I was too optimistic by half.

After the recent success in the Oldham by-election, I had naively hoped that Labour may be forced into a stalemate. Jeremy Corbyn’s position had been strengthened, and the MPs weren’t going anywhere either, so surely they’d have to just find a way to all work together?

This afternoon, The Independent reports that Jeremy Corbyn wants to overhaul the National Policy Forum, and replace it with something that will give more control of policy to members. Make no mistake, this is a shot across the bows in the ongoing Labour civil war.

A bit of background. The National Policy Forum is composed of nearly two hundred people representing the many strands of the party, and all members are elected on two year terms. It produces reports on different areas of policy which are voted on at the annual conference.

So, first of all, individual party members get to vote on the make-up of the Forum, and later the membership gets to vote on the motions put forward at conference. It’s not as if party members don’t have a say as things stand.

It’s not clear as yet what Jeremy Corbyn intends, but the direction of travel will undoubtedly be towards greater participation by members; Corbyn carried out a fairly dubious online survey ahead of the parliamentary vote on whether to carry out air strikes on Syria, and is said to favour this approach.

I’m a Labour member. Strictly speaking, I should be in favour of this, as it would theoretically give me more say. Yet I think it is a very bad idea.

It’s a tough one to argue against — who can be opposed to a more democratic move such as this? There are three reasons to resist; power dynamics, expertise, and coherence.

In terms of power, it is clear why Jeremy Corbyn wants to go down this road. It is not really about democracy, but about attaining control and enforcing his will. Currently, the parliamentary party form an obstacle to him, as does the National Policy Forum, which is well-balanced and reflects all strands of the party. Undoubtedly if a move was made towards letting members vote on policy, Jeremy Corbyn would be able to use the largely-supportive membership to ride roughshod over any internal opposition. Rather than allowing for debate within the party, such a shift would trample dissent into the dirt.

What would be the point of MPs, in such a scenario? Would members of parliament be elected purely to meekly wave through whatever the majority of the membership decided? The National Policy Forum has, by all accounts, been very beneficial in allowing all parts of the party to have their input, and it would be an undemocratic step to move away from that. And this is without even considering the significant risk that various leftist groups would infiltrate Labour to force policy in their unelectable direction.

As for expertise; there is a reason why we have elected representatives. It is always difficult to argue against the democratisation of opinion, but there are reasons to be wary.

In the last parliament, George Osborne significantly relaxed the rules around pensions, meaning that certain pension holders would no longer be forced to buy an annuity. He appealed to the democratic principle here; people should be free to do whatever they want with their money. A Liberal Democrat MP even saw nothing wrong with pensioners using their retirement fund to buy a Lamborghini. I am an actuary, and one thing we understand is that people can sometimes make very bad decisions because they are simply unaware of potential risks and costs of certain actions. In this instance, it is very likely that the pension holders don’t hold the relevant expertise to know what to do with their money, and should seek appropriate financial advice. This boon to democracy could well lead to people becoming impoverished in old age.

As another example, at the high point of the MMR scare, full confidence in the vaccine fell below 50%, after the Lancet paper and the media whipped up a storm.

The point is this: most Labour members just will not have detailed knowledge of the particular policy they are voting on. However, our elected representatives have worked in politics for years, are familiar with the issues and the arguments, and will be capable of advocating an appropriate Labour solution.

Would I rather be operated on by a qualified doctor with many years’ experience, or someone who has read about the operation a bit on Google and is very passionate about it? It’s important to be aware about the limits of one’s knowledge, and I’m happy to put my hand up and say I don’t think I know as much about governmental policy as any Labour MP.

Democracy is fantastic when the participants are properly informed and able to reach reasonable positions. Asking the membership for its opinions won’t fall into that category; many members won’t have the time or the will to fully research what they are voting on.

Finally, coherence. How will this mass canvass of members even work? For a start, it’s open to abuse, as the Syria “e-referendum” was; in that case, an open-ended question was asked, a small sample was picked, and from that it was concluded that 75% opposed intervention. Lord Lipsey very succinctly noted the nonsense behind this.

But apart from that, and the potentially crippling administration costs of running such a scheme, how can this even form a coherent basis for government?

An advantage of the National Policy Forum is that a whole manifesto can be constructed, with considerations of how different policies impact one another, whether the total costing is reasonable, whether the set of policies forms a decent programme for government overall, and so on.

If Corbyn goes down the path of asking for input from members, it will be in the form of replies to single-issue questions; potentially this would mean a manifesto whereby Labour commits to a policy suite that is completely unaffordable:

Drop student fees? Yes

Increase tax credits? Yes

More money for hospitals? Yes

More money for schools? Yep…

And so on. How can we know if members’ suggestions, taken as a whole, will be affordable, or even make any kind of sense? Will such a manifesto appeal to anyone outside the Corbynite circle? Surely this will please core voters but alienate everyone else?

I hope I’m wrong, and that what Jeremy Corbyn intends is altogether more inclusive and sensible. But, to put it mildly, I have my doubts. The best thing to do would be for Jeremy Corbyn to retain the National Policy Forum, and make the case for his politics there.

As a final warning on all of this, it’s worth noting that Labour has flirted with increased membership influence over policy in the past. In fact, there was one manifesto in which resolutions were agreed at party conferences. It was the manifesto for the 1983 general election, also known as “the longest suicide note in history”.

It didn't work out that well.