Open primaries will soon become the accepted method of selecting candidates for elections in Britain, claims Janice Small of Conservative Action for Electoral Reform
After losing the last general election back in 2005, a number of Tory modernisers pondered what we had to do to change our party for the better and to make it attractive to voters again. Those clever people in Direct Democracy: an agenda for a new model party came up with the idea of open primaries.
In August, Sarah Wollaston, a GP and mother of three, was selected as the Conservative candidate for Totnes. Dr Wollaston was chosen by what I believe will soon become the normal method in Britain: an open primary.
Yes, it is the first. Unlike the system of "open caucuses" previously used by the Conservatives – where any local resident can turn up at a meeting at which there is a vote – proper primaries involve every local resident taking part in either a postal or a formal ballot.
Open caucuses was a start by the Conservative Party to encourage local people to take part in the selection process. There was resistance by the local associations who thought that the selection meetings would be "infiltrated" by the opposition to choose the weakest candidate.
I was chosen by an open caucus and I am not aware of any resident other than local party members registering to vote at my selection meeting, despite the event being advertised in the local press. This method was quite clever because a local journalist usually interviews the candidates and puts questions to them previously agreed from the electorate. It does sort out those that can think on their feet, perform well in public, have thought about their politics (you would be surprised how many have not) and can take on the local rottweiler journalist, who usually knows more about the local area than the candidates. |
 |
At the Totnes open primary, 25 per cent of voters took part in the poll – a higher figure than some full by-elections have registered. That this should have happened at a time of general political alienation is extraordinary. This result was beyond anything we had hoped for.
Or perhaps it isn't so extraordinary. Perhaps the anger against politicians is itself a product of the existing selection system. Elected representatives are seen, not as local champions, but as members of a separate caste. Voters regard their MPs as spokesmen for their parties in the constituency rather than the other way around. How better to address this disenchantment than by allowing everyone in the constituency a say in whom the parties should nominate?
Dr Wollaston now goes into the general election with several advantages.
First, 8,000 people – a hefty chunk of her electorate – have made her "their" candidate. They will feel committed to her, they will have a stake in her success and they will, in consequence, be likelier than they otherwise would to tell their neighbours to vote Conservative.
Second, she has a massive media head start. When did you last see a Tory selection protest make the national television news?
Third, no-one will ever be able to paint her as a party apparatchik, foisted on Devon by Conservative HQ. Even if her voting record were to be slavishly loyal, no one would hold it against her (not that she is likely to be slavish since, unlike most MPs, she owes her position to her electorate, not her party. That's the beauty of the whole thing!).
And fourth – and most important – the people of Totnes have already indicated that they like what the good GP stands for. Party officials might have tried to second-guess their preferences, but they could never have been certain.
For all these reasons, Dr Wollaston will be almost impossible to beat. Indeed, the only way that the Lib Dems could even dream of taking her on is by selecting their own candidate through a similar method.
Once one party adopts open primaries, the others will more or less have to follow. People won't realise it for a while, but it will change British politics - and change it utterly, permanently and benignly. Dr Wollaston's victory is a giant step towards making our government accountable to the people.
Far from upsetting local party members, who still get to decide who is on the shortlist, open primaries tend to actually increase local party membership – and ensure that the winning candidate has a head start and local legitimacy.
Done properly, primaries have massive potential to open up our system of politics and wrest control back from the SW1 people.
Dr Wollaston now has a clear head start over her Lib Dem opponent – a 7,914 head start, to be precise. Not all of the other 8,000 or so folk who took part in the primary selection will back her, but the evidence is that very many will support the party that allowed them a say – regardless of whether their candidate won.
And that's why ultimately other parties will have to follow suit if the Conservatives roll this process out everywhere. It has enormous advantages – it re-energises grass roots politics, it democratises how we choose who gets to be MPs, and it favours citizen law-makers with strong local roots over professional politicians.
Cost is a factor. Totnes apparently cost £40,000 and there is the rub. Who pays for this? The average constituency party – even the Tory shires, cannot afford this. What price democracy at a time when the trust in politicians is at an all time low?
This autumn, MP Douglas Carswell will introduce a bill in the House of Commons to give local people in every constituency in Britain the right to demand open primary contests. Good luck to him.
Janice Small is Conservative prospective parliamentary candidate for Batley & Spen |
