How much is your Labour leadership vote worth?

The disproportionate power wielded by MPs in the electoral college may come under scrutiny.

The Labour leadership election caught fire last night with Jon Cruddas's endorsement of David Miliband (exclusively revealed by the NS) and the emergence of clear red water between the Miliband brothers.

But one subject to which commentators have devoted insufficient attention is Labour's electoral system. As most of you will know, the big decision lies with an electoral college split equally three ways between the 271 MPs and MEPs, all party members (around 165,000) and members of affiliated trade unions and socialist societies (an eclectic bunch that includes the Fabian Society, the Jewish Labour movement, the Christian Socialist Movement, Scientists for Labour and the Labour Animal Welfare Society; you can see a full list here).

As a result, the vote of one MP is worth proportionally more than those of hundreds of regular party members and thousands of affiliated members (of whomh there are an estimated 3.5 million). This contrasts with the system used by the Tories and the Lib Dems, under which candidates are nominated by MPs before going forward to a membership ballot.

To display the idiosyncracies of the Labour system better, here are some key figures:

  • The vote of one MP is worth the votes of nearly 608 party members and 12,915 affiliated members.
  • The vote of one party member is worth the votes of 21 affiliated members.
  • An MP's vote is worth 0.12 per cent of the total electorate, a party member's vote is worth 0.0002 per cent and an affiliated member's vote is worth 0.00000943 per cent.

David Miliband currently enjoys the support of the largest number of MPs (101, after the Cruddas endorsement) and the highest number of Constituency Labour Parties (165). Should the former win the day for him, it would be surprising if some Labour activists didn't begin to question the vastly disproportionate power wielded by MPs under the present arrangements.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.