US-style primaries will never work in the UK

I wrote the following in response to an article in the First Post by Daniel Hannan MEP entitled: 'The primary reason MPs don’t listen to the voters' which can be read at http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/45945,opinion,the-primary-reason-mps-dont-listen-to-voters.

Today, I write in praise of Mr Hannan and his well-written piece advocating the introduction of US-style primaries for the election of our own MPs here in the UK. However, as much as I agree with his criticisms of the government's proposals to make Parliament more representative, I must confess that I don't believe replicating US-style primaries in the UK would ever work for the simple reason that US-style elections require US-style political systems.

Anybody who votes in a general election does so, with the odd exception of course, with the intention of deciding who they want to run their country. In the US people directly elect their President; in the UK, the Prime Minister is chosen by the party with the most seats in Parliament. And whilst it is foolish to pretend that the party to which a presidential nominee belongs in America, and the person who leads their party in the UK, are of no consequence, it still holds that the 2008 US election was between Barack Obama and John McCain and that the next general election in the UK will be between Labour and the Conservatives.

Also, as attractive as primaries may appear in principle -and indeed I do envy the time and opportunity American voters are given to grill their candidates for office- they are by no means perfect. Having to get elected twice means having to campaign twice and campaigning costs money. The more money a politician needs to fund their campaign, the more likely they are to sell their soul -or at least some political favours - to rich people on fancy yachts. As a result, whilst Daniel Hannan may champion primaries in the US as giving power to the people, the vast sums needed to run a meaningful campaign end up giving far more power to industry leaders, tycoons and pressure groups than ordinary Joe Public.

Although state-funding for political parties would go some way to rectifying this, US-style primaries do still raise the question: what kind of democracy suits us best? A more representative democracy of the sort we currently have in Britain is immensely valuable because it allows the electorate to choose a person or a party whose general outlook and value systems they most agree with, whilst allowing those elected the freedom to make informed decisions on important national issues even if they defy popular opinion - the death penalty being a good example. Tilting the balance towards the more direct style of democracy that primary contests engender, however, can lead to legislative gridlock, as it often does in the United States, with elected representatives more concerned about re-election than governing in the national interest.

The only viable argument for introducing primaries in the UK is that it could increase voter turnout by giving people more of a stake in their chosen candidate, as Hannan himself says. Yet when the Conservatives tried this for the London Mayoral elections, an election far more suited to US style primaries precisely because Londoners were being asked to vote for the person, not the party, they most wanted to run their city, only 20,000 people in a city of 10m turned out to vote. On top of that, they had to pay £1 a minute for the luxury of registering to vote by phone and had to be Conservative supporters, although I have no idea whether they had to have membership cards on the ready to prove it. Their guy might have won, but I don't feel like democracy in London has been particularly enriched in the process.

As for Harriet 'half-baked' Harman's proposals for women only shortlists and ethnic minority quotas, I can't think of any nobler plan more likely to backfire spectacularly. Whilst I completely agree that Parliament should be more demographically representative, I also believe that distinguishing our candidates for poltical office by their gender or the colour of their skin only serves to undermine sexual and racial equality. As Barack Obama has proved, a gifted person destined for high office will get there regardless of their skin colour and will open more minds than any number of ethnic minority politicians who had their positions handed to them on a plate.