I've said it before and will say it again, the fact that my member vote is worth a pifling one six hundredth of an MPs is a telling sign of the contempt in which the PLP holds its members.

"supporters do enjoy some other benefits like attending ward meetings"

No they don't. Members only.

The Labour Party, just like the Conservative Party and Lib Dems is dead.

The people do not support them, they vote for them because they need to vote for someone who isn't an extremist, or fruit cake.

We need a proper Libertarian Party in this country. One that stands for something. Personal and economic freedom. Not right wing, not left wing. By the people for the people.

Labour just stands for big government and self-loathing by proxy.

The Tories just stand for big government by proxy and entitlement.

The Lib Dems are not relevant and stand for nothing of value.

Although Ed appears to have stopped short, 'he is in favour of OMOV'. We know because it said so in the NS a month ago.
Some Wards invite non member supporters along to 'non business meetings' as a way to encourage them to become active members; on the other hand it might put them off judging by some ward meetings I've attended.
Members should have more access to their MPs and Cllrs more frequently thereby holding them to account for having selected them to represent them in the first place. Some Labour MPs and Cllrs are not that visable at Party meetings or ward meetings, or campaign events. Of course when it comes to casework every constituent is in the same boat and treated equally.

Why on earth would Labour not implement OMOV? Its because of corruption that in 2012 most people consider unacceptable.

Ed "theoretically the leader" Miliband has gone up a lot in my estimation for trying to mend Labour.

The current voting system explains why the party is so disfunctional and gets abused so easily whilst being unable to control its own excesses e.g. Gordon (Balls is next).

Because the MP's effectively decide the leader it promotes the party to split into 2 or more camps. In return for their support, MP's get treated to favors like future roles in the government, easy seats and networking opportunities. At the moment MPs are looking at which Ed they should fall behind.

Notice the current system stops Labour MPs thinking for themself and forces then to quietly do what they are told rather than sticking up for their constiutencies which elected them. How is that good for democracy?

Labour is a big News International : there is no deomcratic process in the party -- the current procedures are a sham -- to remove corrupt bad leaders or ensure good leaders get a chance. It means
- bad leaders are unaccountable. They know they can manipulate the system to propel themselves into power. They spend there time focusing on power rather than focusing on the national interest
- good leaders bully, cajole, back scratch and back stab but do not "lead" because they have to manage the corrupting individuals who have a disproportionate influence over them.

A clue is that it is the leader is of the "Labour Party" -- it should be the members of the party who choose the leader.

Why do union bosses disproportionately influence choosing the Labour leader? What has that got to do with forming a he government that controls 65 million non-union members in the country? Its because they fund the party.

Away with this union-bashing, and with all talk of mumsnet. But it is amazing how long-lived is the fantasy that the "major" political parties are still mass membership organisations, and are also still largely financed by small-scale local fundraising. In reality, they are kept going by gigantic subventions from the State and the supper-rich, and most of their tiny remaining memberships is made up of the starstruck elderly who will swoon over Liam Byrne's coffee waiter or Jeremy Hunt's typist.

If there is any local involvement at all in candidate selection, that is. Very often, there is none. In David Miliband's constituency, there is no longer even any local involvement in the selection of candidates for the local authority; his London office does the lot.

So, by no means only in order to annoy the potential beneficiaries of this sorry state of affairs, although there is certainly that: in the course of each Parliament, each party should submit to a binding ballot of the whole constituency electorate its locally, internally determined shortlist of two for Prospective Parliamentary Candidate, just as each should submit to a binding ballot of the whole constituency electorate its internally determined shortlist of two for Leader.

Many a stalwart of the Council or of other aspects of the local Big Society (trade unions, co-operatives, and so on) would then beat many a Westminster Village boy or his girlfriend. And our Parliament would be infinitely better for those victories.

As to policy-making, each party should also hold such a national ballot the 10 policies proposed by the most of its branches, including affiliated branches where applicable, with each voter entitled to vote for up to two, and with the top seven guaranteed inclusion in the subsequent General Election manifesto.

If one party made these changes, then they would all have to. By all means, let Labour take the lead. But will it? Dare it? Ed Miliband, over to you.