Would society benefit if the same requirements for openness and accountability demanded of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) were applied to the Cabinet? Ditto Labour Party membership when it comes to the proceedings of the Party's National Executive Committee and its sub-committees?
This stream of consciousness was prompted by news that according to the minutes of the last MPC, the Governor of the Bank of England wanted to pump more money into the economy through quantitative easing (printing money to you and me) than the majority of the Committee. Thanks to the minutes we know their names and which way each MPC member voted. I have already written in my Tribune expose of the Labour Party NEC that all votes should be recorded by name both at the NEC and its sub-committees. But what about cabinet government itself? Are our politics better for a cabinet appearing to be united when in practice the opposite is often true?
This week's Tribune has as its cover story an article written by me, which I hope will help create space for debate now inside the Labour Party about how we get re-elected.
It is a story arising from my first year as an elected member of the NEC. I have been asking questions. This was first reported by Tribune last week on a tip off from someone that I had allegedly stormed out of the July NEC meeting. I'm enjoying a sense of relief. Tribune's editorial this week
puts my account in context.
I hope every Labour Party member who has experienced abuse of power by the NEC, its officers or Labour Party staff acting under instructions will feel freer to speak out too.
To win the next election we need tens of thousands more activists willing to speak out in support of unmistakable Labour policies.