This is the first of a series of articles I intend to publish, day job permitting, on ‘Refounding Labour’ – the consultation process led by Peter Hain. Contribute here.

When I was young I backed the mandatory re-selection of Labour MPs because I was against ‘jobs for life’. In the 90s I backed extending the franchise beyond delegates because greater involvement of members is better. Now the crisis in politics demands we go further – it is time for Labour to hold ‘primaries’.

If there is one thing that hacks me off big time it is watching Labour lag behind the Conservatives on the extension of democracy and involvement. How dare we, the people’s party, argue to exclude the people from decisions? Before the last election the Conservatives experimented with the notion of ‘primaries’. It was limited, rather successful and I expect their members hated it.

When Labour selected candidates for the 2010 election it had about 170,000 members. At the 2005 election there were 9.5 million Labour voter. Put another way, in the average constituency there were 270 Labour members and just over 15,000 Labour voters. So for every Labour member there are 56 Labour voters. 1.7% of the Labour vote (0.38% of the electorate) could, of course, constitute a representative sample – but we all know in this case it doesn’t.

This doesn’t mean that Labour members are necessarily out of tune with the Labour electorate, but it does make it more likely that they will be, at least from time to time.

None of this would matter so much if the current selection system delivered the goods. Sadly it hasn’t, it doesn’t and it won’t. The constituencies with which I am most closely involved are a great example. For reasons too obscure to contemplate a string of ill prepared, implausible or downright dysfunctional candidates have been inflicted on the electorate at general elections since the 1970s. The plausible candidates have been a very small minority indeed. I don’t think myself superior to any other member in this sad affair – I voted internally for some, though not all, of these losers, campaigned externally for most of them and voted Labour even when it meant convincing myself that I was really voting for something broader. If I could put it all down to local circumstance that might make me feel better, but in a former role I supervised many more and have dealt with many hundreds of candidates. Not every selection is bad, not every selection is irrational but enough are seriously wanting for the matter to need attention.

Moreover, Labour’s selections are open to manipulation, distortion, large scale abuse, infiltration, sectarianism and downright corruption as well as having proved male dominated to the point where special measures were required to give women a fair chance. Nobody set out for this to be the case. There was no grand conspiracy. The selectorate is simply too narrow to avoid what is a natural trend where power is at stake. There are supposed to be safeguards – we are not even supposed to have a discussion about the merits of candidates, yet people are corralled and told who to vote for left right and centre. Artificial safeguards don’t work – the best safeguard is the broadest possible franchise.

Labour can make a major step back to winning the trust of the wider electorate by trusting its own electorate. The final selection of Labour candidates has to become the prerogative of Labour supporters at large rather than the self-appointed 1.7%. But the very thought strikes horror into the hearts of many Labour activists who would argue passionately against such a move. Decent people though they are, their arguments are bogus. They go like this:

Why should I bother to pay my subs if I don’t get to choose the candidates?

Why indeed, were it true that in a wider selection franchise Labour members would have no greater influence over the selection of a candidate than the average Labour voter? But it isn’t true. Labour members would continue to have a significant say, in particular by collectively controlling the shortlist. A credible procedure would require and affirmative vote among the membership above an agreed threshold to allow a nomination to go forward. To the wider electorate. Labour members and agreed criteria would protect the gender and ethnic mix of shortlists, the affirmative threshold and a qualification process would ensure quality criteria.

Why should I work for a candidate I didn’t choose?

But this is exactly what we do at present – made worse by the fact that we know the selection process is wanting. How often have we gritted our teeth and worked through the pain for someone we knew was utterly and totally pointless? The fact is we come round and understand what’s in the best interests of the party. The reality is it is harder to fool more people.

The electorate will be influenced by forces hostile to Labour (the media, our opponents, alien voices in their heads, whatever) the electorate will choose a different road to the enlightened membership. Won’t they?

Beneath this protestation there is a massive arrogance. It is that we Party members know better than the masses. We have seen the light that is socialism. They have not. That gives us the right to make decisions on their behalf. Somehow, twenty years after the catastrophic collapse of the Leninist system founded on the notion that ‘the party knows best’ significant clumps of the left of centre undergrowth cling to the delusion of the vanguard party.

At other times the attitude is justified by the principle eloquently outlined by the unfortunately fictitious President Jeb Bartlett that, “decisions are made by those that turn up”. In other words the process is legitimised because people can come along, join, get involved if they want to. There is some logic to this way of thinking, but when nobody is turning up at all – and 0.38% of the electorate is close to nobody at all, then perhaps it is time for a rethink.

We’ll be opened up to machine politicians. How would we prevent these people taking over the party?

What do you mean ‘prevent’, what’s new? Labour’s machine politicians have been able to use and abuse the current system and whatever route is adopted there will be still be opportunities, but it cannot be impossible to build into the system checks and balances that ensure those who stand for selection are part of the broad church.

There is no great clamour for among Labour voters to be part of choosing our candidates, and, no, I’ve not heard it down the gym or in the gastro pub either. But I do regularly hear vitriol spouted about ‘politicians’. Much of it is nonsense and some of it dangerous nonsense, but it understandable. People have no way of engaging with politicians. Our democracy is exclusive and limited by the UK party system and ordinary supporter are locked out. What evidence have they been given over the past twenty years that this is not the case? It seems to have been assumed by many that the ‘antipolitics’ trend has gone away. It hasn’t, there is plenty of evidence of this from the local elections – in particular the small successes of The Green Party. Defending the status quo is adopting the ostrich position. Labour voters need to be given the chance to engage as a first step toward extending the stake the electorate has in the system.

There is a real opportunity to open up new channels to communicate our politics in the modern world. Since 2008 the Obama campaign has been peddled as the shining light for all aspirant progressives and all seekers of true knowledge of modern campaigning. Let’s just assume for now that there are lessons to be learnt and ask yourself; were it not for the primaries could such an innovative and connected campaign emerge and have legitimacy as a grass roots movement?

The way to ensure diversity if by trusting our electorate. An effective woman has more chance of succeeding without the hindrance of a male dominated structure. Ethnic minority candidates would emerge because the electorate has shown it will back them. Quality can be assured by requiring potential candidate to complete and pass a training requirement. It enables the party to have the mature debate about the kind of candidate we need in particular constituencies that the current system specifically outlaws, it can give opportunities to diverse backgrounds, particularly people from backgrounds other than full-time politics.

But this is all naïve, we are told. The electorate is a herd, a flock of ‘sheeple’ who follow the trend, fickle types who blow with the wind. Aside from the persistent notion in all this that ‘they’, once again, can’t be trusted, where is the confidence in any notion of leading public opinion? Where is the willingness to engage and to convince? Where is the notion of Socialism – for what IS socialism if it is not a majoritarian political strategy based on persuasion and consent?

Opening our structures and engaging with our supporters and beyond to those uncommitted would force the party out of its shell, would provide the opportunity to build better, more committed relationships, to reach a fundraising base and to evangelise once again. We cannot rely on the networks of the last century – they are gone.