Labour struggle with their European selection - it's about democracy, or not, as the case may be

Five years ago, arguments over the way the Conservative Party ran its European Parliamentary selections made their way into the public domain.

I wrote then;

ConservativeHome is running a piece on the way Conservative Central Office has "stitched up" their selection process for the European Parliament, then withheld the results data from members. There are suggestions that ballot papers didn't go out to all members, that candidates were barred from campaigning, and that the process was rigged in favour of women.

And now, it appears, the Labour Party are having similar problems, with accusations flying that the (extremely) shortlists to be put before members have been designed to exclude anyone likely to be a threat to certain favoured 'friends and family' of key powerbrokers within the Party.

Like the Conservatives used to, Labour favour sitting MEPs, reserving the top slots for them, and then select the remaining candidates from a list chosen by a shortlisting committee. Once shortlisted, you are guaranteed a place on the list, as only enough names to fill the required slots are offered to the membership, and choice is further limited by the application of 'zipping' based on gender.

The Liberal Democrats used zipping in 1997 to select candidates for the 1999 European Parliamentary elections, alternating two lists of men and women in each Region or State to ensure, as far as possible, gender balance. And, whilst I wasn't wildly keen about it at the time, it did work.

However, such savage shortlisting is very controversial, giving disproportionate power to the shortlisting committee which, in turn, can offer huge temptations for abuse. An independent Returning Officer, a robust appeal process and transparent selection criteria can reduce that, but I'm not aware that senior Labour figures are terribly keen on such things, using paid staff to run the process, for example.

I suppose that their actions and, in particular, their methodology, reflect the sort of organisation they believe themselves to be, but by failing to engage members, they do themselves no favours. Discouraged members do less campaigning and feel less inclined towards loyalty. For even if their preferred candidate is not chosen, the perception of a fair contest does reassure.

It is interesting to reflect that, when a selection really matters, as the Conservative one did in 2008, and the Labour one does now, with gains expected, the likelihood of heavy-handed interference increases.

There is always a price to be paid though one day, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but one day. Perhaps those responsible, if responsible they are, might reflect upon that...