US-style primaries are not what we need to restore trust in politics, argues Luciana Berger
Public confidence in politics is at an all-time low. There’s a real danger that, in the ongoing furore surrounding MPs’ expenses, people will lose sight of the importance of democracy. So it is an absolute imperative that political parties address how faith in politics can be restored.
Some think primaries would be useful for civic engagement. However, the notion of extending the parliamentary selectorate as a panacea for recent scandals ignores the absence of any real research or knowledge of the outcome. It’s the wrong process to achieve the right goal.
The point of a primary is that it is a tool for selecting candidates.
The principal concern ought to be who represents us in Parliament for 365 days a year, for four to five years. That – far more than the system of determining candidates – is what will really engage people.
Introducing a primary selection system would do nothing to improve the diversity of parliamentarians, but would make it impossible for poor candidates to beat rich ones.
At present, as far as Labour is concerned, the local party controls what happens before a selection opens. There is no primary culture in the current selection process. Except by being famous, which can’t be legislated against, it’s impossible to gain a pre-selection advantage – other than by turning up to meetings and events, engaging with local members and being active in the community. There is virtually nothing that someone with money who wants to be an MP, but can’t be bothered to get involved, can do to gain an advantage.
However, once a constituency’s selectorate jumps from, say, 300 party members to 15,000 registered Labour supporters in a closed primary or caucus or 60,000 in an open primary, the possible modes of communicating are radically altered. Rather than being able to speak with all selectors individually, a candidate is forced to pursue other channels. There is nothing to stop a prospective primary candidate writing a letter to 15,000 or even 60,000 people every week for the one, two or three years before the primary opens, subtly or unsubtly canvassing support. Nothing except money, of course. At 40p a letter, that’s anything up to £375,000 on stationery and postage, even before renting an office and employing staff.
Nevertheless, if a political hopeful is able to contact such a large number of people directly, they are more likely to be selected. Certainly, they will increase their level of engagement with local people. But first they need to be rich.
If direct mail, automated phone calls, visits from paid canvassers, adverts on television, along with e-marketing and so on, start in one constituency, another will follow and then another. And that will become the norm. Do we really want the British system to becomes like the American one, where you can’t enter national representative politics without the cash to do so?
In the United States, the campaign to re-elect Mike Bloomberg as Mayor of New York recently knocked on its millionth door. That’s an impressive achievement, but it was only possible because those doing the knocking were paid to do so. Bloomberg is a billionaire. When the Democrats declined to pick him as their candidate in 2001, he switched to the Republicans. Disloyalty? He still won. That is how primaries work. And that is for whom they work.
Eventually, though, there is no need for a primary. Having changed the law to permit himself a third term, Bloomberg is now running as an independent. He is almost certain to win again. He is New York’s richest citizen. But politics should not be the business of dilettantes to the disadvantage of talented and committed people who simply don’t have the funds to compete.
To say there could be spending limits is disingenuous or misguided. How long before a primary could a democracy enforce spending limits? Three months? Six months? What about the curtailment of free speech?
Tory deputy chairman Michael Aschcroft is already using his millions to subvert Labour candidates in marginal seats. Under a primary system, his money might be used to determine our representatives, too. But that surely can’t be what we mean by Labour broadening its appeal.
Primaries would have a disastrous impact on the diversity of our Parliament. We should be proud of what Labour has done to change the composition of those who represent us at Westminster. Despite internal and external opposition, Labour has pursued positive discrimination for more than 12 years, using all-women shortlists to get more women into the House of Commons. This Labour Government amended the law in 2002 when there were legal challenges to all-women shortlists.
It was thanks to Labour that female parliamentary representation doubled from 9 per cent to 18 per cent in 1997. Could that have happened using primaries?
Of course, the numbers of disabled, those from ethnic minority backgrounds and gay and transgendered people are not reflected in Parliament. We need to do much more to change this situation. But primaries are not a progressive prescription for doing so. The result of their introduction would be to send more people from well-off, middle-class and white backgrounds to Westminster.
This is not to argue for the status quo. Doing nothing must not be an option. Labour needs to widen its supporter base and reach out beyond its activists to ordinary voters. The party needs to embrace local community organisations more effectively and engage fully with online media and social networking groups. Labour needs to get out from its ghetto and talk to people on their streets, in their web spaces and in their workplaces, where the trade unions have millions of members.
If we’re serious about engaging with the British people, this must involve a great deal more than something that only takes place every few years. That’s why primaries are unlikely to lead to a revival of civic-minded progressivism. As the Electoral Reform Society put it: “Primaries should not be a diversion from the reforms that are really needed.”
Gordon Brown’s commitment to hold a referendum on switching to the alternative vote system should go some way towards making every election vote count. The proposed introduction of a democratic second chamber is another step in the right direction.
Our Parliament should be made up of people who properly reflect our society. That means candidates from all backgrounds should be able to put themselves forward and have a fair chance of winning. Introducing primaries would not help towards that. In fact, it would only make things worse.
Luciana Berger is director of Labour Friends of Israel
