#32 It doesn’t take away parachuting of candidates.

All you have to do is restrict the shortlist to, say, the candidate you want, an international terrorist and a sex offender,

OK – but what it does do, no matter how ridiculous the idea, is give people a chance to vote for the terrorist or sex offender – and that would be sweet in my eyes.

The thing is, in my experience, you give people the ability to use democracy they will – only it is they who make the choice and not the party – even though the party will do a couple of back-flips wondering how they can promote and campaign for the terrorist or sex offender.

I would have thought that this had resonated with NuLab activists by now – or should we call NuLab activists ‘Yes men’?

34 Anon –

Open primaries in the US have resulted in a situation where a small no of conservative Democrats can stop the president’s health reform plan going through [one which the vast majority of ordinary Democrats and probably the majority of the electorate favour].

But those “Blue Dogs” are in hock to the very insurance companies who give them millions to run their campaigns – they are not stopping, or trying to stop the healthcare reform on conscience grounds – they are doing it because they are looking at the next big pay day – exactly the same as most of the GOP.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#32277034 take a look at that link.

I would suggest that a reason why change does not occur is because most MPs have no practical experience .

27. Reuben. V Cable warned of debt in 2003. Soros and Buffet have also warned of debt. JP Morgan which developed many derrivatives pulled out this market a few years ago because they saw the dangers.

The problem with this financial crisis was the warning of the few wise heads were ignored. Hunt sold Foxtons in 2007, Berkely sold out and as did the founder of Redrow . Obviously Brown was deaf and blind to the warnings.

I would suggest that a reason why many people are indiffernt to politicians is because they can see politicians lack any wisdom or sound judgement because they do not have any worthwhile experience. India actually complained about Milliband’s trip, calling his conduct insulting. I cannot see Carrington making that mistake.

Why is it Labour cannot recruit an MP with significant combat experience? Bearing in ind the number of conflicts Labour have indulged in, if the Secretary of State for Defence was former RSM/Colonel from the Paras, Royal Marines ,SF perhaps people would have more faith in them.Then perhaps Labour would make fewer mistakes. The one Labour MP with military experience, Joyce criticised his own party for chosing bureaucracy over bravery.

If Labour can recruit a few articulate foreman who were craftsmen, perhaps they could persuade a few more working class people to vote for them.

All you have to do is restrict the shortlist to, say, the candidate you want, an international terrorist and a sex offender, whilst finding reasons to exclude the candidate you don’t want. Which in cases where parachuting allegations have been made is pretty much what happens now (given that there is no actual mechanism for parachuting candidates in and every PPC still has to have the support of their local party, in Labour at least).

I think Dan is right about this not necessarily meaning all the resulting candidates are centrist. It might however mean that where candidates have unusual views on particular topics they have vicious public campaigns run against them by people in their own party, which woud then damage that party’s chances in the election proper. But my main concerns are still the big picture long-term concerns about weakening ties between those in parties and making it more difficult for elected governments to drive through change.

To bring the costs down – and by the way to stop the corporate fiddlers getting too powerful restrict the allowable funds for campaigning to a certain small amount – ask people if they would prefer to vote online of via postal ballots.

Perfectly feasible to do so, and it can be encrypted such that it will be still secret.

Even if this takes away the parachuting in of candidates who are simply party leadership followers it is worth it.

Tessa Jowell talks a load of rubbish about most things, and this is a good example.

For example, if Labour had had open primaries to select all its candidates in the run up to the last election, then (a) most of its MPs wouldn’t have voted for top-up fees or the war on Iraq, and (b) many of those that did would have been beaten by left-wing challengers.

In my experience, the upper hierarchy don’t want candidates who are ‘electable and centrist’, they want people who they know socially and who share their views and prejudices.

Also, what the majority of people in Liverpool think is ‘the common sense centre’, and what people in Battersea think is ‘the common sense centre’ are rather different.

Sure, lefties (and righties) might have to find ways of expressing their values in a way which engages and persuades more people rather than just those who are already activists – but that is surely a plus point?

John McDonnell in Hayes and Harlington and Ken Livingstone across London would absolutely walk it if there were primaries in their areas to choose a Labour candidate, no matter the opposition. Whereas, I suspect, Frank Field might well get beaten in Birkenhead.

Also, i agree with the commentators who say politics isn’t just about voting. It is about fighting for principles and ideas. I thus like the idea of a local party that has a good relationship with an MP – if that MP is willing to take on what they say; rather than an atomised system where voters who don’t knonw much about candidates vote in a beauty contest to choose a party candidate every 4-5 yrs.

It does strike me that a lot of criticism of the current party system comes from the misapprehension that we can somehow get “better” policy results from a different system of voting/selecting candidates. That’s not true. The only way to get better policy results is for people to take an interest in these issues and be willing to spend time organising and campaigning for them – both within their local parties and in pressure groups. I do worry that there are a lot of people who aren’t willing to do that hard graft

Good. I don’t want “organised activists” exercising power, thanks.”

Seconded.

Given the current economic judgement that has come down upon the way we’ve been running things, the ‘common-sense centre’ is anything but what we need.

I think that is short sighted, for two rather obvious reasons.

1. Such negative voting is likely to blow up in our faces.
2. Two such voting is wasted opportunity.

If the Tories were to invoke this type of thing in my constituency* I would have no hesitation in voting and I would be voting for the candidate I would actually want to win had it been the election. I would be voting for the person with the most progressive policies and experience and I would strongly urge EVERYONE who believes in progressive politics to do the same.

Here is the irony. Voting for the best candidate will strengthen the Tory Party, but at least if they win we will have had an influence in the type of people they elect.

There is no point in having some hanger/flogger elected in a marginal constituency, we need the best Tories we can find. Good strong candidates with clear vision and solid principles we can believe in.

So don’t let the scumbags become elected through apathy. Make every vote count. No outright greens/Labour/Lib Dems to split the vote, just vote for the candidate who you would want the Tories to win with.

*A bit unfair of me as my constituency is actually a toss up between labour and the SNP, but you get the gist of what I am saying.

Second, does this mean that the people who pick these people come from the political foam mouth brigade? You know the type, ‘those who want to end ‘PC’ jobs and initiatives, and then find out it is not so easy to put your ideas in place.

From memory ‘Private Eye’ published the story about the ‘English Democrat’ who was elected on a platform of stopping a gay pride march, only to be told that such a move was illegal and cost (again from memory) Sheffield a few quid. Of course, he was an ‘outsider’ from the political clique and therefore totally ignorant of the type of decisions that are necessary in local Government.

Government, both local and National, are entirely different from running a group practice. One of my bugbears in politics is the way people trivialise Government with pointless analogues. Sorry that it is left to me to point out but ‘Dad’ is not the same as ‘The private sector’, nor does ‘running a tight family budget’ or being able to spot the odd, ‘buy one, get one free’ qualify you to negotiate a complex service contract. The next time I read another insipid little leaflet chock full of little homilies implying that having two children means you understand the needs of seven thousand school age children throughout a catchments area, I swear to God I will scream.

Running a Government takes a whole lot of different skills and attributes. Is it better served with people with no experience in Government at any level? When a hurricane hits your city, who should be in charge of fema; someone who has extensive knowledge of how Government works or someone who was chairman of the ‘The Arabians Horse association’? Yes, by all means, stick to the politicos, but remember and keep eye open for an emergency.

It’s chicken and egg isn’t it? More people who are sympathetic don’t get involved because the hardcore activists are more dedicated and will try and dominate – which means you either end up with just the extremely dedicated and dogmatic there, or you end up with a centrally imposed candidate.

Not saying this is always the case – but I remember a conversation a couple of months ago at a Fabian event where this discussion came up, and someone from the audience (sounded old skool left) asked how it was possible to stop local events and elections dominated by the SWP lot.

the good thing about the primary system is that if enough people get energised to vote – they swamp out the hardcore minority.

I agree. But might not the attitude of activists change if they were seriously excersizing power.

I agree that all the Parties should hold their primaries on the same day – the Electoral Reform Society would no doubt be more than happy to do the admin. If this were done, and you could only vote in one primary that would deal with the “I don’t want Tories choosing the Labour candidate” argument.

[16]

I also think that the concerns about open primaries just selecting bland centrists are overdone – people will vote for a leftie or rightie who has a strong track record of being active in their local community or other qualities ahead of a lower quality candidate with more centre ground views.

This drives at the heart of the matter. If, as Don suggests, the political philosophy of candidates is not important to most voters, is there not a risk that open primaries will further reduce the salience of politics in politics (if you see what I mean)? Maybe this is a good thing, I honestly don’t know.

One other reservation about open primaries – in some seats, they could reduce to a census of the various ethnic groups (think Southall and the love lost (not) between Hindus and Sikhs – sorry to bring this up again, Sunny) – in Totnes the losers presumably have accepted the result as fair, but one can imagine situations where people won’t…

Thanks for the comments. Quick responses:

2 – “The best thing to be said for open primaries and it is a huge plus, is the loosening of the central party stranglehold on selection: no more parachuting in, no more rigged shortlists”

It is still pretty easy to rig – you give people a choice of the favoured candidate and 2-3 idiots (as happens at the moment in the seats which the central party wants to fix).

5 – “[on the point about getting candidates who are hopeless] – Only hopeless in the current system”

The open primary system as in Totnes advantages people who can put together the best glossy leaflet about themselves. Those skills are not necessarily the same as those required to be a good MP.

7 – “I do quite like the idea of being able to vote for the least electable candidate for all the parties I oppose”

This is something that lots of people worry about, but I don’t think it is actually a problem. Even in open primaries, people are much more likely to participate if they support the party which is doing the selection. The time and effort involved in trying to get a bad candidate selected is astronomical.

I also think that the concerns about open primaries just selecting bland centrists are overdone – people will vote for a leftie or rightie who has a strong track record of being active in their local community or other qualities ahead of a lower quality candidate with more centre ground views.

One amendment which I would like to see which might help address Reuben’s point is to give organised activists more influence. e.g. allow candidates to spend more money than at present, but cap donations at a very low level such as £20/person, so that a candidate who is able to raise money from, say, 100 activists will be able to outspend someone who can’t. I also think that the role of organised activists will evolve if selections are done differently – and they still get a say about who should be on the shortlist.