Campaign launched for open primaries

When you stand for Parliament you have about 20 sponsors - these could recall you. I thought of this prior to the expenses scandal as a solution to MP's changing parties.

Phil, thanks for your comments. What you say about the need to get away from tribalism and ideology is interesting. There seems to be a contradication in what the public thinks about politics. On the one hand I hear 'you're all the same' on the doorstep, so maybe the answer is to be more ideological. On the other hand, when there was arguably more 'clear red water' between Labour and the Tories in the 80s, the public didn't go for it. It was only after Labour started the hard slog back to the political centre that we became electable again.

I think that political boundaries are already blurred to some extent - witness Cameron today on all women shortlists! But that doesn't mean that there aren't strong sets of values which take political parties in different directions. I'm not sure that I agree that the Labour party's ideological certainty at the moment, or to be fair the Tory party's certainty (if they really are certain - it's hardto tell what is PR gloss, and what is genuine Tory thinking), is divorced from mainstream public opinion. The public generally support our direction on most of the major issues, including on the economy. They may be fed up with our mistakes, tired of seeing us in charge and don't like the lack of narrative, but I don't think that's because we're too ideologically certain. If anything, Labour probably needs more clarity about its purpose and ideology.

I think Jessica raises some interesting points. There are clearly issues about the way in which primaries undermine the tribalism and ideological basis of parties. It might be argued that primary systems, over time, lead to blander politics and a blurring of political boundaries. After many years of political activism, however - and quite a few years of rest and contemplation - I've decided that this outcome may be no bad thing. In their ideological certainties, the parties find themselves hopelessly divorced from mainstream public opinion, which tends to be more open-minded and pragmatic. Primaries may not deliver the politics that party activists want. But I have a hunch they deliver the politics that appeals to the non-activist majority.

Me too, though it took some persuading from Alex and Jessica....

@RichardBlogger

Some good ideas there. And for that reason, I'll doubt they'll ever be implemented by any of the "two" main parties.

Mark, Well Brown has said that he is in favour of a recall system. I am not clever enough to think of a way to make it work (it could be a source of mischief). He's also made noises about second earnings. Cameron, however, wants primaries and he wants to reduce representation by cutting the number of MPs. I value our democracy and I want to see our MPs to represent their constituents. It is clear to me who out of the two I mentioned supports democracy and who sees reform as a political gesture.

Won't be signing this. I support open primaries but I think it's just unrealistic to have every candidate re-selected before the next general election through an open primary.


Do they have any idea how long it would take for the Labour party to get applications and then vet them for over 600 seats. I'd say even if Gordon Brown decided this was a good idea they'd struggle to select the candidates before the next general election.

@Jack Storry

Isn't the whole point that the electorate "vets" the candidates?

Why would the party need to vet them? Surely party members aren't going to vote for someone who's clearly not supportive of the party's ideals.

@ Mark Smith

The party would need to vet them because anybody can join the Labour party, that doesn't mean the person is fit to be representative of the Labour party in parliament.

Secondly, in an open primary it's not party members that vote for the candidate it's the electorate in general.

Thirdly, safe seats are known to get upward of 30 applicants. If you don't vet or shortlist then even if candidates are restricted to only 10 minutes speaking you are still looking at the primary taking over five hours. When you consider at the Conservative primary in Bracknell each candidate had 30 minutes each for speech and Q&A you can see how long a proceeding would take if you did not vet.

Open primaries are not a good idea. Here in Bedford the Conservatives insisted on having one to choose their mayoral candidate. It was a disaster for them and ultimately lost them the Mayoral election. Tory members were annoyed that they didn't have the chance to choose the candidate since they were members of the party. The man who won the primary invited all of his friends along to vote for him (yes that's democracy for you) Opposition parties turned out to vote for who they thought was the weakest candidate and it all ended with the Tory local chairperson having an email leaked moaning about the process.

I have to wonder what the point of being in a party is if as party members you don't get to choose their local candidate. In the end it will harm Labour Party membership, it will cause arguments and as it did for the Tories in Bedford, will lose votes (sadly it resulted in the Lib Dems winning the Mayoral election, not Labour).

Jack, your comments are interesting, especially as it seems that everything that could go wrong in Bedford did go wrong. If this happens in one of the first primaries then there should be warning lights flashing somewhere and orders made to change things asap. That this is not happening makes the cynic in me think that primaries are not being brought in for altruistic reasons, rather, they are being used by the Tories to gain publicity and a step in their "modernisation" policy. My guess is that primaries will be quietly dropped by the Tories after the next election. If Labour adopt them and retain them for the next parliament they will be seen as being out of date by the next election.

I have to wonder what the point of being in a party is if as party members you don't get to choose their local candidate

There is the elephant in the room: plummeting party membership. This was an issue before the MP expenses scandal, and the parties know that after MP expenses the trend will continue at a greater rate. Something has to be done. Some trendy thinker has decided that primaries are the solution, but as you point out, they will have little effect on party membership.

In fact I think that some smart thinker in the Conservatives (Steve Hilton comes to mind) saw how primaries would fit in with their political agenda and still deliver them the A-List candidates that they want. Totnes was the "loss leader" in that it delivered a non-party member, and so they can always hold up Totnes as their "proof" that primaries are a good thing. The rest will be different, the last thing Cameron wants is some independent thinkers on his benches, so you'll find that the choices in most other primaries will be A-List members, cloned Cameroons.

Once the Tories started spreading the word, other thinkers latched on to the idea, ignoring the problems that primaries create. These second-level thinkers got the wrong message from the Obama campaign: the US have primaries, Obama was chosen using the primary system, therefore if we had primaries we would have candidates like Obama. It is skewed logic. In fact the reason for Obama's candidature and then election were solidly based on Howard Dean's 50-state strategy. Note: 50 state. The point being to target all states not just the swing states. Transpose this to the UK, that means targeting all 650 constituencies not just the hundred or so marginals. It was a bold plan, and it brought politics back to the people. Democrats in red (Republican) states campaigned for Obama, and more importantly fund raised. This is grassroots support and it is lacking in our system and has been lacking for many years.

I want to see some enthusiasm from the political parties, I want them to engage with the public, get the public to think that politics is about them and for them. (For example, Jack Straw is now making public speeches and taking Q&A in his constituency - that is the engagement that we need.) I see primaries as a lacklustre tip of the hat in that direction and as I mention above, I think they will be short-lived.

Progress has been running a campaign for British primaries for a number of months now and it was good to see Gordon Brown say that they should be looked into at the Speakers Conference today. But we certainly do not agree with open primaries. Mainly because we have a multi-party system in this country without a president and political parties are expected to stick to their manifestos. I don't want someone standing as my candidate if they aren't Labour. That's why Progress is in favour of keeping the shortlisting stage of primaries within political parties, so that members still get to vet who goes to the final vote in their name. We are also in favour of registering party supporters and only allowing them a vote in the primary. If you have an open primary, no end of gaming can take place with Tory supporters voting for the Labour candidate they think will perform the worst etc. The benefits of registering supporters is that it actually helps to involve citizens in a party political act without asking them to become a member. It is also useful from a practical level, since it will help political parties to identify their support.

I also think this organisation looks a bit suspect. Why don't any of the endorsers give their organisations? All of them seem to be from PR agencies. Anna Burles is a Creative Director. Charlie Cannell appears to be director of digital services at AMV BBDO. Rob Doubal also appears to be in advertising. David Yelland of course was the Editor of the Sun and is now a partner of Brunswick - a PR firm.

Not exactly 'grassroots'...

Hi Jessica

It's great to see debate opening up on this issue.

First, on the "a bit suspect" issue. It's true that a lot of the people listed in the About Us page work in PR and the Creative Industries, but their organisations are not listed because they're not supporting this campaign on behalf of their organisations (organisations generally get a bit funny about endorsing things, anyway...). But if you Google me, you should see that I don't work for a PR organisation, and I never have. My background is in grassroots campaigning and digital rights, and I used to run the Open Rights Group. As any campaigner knows, one of the hardest things to do when campaigning on issus that seem niche to the majority of the population is capturing their imaginations, so I've really enjoyed being able to call on creative minds like John Lloyd (who's worked on Spitting Image, Blackadder and Not the Nine O' Clock News) and Peter Bennett-Jones (who is head of Tiger Aspect, and who is chairman of Comic Relief).

Now we've launched, we want the campaign to become a platform for everybody's views (I guess that's where the Move On comparisons come from).

As to why we're campaigning for open primaries, and not simply primaries featuring candidates from political parties, I think you're right to highlight the work done by Progress in this area. I'd like to talk more about these issues, and about the benefits of each proposal. From inside the party political system, as you are, I can see why closed primaries look good. But from outside, as I am, and as the majority of the British public are, open primaries look like the better option. Otherwise, how do ordinary people feed their views into the party manifestos that go on to shape national policy? Or do we just get fobbed off with the muliple choice option?

Let's continue the debate.

Hi Becky. I feel that you are swimming against the historical and pragmatic tide by downgrading the central role that political parties play in our political system (as indeed they do in the US- I am sure I could recommend a book to you that describes the very political Chicago origins of Barack Obama......)

The problem that your campaign will face is that to achieve any change you will have to get either the Tories or Labour on your side so maybe the best strategy is to work with them?

I was intrigued by the following statement:

"But from outside, as I am, and as the majority of the British public are, open primaries look like the better option. Otherwise, how do ordinary people feed their views into the party manifestos that go on to shape national policy? Or do we just get fobbed off with the muliple choice option?"

I have found that many people I have spoken to up and down the country do want more involvement in the political system. I am just interested about your assertion that the 'majority' favour open primaries: I'd love like to see the evidence of that- I genuinely hope that it's the case.

Cards on the table, I am in favour of primaries involving supporters of the Labour party but I am not against open primaries- just think that would require the Electoral Commission or Retuning Officers to run them (it becomes costly and raises major practical issues that party primaries do not, e.g. all the primaries must be on the same day as they mostly are in the US.)

If you want to circumvent political parties, there is a way.....stand as an independent.

Hi Anthony

When you say that the political parties play a major role in the political system, you are not wrong. What I'm asserting (and on this forum I know it comes close to trolling, but that's not my intention, I promise!) is that political parties don't play a similarly major role in people's lives. They no longer reflect the way the majority of people feel about the issues of the day.

The evidence I would quote in support of that assertion is declining party membership. When I wrote "From the outside, as I am and as the majority of the British public are" I only meant to assert that the majority of the British public are not members of any particaulr political party (oh the perils of the floating qualifier). It remains to be seen whether the majority of the British public back open primaries. I hope so, because as you say, without huge pressure from the public, the parties are unlikely to change the system on their own.

Thank you for your response Becky. I think you will find a number of people on here who are campaigning and making change with the party. My argument for change is sprinkled around. This piece probably articulates most clearly my own arguments for change though many others are also involved in this discussion. Check out Next Left, Progress, Compass and Left Foot Forward who are all also pro-reform.

I look forward to seeing where this all leads.

Anthony, as ever you make me think! I guess I wouldn't die in a ditch about the need to register supporters to vote in a primary, as long as they were all held on the same day. But I like the idea that people who make a positive commitment to a party get to vote, rather than people who are motivated to make trouble. I'd like us to be able to make the argument that supporting a political party isn't grubby, that it's part of being a healthy democracy and giving only supporters a right to vote in primaries may make that more obvious.

Jessica, It's absolutely up for discussion and I'm very relaxed about it. It's like other aspects of the reformist agenda, e.g. electoral reform- the worst possible thing is to get bogged down in 'which reform' rather than 'whether reform.'

On Section 28 Becky- nobody would question the tireless commitment of Stonewall and many others to reversing that outrageous legislation. But a law did have to be passed to eradicate it.....in a parliamentary democracy, it is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve change without convincing a political party to legislate for change and that is a challenge that your campaign will face- I do wish you the very best of luck. And please give all the support you can to people like Jessica and others who are working within party structures to secure change.....

Anthony - your words are wise, thank you. As reformers, we should always remember to unite around the goals we share, while learning from the aspects of an issue where we differ.

Hi Becky, glad that you're on board and good to see that you've got some celebrity help. I'm pleased too that you've started the debate about primaries at a truly public level so that citizens can be involved, rather than just party members. I can fully understand why open primaries look like the better option from the outside in, but I can't really see how they would allow ordinary people to feed their views into party manifestos. All political parties should throw open their manifestos to the public, as indeed Labour has already done: http://www.labourspace.com/thechoice

But at the end of the day, it should be up to the party to decide what their policies are, otherwise how will you be able to match the values of the party to the policies? There's a reason why Labour is anti-racist, pro gender equality, anti-homophobic, pro public services. Because the people who chose to become members believe in the values of equality, social justice and tolerance. Of course you can have members of other parties who also believe these things, but only in the Labour Party do you bring together a group of people who are generally united around a set of values and a certain policy direction. Of course we disagree as to the methods of best achieving certain outcomes, but politics is not as simple as taking the heartbeat of the nation and implementing it. While the reaction to Jan Moir showed that there is strong reactions against homophobia in the public, we know that we aren't there yet while there are still homophobia related murders, beatings and bullying. Political parties exist to continually lobby for change in relation to the values they defend. Without Labour making the case for gay rights, the public would have been unlikely on its own to abolish section 28. And without party members lobbying within the party to adopt that stance, we wouldn't have put it in our manifesto in the first place.

That is why I believe Labour party members should have a say over the shortlist of candidates. I would find it very difficult to campaign for someone who stood in the Labour party's name who did not genuinely support Labour's values. Similarly, I think that voters should register their support for a political party, because I think it would be bad for democracy if voters from other political parties ended up gaming the selections of their opponents. This could be ameliorated to some extent by holding all the primaries on the same day, but I believe we should be encouraging people to engage in political parties, not replace them.

Finally, I thought the tone of your campaign video was incredibly negative. Yes, the expenses crisis is a shocking scandal. Yes, our political institutions need radical reform. But if we continue to encourage this anti-politics, I think we could end up seriously undermining our democracy. Primaries should be about positive involvement of citizens not simply kicking the bastards out.

Jessica, thanks for responding to my post in such detail, it's much appreciated. As you say, with me outside the party system looking in, and with you inside the party system looking out, it's unlikely we'll agree on everything.

You're right to point out the open manifesto initiative Labour have started. But I have to speak up for campaigners such as Stonewall - surely they had as much to do with the abolition of Section 28 as the party political system?

I also want to point out that I'm not advocating replacing political parties. As the Power Inquiry made clear, opening up the system a little would give us the chance to draw the lines of debate in a way that suited the views of the British people much better than the outmoded Tory/Labour axis of the industrial society, without having to resort to the dreaded numbers game of triangulation. It's possible that this could reverse the trend in declining party membership, as I understand it has in Greece with the Pasok party.

I do think your idea, of asking constituents to vote choose to in one party's primaries only, is a good idea.

On Friday, Professor Vernon Bogdanor will be blogging in response to the issues that the Open Up campaign has raised around the web. It would be great if you wanted to leave your favourite challenges to the idea of open primaries in the comments of this blog post - http://tinyurl.com/yzs7tod - so I can make sure he takes them on.

As for the negative tone of the campaign, that's unexpected feedback, and we'll take it on board. Having observed local and regional elections, I know the passion that exists at the grassroots, and I don't want to dampen it. Here's something a bit more light-hearted, which I don't think can fail to make you smile: http://tinyurl.com/yzvj7ko

Jessica

Is what your are describing not more of a caucus, than a primary (sorry to be pedantic). I have to agree that it needs to be more of ‘closed’ system, but not one where it is just members who take part. If a voter who is not a party member, had to register to take part however, I think this would be fine.

Ideally, an independent body (electoral commission for example) could do this and then send the list of registered members to the party on the day of the vote, to supplement the parties membership list. I also feel a person should also only be able to take part in one parties selection procedure to stop what your described about people meddling to create a phony result.

I also feel very strongly (as a labour party member) that the local party membership should have the final say on who goes to the final vote (though a minimum would have to be set), but I think it would also be important to remove the current step of the local CLP Executive having a final vote as this is very suspect. This would ensure that the person does have local support within the party and would prevent a situation of activists getting angry at not having a voice (what is the point of being a member some may ask, if you don’t say any more of a say than your average voter on who your candidate is?)

Hi Alex, our system would have two stages - the shortlising stage at which only party members would have a vote (and I guess you could still include affialites - in fact I would give all union members whose unions are afilliated to the Labour party a vote too). This shortlist would then go to a primary where only Labour registered supporters could take a Labour Party ballot paper. The most democratic way of doing it would be to hold all political primaries on the same day with the state supporting the costs of holding the election. Otherwise political parties can make political capital out of it by spending loads of money like they did in Totnes.

We feel that this system best suits the UK. I am not convinced that a full open primary system would work with the party political structure we have in our democracy. If were more like the US with only two parties, personality politics and a president, I might be happier with open primaries. But at the moment I like our system best!

Agreed. Good work on the organisational research Jessica.

Looks like a handy way around a fair electoral system...

Interesting that there are no comments on that site - so I guess the public are showing their apathy to the ide. However, I have left one comment, reproduced here:

I agree that something should be done to open up politics, but open primaries are not the way to do it. Open primaries are just a smokescreen to obscure the real problems in politics and make it look like something is being done, when really nothing changes.

A much better reform would be to make MPs truly representative of their constituents.

- Get rid of second earnings.
- Apply disciplinary action for poor attendance of debates and voting.
- Get rid of "pairing" where opposing MPs agree that if one does not vote the other will not either.
- Any criminal conviction should lead to an immediate by-election, and any financial impropriety should be referred immediately to the police with the possibility of a criminal conviction.
- Bring in recall rules, so that an MP is always aware that their job is on the line
- Make candidates local, they have to have lived in the constituency for at least one parliament, and any pressure from central party organisations on the short list should be outlawed.

Open primaries do nothing for the problem of safe seats because the central parties will still be able to get their A list candidates on the short list. It is acceptable that an area may have a strong affinity with a particular political view, so safe seats will always occur. What needs to change is the MPs in safe seats not representing their constituents and I think the points above will do far more than the gimmick that is open primaries.

Hi Richard

So sorry your post got pre-moderated, that was not meant to
happen! I got in touch with the technical team as soon as I noticed,
and they're looking into it for me.

We need voting reform before selection reform and a fully elected second chamber with no more than around 100 members, elected in the “off” years between parliaments. Limit both houses of parliament to a fixed 4 year term.

Primaries are all very well (and somewhat glad to see the tories selected their most “local” option in Bracknell, rather than the more well known carpet baggers), but it will make no real difference to parliament if only 20% of seats ever have a chance of changing hands.

Multi-member constituencies, maximum of 4 seats in city areas, going down to 2, or even 1 in very rural areas (North west Scotland for example).

The biggest story of the day is the deficit. Reference Times:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6882137.ece
"Public borrowing more than doubled in the first half of this year to a record high of £77.3 billion, renewing fears that the Government will be forced to raise its borrowing forecast towards £200 billion."

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6882137.ece

May I suggest a rethink on the pathetic regime that is supported by this forum and the catastrophic impact this will have on the working classes.

The Parliamentry Labour Party - failing the whole of the UK.

That's a bit unfair, John.

They may be clueless, but the alternatives are even worse. They all - Labour, Tories and Liberals - have the same assumptions in terms of political economy, and simply do not understand that Humpty is broken, and will not be put back together again.

Hi Labourlist

I Like the idea of primares and well done to the torys for using one ( credit where credit is due) , You say like move-on ? If i remeber move-on was bank-rolled by Mr Soaros is there someone doing that for this campain? Is this like move-on a left-wing campain ? or is it a non partsian reform campain?

sorry for so many questions

ricki