How Labour chooses its leaders isn’t anyone else’s business

This post was written by Owen on September 26, 2010
Posted Under: Labour,Trade Unions

Much has already been made about Ed Miliband’s victory depending on the unions, and no doubt there’ll be more of the same to come over the next few weeks. Even before the votes were in the Guardian was calling the voting system an undemocratic ‘relic’ crying out for reform and comparing poorly with those used by the Tories and Lib Dems. (This of course ignores the inconvenient reality that the Tory party’s system is only one member one vote once all but two candidates have been eliminated by MPs’ votes, which isn’t very democratic at all, but never mind.) There’s a lot of talk, too of the return of the age of ‘union barons’ controlling the party again, 1970s-style.

Except, of course, that this is all bollocks. Every Labour-affiliated union member (each of whom has deliberately chosen to be so – plenty of members of Labour-linked unions, including me, choose not to pay the party levy) gets an individual vote. This has already been pointed out by Ed himself and by various blogs, but don’t expect the press to take any notice. If the Guardian are happy to denounce this as a travesty of democracy, I can’t see the Telegraph et al being any more sympathetic. (And yes, the GMB dubiously got round the rules about not endorsing candidates, and they probably shouldn’t have done, but it was just a recommendation. I fail to see what’s so flagrantly anti-democratic about a democratically-elected union general secretary telling the union members who voted for him or her which candidate they prefer.)

If anything a one member one vote system would imply that the Labour-affiliated trade union members’ votes should be given equal weight to ordinary party members, rather than the much lesser weight they’re given now. But actually, I don’t think this would be a fair way of doing things. If you join a trade union your main motivation for doing so is likely to be your own working conditions (it certainly needn’t be the only motivation, but it is likely to be the principal one). Opting to pay the party levy is something you may or may not choose to do as part of that, but choosing to do so is not making a commitment to the Labour Party of equivalent strength as opting to join as an individual non-union member. As such an electoral college system which takes account of these two different kinds of relationship to the party is a perfectly sensible system. The fact that the votes of MPs and MEPs are given so much more weight than anyone else’s could much more plausibly be argued to be unjustifiable, but naturally no one’s paying that any attention at all.

In any case, even if none of the above is remotely convincing, there’s also the fairly simple freedom of association argument. Everyone who gets involved with the Labour Party in any capacity does so voluntarily. This being the case, how the party’s leaders are selected is really a question for the party and the party alone. Voluntary organisations of all varieties are and should be free to structure themselves however they like.

Like this article? Print it, email it, Stumble, Facebook and Tweet it:
  • Print
  • email
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • Mixx
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Live

Reader Comments


Excellent post Owen! Freedom of association ftw!

Written By reuben on September 26th, 2010 @ 2:53 pm

I actually think you’re wrong about this.

Leaving aside whether this is a useful system or not to elect a leader there is a difference between saying that the Labour Party should be free to choose it’s own rules and saying that the press and the public have no business thinking about or discussing it.

The method of selection for the potential future prime minister is clearly of public interest and voters are perfectly entitled to take an interest in how a party organises when they are considering voting for it.

The Party is entitled to organise itself however it likes. I and everyone else is entitled to say how we feel about it, that’s democracy. There is a world of difference between some Tory saying this shows what a stalinist, trade union dominated organisation Labour is (which is their view) and someone saying you should be banned from organising this way (which would be encroaching your freedom of association and does not seem to be what anyone is saying).

If it’s true that Labour is a less democratic organisation than other parties then that is a legitimate topic of public discussion, even if it makes you uncomfortable.

Written By Jim Jepps on September 26th, 2010 @ 8:01 pm

Well, it certainly doesn’t make me uncomfortable – I’m not a member of Labour or any other party. But it’s hard to draw an exact line between saying how you feel about something and saying something should be a certain way – (though clearly there *is* a difference, as you say). The rightwing media seem at present to be trying to build a narrative that says that there was something illegitimate about how EdM was elected because it depended on Union votes. That seems to be going a bit further than a mere disinterested critique of the structure of the Labour Party. But I take your point.

Written By Owen on September 29th, 2010 @ 2:59 pm

Add a Comment

required, use real name
required, will not be published
optional, your blog address

Please leave these two fields as-is:

Protected by Invisible Defender. Showed 403 to 489,839 bad guys.