And I think it would be a good thing to try to build support for this before there is an established field of candidates, at that point, the discussion becomes much more strongly who in particular does/doesn’t this favour. The broader point is that it should be part of a different Labour approach to progressive political campaigning in London.

- it would be a way to try to pick a candidate with broad appeal, and this is particularly relevant given London’s preferential voting system.

- But beyond that, this could be part of an effort for Labour in London to ‘face out’ and try to build links and engage more people in campaigning with or alongside Labour groups, for example against specific Johnson measures. That might also help to recruit party members in some cases, but it could probably do more to fill the current gap whereby those who might want an looser involvement short of membership are offered little practical engagement, and that all or nothing offer leaves lots of people out.

There are various objections to an open primary. It would be important to try to get a sense among party members that this could be a positive approach (as some will fear a dilution of the rights of ‘insiders’) which is in the longer-term interests of the party as a campaigning force. Some in the party – perhaps especially at the top – would fear ‘entryism’ or capture by special interests/extremes: I am very sceptical that any such move could have much weight to affect the outcome in any substantive way, and rather see this as showing how strong some of the spectres and ghosts of the 70s and 80s are. (Even a declining Labour party membership is easily more than strong enough to see off the few hundred people who I think could be organised in that way, say from the SWP-left: this could only be a problem if the efforts to engage members and/or genuine external participation absolutely failed and fell flat).

In fact, my main doubt about the proposal is is a different one: the worry would be that this could be done and make very little practical difference, ie not many more people than are the usual participants in a party ballot would actually take part.

To do better that that, I think an open primary would need to be just one part of a much broader package of activities to broaden the base of Labour politics and links with progressive campaigning in London. There would be tensions in such an approach (on all sides) but I think it is a the type of experiment we need, and this is the obvious opportunity to try it, so it would be a missed opportunity not to.

The fact that the Conservatives tried this last time out doesn’t seem to me particularly problematic/important, other than in showing why such an approach could make sense for this type of election. (I am not sure how far they broadened participation in practice beyond the symbolism of being seen to try to open it up; but with more time I would like to see us do more than that. We have the time to do this if we were to plan early for this).

[8] Of course we can’t yet foresee the circumstances of the 2012 Mayoral Election. The Labour Party might even have fallen apart by then. It certainly won’t have more than 150 MPs in the next Parliament; it won’t have a plausible Leader; it won’t have a plausible sense of what it exists to achieve – and there’s no guarantee whatsoever that it will be in even second place in the polls, let alone within 20% of the Tories. The world may well be a very different, and for lots of reasons a far more scary place in four years’ time.

Name someone – anyone – who could concievably be the Labour candidate and do better than Ken. Name any Labour figure apart from Ken who could actually win, who would stand any chance of beating Boris. Most of the people whose names have been put in the frame so far would struggle to come second. And look at it from the other side: If Ken had been running as an Independent back in May, rather than as the Labour candidate, do you honestly believe he’d have lost?

I very much doubt how Labour can find a candidate apart from him in the foreseeable future that is capable of carrying Londoners’ vote.

Alan Sugar, anyone?

There was a “progressive premium” of 12% for Ken over the national party score. In other words, a third more people voted Ken than they would have done Labour. That can explain itself through different reasons, the trust people had in Ken to continue to deliver policies that brought us closer to equality and empowerment, whether on transport, housing, environment or the living wage and the unique message and coalition that he had built that spanned the liberal (and admittedly not so liberal) left.

Open primaries are a great idea in theory, the French PS, Italian PD and US Democrats have tried it and using different approaches, what they have in common is that they all used it to bring different groups together around a competition of ideas that everyone could feel some ownership around.

Let’s learn from how Ken built his coalition, the good and the not so good. Let’s also remember that he had a unique story to tell, not only through having delivered as Mayor, but having been at a forefront of fighting the worst excesses of the reactionary right in the 80s, which many people can relate to, not just those in the Labour party.

Do we have someone who has a unique story to tell about how he/she can build a liberal-left coalition that reaches within & beyond political activists into local communities, while being able to deliver policies in the global multicultural city that London is and maybe even test out ideas that can challenge the neo-liberal status quo at the national level?

I can see him running as an independent and getting humiliated. All very sad.

Is this primary talk really gaining that much traction within the Labour party??

Will write more on this soon. I think this piece is spot on, but it doesn’t go far enough. Ken cannot run. We need someone who will win.