The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Johnson fires another warning shot at Miliband

Shadow chancellor calls for major reform of the Labour leadership voting system.

By George Eaton Published 18 November 2010 10:35

Having elected Ed Miliband as leader less than two months ago, now may seem an odd time for Labour to re-open the debate over its arcane voting system. But that's what the increasingly outspoken Alan Johnson has done. He tells the Times (£): "I would like to see a full one-member one-vote system for leadership contests. At the moment it can be one-member four votes and that's wrong."

Had Johnson's man won (he was a key supporter of David Miliband), one suspects that he may not be so preoccupied with the rule book. But, regardless of his political motives, he makes a convincing argument. As I've pointed out before, the party's tripartite electoral college (divided between MPs/MEPs, party members, and affiliated trade unions and socialist societies) means that some votes are worth significantly more than others. The vote of one MP is worth the votes of 608 party members and 12,915 affiliated members. The vote of one party member is worth the votes of 21 affiliated members. The electoral college system puts Labour out of step with the Tories and the Lib Dems, both of whom elect leaders using a one-member-one-vote system. It would be a mistake for Labour to adopt this system in its purest form; it is both just and necessary for affiliated trade unions, as the founders of the party, to have a say over the leadership. But the extraordinary power held by the PLP can no longer be justified.

There's also no reason to think that Miliband wouldn't be sympathetic to reform. Liam Byrne, who is overseeing Labour's policy review, says that he now expects the party's leadership rules to be "on the table" in discussions. But what's troubling for Labour's leader is that some of those calling for the system to be reformed are, in effect, declaring his election illegitimate. Simmering resentment at the fact that Miliband wasn't the choice of party members and MPs has burst into the open. Alan Milburn and Margaret Hodge both call for the party to deprieve the unions of a say in the leadership election, without whom, of course, Miliband would not have won. Meanwhile, David Blunkett and Charles Clarke issue some of the strongest criticisms we've heard of the Labour leader.

"The problem for Ed is that he got dipped in the Gordon paint pot," says Blunkett. Clarke comments: "Ed Miliband is back to the comfort zone. I don't think he's 'Red Ed' particularly but he hasn't so far shown that he's into challenge." Of the above, Clarke and Milburn are, of course, no longer MPs. But the fear for Team Miliband is that they speak for a significant Blairite constituency in the party. As Dan Hodges reports in this week's magazine (out today), sections of the party remain in a state of unease and unrest following Miliband's repudiation of New Labour.

One shouldn't exaggerate the dissent we're beginning to hear. After all, by historical standards, the Labour Party remains remarkably united. But it looks like Miliband will have some firefighting to do when he returns to Westminster.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Alan Johnson Ed Miliband Labour leadership

More from George Eaton

13 comments

Thu, 2010-11-18 13:13 — Tessa (not verified)

This back biting has to stop, it is not what is needed at the present time. We are faced with the prospect of the rollback of the welfare state as we know it and all the main members of the Labour Party can do is criticise the new leadership. Give Ed a chance and do not play into the hands of the Tories otherwise this will be a rerun of the 80s and 90s. Perhaps some of you are too young to remember this but I witnessed the destruction of industry in the West Midlands and then the miners. OK if Ed does not measure up say in 12 months time then by all means criticise but behind closed doors. There are millions of people in this country who are going to be very badly affected by the cuts and they deserve better than this sniping by Labour MPs and former MPs.

Thu, 2010-11-18 13:19 — Union Steve

David and Ed lost, Mrs Balls did to stand. Get over it!!!

Thu, 2010-11-18 14:04 — bonk (not verified)

Mrs Balls should have stood frankly she'd be wiping the floor with Cameron by now in my view.

Thu, 2010-11-18 15:03 — lddds

====== http://www.tinyurl.com/23wkoeq ====

Thu, 2010-11-18 15:03 — Yak

Tessa,
I coul;dnt agree more, I too remember the 80s and early 90s. What is happening now is 100 times worse, people just dont realise yet how bad things are about to get.
Now more then ever the Labour party should be working together,presenting a united front, they owe that at least to the poor,dispossesed and all those who cant defend themselves.

Thu, 2010-11-18 15:25 — Trevor (not verified)

Serves the dopey unions right for their unquestioning support for an openly capitalist, anti-working class party.

As for Postman Pat, he should sod off back to Greendale where he belongs.

Thu, 2010-11-18 15:26 — elrob

Phil
It is proof that, whatever their protestations about Brown, the Blairites have acted like a cancer in the party for the last decade.
hear hear!
Nathaniel Myers
What evidence? Who is Phil? Ed M?
And how is Johnson sticking to his principles? He was not elected leader, Ed was. I remember Blair calling for solidarity when he was leader, one rule for Him (the Great Leader), another for everyone else?

If these New Labourites bring on a fight, I’ll not bloody lie down. And if they cause the fight, it will NEVER be forgotten.
Bonk and Steve
Mrs Balls should have stood frankly she'd be wiping the floor with Cameron…but she didn’t, and we don’t know whether she’d have won.
What we need is imgainative and radical policies. The Tory Right set the agenda when big government failed in the 70s. We should set it once small government (New LAbour economics) failed in the 00s.
New Labour - you lost. New Labour - your economic policy lies in ruins.
You are not the future. You are the past! If you fight, we won't lie down!

Thu, 2010-11-18 10:42 — swatantra nandanwar

Would you beieve it : you give someone a leg up, and they stab you in the back. Same happened with Bob Ainsworth and Brown ex PM. Ed will have to sack Johnson to re- establish authority and appoint Balls or Cooper. A Johnson is right, but wrong, its the members that should have the power, not MPs not Unions but actual card carrying CLP members.

Thu, 2010-11-18 11:25 — facile idiocy (not verified)

Oi #1

How do you think you're going to persuade union members to bankroll the party with their subs if you're denying them a vote in who leads it? Fast track to disaffiliation and bankruptcy, nice one.

Of course, a true OMOV election would have seen EdM romp home over DavidM, having received thousands more votes than him.

Thu, 2010-11-18 11:56 — shufflebox (not verified)

One member one vote is a fantastic idea! That way MPs won't have a massively inflated say (I suppose this isn't what old AJ means?). Milburn, Blunkett, M Hodge and C Clarke have all had their chance and they were all as good as useless - just look at most of what they did as ministers. If Labour do sever the union link then I'll quit the party, as the party would be nothing without it, just another bunch of self-interested idiots blathering about fairness and level playing fields. Hope it won't come to that though.

Thu, 2010-11-18 12:03 — Phil (not verified)

During the Blair/Brown years, each of the two factions blamed each other for the infighting that ensued.
However, we now see unprincipled, unprovoked and highly divisive coded attacks on Ed M's authority by Johnson and others when Ed M has barely begun his task. It is proof that, whatever their protestations about Brown, the Blairites have acted like a cancer in the party for the last decade. Clearly there is no room for accommodation with these backstabbers, when Johnson has rejected so clearly the olive branch offered to him.

Thu, 2010-11-18 12:14 — Nathaniel Myers (not verified)

One of the most hypocritical comments I have ever read, Phil. You accuse the Blairite wing of the Labour party of being unprincipled and morally bankrupt, and then you criticise Alan Johnson for sticking to his morals, and not compromising them in light of an olive branch, extended by Ed?

You couldn't make this up. Irony at its best, ladies and gentlemen. Even more evidence of the idiocy that's driving the Labour party's current direction.

Thu, 2010-11-18 12:23 — facile idiocy (not verified)

Anyone else enjoying the irony of Blairites defending Johnson "sticking to his morals and not compromising them" after spending so many years complaining about Brownites 'backstabbing' when they did the same?