´óÏó´«Ã½

Laura, with all these blogs you are really spoiling us!

When David Miliband speaks I'm always interested because he sounds like he's juggling a frog with his tongue. He always sounds like a really boring politics student though.

Even by mentioning the PM's name in the second sentence Milliband will find that he has just kicked over a hornet's nest. Many Old Labour seats especially in Scotland have MP candidates selected by Trade Unions or are time served in the Scottish Labour Party. Interestingly the same objections of loss of party control in selecting candidates is being pushed by the stalwarts in the old Conservative party.

No, Gordon will not be amused.

"We need to expand our reach by building social alliances and increasing opportunity for engagement and interaction with our party."

Is it not just another mean to an end. The end is always power and more power for the party and oneself.

However well span, it is no good choosing a candidate from a already carefullly screened and chosen list of candidates. Hobson will still only give you the horse of his choice.

After an initial burst of publicity I expect the novelty of voting in these primaries will quickly fade away.

If the majority of the public cannot be bothered to vote in a by election why think that this will be different for a vote to merely select someone who will be a candidate for a party that (statisically) you will not be voting for anyway?

Once the next general election is out of the way and the expenses bloodletting is sated then I believe that the usual voter apathy will return.

Hi Laura

First of all id like to say thanks for all the blogs, and balanced reporting. Its been a while since I have seen a reporter report facts and not try and spin it one way or the other. Hopefully the ´óÏó´«Ã½ will see sense at some point, and leave you in charge of the Fort and Nick can further his career in the labour party as Spin Doctor (poorly)

Any back on subject, I find it coincidental that Labour are only just suggesting this idea, I thought Gordon was leading the way in democratic reform and the tories are a do nothing party? If this is the case how come the tories have already trialed this (as in actually done something other than propose it and then hope people forget they have proposed it). I think this is a knee jerk reaction by labour to say "oh we thought of that too".

Also is it just me or does the fact that all these speaches coming from everyone but Gordon make you think the labour party is more finished than origionally thought? Surely on something as democratic change the whole party can come to a decision and present as one (i.e through their spokesman and leader Gordon!)

A minor comment, but you refer to "all of the town's voters" in reference to the Totnes selection. But the town of Totnes is quite a small part of the constituency which includes a number of similarly sized towns (Kingsbridge, Salcombe, Dartmouth, Brixham) and a selection of villages.

Great work on the blog in Nick's absence - I've really enjoyed it!

Since my very presence seems to break house rules, I am loathe to post a comment. In your previous two posts we had controversial Government weakness exposed. Now we have a Labour love in post. Coincidence? I think not. The procurement scandal is a big story today and your blogging a part of that. Why the abandonement? This is a very tame piece on a tame subject.

As indicated by #3, parties will not "lose control" if they have carefully doctored candidate lists. Whether you hold a "primary" or not is really just spin.

More delaying tactics on electoral reform perhaps?

Hello Laura. Nice to see a fresh perspective and an enthusiasm for the blog.

I find it interesting that once again the Tories come up with a potentially good idea and tired Labour try and nick it. I suppose if we see more interest in elections, then it does not matter too much.

As, with many 'guest' commentators invited in at the drop of a producer's iPhone, it is a rare instance where I have seen a publication that is not 'right wing' or 'conservative' labelled as anything at all, I was wondering if there was, anywhere, an accepted (hah!), objective list/chart/guide where the political positionings of various reference sources was listed. I am not a big 'wing/ist/zi' designation fan.

If not, and to any degree of standardisation, I am in a variety of minds as to whether these appellations should be used. But for once I don't err on shades of grey. I think it should be one or t'other. The 'all' option is, inevitably, open to subjectivity. While 'nothing' remains, in the care of the reader's own eyes and independent thought, still mostly objective.

I am erring on the latter. That said, the provenance of a source is still often very pertinent to the take it/they provide, and of course there are also the numbers and extremity of views held that remain the gift of those who book individuals or quote stories.

Tricky. But as I suspect my preference will be in the minority, and as 'all' will... should be revealed, it can be refreshing to see the possible context of a quoted source and why some who use them may prefer that environment. So long as it is applied equally from all directions.

One also looks forward to certain 'research', by various 'think tanks', etc being framed by affiliations that might colour (blue, red, green...) their findings, being too often merely a means to introduce a spurious degree of separation from what are too often partisan opinions. And without the time or means to check more deeply, if taken at face value for some in the audience, this can stray into misrepresentation.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"SirNorfolkPassmore wrote:
A minor comment, but you refer to "all of the town's voters" in reference to the Totnes selection. But the town of Totnes is quite a small part of the constituency which includes a number of similarly sized towns (Kingsbridge, Salcombe, Dartmouth, Brixham) and a selection of villages."

I grew up in the area and actually voted there for the first time (I think back then it was the "South Hams") and I was surprised to hear it referred to as the Totnes constituency because as you mention the vast majority of people don't live in Totnes!

Also from what I understood the candidate who won was the only one of the three who actually lived in the constituency (the others were career politicians from just outside).

Back on the actual topic, this does strike me as New Labour noticing how well the Totnes trial went for the Tories and trying to jump on the band wagon. I may be remembering incorrectly but didn't some senior Labour figures dismiss this as a gimmick when it was first announced?

"oldrightie wrote:
Since my very presence seems to break house rules, I am loathe to post a comment. In your previous two posts we had controversial Government weakness exposed. Now we have a Labour love in post. Coincidence? I think not. The procurement scandal is a big story today and your blogging a part of that. Why the abandonement? This is a very tame piece on a tame subject."

I don't consider this posting to be a Labour love-in, clear mention was made of the fact that this was recently tried (successfully) as a Conservative trial and it potentially is a big political news story (as it could lead to a change in how our candidates are selected in this country)

While the cat is away the mice will play!

Gordon takes a few weeks off and mysteriously we have "vision statement" non leadership bids from three wannabee leaders in Lord Mandelson, Harriet Harperson and David "bananaman" Milliband.

With friends like these who needs enemies.

Some interesting discussions on this:

and

Congratulations on your prolific, balanced reporting, Laura. It makes a very welcome change.

D. Miliband says:
"...Such engaging and deliberative party structures enable PASOK to tap into the energy in communities and multiply the force of a national message through local, authentic, committed advocacy, with resultant electoral success."

A good way to appeal to the electorate would be to communicate in English, not management consultant gibberish.

Well done Laura, at this rate the ´óÏó´«Ã½ mafia will have you out on your
ears soon, but lets enjoy while it lasts.

he could have started with every time a party changes leader in power
there has to be a general election.

That would invigorate the electorate.

PS and I might not be voting tory

I'll be voting for whom is going to sort this dog breakfast of
a country out and quick

Laura,
So democracy is alive and well in Totnes.
I wondered where it had gone to after all these years!

Call me a cynic but this smacks of the latest idea that the 2 main parties are coming up with which to con the voters. Neither of them want to change a system which might be bankrupt in terms of doing what its supposed to like representing voters but suits people like Cameron and Milliband very well indeed

Therefore they are looking at ways to fob us off while preserving first past the post duopoly on power which neither want to give up


In the past 10 years tere have been ever more elections ( Scottish Welsh assemblies, London Assemblies, elected mayors) yet ordinary people have less say over how they are governed than at any time sonce 1918


why because all they ever think of doing is trying to con us into thinking we have a say when at every oppertunity they try and reduce any say we really have

Where is the fob off in this particular idea?

Well most of the candidates in the primaries will be chosen by the central organisations that is by people like Milliband. they will chose people who will be careerist politicians who will ask no difficult questions and follow the whips regardless of what the voters they alledgedly represent want.

This means that the primary will ammount to a choice between Tweedle A Tweedle B Tweedle C and Tweedledee which means that what the chocie will amount to is a choice of which YESPERSON

Furthermore these Yes people will often be friends or family of powerful people in the party elites (think of the attempt to parachute georgia Gould in) and therefore even more they will be members of the corrupt discredited political class of which Milliband and his brother are classic examples


expecting Decent constitutional reform from the people who ruined it is like expecting tony Soprano to crack down on organised crime

Why is it that only when politicians are in danger of defeat does constitutional reform suddenly become important...this government has had 12 years to sort out the unequal voting system but only now when threatened with oblivion do they bring the subject up...do they really think we are that stupid?...


ps i had a comment pulled from a previous blog but it took the mods over 24 hours to decide it was off topic... surely it wasnt becaused i praised Laura or perhaps because i mentioned D k**ly

12. Mark_WE

Back on the actual topic, this does strike me as New Labour noticing how well the Totnes trial went for the Tories and trying to jump on the band wagon. I may be remembering incorrectly but didn't some senior Labour figures dismiss this as a gimmick when it was first announced?

=

I think you're right there Mark, but since the Totnes 'experiment' has received positive reports from the likes of the Guardian and the ´óÏó´«Ã½, I'd guess Labour are having to make some concessions of their own.
If only their thinking were as joined up as Miliband's eyebrows...

The main parties are never going to allow potential mavericks to be listed as candidates, so whether they are selected by the local party activists or by central casting, the results will be much the same.

could this be the beguining of the end for party dominated politics.
the people of this once great nation can only hope.
all parties have their own agenda they want before all else so in reality the voters are treated as second class by them and sadly the voters have suffered this far too long and change has been needed for years.
one can only hope the ruling parties accept the changes when they come.

"TheBlameGame wrote:

The main parties are never going to allow potential mavericks to be listed as candidates, so whether they are selected by the local party activists or by central casting, the results will be much the same."

I agree the results will be the same (unless we really do decide to go down the US root where anyone with enough money can put themselves forward) however the perception will be different - and in the end that seems to be the only thing that matters!

It seems to be far more important to give the impression that you want to change things then to actually change them!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

We should welcome anything which tends to return power to the grass roots however cynical the original motivation. There has been a lethargy about mainstream politics which has largely due to the sense amongst the elctorate that it does not much matter what they think becuase their lives are governed by some kind of higher authority (for which read government itself). They have become accustomed to the idea that every five years or so, they can make one definitive choice with which they have to live for the duration.

Is it any suprise that turnouts decline, young people in particular appear not to be interested and local and European elections become something of a protest sideshow?

The interesting thing about the Totness experiment is that, for once, there has been a genuine attempt to connect with the voters. If the Tories had invited party members only to participate, the cynics might have a point, but they did not. This appears, on the face of it, to be a genuine attempt to reconnect and the Tories should be congratulated for it.

What I do find curious is the Miliband intervention. I wonder whether his party has finally woken up to the fact that, after such an extended period of government, they have nothing in common with the people who put them there in the first place and that they must address this - or is it yet another bandwaggoning exercise ?

PS. Laura - good stuff. Look out when NR gets back. He won't take kindly to having to take we humble bloggers seriously.

PPS. I should sign this post just in case the system insistes on calling me 'You' again.

Threnodio.

I don't suppose that Miliband suggested where the money was going to come from for all constituencies (presumably all parties) to hold "open primaries"?

In the USA, there are 100 Senators (elected for a 6 year stretch) and 435 Congresspeople. So that nation of 360 or so Million makes do with 535 politicians operating at national level.

In the UK, we have 600+ MPs, for 60-odd million people.

Our tax-payer cost-per-capita to support Mps is already vastly higher than that of the US population. So add more costs for primaries and, well, who pays? Especially if we end up with Central Office injection of candidates?

Then people like David Miliband wonder to themselves why the public are disillusioned with politics. Does he really believe that changing the system to 'Open primaries' will solve the problem.

On the day after we have yet again had to inject into our economy the stagging amount of 50 Billion, with no sign of the previous amounts pumped in doing any good whatsoever, we have Miliband looking after his own and his parties future. Has Miliband got no concept of what it is the Country expects from our politicians. He would would be much better employed using his 'printed word' showing some acceptance of what this Country will have to endure due to Labours inept policies for 12 years.

Miliband should also be reminded that we have had the Socialist experiment for the last 12 years and look what it has brought the Country to. It is his Party which has done more to damage the socialist ideals than anything else. No amount of tinkering with ideas of open primaries will make any difference to their future fortunes. Where please someone tell me does having an unelected Peer (Mandelson) fit into the socialist movement because I am frankly at a loss to even understand what this Government stands for now or ever did.

The public will not be fooled, they will know very well that the political parties will never pick people unless they are prepared to tow the party line. Nothing has changed and to my mind until something new comes along nothing ever will.

Primaries will just add to the cost and bring forward the day when the tax-payer is expected to fund political parties.

Why not allow more people to stand in the actual election and give the full electorate a choice by allowing us to express preferences and use a transferable voting system? Same result (or better - cuts out the political machines) and much cheaper - one election instead of an election plus a primary for each of 3/4/5? parties.

At the risk of repeating myself from your previous blog Laura I truly believe that the only way to get a more democratic system is to engage the electorate and for the electorate to become more interested with politics as a whole. The system at the moment is that MP's get elected and then represent the party and not the constituency. There is then no recourse for 4-5 years (the expenses row demonstrated that with MP's choosing to stand down at the next election rather than the constituency having the right to say "you're fired".
The voting patterns of MP's will be in line with their parties wishes not neccessarily in line with their constituents wishes (as in the vote to go to war with Iraq).
So maybe instead of primary elections, they should go for a mid term election. This would make the MP's far more in tune with their constituents.