Over at Labourhome, they are having a little debate today. It's not the usual sort, though: you know, "what socialist values are this week", "how to keep the NHS political", "why stomp 'the rich'" or "how to save everyone from themselves with intervention".
No. The blog in question's entitled "Elections to the shadow cabinet and internal elections". Here's what it says:
Combine this with another article over there ("Brown has to go, and soon"!), which Plato has blogged about, and a picture of listless disillusionment and defeatism emerges indicating that the fag-end of a busted administration has long since gone past the point of no return.Is this good or bad?It seems that a lot of people have forgotten the rule that in opposition our shadow cabinet is elected by the PLP. There is some confusion as to whether this still in fact stands - there doesn't appear to be any mention in the rule book, but the Spectator is quite certain that it is still there.
Some people do seem to be against this, so I wanted to gauge the general Labourhome opinion of the system. What sort of changes do you think this will have on the structure of the shadow cabinet?From this there has also been some debate about internal elections (such as leadership elections). Should we go over to a Tory-style system where MPs shortlist the candidates before putting it over to the membership, or is the current system fine? If we keep the electoral college, do the proportions need to be changed?
If Labour activists and supporters are apparently in such a hurry to get into opposition - where they can at least attempt to begin the process of rebuilding their wrecked party - then why don't they show some backbone and start by campaigning to get rid of its chief wrecker: Gordon Brown?
It's got to happen sooner or later, so why not limit the damage he is hell-bent on causing and make it sooner?
Those appear to be the "real issues" preoccupying them these days, if Labourhome is anything to go by.