The Blackbaud Affair

A nasty little problem - you've maybe encountered it already - that's been creeping its way around the Not-For-Profits relates to the fact that, apparently, a high % of the sector uses Blackbaud CRM software.  I presume it's cheap.

And insecure.  For Blackbaud has been held to ransom by someone who's hacked it, and made off with its users' clients' details.  On a pretty large scale, it would seem.

A couple of interesting aspects.  Firstly, this has been known about for weeks.  But the speed with which Blackbaud's users have 'fessed up to their own clients has varied tremendously.  Very much a laggard in this regard is ... the Labour Party, who've only just acknowledged this to their members whose data had flown the nest.  Why so coy for so long, Mr Starmer?  What bad-news-management mode were you in when they first told you about it? 

Of wider import: Blackbaud gaily tell the world that "they have paid the ransom demanded by the cybercriminal and have received assurances that the data was destroyed as a result".  WTF?  Are those affected supposed to believe assurances from, errr, acknowledged criminals?  Why wouldn't said hackers not make multiple copies and sell to whomever will pay?

Or is there a binding international Ransom Protocol I've never heard of, with ISO standards for conduct, arbitration in the Hague, and certification by General de Chastelian?

ND

Victory for Ambulance-Chaser vs Labour Party

A few months ago we reported on the gleeful pronouncements of lawyer Mark Lewis as he contemplated an orgy of litigation within the Labour Party over the ramifications of the anti-semitism row, the Panorama programme thereupon, and the famous "leaked report". 

“There are lots and lots of claims.  There are claims under the Data Protection Act, there are claims for breach of confidence or invasion of privacy and there are claims for libel.  It is a very lengthy report that mentions a lot of people.  I’ve been contacted by 15 people.  Each one of them could well have several claims.  What is going on is phenomenal ...  There are actions against the party, actions against individuals, actions against commentators.  People need to be careful about statements that have been made.  If this bankrupts the Labour party or individuals, so be it ...”

Well, his ship has come in and now he's started to coin it - reportedly taking the lion's share of the Labour Party's large pay-out.  And not just 15 people: he now reckons to be in touch with more than 30 potential litigants!  Further lawsuits are already flying, from several different directions, in a mighty Mexican stand-off.  Mr Lewis doubtless claims royalties on every aspect: he's seemingly cornered the market, Don King-style.

You have to believe Starmer saw this coming and is playing the game as cleanly as he knows (and not cheaply, either, with other people's money) so that at least he's guaranteed to be among the last men standing, and with no shit on his shoes either.  Guaranteed?  There are some on the left who fulminate furiously at his actions in settling what we must think of as the "Phase One action".  Can he personally be sued for that?  These lefties' writ no longer runs much beyond the tweets they twitter: but a canny lawyer might think of something ...

What riches for Lewis!  What sport! 

ND

Labour Party Bans "Passion of St Tibulus"

"Down with this sort of thing! ... It's very immoral, Jim, you wouldn't like it ..."

The volcanic eruption that is the mighty leaked Labour report rumbles on, you couldn't devise a more compelling political distraction if you were Old (Domi)Nic himself.

Switching idioms, this is a regular pile-up of a car crash. The ambulance-chasing lawyer cited in the Observer is obviously angling for some very juicy instructions, and good luck to him. 

[He] told the Observer: “There are lots and lots of claims. There are claims under the Data Protection Act, there are claims for breach of confidence or invasion of privacy and there are claims for libel. It is a very lengthy report that mentions a lot of people. I’ve been contacted by 15 people. Each one of them could well have several claims. What is going on is phenomenal ... There are actions against the party, actions against individuals, actions against commentators. People need to be careful about statements that have been made. If this bankrupts the Labour party or individuals, so be it ...”

That's the spirit, boy.  Lots and Lots of Claims!  Haha.  The angle I particularly like is the idea that party members can be forbidden from sharing the document -  a bit like the old ruling from Rome that lay Catholics mayn't read the Bible.  Or, for that matter, view the blasphemous Passion of St Tibulus: another deeply counterproductive instruction, as Father Ted discovered. 

ND

Textbook Mandelson

Way back in 1997, the year in which the first Blair government was elected, Peter Mandelson wanted to be elected to the NEC of the Labour Party.  He wasn't popular enough for this to be any kind of shoo-in (to put it mildly); indeed, the Labour Party is fairly averse to johhny-come-lately just turning up and expecting to walk it, first time of asking, onto the NEC.  So he called in some of his plentiful markers in the telly-meejah, and pitched to the tame interviewers thus:  (I paraphrase, but on the basis of a very clear recollection)

"Now what I think Labour Party members are saying, they say - that Peter Mandelson, I don't know much about him, but I do know he had a big hand in getting the party elected, and I like that.  But I think he needs to be more accountable to the membership.  So I think he needs to be on the NEC, where we can keep a democratic eye on him.  - That's what I find Labour Party members are saying." 

Never short for a bit of self-serving spurious logic, are you Mandy?  Two decades on, and nothing has changed.  Today, for example, attempting to promote a second referendum he 

... put forward a new argument in favour - that it would be helpful to Theresa May too.  He explained: "People know want to make an informed judgment and choice between what is on offer as a result of this negotiation and the benefits we already have in the European Union.   Also I think, if [she] promises a people’s vote, it will strengthen her hand against the Brextremists in her own party.  She’s got to turn around to them and say, ‘Look, what I negotiate has got to pass muster.  It’s got to gain the support of the British people.  So untie my hands, let me negotiate properly, because you’re going to face a public vote at the end of the day.’  And unless she can say that to them, they’re going to continue keeping her hostage ..."

Oh so bloody clever, Peter.  She'll definitely fall for that.  Anyhow, gives me a chance to re-run one of my digi-gallery.  By the way, he never did get on the NEC ... 

ND

Monty Python's Life of Jeremy

Well beard or no, he's obviously not the messiah and there's every indication he's a very naughty boy.   But the burgeoning ranks of the various People's Fronts for the Liberation of, errr, Hampstead (?) are starting to make headway, or is that momentum ... oh, "Peoples Momentum", I'm sorry.  Another one up today, I see: "Open Labour".  And another along shortly.  All makes work for the website designers.




And for the anti-bullying counsellors.  Not that Momentum intends to bully MPs, oh no.  That sort of thing never happens in the Labour Party, does it?


 
Anyhow, there is more current relevance in this little documentary - covering the Gemaine Greer spat as well as the splitters - than a whole week's worth of Newsnight.

ND

Interesting Times for the Labour Party

Intruding on private grief is a disgraceful thing, I know ...

But.

What times for Labour, eh?  SNP, UKIP and even the Wicked Tories taking all their best lines as well as their votes;  nobody paying them the slightest attention;  Harriet Harman splitting them with her New Realist strictures;  Jeremy Corbyn steaming up on the left;  little Owen Jones floating the idea of supporting 'Out' at the euro-referendum.  

And the achingly glamorous, oh-so-tempting possibility of becoming the British (English?) wing of a pan-european anti-austerity movement !  With real street-fighting !

Can they resist it ?  One thing's for sure: all the leadership candidates except that nice Liz Kendall will be trying to keep the LabSyriPodemos option open.  What else have they got for 2020?

ND 

PS: errr ... so, would that be 'In' or 'Out ' - ?  Decisions, decisions

The Long-Term Doom of the Labour Party

This fascinating sequence of stories from the Grauniad suggests a bleak future for the Labour Party, the party as understood for a century and more.  That is, the 1900's socialist working-man's party which became House-trained in the 1920's, and politico-intellectual home to an awful lot of well-intentioned, thoughtful people whose main fault is an idealistic blindness to the Actual Ways of the World, human and financial.

How long are the decent people who are legitimate heirs to that honourable tradition, going to put up with this?

More than 130 new members of the Halifax Labour party have been disqualified from voting for the party’s general election candidate after suspicions were raised about their recruitment. All but seven of the disqualified members are of Asian heritage ... Earlier this week, it emerged outgoing MP Linda Riordan had complained to Labour HQ, alleging Keith Vaz was trying to interfere with the selection.

Amina Ali, a councillor in Tower Hamlets, east London, was selected at a meeting of the Bradford West Labour party on Saturday night. But within 72 hours of her selection, Ali tweeted: “I have stepped down”, saying she did not want to move to Bradford and disrupt her children’s education – an explanation greeted with incredulity among Labour members in the West Yorkshire city, who believe she was inadvertently caught up in the Pakistani clan politics which have plagued the local party for years ... amid allegations of so-called biraderi interference – a system of Asian family and tribal patronage harking back to clans in the Kashmiri villages where most of Bradford’s Pakistanis have their roots

 Amina Ali stepped back after realising she had been used as a pawn by local Kashmiri clan elders in their attempt to control Bradford. Since Ali’s surprise departure, things are getting increasingly nasty in the constituency. Naveeda Ikram says she called West Yorkshire police on Wednesday after after being made aware of “fake” racist messages circulating on social media purporting to be from her ... the user labelled as Naveeda Ikram makes disparaging remarks about Ali’s Somali background and the fact Labour’s last MP for Bradford West, Marsha Singh, was a Sikh.

And so it goes on; follow the thread for yourself and be glad it's not your party.  The Grauniad's CiF certainly doesn't invite comments after these articles, and we know why.  As a spectator my observations are:

• this stuff will only get worse ...
• ... in more and more constituencies (I have some interesting reports on what happens in Sadiq Khan's Tooting)
• it could go on for another decade before crisis-point is reached, but ...
• ... eventually it will be near-impossible to get traditional Labour folk motivated to work for, or even vote for, a party that looks like that

I don't think all the Guardian readers will all naturally migrate to UKIP.  Or LibDem.  So maybe Green?  The Greens are in fact the whitest party of all !

Tectonic plates, eh?

ND

Pre-Budget Tory choices

Is it too little too late for George Osborne? I mean the main idea in the budget seems to be raising the lower tax threshold which has been firmly associated with the Lib Dems. Osborne's main achievement on tax has been to lower the top rate from 50% to 45%. Overall, this is not good and is reflected in the Tories never having led in the polls since this set of changes was announced in the 2012 budget. Its cold comfort that it has equally affected the Lib Dems who are set for a form of electoral oblivion this year and next.

So what could the Chancellor do to make this different and what strategy to take. There are only 3 roads politically to choose:

One is to make some headline grabbing tax cuts or benefit rises as a blatant voter bribe. These though don't come in for a year and then that is very near the next election, probably too close for people to notice in their pay/benefits cheques.  Still, it might make Labour squirm a little as they will be left having to argue for higher taxes over and over which is boggy ground from which to try and advance.

Secondly, to take the long-term approach, realise that the deficit is still out of control and the macro-economy is still in a mess. Make a few changes, but with a neutral at best tax impact on the public finances. Some big announcements about things far in the future like HS2 etc that have no real impact on today's figures because there is no major spend this Parliament.

Thirdly, to start laying pure political traps for Labour now, really cutting back on Welfare and merging National Insurance into payroll taxes or changing the name of Employers NI. Make huge investment promises on airports, roads and rail that will need funding next Parliament but not major funding now, however jump-start them to begin in earnest in 2015. Move pensions and benefits back into line with RPI instead of CPI. Cut subsidies for Energy companies starting next year. Lower the headline tax rate and move the 40p threshold to £45,000. None of these ideas make much sense for the long-term benefit of the Country in terms of balancing its books (or even coming close), all though will prove anathema for Labour to reverse when they get into power and will make their 5 years very hard to make a success of economically.

So these are the 3 options, what will the Chancellor do? One, two or three?

The Co-Op saga deepens; what is wrong with mutuals?

Ursula Lidbitter

Here is the latest statement from the Co-Op as Len Wardle has resigned as Chairman:

"The recent revelations about the behaviour of Paul Flowers, the former Chair of The Co-operative Bank, have raised a number of serious questions for both the Bank and the Group. I led the Board that appointed Paul Flowers to lead the Bank Board and under those circumstances I feel that it is right that I step down now, ahead of my planned retirement in May next year. "I have already made it clear that I believe the time is right for real change in our operations and our governance and the Board recently started a detailed review of our democracy. I hope that the Group now takes the chance to put in place a new democratic structure so we can modernise in the interests of all our members."

He is to be replaced by Ursula Lidbitter, who has climbed the corporate pile after a long career at the Co Op. She is to lead a root and branch reform of management. Of course, being a co-operative is a bit like being a Union. Non Members need not apply. So how far the reform will really go who knows, but good luck to her.

What though of our Westminster Politicians. They were lining up to praise the likes of Co-Op and the John Lewis partnership just a few years ago. David Cameron had them as the drivers of an inclusive Big Society. Ed Balls had them down as the acceptable face of Capitalism. Problem is that nearly all the mutual building societies have gone under since the Financial crisis or are now stuck offering very uncompetitive products as their cost of capital is now so high. The Co-Op, long a bed-fellow and huge supporter of the Labour Party has come very unstuck too in the Banking game. Those of us old enough to remember will recall the Banking Partnerships of the 80's have long since disappeared. There is precious little evidence that mutuals or partnerships are fairer or better than normal companies. All companies risk appointing coke heads and ego maniacs to the top job if they fail the basic tasks of finding the right, experienced candidates. Once you have a demonic leader, as the Country found with Gordon Brown, the road to ruin is true and straight.

So what now can the politicians who seek an alternative to Limited and Public companies do - the options are more limited with a return to State sector or perhaps a hope that State Owned Enterprises of other Countries, like the Chinese ones invited to build our new nuclear power station, maybe the answer....

Labour Party plan to ape Tory "austerity-lite"

By the standards of June, when nothing much can tends to happen as people start to enjoy the weather in the UK and stop thinking of ways to upset everyone else, there is a small political bomb being planted today.

Led by the combustible Ed, a speech is being made now at Reuters that suggests an incoming Labour administration in 2015 will be an austerity government. With a pitch that seems to clash badly with previous positions, Labour are to note that there won't be any money left and most departmental spending will have to continue to come down.

Furthermore there are gimmicky ideas on tax raising such as reducing winter fuel payments for elderly relatives and also increasing the whole bankers bonus tax. These two idea raise in the grand scheme of things next to nothing in real revenues, but help to position Labour firmly on one side of the class war they are so intent on continuing.

It is far from certain that Mr Balls will ever get any economic credibility. It is a strange world in that both Osborne and Balls are in dire need of replacement by their party leaders, yet neither one has the courage or political capital to act.

In the longer term, this is quite a shrewd move by Labour. For on most other policy fronts they lead the Tories by a healthy margin. If they can get some ground back by promising Tory economic policy only from them, just as they did in 1997, then this could prove to be a turning point in their fortunes.

The Tories though will be able to point to their flip-flopping (whilst carefully ignoring their own implementation of plan B rather than A). Interestingly the truth is that both leading parties have almost the same ideas on the economy now, both seeking an austerity-lite package. The opportunity for the Liberals and UKIP to offer a different package is their for them to seize.