So will it be fisticuffs with Ming at Conference?

In an attempt to catch up with the threads of debate on the blogs I happened upon Jeremy Hargreaves piece on getting into fisticuffs with Ming at conference. As you might imagine I couldn’t quite let that go without comment.

I am still, it has to be said, learning the ropes on FPC – however, I think I have attended enough meetings now to begin to get a handle on things. Firstly, I know of members of the said committee who despair as they see it as nothing more than a rubberstamp for the Shadow Cabinet. Secondly, there is a view, which has been expressed (but as you know under Chatham House Rule my lips are sealed as to who by), that goes something like this. FPC is the policy making body of the party, so, should conference get above itself and vote against FPC policy (let’s say on something like Trident), that is very damaging to the authority of FPC and we should all be jolly glad it hasn’t happened.

So, the implications………….Shadow Cabinet may well take an opposing view to the leader, but loyalty means they are unlikely to push it, FPC similarly may (although I have not yet witnessed it) take an opposing view to the leader, but they may also feel constrained by loyalty/emotional blackmail, so that just leaves conference to tackle to ensure the leader always gets his way. Hence, the same implied disloyalty, damage to the party, emotional blackmail line – enhanced by an appeal to the fact that the press are always looking for stories of splits and challenges to the leadership. The irony is, whatever my beliefs about whether Ming should or should not be leader, I don't see him as someone who insists on having his own way, maybe it is our insecurities as a party that lead us to worry about being at odds with him.

The logical conclusion of Jeremy’s argument is that dissent should be suppressed to enable the leader to appear to have the support of the whole party on absolutely any and every issue. Sound familiar? If this is the road we are being corralled towards I think far from strengthening the party and the leader, it will weaken both. What will be the point of conference? And fairly soon after that what will be the point of FPC? Don’t want to sound like a broken record, but dissent surely is the lifeblood of democracy. Ming’s best approach to dealing with it is to say “Bring it on”. Sometimes (rarely if previous experience is anything to go by) he may lose, but more often than not he will win. This is about his confidence, not only in himself but also in his party. What boxer goes and sits in the corner and sulks every time he gets a bloody nose or loses a round? The mark of a fighter is their ability to get up and go right back to the battle. (Sorry about the fighting/military metaphor but I couldn’t think of a better one!) And frankly, what’s that saying about all publicity being good publicity? Let’s get real - we have enough of a problem attracting the attention of the media as it is, if there was no debate on contentious issues at conference we would receive even less.

So Jeremy, I understand your concerns but don't share them. The media will always be peeping round the corner for the next leadership contest, regardless of party. We have to continue to make a virtue of the fact that we are the party that actually allows the membership a voice and consequently has more chance of making policy that is in touch with the grassroots of our country. And Ming has to take the high moral ground in this and show he is able to take the odd sling or arrow of healthy dissent amongst his troops. (whoops that's my army background leaking out again!) Those battles he wins will make him stronger and those he loses, wiser.