Is preference leadership ballot confusing Labour members?

By Lisa Nandy MP / @lisanandy

The ballots for the leadership election go out next week, but I am picking up a disconcerting level of confusion amongst party members about when they vote or how the system works. The preference system that the Labour Party uses has its advantages, but it also makes it hard for people to understand the eventual result. It was a similar story during the Deputy Leadership, when there was a feeling of unfairness amongst many members that Jon Cruddas, the popular left-wing candidate at the time, had won more first preferences than other candidates, but didn’t win the contest.

It is starting to concern me because I had hoped (perhaps over-optimistically) that the leadership contest would be a critical opportunity to reinvigorate the party, and stimulate debate and grassroots involvement that has been lacking for too long. In Wigan there was initially a great deal of interest but I am becoming concerned that people are switching off. I’m sure it isn’t just because of the ballot system, but it doesn’t seem to help.
It’s a relevant concern at the moment, because on 6th September when the House returns we’re considering the proposal to hold a referendum on the alternative voting system. My view is that at a time of such economic pain we ought to be focusing on the sort of problems that people appear in my surgery with; not seeking to introduce a referendum on a voting system that many people seem to find more, not less, confusing.

I hope that whoever becomes Labour leader on 25th September will also take this view. In the heat and noise of the contest we’re not hearing enough about the cuts. All of the candidates have talked about the pain they’ve caused but we’ve heard less about how they’re both unnecessary and harmful to the economic recovery. Some of the candidates are trying – Ed Balls is the latest – but it is hard to get the message across when the media is largely focused on the personalities of the candidates and the heat of the campaign.
There has thankfully been some media attention this week about the disproportionate impact of the budget on certain groups, including women and people on low incomes. I have seen for myself the impact on women, as they are starting to become over-represented in my Wigan surgeries. Taken together the cuts to child benefit and other children’s services are starting to cause real problems for women with children, but there are also hidden costs.
The Budget, for example, claimed that all public sector workers earning under £21,000 would be entitled to receive an increase of at least £250 per year but it later emerged that around a million part-time workers who earn £21,000 or less will actually have their pay frozen on the grounds that their equivalent full-time earnings would be over the limit. These regressive measures combined place a devastating pressure on women in particular, who are more likely to work part-time. The Fawcett Society are leading the way on this with help from some of my Labour colleagues, but without a concerted, united effort we will not get the message across.
That is why, despite my great hopes for this leadership contest, I will be relieved when it is over. We need a strong, representative shadow cabinet that can get the message out about the real impact of this coalition. It has been useful to have a chance to debate where Labour ought to go next, but certainly in my CLP there is now a strong appetite to focus our energy on what is happening to people out there in our community.