It was reported earlier today that Ed Miliband supports calls to scrap Shadow Cabinet elections. Many people support the idea (Tony Blair, Benedict Brogan and me as examples), but there is naturally some opposition and claims that it will be anti-democratic. This move has also been compared to the famous (and successful) attempts by Tony Blair to get Clause 4 of the Labour Constitution changed.
So, will the changes be approved? Do they go far enough? Is Ed trying to be more like Blair?
Photo taken from DECC Archive (Flickr, CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivativeWorks))
Clause 4
For those of you unaware of the significance of Clause 4 and why the comparison is being made, I’ll give you a brief history lesson.
The following is an excerpt from the original version of the clause:
“To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.”
Many believe the wording is a call for mass nationalisations, which was originally designed to reduce the number of industries that were unco-ordinated and disorganised. Unfortunately, nationalisation also has a serious effect on the economy and national debt. In 1995, Tony Blair proposed to make dramatic changes to this section, which were successful and made Clause 4 more centrist. This is an excerpt from the new text:
“The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour, we achieve more than we achieve alone so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.”
So, this shift to the centre ground represented a significant change to a long standing part of Labour’s history. Removing Shaodw Cabinet elections would do the same thing. Tony Blair never did this in his time because those elections are curiously suspended when the party is in government.
Ed’s email
The email that Ed sent to all members of the PLP about his plans can be found here. Ed believes that the elections are a distraction and went on to make these two points:
- The Chair of the PLP should be part of the Shadow Cabinet in order to represent the views of the members
- Miliband will continue to value the role of the backbenchers
The first point is a clear move to appease those who could be unhappy with the proposal. It does make sense though and it’s worth noting that Baroness Warsi holds a similar (non-portfolio) position in the Coalition. Shouldn’t Ed and the Shadow Cabinet be listening to members as part of their job though? The second point was needless as the leader should always do this. In most cases, the members choose the leader (although, as we all know, in this case the unions chose the Leader).
Support
As I have already mentioned, there are number of supporters of the proposals. It’s interesting to know what members of the Shadow Cabinet think though, as they were chosen under the old system and many voted for David Miliband to be Leader:
“only five of the 19 elected shadow cabinet members as voted in by Labour MPs backed Ed Miliband for the Labour leadership last year. Ten backed his brother, David.”
Douglas Alexander supports the proposals. When asked about reduced accountability, he responded by claiming there will still me “mechnaisms of accountability”. Interestingly, his first choice for Leader was David, but Ed was his second.
Opposition
There was a vote on this issue prior to last year’s leadership election and change wasn’t approved. This means that there’s no guarantee that it could pass this time. Ed has to prove that holding these elections would be a barrier to future success.
John McDonnell (an early opponent to Gordon Brown as Leader before he dropped out and stopped the chances of a democratic process taking place) doesn’t want change and said the following:
“You don’t demonstrate strong leadership by having a battle with your own party,” he told the programme. “You don’t need to browbeat your party into submission.”
He went on to say that the party wants more democracy and not to go back to the days of Tony Blair.
These are interesting statements. I wouldn’t characterise Ed’s move as a ‘battle’. He obviously wants the elections to cease, but he’s announced that there will be a free vote on this and did it in a non-aggressive fashion. I also find it odd that he criticised Tony Blair. Say what you like about some of his national policy decisions, but he made Labour electible again, won three consecutive elections and far more women became MPs during his tenure. His modernising influence benefited the party.
Finally…
Hopefully, other MPs will not share the opinions of John McDonnell. Scrapping Shadow Cabinet elections will be a great move as it will give the Leader control over who works for him. Yes, it might remove a layer of democracy. However, there’s a time and a place for it. Too much of democracy would dramatically slow down processes and distract Labour from what they should be doing – coming up with alternative policy and scrutinising the activities of the Coalition (at a high standard).
So, what do you think?