‘Are slates helping or harming Labour’s internal elections?’

Internal elections are coming thick and fast across the Labour Party this year, with a range of roles open to members. Across many of these contests one feature remains constant: the presence of slates.

A slate is a group of candidates who run together under a shared set of ideas, similar to how a party operates. Supporters argue that slates help organise how candidates are presented to the membership, allowing voters to see a unified platform rather than having to research each candidate independently. Instead of evaluating dozens of individuals, members can choose to support a cohesive group that broadly aligns with their political views.

In theory, this can make internal elections easier to navigate and help like-minded candidates work together to gain influence within the parties decision-making bodies. But it also raises an important question: does slate politics strengthen internal democracy, or does it reduce meaningful engagement with individual candidates?

Recent elections in Young Labour and Labour Students once again saw competing slates backed by different factions of the party. As someone who voted in these elections for the first time, much of the correspondence I received encouraged support for entire slates rather than engagement with candidates individually.

READ MORE: ‘A piece on advice’

Many of the members I spoke to about this particular election felt that the slate itself often mattered more than the candidate’s ideas for the specific role they were seeking. Campaigning focused heavily on the “team” rather than the individual.

In wider elections, our activists often hear voters say on the doorstep that they only see candidates at election time. A similar feeling can develop in internal elections. For some members, candidate profiles appear suddenly during the election or nomination period, with little engagement beforehand. Social media posts and last-minute outreach can replace the kind of meaningful conversation that helps members understand what a candidate would actually bring to the role.

These conditions can leave some young members feeling excluded by the factional culture surrounding internal elections. For newer members in particular, the presence of these competing slates can make participation feel intimidating. Instead of encouraging open debate about ideas and priorities, the process can become framed as a contest between opposing groups.

In a party as large and diverse as Labour, political groupings and endorsements are inevitable. People organise around shared political perspectives, and that is a natural part of democratic politics. But that does not necessarily mean the current culture around slates is healthy.

Many of our activists feel that engagement among younger members has declined in recent years. Both sides of internal debates often claim they have the answer to improving participation. However, it is worth asking whether the highly factional nature of slate politics itself may be contributing to the problem.

If internal elections become primarily about slate loyalty rather than ideas, members who do not strongly identify with a particular faction may feel disengaged from the process altogether.

So what can be done to improve Labour’s internal democracy?

Removing slates entirely is extremely unrealistic. Political alliances and informal endorsements will always exist in an open political movement. But there are steps that could make internal elections healthier and more engaging for members.

First, internal election campaigns should place greater emphasis on issues and ideas rather than factional alignment. Members should have a clear understanding of what individual candidates want to achieve in the roles they are seeking.

Second, there should be greater transparency around slate endorsements. Many members may see the names of slates circulating online without fully understanding who is backing them or what their shared platform actually involves. Clearer information about endorsements and priorities would help voters make more informed decisions on who represents them.

Finally, candidates themselves should take the opportunity to engage more directly with members throughout the year they intend to stand, rather than appearing only during election periods. Internal elections should feel like a genuine prolonged conversation about the future of our party.

The way we conduct internal elections shapes the political culture of Labour for years to come. These contests help determine who represents members, how debates are conducted, and how welcoming our movement feels to new activists.

If Labour wants to build an engaged and confident generation of new members, our internal elections should encourage debate, participation and ideas, not simply slate loyalty.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook.

Share your thoughts. Contribute on this story or tell your own by writing to our Editor. The best letters every week will be published on the site. Find out how to get your letter published.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at [email protected].
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • DONATE: If you value our work, please chip in a few pounds a week and become one of our supporters, helping sustain and expand our coverage.
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email [email protected].
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at [email protected].