I wonder if David Miliband has completely gone of his trolley to suggest the non party members should have a say in our selection process, he needs to come off his high horse and comeback to reality and start to listen to the grass roots members of the labour Party
Foreign secretary says party needs to change because 'traditional political structures of mainstream political parties are dying'
The foreign secretary, David Miliband, wants Labour to hold US-style primaries. Photograph: Martin Argles
David Miliband today renewed his call for the Labour party to let non-members have a vote in the selection of candidates.
In an article in Tribune, the foreign secretary said the party needed to change because "the traditional political structures of mainstream political parties are dying".
He said Labour should hold US-style primaries when selecting parliamentary candidates, instead of leaving the decision to local party members as it currently does.
The debate about primaries was reignited this week by the Tory primary in Totnes.
The Conservatives, and some MPs from other parties, judged it a success after more than 16,000 voters – almost 25% of the constituency's entire electorate – took part.
There are various models for holding a primary. The Tories have drawn up a shortlist in more than 100 seats and allowed the final selection to be made at a meeting open to both members and non-members.
In Totnes – for the first time in Britain – the party gave every voter in the constituency the chance to take part by sending them a ballot paper with the names of all the candidates on the shortlist.
Miliband advocated a third approach in his article, suggesting Labour should adopt a system of "registered voters" – supporters, but not party members – and allow them to vote for parliamentary candidates, a system common in the US.
This would help the party "tap into the energy in communities, ensuring we reflect the problems of the future, the power structure of the future and the people of the future", he said.
He also suggested pledging that some of the money raised by party fundraising would go to charities or voluntary groups, to show Labour's commitment to corporate social responsibility.
He also advocated developing Labour's relationship with the three million trade unionists affiliated to the party.
Miliband, who has urged Labour to consider primaries before, also suggested the party should learn from some of the techniques adopted by Barack Obama's US presidential election campaign and by the Greek socialist party Pasok, the only European socialist party to do well in the recent European elections.
Obama "removed barriers to participation" by scrapping party membership fees, Miliband said, and Pasok has allowed 900,000 Greeks, out of a population of 11 million, to support the party as members or "friends".
"The party has quotas for male and female representation, open primaries to select party candidates for local elections and has developed 'every day a citizen' - an organisation dedicated to citizen engagement," Miliband wrote.
"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 and committed advocacy, with resultant electoral success."
Other Labour figures such as the Olympics minister, Tessa Jowell, David Lammy, the higher education minister, and Frank Field, have also urged the party to adopt primaries.
But officials are sceptical about the benefits and there are currently no plans to change current selection procedures.
In their different ways, Mandelson and Harman have experienced all the oscillations of politics
With Gordon away, Harriet and Peter come out to play. In a series of headline-grabbing interviews, Harman speaks up for women in politics and in the private sector. Making almost as much noise in the summer calm, Mandelson re-frames the debate about Labour's spending plans and suggests sensationally that Brown might take part in televised leaders' debates during the election. Harman was not especially thrilled with Mandelson's ubiquity when she was supposed to be running the country. Friends of Mandelson have suggested that some of Harman's propositions in recent days were barmy.
The duo's hyperactivity has added spice because it is accompanied by speculation that one of them might be the next Labour Party leader. We are possibly witnessing the preliminary skirmishes of a full-throttled leadership contest. Mandelson was given the chance to rule out being leader in a recent BBC interview; he chose not to do so. Harman is the only member of the Cabinet to have won a leadership contest since 1994 when she became deputy leader, emerging triumphantly from a crowded field. She is a formidable campaigner and thick-skinned too, an important quality given the abuse she receives in much of the media.
The re-emergence of Mandelson is already an astonishing story. If he were to become leader, all three founders of New Labour would have been given their chance, Blair first, then Brown and finally the figure who worked so closely with them in the dark days of the 1980s. His elevation would be vivid proof that the younger generation was not up to the job of leadership and was dependent still on those that formed New Labour in the mid-1990s.
Harman's further rise would also expose the lack of political talent among the younger ones that sit around the cabinet table. Like Mandelson and unlike most of the Cabinet, she was battle-hardened in the 1980s, winning a by-election in 1982 as Labour plumbed the depths of unpopularity. In their very different ways, Mandelson and Harman have experienced all the wild oscillations in politics. Most of the potential leaders from the younger generation were special advisers to Blair or Brown, protected from the frontline, functioning behind the scenes, hidden from the media. They are not well prepared for leadership.
There is, though, one big problem with the engaging vision of a Harman-versus-Mandelson contest. Harman has said publicly and unequivocally that she does not want to be the next Labour leader and will not stand in a contest. I have checked in recent days with her closest allies; they tell me emphatically that this remains the case.
If there is a leadership contest before or after the election, Harman will not stand. There are no get-out clauses, no statements about not being able to envisage circumstances where she would stand. She is not going to do so. I am sorry to disappoint those who believe politicians only utter statements with their own future ambitions in mind, but Harman says what she has said because she believes it.
I am told it is possible Harman may wish to remain as deputy after the election. There will only be a vacancy if she stands down. But when she argues that women might have made a difference to the performance of Lehman Brothers, or that a woman should always be in one of the top two positions in the Labour Party, she is putting a case and not preparing a leadership bid.
Mandelson's situation is more interesting. Tantalisingly for him as things stand, he is much the best-qualified member of the Cabinet to be Labour's next leader. Mandelson understands how to link tactics and strategy to policymaking, not an easy connection to make – as David Cameron is currently demonstrating. Mandelson also has the experience of government and recognises the weaknesses in the Conservative leadership. As a bonus, he understands the rhythms of the media fairly well, although he still makes a surprising number of gaffes.
Brown was indeed planning to announce during his party conference speech that he wanted to take part in televised debates with Cameron during the election. He had hoped to spring a surprise, to get momentum from the challenge. He still might go for it, but Mandelson gave the game away in advance by suggesting such a move was possible; quite a cock-up. On the whole, though, Mandelson's star shines brightly in an otherwise darkish sky.
In what context could he make his move towards the leadership? This is where the difficulties begin. When the new political season kicks off next month, he will be central to Brown's attempt at a comeback. Having made his decision that Labour's best bet is to buttress Brown, Mandelson would undermine his own credibility by knifing the Prime Minister, standing down as a peer, fighting a by-election and then taking part in a leadership contest as a newly-elected MP. Apart from anything else, there is no space between now and the election for such a time-consuming process, with the tottering Government on hold after a traumatic act of regicide as Mandelson becomes an MP in order then to become a candidate. I am exhausted outlining the sequence. It will not happen.
Nor would such a series of events enhance Mandelson's reputation. He has been at his best over the past year as the calm, good-humoured and influential elder statesman, slightly above the fray and yet at the heart of everything. Personally he has enjoyed the best media ever. All would change if he were to change from king-maker to king-seeker. If Labour loses the election, the focus will be on the next generation even if the party does not have a single credible younger candidate yet. In the event of a hung Parliament, there would be enough instability without adding to the frenzy as Mandelson moves to the Commons. The timing, context and sequencing make it impossible for Mandelson to become leader after the election.
If there is a leadership contest next summer neither Harman nor Mandelson will be Brown's successor; neither will even stand in a contest. The closest they will get to No 10 is their temporary occupancy during Brown's summer break. It is Peter's turn next week.
I read with interest the article published yesterday calling for a codified constitution. It is clear that our current written but uncodified constitution - made up of an array of legislation, case law, and convention - isn’t perfect, far from it. However codification, or an attempt to create a new constitution, is not the way forward.
Whilst an uncodified constitution does not provide an easily accessible document detailing governance of the country and the rights of the individual, it does provide a living constitution. It is a constitution that can adapt and evolve with the ever-changing conditions in which we live. It is a constitution that has allowed, taking only recent examples: our entry to the European Community in 1973; the use of referenda as first seen in 1975; devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; the Human Rights Act in 1998; the removal of most hereditary peers from the Lords (unfortunately 92 remain); freedom of information; and separation of powers, to name but a few examples.
Therefore it is not rigidity or the inability to enact change that is the problem. On the contrary, perhaps the real problem is that the constitution, in its current state, is too flexible. If this is the case then we must seek to ensure safeguards are put in place. But we need not to codify our constitution to achieve this.
Our entry into the European Community in 1973, bringing with it the European Court of Justice (ECJ), has provided a safeguard against infringement of rights since the decision in Factortame. The European Court of Human Rights, deciding on breaches of the Convention of Human Rights, acts as a further safeguard (although I admit its decisions are not binding).
Importantly, the separation of powers provides further safeguards. We have a judiciary, which - thanks to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 - will soon be fully separated from the legislature. It is free from political manipulation and the whims of whatever party governs and ensures that abuses of power do not take place - cases that involved detention of foreign subjects suspected of terrorism is just one example.
However many argue for a codified constitution neither on the basis that the current uncodified constitution is too restrictive, nor that the alternative is too flexible, but on the basis that we need a statement of values. We need to assert positive rights to make us feel British. If only there were a list of positive rights then people would come to understand the constitution, know what they are entitled to, and be able to emulate the citizens of America in their ability to recite their rights.
But we already have such a list. It is the Human Rights Act. Yet despite it clearly laying out a list of positive rights I can probably say with some degree of certainty that outside the bubble in which the legal and political apparatchik spend their time the majority of people cannot name even 5 of those rights.
Some argue that we should codify our constitution to outline basic entitlements, to education and healthcare, for instance. However, this presupposes that the UK is still a unitary state. It forgets that in a system of asymmetrical devolution, Parliament no longer legislates on education and healthcare in Scotland; unless of course we intend to go back on, or weaken, the policy of devolution.
Even if devolution hadn’t occurred and we were still a unitary state, then such entitlements would be meaningless without the right and ability to enforce them. We would need a constitutional court, similar to the Supreme Court in the US to be able to strike down contravening legislation.
Yet this goes against the very safeguards the Labour Government has strengthened since the enactment of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. It would weaken and undermines the separation of power; the second we give judges the power to strike down legislation we would spark a flurry of political interest in their appointment. And we would see situations such as those in the US - fierce political battles of judicial appointments; Conservative judges blocking Labour policy and vice-versa.
Perhaps instead we may just have rights, or entitlements, that aren’t tangibly enforceable? But were this to be the case, those rights may as well be written on the back of a cigarette packet. For what is a right if it cannot be enforced?
The current constitution isn’t ideal, but a codified version is certainly not the answer.
This week we’ve seen one of the key forward-looking indicators of business confidence – the purchasing managers index for Britain’s services sector – move up to a 17-month high of 53.2 for July (surpassing expectations for an increase to 51.6). Office for National Statistics data shows an 0.5% jump in June’s industrial production (the largest rise in 20 months) and Halifax says British house prices saw a 1.1% monthly rise in July.
Commenting today, Paul Krugman writes:
‘Two months ago I wrote that there were hints of a relatively quick economic turnaround in Britain. Now those hints have gotten much stronger. Basically, aggressive monetary policy and the depreciation of the pound are giving Britain a boost relative to other advanced countries’.
Finally, the Bank of England has decided to to continue with its programme of asset purchases financed by the issuance of central bank reserves and to increase its size by £50 billion to £175 billion (the ‘qe’ programme), commenting:
”On the one hand, there is a considerable stimulus still working through from the easing in monetary and fiscal policy and the past depreciation of sterling. On the other hand, the need for banks to continue repairing their balance sheets is likely to restrict the availability of credit, and past falls in asset prices and high levels of debt may weigh on spending”.
This post was first published on Liam Byrne's blog.
Peter Mandelson never says anything by accident. Not for him a rogue use of the word ‘twat’. So when Mandelson raised the prospect last week of a televised debate during the general election between Gordon Brown and David Cameron, he revealed that Labour’s strategists are seriously considering it. Mandelson was asked about a head-to-head debate, live on TV, between the Prime Minister and the man who wants his job. He replied "I don't think Gordon would have a problem with that".
And nor should he. Britain has never gone in for US-style TV debates between leaders. Our general elections comprise 600-plus local constituency elections, not a winner-takes-all as in the USA, France, or other countries with presidents. The idea of a Prime Minister and a Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition point-scoring for the cameras seems very un-British.
Prime Ministers have always resisted the idea of debating their opposite numbers. In 1987 Margaret Thatcher dealt with Neil Kinnock’s demands for a TV debate like she was swatting a buzzing mosquito. John Major did the same five years later. When Blair was challenged to a debate by the four Conservative leaders he faced, he used the same line: the British people can see me and Tory leader debate every week, on a Wednesday, at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) in the House of Commons.
The problem with PMQs is that there is no debate: just set-piece arguments by Cameron and Brown, each hoping for a cheer from their backbenches, and a soundbite on the news. I’ve seen first-hand the inordinate amount of time that is spent preparing briefing folders for Prime Ministers for PMQs, all for a few seconds of shouting in the Chamber of the Commons. The public finds it incomprehensible and off-putting. And of course there are no PMQs during the election, because the Queen has dissolved ‘her’ Parliament.
Prime Ministers have nothing to gain from a TV debate. For Cameron it’s a win-win: either he can force the PM to debate on equal terms, or he can call him a coward for running away.
So why are Labour’s strategists even contemplating such an idea?
Firstly, there’s a real frustration at our inability to land a glove on Cameron. I’ve sat through presentations and discussions where ideas have been bounced around on how to nail Cameron. Remember how Labour started out calling Cameron a ‘chameleon’, willing to change his political colours to match whatever people wanted? Since then he’s been called an estate agent, a slick salesman, or a spin merchant. Calling him a ‘toff’ was less than successful. Alan Johnson tried to say Cameron was basically okay, it was just all the people behind that are the trouble. In a presentation to Labour advisers in March 2008, Brown’s new PR man Stephen Carter suggested that ‘focus groups’ of the public saw Clegg as a bunny rabbit, Brown as a polar bear, and Cameron as a rattle-snake.
Every jibe and label has slid off Cameron like an ice-lolly sliding off its stick. Labour’s latest attempt to ‘get Cam’ is to present Brown as the man of substance, and Cameron as the man of spin. This will be at the heart of Labour’s campaign at next year’s election. So a public debate, with enough time for substantive answers, and serious issues under discussion such as tax, immigration and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, might suit Brown more than Cameron. At least that’s what Labour’s strategists will hope.
Second, there’s a fear that people are so disillusioned with all the political parties following the expenses scandal, they’ll stay at home rather than come out and vote. We should all be terrified that a low turn-out will deliver Cameron the top job. The spin doctors are calculating that the novelty of a Britain’s first-ever TV debate, in prime time, will excite and enthuse the public in the same way as Strictly Come Dancing or Dancing on Ice. It might serve to get people talking about politics around the water cooler and at the school gates, and cajole them to the polling station on 6th May 2010.
Third, if Labour gets to Spring next year with the Tories still 20 points ahead in the opinion polls, and recession biting, any doubters around Brown are likely to conclude: what have we got to lose? Peter Mandelson has been test-driving the ‘Labour is the underdog’ line. If Cameron is widely seen as the Prime Minister-in-waiting by next year, but fails to best Brown in a TV debate, then people might think twice about taking the risk on him. Cameron might even lose his temper, like he did in PMQs in November when he sent his briefing papers flying - or best of all, swear.
I’ve listened to Gordon Brown in meetings away from the cameras speaking with great passion and conviction about tackling global poverty. That’s a side the public seldom see, and one the Downing Street spin doctors will hope comes through in a TV debate.
Brown will get the credit for being the first British Prime Minister to have the cojones to debate live on TV, and counter the Tories’ jibe that he is a ‘bottler’.
My advice, for what it’s worth: call Cameron’s bluff, name the day, and invite the world to watch.
