It is just possible that the view of Carswell and Hannan, who have led the argument for Open Primaries, are beginning to be listened to, if this leader in the Times is an example.
A number of points from the Times leader can be debated:
"It could, therefore, be made law that a party with, say, a 20 per cent share of the vote or more in a given constituency could only stand a candidate under their official label and bearing the party logo if they were selected in an open primary. An independent would still be able to stand, and minor parties would not have to jump through hoops unnecessarily."
Why the 20 per cent consideration? Any party wishing to put a candidate up for selection should hold open primaries and, as I have said before, those primaries should be held from a selection of more than one candidate. This allows all voters to decide, from those candidates, which of them, if elected, they would wish to see as their Member of Parliament, regardless of the voter's political leanings.
"An advantage of creating a law that governs all parties, is that voters could be constrained from voting in more than one primary, being restricted to registering for one or another."
Why should there be a constraint on being able to vote in any open primary (see response to previous Times leader statement)
"Since open primaries would be expensive to hold, if they were mandated by law then the cost of the ballot itself ought to be met out of the public purse."
If the electorate were to be asked whether the cost of open primaries should be funded out of the public purse, it is believed they would agree; being a cost from which they, individually, would benefit.
Couple the introduction of open primaries with a re-call system for MPs with whom their constituents are dissatisfied and immediately (a) voter power is increased, (b) the power of the whips is reduced and through that (c) MPs would be forced to vote more in accordance with their constituent's wishes rather than voting for their party's line/dogma.