With the US primary season now in full sway, the question about whether or not UK political parties should hold primaries will inevitably be debated once again. Tory MEP Dan Hannan makes the case for over on the Telegraph Blogs.

In fact, primaries are now practiced in the UK by the Conservative Party, although only in a limited way - it is just one of the ways a Conservative Association may choose to select their candidates and the system more closely resembles a caucus system similar to the one used in Iowa as opposed to a full open primary system in that participants must attend a public meeting in order to vote.

It has had mixed results. Indeed, their much hyped open primary process for selecting their candidate for Mayor of London, which did more closely resemble a full open primary, ended up a bit of a damp squib. Only 20,000 votes cast in total. I don’t know the exact number of Conservative members in London but I would guess that means only 1 vote was cast for every 2 members in the capital. Given that the primary was open to non-members, that hardly looks like a hugely successful exercise in mass-participation.

Why has the Conservative experience been so patchy? Read more »

Ming Campbell hosted a reception on Tuesday night for female Westminster researchers, encouraging them to consider becoming approved candidates.

This is surely welcome, but Ming’s moves in this area are all too rare for a leader who stated during his campaign for election that:

“It is clear that a positive and dynamic campaign is needed within the party to actively seek out potential women candidates, and support and encourage them through approval and selection.”

Does one reception in 18 months count as dynamic?

Whatever happened to this campaign? Well, for some time now the party has had a Campaign for Gender Balance. It has achieved a lot, getting scores of women through the approval process and helping them get selected for winnable seats, but it has always been encumbered by a lack of funds. In the last year, this grant has been cut still further. Now, with the campaign’s organiser leaving, the project is once again under threat as the party’s Federal Finance and Administration Committee (FFAC) has to formally approve the appointment of a new member of staff.

Last time the Campaign was in this position, the FFAC took eight months to approve it, despite this being at the key post general election period where the most progress in terms of finding getting strong female candidates in place could have been made.

Once again, compare the reality with Ming’s commitment during his leadership election:

“I believe that we must tackle the problem of under-representation, and the way to do so is with positive action. That action needs to be resourced, and I am personally committed to that. Detailed budget-setting is done by the party’s finance committee, but if funds cannot be found from existing budgets, I will personally lead fundraising efforts to make sure this essential activity is funded.”

When is the fundraising due to start, Ming? You’ve had 18 months.

There is something very wrong with a party where the strategy agreed by its full conference is subject to the whims of a few faceless bureaucrats in a finance committee each time a member of staff quits. (I write as a former faceless bureaucrat myself.)

Read more »

Today, Unlock Democracy has launched its campaign for a Citizens’ Convention Bill. The Bill will be presented to the House of Commons today by Lib Dem Treasury Spokesperson Julia Goldsworthy MP, and it is set for its second reading debate this Friday.

The idea behind this Bill is simple: there is now broad, cross-party support for the principle that Britain’s democracy needs to be renewed, and that the people themselves must be at the centre of any new reform.

Gordon Brown launched his leadership bid pledging to “build a shared national consensus for a programme of constitutional reform.” Sir Menzies Campbell subsequently called on Brown to establish “a broadly-based Convention” which “should involve not just the political parties but also members of the public.”

Last week, the Power Inquiry launched its new campaign calling for just such a process in a statement that was signed by 101 individuals and organisations, including - among others - Baroness Shirley Williams and prominent Lib Dem supporter Claire Rayner. Read more »

Direct democracy could not merely complement representative democracy, but could save it from its worst excesses. Claims that it leads to ill-considered, rightwing populism are just plain wrong.

The great thing about being a Liberal Democrat is that the party practices what it preaches about democracy. While the Conservative Party made a big deal out of the fact that at its last conference it encouraged people to cast non-binding votes on topical issues and even hosted a version of Dragon’s Den with Ann Widdecombe in the chair, the Lib Dems had a passionate, principled debate on tax (which the Tories rubbished, and then quietly stole a number of key policies from). Labour has debates at its conferences, but they are held in such disdain that the results of them are dismissed even before the votes have been cast.

I would contend that it is this internal democracy that has kept British liberalism alive over the past few decades. It gives us all a stake in the party which in turn buys the party enormous reservoirs of loyalty and goodwill. Even when we as individuals disagree with the direction the party is going down, we are comforted by the fact that it was as a result of a democratic process, and subsequently that it is possible to change.

At a wider level, we are deeply committed to establishing a similar model of participation and democracy in the British political system. The current system is deeply flawed, and the party has done much to highlight the evidence: we are one of the most centralised countries in the world and have an electoral system that ensures that a party with just a third of the vote can secure 60% of the seats in our primary legislative chamber.

Party policy has always been very robust in its approach to constitutional reform. However, if there is a criticism to be made, it is that we tend to instinctively reach for a solution that involves directly elected politicians and lawyers, rather than give the people themselves more of a direct say in government. Too often, our rhetoric about Community Politics has not been matched by our actions. To be fair have existing policy in favour of mild forms of participation such as increased use of citizens’ juries and increased use of (non-binding) referendums, but we have been wary of purer forms of direct democracy.

Read more »