Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Field of Birkenhead (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 9 February 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.


Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (Money) (No. 3)

I totally agree, but I do not want to go down that particular route; I want to try to move on the debate a little. Should the plug in the control box not have been pulled and should our constituents be watching this debate, they will think how old-fashioned it is that the only way in which we are talking about election is in respect of the old parliamentary system. There has been a big debate in the country about how we select candidates. Some people have an objection to safe seats; the answer, surely, is to consider seriously—not necessarily embrace—paying some attention to the mechanisms by which we select candidates. My own seat of Birkenhead is quite safe—it was at the last election, at least. The real fight is about who will be the Labour candidate. I would welcome our having an open primary, in which there was a real contest for the Labour candidature; everybody would know that the person who won that would also win the seat. The quid pro quo would probably be that we would move back to seeing uncontested returns in ““safe seats”” where open primaries were held.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
505 c816-7 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Boundary commissions Constituency size Constituencies Alternative vote Administration Constitutional and administrative law House of Commons General elections Members Referendums Voting methods
Legislation
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill 2008-09 to 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk