Open public primaries
Jon Lawrence |
At the height of the expenses scandal I suggested that open public primaries would be one way to address the widening gulf between politicians and public, (see The hustings, broadcasters and the future of British democracy) so I naturally welcome recent signs that the main political parties may soon agree.
To be fair, the Conservatives had already held a number of candidate selection meetings open to all local residents, rather than just party members, but at Totnes in Devon they went much further, sending a postal ballot form to every registered voter at a cost of £38,000.
Perhaps predictably the nomination went to the candidate who looked least like a professional politician - a local woman GP who had only joined the party a year earlier. The turnout was a respectable 25 per cent. Media coverage has focussed on the great expense of this exercise, noting that it would cost over £20 million to repeat the experiment in every constituency (roughly equivalent to the total amount a party can legally spend during a General Election year).
Clearly no party is going to blow all its cash on public primaries - especially when cash is so hard to come by. But this is to miss the point. In most constituencies, the parties would be content with a cheap and cheerful public meeting to ensure their candidate has the added legitimacy of prior public endorsement, but in marginal constituencies like Totnes (majority 1,947), where they currently do everything they can to get round the tight laws on election expenditure, the chance to spend another £40,000 advertising the party and its photogenic would-be candidates is likely to be seen as a sound business proposition.
But they should be warned - Victorian Liberals flirted with primaries in the 1870s, but swiftly dropped them again after a Bristol MP was unseated for 'irregularities' at his selection ballot (bribing supporters with free beer - those were the days).
Media coverage has included claims that involving the general public in candidate selection will alienate party activists, thereby accelerating the already precipitate decline in party membership across the country. Perhaps predictably this charge resounded most vociferously when David Miliband raised the issue for Labour, with the Left instantly arguing that it was a desperate attempt to save 'New Labour' politicians from the righteous anger of party activists. Again this misses the point.
For sure, the final choice will be opened up to the general public, or in Miliband's version to registered 'friends of Labour' (it certainly needs all the 'friends' it can get right now). But as at Totnes, the short-list will be drawn up by the party.
Rather than seek to deny public input into the selection process, the Left should concentrate on defending the right of local party members, rather than party bureaucrats, to determine the composition of its short lists. This is where the real power still lies.
Let's be frank, public primaries are about bringing a greater sense of public involvement, and hence legitimacy, into a process still controlled by the parties. This is why primaries must be seen as simply one element in a more thorough-going reform of our political culture. We also need televised public nomination meetings at which all candidates would be brought together and forced to answer the public's questions, and we need broadcasters to do more to ensure that national party leaders face daily interrogation from the public during an election. But more than anything we need an electoral system that makes every vote count, and every constituency 'marginal'.
Please note: Views expressed are those of the author.About the author
