The result – 196 MPs in favour, 41 against and 20 did not vote – was in stark contrast to the previous vote on the issue back in September 2010 when the PLP voted to keep an elected shadow cabinet.
What’s changed since then?
- In September, MPs did not know who the leader was going to be and saw an elected shadow cabinet as an insurance policy against a purge by an incoming leader.
- The process of the shadow cabinet elections last autumn wasn’t the festival of democracy new MPs had expected – it was a time-consuming exercise in micro-campaigning, vote-trading and fixing. With 48 candidates the choice was confusing and the amount of canvassing MPs were subjected to was migraine inducing.
- The multiplicity of candidates meant the results were perverse and unbalanced: no Welsh MP was elected, and Peter Hain, one of Ed’s closest political allies, missed election by just three votes. Ed needs the ability to pick a team that includes all the talents that he judges he needs around him.
- MPs buy the argument after having been through the process once, that ‘we need to spend our time talking to the public and not ourselves.’
- MPs want Ed Miliband to be a strong leader. They know that’s the only way he’ll convince the public he has what it takes to be PM. This was a way of giving him the ability to be decisive in shaping his frontbench, promoting talent, and removing people who don’t cut the mustard.
- This was effectively a massive vote of confidence in Ed following a period of wobbles about his leadership. It was a big risk for Ed calling this vote. MPs could have used the opportunity to give him a bloody nose. They didn’t because they want his leadership to succeed. It was an overwhelming statement by the ‘solid middle’ of the PLP that they want the party to get behind Ed and give him the tools and the confidence needed to win the general election.
Too often in our past periods in opposition Labour has settled into a cosy routine of living out our political ambitions through internal elections and infighting – where which shadow title or party role you held was all that mattered, not what contribution you were making to Labour as a team leaving the world of shadows and winning back power. That way saw people forge a shadow career path in itself, a CV full of non-jobs exercising power only within our own ranks, responsible for nothing except rhetoric. Yesterday’s vote put a decisive end to all that and showed a seriousness of purpose in the PLP – giving up some of their own little slices of shadow political power in the interests of making Labour electable again.
Luke is totally right on this, the same situation also exists within the rules that cover Labour Groups where the need for party endorsement can be a distraction around election times. On another matter I was in the audience at the LGA conference and saw a very effective performance from Ed to what can be a difficult crowd of cross party senior councillors. Much more effectiv than either Dave or Nick in front of the same audience.
I feel increasingly out on a limb on this but I do think this is a mistake. I understand all the arguments that have been made, but I don’t think you tinker with processes like this because of one apparently unsuccessful election. Ed Miliband has a perfectly sufficient degree of discretion under the current system. It is expected that the leader will bring some people into the team and the leader can allocate the roles as s/he feels fit, including promotions or demotions. S/he can also accept resignations. As such, the only power this move has really acquired for Ed is the power to sack shadow ministers who cannot be prevailed upon to resign: hardly a positive development. But further to this, I do believe that Shadow Cabinet elections elevated us above the other parties in parliament; making us more pluralistic and balanced and less governed by patronage. Although the current centre-right dominance of the PLP means that Shadow Cabinet elections do not quite ensure a balanced committee today, it theoretically at least means that a broad chuch can be maintained without patronage or patronising leg-ups. And let’s be quite clear, should some time in the future, a leader from my wing of the party successfully contest a leadership election, readers of Progress will strongly hope that Shadow Cabinet elections might be reinstated. Blair’s best Cabinet was his first; the elected one. Leaders are not necessarily very good at choosing their own teams. And I don’t think it sends out a good signal.
As I said Milli,s bois and girls now v the rabble. If anyone believes that any of this will stop faction fights they are niave. MP’s have little to do after they have written on behalf of their constuents to Ministers but are trapped in Westminster most of the time. What else is there to do? However impressive you are if you are not OoMBaG you better retir the the Library and write you diary.