Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Leading Corbynista calls for Labour to introduce US-style prim
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Leading Corbynista calls for Labour to introduce US-style primaries to select candidates
In a Tweet last night one of Labour’s most prominent and leading Corbyn backers, Aaron Bastani, called for what would be a radical change in the way the party selects candidates for Parliament and other elected offices. Instead of the current system which puts just about all the power with Trade Unions and members he wants US style primaries.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The 50% being 'mandatory reselection...'
(Amusingly autocorrect changed the last word to 'deselection.' My iPhone is clearly a follower of Freud!)
Even Corbyn might have some issues if the LibDems were sufficiently motivated and organised...er, maybe not!
And yet you assume he is capable of logic, reasoning and self-awareness?
He also said that as the Liberals had been third in previous elections Ladbrokes offered 33-1 on him winning. A regular gambler Freud put a considerable amount on himself and the winnings paid for support staff for his local office for some years!
She seems to have swallowed a mushy philosophy whole - that’s very different to someone who has a free thinking approach
Basic rule in left politics - if Bastani suggests something do the opposite
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1092594938259431424
In fact what I think we see in the US is that primaries generate more extreme candidates that appeal to the activists rather than the electorate where working across the aisle is an anathema and almost the only unforgivable sin.
But on the whole I don't think they're a brilliant idea.
On the merits of the thing, I imagine he's envisaging a primary among party members (like the American states where you have to be a registered party supporter to take part). This is very like a normal selection, the difference being that he envisages it happening routinely in all seats. So the novelty in the proposal is that he would get rid of the deselection process, which is painful but also gives MPs a firewall against challenge, and make challenge a normal phenomenon. I think it would cause a lot of upset within the PLP and the leadership hasn't made any attempt to get even routinely dissident MPs deselected, so it won't happen.
Or not happen now. If Corbyn formed a government and it was routinely frustrated by nominally Labour MPs voting down key proposals, I can imagine a new push to make deselection easier. But that's a potential discussion five years away.
Who said that and about whom?
Not that the judge believed him.
40% of US voters are registered Democrats. And, FWIW, AOC received over fifteen thousand votes in her successful primary contest.
Horrors! Populism on specific headline policies. Leave it to the cabal.
https://twitter.com/zatchry/status/1092543224474947589?s=21
The other eleven candidates on the slate AOC was part of all failed. She won because she better represents her particular electorate, with which her Democratic establishment opponent had become entirely out of touch.
A lesson which our major parties appear to have forgotten is that success depends o building a coalition of interests. That any one set of ideas represents a majority of the electorate is patently absurd.
Foggy today.
As Mike says opening up the selection takes away one of the benefits of membership.
The solution to this, in my opinion, is far fewer safe seats forcing parties to choose candidates who do appeal to those not in the party to get elected. With gerrymandering rife we get the exact opposite.
The same applies here. The number one job of the Electoral Commission, in my view, should be to create more marginal seats.
As the guardians of what is allowed, how are they chosen?
It's worth bearing in mind that Wollaston won her primary from memory as a sceptic. She was a rebel who voted for an EU referendum early on.
She's since then transformed into an extremist second referendum Remainer who doesn't respect the outcome of the vote she campaigned to have called.
It would be like having Tony Blair be first elected to Parliament on Michael Foot's manifesto. Oh wait ...
Over the years the parties have become more and more interested in the boundary review process, not only making their own submissions but 'rounding up' sympathetic members of the public to make submissions in favour of the party proposal. Party proposals almost always aimed at protecting and enhancing the safe seats of as many of their representatives as possible. The Commission does its best, but with hardly genuinely neutral participation it is hardly surprising that the system has been pushed toward more and more safe seats.
Interestingly, in north London for the last (probably doomed) review the Commission chose the area-wide submission from a member of the public (if one somewhat obsessed with boundary reviews) over those of all the political parties. And in the round it was a better proposal. But it is very rare for anyone to make such an effort.
The Commission did at least get rid of the cross-examination element of the public hearings, which the big parties were using to hire top lawyers to twist and manipulate the process to their own ends.
Many years ago, in my Labour days, I attended one where one potential candidate attended, carrying the recommendation of the local Executive. At some point we were asked to give him a standing ovation.
What a piece of work.
Imagine if he'd come back as a Catholic?
Those selection committees for Stalin must have been a bugger....
Edited extra bit: ahem. Ireland* to beat Scotland with a 6 point handicap. I'm not playing myself.
The reason she draws such opprobrium from the right is that she is a good communicator who gets social media and (I have to write this because it’s part of her appeal, not because I think it should matter) very pretty and lots of fun.
But an extremist? No.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6667941/Twenty-Labour-MPs-five-Tories-form-new-centrist-group-Liberal-Democrat-leader-claims.html
Because I see it as a means of limiting that party power, I am strongly in favour of these sorts of open primaries. The idea was pushed by Hannan and Carswell in their book The Plan, which is all about decentralisation and increasing the democratic accountability of our politicians.
If it is a means to make the MPs more independent of the overbearing party control as they are more beholden to the local primary electors, then that is a leap in the right direction.
One of the main drivers of the increasing failure in UK politics has come as the power of the political party has increased.
They (all four of the major parties, how quaint, I included the LibDems) need to have less power over the MPs we elect.
The MPs are firstly the representatives of all the electors in the constituency they stood in, and secondly a member of the party under whose banner they stood.
Indeed. The fewer easily led, on-message, sheep in parliament, the better for us all.
The concept of 'joining' Vince is one for deadwood.
As someone once said...
Only from the PB Tories.
Only on PB.
When branches have nominated, the Exec steps in and short-lists. If a couple of branches or a branch and some unions nominate you, you'll almost certainly be short-listed - there are occasional exceptions and they always cause a huge row. After, you and the others are invited to an all-member selection - each in turn gives a speech and answers questions, and then there's a secret ballot - usually only of those who turn up and hear the speeches, but sometimes with postal votes.
It's a fairly good system, which gives an edge to local people but still gives a chance to talented outsiders. The main debate is over whether the process should happen every time (as Bastani implies) or only if the party formally votes to deselect you (which is very, very rare). The former would give more power to whatever line of thought is currently dominant, the latter risks having dozy MPs sitting on safe seats forever. The answer is perhaps to make it a bit easier to force a vote, but not automatic.
But even that might be only a handful. Chris Leslie, Chukka, Gapes?
I am assuming that Labour's high command will try and hold off deselections until as near to GE as possible.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/08/28/most-americans-now-support-medicare-for-all-and-free-college-tuition.html
Multitasking fail while walking through a large crowd on phone!
So, King Cole is right. If, and it's a significant 'if', 25 Lab and Con MPs jumped ship to the... what colour do you get if you mix red, blue, and yellow? Well, by numbers it'd be mostly red, so that'd be orange plus blue... dark green?
Anyway, it would be the third biggest party.
Of course, if every apparently dissatisfied Labour MP split, it'd be the official Opposition.
That your own phrase? Congrats if so. Brilliant.
That seems mental to me. I'd like a simple system whereby if say 25% of members request a selection vote a contest is triggered.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/labour-deselection-and-reselection-rules-explained-102938