Skip to main content

Common Dreams. Journalism funded by people, not corporations.

There has never been—and never will be—an advertisement on our site except for this one: without readers like you supporting our work, we wouldn't exist.

No corporate influence. No pay-wall. Independent news and opinion 365 days a year that is freely available to all and funded by those who support our mission: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.

Our mission is clear. Our model is simple. If you can, please support our Fall Campaign today.

Support Our Work -- No corporate influence. No pay-wall. Independent news funded by those who support our mission: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Please support our Fall Campaign today.

GettyImages-1328881887-labour-1

Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer poses for a portrait during a walkabout on the North Pier on July 15, 2021 in Blackpool, England. (Photo: Anthony Devlin/Getty Images)

By Crushing Its Own Members, Labour May Sign Its Own Death Warrant

The Labour Right hopes that giving power back to MPs will prevent any future shift to the Left. But Britain needs more radicalism, not less.

Adam Ramsay

 by OpenDemocracy.net

Imagine the scene.

Britain is emerging from a long, painful pandemic, which has revealed quite how hard our public services have been kicked over the past decade.

Brexit is a domino of disasters, independence movements are gaining momentum, and the deep corruption of Boris Johnson's regime is becoming clear.

A global climate conference is coming to the UK in a couple of months, as concern about environmental breakdown burns more intensely than ever.

Black Lives Matter protests have shifted public attitudes and a new generation is deeply sceptical about the political and economic system it has grown up into.

Even Joe Biden, the Mr Establishment who finally made it to the White House, has recognised a shift in public mood and has broken ranks with neoliberal orthodoxy. He is confronting the data giants and has withdrawn troops from Afghanistan.

At the same time, authoritarians rule over billions of people. President Xi is pouring cement into the foundations of his growing global megalopolis. Bolsonaro, Erdogan, Modi and Putin are trying to make the world stand to their attention. Trump may have been defeated, but the shadow of authoritarian capitalism still darkens the planet.

And in response, a flourishing of democratic imagination has brought ideas that were once seen as radical into the centre of political debates everywhere.

But somehow, Labour cannot catch the Tories in the polls.

Then, a Labour staffer in a meeting somewhere in the party's HQ pops a finger up and says: "Let's get rid of the 'one member, one vote' system for electing our party leader."

The thing that's surprising isn't that someone suggested the move, since the right wing of the party no doubt sees it as a way to prevent a left-winger like Jeremy Corbyn from ever being elected leader again. What's astonishing, if media reports are to be believed, is the suggestion that Keir Starmer has given it his backing.

Unintended effects

The one member, one vote (OMOV) system for Labour leadership elections was adopted in 2015 after a campaign to do so—ironically enough—by the Right of the party. The aim was to curtail trade union influence.

Under the previous electoral college system, three parallel elections were held: among MPs, among members, and among unions and other affiliated groups. Each election was allocated a third of the overall vote. This meant that a couple of hundred Labour MPs had as much say between them as tens of thousands of party members. It also meant that if, say, you were an MP, a party member, a trade union member and a member of an affiliated group all at once, you would get a total of four votes.

In the years since Corbyn was elected, the Right of the party has obsessed over its error.

This system, which dates back to the election of Neil Kinnock as leader in 1983, was really the result of a philosophical compromise about what Labour is. Is it a parliamentary party? ( Before 1983, MPs alone had chosen the leader.) Is it a membership-led party? Or is it the political wing of an alliance of trade unions?

In the 2010 leadership election, soft-Left Ed Miliband narrowly defeated his Blairite brother David. Even though David won among members and MPs, the structure of the electoral college meant that trade union support delivered victory to Ed. Afterwards, David's backers resolved to stop this from happening in future.

To do this, they took advantage of a punch-up in the House of Commons bar in 2012, which led to the resignation of Eric Joyce, Labour MP for Falkirk West. During the process to select a new candidate in his constituency, the Labour Right kicked up a fuss about the influence of the trade union Unite, which had significant power locally as a result of a dispute over pensions at the nearby Grangemouth Oil refinery.

Unite paid for local members to join Labour, as was permitted at the time, and vote for their preferred candidate. After the row that ensued, a report commissioned by Labour recommended, among other things, that the party move to the OMOV system for leadership elections.

The Labour Right were jubilant. They believed that the supposedly left-leaning attitudes of union leaders had carried Ed Miliband to victory, and this was a distortion of ordinary members' opinions. Once empowered, they judged—not entirely unreasonably, when you consider who had remained members during the Blair and Brown years—that the membership would line up behind their preferred candidates.

Yet the opposite happened. When Ed Miliband stood down after the 2015 election, Labour—buoyed partly by hundreds of thousands of new members—elected Corbyn as leader. (A further irony is that Labour lost the supposedly 'safe' seat of Falkirk West to the SNP in the 2015 election, as part of its wipeout in Scotland: it had been too busy fiddling with internal structures to realise its century-old fortress had been burned down.)

One more tweak

In the six years since Corbyn was elected, the Right of the party has obsessed over its error. Rather than attempting to understand any of the currents which carried Corbyn to the party leadership—and, in 2017, nearly into Downing Street—they have harboured hopes of undoing its mistake. "This one technical fix," they seem to think, "will stop us going through all that again."

The logic is laughable. Labour's electoral struggles come not from the fact that they aren't sufficiently bound up in the Westminster system, but that they are trapped in it. Returning so much power to MPs won't take them closer to the voters they need to win back, but tie them to the diminished number of constituencies they now represent.

Labour has failed to challenge Johnsonism, yet has decided to declare war on its members.

For Labour, though, that's not even the major threat. The party's finances are in crisis. With members already deserting, and taking their subs with them, it's having to make staff redundant. Another whack at the membership, closing off the possibility of a Labour Party capable of rising to the radical moment, is only likely to provoke an exodus of Left-leaning, younger activists.

For the Labour Right, this is probably the desired effect: they've long cared more about stopping the Left from controlling the party than they have about stopping the Conservatives from controlling the country. They have come to realise that Starmer isn't the election winner they hoped for, so this new move will allow them to sacrifice him without risking another Corbyn. Or so they think.

The change won't be easy to make, yet the consequences for British politics will be profound. At a time when the Labour leadership has failed to challenge Johnsonism, it decides instead to declare war on its members.

With the Greens creeping up the national polls, the UK constitution in perma-crisis, and a generation casting about for somewhere to place its political hopes, the Labour Party choosing to shed its members ahead of what looks to be a hard winter could prove to be a transformative political moment.


This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.
Adam Ramsay

Adam Ramsay

Adam Ramsay is the Co-Editor of openDemocracyUK and also works with Bright Green. Before, he was a full time campaigner with People & Planet. You can follow him at @adamramsay.

This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.

Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them together—all of us. Common Dreams is not your normal news site. We don't survive on clicks. We don't want advertising dollars. We want the world to be a better place. But we can't do it alone. It doesn't work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size matters—please do. Without Your Support We Simply Don't Exist.

'The Facebook Papers' Spur More Calls to 'Break Them Up!'

Other critics are demanding a "full, independent, outside investigation" of the tech titan as whistleblower Frances Haugen testifies to the U.K. Parliament.

Jessica Corbett ·


Critics See Menendez Villainy Equal to Sinema's on Medicare Drug Pricing Fight

"It's discouraging to see Sen. Menendez is on the wrong side of this fight rather than leading the charge for more affordable, accessible healthcare for all."

Brett Wilkins ·


Humanity 'Way Off Track': WMO Says Atmospheric Carbon at Level Unseen in 3 Million Years

The new report has "a stark, scientific message for climate change negotiators at COP 26," said the head of the World Meteorological Organization.

Andrea Germanos ·


Any Lawmaker Involved in Planning Jan. 6 Insurrection 'Must Be Expelled,' Says AOC

Organizers of the deadly assault on the U.S. Capitol say that several congressional Republicans and White House officials helped plan former President Donald Trump's coup attempt.

Kenny Stancil ·


Profits Before People: 'The Facebook Papers' Expose Tech Giant Greed

"This industry is rotten at its core," said one critic, "and the clearest proof of that is what it's doing to our children."

Jon Queally ·

Support our work.

We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100% reader supported.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values.
Direct to your inbox.

Subscribe to our Newsletter.


Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit | Privacy Policy
Common Dreams Logo