Primaries: a secondary solution

I’m back from Progress’ debate this evening on whether Labour should introduce primaries for the selection of candidates. From both the panel and the floor, it was heated and passionate. What was quickly apparent was the extent to which we do not have a settled primary model, and that there is significant variance in why people choose to position themselves on either side of the debate. It may surprise those of you that know I have advocated – based upon the experience of 80 members of the YF-LSN delegation to Ohio almost a year ago - the Labour party taking some lessons from Obama’s grassroots campaign, that I am not, in fact, massively in favour of Labour adopting primaries for candidate selection. They may well be part of the process of involving more people, but they should not be presented as the main cause for this goal nor as some sort of panacea for the Labour Party in the twenty-first century.

Progress, and their voice tonight, Will Straw, did attempt to set out a model. But I don’t find their argument convincing – ultimately because I don’t agree with what primaries are intended to solve. Will argued tonight that primaries are inevitable in terms of reinvolving people in the selection process. But its a solution in search of a problem - I just don’t believe that people are disaffected because they can’t vote in selections. Actually, I think how candidates are selected is among the least of the party’s problems. He also put the case that something needs to be done to address declining membeship  – this is more like it, but primaries are one of the red herrings amongst his wider argument for how this can be done (even though this is ultimately to get around the decline by abolishing membership altogether).

I think what both Will and I saw separately in the States in 2008, and in earlier US elections, was an impressive ability to involve a large number of people in a party political campaign, irrespective of party membership. But primaries – a cross-party structural mechanism - are the wrong lesson from America. Rather, it is the unique success Obama had in making people feel a part of his campaign in whatever way they wanted; recognising individuals’ skills, developing others, and empowering them to make a difference. It is not a linear relationship in either direction but we can’t simply think that implementing primaries will bring this about. David Lammy was right tonight when he said that we need to lower the bar to participation in the party, but wrong to conclude that that participation will necessarily last beyond the primary vote.

The arguments went backwards and forwards in progressive circles throughout the summer recess. Those against say it will favour the rich (I’m sympathetic to this view). Those for solve that by placing a cap on spending. But in placing a financial cap, whatever you think of money in politics, you are actually limiting the potential for engagement with a wide audience. In opening up our primaries to either a whole constituency or to those identifying/registering as Labour, we need to actually show that we are effective and innovative campaigners. In capping spending, we are ultimately capping candidates’ ability to print literature, travel the constituency (Labour does hold rural seats remember), and to talk to their prospective constituents. I’m a firm believer that all that was good about Obama’s campaign wasn’t necessarily driven by financial resources, but by people. But we do need to be realistic that campaigning costs money. We need to think about how a candidate can engage with a whole constituency on a limited budget if we are to solve those goals of participation and engagement, and also particularly if we aim to ensure atypical candidates – those that aren’t long-term councillors or politicos – are given a chance. Stepping back from the candidate level, an argument will need to be won with the public that administering an extra round of voting for each general election is worth the public money that this will cost. The argument will need to be won inside the Labour Party that the costs it incurs are worthwhile when it has local and general elections to fund too. I see little evidence that British people want to vote more than they currently do. Actually, we need to first convince them of the importance of the political process – to do this effectively we would have to demonstrate what (party) politics can achieve and more than likely this will mean bringing them into the fold. In other words, to create the environment for primaries to be a success, you already need to solve the goal the primary process would seek to reach.

David Lammy told tonight’s audience that forces of conservatism exist on both the left and the right of the Labour Party. My objection is not from a small-c conservative viewpoint though. Actually we need to do even more. Primaries are an easy option in terms of lowering the bar to participation but we can not say for certain that they will increase participation at the levels that Labour actually needs. We should not turn away people who are only willing or able to help a little, but we need to have the ability to take them on a journey of activism if and when they are ready. As such primaries can only be a small part of a package of institutional and grassroots party reform. A package that includes a commitment to invest in our people, to support them in welcoming new supporters, to train, to trust and to test. We should try things out – and I’m with Sunder Katwala on this one, that trialling primaries ahead of the London Mayoral election is probably the right place – but we must have clarity over why we are doing it and what we expect to gain.

This is a long-termer. And the debate’s going to run and run.

Adrian Prandle, International Officer