Election feedback request from the NEC

From @LabourList

Hi all,

First, thanks to councillors, MEPs, candidates, activists, members and fellow-travellers for campaigning right through to 4 June in the face of difficulties beyond your control and which you did not deserve.

I’ve received several requests for an extra NEC meeting to analyse the results, and to ensure that all members are involved in future policy-making and that the manifesto reflects Labour values.

This has not proved possible. In fact the original plan was to postpone the May NEC meeting to June, but a date could not be found which fitted with union conferences and other commitments. So the NEC will meet next on Tuesday 21 July for a full day, to allow extended discussion. This gives time to collect feedback, and I would be interested in:

1) Reasons for Labour losses, both local and European, and reasons for any good results against the overall trend;

2) What the party leadership can do to rebuild towards the general election, organisationally and politically;

3) How members’ views can be taken into account in policy-making. The national policy forum “Warwick” agreement dates back to last July, before the recession, and needs reviewing, but time and resources do not allow another full-scale forum with thousands of direct amendments. Are members and local parties happy to work through their NPF representatives, and if not, what is the alternative within the Partnership in Power framework?

4) What policies represent “Labour values”?

5) Whether conference should return to resolutions or stay with the experiment on “contemporary issues” introduced in 2007;

6) Anything else I should know.

Second, a number of questions have been asked about the NEC’s special endorsements panel (the “star chamber”). One of the problems is that the panel cannot decide who it wishes to interview. It only investigates MPs referred to it by the chief whip and the general secretary, and then has to decide whether they have crossed lines drawn by the Green Book or by what members and voters would expect. However the criteria for referral are not clear, and this has led to perceptions of unequal treatment at the initial stage, which I share.

The national audit office is examining all MPs’ expenses for the last four years, and we expect their report to provide objective benchmarks, and perhaps lists of “flippers”, extravagant spenders, tax avoiders, and other types of misdemeanour. I believe it would be preferable, except in extreme cases, for MPs to come through this process, so that their situation is considered alongside others where similar issues are involved.

The NEC will be reviewing the process, but conflicting views have been expressed to me recently. Members want wrongdoers dealt with through clear evidence-based decisions, which means waiting for the audit report and further interviews. But they also want a speedy conclusion so we can get back to policy, which means either ignoring some transgressions or risking summary injustice. Again, comments are welcome.

Depending on the number of replies I may not have time to answer every point individually, but promise to read and take them all into account for the next NEC.

Thanks again.

Ann Black
NEC constituency representative

You can email Ann Black at [email protected].