One of the key arguments that is currently taking place within the Labour Party is about the role of Party members.
In the context of the current leadership contest, this battle is being billed as MPs who want complete control and members who want their voices heard. Whilst I think it is vital that all members are able to vote in such a vital election, and I support the electoral college reforms introduced by Ed Miliband, we need to have a wider conversation about the roles of members.
Between 2010 and 2015 a significant proportion of the Party’s short money was spent on facilitating conversation with people around the country. Centered around the Your Britain website, hundreds of thousands of people contributed and over a thousand turned up in the snow for the main event in Birmingham. This produced what I still see as a strong programme for Government which was unfortunately undermined by a poor campaign.
I understand that members don’t feel like we have enough influence over policy, but the shadow cabinet has previously committed to being genuinely outward looking and there should be no reason for that to stop.
So to those who talk about democratising the party, I offer this note of caution – this cannot come at the expense of these wider conversations. Some would suggest that policy should be made exclusively in the echo chamber of conference, but I don’t see how that can lead to a manifesto that will resonate with the different groups who are required for a majority.
I believe this ultimately means leaving policy making powers with the shadow cabinet and National Policy Forum. However, we need to be ready to challenge the leadership if they are unable to find an effective way to give members their say.
Andrew Mullinex 