What Britain can learn from

the US primaries

 

Tim Shipman

 

email

print

Also in this section:

• MPs on manoeuvres Charles Crawford

I have lost track of the number of times Americans have asked me this year whether people back home are following their election.

If you’re reading this, you know the answer. Even the most cynical and partisan cabinet ministers, diplomats, MPs and lobbyists have been reduced to staring childlike and agog at the spectacle of the world’s most powerful democracy selecting its next commander-in-chief.

If America sneezes economically, the rest of the world catches a cold and the effect has been no less contagious politically.

But unlike the last four elections, the fascination is not because great issues of policy are at stake for Britain. Whoever the new President is, they will be committed to closing Guantanamo Bay, listening more to allies (though it should be clear, that does not extend to agreeing with them) and determined that the US co-operate more effectively on climate change.

Which begs the question: what bigger lessons can British politicians learn from the US primary election season?

Many have been here and drawn their own conclusions, like the two Tory MPs who called asking advice on how they could most easily offer their services to Barack Obama.

But for those who have not had the chance to dip their toe in the waters, there are several obvious trends.

The first is that incumbency ‘sucks’, as the Americans are fond of putting it, when the economy is going to the dogs.

John McCain can no more run on George Bush’s management of the economy than Gordon Brown should on, er, his own.

Barack Obama has shown that after eight years of one party, people want change and hope, not more of the same, packaged with a message of fear. It worked for Ronald Reagan too.

Obama has also demonstrated once-and-for-all the internet has transformed political fundraising and message control. I will address many of these elements in future columns.

These are trends that naturally favour David Cameron. There is a grain of solace for Gordon Brown. John McCain’s return from the political dead last summer to win the Republican nomination proves you are in politics until the fat lady has been asked to leave the building because it has to close for the night.

But the most important lesson for those of us on the trail is that the primaries process itself has been hugely energising for Americans, a country with even worse turnout than Britain in recent elections.

The fake news show The Daily Show characterised the Democratic primary battle as the “Long, Flat, Seemingly Endless, Bataan Death March to the White House”, but it’s hard to overestimate the enthusiasm of Democratic voters for the primaries, particularly in states which are usually ignored.

If Obama wins the election it will be because millions of newly registered voters got their first taste of national politics on their doorsteps. They tested him, they made him a better, tougher candidate.

Obama played to a staggering 75,000 people in Oregon in May, a crowd double the audience David Beckham draws these days. As the comedian Jay Leno joked: “After the rally, Barack Obama fed them all with five loaves of bread and two fish.”

What wouldn’t Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg do for satire like that?

 

A growing number of people on both sides of the British political divide have told me they are attracted to the idea of primary contests in Britain, both for party leaders and to select Westminster candidates.

The argument of some Conservatives is that there are whole areas of the country where they barely have an organisation. Local primaries would give them the chance to establish themselves and spread the word. Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, argued in favour of primaries when he ran for the leadership and during his spell as co-chairman of the party.

Labour argues primaries would give them the opportunity to push candidates with strong local credentials and avoid the taint of the centre.

Whisper it quietly but some also believe that if Gordon Brown had been subjected to a series of contests that took him to little visited corners of the country, he would have come away with a greater understanding of the nation he hoped to lead, realised his 10p tax plans were untenable, acquired greater legitimacy than he currently enjoys, or failing that, a rival may have emerged to stop him.

The privilege of touring all 50 states is one often cited by presidential candidates and they are sincere. As one who has reported from nearly 30 states in the last six months, I can attest that the opportunity to visit both city slickers and hill country hicks is the only way to begin to grasp the hopes and dreams of the world’s most powerful country.

Steve Morgan, the Labour lobbyist and strategist who was the international spokesman for the Democratic National Committee in each of the last two elections, is one fan of British primaries.
He says: “The primaries are clearly a good thing. Record numbers of people are taking part.  There’s good solid, healthy debate. This primary thing is bringing in millions and millions of people to take part in the political process.

“There’s no question that if you had primaries in the constituencies it would get more people involved.”

Morgan, like some in Parliament, believes there is an appetite from some voters for more of a say in local candidates. “The local elections showed that, with all these independents taking seats all over the place,” he says.

There would need to be changes to allow those loosely affiliated with the main parties, as opposed to fully paid up members, getting a vote.

“We can’t do it half-heartedly,” says Morgan. “If we’re going to do it, there would have to be a commitment from all three of the main political parties. We would have to have a process that allows people who are broadly supportive of a political party to take part in it.”

There would also need to be strict limits on the length and cost of campaigns.

But if that Brit is a fan of the American system, the counter-argument comes from an American, Jim Nuzzo, who was a West Wing policy director for President Bush senior and he sends his son to David Cameron’s alma mater. He calls British primaries a “penny rich pound poor decision” that would “fundamentally alter the British constitution”.

“Right now, MPs can be called upon in Parliament to vote with the whip. If all of a sudden they had their own local primary elections, you’d have a group of folks who are free agents, who can basically say ‘sod off’ to the whips”, he adds.

Well, maybe it wouldn’t be so different from the current system after all.

Tim Shipman is Washington correspondent for The Sunday Telegraph