I have no surefire way of picking between the claims and counter-claims which can be read in the media and on various blogs, and so do not intend to make any substantive comment about them. But does the episode help to capture why Labour would benefit from a more fundamental rethink of how we select candidates? Is it time to experiment with open primaries for Parliamentary candidates?
I think this probably remains a minority position in the party. Party members and activists may be reluctant to lose one tangible power they hold. That is an insider/outsider dilemma to be addressed if we are to bring new campaigning energy to the Labour Party in the way that the recent Change We Need Fabian pamphlet by Nick Anstead and Will Straw advocates.
The threat of entryism is overstated, and can be dealt with better by opening up than narrowing participation, as Ben Brandzel has argued convincingly.
Some may fear that open primaries would lead to candidates not as committed to Labour, though I doubt this. I am not sure we would automatically see very different candidates, but some greater diversity in political career patterns would be a good thing.
No doubt, you would need to be a party member to run. And we would probably get throught through a hybrid model of nominations and shortlisting within the party before an open meeting and vote
There could be pitfalls too and issues to iron it. But it could both test candidate's public campaigning skills, and make selection contests something that made the party face outwards too. In a wider contest, it would be important for the party that its candidates contested selections in a way that might attract people to Labour, not deter them. My instinct is that there would be (on balance) a stronger enlightened self-interest for candidates to fight clean too.
It seems to me essential to a strong campaign to take back the London Mayoralty that Labour runs an open contest to engage progressive voters and audiences early. Is it time to introduce this for future Parliamentary selections too.
Why not?
Posts
2 comments:
Some may fear that open primaries would lead to candidates not as committed to Labour, though I doubt this. I am not sure we would automatically see very different candidates, but some greater diversity in political career patterns would be a good thing.I see you quoted here and there on this subject and I am suprised to see your support
Open primaries would make a dent in the ability of the elite to fix the game . The truth is that the majority of votes counted as "Progressive " are actually cast by socially conservative moderately Nationalist people who vote for their economic interest but whose poltical voice is dominated by a relatively small number of insiders from the middle classes (like La Gould ).
Whenever I hear arguments that call for PR on the basis there is a progressive majority I always think ..where is it hiding then ? Its not in the pub , not in the office , not in the Supermarket ?
It exists only by the trick mentioned above . For this reason it would be resisted fiercely by the Labour Party.
It is probably at least worth a trial. Even if not adopted nationally, it would be a powerful answer to the criticism that our internal structures are undemocratic and to resentment over the lack of a leadership election when Brown took over.
Post a Comment