This is an awful proposal. Democracy has many layers. One of those layers the capacity for voluntary, civil society organisations to function independently. Thhe labour party ought to exist to promote a specific agenda, not just to mirror the electorate. Ministers have a platoform wherein they can actively seek to shape public opinion. If they are continually accountable to Tories and Liberals and all others, they will not be able to fulfill this function.

I’d be very happy for Mark’s party to try this first…

It’s obviously a bigger issue for Ed than it was for Tony as he’s planning a much longer spell in opposition.

I think the proposal to end shadow cabinet elections is the right move, however, I also think it would be wiser, rather than the party leader choosing who’s in or out, if the MPs who want a cabinet post were required to draw up a manifesto, of sorts, outlining what they would do, if given the responsibility for this or that area of policy. The leader,( at the moment it’s Ed, but that may change,) would then be able to ask party members, and registered supporters, whose policies they like or dislike. This way, he could get a clear picture of what Labour voters really expect from him, making it easier to choose his cabinet and knowing that, whoever he chose, they would be people that the voters have looked at closely, listened to their proposals and decided that they want, not neccessarily those people, but certainly those policies. I think throwing it open to the wider public is a non-starter, how the other parties function is their buisiness, and vice versa. Labour policy should be influenced by Labour people, the job of the leader and the shadow cabinet is to then persuade the wider public to listen, understand and hopefully support the policies, by electing them as the government.

The other obvious problem is the potential for ‘hijacking’ — Tory voters might vote for the most inept Labour MPs in order to render the opposition toothless.

Carl,

Tory voters would, if they voted, presumably vote for the candidates they liked the best – they are hardly likely to vote for Ken Livingston clones to run the party that might form the next government.

In the US, and the odd experiment elsewhere, open primaries tend to attract most votes from the party concerned, but there is no evidence of other party voters being inclined to vote for the idiot (albeit we would have to reconfigure the meaning of idiot for BNP supporters – what they find acceptable might be odd). I think that assuming that your opponents are purely out to get you is an unjustifiable objection to the idea.

“Tory voters might vote for the most inept Labour MPs in order to render the opposition toothless.”

Pretty much what we did ourselves in the leadership election.

“If he goes ahead with this, the first big action of his leadership of the party will be to take power away from his MPs and to move it to the centre. Whichever way you look at this it is moving in a less democratic direction and that is how it will appear.”

Unless of course you’re Sunny Hundal:

“I don’t think having the elections nor getting rid of them is more democratic either way.”

On the proposal you make:

“… the most popular Labour MPs in the country would be in the shadow cabinet.”

Or the most egotistical power- and publicity-hungry self-serving hacks, with a talent for spin and little else… That said, it would probably be an improvement – and certainly more democratic.

I think this proposal should be wider – Ed Miliband should call for open primaries for MP candidate selection a la the US system. Now that would be a headline grabbing move with the benefit of putting more of the democratic process in the hands of the demos.

[2] Quite, Emma. What kind of editorial policy publishes articles about the inner workings of Party X by a member of Party Y? I hope Sunny will defend his decision to publish this slurry of drivel.

As to Ed M’s own proposal, doesn’t it reinforce his weakness? Every previous Labour leader managed to cope with an elected Shadow Cabinet. What’s so different now – except, perhaps, the Leader’s political antennae.

It may well be of utter irrelevance. The Unions are losing members at 8% p.a. – and that’s before the public sector unions are savaged by their members getting the sack. For example, the Department of Work and Pensions is cutting half its staff and the successor to the Primary Care Trusts for Westminster, Kensington and Hammersmith is cutting jobs from 550 to 150. The voluntary sector too is outsourcing every activity it can.

By the next election Labour will simply have no base in whole swathes of England, and it will be outspent by the coalition parties by as much as ten to one.

Great idea except that it would cost about 50p for everyone on the Electoral Roll plus another 50p for every vote cast, say £25 Million. Thats another £25 Millions in Debts on top of the £20 Million Labour already have.
Actually thats a great idea.

Mike@10: Perhaps your last point is the thing that really needs looking at, how much the parties have, to spend on campaigning. Bringing to a stop the practice of corporate donors who, due to the huge amounts involved, effectively buy the power to influence policy. The unions give money to labour, maybe a better way would be for a ballot of all members to decide where the donations go, and how much is given, thereby allowing the electorate, or at least a large number of us to have a direct influence on policy, out in the open and from a point of general agreement. Personal donations should be capped, not just the amount per donation, also the number of times you are allowed to give in a single year. This may sound a little dictatorial, but the alternative is to trust politicians to be open and honest with us. We tried that, it caused a few problems. Time for a change of strategy.

@Mike Killingworth, have you got a source for those TU membership figures ?

[13] The Times is reporting to-day that Unite has lost a quarter of its members in the last three years. The problem is not specific to them, apparently.

[12] No chance. If the mega-rich can’t buy their politics openly, they’ll do so by hugger-mgger methods. Always have, always will. What we are seeing now, with the changes I noticed in my earlier comment, together with the replacement of PLCs by individual ownership in the media and other industries, may well be termed re-feudalisation. I offer the term as a gift to anyone here doing a postgrad in social science and in need of a topic.

what is more surprising is that Tony Blair allowed them to remain- he didn’t get rid of them as he new the party wouldn’t tolerate it.

Mike@14: Re-feudalisation you say, the same system in the Arab world that everyone is concerned about? Feudalism is essentially gang warfare, can you imagine the chaos, a gang of Maccy D employees smash up a Starbucks, getting paid commission for every day the outlet remains closed? They could then go spend the extra cash in the shops, boosting the economy. The repairs needed at the outlet would create more work, another boost, the tradespeople doing the work could then go and spend the cash in the shops,……………… I am joking of course, but the way the world of the money people works, you never know how greed will manifest itself.

Mark

Given the way politics has gone in the last decade, wouldn’t your proposal just result in a shadow cabinet full of Blairite centrists? I’m assuming that is not what you would want…

Moreover, the Murdoch press would have another election to sway and influence with their flock of devoted readers…

http://outspokenrabbit.blogspot.com/

“Instead of trying to horde the power to appoint his shadow cabinet he could do the exact opposite and put the vote out to everyone in the country. And I mean all registered voters, not just Labour Party members.

Why on earth would he do that I hear you cry?

Well, firstly it would be perceived as and would actually be a very democratic move. Even people who might not bother voting are likely to appreciate the gesture.”

This is plainly stupid, it betrays no understanding of why any political party exists. If I join the Labour Party it is because I broadly agree with its politics.( I will not join a party whose politics are determined not by similar members, but by an open vote to who knows what electorate.)

It is stupid because, in the main, registered voters don’t vote, and those that don’t will not be enthused by the opportunity to vote for members of the shadow cabinet. (It is not, of course, a democratic move to open up voting rights in a voluntary association to people outside the membership of the same.)

It is stupid because political parties do not exist in order to gain votes. They exist in order to gain support for particular policies.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Mark Thompson, do you think politics is only a marketing exercise? And if you do, do you think you quite understand the ‘product’ you are trying to ‘sell’?

If the Tories did this I’d vote for the most extreme, dislikeable, inept idiots they had, and watch them fail horribly.

I don’t think it would be a bad idea to open it up to all Labour Party members, though.

@18

“It is stupid because, in the main, registered voters don’t vote”

Well sorry but that’s just a falsehood right there. General election turnout may be terrible but it’s not (yet) under 50% – I think it was 65% at the most recent one in fact.

Thanks for all the responses. I’ve been away this weekend so am only getting a chance to respond now.

@Reuben – But ultimately they are looking to get elected as a government. That’s my point.

@Emma – So would I, and like with Labour I expect it never to happen for a multitude of reasons.

@Mike Killingsworth – Sunny can speak for himself but LC is not a Labour Party site as far as I know (and even if it was, constructive advice can come from all quarters).

@Pinkie – No I do not think politics is just a marketing exercise. Primaries are regularly used in other countries such as the US and even here like with the Tories before the 2010 election and there is not really any evidence as far as I am aware that having open votes for candidates causes big problems. If anything it makes them more likely to choose candidates with wider appeal, although maybe for you this is a problem. Your comment “political parties do not exist in order to gain votes. They exist in order to gain support for particular policies.” is quite odd in my view. Without votes, a political party is just a pressure group. And surely if you gain support for policies you by definition gain votes? Am I missing something here?