A quick thought on primaries
By Emma.
I’m very torn about primaries. As I have mentioned (once or twice!) the empowerment of Labour members is something I care deeply about. But it has also become more and more apparent that over the years, that we have a problem in the way our selections are working, and we are trying to open the Labour Party up to our communities in more imaginative ways.
From recent events, what may be clear is that where a CLP is pretty moribund, it is open to a certain amount of manipulation. It is as the spotlight falls on such constituencies that the idea of primaries becomes more attractive.
Empowerment of members is really important in a modern party. These volunteers who keep us going deserve as much say in their party and its policies as possible. But if the members are having their power overtaken by those seeking to manipulate selections – whoever that may be – then they are not being protected by the current system.
I’ve struggled with this, but I think a compromise I would be willing to settle on would be to see primaries run in constituencies that didn’t reach certain membership criteria. So for example, those in special measures, or where the membership did not represent a significant enough proportion (and I realise this would have to be very small to avoid all CLPs being caught) of the Labour vote at the last election (doing it proportionately in this way should stop there being a disparity between Labour held and non-Labour seats and to stop disparities in size of constituency from impacting in the way a system that set a numerical threshold would. It would also account in part for fluctuations in membership as the national party become more or less popular).
All other constituencies should be given the option to choose how they wish to select their candidate. Some may opt for primaries, some may not. If a CLP is active and functional, that should be their choice.
Finally, the imposition of a primary on a struggling CLP should not be the final word on the matter. Primaries can and should be excellent recruiting events for interested non-members. CLPs should use these occasions to sign up more members – new people who feel they have a real stake in the candidate they have just chosen for selection. Just as I want all members of the Party to have active and fulfilling experiences, so too do I want to see the first positive engagement between a local citizen and their local party grow and develop into something more.
These are by no means exhaustive, road tested or even broadly thought through proposals. They are a compromise I have been coming to over quite some time because I have been genuinely torn on this issue. I’m sure I will get much opposition from both sides because most other people who write about primaries have very firm views one way or the other. Me, I’m a natural compromiser. And I think this might just work.
Tags: Labour Party Selections, Primaries
Monday, July 8th 2013 at 14:58
I usually agree with you but in this case I don’t think you are focussing enough on the likely effects of primaries on the range of candidates selected. It’s not just campaign spending which would be an issue (though anyone who has run an election campaign will know how much it would cost to get a leaflet through every door in a constituency). Time for door-to-door canvassing is just as important – those of us from the political classes would be able to work flexibly to canvass for ourselves and friends, most people couldn’t. Having a strong team behind you would become even more important – and again that favours political professionals (including union officials) who have those political networks to draw on. I’m not guessing with this. Since we moved from GC selection to OMOV, selection campaigns have become ever more expensive, time-consuming and professionalised. The effects have been somewhat masked by our work on AWS and opportunities for BAME candidates – but the overall effect has been to rule out most members not working in politics or closely related fields. Primaries would accelerate that trend and rule out even more people. And ironically the scale and complexity of running a primary would make it even harder to enforce and rules designed to restrain candidates’ campaigns. it’s already the case that the party is very reluctant to take enforcement action for fear of derailing an OMOV selection. Think how hard it would be to disqualify the leading candidate or stop a selection process when you’d made arrangements to allow thousands to vote.
Thursday, July 18th 2013 at 11:27
Isn’t the real problem lack of local engagement.
If there are too few active members then what is really needed is more members. However if a recruitment drive is done as part of the candidate selection – a reasonable time to do it when there is something to discuss – then there is a danger of manipulation.
My suggestion would be that every potential candidate has to sign up a number of new members before they can be considered. If all candidates did this there would be more engagement in the process. I am not sure manipulation would be reduced but I can’t see how you can avoid it if someone is determined enough.