Totnes Primary

The selection of the next MP for Totnes by open primary throws a much needed life-line to our drowning political parties. It will in retrospect rate much more highly than the establishment of a supreme court which has caught the attention of some commentators.

Political parties are dying, but they play a crucial role in delivering representatives and responsible government in this country. The choice of candidates allows people to elect representatives who roughly match their views. Party discipline ensures that the majority party can be held responsible for its programme at a general election. Our system of democracy is now dependent on the party system for without political parties it is difficult to envisage how representative and responsible government can be made effective.

But from their post-war peak public interest in political parties has disintegrated. Many of the safest Tory and Labour seats have only a handful of activists running their affairs. All three main political parties have attempted reforms to involve the wider public, but none of the parties have so far been prepared to surrender power to their new recruits, let alone to a wider group of the electorate.

Last year, I called for a system of open primaries in safe seats. One or two such primaries have been tried by the Tory party in hopeless seats, but while the experiments were interesting, and gained not too bad a turn out, the open primary could not really decide anything.

A third of seats shared between both major parties return a candidate of the same party label at every conceivable election.

Under this new system, the dominant party would have control of who the candidates in the primary would be and in Totnes they opened up to all interested parties.

The party drew up a shortlist of three. The Mayor was nominated and so was the leader of the council. But so too was a local doctor who wished to become involved in politics because, only by helping to change the country's drug policy, did she believe she could offer local addicts the chance of a better life?

I am writing this blog before we know the results of the poll in Totnes when the whole constituency could decide who they wished to see as the next Tory candidate, and therefore the next Member of Parliament. But even if the outsider - the doctor - does not become the candidate, it is now going to become increasingly difficult for other political parties in safe seats not to follow the Totnes example.

Other changes will follow too. Once these open primaries catch on my guess is we will see more unopposed returns at general elections. If the electorate has been given the chance to vote in the primary - and everyone in Totnes got a postal ballot - then those parties without a chance of winning are unlikely to put up candidates in the general election.

I also believe we will move fairly smoothly to a two tier type party membership; there would be the core activists which will of course continue to remain important in safe seats. But thereafter the membership will become blurred. In safe seats where the electorate choose their candidate, I would guess that many voters who would not normally support the dominant party in the area would nevertheless help raise funds and participate in events to support who they will feel is "their" candidate.

There will be lots of other consequences which we now cannot even envisage. But the bravery of the Totnes Conservative Party in holding an open primary marks the death of the old party system. Long live the party system.

Date added: Tuesday 4th August 2009

Comments

No - we had an open primary in Hammersmith and selected Shaun Bailey. If Hammersmith "should" be a Labour Marginal. With Shaun Bailey against Andrew Slaughter I can understand that Labour supporters might consider it "hopeless" - but it is certainly not hopeless from a Conservative PoV.
Report this post - Anonymous

I have a vague memory of reading that in the US open primaries were found to reduce party membership, while closed primaries increased it.
Report this post - Anonymous

Frank,I am no fan of the party system, particularly as we have witnessed its operation under Labour. With the exception of you and a few others, Labour MPs have behaved like lobby fodder, robotically obeying the orders of the Whips. I therefore find myself in the curious position of wondering just how the party system can be retained at all if open primaries are introduced and operate in the way you describe. When you refer to "unopposed returns at general elections" do you really mean that there will be no democratic choice of party in those constituencies? If candidates are selected by the whole constituency shouldn't that mean primaries for all parties in that constituency if you believe in their continuation? What exactly is a "safe seat" these days and why should it be assumed that they will never change? Where is the democracy in that? Remember Labour had no seats at all before 1900, never mind any safe seats.
Report this post - Anonymous

A key issue with the Totnes Open Primaries has apparently been the cost of arranging them. As this experiment has been for the benefit of a specific Party, it is reasonable for the Party to have funded this.However, if all a primary system were to be formalised, it should be possible for all those parties intending to offer candidates for a given seat to share the same primary ballot paper. I'm sure this could be designed in such a way to stop it from being too confusing.Then the costs per candidate would be relatively affordable. Maybe the candidate should pay the cost of their share as their fee for being allowed to enter. Perhaps even the poor unappreciated taxpayer wouldn't mind making a contribution to such a system.I wasn't sure how people would engage with these trial Primaries as they seemed a little un-British, but the results seem to have been better than anyone expected. Anything to wrest power from the hands of the Party Whips....?
Report this post - Anonymous

The only drawback to your idea is that many years ago, Birkenhead might have voted against a Southern invader to their territory - and what a disaster that would have been for the Wirral!
Report this post - Anonymous

There is already, effctively, a two tier membership system in the Labour Party; those that are active and those that are not. You're suggesting a three tier system now because the two teir system is dying on its feet. The widespread apathy of the electorate, intermingled with annoyance and anger, does not mean they are ankering for primaries. It means that people want their MP to be straight as a die and to be there to serve the public and not themselves. We need to act in short order to get more invovlement in politics and making voting compulsory is the fairest and most cost effective way to do this Talk of primaries is to my mind another example of the chattering classes coming up with something that fascinates them rather than their constituents. How many constituents come into MP's surgeries crying out for primaries? Its not about MPs' interests but about me and thee in the community. I recall someone talking about rights and responsibilities of benefit claimants; well this should extend to the rest of the adult population. Requiring them to vote one way or t'other or even go to abstain, isn't too much to ask in a democracy, particularly as they can use a Postal Vote now and do it in their own time.
Report this post - Anonymous

Why not use a system of STV in multimember constituencies? Voters get a wide choice of candidates from the major parties and also independents and third parties. It means voters can also choose on the issues rather than simply party labels. A euroscpetic Conservative can list Conservative candidates with similar views high on their ballot but punish europhiles by placing them at the bottom of their list below UKIP. Socialists might choose to favour LibDems over New Labour candidates. I could vote for a candidate who I disagreed with on many issues but who had been an effective MP... So on and so forthThis would give the parties the incentive to choose a wide range of candidates and would make every constituency a marginal. Less wasted votes, more choice for the electorate, less MPs with safe seats who follow the whip blindlessly.
Report this post - Anonymous