Barckley Sumner

ALAN JOHNSON'S prospects of becoming Labour's deputy leader could be damaged if he fails to win the endorsement of any major trade union leader.
Mr Johnson, the Education Secretary, is currently in a strong position in what is so far a six-way contest as it is thought that he will receive the votes of between 80-100 Labour MPs, giving him a solid base in the electoral college.
MPs, party members and trade unionists who pay the political levy, each receive a third of the votes in the electoral college used to elect Labour's leader and deputy leader.
Despite being a former union general secretary, Mr Johnson's prospects among the unions are not rosy. At the beginning of the year, it was thought likely that he would win the endorsement of both public services union UNISON and his own former union, the Communication Workers' Union. Neither endorsement is now guaranteed.
Unlike many union leaders, UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis has a high regard for Mr Johnson. When Mr Johnson was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, he delivered what was considered a very good deal on pensions for more than a million public sector workers (including health workers), which allowed existing employees to continue to retire at 60.
Less popular within UNISON is Mr Johnson's strong backing for Labour's public service reforms and his desire to reduce
the influence of the unions in the party's decision-making.
One senior UNISON official said: "Johnson was the overwhelming favourite but that is no longer the case."
If UNISON does not support Mr Johnson, the five other candidates all have realistic chances of winning the union's endorsement.
Mr Johnson has been working hard to secure the nomination of the CWU but this is by no means certain. Many CWU executive members remain disappointed that he failed to do more to help the Post Office during his tenure as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
If the CWU decides not to back Mr Johnson, it is likely to give its support to Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain, who was once its research officer or backbencher Jon Cruddas.
Mr Cruddas is strongly tipped to win the endorsement of both the Transport and General Workers' Union and Amicus. Both unions have already given considerable support to his campaign.
The fourth of the big four unions, the GMB, remains undecided. General secretary Paul Kenny has met all the deputy leadership candidates and the union intends to hold hustings during its conference in June.
The union is likely to choose between Mr Hain - who has long courted the GMB - and
Mr Cruddas who is strongly backed by its influential London region.
Labour Party chair Hazel Blears, who is set to formally announce her candidacy tomorrow (February 24), is expected to win the endorsement of USDAW. The headquarters of the shopworkers' union is near Ms Blears' constituency and she has worked closely with it on issues including family friendly policies.
Last week, train drivers' union ASLEF announced it would back Mr Hain in the deputy leadership contest.
Although the endorsement of union executives and general secretaries is valuable, it is not critical. All 3.6 million political levy payers will be individually balloted. All votes cast will count towards the preferred candidate and then redistributed, if necessary, to second or third preferences.

]]> 2007-02-22T07:14:14-05:00 http://www.labourhome.org/story/2007/2/15/141445/838 Barckley Sumner

HAZEL BLEARS will formerly announce that she is a candidate for Labour's
deputy leadership later this month.

Ms Blears, the party chair, is expected to make her candidature official next
Saturday (February 23) in her Salford constituency.

She is considered a Blairite, but has recently tried to distance herself from the
Prime Minister. Over Christmas, she joined a demonstration in her
constituency against cuts planned for her local hospital.

In an already crowded field, Ms Blears' decision to put her name forward is
likely to put pressure on Harriet Harman, the junior constitutional affairs
minister. It is unlikely that all six deputy leadership hopefuls will secure the
44 nominations of MPs needed to stand.
Meanwhile, Peter Hain is attempting to re-energise his campaign.

The Northern Ireland Secretary has written to general secretaries of affiliated
trade unions setting out his credentials as the most union-friendly of the
deputy leadership candidates.
Mr Hain makes several pledges: the 50:50 voting split at the party conference
between unions and constituency delegates should remain, the Warwick
Agreement should be implemented in full and there should be better
enforcement of employment rights.

He also suggests major reforms in the way unions elect their senior officials.
Mr Hain's letter says: "We should consider ending the requirement for a full
postal ballot as the only mechanism for electing trade union executives and
general secretaries, which too often leads to little election activity in the
workplace and an extremely low turnout. Alternative workplace based secret
ballots could help union activity on the ground and be an exciting new
mechanism for recruitment and branch activity."

Although there has been concern among trade unionists about low turnouts
in postal ballots, Mr Hain's proposals will make uneasy reading for some
general secretaries. Billy Hayes of the Communication Workers' Union, Derek
Simpson of Amicus and Tony Woodley of the Transport and General Workers'
Union were all initially elected general secretary against the "machine" in their
unions. Union experts believe that such results would have been "highly
unlikely" under Mr Hain's plans.

Despite Mr Hain's pro-union leanings, he is unlikley to support Labour MP
Paul Farrelly's Private Members Bill on temporary and agency workers, which
has its second reading on March 2. Since 2001, unions have demanded that
the Government implements the European Union directive on temporary
employees, with the aim of reducing the exploitation of thousands of British
workers.

A spokesperson for Mr Hain said: "He is officially neutral at the moment, due
to being in the Cabinet. He is in correspondence with Amicus and has spoken
to Paul Farrelly. He wants to write a letter to general secretaries outlining his
thoughts on this matter."
]]> 2007-02-15T14:14:45-05:00 http://www.labourhome.org/story/2007/2/8/7723/77555 Towards the end of the debate Johnson was called to speak. I remember that he looked surprisingly well groomed for a union leader, as he strode to the podium. He then made a speech backing Blair and supporting the abolition of Clause IV.

Not surprisingly come the 1997 election, he was the beneficiary of a deadline day transfer which saw him swap his position as general secretary of the Communication Workers Union for a safe seat in Hull. Once in Parliament he proceeded through the ministerial ranks entering the Cabinet in September 2004 as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
After a brief sojourn at the DTI, Johnson became education secretary in May last year. Last autumn he confirmed he intended to stand for deputy leader.

Meeting him in his offices in the Department of Education, the elegant suits and clipped professional manner are similar to a dozen years previously, although he concedes he is a "littler greyer".
Since Labour was elected in 1997 its education secretaries have fallen into two categories. Both Charles Clarke and Ruth Kelly were educated privately. David Blunkett and Johnson come from more straitened circumstances and did not go to university. Although Johnson attended Chelsea grammar school, but being orphaned in his teens - he was brought up by an older sister - meant he left school early and became a postman.
Given his circumstances it is unsurprising that Johnson's top priority is to: "raise attainment and to close the social class gap." He has announced that the school leaving age will be raised to 18 and is using testing data to discover why many working class children perform well at primary school then fail to make similar progress at secondary level. To resolve this Johnson is concentrating resources on developing one to one after school tuition. "This has always been there in the private sector. It will be better than private tuition as it will be linked with a professional classroom teacher."

When Johnson inherited the education mantle, the education Bill creating trust schools was fully formed. Does he think the Bill damaged Labour's credibility on education? "I hope it didn't. It certainly was a difficult debate. There was a misconception at the beginning that this was about selection. It wasn't about selection at all.
"We now have the admissions code which rules out selection back door, front door, or side door. It rules out interviews or selection by a parent's occupation. Schools have to comply with this code. That is a big step forward."

Johnson's determination to narrow the class divide and opposition to selection is refreshing. Particularly after his junior minister Andrew Adonis recently said, the "Comprehensive revolution destroyed many excellent schools without improving the rest" and the abolition of grammar schools was "carried out in the name of equality but which served to reinforce class divisions."
Johnson defends Adonis arguing that he was misreported in the right-wing press and that there is no "more passionate opponent of selection at age 11" than his subordinate.
Johnson attempts to crystallise Adonis argument. "What he was saying was that once we changed to comprehensive education, during the 1970's that we thought that was Valhalla and there was nothing else. What amazes me was how negligent Government's of all political persuasions were and complacent about educational standards. There was a report by the National Federation of Education Research in the 1990s, which showed that for 50 years, 25 years either side of the abolition of the 11 plus our kids had just flat lined on literacy and numeracy. Indeed in the 1990's they went backwards."
This is not a theoretical debate for Johnson. "My kids went through it. I brought up three kids on a council estate in Slough. I saw what happened it was even worse as they went through selective education."

Johnson came to the political fore as minister of state for higher education, during the top-up fees furore. While the Government won a knife-edge vote, for which Johnson was credited, the fallout helped contribute to Labour losing many university seats in 2005.
Johnson has no retrospective doubts about the policy. "Was it difficult, yes it was. Did we have to do it no we didn't we could have allowed higher education to just continue. You had a situation where 52 per cent of the university population made a contribution but somehow undergraduates shouldn't make any contribution at all. Some hallowed right, written in socialist doctrines.
"What we have done is establish generous bursaries and grants. The extra money will allow us to expand universities. There are no upfront fees; repayments are interest free and stopped out of wages by the Inland Revenue. The former system was regressive, working class people subsided middle class students. For me it was a no brainer."

Last autumn Johnson ran into problems over faith schools. Initially announcing that all new faith schools would be required to take 25 per cent of their intake from children of different faiths or none, then retreating and agreeing a voluntary code. The Anglican Church accepted the mandatory quota the Catholic Church was opposed.
After deep backbench unease Johnson retreated, pleasing neither the religious or secularist wings of the party. "There was a concern that 25 per cent would affect Catholic parents being able to send their children to a nearby Catholic school. One thing you have got to do, as a minister is listen to your backbenchers. We were on a very tight timetable, they were right so we changed the policy.

In recent weeks Johnson has again been charged with being the bugbear of British Catholicism. He was the most forthright Cabinet member, opposed to exemptions being made for Catholic adoption agencies in the Equalities Bill. He rejects the suggestion he has been partaking in Catholic bashing and points to his early involvement with the legislation. "I had responsibility for this issue at the DTI. I published the consultation and the Equalities Bill.
"On this it is straightforward you are an adoption agency and you are taking public money to place children, with adoptive parents. The state on the one hand can't say there will be no discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and on the other allows that discrimination to continue. We have Jewish and Anglican adoption agencies, a few others. None were seeking an exemption."

Prior to conducting the interview I spoke to someone who used to work closely with Johnson to try to understand his politics. My source confessed that despite working closely with him and liking him, he had never figured out the answer to my question.
It is not suprising then that Johnson is somewhat vague about what kind of deputy leader he would be, "a lot of what the deputy does will be about what the leader wants them to do."
On whether the deputy leader is also deputy prime minister he is blunt. "I really couldn't care less. I want us to be in Government. For many years we never had to worry if Labour's deputy leader was deputy prime minister or not because we were not in power."

Johnson has the ability to get under people's skin. During last year's TUC Tony Woodley the general secretary of the TUC was asked, at a press conference, if he would consider supporting Johnson as Labour leader. The question stunned the normally loquacious Woodley the veins in his neck visibly bulged. After roughly 30 seconds Woodley said diplomatically such support was highly unlikely.
Johnson supremely irritated his former union colleagues at the fag end of Labour's 2005 conference, addressing a Young Fabians event (not the most proletaritarian of audiences) he suggested the union bloc vote should be cut from 50 per cent to 20 per cent.
He hasn't changed his sentiments but has massaged his figures. "We can't sustain a 50 per cent vote at conference when all the unions vote together on contemporary resolutions because you don't don't get a proper debate. We would have gone further in 1993 [when the union bloc was reduced from 90 per cent] but we got frightened."
Johnson now believes that the union vote should be: "a third at conference, a third at the National Policy Forum and a third in the leadership elections."
Allayed to this is a belief that a better mechanism must be developed to resolve policy disputes between unions and the leadership, rather than defeating the Government at conference. "There needs to be a way of sorting these things out without having a Punch and Judy show."

On the top of many MPs anti-Johnson charge sheet is his strong support for proportional representation. Has his opinion changed? "I have been a supporter of PR for a long time. I recognise the tide comes in and out. When the Jenkins Report was published recommending AV+, it looked like the tide was half in. Now the tide is way out. You can't just force something through against the will of Parliament and the people. You need consensus in the party and there is obviously not consensus at the moment.
"PR will definitely be used for an elected House of Lords. We will then have PR for, London, Europe, Scottish and Welsh elections and second chamber elections. Things are going in the right direction."
Johnson is less interested in PR for local government. "It was never the same burning issue for me. Because you usually get two or three representatives per ward. It will never happen until we resolve the national issue."

The shadows of Iraq will always hang over Tony Blair's premiership. How does Johnson now view the war? "I am not one of those people who say I voted that way but. Put me in the same position again and I would vote the same way. I made a decision. At the back of my mind was an absolute abhorrence about Saddam and all he stood for.
"One thing no one can ever say is what would have happened if we had done nothing. There was a very important bit of the Butler Report. Butler actually said that he was convinced that the Iraqi regime were looking to move into weapons of mass destruction. They were looking at getting the weapons inspectors out and go on the offensive. They were looking at getting the ballistic capability to go well beyond their region."

Despite the constant stream of bad headlines, mostly relating to cash for peerages, Johnson rejects the notion that Blair should resign for the good of the party. "I haven't spoken to anyone over the road [House of Commons] who thinks Blair should step down now. Most people say it would be tremendously damaging to us if Tony was hounded out by the Mail and Telegraph.
"They are comparing it to Watergate. At Watergate there was a crime. There was no crime near this shown at all. We have got to batten down the hatches and make it perfectly clear that Tony says he will go by September and we are perfectly happy for him to make that decision."
]]> 2007-02-08T07:07:23-05:00 http://www.labourhome.org/story/2007/2/1/1585/23084 Chris Ball recalls a former trade union colleague who may have been an infiltrator on behalf of the security services

STUMBLING over an entry on a Conservative Party web forum recently, I recognised the writer immediately as Keith Standring, leader of the chemicals section of the GMB after it absorbed APEX, the white-collar union we both worked for in the 1970s. I was staggered to see that he is now a Conservative Councillor in East Sussex and supporter of such right-wing causes as the Freedom Association and the Bruges Group, but even more startled to see him boasting to have "worked for British Intelligence for over 30 years".

Old colleagues I have spoken to share my surprise. Roy Grantham, former general secretary of APEX, said: "He never told us he was working for the security forces. He implies he was working for them while working for us." Standring told me he had been a Conservative for "as long as I can remember". However, this was news to Grantham and everyone else I spoke to. According to Grantham: "He never referred to any Conservative affiliation."

Despite owning up to his intelligence role on a website, Standring was oddly cagey when I asked him about it. It might "impinge on the Official Secrets Act", he claimed. He could neither confirm nor deny anything. "It is very close to home," he added mysteriously. "Some of the work I was involved in is still security sensitive". When I asked him if it was in any way connected with the union, I got an evasive: "No, not really."

Two possibilities could explain Standring's weird behaviour. One is that he suffers from some kind of delusion which causes him to inhabit a world of fantasy, in which case he probably needs help. The other is that there is a strange truth linking his oddities over the years which, he might assure us, is all part of a plan to protect the country from those who would undermine it.

Standring would definitely have us believe the latter. When I put to him that he had been a member of the Communist Party at one time, he responded: "Of course, but it would be too revealing as to how people work up a legend." Did this mean it was all part of his cover? "You are close to it," he admitted.

Grantham now describes Standring as "a Walter Mitty character", although he concedes he was persuasive. When APEX was in discussions to merge with the GMB, a plan was hatched to put Standring in charge of the new union's APEX section. Grantham fought this off, but any sinister flaws in Standring's personality were presumably not evident to those behind the plot at the time.

One of the oddities in Standring's record is his form in switching both parties and religions. Grantham describes him as "a chameleon" and observes: "When he went to a new religion, he was all for it. And then six months later, he was all for something else." Bob Fazakerley, a former member of APEX in the north-west of England recalls: "He was variously a Communist, Maoist, Catholic, Buddhist or any other affiliation you can think of."

On his retirement from the GMB in 1997, Standring worked for the International Trade Union Solidarity Campaign, a group formed by the Workers' Revolutionary Party. He addressed his circulars with the clarion cry of: "Fellow workers and friends", and urged support for causes such as the march for social justice called by Liverpool dockers. Standring was coy about this aspect of his past, passing it off as, "another way of getting information". In other words, it was "all part of the cover".

These days Standring contributes to reactionary websites with titles such as "Make Socialism History", opining on the "horrendous immigration policies and shambolic procedures of the Labour Government". He calls for "a campaign to scrap the wretched inheritance tax" and describes himself as "a free-market, libertarian Conservative".
So, with his philosophical ideas about as stable as decaying gelignite, just how credible is Standring's weird claim to have been "working up a legend" in the interests of "a cover"? It sounds an implausible explanation for the arrogant behaviour which unhappy members sometimes complained of and his oddities which sometimes left other union officials snorting into their handkerchiefs.

Standring's skills as a negotiator did not always impress. He seemed to like giving offence. Adrian Askew, now general secretary of the communications union Connect, recalls Standring pouring ridicule on a company director over the length of his hair, when they were supposed to be negotiating a deal. "I could see a settlement slipping away", recalls Askew.
Gerry Veart, a former APEX officer, tells how Standring once walked into an engineering company where there had been a strike ballot. "Would you like to make the case?" ventured the management spokesperson cautiously. "I've got a strike ballot in my pocket," said Standring. "I am going to sit in my car. Come and tell me what you have to offer in 10 minutes or I will drive back to Manchester." Unsurprisingly, there was no improved offer.

Standring's eccentricities included an unusual tendency to appear with his hair dyed outrageous colours. When he married a Scandinavian woman he opted for peroxide blond which, to the amusement of delegates at a GMB congress, turned purple when he swam in the hotel pool. Somehow such behaviour doesn't fit the expected profile of the spy, unless it was part of "the cover" to throw us off the scent.
These days, Standring lists clay pigeon shooting among his hobbies. He also claims to be "the internationally-acclaimed healer, teacher writer" of Reiki - a dubious form of spiritual healing and pseudo science. Communing with "the other side" was never quite understood by union negotiators in this sense.

Owen Granfield, a former official of APEX, has no doubts about Standring's claims, however. He recalls a demonstration when Standring asked him to collect the names of people who were carrying placards of various political groups. Granfield refused. "But why did he ask?" he wonders.
If he was a spook, who was Standring spying on and what damage could he have caused if he were passing on information against the labour movement? "Less than zilch" is the estimate of former Amicus leader Roger Lyons. The Grunwick dispute in 1976-77 might have been a situation where secrets could have been stolen but Roy Grantham is doubtful. "He was just a new boy on the block then and wasn't involved."

Nevertheless, a profession which has over centuries embraced characters as colourful as Christopher Marlow, Mata Hari, and Kim Philby could perhaps have found a place for a Keith Standring. Stranger things happen in the world of espionage. And what a cover; what a legend.

Chris Ball is a visiting fellow in the Department of Management at the London School of Economics. He worked for APEX from 1973 -78 and was later a national officer of Amicus

]]> 2007-02-01T15:08:05-05:00 http://www.labourhome.org/story/2007/1/25/95252/8124 Barckley Sumner

HOPES that an investigation into allegations of rule-breaking in Worsley and Eccles South would force Labour to tighten its selection procedures are diminishing.

Labour's National Executive Committee announced an inquiry after revelations in last week's Tribune of a host of alleged rule breaches in the selection contest between sitting MPs Barbara Keeley and Ian Stewart for the redrawn constituency. Many of the complaints made by Mr Stewart concern the alleged misbehaviour of party staff, who should remain neutral.
Despite this, a Labour spokesperson has confirmed that the three party officials named in the complaint will all continue to work on parliamentary selections while the inquiry is ongoing. The spokesperson added: "They [the inquiry team] are not investigating individual officers."

When asked if this amounted to a watering down of the inquiry, NEC chair Mike Griffiths said: "That is bullshit."

 Attention now turns to the contest in Morley and Outwood between sitting MPs Colin Challen and Ed Balls. The contest is due to the abolition of Mr Balls' Normanton seat, around a third of which transfers into the new constituency. Mr Challen represents Morley and Rothwell. Barrie Grunewald, the Yorkshire regional director, named in Mr Stewart's complaint, intends to begin the process today (Friday January 26), immediately after the new constituency's inauguralmeeting.

Meanwhile, following a call to Tribune, Ms Keeley inadvertently revealed fresh contentions. She admits that, on the eve of the distribution of ballot papers, she challenged the eligibility of 15 members from Mr Stewart's Eccles constituency. After an emergency meeting, it was discovered that nine members from her own Worsley constituency were also not entitled to vote. Ms Keeley conceded that the members in question "were in membership arrears". Despite this, party staff had initially been content to issue them with ballot papers.

At Tuesday's (January 23) NEC organisation sub-committee, it was agreed not to endorse Andrew Pakes as Labour's candidate in Milton Keynes North. The matter will be discussed again in March, following official complaints about the conduct of the hustings meeting.

 The organisation sub-committee also agreed which seats where Labour MPs have announced their retirement will be open or all-women shortlists. Open selections will be held in Bolton South East, Brighton Kemptown, Bristol North West, Easington and Swansea West. All women shortlists will be in place in Brighton Pavilion, Selby (a Tory marginal on newboundaries) and Sunderland Central.

The decision on whether Ealing Southall - where Piara Khabra is retiring - will select from an all-women shortlist, has been deferreduntil March.

]]> 2007-01-25T09:52:52-05:00 http://www.labourhome.org/story/2007/1/18/16522/8649 BARCKLEY SUMNER

DOWNING Street officials are at the centre of allegations of widespread flouting of Labour Party rules governing the selection of parliamentary candidates.
The breaches, uncovered by a Tribune investigation, raise serious questions over whether the choice of prospective MPs is being conducted in a free and fair manner.
A formal complaint has been made by a deselected sitting MP who was told he could not have access to party records because it had been decided he was "going to the Lords".
Downing Street, senior Blairite party officials and at least one loyalist MP are embroiled in the allegations of irregularities, which point to a concerted effort to oust non-Blairites from standing.
In one case, two members of an MP's family were threatened with having their selection vote taken away after their party membership was "rescinded" on a technicality.
Labour's current round of selections has been made less transparent, after it was decided to conceal the names on parliamentary shortlists from the press. This decision was endorsed by Peter Watt, Labour's general secretary.
Serious problems have been unearthed in the north west constituencies of Worsley and Eccles South and Rochdale and also in Milton Keynes North..
Due to boundary changes and a reduction of seats in the Salford area, the new constituency of Worsley and Eccles South was created. Two sitting Labour MPs, Barbara Keeley, who currently represents Worsley, and Eccles MP Ian Stewart sought selection for the new seat in an all-postal vote ballot of members. Mr Stewart also has an interest in the newly created neighbouring seat of Salford and Eccles.
The selection process was completed on December, with Ms Keeley emerging victorious by 133 votes to 118 on a 90 per cent turnout.
It has subsequently been alleged that Ms Keeley, a Blairite loyalist, received considerable assistance, contrary to party rules, from party officials and Downing Street to aid her victory. Mr Stewart has lodged a formal complaint with the party.
Downing Street insiders and senior ministers have confirmed that Ruth Turner, Number 10's director of government relations, co-ordinated party staff, MPs and ministers to assist Ms Keeley. Ms Turner is paid by Labour and is technically a member of the party's staff. As such, she is bound by the party's rules, which state that staff are barred from actively supporting any candidate in internal party elections or selections.
Ms Turner was contacted on several occasions but did not return Tribune's calls.
It is known that Labour's north west regional office preferred Ms Keeley to win the selection rather than Mr Stewart. In spring last year, six months before the selection took place, Mr Stewart was told by a northern MP that Ms Keeley had met with Sheila Murphy on several occasions. Ms Murphy was Labour's regional director of the north west and has subsequently been promoted to become senior regional director for the north.
Within earshot of other MPs, they discussed how to defeat Mr Stewart. During one of the meetings, held in Parliament's Pugin Room, Mr Stewart confronted the two of them and requested that Ms Murphy provide the "same facilities" to him as she had given to Ms Keeley. Mr Stewart was concerned that Ms Keeley had access to a full membership list for the new constituency from March onwards, while he had no such access.
When he spoke to Barry Grunevald, then Labour's north west deputy regional director, now Yorkshire regional director, he was told: "We were told at the regional office that Ian Stewart was going to the Lords." Mr Grunevald denies this. He said: "That is absolute and utter rubbish."
Before the selection, Mr Stewart asked newly-promoted regional director Anna Bunt to inform him if there were any eligibility questions raised about any Eccles member. Following this meeting, Mr Stewart's family received a letter alleging that two of his children were not eligible to vote and that their "party membership should be rescinded". On Thursday November 30, prior to ballot papers being distributed on Monday December 4, he was informed that 15 of his supporters in Eccles were to be removed from the list.
After an emergency meeting, it was discovered that while members in the Eccles part of the constituency had been carefully checked against the electoral register, no such checks had been conducted for Worsley. When forced to do so the eligibility of an additional nine members was found to be dubious.
When Mr Stewart asked Ms Bunt, on the eve of the ballot papers going out, what had happened about the queries in Worsley, he was told they had all been clarified. When he asked for the members' new addresses so he could canvass them, Ms Bunt told him to "go to the council electoral
registration officer".
Both Ms Murphy and Ms Bunt declined to answer Tribune's questions about the selection.
During the selection process, party members in Eccles reported that Ms Keeley was doing constituency casework for members to boost her support. It is strictly against parliamentary conventions for an MP to represent the constituents of another MP.
Ms Keeley said that it was "not true" that she had received an early copy of the membership list. Asked about undertaking casework for people living in Mr Stewart's constituency, she said: "I am aware of the conventions. I am as clear as anyone in the House of Commons that only the constituency MP can do parliamentary casework. They [members] do raise questions about local issues and campaigns."
When asked if she had met with party officials to help plan her selection campaign, Ms Keeley, said: "That is not true at all. The new NEC representative [Anna Bunt] was new to the region and I had never met her."
Friends of Mr Stewart have expressed concern that during the selection process, Ms Keeley wasgiven considerable clearance from the whips office to remain in her constituency but the same opportunities were not given to him.
Mr Stewart said: "Under Labour Party rules, in a boundary change like this, I have a right to show an interest in both the new constituencies. The Worsley and Eccles South process has concluded and I can confirm that I have raised a formal challenge to that process."
A Labour Party spokesperson said: "An NEC panel will be appointed over the next few days who will decide how best to ensure that Mr Stewart's concerns are properly and thoroughly investigated. As part of the NEC investigation those involved in the Worsley and Eccles South selection process, including those named by Ian Stewart, will be interviewed. This is an internal investigation and the Labour Party will take all necessary steps to ensure that the NEC can reach a conclusion without favour or prejudice."
The selection  for the Rochdale constituency, due end on January 22, has been described by one NEC member as "a debacle".
Before the selection began, a regional officer was accused of assisting Simon Danzcuk by allowing his company Vision 21 to conduct a survey of the attitudes of Rochdale members. The shortlisting meeting was halted when a vote of no confidence was passed in the selection process. Several branch nomination meetings had to be re-held after irregularities were discovered. At the reconvened shortlisting meeting, an all-male shortlist of eight was agreed, despite this being contrary to party rules. All members were issued with a postal ballot, after it was discovered that the original postal votes had been opened prematurely.
Mr Danzcuk  and Ms Turner were co-founders of Vision 21. Ms Turner left the company to work at Downing Street.
Serious irregularities have also been unearthed in the Milton Keynes North selection. Labour lost the seat at the last general election but boundary changes have dramatically improved the party's prospects. The seat has a notional Conservative majority of 200. The hustings meeting took place on December 8. Andrew Pakes, a former press officer to sacked ASLEF general secretary Shaun Brady, was announced as the winner.
Contrary to Labour's rules, no party official was at the meeting. Neither the candidates, nor their representatives observed the count, which was conducted by former Milton Keynes North West MP Brian White. The candidates were not told details of the result or how many votes were counted. Nick Toms, a member of the Amicus parliamentary panel, was told by Mr White that he had come "second" and that Mr Pakes had won on the second round and had received "all the postal votes".
Both Mr Toms and the Amicus union have now lodged official complaints about the result.
Mr White said: "I was only asked to chair the meeting the evening before. I followed the rulebook I had in front of me, which weren't the clearest of instructions. The candidates didn't watch the count. I gave the result but no figures were given. The biggest deficiency was there wasn't a regional official in attendance."
Mr Toms said: "As a consequence of concerns raised by local activists and unions, I have now asked for an inquiry into the conduct of the election."
Concerns about the selection process in all three seats are set to be raised next Tuesday (January 23) at the NEC organisation sub-committee.

]]> 2007-01-18T16:52:02-05:00 http://www.labourhome.org/story/2007/1/11/6043/09705 HILARY BENN, the bookies' favourite to win Labour's forthcoming deputy leadership election, has attacked the anti-war movement in an unrepentant defence of his support for the invasion of Iraq.
Mr Benn has won support among Blairites and secured strong backing from the centre and left. Veteran left-winger Dennis Skinner is one of his supporters.
In an interview in this week's Tribune, Mr Benn, the Secretary of State for International Development, says that, unlike many Labour MPs, he does not regret voting to support the Iraq war. "Do I regret voting for the war? No, I do not. Do I wish Saddam Hussein were still in power? No, I do not. I think that is the view of the vast majority of Iraqi people."
Mr Benn, whose father, Tony, is president of the Stop the War Coalition, is sharply critical, of it.
"I respect those who took a different view. But I find it very hard to understand why those voices are not heard more loudly opposing the sectarian butchers and the suicide bombers, and supporting an elected Iraqi Government. You can have opposed the military action, but you can also recognise why you should support the Iraqi Government."
His comments will anger many MPs and trade unionists. Peter Kilfoyle, the Labour MP who moved the amendment in the House of Commons opposing the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 said: "His comments are typical of those who want to rewrite the Iraq war. The war was nothing to do with wanting to get rid of Saddam Hussein. It was about weapons of mass destruction. I don't think it befits a minister dealing with international matters to be promoting illegal regime change. It was the invasion which gave rise to a Pandora's box. This was predicted before the war and this is exactly what happened - creating instability inside and outside Iraq."
Tony Woodley, general secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, was also critical. "The invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a disaster beyond even what those of us in the anti-war movement imagined. Labour desperately needs a degree of humility from those of its representatives who voted for this catastrophe if we are to move
forward."
A spokesperson for the Stop the War Coalition said: "The Iraqi Government is a puppet government - one that owes its survival purely to the occupation. And it is the occupation which is fuelling the violence in Iraq."

Finally, is it Benn for deputy?
MOST Cabinet ministers, particularly contenders for the deputy leadership of the Labour Party, seem to be permanently surrounded by a phalanx of fawning advisors. So it was a surprise to meet Hilary Benn alone in the lobby of the House of Commons and with a rucksack slung over his shoulder, particularly as he had come direct from a select committee grilling.
He then decided that our conversation should be conducted in an alcove adjoining a busy walkway. While it would have been nice to have had a cup of tea - it would have been nothing stronger, since Benn is teetotal like his father, Tony - I couldn't decide if the impromptu venue showed evidence of disorganisation or supreme
confidence.
Benn's challenge to become deputy leader has added to a crowded field. He once famously described himself as a "Benn not a Bennite" and is regarded as a hardworking, technocratic Secretary of State for International Development and a dependable Blairite, but not from the cadre of ultra-Blairites.
In some ways, he is similar to one of his deputy leadership rivals, Trade and Industry Secretary Alan Johnson. Perhaps partly because of his famous father, Benn has a broad appeal across the Labour Party and has already attracted some left-wing support, including from veteran Bolsover MP Dennis Skinner.
So why does he want to replace John Prescott? "We need a deputy leader who will provide honest advice and leadership. We need a deputy leader who will provide a voice for the party at the highest level of government. We need a deputy leader who is good at working with other people in a team.
"We need the party to move forward, internationally and nationally. I think what is uppermost in people's minds is who is going to give us the chance of winning the next general election. That is partially about reminding people what a difference the Labour Government has made, and partially that there are some big challenges: climate change, international security, keeping the British economy successful. We have got to demonstrate we have the capacity to guide people through them."
One characteristic invariably ascribed to Benn is his innate niceness. This is evident when I attempt to probe him on the qualities that distinguish him from other deputy leadership candidates. He prefers not to reply, insisting: "That is for other people to answer". Instead, he chooses to praise his rivals: "If you look at the field of potential candidates, you have got a lot of ability. I respect Jon Cruddas and the work he has done, particularly in campaigning against the BNP. I respect
Harriet Harman for what she has done in campaigning for childcare. There's Alan Johnson's background in the trade union movement and success in his ministerial jobs, and Peter
Hain's record as a campaigner and what he is doing on the Northern Ireland peace process.
"I think that reflects on the strength of the party. This election is a real opportunity to
have a discussion about the future direction of the party and the country, and then make a choice."
Jon Cruddas has attempted to re-write the job description by arguing that, while Labour's deputy leader should be in the Cabinet, he or she should not become Deputy Prime Minister. The job of deputy leader should be a primarily campaigning one and the post-holder should not have a ministerial portfolio. It is a proposal with which Benn profoundly disagrees. "To be very clear, I am campaigning for the post of deputy leader. I am not campaigning to be chair of the party. It is for the Prime Minister, and I hope and believe that will be Gordon Brown, to take that decision. I want to do a Cabinet job."
One criticism that has been levelled against Benn is that trying to identify his ideological beliefs is as difficult as nailing jelly to a wall. So, to borrow a phrase coined by Tony Blair, what is his irreducible core? "I am Labour through and through. I was born and brought up in this party. I shall die in the party. I believe absolutely passionately in the power of Labour politics to change things. I believe in the power of social justice to do things better, whether that is in the poorest parts of my constituency in Leeds or fighting global poverty.
"I am a great believer in the power of education to change people's lives. It is no accident that the trade union banners of the 19th century said: `Agitate, educate, organise'. Apart from the nurturing of your parents, education is the single biggest most important start in life. It opens a window on the world and gives us confidence and aspiration. I am a passionate supporter of comprehensive reform, because it laid to rest this nonsensical idea that you could label a failure at 11. Rubbish."
If implemented, Hayden Phillips' report on the funding of political parties could break the historic link between Labour and the unions. Before becoming a special advisor to then Education Secretary David Blunkett and then his election as an MP in 1999, Benn worked as a union official for 22 years. He is horrified by threats to the link.
"I am absolutely firmly wedded to the union link. It is part of our character. There is that wonderful phrase in the 1906 manifesto: `The House of Commons is meant to be the people's house, but the people are not there.' The unions and Labour pioneers changed that forever by getting representation. Trade unions are just as important in the workplace today as they ever have been."
Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a number of senior Labour politicians have conceded that mistakes were made and have withdrawn their support for the war. Benn is emphatically not one of them. "Do I regret voting for the war? No, I do not. Do I wish that Saddam Hussein was still in power? No, I do not. I think that is the view of the vast majority of Iraqi people. I have been to Iraq four times. When you meet politicians who put their lives on the line, it is really quite humbling."
He is also critical of the anti-war movement. "I respect those who took a different view. But I find it very hard too understand why those voices are not heard more loudly opposing the sectarian butchers and the suicide bombers, and supporting an elected Iraqi Government. You can have opposed the military action, but you can also recognise why you should support the Iraqi Government."
While Benn has won plaudits for loyalty, it has been suggested that he takes this to undue extremes on occasion. For instance, last summer it was widely reported that he was one of several Cabinet ministers who were angry that Tony Blair had failed to support an immediate ceasefire in the Lebanon. Yet publicly, he backs his leader's stance to the hilt.
"What the Prime Minister said was, of course we want the fighting to stop. On August 1, we went to the European Union foreign affairs council, where we supported an immediate cessation of hostilities. If that is not a ceasefire, I don't know what is. Also, the PM said we had to do it on the basis of what would work. Subsequently, he was proved right, as you had to get all the parties to sign up to the peace process."
Benn was keen to do this interview to respond to Tribune's criticism of the Government's international development policies, in particular the enthusiasm for helping developing nations to privatise their utilities, especially water. This was initially conducted through Britain's conditionality policy. In effect, it was aid with strings attached. A country had to embrace privatisation in return for British help. To be fair, Benn dropped the policy in the spring of 2005 after sustained pressure. Problems remain, but he wants to put the record straight. "I changed our policy on conditionality. I wasn't dragged kicking and screaming to it by anyone. For me, it is a question of what is the right kind of conditionality. I have never yet met anyone who says: just hand over the money, come what may."
Earlier criticism clearly hurt. I look up from scribbling notes to find the Secretary of State's face just inches from mine. Doubtless his desire is to stress his case, rather than to intimidate. "On privatisation, it is simply not the case that I wake up in the morning and think, what can I  do to privatise the world's water supply. Ninety five per cent of our spending goes on public provision of water."
Yet while Britain may have dispensed with conditionality, the World Bank still demands that countries privatise services in return for aid. If Britain is then asked for further help, Benn takes a laissez faire approach. This is what happened when Sierra Leone, the world's poorest nation, asked for assistance with its privatisation plans.
Benn defends his position: "Where a developing country takes the decision that they want to privatise their water supply, it is not my job to say: `I am your former colonial master and I know better than you.' I don't think that is our place and I hope no one is arguing that."
Further controversy has surrounded the PPIAF branch of the World Bank, which helps developing countries with privatisation programmes and is predominantly funded by Britain. While it has been sharply criticised by some development charities, Benn is a staunch defender. "I don't think it is controversial at all. In Afghanistan, the PPIAF has helped reform the regulatory system relating to mobile telephones. Is that a scandal? No. How do economies develop? One of the things they need is good communication links. With investment come jobs. I think this is a really virtuous circle."
Since Labour came to power, massive sums have been spent on international development. Much of this aid is channelled through multilateral or bilateral agreements or through international agencies and there remains concern that Britain does not always know where or how its money is being spent. Some of the programmes run by the United Nations Population Fund have been particularly contentious. In the past, these have been involved in coercive population control strategies in countries as diverse as Peru, Vietnam and Mexico.
Britain is a major funder of UNFPA, which is currently involved in promoting voluntarism in China as an alternative to the notorious "one child" policy. Its critics describe UNFPA's efforts as ineffectual at best and at worst turning a blind eye to human rights abuses.
Benn rejects these criticisms and is vigorous in his defence of the organisation. "What UNFPA is doing in China is trying to demonstrate to the Chinese that there are ways of controlling the population which don't involve the policies that the Chinese Government has been pursuing. This means giving people access to contraception and choice. I am 100 per cent behind them in doing that."

]]> 2007-01-11T06:00:43-05:00 string http://www.labourhome.org/search/