Expect Tory and Lib Dem activists to vote for Ed Balls then.

Whatever happened to One Person One Vote?

Don’t agree with this proposal at all. If you want a say, join the Labour Party.

I agree with Lammy that members feel disempowered. But I don’t see how opening up the selection process to non-member will fix that. If anything, it’ll dilute the power that members have. What’s my membership buying with regard to leadership selection if I’d get the same say by not being a member? (perhaps unfairly, I ignore the complication that one might be able to have a say both as a member and as an ordinary person. I guess we’d need to see a precise proposal in order to decide whether it’d be a net dilution of members’ power or not)

#2

OMOV was never the system used for electing a leader. Until relatively recently, it was just the Parliamentary Labour Party who had a say in electing the next leader of the Parliamentary Leader Party, but currently the PLP will nominate candidates, and candidates who get at least 32 nominations will be voted for by the entire party including trade unionists of affiliated trade unions who haven’t chosen to opt out of the political levy. Votes still go disproportionately to the PLP – MPs will each get one 258th of a third of the overall vote, one third of the overall vote is split evenly between party members and one third split between trade unionists.

Oh, and I agree with Peter, while I agree with much of Lammy’s article, the solution of opening the vote on next leader to non-members is not the answer.

I’m not a member of the Labour Party. I don’t see why I should I have a say in its leadership. Surely the most democratic solution is one member, one vote.

Open primaries will result in the opposition choosing your own leader. It’s a nonsense.

There is no need for direct public involvement. Members and trade unionists will take into account what people outside the Labour Party think of the candidates – they do want to win the next election, after all. But it is their decision. They will be the people having to support the next leader, campaigning for him or her in our communities.

If you care that strongly about a party, join it.

Lammy normally comes across as a pretty thoughtful guy, but this idea is just absurd. It’s our party, we choose our own leaders!

I joined the Labour Party for the first time earlier this year for a pound, happenstance of being under 27 at the time…

It was a financial incentive to join the party, now i feel glad i did as i will have a voice in this important decision.

The party would do best to encourage more people like myself with perhaps new ideas or perspectives on the direction of the Party. I just foresee people with ulterior motives backing the wrong person for the job if it was a public vote.

It’s not exactly difficult to run a recruitment drive, when there are many people who feel disaffected by Lib Dems’ decision.

Now why did David Lammy’s political career never reach the heights initially predicted? Ah yes – because of silly ideas like this.

Whilst open primaries might be a good idea to select local candidates for election, the leader of the Labour party is none of my business. As it happens, because I am a democrat and would prefer a sensible and strong opposition, I’d try to pick the one who would do the best job, but I doubt my views would accord with the party membership who actually support the party leader.

If you want this process to be more democratic, perhaps totally losing the union block votes (if you want, give those union members paying political levies individual votes). After all, in other parties donors only get one vote, however much they pay.

I say….Lammy should enter the Labour leader contest! This would show that Labour has turned a corner!!!!