By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982
UPDATE: The full version of David Miliband's article is now available to read here.
UPDATE: Surprise, surprise, it's the Spectator's Coffee House blog that calls the first leadership play, saying: "it's difficult to see this as anything but another foray into the leadership game - about a year on from his last attempt to set out a "vision" for the Labour party." (See my final paragraph).
In an article for this week's Tribune magazine, David Miliband has urged Labour to adopt open primaries, saying:
"the traditional political structures of mainstream political parties are dying and our biggest concern is the gap between our membership and our potential voter base. We need to expand our reach by building social alliances and increasing opportunity for engagement and interaction with our party."
Miliband concludes that open primaries, such as the one held by the Tories in Totnes this week, are the best way to achieve this:
"We say we want to listen to our voters, why not a system of registered voters as in the US to create the basis for primaries?"
The article echoes and builds on Miliband's support of opening up the Labour party, first outlined last month in the John Smith memorial lecture.
But on Radio 4 this morning, chair of Compass Neal Lawson said primaries would further "water down" the role of party members and be the "death knell of the party":
"The revival of the Labour Party and the revival of British democracy will come from political parties that believe and have a vision of the good society and compete over that in fair and open democratic elections. That's what we want to see."
Others, including Will Straw, have long argued that open primaries are the Change We Need to revitalise the Labour party.
The Open Primary system in the US cannot be explained away as a monolith. Yes, voters are registered either as Democrat, Republican or Independent, but not all party primaries are "open". Indeed, in most, only those registered as either Democrat or Republican can vote in the primaries and caucuses of their respective parties. So there is more thinking to be done on this.
But I hope this will not be the opening bar of another chorus of "Miliband in new leadersgip bid". Miliband is tackling the same questions we are all thinking about - about the future of the party and how to address dwindling membership and reduced interest in politics within contemporary culture. It's an important debate, and one that all cabinet ministers and grassroots members should take up with equal seriousness.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Others, including Will Straw, have long argued that open primaries are the Change We Need to revitalise the Labour party.
What Milliband is describing is a semi-closed primary where registered voters (and party members) get to vote. What Straw is suggesting is an open primary where anyone (including non-aligned and opposition supporters) can vote.
The two are very different, but clearly you didn't spot the difference.
FWIW an open primary is a slap in the face for party members (and particularly, activists) because it is saying "you will have to campaign for someone you have no choice about". I cannot see that in the long term that will be beneficial to any political party. At the moment, the talk about open primaries is all about the novelty value ("look, we are more important because we are doing things differently").
A primary with registered voters (semi-closed primary) is not so bad because at least the people choosing the candidate have registered publicly that they want a Labour candidate. But it would make activists question why the non-party member registered voters don't simply join the party: what does party membership give them?
I do not see why all these people think that the current system is so bad. If they complain about how few CLP members there are, then they should get off their arses and recruit some new members. Or alternatively, change their policies to stop existing members leaving.
Like you I'm a big fan of open primaries; like Milliband's wife I already get to vote in them on a regular basis!, The fact that the conservatives in Totnes made such a success of a Britsh primary should be a great encouragement. So I agree with David Milliband (and Frank Field, David Lammy, Dan Hannan & Douglas Carswell). Interesting that there's quite a few anti-primary comments from party activists, just as at ConHome. I think they're wrong, but it's up to pro-primary politicians from all parties to allay their concerns and strive to give powers back to local parties.
Firstly, choosing candidates is one of the few pieces of power still left to ordinary party members that means something. It's also the implicit bargain struck by the party: you choose the candidate, but in exchange you come out and campaign for them (stuffing envelopes, delivering leaflets, knocking on doors) and you hand over your membership fees. Take away the choosing of the candidate, and why should the ordinary party member pay any membership fee and why should they be ordered around to campaign? Those who say that primaries are the death knell of political parties are right. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but you need to go in with your eyes wide open.
For a start with candidates (and hence MPs) chosen by open primaries, why should they allow the conference of a dwindling (and ultimately dead) membership party try and dictate policy (even nominally)? Moreover, who gets to pick the party leader? Can that be left to the ever-decreasing membership - or is it better done as a national primary, or better left to the PLP (who all went through the primary process)? Emulating the Americans would suggest that it ought to be the PLP (as Congressmen choose the Speaker for example)) unless you decide to make the Prime Ministership directly elected and hive off the executive from Parliament.
There is a real question about whether to have closed or open primaries (ie would you restrict it to just Labour registered voters, or open it to everyone). Even under the US open primaries you can't vote in the Democrat primary if you voted in the Republican one, so that usually eliminates the risk of cross-party infiltration. But, independent voters can be problematic as Connecticut Democrats found out when independent voters nearly got Joe Lieberman through the primary against Ned Lamont (although ultimately Lieberman won the Senate race as an independent).
There is a further logical consequence of primaries - the breakdown of party unity. MPs will be far more conscientious of appealing to their home voters than being loyal to the party - they will owe the party far far less and there is far far less the party can do to help them. That may be good democracy but the flipside is that it will be increasingly difficult to hold together a Commons majority on all issues. Coalitions are likely to be far more fluid (as they are in the US Congress - indeed the 'hard lines' between the parties are arguably only sustained thanks to gerrymandering of Congressional districts making everyone 'safe'). In such circumstances it becomes difficult to sustain a political system that demands the government retains the confidence of the Commons. Therein lies the real constitutional revolution.
Mr. Ghost - you have just made the perfect case AGAINST PR. In other words, with primaries coalitions will form on principles and based on allegiance to MP's constituents, and not top-down stitch ups behind closed doors between party leaders with control over lists.
Accountability to those that matter; the people. Not blind loyalty to a figurehead.
FPTP with open primaries. Bring it on!
Party membership would be higher had we been given a choice on the leadership ...
Whenever I see the name Miliband I think of the Restaurant at the End of the Universe!
Your association of a dwindling interest in politics with contemporary culture is 100% wrong. The good old US and A is an example of why that is just so incorrect. Mr Obama has shown us that politics can be re ignited whith the right vision, charisma and being able to communicate with the electorate. The dwindling interest in politics is a reflection on what voters think of the government and probably Labour.
Amazing - as out of touch with reality as his Boss.
He must be talking about MPs or something - most of the Mr and Mrs average have been reduced to virtual serfdom.
. By scrapping party membership fees and allowing members to set their own subscription level
Yes remember that he let *people* *choose* he didn't rape the taxpayer.
What a dipstick Milliband is - if its all so clear and simple what have labour been doing for the past dozen years?
Aren't we about due for another 'gordon is listening, and ready to change' speech to slap milliband down? or will it be mandelson playing cuckoo this time?
We've been down this road before. Remember that stupid "vote by text message" gimmick?
It isn't the number of voters that counts, it is the quality of the voting opinion expressed that matters. It is failure to understand this simple principle that leads to "proportional" representation and compulsory voting. Both ideas are mad as a pound full of dogs.
People want to get involved in politics, but the current setup doesn't really allow for it unless you actually join a party. Some form of open primary system would definitely help to solve that.
They can't get enough support for members to finance them - so this looks like a ploy to get the taxpayer to pay for them.
Once membership is a thing of the past, parties can start telling lies about the amount of support they have - and we won't have their membership figures to prove them wrong.
This is the thin end of the wedge for state funding of parties - until the parties give a legally binding undertaking that they won't take more taxpayer money this should be stopped in its tracks.
The cost of primaries is prohibitively expensive.
*How are they going to use this to make the taxpayer shore them up*
* Party only primaries where local activists choose 2 candidates for full constituency primary.
* National party leadership then nominates 1 or 2 candidates for full constituency primary.
* Both sets of candidates then go through a full constituency primary to determine Labour PPC.
If Lord Mandelson is serious about getting back into the Commons and wants to demonstrate he understands this 'new politics', I suggest he'd be wise to give this a go in Hilary Armstrong's seat.
Not sure how you get round the issue of opposition parties trying to sabotage the result mind you, which I'm sure they would try to do with PM.
Joe Lieberman 2006. Was deselected in the Democrat Senate primary; it wasn't really sabotage as it was a closed primary, but a lot of activists from out of state came in and campaigned against him.
So he ran in the full election as an independent, and guess what he won!
More like Ken Livingstone in 2000 but it shows that unfair treatment of serious politicians doesn't cut it with the public.
So all told, the opposition parties in Totnes make up 300 people. Even if somehow they could be expected to come together and try and 'sabotage' the result by choosing a different candidate in a well-orchestrated bloc-vote... what difference would their vote make? Not a huge amount. Why? Because it was an OPEN primary, and the entire public were voting, so they would be up against the common sense of 16,000 other voters.
The reason open Primaries works is the same reason that Wikipedia works. It's the same reason that Barack Obama's open social networking site didn't embarrass him, and it's also the same reason a Labour Government was elected to three terms: the wisdom of the many will always prevail over the stupidity of the few.
Incidentally, if you want to design a system that is open to sabotage, where just a small number of people can influence votes in radical and unacceptable ways, where the views of one of two people can dominate an entire agenda... then you need look no further than our current system, where one voice has disproportionate influence over a small CLP.
To use the single example within the UK of an opposition primary in Totnes is nowhere near enough evidence to suggest that a Labour primary wouldn't be open to spoiling tactics by other parties.
There is plenty of evidence from both the Euro elections and Norwich to show that it is hard enough to motivate Labour voters to come out on election day at the moment, let alone for a primary. Given this it would be easier for the opposition to try and sway the result in their favour.
I never said it was a certainty that they would, just a possibility to be considered. Did you even read my suggestion for how Labour primaries could work so that local parties didn't feel excluded from the process.
Oh and as for this -
it's also the same reason a Labour Government was elected to three terms: the wisdom of the many will always prevail over the stupidity of the few.
I must have missed the election where Labour commanded a majority of the popular vote, let alone the electorate. In 1997, 2001 and 2005, "the many" lost out to "the few" on each occasion.
Don't you think that if Labour had implemented this first, last month's vote in Norwich could have been an open primary, including (and with the voters deciding on) Ian Gibson? If he'd won, Labour would have won, no need to deselect, the voters had confidence. If he lost, you'd have had a new canidate with a mandate and a high profile.
How securing 1 in 5 of the electorate counts as the many triumphing over the few is beyond me.
(IE, a small number of activists making a decision can be easily infiltrated by radicals. Whereas a broad general electorate cannot really be 'infiltrated'.)
You're position is that a Labour primary is in no danger from potential sabotage as – and I'm quoting here – 'the wisdom of the many will always prevail over the stupidity of the few'.
My position is that Labour, as the party of government for the last 12 years, faces a far less benign environment in which to hold primary's than the Tories or the Lib Dems do.
I'll repeat my previous assertion which you either didn't read or have ignored. Labour voters aren't even coming out to vote in elections and as such there is a danger that they won't turn out for primaries. If this happened, there is the possibility that the result could be negatively influenced by opposition parties. Not a certainty, just a possibility.
As it stands, all this is just hypothesis and it needs to be put to the test to see which of us is right. Given the openness to new thinking at the head of the present Labour administration, we might be waiting a while.
What doesn't need to be put to the test however, is the utter (and I use this word with all due respect and thought) stupidity of that phrase of yours, which although I've already quoted is worth another look -
the wisdom of the many will always prevail over the stupidity of the few.
Where do you begin? I mean there are just so many options.
I was going to go with Jesus v Barabas but I'm an atheist so I'd feel slightly hypocritcal about that one and anyway, if Jesus didn't die then he couldn't have risen and saved.......oh never mind.
Instead, how about the stockmarket boom of the late 1990's? Do you remember all those tech companies that had market valuations running into billions of dollars but had never made a profit in their existence? Well according to the many, it was the new economy, profits didn't matter, as potential for future earnings was the really important factor. Sure there were a few that didn't invest in the WorldCom's but what did they know?
Quite a lot as it turns out and can it only be a few short years later that the exact same thing happens again with mortgage backed securities and such like. Sure there were a few people who gave out warnings – Buffet, Taleb, Cable – but sooooooo many people said it was all going to be ok.
Any-hoo, let's look forward to a Labour primary in the not too distant future. Thanks for your contribution.
Labour MPs chose Berkow for speaker...
So, jokey Simpsons references get moderated but it's OK for trolls to talk about Labour members slashing their wrists before they have it done to them? Nice.
In answer to the T.W.A.T.'s point, nothing wrong with Bercow imo.