And another thing…

Will New Labour do it ?

Umm, no. Labour, at the moment, are more concerned in controlling the candidate list – for many reasons.

Safe seats will get one candidate and told who their MP will be (could drape a potted plant in team colours and it would get in). At best, Labour may allow a decision to be made for seats like Arundel & South Downs … maybe.

It is the first time I’ve actually thought an MP understand that they serve the whole of the constituency though. makes a change from the local party deciding on everyone’s behalf who will represent them. So yes, definitely good news.

And apart from inside your dangerous and bitter mind, when have Labour offered no choice of candidate to local parties? Or is that just another Tory/paranoid smear?

You might be interested to learn about this: CCHQ gains unprecedented power over the selection of candidates. Doesn’t exactly fit in with your weird Johnny-no-mates vision of the world, does it?

25% turnout..

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/goldlist/2009/08/25-turnout-in-totnes-open-primary.html

Oh bless.

Tom threw toys out of pram *again*.

“another Tory/paranoid smear”.

Tom – shock for you. I’m not a tory ! Last 3 elections I have voted for 3 different parties (and once Labour.)
But yes, I believe selection lists – and some of the recent fun and games are more deserving to be in the 19th Century and are detrimental to democracy.

“weird Johnny-no-mates vision of the world,”
Now we all know when you resort to name calling you have lost any argument. But for my own amusement what is so weird about my vision of the world ?

Forgot this one: “your dangerous and bitter mind”

Ignoring bitter – pointless comment.

However, “Dangerous” ? What the heck are you on about now ? How exactly am I “Dangerous” ?

yeah, yeah… don’t tell me… “I’ve been a Labour voter until now but I just think David Cameron is a breath of fresh air, etc, etc…” Heard it.

But what about your original comment? Which local Labour parties, to your knowledge, have not been given a choice of candidate?

Be interesting to see how it plays out.

I guess people had to register somwhow, did they use the elctoral role.

Not so sure as its validity, unless like in the USA a lot of those electors actually take part in the campaign.

May also help build up communities.

Tom,

As I keep saying every time I see you in Westminster, this idea – and many others to improve our flawed, self-serving democracy – are set out in Direct Democracy: an agenda for a new model party and then refined in The Plan; 12-months to renew Britian.

I hope I can now count on your support for my Bill in October to allow every constituency the right to have open primaries?

Douglas

Douglas, I think I’ve done my fair share in promoting your book, “The Plan: 12 Bonkers Solutions to Non-Existent Problems”. As to your Bill to “allow” every constituency the right to have open primaries, may I take issue?

You’re a great believer in repealing unnecessary legislation, aren’t you? So why are you intrducing legislation to “allow” something that is already allowed in law? Are you aware it just happened in Totnes, or does that constituency have some special legal opt-out which allows it to have open primaries where they’re not allowed anywhere else?

Or is your bill intended not to “allow” but to “oblige”? That would be a very illiberal move, I’m sure you would agree. Political parties should be allowed to conduct their business as they see fit and should be held accountable by the electorate for those decisions.

No, Tom. You are doing it again. It’s probably my bitterness but I didn’t say “I’ve been a Labour voter until now but I just think David Cameron is a breath of fresh air,”

I said “Last 3 elections I have voted for 3 different parties (and once Labour.)”

That doesn’t make me a Labour voter. It means just what I said. I voted once for them since 1997. Actually, probably means I’m a floating voter as in I’ve not made my “dangerous” mind up yet but actually read manifestos. Incidentally, because I go to the trouble of reading manifesto’s it’s why I get angry when politicians break them.

And the names of those constituency Labour Parties? Take your time.

The winner has just been announced. Dr Sara Woollaston

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8182833.stm

Nice looking woman into the bargain….

OK Tom. Your blog so will do it completely your way.

My “dangerous and bitter” mind thinks about the sheniagans that went on around the Erith and Thamesmead. And before you state that there were other candidates – I know.
However, the were allegations of over control which is what we are talking about eg
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/18/labour-candidate-georgia-gould-nepotism

So now that I have answered your question any chance you could explain what you think is “dangerous” about me ?

You do realise that Georgia Gould didn’t actually win, despite the allegations of control freakery?

As to “dangerous”… just a personal opinion.

Yes Tom, I do know she didn’t win.

However, the allegations do ring alarm bells about a few people centrally trying to control the selection of a candidate. Sorry, thought that was what we were talking about.

From Dictionary.com

Dangerous – 1. full of danger or risk; causing danger; perilous; risky; hazardous; unsafe.
2. able or likely to cause physical injury: a dangerous criminal.

And yes, I do deny your smear of my character. Whilst you don’t appear to care, I do. I strongly refute your allegation (and note that you stand by it rather than just offer an apology). I certainly don’t like being associated with criminality nor of causing peril.

“Personal opinion” ? What the heck does that mean ? What on earth are you saying I have done or want to do ?

Blimey Tom,

you’re a grumpy one today!!

In fairness there are probably quite a number of people who were once Labour voters and now find David Cameron a breath of fresh air, which is why the Tories have gained in the polls and Labour have slumped, albeit not as high as Blair did in 1997. In the marginals though Brown’s Labour are getting completely stuffed.

In 1997 there were just as probably lots of ex-Tory voters who thought Tony Blair was a breath of fresh air.

Anyway, back OT, I think the open primary is an excellent idea for re-connecting people. Glad yo see it was a successful experiment!

Tom

Just on Douglas’s comment, I think he has mistyped. Reading his blog, it seems his bill isn’t to “allow every constituency the right to have open primaries”, everyone already has that right as you say, it is actually to “allow every constituency the right to request open primaries“. Presumably this would be through some form of petition, much as they have in the US to trigger recall elections.

Mark M – I still won’t support it. If everyone is forced legally to do it, then no party earns the credit for doing it off their own bat, and if local people want an open primary and any party refuses to listen, they’ll pay the price electorally.

From the Western Morning News:

‘Mr Bye, who finished third in the poll, was seen as the frontrunner in the contest, with the highest profile locally.

However, the Liberal Democrats had campaigned for his selection because they believed he stood the least chance of winning on polling day.’

I believe a similar thing nearly happened in America. I think the guy’s name was Ralph Nader, but I may misrecollect…

Labour do the same? With Mr. Control Freak Central at the controls?

Don’t think so, Tom.

CCHQ will not commit to a primary in every seat because it cost them £40,000 to do this one. If all 650 seats had a primary, well, someone else can do the maths but it’s a lot of money for parties to pay out. The Tories may have some wedge at the moment, but not that much and when they are on the onward slope, as they will be again one day, they will have even less money to hold primaries.

@Triffid100

To refute, one offers proof. You may disagree with what Tom says, but so far you have not offered proof it is wrong.

From dictionary.com again:

Refute – 1. to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge.
2. to prove (a person) to be in error.

On topic: Has it change dthe way we do politics?

Well after H Harman’s outpourings about the lack of wimmin in serious roes in Labour, the Conservatives have elected a woman in an open primary.

SO the answer is: unless there is state funding for open primaries.. probably not.

But it makes an ineteresting comparison between the two major parties.

Harriet Harman should be delighted…

Er – good point. You are correct and accepted.

Perhaps “dissent” then ? Doesn’t sound “strong” enough though.

It’s difficult (if not impossible) to provide proof when you don’t know what someone is alleging you have done (or wish to do).

For what it’s worth – I don’t support open primaries because looking at the US system, that’s how candidates end up in the pockets of businesses. Unless we institute spending caps and donation limits, it’s a very dangerous road. It must be remembered that the Obama campaign was the first of its kind – plenty of small donors as opposed to a few large ones. Don’t be surprised if in 2016 it’s business as usual…

Open Primaries while appearing good I feel are wrong. The reason is two-fold.

1. Too expensive (unless all parties did it in which case you could share the resources/cost)

2. While I would like a person I believe would benefit me, there is also the problem that if this occurred in all constituents, we may find ourselves with people unqualified to do specific tasks (such as the front benchers)

Also, it does seem odd that the Tories are trying both systems at the same time – open primary here, CCHQ selection over there. Not something I approve of (although not enough to sway me away from Tory)

@Triffid100 – you could argue innocent until proven guilty but might not change someone’s opinion no matter how true/false it may be.

Tom

That’s fair enough then. At least you’re disagreeing with the correct thing now

I might actually be with you on this one. Is there really a need to pass this one into parliament?

As things currently stand, if local people get a petition together to request an open primary and any local party HQ ignores such a petition, it is likely that the local people will punish that party by not voting for them. The only problem I see with that position is what happens if all the parties ignore the petition? The local people are stuck with whatever candidates are offered. Of course, in that case an independent could well stand and would likely get his/her deposit back as even if they didn’t win the seat they would probably be up there (we could eventually see a grouping of minor party candidates offer an open primary so that only one of them stands against the main three, thus avoiding splitting the ‘plague on your houses’ votes).

Read the book, Tom. Your concerns are valid, but we do address them in the book. The draft Bill avoids regulating how political parties organise their own selection contests.

Douglas

I suspect a few people here need to give up coffee for a week !

The interesting thing about the primary is the £40k cost. I think we can guess that this won’t be born by the party(ies if popular) for long.

The real test of this process is will it produce candidates that can inspire loyalty in their local parties ?

Or will those activists transfer to another party ? ( In many ways New Labour was a coup against the Labour party membership and perhaps the Camerons want to achieve the same against theirs ).

The danger for Labour would be independent candidates and for the Conservatives UKIP.

A world of political parties reliant on state funding and devoid of memberships could beckon.

Still its going to be interesting !

Labour knocked out their internal opposition by tight control over selections e.g. the notorious Rosemary’s List for Scottish Parliament candidates.

The Conservatives are using primaries to do the same.

The danger with primaries is that even more than now the political process is firmly anchored in the centre ground, with anyone outside of it having little chanc of being selected.

This “primary” cost over £40K.

A costly experiment and one that may well pay off for this specific Conservative candidate but certainly not something that Labour can afford.

If only there was some way of making the selection of the Prospective Party Candidate (at least, I think that’s what PPC stands for) more open to the public, so that their opinions could feed into the process. That way, there would be more chance of a candidate being local and trusted, instead of someone being ‘parachuted’ in from central office. It’s up to the local party, I guess.

I recall now it’s ‘Prospective Parliamentary Candidate’. So I got all the right letters, in the right order, just missed out a few…

***While I would like a person I believe would benefit me, there is also the problem that if this occurred in all constituents, we may find ourselves with people unqualified to do specific tasks (such as the front benchers)***

Scott, the only example (I think) of a primary in the UK so far has just selected a GP. So someone who has coped with however many years at medical school and then coped with years of change after change in funding etc from various governments. All the time presumably keeping a load of people healthy. What front bench task can you think of that would necessarily be beyond her?

Look at the current Treasury bench and tell me that the current candidate selection system has identified the best and the brightest in the UK.

What some people seem to have against these primaries is that it (although only partly) bypasses the political machine and therefore might select people who aren’t steeped in political machinations. Seems one of the best arguments in favour of them to me.

Never mind Tom. the Tories are now leaving Labour for dead. Labour is looking like so old fashioned.With Brown Harman and Mandy digging deeper and deeper.
I think you are going to be suprised by the quality of the Tory candidates. If they appeal to the party rank and file and all the voters in Totnes rather than just the local leadership they are more likely to appeal to all voters as happened at Norfolk North.

Norfolk North, labour shooting themselves in the foot.A party out of control and split top to bottom.

Open primaries are more likely to produce candidate that will represent local interests (good constituency MPs)), rather than those with the skills for ministerial office.

That’s fine in the American system where the president chooses his executive team from the country’s talent, but not so good in the British system where the PM is restricted to choosing members of parliament for ministerial positions.

This means the parties need to be able to get some good minds into the House, even if they haven’t lived in a constituency all their lives, and aren’t similar to their constituents.

I don’t like Peter Mandelson, but he is a man of some talent. Does anyone really believe that as an Oxford-educated, London-based, gay man he would have won an open primary in Hartlepool in 1990?

I am sorry, but I do not understand. I have never understood the US Primaries – principally because I have never really had any reason to be interested.
I am sorry to be so stupid, but, am I to understand that, in a USA constituency, when it comes to deciding who should be, say, the Republican candidate, persons who can vote must be MEMBERS of the Republican party who reside in the constituency?
I can only think that it must be so, since it makes no sense for Democratic supporters to be involved. Excuse me for being so stupid.

The point is that, essentially, our system does, in fact, do what primaries in the USA do, without the cost and without the political hassle of persons electioneering. I mean that the local conservative/labour association decide who their candidate is to be. I am not saying that the system is perfect; I am saying that the system is OK and does not cost a lot.

For the time being, stupid though I may be, I think that the status quo is correct. Maybe in the future, when the internet possibilities are realised, then the position could be different.

Junican, you make a very good point. As I illustrated above, when other parties get a look in, the motivation for favouring a particular candidate becomes blurry. It’s not much clearer for the party of the potential candidate. They might think that their current PPC and sitting MP is a gaffe-prone deadweight who will lose them the next election, but admitting that they would prefer someone else to replace him/her is another thing, like Pepsi blinking. They might love it if the unwashed public rejected ‘their’ guy, while the other parties would rather see the lame duck stay on the ticket.

So, better if registered party members choose their candidate, but best if the process is completely transparent to all.

The situation re primaries in the US is very confusing and each state have different procedures. Some states are even more confusing by having a caucus sometimes instead of and sometimes in addition to a primary. One of the principal reasons why Obama beat Mrs Clinton in the Democratic primary is that he and his team really did understand and work very hard at how to organize to win in this complex field varying as I say from state to state. For instance he really understood the Texas rules … a state with a very complicated system and which both candidates regarded as crucial to their chances of winning the nomination wheras she admitted 2 days before the vote that she did not understand how the system worked in Texas.
Some states will only allow registered party members to vote whereas other states do not and conduct open primaries. There were almost as many variations in the rules as there were states in the union.

Martin Scott said”the PM is restricted to choosing members of parliament for ministerial positions”

Hmm so how is Lord Mandelson a Minister?

Madasafish – I was referring to “members of parliament”, not “MPs”. Lord Mandelson is a member of the House of Lords and the Lords is still part of our parliament.

In theory, the prime minister could choose whoever he likes to be a minister and make them a peer, but this is undesirable in our current system. Not because the PM can choose from a wider talent pool (which is a good thing), but because it is difficult for our elected representatives to hold ministers to account when those ministers are not members of the House of Commons.

[...] other news, the Totnes Primary has Tom Harris and Yousuf looking at the significance of the event and whether open primaries are the way forward [...]

No, they haven’t changed anything.

It’s a gimmick and about as progressive as mayors across the country. Are we saying Heseltine and Widdicombe were progressive as well ?

I understand the Totnes primary cost tens of thousands, where is that going to come from when the party is nearly bankrupt ??

[...] a Labour party perspective, I am not surprised that some people within the party have been convinced of the virtues of primaries, but I am surprised that others [...]