By Jessica Asato / @Jessica_Asato
Today, Progress launched its campaign to persuade the Labour party to introduce primaries for parliamentary and mayoral selections. Following the Totnes success for the Tories and David Miliband’s intervention in Tribune, we felt that it was time to have a frank debate in the Labour Party about the merits of introducing primaries for real. There has already been lots of good debate about primaries on LabourList so I want to use this post to answer some of the criticisms which have been rightly raised over the last few days and months.
1. Primaries will spell the end of the Labour Party as we know it:
This has been the most frequent criticism raised by Compass Chair Neal Lawson and in Tribune’s editorial after it published David Miliband’s support for primaries. The argument goes that primaries will leave party membership emaciated, since the only solid thing left for party members to do is vote for their parliamentary candidate. But this assumes that party members won’t have a say in drawing up the initial shortlist to put to registered supporters. Retaining this authority over candidate selection is important, not only to give structure to your rights as a member, but also so that candidates are selected according to their values and competency for the job.
The other thing this assumes is that primaries will weaken the membership, rather than contribute to it. In fact, introducing the public to the Labour Party through primaries, which is a positive act in favour of a Labour candidate, could encourage them to join. Particularly if they realised that there was an initial stage of selection they could influence through becoming a member. When membership is at one of its lowest points in our history, surely we should be reaching out to more potential members not fewer?
2. Primaries are too costly and will lead to only wealthy candidates being selected:
The first part of this concern has been raised by Luciana Berger and Don Paskini. It is true that the Totnes primary cost the Conservative Party around £40,000, but if all the main parties agreed to hold primaries, they could do so on the same day and state funding could support the costs of opening polling stations or mailing registered supporters, so that no party has an advantage over the other. Alternatively we could experiment with full online voting with access to computer terminals being granted at libraries, schools and workplaces for those who don’t have a computer or internet access at home, which might help to bring the costs down.
As for the second complaint, which has been raised by Paul Halsall, there is no reason why primaries should lead to a money race. After all, the Electoral Commission sets rules for candidature expenditure at the moment, there’s no reason why we couldn’t introduce strict rules that candidates in primaries can’t spend more than £2000, say. The reason why it gets out of hand in the US is because there is a constitutional right to be able to spend as much money as a small country. Fortunately we’re not in that place, so can restrict funding as we see fit. If anything, primaries could end the slightly murky world of union funding for candidates, and personal funding which goes unregulated in the Labour Party during selections at the moment and no one seems to make a big fuss.
3. Primaries would lead to bland middle-of the road candidates:
Simon Hoggart has suggested that primaries will land us “with a collection of bland, acceptable, uncontroversial, middle-of-the-road, white bread MPs, holding no very strong opinions about anything”. An initial cynical reply might be that this sounds remarkably like the accusation already levelled at MPs. But there is no reason why voters would choose bland candidates. After all, independent candidates such as Martin Bell and Richard Taylor in Wyre Forest were chosen by the electorate, so why would they act any differently in a primary? Primaries in America do not result in ‘bland’ candidates, and in fact, Sarah Wollaston, the candidate chosen in Totnes was the exact opposite of a faceless party hack, as Nick Bye so graciously describes in his defeat. But even if voters do select middle-of-the-road candidates, that’s their choice. If they lose the election, maybe they will choose differently next time, or if they stink at being an MP, they can be deselected next time round. Let’s give the electorate a bit of room to make choices and learn from their actions.
4. Primaries won’t solve the democratic deficit / voters don’t want to vote in more elections / there are more important democraticconcerns such as changing the voting system:
This was an argument brought up by Neal Lawson in a piece he wrote for Comment is Free. I’m certainly not arguing that primaries on their own will solve the problems this country faces, either in the field of democratic renewal or the economic crisis. Progress also supports the Vote for a Change campaign to get the government to support a referendum at the general election on proportional representation. We’re also running a campaign for a Citizens’ Convention. So we agree that this is just part of a suite of measures that need to be taken to mend our broken political system. And as for the economic crisis, well, there’s a great big debate to be had on that, and we’re not suggesting primaries are going to produce the answers on the future of the market and the role of the state. But we believe that primaries could be one step along the road towards democratic renewal, and with the Tories and Lib Dems in favour we might have the chance to make it a practical reality. In fact, it’s galling to see the Tories take this on and use it for their own political advantage, rather than because it’s a good thing to engage citizens per se. This should be Labour territory and we should be leading the pack.
There are lots more arguments against primaries, and not all of them have satisfactory answers. I have chosen four, but do post your own and I will try and answer them as the day goes on. If you support primaries do consider joining Progress’ campaign, and take the debate to your local branch or GC. That’s the democratic way of making a difference in the Labour Party, so let’s use it as members should.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
The success of primaries will be dependent to a great extent on the shape of the electorate. This will be determined by whether we have open and closed primaries. This article appears to make no distinction between the two, so which type is Progress advocating? Clearly each will have its own pros and cons.
My worry about open primaries is that they will indeed lead to less radical and opinionated candidates. Closed primaries, however, where the electorate are all registered Labour voters, even if most are not members of the Party, could be a way forward. That could indeed bring people back to the Party. If those registered voters also had to pay a very small subscription (say £1) in return for some form of associate member status, that could also act as a way of getting them more involved while the subscription could pay for the primary process. The remaining issue would be what to do about constituencies where the Labour vote is less than 10%. Do we have open primaries here to increase the turnout, or none at all?
Furthermore, with regard to the drop in membership over the course of the past twelve years, surely we should be looking at why people left the Party rather than attempting to re-invent the wheel as a result of those departures?
So, yes, I think we should be investigating primaries as a way of opening up politics but this must be accompanied by serious scrutiny of why so many people have left the party (I would suspect that one reason may be the centralisation alluded to in my first paragraph, among other reasons), and ensuring that we do not make such colossal mistakes again.
Will they get a local candidate to represent them or a set of Oxbridge Red Brick apparatchiks and charity-worthies to choose from? Still, you'll have your new funky and edgy primaries to help keep you in with new political trends amongst your chatterati friends.
I think really Labour needs to go back to first principles. First, you have to tackle the extremism amongst your constituencies, fight them in debate and win. Next, you have to listen to what your members and your core voters want, understand what they want, develop policies on what they want and win back their support.
Not turn a tin ear, have a 'conversation', nod sympathetically and then carry on regardless.
No platform is no respect for democracy and open primaries are a mere veneer to the rot underneath.
Anyhow, to your point about which sort of candidate will people choose. That's the thing isn't it? They might choose a local candidate or they might choose someone with a university degree. It's their choice and there will be a much larger number of Labour supporters choosing, so the choice will be more legitimate. And I hope that people do choose some people with university degrees. In fact around 43% of candidates should have degrees if you want to be seriously proportional about it, and I hope that even more people, particularly from lower income backgrounds have the chance to extend their education at university. And what's wrong with working for a charity?! Charities help the most vulnerable, most forgotten about people in the world. Why on earth wouldn't a charity worker make a good parliamentarian?
I don't believe primaries are a veneer. They would provide an excellent way of busting politics open and giving the public a greater democratic say. I don't see what there is to dislike about that.
I can understand (just about) why a Labour supporter might be converted to the cause of primaries. But to suggest that it's natural Labour territory seems to refute a lot of the things Labour has historically stood for.
These two principles can be easily claimed by the Labour Party which was set up by activists in the trade unions, the Fabians and working people as a party which could hold decision makers to account. We have a different tradition of party politics in the UK from the US, that's true, which is why when we had 1 million members in the 1950s, I don't think there would have been much call for primaries. But now we are languishing with around 177,000 members, we do not have as much legitimacy as a political party if are choosing parliamentary candidates with an average of 280 members in constituencies with 70,000 voters. We're not going to get back to 1 million members unless we think about good ways of bringing people into the Labour fold. Primaries are a good way of doing that because they let the public participate in a positive act in favour of Labour and at the same time they wrest an important decision away from an elite and give it to the masses. Something I would say is very much Labour territory.
I'm not sure about your democratic mandate/all women shortlists point, but yes, I guess broadly Labour is about fighting for greater equality and sometimes if positive discrimination helps us get there faster we should support it.
Oh, and I would dispute that government for the people by the people = individual sovereignty, because the word people suggests a collective surely?!
Jessica - despite your assurances above, I still remain to be convinced around the financing of primaries. Safeguards must be in place to ensure those without capital, but with plenty of ability and capability, are not disadvantaged. The assumption that all of Labours talented people have ready and easy access to £2,000 to pay for their ambition does not reflect the reality of the situation.
http://progressonline.org.uk/consultations/primetime/
Primaries will lead to truly accountable MP's, reduce the central control, and whips, and basically ensure MPs who represent their voters rather than their party apparachicks.
Now how about, for the next experiment, you either (a) organize a Labour primary based on your ideas (and let's see how it goes), or (b) call up the Tories and agree to select a constituency and share a primary? Either will take the idea forward!
Btw - where are the LibDems? Afraid that coalitions will be based on principle and accountability to their voters and not party stitch up PR?
But Labour is all about denying people a voice and having the fist of the state make choices for them. So I don't quiet see how this will work with your mindset. Much less how it will ever be swallowed by Labour HQ who are used to parachuting in whomever they please, locals be damned.
As with any Constitutional change it really must be done clearly, fairly and with the very best intent. This is not the time in history for presonal or selfish agendas by the political parties, this is the time to build some democratic faith. I think if the criteria were met and the system transparent, it would get my full support and I always welcome more public involvement in democracy.
I am unsure about item 4. I think the public want cleaner politics rather than a change in the voting system. I don't think our core supporters refused to turn out and vote dueto the voting system. I understand the Liberals and some Labour are very enthusiastic about PR but I think the public are after something a little deeper than how they vote in elections. I have yet to see a shred of evidence to suggest the recent public anger will be pacified by changing the voting system, but I do think Primaries may help a little if they are fair and as uncorrupt as possible, but I am unsure that I trust the NEC or Millbank to impliment such a policy effectively as they seem to always try and be "too" clever and end up creating tawdry issues and scandals we just don't need.
The voting issue though seems to me to be attempting to put out a house fire with just one bucket of water.
A good article, thanks.
Thanks for your comments. Progress always tries to have good honest debate!
On PR, actually the latest polling which was carried out by YouGov for the Fabian Society shows that the public DO want voting change. When asked to choose their top three priorities, 50% of put the statement 'we need an electoral system that is more representative of the actual votes cast' as their second choice. Fixed elections came first, recall came third, House of Lords reform came fourth and written constitution came fifth. And when asked which system of voting they preferred, 34% of respondents chose Proportional Representation as compared to 25% the present system - First Past the Post, and 25% the Alternative Vote.
The point about PR is that it does indeed go deeper than a simple change in a voting system. It helps to change the way we do politics full stop. No longer can parties take safe seats for granted (read here for Labour core vote, working-class, estates, ethnic minorities). We'll have to get rid of the ya-boo politics too as pluralism becomes more the order of the day. Because we won't just be able to win elections on marginal seats, it means that Labour won't be curtailed so much by 'middle England' concerns and will be able to create a broader appeal for its policies. (I'm not saying that Labour will win elections under PR as raving lefties either though).
Finally, the 'house fire' as you nicely put it, certainly won't be put out with a bucket of water as I think I was trying to intimate in my article. It will need lots of measures including primaries, including parliamentary reform, including a Citizens' Convention, including greater devolution to local government. Neither one of these on their own is, in that awfully over-used phrase so I'm going to use it again, a 'silver bullet'.
Finally, finally. The NEC didn't create the expenses crisis. MPs did. And the Labour Party isn't based in Millbank anymore, it is situated in Victoria Street. There are a lot of fine people who work hard in HQ for not much money, and certainly not much job security. Give 'em a break now and then!
Thank you for the polling data. 34:25:25 well I suppose that is 59% against first past the post and that for me is an eye opener. I don't know any raving lefties though we just had a very odd article on LL recently which was very right wing.
I agree with your silver bullet sentiment, it will take years to restore the damage done to the party (and politics).
I agree with you on Constitutional Reform and have been familiar with your views for some time. Hence my original email to you regarding the Citizen's Convention which I showed an interest in some time ago. In any case I shall carry on with my plan to address the "symptoms" of the situation in campaigning for Labour (and by implication against the BNP) in three weeks. At the moment I have just commenced with supporting the Councillors and shall continue to do so right up to the General Election.
I am still not convinced with PR, what do you think of Alternative vote?
As for Victoria Street 'piloting' people into safe seats. I'm not so sure that is what is happening or that the central party has the power to do that, if they ever did! Which seats have had people piloted into them?
I'm not in favour of the Alternative Vote. It's slightly better than the current system, but isn't proportional and doesn't get rid of the 'strong government' problem I have with the executive.
This stuff has been going on for ages, so I am guessing you will correct me and tell me that Victoria street has not been involved in this sordid business and that someone/group else was responsible. Or you are going to try and claim it has not been happening at all which would surprise me greatly. I hope you can correct me.
I am pasting an article you have probably read by Peter Kenyon in August.
"Labour PPC selections and postal voting
Journalists from the Guardian and the Independent have rung me in the last 24 hours about the postal voting issues in prospective parliamentary selections in Calder Valley and Erith and Thamesmead.
Like lots of other people I am concerned that the Labour Party's rules are not being administered properly. The selection in Calder Valley involved 61% of members voting by post - 90 out of a total of 147 votes cast. In Erith and Thamesmead, Tribune reported last week that a third of members had applied for postal votes.
The point I made to both the Guardian and the Independent is that it appears on the surface that a shift in public policy towards postal voting had taken place inside the Labour Party, without any change in its Rules. My concerns are that our PPCs rely on voluntary help at election time. Any suggestion of manipulation of a selection is detrimental to volunteers' willingness to campaign. Members who have taken part in selections and accept that the best candidate won in an open and transparent selection may be more likely to want to go out campaign and get that candidate elected.
That is what is at issue. According to this morning's Yorkshire Post: "A spokesman for the Yorkshire and the Humber Labour Party said the Calder Valley contest had been carried out under the rules laid down by the party's National Executive Committee and Steph Booth had gained a "clear victory.""
I hope the General Secretary is urging his staff to exercise a little more caution about these matters until the astonishingly high proportion of PV votes has been examined thoroughly. This should be part of a wider inquiry into the conduct of PPC selections, which I believe would be best undertaken in the context of membership recruitment and retention."
This proves nothing but shows there is certainly doubt and the events marry up with a PPC selection I witnessed once where the Constituency Chair (a friend of mine and this caused a great strain) did something rather naughty too (this was some years ago and I shall not go into further detail).
On bringing democracy to the Party I want to see some serious reform. I agree with your sentiments on turning back the clock. I aI truly believe we have too many MP's/ex-Ministers wandering off setting up thier own groups for gathering ideas/recruiting allies et etc. I believe that the reason they have to do this is simple. They and the members feel locked out from the process and are rightly leaving.
I want to see wholesale reform of the Membersnet Website. I think we could have Polls on issues, private members chatrooms to discuss policy and even a chatroom to speak to Ministers about how thier policies actually affect the people on the ground. Don't bother with U-tube, encourage people to join the party to show they can be listened to, and if they have good ideas they can not only see thier ideas bear fruit the Party can launch a press release giving credit to that member saying "Joe Bloggs joined our party and thanks to the Rt Hon Blah Blah MP has seen that ordinary people CAN make a difference.
I believe this would be a good first step to bringing people back to our party as well as helping democracy, I have quite a bit more but we are both very busy and I do not want to take up more of yours or my time.
The taxpayer?
Thought so - maybe it should go on the sitting MP's expenses!