Small Groups, Big Decisions

One of the most interesting things about the vote rigging scandal in Falkirk - is the tiny number of people (party members) that it takes to elect an MP to a potentially safe seat.

Now the problem faces all parties of course which is why some people are suggesting that 'open primaries' might be a way round the problem - of small numbers of activists making most, if not all of the big decisions. 

In Falkirk, for example, the total number of party members appears to have been around 200 or so - prior to the intervention of the Unite union which apparently tried to sign up another 100 plus union members as Labour members - virtually overnight and paid their annual subscription fee to boot!

But around 200 members in the constituency would feel about right - because there can't be many more than 15,000 Labour Party members in the whole of Scotland these days - and with 50 odd constituencies the average number choosing their candidate would be around 200 to 300. 

If the seat is rock solid safe, for Labour or any other party, as many are - then the constituency MP is effectively being decided by a relatively small handful of people - which may all be within the rules, but is it right and/or good for our democracy.

A kind reader, by the way, emailed me to confirm that all individual Labour Party members are now balloted to decide which person is selected from a short list of potential candidates  - so my apologies for any confusion caused in my previous post dated 3 March 2013 on 'How Unions Work' which was wrong and not up-to-date on this particular point.

Now the fact that all party members are involved in the final selection ballot is clearly a big step forward, but as I understand the situation the constituency party  still decides who gets on to the short list - under normal circumstances at least.

And so the constituency party - which only branch and trade union delegates are eligible to attend (not the wider membership) - still has great power over which potential candidates actually have their names put forward in the 'final round'.

And it's far from unusual to find talented people left off the final short list - because they represent a threat - and so they are often removed by political rivals within their own party before the final run-off stage.

The other big problem is of course the role that trade unions play in then seeking to sway the vote in a particular way - using their organisational and financial muscle - in backing a preferred candidate.

As they did, of course, in the last Labour leadership election in which the big three unions (Unite, GMB and Unison) handed the 'crown' to Ed Miliband - even though a majority of individual Labour members voted for the older brother, David Miliband.

Open primaries would be one way of trying to breathe new life into the present system - and the idea has support across party boundaries.

Because it would open up selection contests to new ideas and thinking - with just about  anyone who wanted to stand be able to put their case to a series of election 'hustings' or open selection meetings - open to one an all not just long-serving and connected party members.

An interesting idea - I hope it catches on as it sounds a whole lot more inclusive than what's been happening in Falkirk recently.