It’s very rare that I publish articles which are critical of my party. I tend to be of the belief that criticisms of the Labour Party are best voiced within the Labour Party, and I’m fortunate enough to have a seat on the National Executive where I get ample opportunity to voice such concerns. However, on occasion, the actions of my party (or at least sections of my party) infuriate me beyond belief, and this is one such occasion.
Last night, a selection convention took place in Dunshaughlin, Co. Meath. The two candidates were Michael McLoughlin (who I happily call a mate) and John King. Now, I’m sure John King is a lovely man, though I don’t know him personally. However, he has been a Labour Party candidate in Dunshaughlin for the last two local elections, and his vote actually dropped from 3.45% of the vote in 1999 to 3.02% of the vote in 2004. It should be noted that even the better of these results left him quite a distance from being elected.
At the selection convention last night, John once again put himself forward for selection. And when the votes were counted, the result was a tie. Therefore, the two names were put into a hat, and Michael’s name was withdrawn from the hat, eliminating him. So, our first selected candidate for Dunshaughlin/Ashbourne is John King. The only consolation is that the Organisational Sub-Committee of the party have decided that a second candidate will be added to the ticket in this area, and I hope that candidate is Michael – a long-standing party activist who has enormous passion and commitment to campaigning for the party.
Now, while I did make a submission to the 21st Century Commission on how our selection procedures should be changed, I have generally stayed silent on the topic in public. I stayed silent while I lost a selection convention myself, as I felt it had been a fair battle. And I’ve stayed silent on our inability to successfully select a respectable number of young candidates, because I didn’t believe the party was actively blocking such attempts. But enough is enough – it’s time for us to face up and realise that our selection procedures are fundamentally flawed. Candidates get selected, not on merit, but on their popularity within the local organisation, and this is a shocking way to operate. The process is built on a wonderful ideal of giving each member a single vote in the selection of candidates, but the practical implementation of this ideal is appalling.
So, for once, I speak out. Let’s change this. Let’s put in place a method of selecting candidates that allows us to positively discriminate in favour of more young candidates, more women candidates, and most importantly of all, better candidates. The time for acting like a group of amateurs has passed.
5 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
Neil
You are right but I believe that the time for speaking out on this issue is perhaps a little too late.
Because of the way in which some selection conventions have been handled – young people have been blocked at many opportunities. In many cases as these decisions have been made already – there is no going back. This is extremely unhealthy in terms of what will benefit our party long term. If we don’t promote younger candidates amongst a range of candidates (let’s not be ageist here either) then younger people will be less likely to join us or support us.
I do feel also that the current system is flawed in allowing the OSC to decide the number of candidates. It seems to me that the OSC is selective in who it communicates with before making any decisions.
Too late? Perhaps Ian, but at least if we speak out and demand change in this area now, then other generations behind us won’t have to suffer in the same ways.
I think the OSC has some flaws that must certainly be noted. However, the question that always arises is what we would replace the OSC with if it were to be abolished….
Would that not undermine party democracy and make Labour so much more like Fianna Fail?
Interesting post. It’s the eternal problem- balancing out the need for internal democracy and accountability with the requirement to actually run credible candidates. There’s little point selecting someone just because they’ve filled a branch with their cronies if they can hardly string a sentence together, but likewise it’s important to keep activists onboard. I suppose the key is to identify competent local activists and work with them to ensure they can get selected in the first place. It’s easier said that done though.
Good blog, BTW.