The Press MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1976. Choosing Cabinets and candidates

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34131, 19 April 1976, Page 12

The Press MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1976. Choosing Cabinets and candidates

Among the many remits to be considered at the Labour Party conference next month which deal with the internal affairs of the party, only a few are of interest to people who are not members of the party. One invites the Parliamentary Labour Party to change its constitution so that the party leader and deputy leader, rather than the whole caucus, select the members of a Labour Cabinet. For the party to consider so soon after a crushing defeat how the next Labour Cabinet will be chosen might seem to be a sign of special optimism. But this is a year in which, according to the custom of the party, constitutional matters are settled. Some members of the party may feel that one of the reasons Labour was defeated was that the last Labour Cabinet did not always work effectively as a team and that, had Mr Rowling or Mr Kirk been free to pick their own Cabinets, they would have chosen differently. In practice the difference between a Prime Minister’s personal choice and his party’s selection would generally be small, though it might be material in picking the tail-enders.

The danger that Ministers elected by caucus will pull different ways could be very real. After all, Ministers, if they pause to consider the point, owe their positions not to the Prime Minister but to their colleagues; and they are responsible not just to their party colleagues but to the whole Parliament. And the Prime Minister is answerable for them all. Yet the Labour Party’s system of election has some benefits, apart from its appearance of consensus. The danger of conflict between the Cabinet and back benchers is reduced: so is the danger that the Government will become a one-man show because Ministers defer unnecessarily to a Prime Minister who has the power to relegate them. For the want of precedents any fear of relegation is probably of no importance.

On balance, the selection of a Cabinet by the chief executive, the Prime Minister, is to be preferred to a selection by a Parliamentary caucus. Parliament is representative, and is elected. A Cabinet is not representative in its functions; it is executive, but answerable —and answerable not to one party but to Parliament and ultimately to the people. On the choice of representatives, however, the Labour Party has another recommendation before it. If the Labour Parliamentarians feel comfortable with their long-standing selection of Cabinets they will ignore any recommendation for change; but the conference may well take seriously the remits suggesting changes in the methods by which Parliamentary candidates are chosen. Many of the proposals put to the conference would oblige members of Parliament who hope to stand again, and people who aspire to contest seats, to keep in close touch with the members of local branches of the party. Individual party members rightly cherish the power they have to influence who stands for Parliament as their party’s candidate. Increasing their power, thereby diminishing the power of the central organs of the party, should do much to sustain the interest of the party’s rank and file in the affairs of the Parliamentary party. People outside the party—people of all political persuasions —who are concerned about the calibre of candidates should welcome selection procedures which are more open and which allow the local party organisations a greater voice. Those who choose candidates are the people who decide the composition of a great part of Parliament In many electorates the choice of a candidate is the choice of a member of Parliament. Because of this alone the central bodies of a party should not have undue influence on the selection of candidates. And to prevent selection by a powerful few the process of local selection should be as representative of local party opinion and judgment as is practicable. The conference next month may see merit in proposals to broaden the selection process.