period you’re considering (using rough numbers) GDP was around £1 trillion, growth a little under 3% per year, debt a bit under 50% of GDP so: the economy grows by around £30 billion per year and debt can increase by around £15 billion per year with no change in debt to GDP ratio. 

            Basically, either use debt to GDP ratio or take about £15 billion off every number above.

            2) While the start of a decade might be a reasonable period to pluck out of the air if you’re an official statistician with no political agenda, when you come onto a political forum and criticise a particular party in government using these figures, it seems blindingly obvious that you should start your figures from the time they entered office.

            Bearing these in mind, though I am a Labour supporter so feel free to point out any specific bias I make in the opposite direction, a pretty fair assessment of the facts seems to me to be:

            When Labour came into power, debt was over 50% of GDP. In their first few years, they brought that down to around 42.5% by 01/02. It then rose again, to around 47% before the financial crash, and we all know what happened after that.

            So yes, there could have been more done on the debt pre-crash, though there will always be cyclical movements. Personally I would have liked more admission that you can’t really have European public services on American tax rates, and would have wanted more increase in general taxation to go with extra spending, meaning that we kept debt at say 44-45% of GDP by 2007. But unless you think that every country should make zero total debt a top priority, I can’t see how you can begin to talk about Labour “spending like drunkards”. They kept the debt lower than when they came in, and lower than most comparable nations. What more do you want?

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            But I am only talking about over-spending current receipts, not about debt.  So while your points are perfectly well-made, they do not refer to the over-spending.

            (You do have a point about GDP growth – I think it is a net contribution of £13.2 B, not £15 B, but this is really into fine detail.  And just because such a metric “allows” an expenditure growth without instant negative effect, it is not really a recommendation for so doing – given the Keynes argument that allows deficit spending to ameliorate  the effects of recession over an economic cycle, the Government should have been saving money per year in the good times, not spending up to some “allowable” limit  There is no evidence that Gordon Brown saved a penny in unexpended revenues any time after 2001, when the Scotch loon should have been doing so, hand over fist).

          • Guest

            Agreed, a government following Keynesian theory should not be seeking to keep debt to GDP stable during periods of reasonable growth but should be seeking to shrink it. But New Labour wasn’t proclaiming itself to be Keynesian in the slightest. Now I think Labour’s moving back towards that sort of thinking, and I hope it stays there and argues for deficits now and surpluses in a few years when growth returns. 

            Apart from the two possibly slightly pedantic points I made that were mostly just because I don’t really like statistics being misused, my main point was just that when you take a full view, I can see how Labour’s record on deficit and debt could be criticised slightly pre-crash, but hardly much. The criticisms that could stick are: 
            a) If you’re on the left, that government should plan for economic downturn by reducing its debt in advance, and reduce the exposure of the whole economy to financial risk through regulation
            or
            b) If you’re on the right, that the market should be allowed to weed out failed companies without interference, so no bailouts

            But an argument that tacitly agrees that big banks should be saved to prevent too much damage to the economy, so broadly supports the government post-crash, but still wants to blame it for the deficit so pretends that there was some enormous build up in the deficit pre-crash, just flies in the face of the evidence.

          • PeterBarnard

            No, he can’t, Paul (“substantiate that statement”).

            Public Finances Databank*, Tables B1 (total managed expenditure) and C1 (total receipts) refer :

            1997-98 to 2002-03 : receipts (R below) exceeded expenditures (E below)

            2003-04 : E £456 bn ; R £421 bn ; E 8% over R
            2004-05 : E £492 bn ; R £452 bn ; E 9% over R
            2005-06 : E £524 bn ; R £486 bn ; E 8% over R
            2006-07 : E £550 bn ; R £518 bn ; E 6% over R
            2007-08 : E £583 bn ; R £548 bn ; E 6% over R

          • PeterBarnard

            No, he can’t, Paul (“substantiate that statement”).

            Public Finances Databank*, Tables B1 (total managed expenditure) and C1 (total receipts) refer :

            1997-98 to 2001-02** : receipts (R below) exceeded expenditures (E below)

            2002-03 : E £421 bn ; R £395 bn ; E 6.6% over R**
            2003-04 : E £456 bn ; R £421 bn ; E 8.3% over R**
            2004-05 : E £492 bn ; R £452 bn ; E 8.8% over R**
            2005-06 : E £524 bn ; R £485 bn ; E 9.0% over R**
            2006-07 : E £550 bn ; R £518 bn ; E 6.2% over R**
            2007-08 : E £583 bn ; R £548 bn ; E 6.4% over R**

            (Addition to first posting)

            * HM Treasury

            For the years 1996-97 to 2007-08 inclusive; total receipts were £4,775 bn** and total expenditures £4,949 bn** : 3.6%** over. This is a long way from “spending 120% of revenue for nearly ten years.”

            ** Oops ; another Edit ; late at night …

          • John Dore

            Gordon’s prudence meant that in the times of a boom he failed to follow the advice of one JMK (you may of heard of him) and spent more than he took in, using your reference c1, b1, £408Billion. Now that is a huge sum of money.

             But Peter you know and I know that the 120% reference includes the sneaky, brushed under the carpet billions…… schhhhh I’m not telling if you’re not. Dont mention it, don’t tell anyone. The dumbo’s of the electorate don’t know what it is anyway.

            Anyway its late now and you I should be distracting you from your tables.

          • PeterBarnard

            “The dumbos of the electorate …”

            Well, you’re a pretty smart sort of bloke, JD – tell us how much the “brushed under the carpet billions” added up to.

          • John Dore

            Oh dear call in help desk…… Peter’s table look up system has crashed. He cant see the numbers for PFI.

          • PeterBarnard

            So go on, JD, tell me.

            Or, as they say, either put up or shut up.

          • John Dore

            You know and I know there is no definitive answer. What you can do is Google UK PFI debt. You can find reams of information.

            Now we have already apologised for mistakes made in the past to draw a line under this. We should not try to defend the indefensible.  To try to undermines our ability to convince the electorate that we can be trusted with the economy. 

            Peter I see your reasoning as flawed, you cant accept anything other than what you can look up in a table.

          • PeterBarnard

            JD,

            From HM Treasury Committee, Seventeenth Report of Session 2010-12, para 17 :

            ” … if all current PFI liabilities were included in the National accounts, then the OBR estimates that national debt would increase by £35 billion …”

          • John Dore

            Really, the guardian called it out as £300Bn, based on the report below and nobody knows the real figure. 

            My point stands, you come back with some silly table that you present as a gospel fact. Please don’t waste your time any more.http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/ppp_pfi_stats.htm 

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            None of those figures include off-balance sheet expenditures, for which you need to look at different statistics, as Labour tried to hide them from public view.

            Please do not get all technical – those off balance sheet expenditures really did happen.

            I notice your figures conveniently stop at 2008, when the watchdog of reality bounded up to the gurning idiot in Number 10 and bit him in the b**l*cks.  Those percentages in 2009 and later don’t look so good, do they?

          • John Dore

            I sense much venom in your post.

          • Casio

            What do you expect when a first class stamp is 60p and a second class stamp 50p?!

          • Brumanuensis

            There’s a good reason Peter’s figures stop in 2008. The recession began . Comparing public finances during a recession against during a period of near full output is bound to lead to inaccurate conclusions, because the deficit will be mainly cyclical instead of structural.

          • PeterBarnard

            Indeed, Brumanuensis (figures stopping in 2008).

            In passing, I remain unconvinced by this “structural deficit” business for the simple reason that, up to and including 2007-08, current receipts exceeded current expenditures (except for a couple of minor exceptions in 2003-04 and 2004-05). Borrowing effectively was for capital formation.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Peter, firstly an apology.  Reviewing my words they appear to be strong, and I assure you that there is no anger at all with you, even if you could reasonably infer such.  My anger is with the Government (tory current, Labour past and also the tory past going back to Thatcher’s time).  We simply should not be spending more than we take in revenue, especially when not in a recession.

            I got the 120% figure from Ambrose Evans-Pierce in the Telegraph – I was wrong to imply that it was each and every year.  That is not the case, it is only such since 2008.  Nevertheless, it was between 106-109% as your figures above show, and there were in addition some accounting tricks around PFI that push those figures to about 109-112% even in those “good” years.

            As for the excess expenditure being consumed by capital investment, well you are correct, but there are some questions to ask of that.  Was this investment in all cases wise, and what will be the return?  I see little evidence of the investment being recouped – health outcomes are stubbornly unchanged, and we slip annually down the international rankings in education, despite huge “investment”.

            But, to repeat, none of my anger and scepticism is aimed at you.

          • PeterBarnard

            Nay, Jaime, I never detect in any of your posts any anger towards me!

          • Brumanuensis

            Jaime, you’ve always been impeccably polite so don’t be too hard on yourself. On the international comparisons issue, a caveat that the OECD have pointed out that PISA scores are not strictly comparable due to changes in assessment criteria and the number of countries participating.

          • PeterBarnard

            And the “off-balance sheet expenditures” are … ?

      • aracataca

        You forgot one thing John. The Tory party supported Labour’s public spending plans for 2007.

  • John Dore

    We are a victim of circumstances.
    * Their is a huge disaffection with politics in general – we cant raise cash as a result.
    * The Unions collect money from their members and the people are hardly flush.
    * We are seen as a party of the Unions by some and that puts some off.

    People who contribute to party funding are usually well informed, if they’re not coughing up you need to ask why? The cynical may say they’re not getting peerages and they’re probably right for that small group of donators.

    If Labour is to be a mainstream movement then it needs to appeal to a wider base and to motivate that base into coughing up.  At this moment in time unless we have state funding Labour will go bust eventually.

    • Alan Giles

       I fear the truth is a lot of formerly loyal Labour voters now perceive little difference between the main parties. It might well need to appeal to a wider base, but does that mean we should pander to Conservative prejudices, and indulging in a hairy-chested battle to see which party can be “tougher” on the sick and disabled, or who drapes themselves round the Union Jack with more gusto?. The traditional Labour voter is hardly going to throw money at a party whose right-wing regards them with contempt and disdain. You know the sort of thing – you are an idiot, or a drug taker, a fool, stupid etc etc if you don’t agree with every right-wing shibillith.

      To be brutaly frank the attitude and conduct of a minority of LL posters (one in particular) is hardly an inducement for people to join.

      You get the impression that Labour (like the Tories before them) don’t have any real sense of what they want to do to make Britain a better place, they just want power for it’s own sake – the eternal “Buggins turn” of British politics.

  • MHoulbrook

    The basic aim of this restructuring is to tighten the control of the party from the top. The whole idea of reducing managerialism in the party has been promoted very thinly with a topping of gloss and replaced with a further integration of managerialism.

    The use of the the word filter is very poignant. This style of managerialism or model has filtered down to CLP level. The introduction of this model at the top has given local CLPs the opportunity to “Refound” this model at the bottom. Labour Party members will become less involved and controlled by those whose vested interests are placed first before the wellbeing of its local membership. Let me briefly explain why?

    It is clear that many MPs and some district councillors feel vulnerable against the tyranny of the majority, that is, as they see it, Labour Members. The opportunity to shore up this vulnerability is to close ranks and place those they see as servants to individual interest in positions of power, that is officer posts. These being CLP Secretary, Chairperson, Treasurer, Campaign co-ordinator and the like. The lack of engagement internally and the apathy in the majority of CLP membership allows the control freakery to continue unchallenged. The expectation is on footsoldiers to campaign rigorously through blood and toil to reach out to communities and raise the profile of Labour in the community whilst CLPs managerial boards fiddle. (Please pardon the pun). This is of course very important and is indicative of what should happen (Campaigning). Meanwhile less meetings and less engagement with those who have cemented their position of control, keeps them occupied with more beauracracy and managerialism, in short doing nothing. The end result being local party GLC, EC, LGC being out of touch with the hardworking grassroot member. Refounding Labours intention was to do the opposite, creating a party more in touch with the people and the membership.

    The Labour Party in effect are endorsing a system that protects local heirarchies in replacement of serving and engaging with local people and party members. I wish all members to observe their local parties. It would be interesting to see the results. Of course there will be those whose viewpoint is blurred and scarred by local power politics. Those that are arguably bullied into line. This is real.

    This model will not resonate with the membership, more apathy will result, less engagement will occur and antagonisms and conflict will be the persistent order of the day. The Labour will implode. This is not what the party member wants. This is not what the party needs. It will happen.

    Ed Miliband needs to recognise that all the good work that the party has done over the last two years will be lost. Local MPs and their close network will become more powerful than the managerial board and their leader.

    Having spelt out a problem that will occur, a remedy is required. This is a simple one

    1. The Chairperson, Secretary, Treasurer , Campaign of the CLP must not be linked by 
         employment to the Member of Parliament, ie caseworker
    2. The spouse of the MP should not hold an officers position in the CLP.
    3. Relatives of local MPs should not be caseworkers and office managers. This will stop
        taxpayers money being given to family members without proper scrutiny.
    4. MP staff should not be able to stand as district councillors and having multi roles
        whilst being paid by the taxpayer to provide a roll to the public.
    5. Local CLP should be independent of the MPs office and organised and run by local 
        members not associated with the MPs office. This will help with local cynicism.
    6. The local CLP should not be on the site or adjacent to an MPs office.
    7. MPs should be servants of the members and not the other way round.
    8. Relatives of one MP or their staff should not work for another MPs office. This is
         arguably a current trend.

    How many CLP have a Secretary or Chairman that also work full time in the office of the MP, are also district councillors, attend meetings locally. How can such people have so many roles. More importantly! Why?

    I send this as a reminder  to all genuine Labour Party Member. Observe your local CLP.

    I would be very interested in you thoughts Mark. Perhaps more research is required

    • PeterBarnard

      M Houlbrook : that’s an accurate description of what my CLP used to be like (I can only speak for 2004-2010, but I am certain that it was exactly the same before, post 1997), and a good comment.

       I was CLP secretary from February, 2006 to April, 2012 and definitely not in the golden circle. In one conversation with our Labour MP, in which we were discussing her re-arranging a Parliamentary appointment so that she would be able to attend the AGM, she remarked, “If they knew that I was asking for a re-arrangement because of a bl**dy CLP …”

      We’re a bit better now (since 2010, when we lost our MP), but not an awful lot really. Refounding Labour had some excellent points in it, which I brought to the attention of both the membership (at our monthly meetings) and the EC. Enthusiasm was, as Mervyn King would say, close to zero.

      It was too much like hard work, in so many areas, and I resigned from the post in April this year.

      • MHoulbrook

        Thanks Peter. I really appreciate your comment. I would like more readers to comment on this please.

  • Billsilver

    if you really think structure = victory then you’re barking.
    Policy first please.
    Policy policy policy

Latest

  • News Seats and Selections Falkirk selection process suspended by the party

    Falkirk selection process suspended by the party

    The Labour Party have this afternoon suspended the selection process for Falkirk, after concerns were raised about “membership recruitment”. We understand that Ed Miliband was “keen to act swiftly” as the selection process was due to formally begin on Sunday. An officer of the party – yet to be confirmed – will investigate. A Labour spokesperson told us this afternoon: “We have suspended the start of the selection process of the Falkirk parliamentary seat. Concerns have been raised about membership [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Seats and Selections Unions Working Class MPs – the end of a era?

    Working Class MPs – the end of a era?

    By Paul Wheeler

    It is interesting to see that the Labour Party is returning to the vexed issue of its parliamentary selection process. The changes may be well and good.  But maybe we should be asking a bigger question – are we  witnessing the end of working class representation in Parliament? When the Labour Party was first founded it was more simple. Then the explicit  aim was to secure working class representation, and specifically organised labour, in Parliament. Inevitably it became more complicated [...]

    Read more →
  • Local Government News An absolutely classic Lib Dem bar chart

    An absolutely classic Lib Dem bar chart

    Earlier this week we brought you a decidedly dodgy bar chart from the Tories, but it seems that they’re not the only party in Camden adopting dubious use of bar charts. Step forward Camden Lib Dems, with this classic of the dodgy Lib Dem bar chart genre (courtesy of Theo Blackwell). Even by the pretty shoddy standards of the yellows, this is a corker:   Update: Haringey Lib Dems might want to work on their bar charts  maths too (via [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Modern life is rubbish – We need to put Work and Home at the heart of everything we do

    Modern life is rubbish – We need to put Work and Home at the heart of everything we do

    By Mark Ferguson

    “Work and home is what One Nation is about – family life, how people live everyday life.” That’s what Jon Cruddas – the man who will in all likelihood write Labour’s next manifesto – told the Guardian the party’s policy review is focused on. And it sounds so simple – doesn’t it? Critics will say it’s too simplistic a definition (and they’d be right – I’m cherry picking here), but it’s also a brilliant example of the distance between most [...]

    Read more →
  • News Labour’s policy process explained

    Labour’s policy process explained

    By Mark Ferguson

    There’s an interesting interview in the Guardian with Labour’s policy chief Jon Cruddas this morning (of which more later), but the Guardian have also sketched out their take on the shape of the party policy review, noting – as I’ve done before – that it will report back in a series of stages. You can see a more sophisticated look at this in the piece Jon Cruddas and Angela Eagle wrote for us earlier this week. Here’s the Guardian’s take: [...]

    Read more →