UK: Labour Leadership election (back to SSSocialism)

[Flixy]

To be honest, regarding both this election and US primaries, the candidates are the party's, I don't really see any reason why anyone other than party members themselves should get to say anything about who leads them. Parties submit their candidates, anyone can register as a candidate in the general election, and everyone can vote for one of those candidates. Explain to me why a non-party member should have a say in who their leader is (let alone just one group like union members).

[wiggin]

To be honest, regarding both this election and US primaries, the candidates are the party's, I don't really see any reason why anyone other than party members themselves should get to say anything about who leads them. Parties submit their candidates, anyone can register as a candidate in the general election, and everyone can vote for one of those candidates. Explain to me why a non-party member should have a say in who their leader is (let alone just one group like union members).

The US system is fundamentally different from a parliamentary system, Flixy. You may be able to argue your case for the UK, but in the US the party's candidate for the presidency is not the head of the party in any appreciable sense of the word, though they obviously exert a great deal of influence. That distinction would probably go to the RNC/DNC chairperson, and that vote is much more akin to the political horsetrading and shenanigans that happen in parliamentary party primaries.

The presidential and congressional primaries in each state are indeed run by that state's party committee (with some national coordination), but they go out to a very broad electorate. Precious few people are actually card-carrying members of a political party in the US - I don't even know how I'd go about becoming a party member. But at a primary, you declare a party affiliation, not membership, and vote for that party's representation on the general ballot - though said representation may have little actual power inside the party until after success in the general election (and sometimes not even then). There are state-by-state variants, essentially having to do with the stringency of the party affiliation declaration, but there's certainly nothing about 'dues' or 'membership'. That's not how the US electoral system works.

Obviously the farce of union members having some special treatment in the Labour primaries is absurd, but it's worth wondering whether a broader and more open primary (rather than a more strictly closed one) might attract at least a slightly less doctrinaire electorate, leading to more electable party leaders.

[RandBlade]

To be honest, regarding both this election and US primaries, the candidates are the party's, I don't really see any reason why anyone other than party members themselves should get to say anything about who leads them. Parties submit their candidates, anyone can register as a candidate in the general election, and everyone can vote for one of those candidates. Explain to me why a non-party member should have a say in who their leader is (let alone just one group like union members).

The Labour party was founded by the unions and is still funded by them. Since parties are independent organisations that are free to write their own rules (and aren't funded by the state in the UK except for opposition research "Short Money") the unions have written rules that gave them a large say in the party they founded.

Steely may have a point about Labour itself being "unelectable". The only modern Labour election winner is Tony Blair who rebranded Labour as New Labour but is now denounced as "evil" or a Tory by many Labour supporters. Jeremy Corbyn has said recently he'd like to see Blair be sent to the Hague to face charges for war crimes.

However if you exclude Tony Blair as an "evil Tory" the last "real Labour" leader to win a majority was in October 1974 when Harold Wilson won a majority of 3. The last time that a workable majority was won was in 1966. Not exactly a stellar record.

[Flixy]

The Labour party was founded by the unions and is still funded by them. Since parties are independent organisations that are free to write their own rules (and aren't funded by the state in the UK except for opposition research "Short Money") the unions have written rules that gave them a large say in the party they founded.

I suppose if you pay for it it's natural you have a say, though maybe the balance is a little lost.

[Flixy]

The US system is fundamentally different from a parliamentary system, Flixy. You may be able to argue your case for the UK, but in the US the party's candidate for the presidency is not the head of the party in any appreciable sense of the word, though they obviously exert a great deal of influence. That distinction would probably go to the RNC/DNC chairperson, and that vote is much more akin to the political horsetrading and shenanigans that happen in parliamentary party primaries.

Good point, I skipped over that part. But change my argument from leader to candidate and the point still stands. What you've got now is effectively not a party, but two (extremely broad) groups of roughly the same size who self identify with one party for some reason (which does not necessarily match the party's - see tea party) and each choose a candidate who is then 'adopted' by each party. If that's the case, why not simply hold a runoff election? Two general elections, one open for anyone and a runoff between the two winners? It would eliminate spoiler third party candidates at least.

The presidential and congressional primaries in each state are indeed run by that state's party committee (with some national coordination), but they go out to a very broad electorate. Precious few people are actually card-carrying members of a political party in the US - I don't even know how I'd go about becoming a party member. But at a primary, you declare a party affiliation, not membership, and vote for that party's representation on the general ballot - though said representation may have little actual power inside the party until after success in the general election (and sometimes not even then). There are state-by-state variants, essentially having to do with the stringency of the party affiliation declaration, but there's certainly nothing about 'dues' or 'membership'. That's not how the US electoral system works.

Saying that's not how it works (now) isn't necessarily a reason it's good Is the process actually mandated by law, or the constitution, or is it just how parties choose to do it?

And if the candidate may have little power in the party, might not agree with the party's points, and doesn't work (well) with the party leadership, how is he that party's candidate?

Taking the tea party as an example, if you have candidates that are not preferred by the party but are popular, they can found their own party (they even call it the tea PARTY ) and enter the election, or run as independent, if they prove to be more popular their party will get a better result. Parties splitting like that is not unheard of here. The only argument against that that I can think of is that you effectively have a two party system, so it would probably mean both candidates wouldn't be elected.

Obviously the farce of union members having some special treatment in the Labour primaries is absurd, but it's worth wondering whether a broader and more open primary (rather than a more strictly closed one) might attract at least a slightly less doctrinaire electorate, leading to more electable party leaders.

I would argue that electability is the party's problem. If their candidates and/or arguments are less popular, they will get fewer votes. But yes , given your two party system, it might not be the most pragmatic option. But then again, why not hold a runoff election?

Also, less doctrinaire electorate? Perhaps, but I thought it was obvious that during primaries candidates pander to the left and right, respectively, and a centrist candidate who might have a real chance in a general election by appealing to both party's electorate could easily lose a primary.