The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Should the public have a vote in Labour leadership elections?

Allowing “registered supporters” to vote would create a disincentive to membership.

By George Eaton Published 29 March 2011 10:43

It might seem an odd time for Ed Miliband to reform the Labour leadership voting system. After all, if things go to plan, the party won't need to hold another election for many years. But the case for reform is undeniable.

Labour is now the only one of the three main parties that does not use a one-member-one-vote system (Omov) to elect its leader. As a result, some people's votes are worth significantly more than others. Under the electoral college system, the vote of one MP is worth the votes of about 608 party members and 12,195 affiliated members.

Miliband hasn't embraced Omov, but his proposed reforms are, if anything, more radical. A new party document, Refounding Labour: a Party for a New Generation, written by Peter Hain, revives the idea of "registered supporters" – non-party members who would be given a vote at conference and in leadership elections.

The implications are significant. Were "registered supporters" inserted directly into the electoral college, the MPs, affiliated trade unions and party members, who each enjoy one-third of the vote, would be left with a quarter each. The logic is clear: in a less tribal age, Labour needs to find new ways to reach out.

But the reform raises at least as many questions as answers. For a start, it creates a disincentive to party membership. One of the few reasons people still join political parties is to have some say (however small) over the leadership. Indeed, more than 30,000 people joined Labour during last summer's contest. Why should non-levy-paying supporters enjoy the same rights as those who pay £41 a year?

Such a system would also be open to manipulation by political opponents. The supporters of the ill-fated "Conservatives for Balls" movement, for instance, would have leapt at the chance to vote.

It would not be surprising if existing members were opposed to the change. A LabourList survey published in February found that just 4.5 per cent of readers wanted this reform, with 55.8 per cent in favour of Omov. One suspects that unless the reforms are coupled with new rights for members, Miliband might find himself on the wrong side on the debate.

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

Tags: Ed Miliband Labour leadership

More from George Eaton

20 comments

Wed, 2011-03-30 04:43 — Ryan Thomas (not verified)

Arthur - You've painted an odd and unnecessarily complex picture of Skinner's voting patterns.

Here's the recap. Skinner nominated John McDonnell. McDonnell withdrew. That means Skinner could nominate somebody else. Would you prefer he nominated nobody?

Skinner then nominated Diane Abbott to help her clear the nomination threshold. Would you prefer that he hadn't?

In the actual election, he supported David Miliband. Isn't he entitled to a view?

I don't see why this is so controversial. I think you are seeing conspiracies where there are none.

Wed, 2011-03-30 04:44 — Ryan Thomas (not verified)

I think this "registered supporters" thing is nonsense, by the way, and extremely insulting to party members.

Tue, 2011-03-29 10:55 — Graham (not verified)

Absolutely ridiculous. What on earth is to be gained in giving the chairman of the Ashtley-Under-Boluck Conservative Association a vote on who can lead the labour party.

But given that under OMOV Ed Milliband would not be labour leader now not exactly suprising he shies away from the only sensible proposal.

Tue, 2011-03-29 10:57 — swatantra nandanwar

At last an intelligent and perceptive posting on the NS blog!
The answer is YES. We should adopt the American model of Open Primaries and give the public a say in who is an electable Leader of any Party).
Members of 'a Party are not your general run of the mill members of the public and their sense of what 'the public' wants is often distorted by ingrained ideology and dogma.
Some of the US Primaries are open to any member of the public to vote in; and some are closed to only card carrying members. But, they both give an indication of what the public actually wants. Thats why Obama won the nomination and machine politicians like Hillary lost.

Tue, 2011-03-29 11:05 — mcquade

"But given that under OMOV Ed Milliband would not be labour leader now not exactly suprising he shies away from the only sensible proposal."

I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong there, Graham. On a OMOV basis, Ed Miliband won by a country mile of over 29 000.

Tue, 2011-03-29 11:24 — D. Cameron (call me dave...) (not verified)

Debate all you like, the bastard-son of Blair, puffed-up, toothless, over-groomed bag of rhetoric blew any credibility when he started spouting Martin Luther at the rally. Have you ever wondered why Labour and Tory politicians all look like they work for the same soulless corporation, shhh, it's a secret....

Tue, 2011-03-29 11:31 — BruceL (not verified)

I think that anything that gives the public more of a voice in politics is a good thing. However I remain sceptical about whether any election initiative will reap rewards for the good of the country as politicians from all parties seem obsessed with game playing and short term point scoring.

Interesting, and a sad reflection on realtiy, that in the new movie The Adjustment Bureau the Chuck Norris character is portrayed as a truly honest politician, and that this is openly acknowledged as being unusual. All of our politicians could take a leaf out of that book, but I bet none of them has the courage or integrity to actually do so.

Tue, 2011-03-29 11:32 — Graham (not verified)

Mcqade - you are right. Guess I just got suckered by the redtops saying he only won it by the union block votes.

Tue, 2011-03-29 12:26 — Arturo Bandini (not verified)

McQuade is spot on. The commentariat have banged the "elected by the unions" rather than the PLP drum without mentioning that this implicitly means receiving vastly more votes.

Tue, 2011-03-29 12:40 — Arthur Williamson (not verified)

I followed last year`s leadership election closely.

The 5 candidates worked hard to win votes, but as for the MPs and MEPs, most of them were rather quiet throughout, despite the fact some of them had DUBIOUS patterns e.g. Dennis Skinner started off nominating John McDonnell, then, at the eleventh hour of the first round, switches his nomination to Diane Abbot, then, a few months later, switches his allegiance to David Milliband. Did Mr Skinner ever explain his behaviour, NO, was he playing candidates off against each other, LOOKS LIKE IT.

I am in favour of reform because, if the MP and MEP votes are devalued, it may force MPs and MEPs to work hard at grassroots level to drum up support for their candidate, rather than the current system in which MPs and MEPs using their current valuable votes to play political games with their votes WITHOUT ACCOUNTING FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

Tue, 2011-03-29 14:18 — Freeman2

swatantra nandanwar writes, 'The answer is YES. We should adopt the American model of Open Primaries and give the public a say in who is an electable Leader of any Party).'

Yes, that's all very well when the two major parties are virtually indistinguishable and it makes absolutely no difference which is in office. But what if the Labour party were to be a genuinely socialist party and the Tories genuinely free market? Is it a good idea for an anti-socialist to be voting for the leader of the socialist party? Wouldn't they have a slight interest in confusing issues? What this is about is 'personality'.

Tue, 2011-03-29 14:20 — Frederick James (not verified)

"It might seem an odd time for Ed Miliband to reform the Labour leadership voting system"

Perhaps Mili 2 has concluded that the best service he can do the Labour Party is to junk the system that got him elected by the unions in defiance of the wishes of the grassroots members and his Parliamentary colleagues. I think Hague did something vaguely similar for the Tories - could be a flash of insight on Ed's part.

Tue, 2011-03-29 14:27 — Scotty

What a choice there would be - blinky balls, millie the unready mandela, harriet for women to be more equal than men,and millie 2 - I'd go for Dave as the lesser of several appalling options. Or maybe I'd just abstain in disgust.

Tue, 2011-03-29 14:38 — Pat (not verified)

I'm sorry, but if people want to elect the Labour party leader, they should become members of the party or an affiliated organisation. Its not like they have to go through an interview (unlike some Tory associations...) or anything. I can't see any point in being a member if this goes through.

The labour leader is aleady the only party leader to be voted for by people outside his own party(Unions and affiliated organisations).

Tue, 2011-03-29 15:07 — Barny

Of course not. I just spoke to a couple of people who joined the LP since the general election and they'd leave if this reform goes through.

Tue, 2011-03-29 15:27 — Keir

It is no solution to give votes to those who do not show commitment of some sort. The clue is to reduce the influence of those who may act as an undemocratic clique, i.e. MPs. It's true that MPs know their colleagues the best, but its also true that they may have their ears bent by those with less honour than money. MPs have shown themselves less than immune from the temptations of expense accounts, it's desirable that temptation is taken out of their way in other directions, too. I fancy that there are some present Labour MPs who would lose interest in a OMOV Labour Party, and they would be absolutely no loss whatever. The welcome concomitant would be that membership would be much more worthwhile.

Tue, 2011-03-29 22:00 — Andrew (not verified)

As someone that lives in the US and gets the NS delivered there, I would have to say that the US Primaries are not the way to go unless we want to adopt a truly presidential model. Often the winning candidate comes with his own platform (manifesto) which means there is little in the way of policy debatte within the party. I would prefer to keep the two things distinct although I recognize that is not always possible.

I think OMOV is the only clear way forward for the party if it is to attract new members and lose the taint of special interests and hangers-on. There is no justifiable reason in this day and age for the Labour party not to do that.

Tue, 2011-03-29 22:33 — elrob

But given that under OMOV Ed Milliband would not be labour leader now not exactly suprising he shies away from the only sensible proposal.
------------
depends who you count as a member. Tell someone from the Fabian society or an affiliated union that he/she gets no vote if they pay Labour party levy via their union, but would if they paid thru their constituency, me thinks they would switch to paying thru their constituency.

Seems deeply unfair to deny a levy-payer a vote due to their method of payment. On OMOV for all payers, Ed won by about 40000 votes if I recall. Anyone, please correct me if I'm out.

democracy creates some poor losers.