Healthy debate should take place in the shadow cabinet as well

By Lisa Nandy / @lisanandy

It’s the first week back and the Commons is a hive of activity. Voting reform, withdrawal from Afghanistan and the phone hacking row – there is a renewed sense of energy in the place.

There was particular energy on display in the PLP this week when we met to decide how to assemble the shadow cabinet. It was a lively debate, fuelled by the inevitable fact that there will be stiff competition this time round, and there will doubtless be good people who lose out.

Collectively we have opted for a wholly elected shadow cabinet and an elected chief whip. At least a third of the shadow cabinet will have to made up of men and another third women, and we will re-elect members every two years.

Although we don’t yet have a leader, in reality the shadow cabinet contest has already started and like other new MPs my vote is relatively unknown and much in demand. In the last five days I’ve had to factor in the time it takes to get past lurking candidates to get to meetings on time, and the deluge of letters and emails has only just started.

With just 19 places – at least three of which are likely to go to the runners up from the leadership contest – there will be tough competition. And, after 13 years in government where a place in the cabinet was in the gift of the leader, there will be people who now have their first real opportunity to seek long overdue promotion.

I haven’t yet decided who I’ll vote for, except for the excellent John Healey, but I am enjoying listening to MP’s researchers construct their own fantasy shadow cabinets. There is some consensus that the candidates would be mistaken to rely solely on their record in government as, arguably, it’s a different job. In opposition you have to be a credible government-in-waiting and an energetic campaigner, able to match your opposite number without staff or resources.

Critics of the elected shadow cabinet system say it leads to warring camps on the frontbench, creating disunity and undermining the credibility of the party. As someone who has watched Labour in government for the last 13 years from the outside, I find that argument a bit bizarre. Surely politics is about debate and debate means different points of view? There is a big difference between the destructive spectre of personality politics and a genuine political debate about how to tackle the sort of complex and difficult problems we’ve been dealing with this week: Afghanistan, the electoral system and civil liberties.

It strikes me as healthy that there is genuine disagreement in the Labour party about many of these issues. Surely, if we want to find solutions to them, those debates should take place in the shadow cabinet room as well.