Perhaps I am conservative (with a small ‘C’), but I did not like the idea of primaries when the idea (post Totnes) was first floated, and have seen and heard nothing since that makes me inclined to change my mind. Maybe I am alone, this article and any subsequent reaction will inform.
It seems that primaries have been floated as a way to re-engage voters. I think the reasons behind a lack of engagement (and by engagement I mean membership of parties and the decline in voter turnout) have little, if anything, to do with how candidates are selected. My assertion is that democracy, both within and outwith the constraints of party membership, are in large part to blame. I am an electoral reformer and see the seeming irrelevance of many votes as the reason why many do not see the point in trudging along to the polling station.
Changing policy within the Labour party is a black art. The National Policy Forum is a terrific idea but a paper tiger at present. Party membership has got to mean something. I fear that primaries are a shortcut to creating a rump of a party.
Primaries are expensive. Totnes reputedly cost £40,000, but even if one could manage the process for £10,000, this still amounts to nearly £6.5m per national party. Labour can certainly not afford it, and if the tax-payer is expected to pick up the tab anticipate outcry. Even in boom-times this particular pill would be an uncomfortable swallow for the tax-payer – when cuts are threatened it is a non-starter. I am not comfortable with the idea of the public funding parties at any time, for any reason. Navel-gazing exercises stand no chance.
If the tax-payer is expected to pay for our primaries, then all parties will expect equal treatment. Even if a threshold is imposed to avoid the OMRLP have tax-funded primaries, this threshold will have to be based on either votes or membership. Since this will have to be regionally based (else the Ulster, Scots and Welsh nationalist parties will feel aggrieved) we face the very real possibility of funding primaries for the far right.
What irks me most, though, is that I believe that selecting candidates is best done by party members. Firstly, membership is supposed to mean something (in 2007 we had a recruitment drive based on the deputy leadership contest and the incentive to joining was being able to vote in it). One of the inducements is the selection of candidates; otherwise we are left with monthly GCs as almost the only carrot available.
I also struggle to understand why we would want Tories et al to have a voice in who our candidate is. This is a licence for mischief.
We all stand on a manifesto – so candidate selection does not magically change the direction of the party. The main reason why party members are best suited to choosing their candidate is that it is they who will have to live with the decision. They will want someone who they can get along with and who will be able to campaign long and hard.
Candidate selection should not be a beauty contest. I hope that my selection was based on a track record of activism and experience.
I have read that some believe that having once voted in a primary the electorate might feel inclined to do so again come election time. There is poor logic underpinning this; for starters that electorate could have participated in three, four, or even more primaries – who’s to say that ours was the most inspiring contest? One also has to factor in that for something like 250 primaries the (Labour) winner is making up the numbers in the election anyway.
Forget primaries, campaign for an electoral system that makes every vote count.
All that Julian says is correct, but there is another argument against primaries. In contrast to the US, we don’t have media which provide serious coverage of politics at the local level. Lacking this, how are voters going to make an informed judgment – unless their vote is conditional on attending hustings meetings at which candidates can be grilled? Otherwise the advantage will lie with those most skilled in self-promotion (and, perhaps, those with the deepest pockets) – hardly the way to get a better class of politician.
If we adopted multi-member proportional representation you would get a form of primaries as an integral part of the voting system.
What the Conservative have gone for are gimmicks. Primaries, as well as reducing the number of MPs and freezing ministerial pay, are their way of avoiding real reform to an electoral system way past its sell-by-date.
“If we adopted multi-member proportional representation you would get a form of primaries as an integral part of the voting system.”
Not really. It is in the interests of no party to field too many candidates with a system of STV (which is, I presume, what you are referring to, the only other candidate I know of is Cumulative voting), because not everyone exercises all their preferences, and they certainly wouldn’t do if all the people who wished to stand as, say, a Labour candidate were on the ballot paper. No, you’d still get selection procedures, just as you do with the current system. You’d have more choice on the ballot paper, certainly, but to a very limited extent.