“The Labour Leadership continues its attack on the power of Party members, with the aim of insulating the Labour Government from accountability to the labour movement.”
Simon Fletcher warns against giving the PLP a disproportionate say in future Leadership elections.
Even more power for the PLP?
The Labour Leadership continues its attack on the power of Party members, with the aim of insulating the Labour Government from accountability to the labour movement.
Before any notice to the Party membership, in June, the Guardian reported “strong rumours in party circles that the next conference… will be a moment of maximum strength to deliver some even more dramatic and controversial rule changes” and that a “key ambition of some is to give MPs the sole power to choose the next Labour Leader if the change takes place while the party is in government.” In July, the Mail on Sunday reported the Leadership was planning to propose new rule changes to “strip rank-andfile party members of their key role in picking the next Labour Leader in favour of more power for MPs”, stating that this would involve reverting to an electoral college system.
At the time of writing we don’t yet know what the Leadership intends, but threats to Party democracy must be taken seriously. Making the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) the sole arbiter in a Leadership election when Labour is in government would be a coup against the grassroots. But the electoral college should also be rejected.
Don’t be fooled by an electoral college
An electoral college would hand a weighted vote to each Labour MP, worth thousands more votes than those of ordinary members and affiliated supporters.
When it was introduced at the beginning of the 1980s the electoral college was an historic advance, giving members a vote for the first time. It was resisted by those who believed it gave the wider movement too much influence. But some on the right now see it is a potential protective barrier against the grassroots, by enhancing the position of MPs in the process.
The electoral college was reintroduced to stop Ken Livingstone from winning the London mayoral selection in 2000. The mechanism for that stitch-up was the golden vote of London Labour MPs, Assembly candidates, and MEPs.
Some will say returning to the electoral college would improve the rights of the affiliates. Don’t be fooled. Currently the vote of a trade unionist is equal to an MP’s. Under an electoral college MPs would cast votes many times larger than a member or a trade unionist.
Nothing should be done to tilt the balance away from democratic opinion in favour of a parliamentary elite – when it comes to electing a Leader, don’t let the PLP outvote you.
- Simon Fletcher is a member of Gateshead Central and Whickham CLP, and a political consultant and writer. Follow Simon at https://modernleft.substack.com
- This article was originally published in CLPD’s Campaign Briefing Newsletter. Read it in full here.
- You can also read Labour Outlook’s 2024 Autumn Conference bulletin here.
