Why Labour's troubles should act as a warning to all political parties...

If you're a political activist, as most of the people reading this probably are, and not a member of the Labour Party, there is an obvious temptation to look upon the internal strife as Jeremy Corbyn and the Parliamentary Labour Party do battle and order stocks of popcorn. I started political life as a democracy activist rather than a party member though, and it's rather more complex than that, I suspect.

You see, a vibrant democracy requires a range of credible options for the voter, and if Labour do destroy themselves, it removes one significant option for the electorate. Yes, those Labour voters might opt for the Greens, or the Liberal Democrats. Some, many, would vote for an emerging Corbynista 'Socialist Party', others for some new 'Social Democrat' option. But, with 'first past the post', such a fragmentation of the left and centre-left would risk one-Party rule from the right for a generation.

All very interesting, but conjecture nonetheless. What we have learned, should we wish to, is the vulnerability of political parties to an influx of members whose views might not sit comfortably with those of the Parliamentary leadership, or of the voting base of the Party generally. We've also learned that political parties are vulnerable when process is weak or erratically applied.

There is no doubt that Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party was rooted in a breakdown of the relationship between constituency Labour Parties and their MPs, caused in part by that influx of new members last year. Admittedly, the naivety of some Labour MPs nominating a candidate they never supported in order to allow a contest was simply staggering. One must assume that said MPs didn't realise what the membership were minded to do given the chance.

And that membership hasn't fundamentally changed since then. Indeed, if you're young, and rather more idealistic than I am, the idea of a socialist leader of an erstwhile socialist party seems, not unreasonably, attractive. Throw in a £3 fee for the right to take part, and you can see the issue.

Actually, I don't see a problem with offering a reduced rate for new members. In the Liberal Democrats, we've traditionally offered a £1 introductory rate for Liberal Youth. The problem, perhaps, is the inability of the Party to filter out those whose aim is to undermine it, those who have seen the turmoil as an opportunity to subvert the cause that is the traditional Labour Party.

We are relatively lucky in the Liberal Democrats, in that because we rely on an activist-led ground war for campaigning, the link between activists and MPs/candidates has to be a strong one for it to be successful. Troublemakers or rebels can be spotted before they can do serious damage (hopefully). And even with 17,000 new members, I would be surprised if there were much risk of the nature of the Party being fundamentally changed.

100,000 new members is a different matter though. I'm pretty certain that our processes would struggle with that, relying as they do on Local Parties to vet their new members. In the Internet age, you may very well have never met them before they join. And, of course, in cyberspace, nobody can be certain that you are who you claim to be.

So, it might be worth watching what happens to the Labour Party over the coming months. I wouldn't gloat though because, should the worst befall it, there is no certainty that what emerges from the ruins would be comfortable for the rest of us...