Author: DarrenAndSophie3678

The meeting took place after 24 hours of media coverage of divisions in the party, following Tom Watson’s dire warnings about the supposed threat posed by Momentum and its (supposed) would-be paymaster, Len McCluskey, with the result that Jeremy Corbyn was a little late arriving, due to the throng of journalists outside.

We began, as ever, with the sad roll call of those party stalwarts who had died in recent weeks –this time including Gerald Kaufman; the long-serving former MP Tam Dalyell; and former party chair, Margaret Wall – and tributes were paid by those who had known them (Jeremy also recommended the book written by Dalyell, a serial backbench rebel: The Importance of Being Awkward!)

The Leader’s Report began with Jeremy’s reflections on another high-profile figure who had died recently, Martin McGuinness, acknowledging the controversy over the Sinn Fein leader’s earlier years but paying tribute to the huge contribution he had made to the Northern Ireland peace process. Jeremy also acknowledged the previous day’s news coverage and referred to the joint statement that he and Tom Watson had put out, seeking to draw a line under the talk of disunity. He said that he was disappointed by the attitude of some Labour MPs, however, and that no other political gathering in the country would tolerate the kind of behaviour that was often seen at PLP meetings.

Jeremy also commented on the Tory government’s budget climbdown, under Labour pressure, over National Insurance contributions by the self-employed and acknowledged that Article 50 was expected to be triggered on 29 March. Labour would continue to push for tariff-free access to the single market and for the right of EU nationals to remain in the UK – and for the equivalent rights for British nationals living in EU states (Labour was asking sister-parties to support the latter). The so-called Great Repeal Bill, which would unpick the influence of EU regulations on UK legislation, was now expected to be a short bill but accompanied by another 6-8 bills on specific subjects.

In relation to Scotland, Jeremy wanted to clarify the position that he had set out, which was that it was not in the interests of the Scottish people to have a second referendum and that independence does not represent an economically credible policy. Labour MSPs would vote against Sturgeon’s proposal in Holyrood the following day but the party’s Westminster MPs would not do likewise if and when the issue came to Parliament, as it would only play into the SNP’s hands for Labour to be seen to be blocking the referendum. Jeremy ended by talking about the challenge of the forthcoming election and the need for Labour to get a clear and consistent message across.

Jeremy dealt with questions about his comments on Scottish referendum; about the Copeland and Stoke by-elections; about the New Economics conference in Scotland; he was praised for hosting a BAME media event in his office. Someone also asked him to rebut allegations that disloyal party staff were withholding ‘short money’ and thereby reducing the number of party staff who could be employed in the Leader’s office. Jeremy was bemused by this claim and Iain McNicol clarified that there are now more staff employed in the Leader’s office than when during Ed Miliband’s time in office.

Tom Watson then presented the Deputy Leader’s report, which was brief and uncontroversial, covering things like the party’s recent local government conference, the by-election campaigns and a study he was conducting into the way that automation is changing the world of work. He was asked for further information about the latter by several of the trade union reps. One of my fellow CLP reps raised the issue of the controversy that had occupied the media over the previous day, expressing frustration that it had deflected attention from potentially more positive stories and making a plea for the party to be more united as we move towards the elections. In his response to this question, Watson sought to justify his comments as a legitimate response to what he saw as dangerously divisive activities by Momentum, as highlighted by the recording of Jon Lansman speaking at a meeting. I then asked how he thought it would assist the situation to make inflammatory comments to an already hostile media six weeks before crucial elections; whether he had spoken to Jeremy before making his remarks; and what was the difference between Momentum seeking to increase its own influence within the party and other factions, like Progress and Labour First doing the same thing. He didn’t directly answer all my questions but reiterated his position and claimed that he had been deliberately misled by Momentum’s leadership. In the meantime, others had commented on the matter, both for and against Tom Watson.

John McDonnell joined us at this point to give the Shadow Chancellor’s Report. He reported on how Labour MPs had held the Government to account over its Budget – especially the inadequacy of the sums made available for Health and Social Care and for the so-called “industrial strategy”. The austerity measures announced in the previous year’s budget – in PiP, tax credits etc – were now coming into force. The UK was unique in having a growing economy but declining real wages, reflecting the unfair distribution of income and wealth. Moreover, 84% of the cuts were falling on women, with older women and those with caring responsibilities hit particularly hard. In addition, the present government had now borrowed more than all Labour governments put together – a startling statistic – and was set to borrow much more. And, while it was good that Labour (and Tory backbenchers) had forced a climbdown on National Insurance contributions for the self-employed, this had left a£2 billion hole in the Budget and Labour was demanding more details on how this would be filled.

In the discussion, points were made about the deeply unfair removal of child benefit for a family’s third or subsequent children; about the National Insurance debacle and bogus self-employment; about school budget cuts; and about the fact that the government was showing blatant favouritism toward Tory-run councils in the distribution of funding for social care. It was also pointed out that Government ministers were not subjected to the same scrutiny as the Labour frontbench over how their policies would be paid for. In responding to this point, John reminded us that all of Labour’s existing commitments had been fully costed and the party was developing a tax strategy that would enable a future Labour government to pay for policies that were currently more aspirational, like free childcare. Initiatives like the Fiscal Credibility Rule and its work with an independent panel of respected experts like Joseph Stiglitz had done a lot to protect Labour from the excessively hostile criticism of the media.

Condemnation of the Tory Budget was continued under the next item, the Local Government Report, presented by Nick Forbes, Labour’s Leader in Newcastle Council and the LGA. He said that the only extra money given to councils had been to cover the increased cost of paying the National Minimum Wage. The retention of business rates my council was a good idea in principle but the way it was being applied could lock in inequalities. Nick reported on a very successful Labour Local Government Conference. He reminded us that it is a very difficult time to be a Labour councillor (a sentiment I can endorse from my own experience) but circulated a booklet that the party has produced listing 100 positive achievements by Labour councils around the UK in this challenging time – a very welcome initiative. NEC members then made points about the need to keep the party’s internal divisions out of the local elections and about the need for some Labour councils to do more to address the issue of low pay and to support local government unions in the face of Tory attacks on facility time. Another member remarked that we should give greater prominence to local government matters at the NEC and also suggested that, in future, we have dedicated sessions in the devolved politics of Scotland and Wakes – certainly a suggestion that I would support.

We were then given a presentation on the forthcoming elections by Andrew Glynne and Ian Lavery, the two MPs who had jointly taken over from Jon Trickett the role of National Campaign Co-ordinator. Andrew began by addressing the speculation about an early general election. He pointed out it was already too late to hold such an election on the same date as the local elections because the Tories had missed the deadline to trigger the no-confidence vote required under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. This could, however, be done on 9 or 16 May to facilitate an election on 29 June. Party staff had circulated a number of election timetable scenarios and had prepared a guide for MPs in the event of a snap election. Work had also commenced on a constituency health-check – looking at the voter ID gathered, resources required, etc for every seat.

There are elections on 4 May, Andrew reminded us, for 33 English county councils; 8 English unitary authorities; 6 Metro Mayors; 2 ‘regular’ mayors; all 22 Welsh councils; and all 32 Scottish councils. The dates of the previous elections for each of these varied greatly, from 2012 to 2015, so it was difficult to work out a national vote share. Last time around, Labour had won outright control of ten Welsh and five Scottish councils, two English counties (Derbyshire and Notts) and two unitary authorities. There had been extensive boundary changes in Scotland and the STV system meant that the party wouldn’t field as many candidates as there are seats, to avoid splitting the vote. The devolution deals agreed for the various Metro Mayors varied considerably, with the greatest powers to be exercised by the Greater Manchester Mayor, encompassing health and social care; education; housing and the role of the Police and Crime Commissioner.  The West Midlands would be a major battleground, with Labour’s long-time base in Birmingham coming under concerted attack from the Tories; likewise Tees Valley.

Ian Lavery then talked about the content of Labour’s campaign and the importance of messaging. The Tories’ claim to be the party of ordinary people had to be demolished and Labour would be using the slogan, ‘Standing Up for You’. There would be a number of key themes, related to economic investment; health and social care; educational opportunities; safer neighbourhoods; and affordable housing. Each week of the campaign would highlight a different one of these themes. The strategy for communicating these messages would embrace the traditional (2.2 million items of campaign material had already been printed) as well as use of tools like Facebook to reach voters. There would be remote volunteering (members in areas without elections – such as London – being encouraged to travel to specific electoral battlegrounds); virtual phonebanks; mobilisation through SMS messaging; and a ‘town hall’ style event in London.

Responding to Andrew and Ian’s report, members emphasised the need to maintain a focus on the economy (which Andrew readily acknowledged) and to give due attention to the issues of NHS privatisation and council housing; the challenge of juggling our local election campaign with a response to Brexit, the proposed Scottish referendum and a possible early general election; and the need to reach out beyond our ‘core vote’ (Andrew agreed with this and sad that we have to reach out to ex-Labour voters and those who have never voted).

The National Policy Forum Chair’s Report was given by Ann Cryer, who told us that the eight policy commissions had all been meeting regularly and that the various papers were now out for consultation with the wider party, with a closing date of 31 May. The whole Forum would be having a two-day meeting on 1-2 July. One of the CLP reps most involved in the NPF said (quite rightly, in my view) that the closing date for responses to the policy papers wouldn’t allow sufficient time for party units to discuss and respond to the documents; some responses had started to come in but they were mostly from individuals giving their own personal views. Another CLP rep asked that any policy motions received from CLPs be considered by the relevant commissions; this was agreed by the full-time officer responsible, who also said that the party’s policy consultation website was now up-and-running, although there had been a few teething problems.

Giving the General Secretary’s Report, Iain McNicol thanked party staff for all their hard work on the two recent parliamentary by-elections. He reiterated that his team were doing detailed preparatory work for the eventuality of an early general election. On membership, he said that resignations and lapsing had increased, especially during the discussions on Brexit. The party still had a substantial financial reserve set aside, which would hopefully be put towards the general election campaign, although the effects of a more substantial dip in membership would have to be taken into account.

The question was raised as to how the party would go about selecting its candidates in the event of an early general election; this was not resolved but it was suggested by one member that those 2015 candidates willing to put themselves forward again should simply be allowed to do so (not a solution that I could support, as it would deprive party members of any democratic say over their local candidates). I asked for an update on current membership figures and for this to be included in all future meetings. I was told that the figure was still comfortably over the half-million mark but that a fairly substantial minority were in arrears. An update was also given on the (all-BME) shortlist for the Manchester, Gorton by-election; concerns were expressed about the fact that one of those shortlisted had tweeted some very hostile comments about Jeremy Corbyn and also about the composition of the panel that had made the choice: the fact that three had been parliamentarians was apparently against existing NEC policy.

One piece of good news was that the party’s Business Board has agreed that the portion of subscription revenue for each party member that goes to that member’s CLP will increase from £1.63 to £2.50 and will increase further in future as the subs themselves go up.

We were also told, when we got to the minutes of the Disputes Panel, that in future even the most sensitive papers for the Panel’s meetings would be available at HQ for members to read a couple of hours beforehand, so that we won’t have to continue making such rushed, ill-informed decisions. This is something I had requested (although my preferred option was that the papers be emailed out the night before, or on the morning of the meeting) so I was pleased that it had been agreed.

The last two substantive items – the International Report and the EPLP Report – were both rather rushed because the meeting was, by this stage, overrunning. The latter naturally focussed mainly on the situation on the eve of ‘Brexit’ negotiations, with our Chair and EPLP representative, Glenis Willmott, and other members lamenting the Tory government’s complete lack of any tangible commitment to protect the material interests of ordinary people in the UK.

Before describing the meetings themselves, it is worth mentioning that they took place at the office building in Victoria where Labour has long had its HQ, but on an additional floor that the party has recently taken over. This expansion was deemed necessary as we gear up to fight what will no doubt be an extremely challenging general election in 2020 or before – but it seems unlikely that it could have happened without the huge recent increase in membership, and the corresponding boost in income, for which we can thank Jeremy Corbyn.

The Disputes Panel meeting had as full an agenda as ever but, for once, we managed to get through it in the hour allotted (well, nearly). The majority of new cases were of members whose conduct or public comments, as quoted in the tabled papers – often containing anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, homophobic and/or misogynistic abuse – was sufficiently serious that no-one disputed that they should be referred to the National Constitutional Committee (NCC) for consideration of possible penalties (likely to be expulsion, in many cases).

Three or four issues were more controversial. I cannot say too much about individual cases, although details in respect of some of the more prominent members involved have appeared in the media (in some cases, having being leaked while the meeting was still in progress).

There was a further paper (the third since October) on Wallasey CLP, which has been suspended since last July, which was a lot more muted than the last two and suggested that the situation in the constituency is now reasonably harmonious. It was proposed that the CLP be unsuspended but only after the May elections (and specifically that for the Merseyside Metro Mayor), so that members would not be ‘distracted’ from campaigning. We were not told – but some of us had heard through other channels – that no further action was to be taken against two of the three Wallasey CLP officers who had been under investigation. Along with one other NEC member, I raised concerns about the lack of any acknowledgment of this, which – along with the comparatively positive picture painted of the CLP in the report – suggested that Wallasey had not, perhaps, been as ‘toxic’ as we’d previously been led to believe. Others, however, reiterated their view that there had been serious bullying and intimidation, particularly of a homophobic nature; the lack of disciplinary measures against individuals was (so a full-time officer explained) because of the high standard of proof required in such cases (something I remain sceptical about – not just because of the robust and detailed rebuttals by Wallasey activists but because of the fairly insubstantial ‘proof’ that has apparently been deemed sufficient in other instances). In any case, the paper was carried nem con (I had said in my contribution that the CLP should be unsuspended immediately but abstained, rather than voting against, because the principle of unsuspension in the near future had at least been agreed). More worrying was the paper on the third Wallasey CLP officer, against whom charges (for alleged bullying and intimidation – although not of a specifically homophobic nature) are still being pursued and whose case we were asked to refer to the NCC. I was not allowed to speak specifically on this individual but was strongly of the view that the case against him was not persuasive and voted against referring him (I was disappointed that only one other member opposed the recommendation, although several abstained).

The most high profile case we considered was, of course, that of Jackie Walker. As with other individuals, I shouldn’t go into detail while this is still being dealt with by the party but, since there has been so much media commentary, I will say a few words. I abstained on the vote to refer Jackie to the NCC, which I know has disappointed some of my comrades on the left. I don’t believe for one minute that she is anti-Semitic (not least because she is partially of Jewish heritage herself) but I do think there are legitimate grounds for concern about some of her public statements. I think, however, that this is something that could more usefully be addressed through comradely debate, rather than through a disciplinary process, with the ultimate sanction of expulsion a real possibility. Unfortunately, it seems that issues related to Jewishness, Israel and anti-Semitism have now become too heated to allow the kind of calm discussion that we need. There is a reluctance in some quarters to engage with views that are provocative and discomfiting but not necessarily deliberately insulting or discriminatory. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that practically all prominent public figures of Jewish heritage are frequently on the receiving end of vile anti-Semitic abuse (especially via social media) and there are undoubtedly Labour party members who engage in this sort of behaviour, as other cases brought before the Disputes Panel have shown. I had originally intended to speak against the recommendation but, as with other controversial cases, we were presented with a detailed paper at the start of the meeting, with very little time for reading, let alone reflection, and I felt ill-equipped to respond to some of the contents. In addition, one of the other left CLP reps made an impassioned speech supporting referral to the NCC, which both confirmed my expectation that the officers’ recommendation would be overwhelmingly accepted and made me question some of my own assumptions. In the event, only one person voted against. In retrospect, I should probably have voted with him, rather than abstaining; it would have made no practical difference but at least it would have registered my unease about the process.

One other issue on which I spoke related to the ‘auto-exclusion’ (i.e. immediate expulsion based on supposedly inarguable evidence) of two party members from Northern Ireland, one of whom I’d met when he visited Wales recently and was seeking support for the party in Northern Ireland to be able to stand in elections. The charge was that one of these two had been a non-Labour candidate, and the other his agent, in the Stormont elections on 2 March. I argued that auto-exclusion was normally reserved for those who back candidates or parties standing against Labour, whereas, in this case, there was no Labour candidate, which was why these loyal (if somewhat insubordinate) party members had taken matters into their own hands; expulsion seemed too harsh a penalty. I was told that the two comrades hadn’t just run an independent Labour campaign but had joined a non-Labour party, the Cross-Community Labour Alternative, with connections to the Socialist Party. The two deny, however, that they have joined this party, although admit that they accepted its endorsement (not knowing about its SP links). My pleading on their behalf was fruitless, anyway.

The party’s position on Northern Ireland was also one of the first items on the agenda of the Organisation Committee meeting. We were told that the long-delayed review of the party’s policy of not standing elections was finally getting underway, with the four-person panel due to meet the first set of organisations giving evidence later that week.

The next item related to the election of the national officers and committee of Labour Students, which are to be held on the basis of OMOV for the first time. Delays in this process had given rise to concern but it was explained that the problem was that the database and mailing list held by Labour Students wasn’t entirely consistent with that held by the party centrally, with the two operating different membership criteria, and this needed to be resolved if the OMOV ballot was to be conducted on a sufficiently robust basis.

The most substantial item on the Committee’s agenda was a further paper on Disciplinary Procedures, fleshing out the principles agreed at the January meeting. Once again, this signalled a very positive change in the party’s approach to dealing with questionable conduct and/or breaches of the rules, with a more robust emphasis on due process, transparency and proportionality. The abandonment of automatic recourse to administrative suspension was particularly welcome, as was the news that members facing auto-exclusion will now be given 14 days to challenge the apparent facts (or their interpretation). Everyone who spoke commended the officers who had drawn up the report and made positive suggestions as to how it could be improved, virtually all of which were accepted. These included: strengthening the commitment to confidentiality, even where the identity of a member under investigation may be in the public domain; adding ‘training’ to the list of ways in which the party could address behaviour by a member that had occasioned concern; ensuring that warning letters do not necessarily imply guilt; and removing the explicit exception made for “elected or other prominent representatives” in the section setting out the hurdles for members (or recent ex-members) of other parties wishing to join Labour.

The paper also included a draft rule change expanding and clarifying the definition of “general prejudicial conduct”, which was agreed in principle (although we will have to return to the detail before conference) to inform further guidelines. A paper for distribution within the wider party will now be produced on the basis of the papers agreed by the NEC. This will provide clearer and more detailed explanation of the process and will include (at the suggestion of one of the union reps) a flowchart setting out the disciplinary process at a glance.

The rest of the agenda included brief updates on CLPs in special measures and on the internal election procedures for the Association of Labour Councillors. The committee also noted the text of all motions submitted by CLPs since our last meeting. In relation to one of these motions, an NEC member commented that there is a perception in some quarters that Labour would not be ready for an early general election. Iain McNicol responded by offering reassurance that his office were working on a daily basis to take account of every practical and logistical detail that would need to be considered in the event of such an election.

Following the close of the meeting (which, miraculously, had again run to time) the six CLP reps had a private meeting with the general secretary and the head of his office, as requested by one of our number. This provided an opportunity to explore issues like the need for members to receive more informative and engaging communications from the party and for CLP officers (in particular) to receive information and training to assist them in their duties. We also highlighted continuing concerns about the suspensions carried out following last year’s leadership election. Although there wasn’t time to cover everything I’d have liked to have raised, this was a useful dialogue and we were promised further meetings at regular intervals.

The first full NEC meeting of 2017 was a fairly harmonious affair and, as with the November meeting, ran to the allotted time. The chair, Glenis Willmott MEP began by paying tribute to Margaret Beckett, one of the three Westminster backbenchers on the Committee, who was now the longest-serving woman MP; and to veteran full-timer, Mike Creighton, who was retiring after having worked for the party since 1990. There was also a minute’s silence for several members who had died over the previous couple of months.

Glenis also spoke to the EPLP report that had been tabled and responded to questions. Asked if MEPs would support a second vote on Brexit, she thought they probably would.

Ann Cryer gave a brief report in her new capacity as NPF chair, saying that each of the policy commissions was due to have its first meeting soon. Consultation with the wider party on the papers that had come out of the November NPF meeting was to begin with some events in March and the ‘Your Britain’ website was to be relaunched under a new name. Among the points made by members in the ensuing discussion were that the consultation period was beginning late, given that important elections were on the horizon, that the deadline for submissions needed to be pushed back as far as possible beyond 4 May; that it would be useful to know a.s.a.p. the date of the full NPF meeting planned for the summer; that the midweek evening time-slots for commission meetings were not very convenient for most people; and that papers should be shared with Welsh Government ministers at an early stage to ensure that the experience of devolution was factored into the party’s thinking.

The Local Government report was introduced by Cllr. Nick Forbes, Leader of Newcastle Council and Labour Leader in the LGA. He talked about the social care crisis, which was contributing to the problems in the NHS and had been exacerbated by the Tory government shifting greater financial responsibility to the councils. Many care providers were on the brink of bankruptcy or were talking about handing back their contracts. More positively, more than 200 councillors had registered for the party’s local government conference in February, which would be a useful platform for mayoral candidates. The local elections would be vital, with Labour within a hair’s breadth of taking control of the LGA. Many councillors were angry about their local Labour MPs attacking councils for the difficult decisions they had had to make because of the cuts in their budgets.

There was a lively discussion, in which points were made about the degree of control and patronage that council leaders and cabinet members have under the Local Campaign Forum system, compared to the old local government committees or county parties, where there was greater accountability; about the excessive salaries at the higher levels of local government; and about the problems of privatisation of the social care sector. Responding, Nick said there was inconsistency in the way LCFs operate, which could perhaps be addressed by regional board; that the ratio between highest and lowest salaries was lower in local government than in the private sector and even other parts of the public sector; and that councils were obliged by legislation to operate a social care market.

The General Secretary, Iain McNicol, introduced a written International Report, which listed several areas of common work between Labour and its sister-parties in other countries. James Asser of LGBT Labour then added some more detailed comments on the situation with regard to LGBTI rights in the former Yugoslavia, which vary a great deal, with some countries (e.g. Slovenia) considerably more progressive than others (e.g. Macedonia); he noted the role of the EU in the gains that had been achieved.

The Shadow Health Secretary, Jonathan Ashworth, then gave a Health Report. He said that the NHS was now going through the biggest financial crisis in its history, causing even Andrew Lansley to express concern. Moreover, the situation was about to get worse as a result of the STP (Sustainability and Transformation Plans) process. Brexit also posed serious problems, as 60,000 EU nationals were currently working in the NHS and the service would be in danger of collapse without them.

In the discussion, it was agreed that Labour should support the ’Our NHS’ demo in London on 4 March (Jeremy would be speaking) and we were told that many of the same problems that had been discussed in England were also being experienced in Scotland under the SNP government. I said that the party should make more of the positive experience with the NHS under Wales’ Labour government and added that it was frustrating that Welsh Labour’s progressive policies received such little attention – e.g. The Guardian had reported a move towards an ‘opt-out’ (presumed consent) system of organ donation in France, without acknowledging that Wales already had such a system in place and it has saved many lives. In his response to this specific point, Jonathan said that the Health Policy Commission would have to re-examine the issue of organ donation but he was personally agnostic about it, which I found disappointing, given the obvious benefits of the policy.

Jeremy then gave the Leader’s Report. After thanking Jonathan for his work in the Health brief and reiterating the importance to Labour of the fight to save the NHS, he addressed the issue of Brexit. He said that the Shadow Cabinet had watched the Supreme Court judgement (delivered earlier that day) and made an immediate response. The Tory government had wasted 82 days and a lot of public money appealing against the earlier decision by the High Court. Labour respects the democratic will, as expressed in the ‘Leave’ vote, but wants to protect the interests of the British people in relation to jobs, public services and the social protections presently covered by EU regulations. The Tories’ disdain for civil and employment rights was evident: that very day, one of their backbench MPs was introducing a Ten Minute Bill seeking to restrict trade union rights still further, with the likely tacit support of his party leadership (I was pleased to hear that my own MP, Kevin Brennan, was leading the Labour opposition to this bill and it was duly reported later in the meeting that it had been overwhelmingly defeated). He said that he had spent three hours in a GP surgery after Theresa May had blamed GPs for problems in the NHS. He had also joined Kezia Dugdale in Scotland the previous week and they had attacked the SNP for talking left in Westminster while making cuts in Scotland over the last ten years.

Alun Davies AM, who represents the Welsh Government on the NEC, said that, whatever people had thought they were voting for on 23 June, the Tories’ ‘hard Brexit’ had not been on the ballot-paper; the Welsh Government supports staying in the single market and customs union. He also said that he was glad to hear that the party would be holding one of its economic policy conferences in Cardiff and that the Welsh Government would be able to contribute to the policy development – for example, it was currently setting up a Welsh Development Bank.

The next item was the General Secretary’s Report, for which a lengthy document had been circulated, incorporating updates on the party’s work in each of the UK’s nations and regions. Iain McNicol highlighted the fact that the party’s HQ office was being expanded to take on another floor of the building and that the Leader’s office and the office of Jon Trickett, as Campaign Coordinator, would be accommodated alongside party staff.

A number of disparate points were made in the discussion, including on the very long freeze dates adopted for elections in 2018; some of the misleading media coverage of the previous week’s Disputes Panel meeting; and the apparent leaking of by-election canvass returns by an MP. One of my fellow CLP reps also asked what had happened to the Party Reform Working Group, about which little had been heard since conference in September; Iain replied that the Group was jointly chaired by Jeremy and Tom Watson and that he expected that they would ensure its work resumed soon.

A Conference report was given, during which one CLP rep highlighted the encouraging fact that the number of CLPs attending had been the highest for at least 14 years. This was followed by an Elections report. There was some discussion of the idea of ‘target constituencies’ and how it could be applied fairly. Several of us also raised questions that had been put to us in numerous emails from members in Newham, expressing concerns about alleged irregularities in the selection process for the party’s Mayoral candidate. The main issue seemed to concern the way certain affiliates had cast their votes. One of the full-time officers clarified the rules on this matter but the concerns of those who knew more about the details than I did were not allayed. The general secretary said that the situation had already been discussed by the London Regional Board and felt that it would set a bad precedent for the NEC to reopen the issue after the fact.

We were given a very detailed and informative Membership Report, which highlighted the fact that the party was now more than 543,000 strong (although this represented a slight decrease from the previous summer). There were now proportionately more women and more BME members in the party than before the last general election. 70% of the current membership had joined since January 2015 but a significant portion were currently in arrears. I asked about this and about what the party was doing to try and retain members and was told that a series of surveys of those lapsing or resigning were bung carried out and the information gleaned passed to local parties and MPs. Party officers were also working with the Leader’s office on a Membership Strategy.

We also had a presentation on Labour’s Financial Strategy. The party had ended the previous year with a substantial surplus and expected this to increase in 2017 but there were some major expenditures to come – including funding increased staff costs and election campaigning – and there was a question as to the stability of the current membership levels and the resultant income. The party’s Business Board was also looking at increasing the share of membership revenue coming back to CLPs and at the possibility of a free-standing women’s conference in future years, which would have financial implications.

There has been widespread media coverage of the decision by Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) on 20 September to grant additional powers (subject to conference approval) to the Scottish and Welsh parties. I have personally come in for a fair bit of criticism for voting against one aspect of this – the proposal to give Scotland and Wales seats with voting rights on the NEC – so I just wanted to explain my position.

The proposals that were agreed formed part of a wider ‘party reform’ agenda that has been overseen by the NEC over several months (for the most part, before I joined the NEC at the beginning of July). This includes sections on women’s representation, on young members, on local government, etc. The section on devolution was largely driven by Scottish Labour and the Scottish Executive Committee (SEC) carried out an extensive consultation with members and party units. By contrast, the consultation in Wales seems to have begun and ended with the Welsh Executive Committee (WEC) before I became a WEC member in February.

The WEC was told, at the first full meeting that I attended, on 14 May 2016, that discussions with the NEC on greater devolution for the Welsh party had been taking place, with Andy Richards (Unite regional secretary) representing the WEC. There was general agreement that any increase in devolved powers offered to the Scottish party should also be offered to the Welsh party but otherwise not a lot of detail, although some examples were given, including (I believe) devolved control over selections and formalisation of the position of Welsh leader. Certainly, nothing was presented to the meeting in writing. The official minutes make reference only to the control of Westminster parliamentary selections, which the Scottish party had requested but which had not been in the original Welsh Labour submission. The minutes record that it was agreed, nevertheless, to follow Scotland’s example in this respect. The minutes do not mention the possibility of Welsh representation on the NEC and I certainly do not recall any mention of this, which I think I would have done, given its evident significance.

After I joined the NEC a few weeks later, the first meeting I attended, on 5 July, was of two sub-committees, the Disputes Panel and the Organisation Sub-Committee. The latter was presented with a progress report from the various strands of the party reform discussions. The summary for Scotland mentioned the NPF acknowledging and resolving policy differences between the devolved parties and wider UK party; clarifying SEC control of Holyrood selections and possibly adding Westminster selections; confirming Scottish Labour responsibility for local government; and formalising Scottish party’s responsibility for CLP management. The bullet-points relating to Wales were essentially the same (albeit reflecting Welsh Labour’s currently slightly weaker degree of autonomy) but add formalisation of the role of Welsh leader and establishment of the post of deputy leader. There was no reference to representation for Scotland and/or Wales on the NEC.

Nor has there been any detailed consideration of party devolution by the two subsequent WEC meetings: the meeting held on 9 July was given over entirely to a post mortem on the EU referendum campaign and the meeting on 3 September expressed concern about the cancellation of a ‘party reform’ away-day and the potential implications for the proposals for Wales, without going into any details of the latter.

I should make it clear at this point that I have always supported the principle of the Welsh party having greater control over its own affairs. In particular, Nick Davies and I commented, in our 2009 book, Clear Red Water, on the anomaly that, at a time when the Welsh Labour government was diverging significantly from New Labour orthodoxy, the Welsh party’s full-time staff were accountable only to the general secretary in London. Our arguments that the significant degree of political autonomy that already existed within Welsh Labour should be mirrored by a similar degree of organisational autonomy found little support within the Welsh Labour establishment – until recently.

I also supported a proposed rule change put forward by the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy a few years ago, which would have augmented the six-strong CLP section of the NEC by adding two seats, to be elected by Scottish and Welsh members, respectively (until I joined the NEC this year, there had never been a Welsh CLPs rep on the Committee, and Scotland had had only infrequent representation, since the current NEC structure was introduced in the late 1990s). Unfortunately, the rule change was not agreed.

Since Jeremy Corbyn’s original election as Labour leader in September 2015, there have been noticeable efforts by the Welsh leadership to distance the Welsh party from the wider British party. There has been an attempt to rebrand Welsh Labour – clearly to the left of the British party throughout most of the devolution period – as a bulwark of ‘moderation’. This point provides some context for the furore surrounding the proposal to give Wales and Scotland extra representation on the NEC.

At the NEC meeting held on 20 September, and concerned primarily with business to be discussed at the forthcoming party conference, a further ‘party reform’ update was circulated, including rule changes that would need to be put to conference in order to give effect to the proposals recommended by the various working groups. The changes relating to Scotland and Wales reflected those set out in the paper circulated to the Organisation Sub-Committee in July but added two points: that the Scottish and Welsh party leaders should attend ‘Clause V’ meetings to draw up the party’s general election manifesto; and

“The Scottish and Welsh Labour Party each to be directly represented with voting rights on the NEC by a frontbench member of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.”

The Scottish and Welsh leaders can currently attend as observers and the Scottish leader, Kezia Dugdale, was at this meeting. She argued forcefully that agreeing the rule change would demonstrate the party’s acceptance of the changed realities of devolution and would undermine the SNP’s argument that Scottish Labour is merely a “branch office” of a London-dominated party. She made it clear that she would take up the Scottish seat herself if the change were agreed although it was acknowledged that Carwyn Jones, as leader of a governing party, would not be able to attend NEC meetings in person and would need to delegate this role to another representative.

I pointed out that Welsh Labour has only 29 seats out of the sixty in the Assembly and needs every vote; no Labour AM, therefore, would be able to attend NEC meetings in London on a Tuesday when the Assembly is sitting. I made this point twice in the discussion but it was largely ignored. My second objection to the proposed rule change – that Scotland and Wales should have NEC representation but that these seats should be subject to an OMOV ballot of all members in the countries in question – was also made by other NEC members. Nobody opposed additional representation for Scotland and Wales on principle but it was suggested that the proposal could be considered in more detail by a rescheduled ‘party reform’ away-day after conference, alongside other suggested changes to the NEC’s composition, and that these changes could be agreed by a special conference early in the New Year. When it was put to the vote, however, it was agreed by 16 votes to 14 to put the rule change to the Liverpool conference (the other rule changes relating to Scotland and Wales were uncontentious and it was unanimously agreed to recommend them to conference).

Much of the media coverage of the meeting has presented the vote on Scottish and Welsh NEC representation as a victory for Jeremy Corbyn’s opponents, who would supposedly be strengthened by the inclusion of ‘moderate’ Scottish and Welsh reps on the NEC. My vote against the proposal has, conversely, been portrayed as a reflection of my ‘Corbynista’ factional loyalties and readiness to disregard the interests of Wales and the Welsh party. Criticism on Twitter, led by former AM, Leighton Andrews and Stephen Doughty MP, has been particularly vitriolic: I have been described as “disgraceful” and accused of flouting the wishes of the WEC, on which I also sit, to vote against proposals to which I had failed to object when the WEC discussed them. My critics have shown little interest in my attempts to explain my position but I hope it will be clear from what I have said above that:

• I have long supported greater autonomy for the Welsh party – and was happy, like the rest of the NEC, to support all but one of the rule changes proposed to bring this about;
• I have also consistently supported the principle of NEC representation for Scotland and Wales;
• I believe, however, that the most democratic way to fill the proposed additional NEC positions would be by a ballot of all party members in Scotland and Wales, respectively;
• It is also clear to me that the proposal for Wales to represented on the NEC by a frontbench Assembly Member – or by any AM – is unworkable, as long as the NEC continues to meet in London on a Tuesday (not that a Wednesday or even a Thursday would be much better);
• In voting against this proposal being recommended to conference, I was not seeking to quash the idea of NEC representation for Scotland and Wales altogether, but to refer the matter to an NEC ‘away-day’ on party reform and subsequently a special conference;
• I was also not voting against a proposal to which I had acceded as a WEC member, as it has not been discussed by the WEC since I joined in February and, indeed, I have seen no evidence that the proposal was under serious consideration before this month, as it seems magically to have appeared on the shopping-list of devolution rule changes sometime between 5 July and 20 September.