In the future, the public could be given a say in selecting Labour leaders. Ed Miliband is reportedly considering proposals to extend participation in leadership elections beyond party members and the unions, granting voting rights to the wider electorate. Miliband has also previously stated his support for the use of primaries in selecting parliamentary candidates, allowing registered supporters to vote for their preferred candidate. This could help Labour re-engage with lost voters and strengthen its local presence.

At Party Conference next week Progress, the Institute for Government and IPPR are holding an event examining whether Labour should adopt primaries. I will be sharing some of the insights from a new Institute for Government report looking at what works in candidate selection. Based on the Conservatives’ experiment, the report provides interesting insight into what Labour can expect if primaries are adopted. The Conservatives trialled two primary processes: primary meetings, where the public could participate in the final selection meeting; and postal primaries, where all registered voters could vote by postal ballot.

Of particular relevance to Labour are postal primaries, used in two safe Conservative constituencies: Totnes and Gosport. The most important observation is that turnout was strikingly high. No fewer than 16,000 and 13,000 voters participated in the two primaries (representing turnouts of 25% and 18%) – impressive considering that the median number of members involved in selecting Labour candidates is just 40. This indicates the potential of postal primaries to engage voters beyond the party membership.

While expanding participation, the Conservatives retained control over short-listing, with the constituency party choosing the candidates to contest the primary. Members also had the opportunity to reject the nominee after the primary at a ratification meeting. This ensured that the party selected a candidate it was happy with and proud to campaign for.

Labour need not fear primary elections, nor should they restrict participation only to registered party supporters. The ease of participation in postal primaries helped produce high turnouts. By contrast, in the 100 or so seats where the Conservatives held primary meetings, turnout was typically only a couple of hundred and often much lower. Requiring registration as a party supporter in advance may deter engagement with the primary and generate disappointing turnout. Not to mention the potential cost and complexity that creating a supporters network would entail.

Labour should, however, think of primaries as an important weapon in their arsenal rather than a silver bullet: while participation in the Tory postal primaries was high, participants tended to be older and more politically engaged – in other words, people who already traditionally vote at election time. Moreover, there was little indication that the primaries led many voters to join, or become active in, the party afterwards.

Before the next general election, mayoral elections are likely in some of England’s major cities, providing Labour with the perfect opportunity to trial primary selection. In these elections, where voters are selecting a one-person executive, a great deal rides on the candidate themselves and not just the party they stand for. Labour candidates chosen through primaries would have a head start over their opponents, gaining a personal mandate from the thousands of voters selecting them and simultaneously securing greater legitimacy and a larger profile than their rivals. Given these potential benefits primaries are an experiment worth trying.

—————————————————————————————

Andrew Adonis is director of the Institute for Government. What works in candidate selection? by Rhys Williams and Akash Paun and published by the Institute for Government, can be found here