|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Progress campaign for Labour primaries
It's about time we did politics differently. The disgrace of MPs' expenses demands that political parties take a long hard look at how they can reach out to the public again. There is one immediate way in which the Labour party could reach out to the public, and that is through introducing primaries for parliamentary and mayoral selections. The Tories decision to use their own selection in Totnes as a primary enabled more than 100 times the usual number of citizens to have their say. But for primaries to work with the least amount of gaming, all political parties need to use the same method on the same day. There is growing support in the Labour party for primaries. As membership continues to decline across all parties, those who care about Labour's future have to think of new ways of engaging a wider group of the public in its activities. This would not mean the end of the party itself - members could continue to have the right of choosing the shortlist and pulling together the policies which Labour stands for, but at a time when creating communities of support for progressive politics is becoming more important, primaries could be one way of getting closer to that. In launching this campaign we call for the Labour party to introduce primaries involving pre-registered supporters for parliamentary and mayoral selections ideally to be held on the same day as other political parties. 1. Jessica Asato (Acting Director, Progress)
Comments
Posted by Shelley Walsh on 07 September 2009, 10:14:44 PM John Harris article in Saturdays' Guardian is worth considering when thinking about going down this ridiculous road. see here. Posted by Denise Robson on 18 August 2009, 4:51:47 PM In order to win the most cross-party and über-party support, successful candidates in a primary would need to be at the centre politically. Wouldn't this result in the blandest of contests? When people say "all the parties are the same", they may be ill-informed about detail, but spot-on on the casual impression. Rather than use the media to be all things to all people, party members need to think carefully what are we for and have the guts to state precisely where we want to go. Which in turn means that ordinary members need the right to contribute in a bottom-up fashion to party policy. If we did that, that should get the electorate interested again. Posted by Dave Bannister on 18 August 2009, 11:50:44 AM The case for primaries in the context of selecting a Parliamentary candidate is simple to grasp - to establish which potential candidate is least likely to scare the electorate. However, the case for closed primaries (involving registered, and therefore presumably 'core' voters) is less obvious. Surely, the only question that can be addressed through such a process is 'who are our core voters most likely to vote for?'. When a party is seeking to broaden its appeal (as Labour is now - and with seemingly increasing desparation) this question is of academic interest at best. What a CLP needs to know is how it can ensure the selection of a candidate with broader appeal. Or maybe, just maybe, the 'people's party' should focus more on policies. As an ex-Labour voter, and ex Parliamentary candidate, I am not so much concerned about who should be selected to defend the next manifesto, but more concerned about its contents. Open primaries, plus progressive policies might eventually have an impact. Closed primaries, coupled with the same old message will not. Posted by Phil Rackley on 14 August 2009, 4:02:48 AM Another issue here is, of course, the one of costs/expenses. Prospective nominees with finance would of course have a distinct advantage when campaigning for primary votes. Additionally the campaigns would become personality/celebrity based rather than one involving policies and beliefs. Posted by Vaughan Thomas on 13 August 2009, 5:10:27 PM Let me get this right; not enough people are actively involved in politics or voting........soooooo, lets have another vote first, to see who we can vote for!!!!! Naaaaaaa, this doesn't add up even though I know this is what they do in America. The Tories' 'Totnes Project' was a brilliant PR/advertising campaign for Tories who have much deeper pockets than Labour. How much would it have cost to get adverts on national TV advertising the Tory Party & effectively 'adverts' on the BBC to boot. Are we really suggesting that we fork out more, not just in monetary terms but also time, energy and effort that is in all too short supply; remember this scheme is being flown BECAUSE there are not enough activists and the majority of the electorate are just too disinterested, annoyed or angry to get invovled in the first place. I say again, TIME IS SHORT....TOO SHORT to be going down this route before the next General Election. We need to stop pussy footing around and bring in legislation in short order making voting compulsory; simple as, and there is no reason why there can't be a box on the ballot paper so people can abstain if the want to. Its not too much to ask in a democracy to expect people to vote for goodness sake. people are already legally obliged to register so what's the big deal in extending this. They do it in Australia. This doesn't take endless negoitations with all the other political parties........I think some people have forgotten that Labour is in power still and this is something that can be put into effect before the next General Election. WE ARE IN POWER AT THE MOMENT, for goodness sake, lets use it. Posted by stephen ryan on 13 August 2009, 3:44:41 PM I do support the idea of primaries, but can't help feeling that one of the reasons that Labour is in trouble at the moment - and that includes membership numbers, is that it seems to be keener to woo the Daily Mail than appeal to its members or even its core vote. Perhaps if members had more policies they felt connected them and enthused them about the Labour Party then the need for open primaries might be reduced. Posted by Phil Rackley on 12 August 2009, 6:17:39 AM Over the past 15 years or so members have seen their role in decision-making in the Labour Party being eroded and membership has fallen dramatically, largely due to this. To move to a primary system where at the very least you only have to be a "registered" supporter will lead to many activists questioning whether there is any point in being a member of the Labour Party. Politics will become like being a supporter of a football club. Power will be concentrated even more than now in the hands of a few at the top of the party. The whole ides of primaries is ill thought out and will spell disaster for the party. Posted by Douglas Carswell MP on 11 August 2009, 7:12:51 PM Sorry to butt in, guys, but what you are advocating is hardly progressive. You want Labour to select candidates using "primaries involving pre-registered supporters". That's not an open primary - it's a closed one. Much of the new progressive thinking behind the Conservative move towards open primaries is in this paper here - http://www.douglascarswell.com/upload/upload8.pdf Can I suggest you have a read, and be a little bolder? Our self-serving Westminster system needs a bit more radicalism than closed primaries in order to wake it up ..... Posted by George Davidson on 11 August 2009, 4:57:07 PM I love the enthusiasm and energy for primaries. It's a great way to identify your supporters as they have to register to participate. The competition amongst primary candidates speaking to voters ought to be good for a party. But the experiment in Totnes is not over. The Tory who won there has not yet stood in a General Election. It is not yet clear whether the local party workers will get behind her. Or if voters will want to vote TWICE for her having voted once. Or if the 8,000 (50%) who voted for a different Tory candidate will actually come out on election day. They might end up regretting this selection method.
|
|
