Over the last few weekends six Labourr Party regions have been meeting to put together their input into the Labour Party list for the November election.
In Wellington we did it in one day, but during the fortnight before candidates addressed meetings in each of the electorates.
On the day each candidate (including all local MPs) make a speech and are the subjected to a pretty robust Q + A session.
The voting is by exhaustive (and exhausting) ballot. In our case to win a particular spot candidates had to get 49 votes because there were 97 voting delegates (one delegate for each 50 members). The bottom candidate drops out and then we vote again.
In our case we had to send in 14 names to the moderating committee, a group of about 30, effectively an augmented New Zealand council, which makes up the final list.
Names and local results confidential but we will know overall results in a couple of weeks.
But one thing is for certain the number of bright, mainly young, people with a wide variety of backgrounds that I’ve met from three of the regions shows that the party renewal and summer school programmes have been working well.
Again this post will be tightly moderated – including bans with no further notice. Frankly I’ve been disappointed with a few comments over the last four days.
Do you think the process is really robust enough?
It strikes me that most organisations scrutinize leaders a lot more than the average Labour party selection process.
Also, I think there needs to be better training about things like what are Labour Party values, what is the history of the Labour Party and Labour movement, why unity is important, etc.
Ma’a that is what the Q + A session does. Not too hard to get to core of individual’s understanding of issues, history and values. Join up get elected as s delegate and go to a meeting in three years.
I did a comparative study of all the NZ parties’ list nomination processes in the 1990′s, before my interest in political science lost out to the sausage machine. Then as now, parties have to juggle a wide selectorial base (i.e. US-style public primaries) on the one hand, and tight control over the range of candidates offered on the other. Labour had done the best job at that point, and by all appearances still does. The Alliance had an especially incompetent and self-defeating selection system, National’s was relatively democratic, to their detriment to some extent.
The moderating committee is going to have a tough job sorting all the excellent candidates, especially when each has a number of reasons counting in their favour.
I hope it’s a great list in the end.
Thanks for succinctly outlining the process. Knowledge is power. Parties who are completely open about their selection send a message to people in general. Democracy has an inherent flaw, namely that if something is by straight vote then the majority succeed, which largely works but not when the majority are motivated to further their own needs at the expense of a smaller group. Knowing when this is happening is the trick, and one most of us haven’t achieved.
Trev
the biggest issue facing the Labour party is rejuvination. There are a few members retiring from Labour as occurs every election. Given that it is going to be a difficult election to win and that places on the list are going to be keenly sought by sitting MPs, is someone going to make the hard decisions and force new blood into the ranks – and in the process upset some sitting MPs.
Making the list will always be a difficult balancing act. Getting it wrong will doom Labour to an even longer stint on the opposition benches.
I was really impressed at the Wellington list conference (and the preceding hustings) not just by the variety of talent and life experience of the candidates but also by their diversity. It was really tough choosing the best!
I also was impressed with the list selection in Auckland some good solid candidates