In the USA, they have primary elections, originally devised to take the approval of candidates away from the centralised party and into the hands of grassroots party members.
Would it work here?
Would it prevent the "parachuting" of candidates into safe seats?
Would it stop crusty local association members from resisting progressive candidates?
Would it be rather more open and above board?

n.b. I'm not advocating the US-style razzamatazz that goes with their their primaries, we are British after all.

In principle, it sounds a great idea. In practice, it would prove expensive as a process (think deficit) and for candidates (so they become rich only and unrepresentative). It also engebders over familarity and boredom in the electoral process. The US one goes on for years and is one big, over-hyped yawn. Maybe a move to PR would be cheaper and more democratic?

What is needed over the next few decades is to first stop, then reverse, the increasing disconnect and disenchantment between politicians and the general public. Nobody seems to view it as a major problem, or even really care, but the percentages of people not bothering to vote seems to be inexorably rising, and the way things are is, I think, very dangerous for democracy, or perhaps I should say such version of "democracy" as we presently endure.

Why unrepresentative, the members would be voting for them.


It doesn't have to be like the US ones.


PR is means of voting for already-selected candidates, not a means by which parties select their candidates.

It's already happened, Sarah Wollaston MP (Con Totnes) was selected via open primary

It's already happened, Sarah Wollaston MP (Con Totnes) was selected via open primary

Thank you for a sensible reply, would that certain others would follow that path.

Yes, I am thinking that if people were allowed to choose their candidates, they might join a party and become more engaged with the whole process, rather than leaving it in the hands of male, pale and stale duffers who can't remember what they had for breakfast.

Somehow we need to get the public owning politics.

cod'ead wrote:It's already happened, Sarah Wollaston MP (Con Totnes) was selected via open primary Thanks for that, good news. She seems like she's her own woman, not a slavish member of the lobby-fodder flock. AND the turnout for her primary was better than expected.

cod'ead wrote:It's already happened, Sarah Wollaston MP (Con Totnes) was selected via open primary Thanks for that, good news. She seems like she's her own woman, not a slavish member of the lobby-fodder flock. AND the turnout for her primary was better than expected.

I would like to see an anglicised version of primaries, with a few caveats:

No newspaper, TV or radio advertising

A maximum spend of £10k on leafleting etc.

All candidates available for selection to be granted the same length of time to pitch and answer questions at hustings

FAs reply was not an answer to your OP!

Why do you think primaries would egage the public when US presidential election turnout (c. 57% in recent elections) is significantly less than in UK general elections? As I suggested, it would probanly add to voter turn-off.

Your idea of engaging people is to turn to the process. AIn fact, a typical out of touch politicians answer to a problem! What engages people is relevance of policy to their lives, difference in policy between parties, charisma, honesty and integrity. In short, representation of their views, needs and aspirations rather than what we have now - unrepresentative, out of touch parties infested by low-grade individuals.

Well I have just sent a postal vote in for selecting the Labour party candidate for Chester. There was a large short list which got whittled down at one meeting to five and then the voting is by alternative vote so you rank 'em in order of preference.

Very interesting to be contacted by the candidates and very interesting to see where they are from and what their background is.

I quizzed the ones who showed up in person about the issues that bother me and voted for the one who matched my views the most who also happened to be a local councillor and not someone from elsewhere parachuted in.

I think they are one of the favourites to win and if they do and if they win the seat which is a marginal in 2015 it will be interesting to see how they vote on various issues.

Of course to do this you have to be a party member with your subs paid up and given I have often thought I ought to cancel the membership in disgust at some of the party policies in government and its current support for IDS and workfare it's only laziness on my part I was still able to vote.

Anyway if we had primaries which would allow a similar process wouldn't this still have to be restricted to party members otherwise wouldn't you get a lot of tactical voting from the opposition to defeat the candidate most likely to cause problems for the one from their own party?