This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/10/kevin-rudd-labor-party-reforms

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
What can Australia's Labor party learn from popular elections overseas? What can Australia's Labor party learn from popular elections overseas?
(2 months later)
In his press conference about reforming the Labor party’s leadership elections, prime minister Kevin Rudd noted that “reforms like this have taken place in many other western political parties in countries right around the world in recent decades.” The Australian Labor party, Rudd said, is “not Robinson Crusoe on this”. So what has Crusoe experienced overseas, and what can we in Australia learn from that experience?In his press conference about reforming the Labor party’s leadership elections, prime minister Kevin Rudd noted that “reforms like this have taken place in many other western political parties in countries right around the world in recent decades.” The Australian Labor party, Rudd said, is “not Robinson Crusoe on this”. So what has Crusoe experienced overseas, and what can we in Australia learn from that experience?
For some, Rudd’s proposals may sound like an American presidential primary, or an episode of The West Wing. There might be questions about the extent to which popular election is reconcilable with Westminster-style parliamentary democracy: after all, historically, the leader of a Westminster-style party has simply been the person who commanded the support of their party room. This has allowed the party room to change its mind, sometimes even overnight.For some, Rudd’s proposals may sound like an American presidential primary, or an episode of The West Wing. There might be questions about the extent to which popular election is reconcilable with Westminster-style parliamentary democracy: after all, historically, the leader of a Westminster-style party has simply been the person who commanded the support of their party room. This has allowed the party room to change its mind, sometimes even overnight.
There is, undoubtedly, the possibility that popular election could create tensions with Westminster democracy: what would happen if a leader is installed by the branchmembers over the wishes of the party room?There is, undoubtedly, the possibility that popular election could create tensions with Westminster democracy: what would happen if a leader is installed by the branchmembers over the wishes of the party room?
Australian uncertainty about proposals of this sort may be heightened because the only experience that most Australians have had with popularly-elected parliamentary leaders was that of the Australian Democrats in the first years of this century, when senator Natasha Stott-Despoja was popularly elected by the Democrats’ branch members only to be toppled after her party-room lost confidence with her leadership.Australian uncertainty about proposals of this sort may be heightened because the only experience that most Australians have had with popularly-elected parliamentary leaders was that of the Australian Democrats in the first years of this century, when senator Natasha Stott-Despoja was popularly elected by the Democrats’ branch members only to be toppled after her party-room lost confidence with her leadership.
But the British experience shows that popular election of party leaders has, in fact, been reconciled with Westminster parliamentary government for some years now, with some degree of stability and success. Indeed, in the UK, all three major national parliamentary parties use some form of popular election to choose their leaders. For any Australian accustomed to snap leadership changes happening within days – or even hours – the UK experience of campaign debates, online commercials, and candidates’ conference speeches is quite a shock. UK leadership battles have provided opportunities for parties to road-test their potential leaders with a form of nation-wide campaign, allowed a broader cross-section of party members and officials to have a say in policy direction, and provided parties with an opportunity for reinvention after political difficulties or election losses.But the British experience shows that popular election of party leaders has, in fact, been reconciled with Westminster parliamentary government for some years now, with some degree of stability and success. Indeed, in the UK, all three major national parliamentary parties use some form of popular election to choose their leaders. For any Australian accustomed to snap leadership changes happening within days – or even hours – the UK experience of campaign debates, online commercials, and candidates’ conference speeches is quite a shock. UK leadership battles have provided opportunities for parties to road-test their potential leaders with a form of nation-wide campaign, allowed a broader cross-section of party members and officials to have a say in policy direction, and provided parties with an opportunity for reinvention after political difficulties or election losses.
Some form of popular election of UK leaders has been in use for three decades: Labour and the Lib Dems since the 1980s, while the Tories introduced their system in 1998. The Lib Dems use a vote of all party members, while Tory MPs elect two finalist candidates between whom party members make the final choice. UK Labour, meanwhile, uses a system somewhat similar to that was proposed by Rudd, but with greater say afforded to the British unions.Some form of popular election of UK leaders has been in use for three decades: Labour and the Lib Dems since the 1980s, while the Tories introduced their system in 1998. The Lib Dems use a vote of all party members, while Tory MPs elect two finalist candidates between whom party members make the final choice. UK Labour, meanwhile, uses a system somewhat similar to that was proposed by Rudd, but with greater say afforded to the British unions.
The 2010 edition of the Labour party rule book explains that the leader and deputy leader of the parliamentary Labour party are now elected by a three-part "electoral college": one third of the vote determined by Labour members of Parliament and members of the European Parliament; one third of the vote determined by individual members of the Labour party (what we in Australia would call "branch members"); and the final third of the vote determined by what UK Labour calls "affiliated organisations" (essentially, affiliated trade unions). The most recent leadership election, following Gordon Brown’s loss at the 2010 general election, saw a nationwide campaign with five candidates culminating in a narrow win for Ed Miliband over his brother David. The 2010 edition of the Labour party rule book explains that the leader and deputy leader of the parliamentary Labour party are now elected by a three-part "electoral college": one third of the vote determined by Labour members of Parliament and members of the European Parliament; one third of the vote determined by individual members of the Labour party (what we in Australia would call "branch members"); and the final third of the vote determined by what UK Labour calls "affiliated organisations" (essentially, affiliated trade unions). The most recent leadership election, following Gordon Brown’s loss at the 2010 general election, saw a nationwide campaign with five candidates culminating in a narrow win for Ed Miliband over his brother David. 
Looking at UK Westminster politics with Australian eyes, these forms of popular vote have provided a remarkable degree of stability: David Cameron has been leader of the Tories since 2005, Nick Clegg since 2007, and Ed Miliband since 2010. Since the time of Cameron’s election in 2005, the Australian Liberals and the ALP have each had four leaders. Popular election of parliamentary leaders, it could be argued, enhances the ability of leaders to ride out rough periods, and provides a disincentive to those hoping for a quick change of leader by allowing MPs to trigger a leadership election but not to decide it exclusively or quickly on their own.Looking at UK Westminster politics with Australian eyes, these forms of popular vote have provided a remarkable degree of stability: David Cameron has been leader of the Tories since 2005, Nick Clegg since 2007, and Ed Miliband since 2010. Since the time of Cameron’s election in 2005, the Australian Liberals and the ALP have each had four leaders. Popular election of parliamentary leaders, it could be argued, enhances the ability of leaders to ride out rough periods, and provides a disincentive to those hoping for a quick change of leader by allowing MPs to trigger a leadership election but not to decide it exclusively or quickly on their own.
Such a system may also enhance the extent to which branch members can potentially have a say in their party’s direction. On the other hand, of course, it could be said that popular election can be linked to disgruntled party rooms, artificially-long leaderships for unpopular leaders, the possibility of branchstacking, and delays and interim leaders while the party organises a poll of members. (These problems, of course, already exist to some extent in Australia.)Such a system may also enhance the extent to which branch members can potentially have a say in their party’s direction. On the other hand, of course, it could be said that popular election can be linked to disgruntled party rooms, artificially-long leaderships for unpopular leaders, the possibility of branchstacking, and delays and interim leaders while the party organises a poll of members. (These problems, of course, already exist to some extent in Australia.)
But above all, and importantly for Australian purposes, the UK experience shows that popular election of party leaders is reconcilable with Westminster parliamentary democracy, and that the Australian-style snap-spill is simply unknown in contemporary British politics. Of course, the UK is not the only relevant model here. Canada, another Westminster-based federation, also uses popular elections to choose its leaders. Less than three months ago, for example, the centrist Liberal Party of Canada announced the election of leader Justin Trudeau in a dramatic bilingual ceremony after a nationwide campaign.But above all, and importantly for Australian purposes, the UK experience shows that popular election of party leaders is reconcilable with Westminster parliamentary democracy, and that the Australian-style snap-spill is simply unknown in contemporary British politics. Of course, the UK is not the only relevant model here. Canada, another Westminster-based federation, also uses popular elections to choose its leaders. Less than three months ago, for example, the centrist Liberal Party of Canada announced the election of leader Justin Trudeau in a dramatic bilingual ceremony after a nationwide campaign.
Westminster-style government has evolved over the centuries in the UK and around the world. Popular election of party leaders has been part of its evolution elsewhere for some time; we’ll find out if Australia will be the next to follow Robinson Crusoe’s lead at the special caucus meeting on 22 July. Westminster-style government has evolved over the centuries in the UK and around the world. Popular election of party leaders has been part of its evolution elsewhere for some time; we’ll find out if Australia will be the next to follow Robinson Crusoe’s lead at the special caucus meeting on 22 July. 
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.