Labour MPs have voted for a return to shadow cabinet elections. According to some sources, such as Luke Akehurst who wrote a piece about it recently, this is a way of unifying the party and helping MPs who stood down as part of an attempted coup to save face when they return to the shadow cabinet.

However we are opposed to this move on the following grounds:

1. MPs should be mature enough to return to work in the shadow cabinet without a face saving device being put in place. Their number one priority should be, and always should have been, to serve their constituents and provide a strong, effective opposition to the government. If they are too immature to take up a role in the shadow cabinet without shadow cabinet elections, it is questionable whether they are mature enough to hold a senior position.

2. We have it on good authority from trusted MPs present, that in the run up to the coup Jeremy Corbyn was bullied by some of his parliamentary colleagues during a heated PLP meeting. We are very aware that Jeremy would not make anything of this himself, however it would be wrong for Jeremy to be forced to work alongside those who harassed and bullied him into a resignation. It may be the case that he would still consider giving roles to these MPs if he genuinely thought it in the party's and country's best interest, however he should not be forced into it. Being forced is not conducive to creating unity or a harmonious working relationship.

3. If MPs are free to elect each other into senior roles there is a very real risk they will choose to vote in close friends and those with whom they've schemed and plotted in the run up to the coup, rather than MPs who will be most effective in that role. The 171 MPs who voted no confidence in Jeremy also heavily outnumber the 40 MPs who stood up to the plate when their colleagues put a post brexit coup before preparing the party for a possible snap General Election. Therefore it is rational to conclude that the 40 MPs who refused to participate in the coup, many of whom have done excellent work in the shadow cabinet, would be disadvantaged by shadow cabinet elections.

In an ideal world we would trust MPs to put party interests before factional differences, but unfortunately that trust was destroyed when MPs chose to stage a coup when a General Election was a very real possibility.

4. If the Labour party is to have any chance of winning back the trust of the voting public, they need to have trust in its leader. The idea that MPs are only serving in the shadow cabinet because of shadow cabinet elections rather than a willingness to take up a place offered by the leader, is not conducive to rebuilding that trust.

5. If MPs genuinely feel that shadow cabinet elections are a way to unify the party they should be willing to be elected by the membership. Members will not vote in friends and drinking buddies. They will elect MPs they trust to be hard working, determined, effective and trustworthy. Members; many of whom are deeply affected by Tory cuts and policies, are desperate for Labour to be in government again, whereas many Labour MPs staged a coup when a General Election was on the horizon, which they knew full well would make our party unectable in the eyes of the voters.

To summarise: We are strongly opposed to shadow cabinet elections because we see them as detrimental to rebuilding the public's trust in the party and its leader, as well as trust between MPs and the membership. MPs should be willing to take up roles in the Shadow cabinet without a face saving exercise being put in place. We are also concerned the 40 MPs who refused to participate in the coup will be disadvantaged by such elections, and we fear the judgement of MPs will be clouded by friendships, factionalism etc, whereas member's judgement will be based solely on who has proved themselves in the past, and who will provide the most effective opposition to the government.