The British Labour Party's move to Proportional Representation for the 1999 European Elections promised to make voting fairer. But, the evidence of New Labour's selection process for candidates raises serious issues for democracy in Europe and not least, that of the European Parliament's own credibility.
After 18 years in the political wilderness and its return to power amid widespread acclaim throughout Europe, New Labour has stretched the credibility of its modernisation and reform too far.
Sitting Labour MEPs and other selected candidates for the 1999 European Election learnt their fate this week following marathon interviews by the party's National Executive Committee at Stoke Rochford Hall, a country mansion near Grantham, UK - Middle England in every sense.
Retiring General Secretary Tom Sawyer and members of the NEC listened to over 120, four-minute speeches and then organised 'hostile mock press interviews' for a final selection process that exposed candidates to series of aggressive political and personal attacks, supposedly to see how they would stand up to pressures from the media.
This was after an elaborate nation-wide selection procedure that began in May when local European Constituency Parties (ECLPs) were each invited to nominate both a male and a female candidate. The ensuing postal ballot almost bankrupted most ECLPs. These are now to be formally wound up to make way for 11 new Euro Regions each with hand-picked steering committees.
Sitting MEPs had to gain the support of at least 50 per cent of voluntary members in 'trigger ballots'. All 49 Labour MEPs wanting to return easily won the ballots - all but two with scores between 90 and 100 per cent.
However, as the NEC interviews drew near it became clear that the Party choices had already been made. Rumours, in both Brussels and Party headquarters at Millbank, have now been proven roughly accurate with some people having even predicted the order of candidates likely in each region. The results clearly support those early rumours of a 'cull'.
Tony Blair is said never to have forgiven Labour MEPs for signing a Guardian newspaper advert some years ago opposing his plan to abolish Clause 4 of the Labour constitution, which set out the socialist principles. Therefore, a purge was always on the cards. So why this elaborate interview and selection process?
Culled candidates can be forgiven for being cynical about the elaborate mock media interviews. Politicians can be trained to deal with the media once they are elected. It is not unreasonable to suppose that these elaborate interviews were a 'smoke screen'.
Party Assistant General Secretary David Gardener reassured candidates at briefing meetings in both London and Manchester that the selection would be 'free and transparent', a remark that caused a titter of laughter amongst the audiences. A far more sinister note was struck when one Party official warned assembled hopefuls: 'We know who you are'.
In the minutes before their interviews nervous candidates were asked to sign an absurd declaration: 'I wish to declare to the Selections Board the following matters which, if revealed, could publicly embarrass the Labour Party or affect public confidence in my position'.
Was this something learnt from New Labour's visits to the Clinton Campaign? Everyone was also ordered to sign a Memorandum handing over some of their staff allowances to the party; probably a breach of European Parliament rules. The rule of the day was: no signature, no interview.
The Stalinist atmosphere continued with the arrival of heavyweight figures from the Party and favoured trade unions. All candidates were warned that if they shared information about the progress of the interviews they faced immediate disqualification from the process.
During the interviews, several MEPs I spoke with said they felt they were exposed to bitter personal attacks, the purpose of which was to destroy them as credible politicians.
Some bloody attacks took place, with seasoned MEPs physically stumbling from the interview room after vicious attacks from the panel. One MEP said: 'How dare they treat our people like this!'
Another colleague said this week 'this is a complete charade. The Party has lost control of itself. MPs at Westminster will soon find this purge system being applied to them'.
The ruthlessness of the Purge is now clear. No less than 24 MEPs by my reckoning face the sack if predictions prove to be accurate for June 1999 with only a handful of handpicked new entrants likely to make it.
My essential complaint is that a small number of people in the Labour Party have had total control of the selection process and its outcome. They have determined who is to stand, and in what order - not the membership. The Party Conference at Blackpool will now rubber-stamp the list in its entirety. How can it do otherwise?
These developments have profound implications for the European Parliament. Part of the pressure on Britain from its EU partners to adopt a proportional representation system was to make the Parliament more democratic. However, the 'closed list' system, which gives voters no choice about whom to support in each Party, has grave dangers for democracy. These are clearly illustrated by the Stoke Rochford fiasco.
If it turns out that the 1999 intake of Labour MEPs are obliged automatically to obey what the Labour Party at home says without being able to make individual judgements, they will not be Parliamentarians in the accepted sense. The essential element of representational democracy is that, within broad limits, people will have doubts, different feelings and varying priorities and that this is very healthy for Parties and the people that they claim to represent.
It is chilling to remember that Stalin and the Fascists ran the last political parties that refused their representatives absolutely any individual leeway. Mussolini might have been describing New Labour when he said: 'No discussion, only obedience'.
The terrible fate that has befallen what was once a great socialist party is clear to many of us who still believe in Labour Party values. As one unhappy MEP said last weekend: 'We won the general election because of our attack on Tory sleaze. But this is another form of political corruption'.
The 'take-over' is based on entryist tactics. Scandals about the NEC elections, the taking of money from dubious characters, the false membership records and bitter in-fighting in the Party fit in with that style of politics.
Ironically, British Tory MEPs achieved a victory earlier this year when they fended off a similar attack from leader William Hague and Tory Central Office. Through superb organisational skills and mobilising the 'blue rinse' brigade in the provinces of Britain, they ensured that the leadership and party officials did not have their way. Only three Tory MEPs were effectively 'deselected'. They too have openly expressed their distaste for PR and for the closed list system.
By contrast, the EPLP negotiated a poor deal for their members, one that was destined to end in tears. Sitting MEPs had no opportunity to lobby and were, in fact, prohibited from campaigning for support in their regions.
Labour's tragedy will be felt in Europe generally and in the European Parliament in particular. The other Member States were hoping that Britain would under New Labour become a sensible player in Europe following years of nonsense from the Tories.
If national party leaderships can get away with appointing robotic apparatchiks to the European Parliament it will be catastrophic for democracy. For too long politicians who think Westminster is the centre of the universe have held sway over Britain's relations with Europe.
'Solidarity' is a common phrase used in the European Parliament. MEPs and MPs should reflect that if this sort of ruthless politics continues, they might well be next. Nothing could do more to undermine the credibility of the institution as a whole.