By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982
There's still a great deal of debate going on about primaries, and major differences are beginning to be drawn along seemingly factional lines.
Singing from the same songsheet, the supposed "radical" left arm of the party is reluctant to embrace the change.
John Harris is critical of the proposals, saying:
"Among Labour people, those who have advocated primaries in the past – including David Miliband, and the higher education minister David Lammy – are speaking out again. Now, the inevitable has happened: echoing a proposal first put forward in 2006 by that adventurous outrider Stephen Byers, the little-known but vociferous Labour MP Tom Harris wants to use some kind of mass national primary to select the party's next leader."
Meanwhile, Neal Lawson has said:
"The introduction of primaries now would sound the death knell of Labour as a party of any democratic meaning whatsoever."
Tribune, in its recent editorial, wrote:
"Mr Miliband reaches out to the party by asking it to be swallowed up by primaries and mass invitations to non-party members to participate. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy on the ultimate end of Labour as a political party and institution."
David Miliband, David Lammy and Jessica Asato have each rebutted the nay-sayers' doubts one by one.
But the debate about primaries must be kept faction-free. It is not a matter for left and right to disagree. It's not about ownership of public services or the relationship between the market and the state.
Rather, it is about how we will adapt as an organisation to a contemporary culture in which people already require more informal and casual engagement. That change has already been made, over years of lifestyle developments, and - contrary to what Neal Lawson has written - the death knell for the party will be sitting on our hands and allowing this momentum for open involvement to run away from us. Labour will only become less and less relevant if we don't respond to how people live their lives.
That's why, in spite of being a Compass member and a fan of John Harris, I wrote in support of the Progress campaign for Labour primaries:
"I have never felt more involved in a political campaign than in the weeks and months before Super Tuesday. The people I worked alongside in Brooklyn came out to have their voices heard, working tirelessly on cold mornings and bleak nights to influence a process and to shape history from the earliest opportunity. What I saw inspired a movement, and I've never seen democracy work better. Labour needs that inspiration now. We need to energise our party, but more importantly than that we need to open our tired structures to the voices of the under-represented. Primaries will not solve everything, but they are the purest way to begin."
Perhaps the differences are more generational than factional. Chuka Umunna - himself very active in Compass and considered to be broadly on the left of the party - Tweeted earlier today that he is in favour of primaries and I know a number of other young Labour members who feel the same.
Few of us who have been brought up under the culture of instant gratification and with communication and engagement at our fingertips want to spend Wednesday evenings in stuffy town halls, thrashing out the arcane and archaic party rules, motions and amendments. And few of us will be inclined to vote for someone who has only been selected by a handful of party individuals under that system. Culture has outgrown our party structures - now we have to react.
One way of doing that, of encouraging people into our movement rather than blocking their route, is to hold multi-cultural events, with music and art alongside political speeches, at open political fundraisers and supporter recuritment events. Such events offer an insentive for people to show up and to get involved on an itinerary that more suits their lives and that offers something to them.
Another way is to show people that we are listening to their calls, and that we will find a new way to reenfranchise the disilusioned, a new way to give people a say.
If we don't open up our processes to as many people as we can - thousands of people who want to support Labour but who are not currently inclined to get directly involved in a way that is relevant to them - how can we realistically purport to being the party of the people?
Open primaries are not for factions. But they are critical for the future of Labour.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
No they haven't. The case for primaries has not been made. Why should the party membership be excluded from deciding who their candidate is? If we have primaries we will end up with a party of bland, centrist representatives with no ideological conviction. Of course this is exactly what New Labour/Progress wants.
I think this is the nub of the question. Undoubtedly the world has changed by a huge amount, with mass communication and the internet. The problem with the introduction of primaries is that they will be one change, and a change that (IMO) that is not needed. What Labour needs is grassroots revival, and primaries will not do that.
For example, I keep lobbying my union to embrace the internet and to allow for online union meetings. These can be easily arranged. It is easy to make them members-only and to determine who is logged on. Yet I am told that it would be too difficult to determine if such a meeting is quorate. I reckon that an online union branch meeting would attract *more* participation. (I mentioned this idea to one member and he enthusiastically agreed saying "if I use my computer at home for a union meeting then I will be able to have a drink and smoke whenever I want!")
Even so, we still must be careful. When I stood as a governor for my local NHS foundation trust there were 23 candidates for the constituency (STV with 4 governors elected). The potential electorate was 80,000, but only around 1,200 registered to vote, and in the election only 410 votes were cast in a postal vote (34% turnout). I know that similar results occur across the country: there are enough people wanting to volunteer their time for the post, but few people actually want to spend the relatively small amount of time to vote.
Primaries are the big idea at the moment, and in 5 years time they will be seen as being out moded, and a failure. No new gimmick can be a substitute for raising grassroots involvement.
If I recall correctly 'closed' Primaries are only for registered Democrats or Republicans. But registration isn't the same as membership...
Isn't there a compromise: a primary system where anyone of voting age in a constituency can 'register' as Labour or Conversative, and vote in that primary. The registration carries no fee, or implicit membership, but flags you up as a potential voter for those parties, thus increasing the pool of potential membership while deterring trouble-makers and Chaos operations from opposing parties.
Do we want UK politics to become even more centrist than it already is? I would prefer less people to get involved in local candidate selection if it meant we could have a proper ideological battleground.
We cannot turn local candidate selections into media personality battles.
They really would kill off the Labour membership for good. 'Compass' and the LRC could kiss goodbye to any of their candidates winning primaries in marginal seats. Every candidate would have to be 'New Labour' just to appeal to the floating voters, LibDems and soft Tories who might want to vote in it.
I'd urge Compassites to treat the idea of primaries with caution.
This isn't a working class vs middle class issue however, its a Labour issue, and if we stop selecting our own candidates, some of who have real links to their working class constituents, then what's the point anymore?
We'll end up like the Democrats that some people wish us be like, in that we'll be a truly middle of the road party with no real left wing, and will only be worth following (like the Democrats) because of the truly horrendous right-wing alternative.
If this happens we'll have a membership with absolutely no power and no reason to give their time and money to the party.
Primaries may be the future, but those who support them have to realise that their chosen future may just contain the death of the party that they hope primaries may invigorate in the first place.
1) Chances are they will live locally and not 200 miles away
2) I know which door to knock on if I have an issue
3) Being from that area they are more likely to know about issues specific to that area
4) If I at least know of the person I'm more likely to vote for them
5) If I have a hand in choosing them to stand I am a lot more inclined to vote at an election
My final reason is that I am not sure I want Parliament full of MP's that all look the same and I'm not sure the electorate do either. Proof? How the heck did Boris get voted in as London Mayor?
I know I may get pillaried for saying it but I like the guy. Might not agree with everything he says and does but you know, I trust him more than anyone in the current cabinet.
I honestly think with primaries they are a good idea in principle but on further investigation have their downsides as well.
Sending someone down from head office says you don't trust me whilst open primaries tell the other side to vote for the worst candidate. So why party voting?
1) I'd want to have some control over who was selected to represent me;
2) I'd want to feel that my vote could make a difference;
3) Wouldn't non-Labour voters select the worse candidate?
4) It may get more members involved if they feel they have a stake;
5) It would make me feel the party was actually listening to me;
As regards the leadership, again the members should have their say under 1 member 1 vote. And why should Trade Unions have block votes? Union leaders should get 1 vote each or are they saying they are more important than Joe Public?
You want to get support at local level, then let the local members decide who will represent them.
What about Europe? What methods are used there within a more proportional electoral system, which would be a far greater contribution to reform than this nonsense about primaries.
And as for the tactical spoiling ( let's call it trolling). There are only so many activists intent on trolling the opposition's selection. 50 activists in a constituency can spoil a selection meeting of 200 (25% of the meeting). But open up selection to say 20,000 voters in a primary and those 50 activists would sway the result by a massive 0.25%.
The person who best reflects the views of the people in the constituency should stand!
Are all Tribune articles written in Middle English?
If I can be quite simplistic about it... I'd much prefer to attend 'political' or Labour-affiliated event if it was to be influenced by a range of different cultures and genres - literature, academia, music, art, theatre, sport, design, new media etc., - and included contributions and input from people across British society and walks of life. And for it not necessarily to be about direct Labour policy and processes. This closed-off, shielded, new policy-paper-fuelled, 'Westminster village' culture just isn't going to cut it.
I think it's sometimes easy to forget that huge swathes of politically-interested British people couldn't name who the Chancellor is, couldn't care less about Labour factionalism and aren't excited about party politics in general. They just want to know more about issues that affect them and have a chance to learn and talk about them in an interesting environment.
By normal people I mean workers who dont get subsidised meals at work, subsidised meals when they are away from their base, Who after content themselves with one house that they have to pay for, who pay their travel to and back from worked and earn less than the average wage and dont complain about it.
MPs have always been good at standing on one policy platform in line with the CLP and then changing their minds justifying the reasoning by saying "its not what the people think" by "people" I suspect they mean paymasters, either financial or political. Local parties must have more power rather than less, the expenses fisca shows may up for what they are. the Nuremberg defense is alive and well.
.
If you want to talk about "factionalism", perhaps you should consider how creeping central control has deliberately reduced internal democracy wiht the precise aim of squeezing out the Left, and that's why we're even talking about this now? Pots and kettles!
Rather than jumping on populist bandwagons inspired by a society that is entirely different from ours, perhaps we might make being a party member/activist a rewarding experience again by letting us have a say- that way, more people might actually feel that joining a political party is actually a way of affecting change, rather than an exercise akin to shouting in a vacuum.
I agree, if the party system is to survive, we need to make it exciting and relevant to people. But I don't think a vote on particular issues are the way to do that. There needs to be much more. But the impetus for joining a party never was, and never will be, the ability to help select a candidate alone.
And I agree - party control has been too strong in the Blair/Brown years. But I'm not in that clique, so I'm hardly a pot! And I'm interested in trying to find ways to OPEN that clique up, not tighten it even more.
You can't deny that this is populist, I hate to sound elitist but this is clearly dumbing down. I don't think it's fair that anyone can just turn up and determine who'll be the next Labour candidate, and drown out the voices of the people who are actually going to do all the hard work and get that person elected. I think you'll find many fewer people willing to do that if this is brought in.
However, I am with Neal Lawson on this; my biggest argument against primaries is that it undermines membership of a political party. If the electors of Totnes or wherever want a say in who their Labour candidate is there is one quite simple way of doing just that – and that is by joining the Labour.
I value my membership of the party for a number of reasons, including my say in who represents us in elections at all levels.
I understand that in some quarters there is a suggestion that primaries will not be implemented in all constituencies – which effectively creates a two-tier system. I do not want primaries, but if they are going to be foisted on me then at least have them everywhere.
One minor point - who makes Progress's policy? Primaries are being advocated by this think-tank but I do not recall being consulted.
The people must decide, if we force this on them we risk blighting the elections as has occured as a contributory factor in the Euro-elections. My concern is that on the one hand "Progress" would not really be interested in increasing public involvement any more than having substantial democracy in the Labour Party as they are pro-market and pro-market is often not pro-people (as pro-market usually resides in an interest of the corporations who fund the "think tanks" and of course Progress itself).
On the other hand I think the Left are overly worried that membership will decline further away from the Labour members who Alex has stated do not really fund the Labour Party (and I agree, though they might if our wonderful leaders had not been so power crazed).
Are the lefts concern legitimate?
Based upon the precedent of the leadership as well as the make-up of Progress, I have to concur.
Does this make me a loony-left?
I did consider Primaries, but because of the people who are speaking for Primaries (some of whom have dubious moral failings) I have to seriously question thier motives. For example Milliband stated Party membership was effectively "dying"...why does he think that is? It is not a change in culture it is the ever increasing rift that is growing (still) between the politicians and the people. The culture change that has occured is one in the leadership of the Labour Party and its PLP, many of whom do not understand or have any intention of representing the people who have voted for them, but who are more concerned with money and power.
Change the voting system, make it a party, a festival...your still not addressing the real problems, I agree to an extent with Milliband, Lammy and Asato that it may help IF it is clean and free of central party interference (is that likely?), but we do need to increase member involvement and in my view find convenient and modern ways to bring real democracy to the people, or ultimately have them take it away.
Voter participation is very low. faith in the political class is low. primaries are the only solution. nothing else will work. does it mean the end of the political parties as we know it - yes!
The majority of our funding comes from Lord Sainsbury and always has done and is listed completely transparently in the Electoral Commission's list of regulated donees. Go look it up.
Progress is not a pro-market organisation and we are not really a think tank either. We were set up to create a space for debating progressive ideas in the Labour party and we have always held a concern for the health of party democracy. That is why we are promoting primaries. It's not some big conspiracy to take power away from members, it's to increase the reach of the party. To include far more of the public in what the party does. To give people a say!
Who are these people speaking for Progress with 'dubious moral failings'?
The back room of the Dog and Duck in Enfield is still available for a very reasonable £20 a night.
Lord Sainsbury also (and competely within the rules of course) just happens to be Patron of your old employer the Social Market Foundation, erm which is pro-market yes? Could you please confirm and set me at ease please?
Honoury President Alan Milburn (outside intersts/expenses) and very vocal in the role of Markets. "I want Progress to become not just the standard-bearer for New Labour and what it stands for, but also to help transform all parts of the Labour movement into New Labour"."
Sounds like he wants a bit more than just a debate.....could you please confirm the facts here to so I feel easier about all this?
I would guess that to be a bit of a moral failing and he certainly speaks for progress, again can you please confirm or state otherwise as it will, once again make me feel a heck of a lot better about the party I love to know these are just aweful slanders form the media.
Stephen Twigg Chairman (also on "policy advisory board" of smf along with Oliver Letwin MP, George Osborne MP etc)
"The Social Market Foundation is a leading UK think tank, developing innovative ideas across a broad range of economic and social policy. It champions policy ideas which marry markets with social justice and takes a "pro-market" rather than free-market approach"
You had better go visit that website fast and sort them out Jessica senior people of Progress all very much concerned pro-market policy, please set my mind to rest, let me come onto this website free in the knowledge that I am wrong there is nothing dubious going on.....
Can you also get rid of this nasty niggling suspicion I have about the funding of the SMF and in addition any other inherent probably perfectly legal "interests" our "progessive" people have?
You really can clear the air here Jessica and save me from the cynacism that many people not just myself feel about Progress, and explain to me why so many people on LL and in the media refer to it as to the "right" of the Labour Party.
I want to come onto this website and blast Tories, take them on and defeat them in debate, but it's a bit tricky because of things the public are being told about these people you say I am smearing.
I really, really want you to prove me wrong, it would make my year and I'll apologise for my "smear", if however these things all turn out to be true, and you know it to be the case, are you right to accuse me of unjustified serious smearing?.
Incidently I am sorry for being so suspicious but can you blame me with all this nasty vested interest toilet stuff flying around? As a result I have to be very suspicious as to the motives of Progress in wanting Primaries....
1) Lord Sainsbury funds loads of pro bono projects - the Institute of Government is a new organisation which has recently been set up and which is doing some interesting stuff around civil service reform.
2) In your comment above you said that Progress is pro-market, not the Social Market Foundation, so that's why I responded as I did. The SMF is certainly pro-market as distinct from free-market which is what it says in its mission statement. It's also distinct from anti-market which I think is a bad thing. The market gives people jobs and helps to grow the nation's wealth. Bad things happen in the market which is why governments need to regulate them and people in the Labour party need to fight for them to be fairer. But I don't think being anti-market makes any sense in Britain today.
3) You appear to be conflating Progress and the SMF. Please do not. We are completely separate organisations. The SMF is cross-party. We are pro-Labour. Yes we may share some patrons but that's like saying because I sit on the board of one charity, it must be run by the other charity board I sit on. I have no idea about SMF's funding - I left there 4 years ago.
4) People refer to Progress in lots of different ways, not all of them nice, but there's nothing I can do about that. This post by Alex was a plea to try and take political debate out of the left v right axis and I believe in that too. Time and time again Ralph you make assertions without backing them up - you admit yourself that all you have is suspicion. I think your suspicions are totally unjustified.
5) You say that Progress has ulterior motives in wanting primaries. So what are they?
It is not about one group controlling another.
Who's "anti-market"Jessica? Where did that come from? Who is smearing who? Is this like your smear on the old Labourites as "Loony Left", there are many people in the world I disagree with Jessica and I'll sometimes be a little rude to one or two, but I do not make unpleasant terms regarding groups of people though I will question the veracity and integrity of said groups, there is a world of difference between "dubious" and "loony".
The fact senior members of progress, have a pro-market (there are questions here regarding the private funding the undemocratic think-tanks that can bias and affect their research in favour of the private companies funding the think-tank, I think some seriously big Multi-Nationals do). I cannot prove whether it does influence thier research or does not, but they certainly do have input as stated on the website. Combine this with politicians like Milburn whose outside interests invlove companies with Government contracts, and it can easily create a picture of Progress being used as a platform for people with "private interests". Remember Jessica the word you used "conspiracy", I prefer to use the age old political word "agenda".
Politicians obviously have thier public agendas and thier private ones. Lord Sainsbury comes across as a man of great integrity, but he is associating with people who are anything but, this raises questions, why?.
This is what happens when disgraced politicians come anywhere near anything, they have the anti-Midas touch, all that they do is questioned and for good reason.
As you have said Jessica Progress has created (in association with you, which is to your credit) some ideas that have become good policy, I hope that your campaign for Constitutional change is successful, it lies close to my heart to, but I will never again, blindly trust many of those individuals in Progress (or any other group for that matter) who have brought the Labour Party and all affiliates into disrepute and whose agendas are clearly nothing to do with helping the British people, or in fact even representing them. Whereever we see money and funding, lets see what moths are attracted first, and there we have it, Milburn "Honoury President", ironic isn't it a man with no Honour at all holding such an officious and pretentious title and he wants to create his own political movement too.
Also, senior members of Progress sharing high levels of influence with senior conservatives....I think that might be one the reasons we tend to think of Progress as Right Wing.
My suspicions are very justified, and you just saying things are hunky dory make me even more suspicious. I did not make Milburn or the other morons bring Labour politics into disrepute, I am very entitled to question things, what do you think, we are all mindless clones? To jump and cheer when told to do so? All I have done is state how I feel about the issue, I have justified what I initially said and these are MY views, I don't have to provide evidence Milburn is a very real live walking piece of "evidence".
Well he doesn't need to create his own movement, the expense scandal, the so called "outside interests" he and his collegues have, has already brought life to a New British elected political movement. Do you know who they are? His voting record would be in total symmatry with this party when it comes to Civil Liberties.
In dealing with the Private sector we have to be entirely clean and objective, that is not anti-market, I think you'll find it's "fair market" and it is essential to retain the trust of the people.
It also wins a lot of respect in the Private sector and takes away any suspicion of interference from government in an area of competition. Milburn has not only displayed a serious lack of understanding of basic market principles he has consequently placed himself in a position where his intentions, no matter how good or ill are very questionable. That is why we need damn good MP's who understand basic levels of morality. You get a job with a company that subsequently gains a government contract and you are automatically placed in a dangerous political situation of your own making, you are also bringing into question your understanding of competition free of government interference. So in fact you are discrediting your party, the government and the market all in one go.
In displaying where these "leaders" of Progress lay thier hats we can gain an idea of what an organisation is about or how it might be curtailed.
Finally, nobody can as I am sure you are aware prove/disprove the private agendas of politicians until thier actions come to light, just from writing this it is clear that Progress' Honory President has little interest in Civil Liberties, little interest in democracy (think-tank association of his senior staff), big interest in money (public/private and donated).
I think Progress has "questionable" motives in introducing primaries because it's leadership and subsequent ethos may wish to use the idea as a platform for ensuring a favourable outcome for thier like-minded allies, if they did it would be nothing new or alien to them).
A leader/President is the standard by which an organisation can be defined.
Oh and Jessica, what we are having is named a debate, I make a point or question and you challenge it with your own and so no and so forth...if I was damning progress to hell there would be no debate and no response or reasoning from either party in said debate and that would then be an insult to Alex. We engage in discussions to iron out confusion and refine thinking that is why people have debates and disagreements. Not sure what kind of debates you are used to but to me this is not at all personal it is about clarification and understanding. On at least two occasions I have been shown to be factually incorrect on this website I remember one occasion being on the Human Rights Act (I have forgotton much of the law I learnt as a student, but recognised the correction immediatly), I have also conceded defeat in a debate when I have been proved wrong. That is how grown ups debate. If I say something that you feel is incorrect then correct my points, that is your entitlement. But please don't say I do not substantiate what I say, when I don't it is because I feel there is no need to. There have been many commentaries where I have fully substantiated what I have stated. But then I do not come on Labourlist just to agree with Alex and tow the man's line (his objectivity in fact gives him great credit and I rspect him very much), nor do I come on here to write an essay.
I am giving you every opportunity to show the world what a lovely, fantastic organisation Progress is in this debate, please use it.
As I said to a number of Ministers in May, every debate, every situation is a political opportunity, I even showed them that the expenses scandal was....
That is why we are promoting primaries. It's not some big conspiracy to take power away from members, it's to increase the reach of the party. To include far more of the public in what the party does. To give people a say!
Oh really Jessica? And who chooses who are up for the primaries? You send me 2 people from Islington and it's not really much choice is it?
I still stick by what I've said - Labour should drop so called "think tanks" like the Fabian Society and Progress and Compass.
As far as I am concerned (and as a political outsider) they are nothing more than political pressure groups all with hidden agendas. My perception but it's the one I'll be using to vote with come May 2010.
If Labour want to be progressive and get ideas, how about asking their members?? Or are Fabians / Compass / Progress like the current leadership and don't trust the "little people" to make such informed descisions.
A final question - have you ever worked in the real world? Had a job outside of the political field of Progress / Fabians / SMF / Young Labour etc?
My reason for asking is that I am hardly likely to trust a "think tank" where it's thinking is done within the confines of a sterile political bubble.
And you did suggest paying MP's more to stop the expenses issue happening again. Not really in tune with the public I would have said?
Could you explain how people come to be working for think tanks? Qualifications, experience, etc.
The risk is that such people appear to be self appointed, London based, and value their own ideas more highly than those of other party members.
It seems to me that Think Tanks work on the principle that 'shouting the loudest' lends weight to the opinions disseminated. Most of whom play to a particular audience and just create an atmosphere of factionalism.
Why should any Think Tank be preferable to heaven forbid, asking the members.
The guy who founded Sony, remarked along the lines that the Japanese would always do better than western competitors because they didn't just limit thinking/ideas to a small number of managers, when everybody could contribute.
(Now name a British owned TV, Car, or computer manufacturer.)
Think of think tanks as academic research institutes who understand how politics works. Mainly the qualifications of people who work there are degree level, often people have postgraduate degrees and doctorates. Sometimes academic researchers who are looking for something less university based go to work in think tanks instead. Sometimes people come from working as policy managers or researchers in the NGO sector. Sometimes from management consultancy and business. It depends slightly on the think tank in question. Some think tanks have councillors and former politicians, others have journalists, former lawyers and social workers. So from lots of different places actually.
I don't think people in think tanks are self appointed - if they don't have anything interesting to say, they don't get heard. If you hear from them a lot, it's probably because they've done some research and found out something new. The oldest think tank is the Fabian Society. Pamphlets, research, and understanding form the basis of the Labour movement and long may it continue. Did you know that the IPPR first set out the case for the Child Trust Fund? An incredibly progressive policy which will help to even out the gap between the rich and poor? The progressive think tanks are full of decent people working hard to find better policy solutions to hard problems. Sure they are mostly London based, but then that's where Parliament is too. However, some are based outside of London - IPPR North for example.
Thanks for that explanation but I think you missed the point about relying on just the ideas of a few people, no matter how clever they are.
I've found that quite a few academics couldn't engineer their way out of a paper bag, and for example the electronics circuits they put in text books to explain some circuit theories, simply don't function without applying real world experience and modifying them accordingly.
Two of the best analogue engineers I've known had respectively no formal qualifications, an HND. Clearly there are also others who are very good who do have the formal qualifications up to PhD level.
Engineering has tended to be more egalitarian than most professions for a long time (not suitable for posh people), but these days you do find that they only want to recruit grads to do certain roles (even then only from certain universities), which is a classic method of closing off the profession to certain groups (strangely enough I've noticed an increase in Oxbridge grads and former public school folks at the same time).
If all Think Tanks recruit the some type of people, regardless of how socially aware they are, they merely recruit clones. Diversity of thought doesn't come just from just choosing people from a diversity or ethnic backgrounds, or applying gender equality, if they have all have experience of the same field(s).
I'm not trying to have a go at Progress, just Think Tanks as a whole. You're actually being kind enough to provide some answers.
I'll agree pamphlets and other ways of disseminating ideas have been around in the modern way for about 400years. It's just in the past people weren't being financed as dedicated organisations to come up with ideas, and therefore there wasn't the pressure to come up with something just to justify the existence and funding for the people concerned.
Like the output of 24hour news channels it means that a lot of what is presented to the public doesn't really deserve any close inspection. Merely there to fill a void in the output that would exist otherwise. (Again this is a general observation, not a go at your organisation.)
The internet now provides a way to have video meetings with people around the world and share ideas and discuss things with a multitude of people. If Think Tanks don't actively try and harness this mind power just within this country they will be rightly seen as disconnected and aloof.
You just have to look at the Progress home page and look at the number of comments against any of the articles to realise that at least one think tank has failed completely to connect with the outside world. Compass home page seems to have witnessed more activity, but in both cases each appears to have failed to connect with a representative section of society.
However, if the labour party leader was selected in an open primary, what reason would they have to support/maintain any labour principles?
You can win or you can be socialist - you can't do both. You pretended that you could under Blair - but the deceit that involved meant no one was satisfied - and leaves you with a runt of a leader that no one supports.
Open primaries are entirely factional -- like PR -- it is supported by those to whom it would (at that time) give more power/say (or give their opponents less power/say).
Have an open primary - maybe hannan would run?