Back to 1996

 

Rejoice Labour!

 

The Labour Party has climbed into the Tardis and we are back in 1996.  

On a day where the polls show a 7 point Labour lead over Tories and LibDem support collapsed, we are timid and apologetic. Today's poll would give us an overall majority of 100. This is before the cuts bite. Before the Tories' repeated u-turns spin them into oblivion. Why tear our garments and seek solutions from navel staring?

In 1996 too the polls promised a handsome victory. After four defeats Labour blocked out the possibility of victory and we nervously fretted. Tony Blair said he wanted no non-member of the shadow cabinet to stand for the shadow cabinet elections.

They were due in November 1996. In 1995, I had moved in the PLP that they be brought forward to the summer. This would have avoided new shadow ministers being burdened with new duties without sensible preparation. The PLP voted 'No'. Blair told the cabinet he was not going to change the date 'just because Paul Flynn wanted it'. Two members of the shadow cabinet confirmed his words to me. 

Then a miracle. The chair of the PLP announced that the elections would be in the summer of 1996. There was no new PLP vote! We were told that no new candidates would be welcome.

Ron Davies steered me towards Tony Blair on the Terrace, 'Ask him to vote for you'. Blair looked blankly at me. 'What are you standing for?' 'The Shadow Cabinet' I said. 'After all I did vote for you as Leader'. Blair was not amused. After I had announced I was standing six others put their names forward. None of us were elected and Blair had the Shadow Cabinet he wanted anyway. 

The same will happen this time. The PLP have a vested interest in getting the best on the frontbench. Ed Miliband can ignore any results he does not like. Already he has promoted very talented new members into prominent positions.

Removing one of the last remaining vestiges of democracy from the party structure will irritate and give ammunition to Ed's foes. It's a pointless distraction. Calling for a root and branch reorganisation of the party is a permanent feature of party life. If Peter Hain is looking for a seat that performed above the Labour average in 2010, a close study of Newport West would help.

Our party members worked magnificently and our organisation was fine. The big difference between us and neighbouring seats is that we campaigned on one issue above all others. It was mentioned in every message, leaflet and broadcast. The campaign secured the 'Welsh Politician of the Year' prize five months before the election. What a shame the whole Labour Party did not fight to 'Bring our soldiers home from Afghanistan'.

 

Comments

[Gerald]

Paul it is not only the PLP that has an interest in seeing the best elected to the Shadow Cabinet, the whole Party has an interest in seeing the best team in the Shadow Cabinet. If it is right that the whole Party has a role in electing the Party Leader, then why should not the whole Party have a role in electing the Shadow Cabinet?
Surely you do not support an Orwellian situation where the 'inner Party' of the PLP elects the Shadow Cabinet, but the 'outer Party', the membership who campaign for and win elections, has no say at all?
Why not extend the principle of election of the Cabinet to include when the Labour Party is in Government?

[HuwOS]

If only we could ban political parties, that would be my preferred reform of politics.

[D.G.]

Every MP answerable only to their constituents and their conscience. Interesting thought.

[Paul Flynn]

Thanks Gerald. Votes involving the whle party are hideously expensive. The PLP last night were in docile mood. Few want to see a public spat of a matter of minor importance and of nil interest to the public.

There are advantages and disadvantages in the widening the franchise. The leadership election last year created resentments. Yes democacry would be advanced but the need to grandstand might not improve opposition.

[Paul Flynn]

We have had a few independent MPs. Most have performed well. But the public still votes overwhelmingly for political parties.

[D.G.]

It can't be denied that people will usually vote for a recognisable "brand" (assuming they don't consider it to be toxic) rather than venturing into the unknown. I wonder if it's healthy for democracy though? There are very good, independent-minded MPs (yourself included), but it can be argued that the party system also provides an environment where the King Lear "Oswalds" of the world thrive.

[HuwOS]

"But the public still votes overwhelmingly for political parties"

Primarily, it seems because they seem to think that they are not voting for a representative for their constituency but often believe themselves to be voting for a prime minister, or a government.
There would be a lot of difficulties thrown up by removing parties from the equation, but I cannot help feeling that they cause more trouble and confusion than the lack of them would.
It seems highly unlikely that such a thing could be brought about though, after all, the people did just roundly reject the option to have more say in who represents them from their own constituencies, I can only imagine the meltdown that would occur if people had to come to grips with what they are actually voting for.

[Gerald]

Paul while I understand the point you make about the dangers of grandstanding during an election for Leader, I'm a bit concerned that your point about the expense of an election involving the whole Party could be used to argue for a return to the Leader being elected by the PLP particularly in these cash-strapped times.
I would agree to the PLP electing the Leader, but, I would want to see a strongly worded 'Right of Recall' brought in to make sure that members of the PLP are not only answerable but accountable to the CLPs as well.