Parliamentary life will change greatly in 2010. The next election is likely to see the biggest shift in the composition of the House of Commons since the Labour landslide of 1997, perhaps since the postwar Labour landslide of 1945. The next Parliament will not be easy for the Whips.
Already 63 Labour MPs have announced that they’re going to retire at the next election; so have 26 Tories and six Liberal Democrats. That is close to 100 MPs. These figures are expected almost to double after the party conferences when the House returns. The general election will probably be delayed until May, when a further 100 may lose their seats. In all, the next House could have as many as 300 new members with only 350 remaining who have previous political experience.
There are two main reasons why so many MPs are deciding to leave Parliament: the expenses scandal and the fear of losing their seats. Labour MPs in marginal seats read the opinion polls and recognise that their seats are now deep under water.
The combination of the recession and the scandal have reinforced the public demand for change. No politician enjoys humiliation; voluntary retirement is better than facing the crowing of successful opponents at the count, or television pictures like those when Michael Portillo lost his seat in 1997.
But the scandal has been the greater influence of the two. There have been low periods in the morale of Parliament before, but none as bad as this. MPs fall broadly into three categories: those who scrupulously avoided claiming any allowances; those who kept inside the terms of the allowances, but whose expenses are now questioned and those who flagrantly exploited the allowances system or made false claims.
Much the larger number of MPs seem to fall in the middle category, though the public does not recognise comparative innocence. Not surprisingly, members who find themselves under criticism in their constituencies may prefer to retire rather than risk electoral defeat.
If there are going to be 200-300 new MPs after an election which is only nine months away, the method of selecting candidates will be crucial.
The Conservative Party has tried various experiments. The first was the formation of an A-list of candidates, intended to give more central control of the selection process. They then introduced the greater innovation of open primaries, on the American model. This has culminated in the Totnes primary, in which a public meeting was followed by a constituency-wide postal ballot. All voters, regardless of party, were entitled to attend the meeting and to vote.
In Totnes three candidates were chosen to address the public meeting and were then put to the postal ballot. The winner was Sarah Wollaston, a 47-year-old GP, who gained the majority in a turn-out of 16,639, or a quarter of those eligible to vote.
These are good figures. The Conservatives are pleased with the outcome, which produced a highly acceptable candidate by an open and democratic method. It helped that she had a professional career and was not seen as a professional politician.
The success of this open primary may encourage other Conservative associations, and conceivably other parties, to move to open primaries. At least one of the early objections has been removed. There was a fear that other parties would join in the ballot in order to secure the election of a weak candidate. That was indeed gossiped about, but it did not occur in Totnes. Nor has it occurred in the United States.
It may, however, be some time before the open primary system becomes widespread, democratic as it is. The biggest obstacle is money.
A postal ballot of a single constituency costs about £40,000. If 200 MPs were going to resign at the next election that would mean the parties potentially having to find £8m to spend on selecting candidates. The parties are short of money already, and their leaders believe that the national campaign rather than the merits of individual candidates will decide the basic swing at the general election.
The Labour Party, with its complicated constitution, might find a conflict between open primaries and all-women shortlists. In theory, one could have an open primary with none but women candidates, but the voters would expect a choice which was not confined to any one group. “Open” and “women-only” seem to contradict each other.
There is also the issue of defending local power. The individual constituencies will defend their right to choose their own candidates. This has been a long-running conflict in all parties, between two legitimate interests. The party machines will always try to control the constituency associations, and constituencies will always fight for their independence.
There would also be the problem of resolving conflicts. Political parties have internal tensions. Could it still be possible for the constituency association to de-select a primary winner who was not prepared to put in the hours of canvassing and local meetings which are essential to political campaigns?
The balance of power between the local association, the central executive, the candidate, the electorate and the party leader will be shifted if open primaries are adopted. Sheer cost may force the adoption of the open caucus in a local hall rather than the open postal ballot.
The new candidates, many of whom have already been chosen, are as yet an unknowable influence. In the Conservative Party they seem to have many common attitudes. The majority are Euro-sceptic; they are liberal; they hold independent views.
These open primaries and the disarray of the older generation in Parliament will make the 2010 intake difficult for the Whips to manage. The altar of undue deference to authority has already been kicked over in the House of Commons.
Order By:
Would you like to post a comment? Please register or log in
OUR COLUMNISTS
Columnists
Blogs
William Rees-Mogg has had a distinguished career with The Times and The Sunday Times. He was Deputy Editor of The Sunday Times before becoming Editor of The Times in 1967, a position he held until 1981. He was made a life peer in 1988. Since 1992 he has been a columnist for The Times, writing on a variety of issues. He has also been chairman of the Broadcast Standards Council and British Arts Council
Columns urging greater openness in family courts win Paul Foot Award
The Editor of the TLS writes on books, people and politics
Read Full Article »