The Open Primary Bill

Imagine if there were open primaries for everyone - not just voters in Totnes?  Every voter, in every constituency would have a real say over who got to be their MP - not just those in marginal constituencies.

Imagine the impact on our politicians?  MPs would become far more accountable to local people, rather than party whips, knowing that they faced a properly competitive contest to keep their job every four years. 

Well, all this could become a reality if enough MPs back my Open Primary Bill. 

Before the Commons went into recess, I managed to wangle a slot to introduce a Bill as soon as the House reconvenes.  My Bill would allow local parties and citizens to petition their local returning officer to arrange an open primary in their constituency - provided they were willing to meet the cost, of course. 

But under my Bill, cost would cease to be such a hurdle;  if enough local folk demand a primary, the contest would be "piggy backed" on any other pre-scheduled poll - local, national or European.  And with participating parties splitting the bill, the marginal cost increase of printing an extra ballot paper would be divided several ways.

Since Dan Hannan and I first proposed open primaries in 2005, the Conservatives have been won round to the idea.  Martin Bell now backs my Bill.  Senior Labour figures, such as David Miliband, say they favour primaries.  Lib Dems, meanwhile, have been complaining about the unfair system of "safe seats" for as long as anyone can remember.  Here is something they can do to change things right away.

Since Expense-gate, not a vast amount has actually changed.  Left to those in SW1, a lot of it is business-as-before.  My Open Primaries Bill could bring about a quiet revolution right away.  Every MP, even in the safest of seats, will need to prove to local people they deserve to remain their representative.

Posted on 10 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell

Comments

This is a little indirect but... I read William Hague's book about Wilberforce and was very interested (and somewhat pleasantly surprised) about the degree to which local politics actually happened pre-1832. I think they did have a form of open primaries back then, if I understand correctly. Of course we know that there were a lot of games played with power, money and influence, but things were lively and there was risk and accountability, or so it seemed to me reading about it.

Anyhow, I love the open primary thing. I see party-political dnagers but only public good. You are right about the Lib Dems- they could seek out the most popular and best connected local people, set them on a platform, win them a following and defeat any slightly wayward, moribund or unpopular Conservative or Labour man or woman.

The possibilities are nearly endless- that's just one.

Posted on 10 August 2009 10:01 by ed

I am not at all fired up about the idea of primaries as a means to dilute the power of the whips but would go along with it. But why not also be a whole lot more direct and introduce a bill to make party political whipping illegal? We all know it is a system more conducive of corruption than the daft expenses system which has recently been exposed. Any link between party political advancement and the adherence to the instructions of party leaders is inherently and obviously corrupt. MPs are supposed to be our representatives not the stooges of the political hierarchy. Any system which allows, let alone positively encourages, such corruption should have far greater scrutiny.

Posted on 10 August 2009 10:08 by SDTR

Mr Carswell, how do you repsond to Peter Hitchens's comments in yesterday's Mail On Sunday?

BoQ
Dancing to Dave's tune - Sarah and the Cameronettes
Like so many other features of David Cameron's Blue Labour Party, the supposedly 'democratic' selection of GP Sarah Wollaston as Tory candidate in Totnes is not even as good as it looks.
Having once put myself forward for a Tory candidate selection (purely to annoy Michael Portillo and with no hope of success), I know that the key is not the final vote but the shortlist. If you can't get on it (and I certainly couldn't), then nobody can vote for you - and that list is still controlled by party cliques and increasingly by Mr Cameron himself.
Then there's the question of who votes. If Liberal Democrats and Labour supporters can take part, as they did, what are the chances of a tough-minded opponent of welfare spongeing and mass immigration, let alone a supporter of marriage and low taxation, getting picked? Zero.
As for the simpering about how Dr Wollaston is non-partisan and unpolitical, this just means that the party machine can boss and manipulate her with ease once she's at Westminster. She may be a wizard with a stethoscope and a blood-pressure machine but without firm views and hard experience she'll be lobby-fodder like the rest. If you thought Blair's Babes were bad, wait for the robotic obedience of the Cameronettes.
EoQ

Posted on 10 August 2009 11:00 by Shakassoc

I have to say that open primaries look rather like a more complicated & expensive way of doing what proportional representation, if the ballot includes some way of selecting within party lists, does better. Primaries do allow party names & structures to remain in place & thus do not arouse a kneejerk reaction from those in power & if I were running China I would certainly introduce open primaries there for that reason. Here I would go for PR.

Posted on 10 August 2009 11:55 by Neil Craig

Your Bill must include a recall system as only then will true representation of an MPs selection be brought home to them. Knowing that they can be 'hauled back' to face their constituents wrath at any time in the 4/5 year 'tenure' would be a certain way of breaking the Whips' 'power'.

Posted on 10 August 2009 15:48 by WitteringsfromWitney

"If Liberal Democrats and Labour supporters can take part, as they did, what are the chances of a tough-minded opponent of welfare spongeing and mass immigration, let alone a supporter of marriage and low taxation, getting picked? Zero."

If thats the way the people vote, thats the way the people vote.

Posted on 10 August 2009 16:13 by DominicJ

I can't see the Libdems liking it. If voters have the choice of replacing an unpopular Tory/Labour MP with one more to their liking, then much of the excuse for voting LibDem evapourates.

Posted on 10 August 2009 16:47 by Pete Wass

Shakassoc,
"As for the simpering about how Dr Wollaston is non-partisan and unpolitical, this just means that the party machine can boss and manipulate her with ease once she's at Westminster. "

Only if she lets them.

Clearly you have been moving in political circles for too long. You are assuming that, like the career politicans that fill the commons, her ambition is to further her own political career for its own sake. Perhaps this lady actually believes in democracy and wants to represent her constituents and do what's right. If that is the case, what hold will the whips have on her?

Posted on 10 August 2009 20:34 by Deborah

Obviously an excellent bill but will Parliament really overcome their vested interest to not pass the bill - I doubt it. Labour MP's wont vote for an opposition members bill, and I expect that the whole thing wont be given much attention. That is just by pessimistic view, so good luck anyway.

Posted on 10 August 2009 23:38 by Think This

Ask those who were on the short list against Johnson B for the Tories London Mayoral Primary what they thought of that "open" primary, and Red Ken how "open" the election was with the Lyin' Standard performing 100% for Bojo.

And the 97 wannabes in Totnes who were whittled down to one dignitary from each of the Councils the Constituency now straddles, and a lady GP who says, at a time of triumphant anti-politics, that she is pretty a - political . . .

http://quietzapple-musing.blogspot.com/



Lord Ashcroft and all his office workers at Tory HQ could not have done better themselves.

Posted on 11 August 2009 12:12 by Quietzapple

Neil Craig
"I have to say that open primaries look rather like a more complicated & expensive way of doing what proportional representation, if the ballot includes some way of selecting within party lists, does better."

How about this.
Abolish constituancies.

Every 5 years there is an election.
The 650 candidates who get the most votes, get seats.

Its not true PR, because if one Tory Candidate gets 0 votes, and another gets 1 million votes, only one of them gets in, however, it does allow smaller parties to pick up the "wasted votes" of multiple constituancies.

We could even do funky stuff, like say, anyone who gets 50,000 votes can be an MP, even if we ended up with 900 of the buggers, or say you need 100,000 votes to be an MP.

"Local" Candidates could still run on local issues for local people, but local would be organic, rather than imposed by the boundary commision.

If you want to run on a platform of saving the local postoffice and relying on local voters, you can, but equaly, if you want to run on a platform of bringing back hanging and relying on a few voters everywhere, you can

Posted on 11 August 2009 13:55 by DominicJ

Make A Comment