How the Labour leadership result changes under a one-member-one-vote system

Had MPs' votes been treated in the same way as party members', Ed Miliband would have won a landslide victory.

One of the likely consequences of Ed Miliband's decision to introduce a new opt-in system for donations to Labour from affiliated trade union members will be a major change to the party's leadership election system. At present the decision lies with an electoral college split three ways between the party's 272 MPs and MEPs, all party members (193,000 at the last count) and members of affiliated trade unions and socialist societies (around 2.7 million). 

But should Miliband make all trade unionists who choose to donate full members of the party (as his speech on Tuesday implied), the third of these sections would effectively cease to exist (most socialist societies already require their members to be members of Labour). This would inevitably raise the question of whether the party should introduce a pure one-member-one-vote (OMOV) system, with MPs' votes no longer given greater weight than those of party members. As I noted in 2010, Labour is the only one of the three main parties which does not give the final say to individual party members. Under the electoral college system, the vote of one MP is worth the votes of 608 party members and 12,915 affiliated members and the vote of one party member is worth the votes of 21 affiliated members.

But would a one-member-one-vote system have changed the outcome in 2010? Earlier today, I reran the election using a OMOV model to discover the answer. It's not a perfect simulation; I don't have the data needed to strip out multiple votes (most MPs, for instance, had at least three votes by virtue of their membership of affiliated societies) and it's hard to know how many trade unionists would have participated under an opt-in system, but it's the best guide currently available. 

While the result does not change significantly (all the candidates finish in the same position, except Diane Abbott, who leapfrogs Andy Burnham and Ed Balls in the first round), it is notable that Ed Miliband's margin of victory increases dramatically from just 1.3 per cent to 8.8 per cent. Since David Miliband won the MPs' section by 140 votes to 122, his share is heavily reduced under a OMOV vote. He also won the party members' section by 66,814 to 55,992, but Ed's huge lead among affiliated members (119,405 to 80,266) means he pulls ahead. 

Given how often it's claimed that he wouldn't have won without the support of the "union barons" (the "block vote" was abolished by John Smith in 1993), Miliband's speech was, among other things, a subtle reminder that it was thousands of individual votes that delivered him victory. 

Here's the new result in full (you can view the actual result here). 

2010 Labour leadership election result under one-member-one-vote

Round One

1. Ed Miliband 125,649 (37.1%)

2. David Miliband 114,205 (33.8%)

3. Diane Abbott 35,259 (10.4%)

4. Ed Balls 34,489 (10.2%)

5. Andy Burnham 28,772 (8.5%)

Round Two

1. Ed Miliband 137,599 (41%)

2. David Miliband 118,575 (35.4%)

3. Ed Balls 40,992 (12.2%)

4. Andy Burnham 38,050 (11.4%)

(Since Abbott was eliminated in the first round in the actual contest, I have had to use Burnham's numbers.)

Round Three

1. Ed Miliband 149,675 (45.3%)

2. David Miliband 127,389 (38.5%)

3. Ed Balls 53,669 (16.2%)

Round Four

1. Ed Miliband 175,519 (54.4%)

2. David Miliband 147,220 (45.6%)

Ed Miliband's margin of victory increases from 1.3 per cent to 8.8 per cent under a one-member-one-vote system. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

Ignoring devolved nations on Brexit "risks breaking up the UK"

Theresa May is meeting with Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh representatives. 

The Westminster government risks the break up of the union if it tries to impose a Brexit settlement on Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, the Institute for Government has warned.

On the day Theresa May is meeting with representatives from the devolved administrations, the thinktank said there were "worrying signs" the Tories were ignoring them instead of treating them like partners. 

The Institute urged the UK government to take steps to prevent "political spats from escalating into a full-blow constitutional crisis".

It stated:

"Imposing a Brexit settlement in the absence of consent from the devolved bodies may be legally possible, given that the UK Parliament remains sovereign. 

"However, this would run contrary to convention and to the spirit of devolution, which recognises the right of the three devolved nations to determine their own
form of government. 

"It would also be a reckless strategy for a government committed to the Union, since it would seriously undermine relationships between the four governments, and increase the chances of Scottish independence and rifts in Northern Ireland’s fragile power-sharing arrangements."

Instead, Brexit ministers from the devolved nations should be represented on a specially-created committee and held jointly responsible for the outcome of talks, it recommended. The devolved nations are expected to want a softer Brexit than the one outlined so far by Westminster. 

It noted that despite the Prime Minister's commitment to developing a "UK approach" to Brexit, there are "worrying signs" that the devolved governments are being ignored.

So far key decisions, such as the deadline for triggering Article 50, have been taken by Westminster alone. Legal experts have warned a stand off between devolved authorities and Westminster could lead to a constitutional crisis.

While civil servants across the UK are now trying to work together, the Institute for Government said their ability to do so "has been hindered by lack of agreement at a political level".

A Brexit settlement could also lead to new powers for the devolved nations, the report said, such as on employment and immigration.

The report said it was likely devolved parliaments would wish to vote on any settlement.

The Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon has already threatened to hold another independence referendum if Westminster does not take account of Scottish interests, and has pledged that the SNP will vote against the Brexit bill in Parliament. 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.