The ‘Open Garden of Politics’: The impact of open primaries for candidate selection in the British Conservative Party

Abstract

International audienceSince 2003, hundreds of open primaries for the selection of parliamentary candidates have been held by the British Conservative Party as a means of democratising party organisation and enhancing representativeness. In the run-up to the 2015 general election, only 26 primaries could be identified. This article will apply the analytical framework provided by Hazan and Rahat to demonstrate that the relative failure of the experiment in terms of intra-party competition, participation, representation and responsiveness is counterbalanced by the benefits brought by this procedure, both as a tool of party branding at the national level and as a strategy for raising the profiles of candidates at the local level. Therefore, if mainstream parties conceded that the advantages of open primaries need not necessarily be understood in terms of internal democratisation but of party self-promotion, they would realise that open primaries could also serve as a means of preempting populism

The British Labour Party’s leadership election of 2015

“…Since the 1960s, there has been a trend towards more open selection processes, including OMOV and a few instances of open primaries (Bale and Webb, 2014; Pilet and Cross, 2014). That trend extends beyond the selection of party leaders to the selection of parliamentary and sub-national candidates (Alexandre-Collier, 2016; Hazan and Rahat, 2010). Such developments may be justified on the basis of widening participation, but they also erode the distinction between members and non-members.…”

Parliamentarians versus party members? Leadership selection systems in the British Conservative and Labour parties

“…However, 6-month ‘freeze dates’ and the abolition of the registered-supporter category will make ‘entryism’ and ‘packing’ more difficult. Labour’s experience will probably reduce demands for open primaries to replace OMOV (Alexandre-Collier, 2016).…”

High rejection, low selection: How ‘punitive parties’ shape ethnic minority representation

“…Selection for individual constituencies is then handled by the local parties themselves, who draw up short-lists for local party members to vote on. There have been some exceptions to this general structure over the study period, such as the suspension of centralised candidate approval by Labour in 2015 (handing more control directly to local parties), and the use of ‘open primaries’ in some Conservative safe seats in recent elections (Criddle, 2016, Alexandre-Collier, 2016). It is not entirely unheard of for central party authorities to propose candidates to local branches and push them into selecting them – for example, the Conservative ‘A-List’ strategy in 2010 (Hill, 2013).…”