David Maddox: Primary lesson could be just what politics ordered

Published on Monday 10 August 2009 21:40

IN 1688, the otherwise tranquil port of Brixham played host to the start of the one of the greatest upheavals in British political history, for it was there on the Devon coast that the stadtholder of the Netherlands landed to take up the Westminster parliament's invitation to assume the British throne.

And the effects of Protestant King William's "Glorious Revolution" and the ousting of Catholic James VII and II are still being felt today.

And that was the last time that part of the country played a pivotal role in the political history of the nation. Until last week, that is, when voters in the modern parliamentary constituency of Totnes, in which Brixham nestles,

took part in another, very civilised, political revolution which, whilst less epoch-making than the overthrow of a monarch, could deal a blow to the machine politics that blights our democratic process.

Almost a quarter of all the registered voters in the Devon constituency took part in the selection of their Conservative candidate in the first open primary to be held in this country, a better turnout than many council elections.

The contest had been called to find a replacement Tory candidate for the local MP Sir Anthony Steen who was removed after claiming expenses for such items as rabbit fencing and surgery for 500 trees. He sealed his fate by suggesting that people were complaining because they were "jealous". His excesses were a symptom of the sickness which seems to have gripped British politics.

The idea of the open primary was to try to bring some legitimacy back to the Conservative's candidate in a seat they hold by 1,947 votes and give the voters a greater stake in the process. To add to the openness non-party members were also invited to apply.

What was most interesting was the result – the choice of local GP Dr Sarah Wollaston who saw off two "professional" politicians. It showed that voters were not interested in having party hacks with no real outside experience representing them.

One of Dr Wollaston's rivals, Nick Bye – a councillor and mayor – noted that the doctor impressed people because she was not interested in being "partisan."

In an article for The Times, Mr Bye said: "I made the mistake of using one of my favourite lines of attack. 'The biggest myth in British politics is that Liberal Democrats are such nice people' went down a storm in front of the party executive. But in front of a wider audience, it fell as flat as a pancake."

Now here is an idea – give people what they want and present them with an independent-minded candidate who has some real-life experience and is more interested in getting things done than scoring party political points.

If Westminster or Holyrood were filled with people like that then the party whips would have a nervous breakdown, which would be a jolly good thing. Traditionally, particularly in Labour but also in the other parties, there has been a concept of people getting safe seats because it is their turn or they are owed a reward for service to the party. That is why so many seats are filled with ex-trade union officials and councillors.

But most insidious now is the idea of career politicians. The patsies (politically ambitious twenty-somethings) who leave university to become researchers in Westminster and Holyrood and work their way up to becoming candidates on party lists or safe seats with no hinterland or experience of life outside machine politics. The Totnes experiment suggests they would stand little chance in an open primary.

This brings us on to what could perhaps be the most useful application of an open primary – the party list system used in Holyrood and European elections.

The introduction of the list system in the first Blair government in many ways has seriously undermined the democratic process. Whilst it has made the division of seats fairer in party terms it has created a class of politician who owe nothing to their electors and everything to their party.

It is noticeable that the lists are the first recourse for patsies.

This is why you only hear of most MEPs once in four years and why many list MSPs work just a few days a week and are largely used as voting fodder.

You cannot expect them to vote against the party line in a committee or the main chamber because they would be off the list next time if they did.

The whole process could be transformed, at least for the big four parties in Scotland, if they held an open primary selection process for the people on their list. If voters were given a choice of candidates it would provide some democratic legitimacy. It would also help those who like to vote for a person rather than a party.

This may seem cumbersome given that each region of Scotland has seven list MSPs, but the reality is that a party is at best going to end up with four list MSPs so voters could choose from a dozen possibles.

Another possible application could be for the selection of directly elected mayors or provosts, should Scotland's four big cities take the courageous route and adopt the system used by London and some English cities.

The end of councils with dozens of councillors would close another door for "professional" politicians and rid Scotland of the ridiculously obscure single transferable vote system.

The only down side to all this is money. The Totnes experiment cost the Tories 40,000, so open primaries are not cheap.

But if there is a serious desire to re-engage voters in our democratic process then it should be considered, at least selectively.

The Tories plan to hold more and Labour are considering open primaries too. After the MPs' expenses scandal, the continually falling voter turnout and the rising public cynicism, they know that the British political system needs a brutal shake-up and, as in the 17th century, Totnes might be a good place to start.