Give the People What They Want! Why It Could Be Time UK Parties Elect Their Leaders Using Open Primaries.
As a fan of The Rest is Politics podcast, I thought it was time I read some of The Alastair Campbell Diaries. I was gripped. The first volume opens at the death of Labour leader John Smith in 1994 and recounts the scramble to elect a replacement from within the party’s top ranks. Twenty-eight years later, the public are watching another contest, this time with second rate candidates who unlike Smith or Tony Blair, won’t have to wait for a general election to become prime minister.
From 2011–2019, I was a member, supporter and campaigner for the Labour Party and since then, have campaigned and stood for the Liberal Democrats in local government. In that time, I have voted in four national leadership elections and have come to know two very different party structures. In all political parties, leadership candidates parade the country to speak with members, fundraise for local causes and candidates and work to maximise their external media coverage. Some candidates focus on driving up their online exposure while others try to make it over the line with an efficient and effective ground game. The task is physically demanding. Candidates must ensure their campaigns are well financed and staffed and present a clear, coherent and unique plan of action to the party faithful. In some contests, the campaigns develop a real buzz and sense of renewal. In others — often as a result of a significant election loss — the mood is sombre.
There are a number of reasons why the mass-membership party model is a terrible means of forming attractive and rational policies that will capture the public imagination, win votes and transform lives. Gathering together with tens of thousands of others who see the world and its challenges in broadly the same way is a recipe for disaster. Add to this a small pool of eligible candidates and parliament’s summer recess and the problem immediately becomes ten times worse.
Some, like Alastair Campbell, cite the removal of Mario Draghi in Italy as a reason why Britain should have a general election following the resignation of a sitting prime minister. The argument made is that at a time of significant change, citizens must be given the opportunity to either endorse the new prime minister, or elect an alternative, thereby giving the victor a mandate of their own. Gordon Brown came under pressure from within the Labour Party to win his own general election mandate when he stood unopposed for the leadership in 2007 (See Volume Seven) and the same occurred for Theresa May in 2016.
But without importing the Italian tradition of brief administrations, can any changes be made to the existing leadership election processes to improve the accountability and quality of our national leaders? Let’s start by acknowledging the current state of play.
The Liberal Democrats used their 2019 Spring Conference to introduce a Registered Supporters’ Scheme. The motion proposed that the RSS be open to those who were members of other UK parties in an attempt to recognise those who may vote tactically for the Liberal Democrats and award them some say in how the party is run. At the same conference however, the Liberal Democrats opted not to give registered supporters the right to vote for the leadership. In 2020, Keir Starmer was elected Labour leader in a contest that permitted Labour registered and affiliated supporters equal voting rights to full members. This year, the Conservative leadership contest is not open to non-members, but members who live abroad can still vote for either Rishi Sunak or Liz Truss.
So — what’s the alternative?
In the United States, twenty-four states permit open primaries during presidential elections. In 2010, California held a state-wide referendum which asked residents whether they wished to switch from using first-past-the-post in all state elections to a non-partisan blanket primary system. “Proposition 14” passed by 53.73% and remains in force today.
The most significant criticism of open primaries is that is leaves parties vulnerable to entryism from members and supporters of other parties with ill intentions. Fair enough — the same criticism was made in 2015 shortly before the election of Labour backbench outsider Jeremy Corbyn. In all largescale contests, there is of course the risk of entryism to some degree. Nobody has ever been able to definitively determine the number of entryists within any of Britain’s political parties. But to be safe, perhaps Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats could cap the number of non-members who can vote in an open primary? This number could be based on the size of their existing membership. Today, the Liberal Democrats have around 70,000 members. If they created additional ballots that accounted for 20% or 30% of the membership, that would mean 14,000 or 21,000 non-members could also contribute to the final result. Based on 2021 figures, this would open up 40,000 or 60,000 ballots respectively in this year’s Conservative contest.
I propose the 20–30% range because it is large enough that leadership candidates would be required to take note of public opinion without leaving the major parties exposed to well-organised entryists with ill intensions. Members of all of Britain’s three major parties have no role in nominating candidates for leader and unless the party member is also a Member of Parliament, they cannot themselves appear on the ballot. Candidates may be less likely to advise members to ignore the First Minister of Scotland for example, if they know one in five or one in three voters are not party loyalists. Similarly, a leadership candidate may have had time to refine and re-evaluate their longshot claim to be Britain’s next prime minister had a significant portion of electors in the leadership contest been swing voter Liberals but by no means #FBPE loyalists. At some point, national leaders must face the public and say what they are for. Why not include that as part of the interview?
“At some point, national leaders must face the public and say what they are for. Why not include that as part of the interview?” — Tom Parkin
One of Ed Miliband’s biggest internal reforms to the Labour Party was the removal of block voting. I am not proposing a return to this formula. These additional leadership electors have the potential to remedy the extremes precisely because they are not a homogenous group. It is not a perfect solution, but a small contribution to empowering citizens, encouraging participation and improving the quality of leaders and ideas at a time of national and international crises.
Tom Parkin is a foreign affairs commentator, former Liberal Democrat candidate and incoming PhD researcher at the School of Journalism, Media and Communication at The University of Sheffield (February 2023). He blogs at medium.com/tomparkinwrites. You can follow Tom on Twitter @tompjparkin.
