Labour Dashboard

This unofficial website simply aims to aggregate a set of useful links for the Deputy Leader Campaign, Labour Party Conference and the Labour Party more generally.  It aims to be non-partisan regarding internal Labour contests and disputes aiming to give all the links to help people understand things better.

The focus is on transparency as knowledge should be power for all but it also importantly contributes to long-term "institutional resilience" when all party members can feel they understand what is going on and don't feel excluded from processes. In the old days of the one-way pager, 5 TV channels and 13 million reading Mainstream Newspapers arbitrating on news & low internet access it was actually quite easy to convey an air of hidden esoteric political knowledge and public trust did not decline, but in a world of two-way social media and alt-media from all political wings public trust is far lower, so far better to be far more open about things nowadays -  especially lots of useful data that can more helpfully rebut angrier low trust narratives.

This "Labour Dashboard" page also links above to "Labour Almanack" covering key annual dates & deadlines and useful events links and also "Labour Archive" where myself and a few others may collate useful historical and data materials that explains the context of the politics better. The aim is to contribute in a small way to member induction into the cultural institution that is the Labour Party and the wider Labour and Co-operative Movement which should be seen as an ongoing process. At the bottom of this page are some useful member induction links.

Note: At this stage only the home page is complete, but more material will be added to make the Dashboard more useful

Annual CLP Delegate composition here.

Membership data in detail back to 1989 and also back to 1928 in chart form here.

Details here. Live stream recording here. Also live reporting by BBC and Guardian. 

Result

Lucy Powell elected Labour's 19th Deputy Leader & follows in the footsteps of Attlee, Morrison, Bevan, Jenkins, Foot, Healey, Hattersley, Beckett, Prescott, Harman, Watson and Rayner.

The ballot for Deputy Leader was conducted between 8 October 2025 and 23 October 2025.

Turnout was 16.6% of 970,642 eligible voters. 50 votes were spolit ballots. Total valid vote: 160,943. 

Candidate ----------Number of votes -- % of votes

Lucy Powell                          87,407                      54% - Elected

Bridget Phillipson             73,536                       46%

Lucy Powell 54.3% Bridget Phillipson 45.7%. Modelling showing Member poll outcome but with smaller lead due 2 TU votes seems to have been right. Vote a bit lower than expected, but electorate of 970,642 is far larger than other parties or mailing lists! 

Analysis

Turnout

Important to note the turnout for this election at 16.6% (161k out of 971k) comes between the 14% turnout (338k out of 2,478k) for the 2010 Miliband's battle & the 22% turnout (951k out of 4,240k) for the 1994 Tony Blair victory. 

Vote Share and Polls

Polling Model 6 below which showed a 53%-47% result looks closest to the outcome of 54%-46% and will be used along with this analysis to create a new "Model 8" to to help long-term understanding of the voting system for future leader elections.

Member and TU Votes

Below is an attempt to breakdown the electorate into its two main parts to look at their voting behaviour:

• We don't have an electorate breakdown by section, but a reasonable split from past data might be 260k & 700k. If so then turnout wd have been 45% of member (117k) & 6% of affiliates (44k). Member turnout would then be lower than final polls claimed.

•  If the electorate & turnout figure split above is correct and we use the final YouGov/Find Out Now/CLP Nominations cube rule similar 56%-46% figures then vote split was as follows: Members: Powell 66k (56%) Phillipson 51k (44%). TU's: Powell 21k (48%) Philipson 23k (52%).

• If we use the final Survation poll figure on the above then vote split was as follows: Members: Powell 69k (58%) Phillipson 48k (42%). TU's: Powell 18k (41%) Philipson 26k (59%) 

• Actual result is probably between those 2 sets of figures above. An equal 1/3rd drop in Members & TU turnout from detailed 2010 data seems sensible to apply here unless some think TU dropped more & turnout was Members 48%, TU 5%? 

• Some have suggested a 52% Member and 4% TU turnout. This is possible but would mean a much larger proportional drop in TU votes compared to members compared to 2010 Leader election and 2024 Welsh Labour Leader election. One reason that might happen is if USDAW voters (4% in 2010 and potentially 2.5% now) might be a higher proportion of the vote in this election compared to higher turnout unions. More on this is explored below in the trade union vote modelling.

Trends in people voting

My models followed 2024 Welsh Leader turnout (58%/9%) & assumed 60% & 9% meaning a 55%-45% Members/TU vote proportion but this looks more like 73%-27% (a trend of 2015 & 2016 & 2020 different vote system) so important to note 4 future elections.

In Tony Blair's 1994 win 172k (18%) out of total 951k Member/TU votes were member vote. In 2010's Ed Miliband win 127k (38%) out of 338k total Member/TU votes cast were members so there is a long term trend of members being a higher % of the vote each election since 

This Member % over TU vote rose higher during 2015/2016/2020 elections with a different more self-selecting 150k to 210k "affiliate supporter" status (which had 49% & 35% turnout in 2015 & 2020). The details of that were: 

• 2015: Member 58%, Affiliated Supporter 17%, Reg Supp 25%. 

• 2016: Member 56%, Affiliated Supporter 20%, Registered Supporter 24%. 

• 2020: Member 82%, Affiliated Supporter 15%, Registered Supporter 3%. 

In 1994 members were 18% of all actual votes & in 2010 they were 38%. In 2015 they were 58% of all votes and in 2020 they were as high as 82% of all votes cast. In 2025 they are approximately 73%. Members and the polls of them are now much more important for future Leader elections.

Understanding the above trend is actually important for future leadership elections & also means when we see future Survation, YouGov & Find Out Now Labour member polls we will know more what % of the cast vote it may cover 

Note: This also adds to the hypothesis in the TU model below of "14% more left-wing 2007-10 political levy vote" joining Labour in 2015/16 meaning by 2020 RLBs best vote was 29% in member section,  but it has now passed out of the Party and are also not so much Lab levy payers now as Phillipson's likely 52%-59% TU share shows. The 2015 to 2020 data above also illustrates how Labour in 2014 created a wider "low initial commitment" system where people who might have lower commitment to a party, but a strong commitment to a candidate with distinctive views had their gateway into the Party expanded beyond having to join a TU and pay a political levy. It's likely if their candidate had not won they would not have taken up full membership. It's also clear that when their candidate/view did win they would then sign up to membership as the substantially increased membership proprtion of the vote (82%) at 2020 compared to 2015 (58%) and 2016 (56%) shows.

Messaging

One thing that happened as a result of Labour's comms message wanting to only give an overall turnout (presumably in order to draw attention to current member numbers which I still estimate below to be ahead of Reform) is they missed the chance to point out that the likely 45% turnout for Labour members to vote for Deputy Leader was still far higher than the 38% turnout for the election of Green Party Leader Zack Polanski itself an advance on the average 25% turnouts for most Green Leader elections back to 2010.

Model 8. The likely breakdown of the 2025 Labour Deputy Leader Vote

This is a new Model of the voting that uses the actual 2025 result and add in what we have learned from the campaign and the 7 previous models that are set out below.

This model assumes the following:

• "Paid up" membership eligible to vote at 260,000 after recent media reports. "Paid up" membership is lower than "total" membership given by Parties which includes arrears. For example the current green Party 140k membership is a "Total" one and has at least 4,000 in arrears as we know this as when the announced their leader election they gave a 68k figure but also flagged the electorate was 64k would would be paid up membership only as all parties use internal elections as an incentive to attempt to reduce arrears. Thus if one wants to brandish a Green membership of 140k then to be consistent you would want to give comparative "Total membership" for Labour. For what it is worth my estimate of Labour "Total membership" is 270k-280k so those motivationally interested in all this data for a narrative that "Labour has less members than Reform" will be disappointed as I have not implied that.

• As a result of the above the Trade Union element of the 961k electorate subtracting members and the small socialist societies can be rounded to 700,000. This is around half the 1.4m affiliated unions political levy payers that are shown in card votes as labour Party conference.

• Member Turnout of 45% (eg 117k) votes in order to make way for some TU votes to be cast

• Trade Union Turnout at 6% (eg 44k) in order to fit these in the 161k total vote. In both this and the member turnout the aim has been to broadly reduce the turnout equally by a third for members and TU votes compared to the 71% and 9% of the detailed 2010 results once you have calculated this it then becomes clear there are few other options:

  • A member 48% and TU 5% turnout 

  • A member 42% and TU 7% turnout. 

• Thus the two electorate  numbers above could be adjusted for two further models if you want which would slightly change the candidate vote % in member/TU sections. I am going for this based on my experience but those who want to generate a Lucy Powell or Bridget Phillipson slightly bigger vote in either section can choose to to follow their experience or bias.

• Some have suggested a 52% Member and 4% TU turnout. This is possible but would mean a much larger proportional drop in TU votes compared to members compared to 2010 Leader election and 2024 Welsh Labour Leader election. One reason that might happen is if USDAW voters (4% in 2010 and potentially 2.5% now) might be a higher proportion of the vote in this election compared to higher turnout unions. More on this is explored below in the trade union vote modelling.

• However to be cautious it is perfectly reasonable for people to say the likely turnout is 45%-52% for members and 4%-6% for trade unions. 

Possible Votes Cast under assumptions above:

• Members: 117,000

• Trade Unions: 44,000

• Total Vote: 161,000

• Assumptions for the vote in each type of trade union by nomination decision:

  • The breakdown of this still being added to this analysis and will attempt a 3 segment breakdown based on possible electorate and turnout by 3 groups of trade unions based on candidate nomination or no nomination. It will likely be too hard, without other data to give an individual (or even Big 5 union) trade union electorate or vote 

• Totals from the TU assumptions above: 

  • To be added.  

• Total of 44,000 TU Vote: Bridget Phillipson 64,000  (52%), Lucy Powell 60,000 (48%)

Possible Vote Shares based on data above

• Member vote share based on YouGov/Find Out Now/CLP Noms cube law: Bridget Phillipson 44%, Lucy Powell 56%. This number is used but it could be the Survation 58%-42% vote split is correct. That would likely change  the numbers to Members: Powell 69k (58%) Phillipson 48k (42%). TU's: Powell 18k (41%) Philipson 26k (59%) 

• Trade Union: Phillipson 52%, Powell 48%. If the Survation 58%-42% vote was used, that would likely add 7% to the Phillipson Trade Union share as the numbers would be Members: Powell 69k (58%) Phillipson 48k (42%). TU's: Powell 18k (41%) Philipson 26k (59%) 

Member Votes % based on those % assumptions:

• Member: Phillipson 44%, Powell 56% 

• Trade Union: Phillipson 52%, Powell 48%

Member votes based on those assumptions:

• Member: Phillipson 51,000, Powell 66,000

• Trade Union: Phillipson 23,000, Powell 21,000

Total Vote: Phillipson 74,000, Powell 87,000

Total Vote %: Phillipson 46%, Powell 54%

Full explanation of how Labour's TU electorate in Leader elections changed from 4m in 1994 to 2.3m in 2010 & then down to 150k in 2015, then 210k in 2020 and is now 700k in 2025 

A Twitter Thread on this is here. 

A further Twitter Thread on the history is here.

Note: Some tweets refer to an 18% turnout for eligible voters in Tony Blair's election in 1994. This was an error and the figure is 22% & 4m TU electorate as the data on this site makes clear.

Percentage initially given below is the size of their card vote among the 1.5m TU card vote at Labour Conference. The % of the electorate in the likely 700k Deputy Leader TU electorate may have been different and the analysis below uses a proxy measure to make a rough estimate. 

The initial estimate is a rough one and I will do more work on the weightings using the proxy used here. More on that in the Analysis section below.

TU Online Promotion of the Ballot

If you look below you will find 4 of the 6 Phillipson Unions (Including the 3 biggest with 57% of the 59% nominating TU card vote she secured) gave details online of the process. 

Only 1 of the 3 Lucy Powell unions did this and it was her largest supporters the CWU.

 Of the 2 No nominations unions they only stated their position on nominations and put nothing of the voting process online.

Judging by the online material of which the key text from each is below the following may have happened:

• Some unions may have emailed the majority of their levy payers with an email address with a ballot.

• Some unions may have emailed levy payers and asked them to complete a form to "opt-in" and this would likely lead to a lower proportion of levy payers from them being part of the ballot electorate.

Thus some unions will have a far smaller proportion of ballot electorate than their Labour Party confererence card vote.

Details of each union below with analysis after:

Bridget Phillipson Nominating Unions -6

• GMB - 24%. Are you a GMB member and do you want to cast your vote in Labour’s Deputy Leadership election? To be eligible, you must have been a member of GMB Union and paying into the political fund since March 8 2025. If you have an email address registered with GMB, you should be sent a ballot automatically. These will start to be sent out from 8 October. If you don’t have an email address registered but would like to add one to get a ballot, please fill in this online form: www.cesvotes.com/labourdeputyleaderonline. You can add an email address right up until 5pm on Monday 20 October. If you need to request a postal ballot, either because you don’t have an email address or for access reasons, you can request one here: www.cesvotes.com/labourdeputyleaderpost no later than 5pm on Friday 3 October. 

• USDAW - 18%. All Usdaw members will be receiving information from the Politics Team about the election for the Labour Party’s next Deputy Leader. All Usdaw members who are eligible to vote will receive a ballot paper by email. Please make sure that your details are up to date with Usdaw, including your email address.  You can do this on the Usdaw website or by contacting the Politics Team on their email, politics@usdaw.org.uk or you can call them on 0161 249 2452. The ballot is now open, until 23 October. 

• Unison - 15%. UNISON members who have been members of the union since 8 March 2025 and are full Labour Link levy payers will be entitled to an individual vote in the contest as long as they meet the Labour party’s eligibility criteria (eg members will have to declare that they support the aims of the Labour party and must not be a member of any other political party) and are on the electoral register at the address held by UNISON. If you have an email address registered with us, you should be sent a ballot automatically. These will start to be sent out from 8 October. If you don’t have an email address registered with UNISON but would like to add one to get a ballot, please fill in this online form. You can add an email address right up until 5pm on Monday 20 October.

• Community - 1%. Only a reference to the nomination

• Musician's Union - 1%. MU members who have been members of the Union for at least six months and who pay into the political fund will also be entitled to an individual vote in the contest, as long as they meet the Labour Party’s eligibility criteria:

• You must support the aims of the Labour Party

• You must be a British citizen or have lived in the UK for a year or more

• You must not be a member of any other political party 

• For a full list of voting eligibility criteria, visit the Labour Party website.

The election will be run by the Labour Party, so all enquiries about the ballot itself will need to be addressed to them. Contact details can be found on their website. 

• NUM - 0%. - Nothing found online

Lucy Powell Nominating Unions -3

• CWU - 8%. Branches may also be aware that the CWU levy-payers are entitled to vote in this Deputy Leadership election (provided they meet the voter eligibility requirements) as a result of our affiliation to the Labour Party. We will be in touch with levy-paying members in due course to explain more about this process and how to secure a ballot. Branches should encourage all levy paying members to use their vote if they wish. 

• ASLEF - 1%. - Nothing found online.

• FBU - 1%. Only a reference to the nomination.

No Nomination Unions - 2

• Unite - 29%. Only a reference to the nomination

  • One of Unite's factions, The United Left did back Lucy Powell

• TSSA - 1%. Only a reference to the nomination

Analysis

It's possible to use level of online publicity of the process as a proxy for the size of the various union votes in the ballot. This is an initial estimate but is very rough and will be adjusted in the coming weeks as we look at the data in more detail. I am placing it here more to stimulate feedback. Once it is improved with a logical proxy weighting the model can be tested by applying the individual TU turnouts from 2010 to it. Unions with a more "opt-in" approach may be given a turnout that is closer to the 2020 35% opted-in "affiliate supporter" era turnout, less a one third drop to take account of the likely one third member drop in turnout from 2020 to 2025.

Model 9 - A draft initial Trade Union Electorate assessment

Bridget Phillipson Nominating Unions -6

GMB - 200k

USDAW - 140k

Unison - 200k

Community - 10k

Musician's Union - 15k

NUM - 0

Lucy Powell Nominating Unions -3

CWU - 70k

ASLEF - 10k

FBU - 10k

No Nomination Unions - 2

Unite - 40k

TSSA - 5k

A useful set of links to explain process and candidate campaigns:

Candidates listed in alphabetical surname order

Procedure

Procedure

Parliamentary Research Report on History of Labour Leadership elections

Nominations

MP Nominations

MP Nomination Crowdsourced Spreadsheet coutesy of Election Maps

Regional MP breakdown

Final MP Nomination Totals:

Bridget Phillipson 175 (55%), Lucy Powell 117 (37%), Bell Ribeiro-Addy 24 (8%). Total: 316 out of 399 PLP MPs (Turnout 79%). This is very low by MP standards of nomination and voting in elections and I understand was caused by complex absent/proxy voting rules that the PLP and NEC might want to review. There also might have been a degree of political abstention too after recent PLP unrest over Government decisions.

Note: Of the 20 at the time eligible Socialist Campaign Group (Total membership 25 with 2 readmitted since nominations closed and 3 suspended) 17 nominated Bell Ribeiro-Addy along with 7 other MPs: Kenneth Stevenson, Euan Stainbank, Cat Smith, Afzal Khan, Barry Gardiner, Stella Creasy and Peter Lamb. The 3 SCG members who did not nominate her were: Dawn Butler, Marsha De Cordova & Kate Osamor.

Labour MP Nomination Thresholds: 1981-2014 12.5%; 2014-2018 15%; 2018-2021 10%; 2021-present 20%.

According to recent YouGov polling roughly half of Labour members (53%) feel the field of views represented by the two candidates is about right, while 29% do feel the contest has been too narrow. 

CLP and Affiliated TUs and Socialist Society Nominations

My TU and Socialist Society baseline assumptions before nominations - proved right

Final CLP and Affiliate Nomination Totals:

CLPs: Bridget Phillipson 165 (38%) , Lucy Powell 269 (62%). Total: 434 out of 650 CLPs (Turnout: 67%).

Affiliates in total: Bridget Phillipson 13 (54%), Lucy Powell 11 (46%). Total: 24 out of 31 Affiliates (Turnout 66%). This nomination turnout is broadly similar to 2020

of which:

• TUs: Bridget Phillipson 9 (75%), Lucy Powell 3 (25%). Total: 9 out of 11 TUs (Turnout 82%) (Note: In terms of TU conference vote share it is: Bridget Phillipson 59%, Lucy Powell 11%, Abstention 30% )

• Socialist Societies: Bridget Phillipson 4 (33%), Lucy Powell 8 (67%). Total: 12 out of 20 Socialist Societies. (Turnout: 60%)

Note: Based on 67% of CLPs nominating (some others might have been held but were not quorate?) & assuming a 5-8% participation rate at least 9,000 to 14.500 Labour members have already taken part in this election process.

Useful Nominations Mapping courtesy of Samuel Barnes and a New more detailed map from him here.

MP Nomination to CLP Nomination Analysis

My "X" thread on the Deputy Leader Election

Background Historical Comparison Note on Nominations

CLP nominations totals since 2007: 

• Leader: 2010 396; 2015 387; 2016 338; 2020 641.

• Deputy Leader: 2007 303; 2015 367; 2020 640; 2025 434. (Best nomination totals apart from 2020)

CLP Electoral College Vote Turnout - 1981 to 1992

CLPs directly voted (a minority of them doing so after local member OMOV ballots) in the old pre-OMOV Electoral College & data for that is:

• Leader: 1983 634; 1988 608; 1992 609. 

• Deputy Leader 1981 626; 1983 623; 1988 608; 1992 609. 

Comparison Organisational Nominations 

2020 was the first time when nominations other than MP's directly counted towards a candidate getting on the ballot following 2018 rule changes. These were not changed in 2021 when the MP nomination threshold was increased from 10% to 20%

• 2020 Leader Numbers and Details

• 2020 Deputy Leader Numbers and Details

Candidate Campaigns

Bridget Phillipson Campaign

• Candidate Statement

• Campaign Website

• Campaign X Feed

Lucy Powell Campaign 

• Candidate Statement

• Campaign Website

• Campaign X Feed

Hustings

• Hustings at end of Labour Conference. My question to candidates was picked.

• Fabian Society Hustings.

Interviews of Candidates 

• Bridget Phillipson

• Lucy Powell

Result Announcement

Previous Leadership Election Announcement Venues at Lab Annual or Special Conferences

• 1981: Deputy - Lab Annual Conference, Brighton

• 1983: Leader/Deputy - Lab Annual Conference, Brighton

• 1992: Leader/Deputy - Special Conference, Methodist Central Hall, London 

• 1994: Leader/Deputy - Special Conference, Imperial College, London 

• 2007: Leader/Deputy - Special Conference, Bridgewater Hall, Manchester 

• 2010: Leader - Lab Annual Conference, Manchester

• 2015: Leader/Deputy - Special Conference, QEII Conference Centre, London 

• 2016: Leader - Lab Annual Conference, Liverpool

• 2020: Leader/Deputy - No conference due to the Covid Pandemic. Announcement simply held Online. 

• 2025: Deputy - Special Conference that will be held online with 2025 Conference delegates invited

I attended 1983, 1992, 1994, 2007 & 2015 and watched 1981, 2010, 2016, 2020 and 2025 on TV.

Up until 2015 there was little polling data on Labour members apart from a few academic exercises in the 1990's and more recently by Professor Tim Bale with a useful document here. This led to a clear air of complacency on the side of the party  Blairite right (as opposed to its perhaps more cautious TU based right) in favour of "de-institutionalising" the party from 1998 onward through querying the "Trade Union Link", abolishing General Committees, creation of supporters lists and seeking to introduce primaries at a period when the party membership was in a rarely researched period also changing as well to a far more expressive mindset compared to the instrumentalists Blair had won with in 1994. 

However the big surprise of 2015 plus Brexit debates led to an upsurge of member polling during 2015 and 2019 by various groups, so by 2020 both the Keir Starmer campaign and Rebecca Long Bailey campaign were polling members. Since then Labour Together (using YouGov) has continued to poll members (eg here, here and here) and also now Labour List using Survation.

This is good as it should end any complacency on all sides of the party. This site now aims to aggregate the data to make it more easily available to members in a Party that, in reaction to the "scar tissue" felt by MPs & leading people currently in the party towards  2010 to 2019 events, has made quite a substantial "Institutional turn" back to the structures that the Blairite right of the party termed as "old fashioned" from the 1990's to early 2010s.

Below is all the current known polling on the Deputy Leader campaign and it has also been used to model a range of results based on various assumptions.

What do Labour Voters want from a Labour Deputy Leader?

Whilst it is Labour voters shown here candidate teams will find this useful when "framing" their backstory and forward offer narratives to members and trade union voters:

• Is from a working class background: 62%

• Is from outside London/South: 48%

• Is from left of the party: 42%

• Is a current cabinet minister: 29%

• Is a woman: 26%

• Is from an ethnic minority background: 18% 

Data from here and here.

Deputy Leader Election Member Polls so far

Note: No polls so far have covered the Trade Unionist vote

• 8/9/25 Find out Now - multiple candidates

• 9/9/25 Survation Deputy Leader Favorability Polling

• 15/9/25 Labour List/Survation Phillipson 39%, Powell 61%

• 26/9/25 Labour List/Survation Phillipson 31%, Powell 69% 

• 29/9/25 YouGov Phillipson 44%, Powell 56% 

• 23/10/25 Labour List/Survation and also full data here Phillipson 42%, Powell 58%

• 24/10/25 Find Out Now Poll Phillipson 44%, Powell 56%

Estimated Cube Rule calculation on CLP Nominations

• Phillipson 44%, Powell 56% 

The cube rule or cube law is an empirical observation regarding elections under the first-past-the-post system. The rule suggests that the party getting the most votes is over-represented (and conversely, the party getting the fewest votes is under-represented). Thus if Lucy Powell was leading members by 69%-31% one might expect her to get 92% of CLP nominations? This law held in the past, so for example in the 1988 Leader election Neil Kinnock was polling over 60% of known CLP votes over Tony Benn but won 80% of CLPs.

If anyone has a useful spreadsheet of individual CLP votes (even anonymised) this data could be used to calculate more from CLP nominations.

Modelling of the Deputy Leader Polls and Data

These are not predictions but just projections based on known data. You can make your own predictions from the choice of data.

Some of the inputs may be inaccurate (eg TU data overstated), and some of the assumptions too so if anyone has better data, let me know and it can be added to the models.

Assumptions for the models

Electorate:

• Members: 270,000 paid up - this is based on a small basket of CLP membership trends

• Trade Unions:  1,400,000 (though could be quite a bit lower due to Lab Members duplicate vote weeded out)

Assumed Potential Turnout. 

• Members: 60%

• Trade Unions: 9%

Explanation of turnout assumptions. 

Member turnout draws from two sets of data 

• 2010 Labour Leader election (data here) where member turnout was 72% and affiliate turnout was 9%. This was part of a 3-way electoral college but if you take away the MP's the electoral system is broadly similar to the current one except with a higher MP gatekeeping threshold of 20% compared to 12.5% then.

• Feb 2024 Welsh Leader election (data here) where member turnout was 58% and affiliate turnout was 9%

Other Leadership Election turnout data is as follows that can be used to adjust turnout models:

• 1994 Turnout:  N/A. Members 72% (240k eligible voters) , TU political levy payers 19.5% (4m eligible voters). (Note: These were two of three sections of the then electoral college where MPs/MEPs had a 98% turnout. These are estimates from recalled data from the era as well a data from a Parliament Research Report derived from David Butler's British Political Facts

• 2007 Turnout: 50%? (89k out of 177k) This was a claim online but I have not been able to verify it. If proved it would show Deputy Leader elections on their own may poll 20% lower than Leader elections.

• 2015 Turnout: 76.3%. Members 83.5%, Affiliated Supporter 48.5%, Registered Supporter 95.5%- see here.

• 2016 Turnout: 77.6%. Section breakdown not given - see here and here. They were likely similar to the 2015 %.

• 2020 Turnout: 62.6%.  Members 72.6%, Affiliated Supporter 35.0%, Registered Supporter 93%- see here and here.

• Note: Under the Collins Review voting scheme approved in 2014, Affiliated Supporters  were a self-selecting subset of political levy payers and numbered 150,000 in 2015 and 210,000 in 2020 & thus as self-selected were likely to have a much higher turnout than when the wider 1.4m political levy payers voted. Unite the Union in its Affiliated Supporter Recruitment literature in 2020 claimed to have 50% of affiliated supporters which is a far higher percentage than it did of political levy payers.

Turnout assumptions

• Members: Turnout will be more like the Welsh Leader turnout than the Labour Leader turnout

• Trade Union: Phillipson 60%, Powell 40% - this is based on the 60% size of Ed Miliband's 2010 "Fourth" & final ballot result. Further affiliate nomination analysis here, and here.

Affiliate Turnouts in 2010

These do look pretty comparable to more recent union General Secretary and NEC turnouts so may be quite stable. 

• ASLEF - 25%

• Community - 12%

• CWU - 11%

• GMB - 8%

• MU - 12%

• TSSA - 15%

• Unison - 7%

• Unite - 11%

• USDAW - 4%

• Socialist Societies - 44% (Important to note these are only 1% of affiliate vote. Turnout among the 14 varied by 12% to 79%

Total Affiliate Turnout in 2010 - 9%

Note: FBU were not affiliated to Labour in 2010 but the turnout for their recent general Secretary election was 29%

Note: NUM only has 196 political levy paying members so there is no data on their turnout in a ballot but it could be quite a high percentage when so few are networked together.

Possible Votes Cast under assumptions above

• Members: 162,000

• Trade Unions: 126,000

• Total: 288,000

Useful caveats on these assumptions to bear in mind:

• The electorate data could be inaccurate more for the TUs than the Lab membership. It could be a lot lower thus changing the number of votes cast.

• We have a lot of data on member behaviour but much less on TU voter behaviour. It is quite possible that either Phillipson or Powell does better than the current TU vote share assumption given in the models below.

• Turnout for the TUs looks reasonably stable but member turnout will matter a lot. The assumption here is it will be close to Welsh Leader member turnout rather than Labour Leader turnout and that could be wrong? Alternatively  turnout, whilst likely much higher than an NEC election nowadays at 18%-25% could be at 50% or below? Or, on the other hand, the Campaigns manage to boost the turnout to Labour Leader vote turnout levels?

In th end the more data we collect the more we can adjust these models and from the final results develop more public models. The data here will also be useful not just for this election but also future Leader and Deputy Leader campaigns as the voting system is likely to be similar to this now settled process after the big changes since the Collins Review era and after. More on some of the political implications of this are below.

Three models have been produced below on the above assumptions but more can be produced on those assumptions or by choosing additional different assumptions. Thus the models should be seen more as current potential projections rather than predictions.

Candidates listed in alphabetical surname order

Current Deputy Leader Polling Models

Model 1. Polling Average Model 

This is a standard approach in polling, however it really works best with a lot of pollsters in order to overwight to outlier polls and pollsters.

Possible Vote Shares based on data above

• Member vote share is an average of last Survation and YouGov - Phillipson 37%, Powell 63% 

• Trade Union: Phillipson 60%, Powell 40% - this is based on the size of Ed Miliband's 2010 final ballot result

Member Votes % based on those % assumptions

• Member: Phillipson 37%, Powell 63% 

• Trade Union: Phillipson 60%, Powell 40%

Member votes based on those assumptions

• Member: Phillipson 60,000, Powell 102,000 

• Trade Union: Phillipson 76,000, Powell 50,000

Total Vote: Phillipson 136,000, Powell 152,000 

Total Vote %: Phillipson 47%, Powell 53% 

Model 2. YouGov only "Traditional Gold Standard" Model

YouGov has a strong record of getting Labour Leadership results right so have been seen in the past as "Gold Standard" polling, on Labour contests but this tends to be their final poll and they do not poll Labour members as often as Survation nowadays so their segmentation weighting adjustment accuracy may decline because of that.

Possible Vote Shares based on data above

• Member vote share just YouGov who have got last 4 Leader elections spot on: Phillipson 44%, Powell 56% 

• Trade Union: Phillipson 60%, Powell 40% - this is based on the size of Ed Miliband's 2010 final ballot result

Member Votes % based on those % assumptions

• Member: Phillipson 44%, Powell 56% 

• Trade Union: Phillipson 60%, Powell 40%

Member votes based on those assumptions

• Member: Phillipson 71,000, Powell 91,000

• Trade Union: Phillipson 76,000, Powell 50,000

Total Vote: Phillipson 147,000, Powell 141,000

Total Vote %: Phillipson 51%, Powell 49%

Model 3. Survation only "Regular Member Polling" latest Poll Model

Survation regularly poll members nowadays and that may help them adjust their segmentation weightings better to fine tune their results as they go along.

Possible Vote Shares based on data above

• Member vote share just Survation who are doing more polling on members nowadays

• Trade Union: Phillipson 60%, Powell 40% - this is based on the size of Ed Miliband's 2010 final ballot result

Member Votes % based on those % assumptions

• Member: Phillipson 31%, Powell 69% 

• Trade Union: Phillipson 60%, Powell 40%

Member votes based on those assumptions

• Member: Phillipson 50,000, Powell 112,000

• Trade Union: Phillipson 76,000, Powell 50,000

Total Vote: Phillipson 126,000, Powell 162,000

Total Vote %: Phillipson 44%, Powell 56%

Model 4 - A Trade Union "Past Behaviour" Vote estimate

As we have little TU poll information apart from past votes and turnouts, I have added this extra model based on data already on this site. The assumptions here have not been added to the 3 earlier models, but will get added as an assumption to further models below once polls have closed.

Historic Assumptions from past Leadership votes:

• In 1994 TU votes can be estimated to be 3% to the left of member votes. A much higher % of members and trade unionists were more instrumentalist in those days.

• In 2007 TU votes can be estimated (eg Cruddas 3rd round vote) as 14% to the left of members as membership was only 180k and a lot of people who later joined after 2015 were just political levy payers.

• In 2010 TU votes can be estimated (eg Final round vote) as 14% to the left of members as membership was only 200k and a lot of people who later joined after 2015 were just political levy payers.

• In 2015 Affiliated supporters were 8% to the left of Labour members as some has joined the party but many were still just levy payers

• In 2016 Affiliated supporters were just 1% to the left of Labour members as many had joined by then and this trend continued as shown in the following 2020 election.

• In 2020 its interesting to note registered affiliates were more moderate (7% to the right of members in Leader ballot) and Rebecca Long-Bailey's vote was strongest among members as people who might have voted in previous TU levy ballots were in the party then.

• The above might suggest that since 2020 as people have left and Labour's membership has swung to the right, then its TU vote may be moving left again with ex-members voting as levy payers - see further analysis and assumptions below.

Current Assumptions:

• Current nominations in terms of size of levy payers: Bridget Phillipson 59%, Lucy Powell 11%, No Nomination 30%

• 2010 TU ballot turnout for unions supporting each candidate:  Bridget Phillipson 9%, Lucy Powell 22%, No Nomination 13%. In other words Lucy Powell has support of unions with a likely higher turnout in a low turnout ballot. The ballot turnout is old but evidence from more recent TU ballot turnouts seems to indicate it has not changed much across the unions.

• Readjusted support of candidate nomination unions based on ballot turnout by unions: Bridget Phillipson 47%, Lucy Powell 17%, Abstention 36%

• Assumed turnout of unions overall: 8% of 1.4m = 112,000 (this is slightly revised down based on estimates of member turnout so far)

• Assumptions for the vote in each type of union:

  • Bridget Phillipson 6 unions - 47% of 112,000 = 53,000: Bridget Phillipson 70%, Lucy Powell 30% (GMB NE dominance for Phillipson offsets a smaller majority in a more evenly balanced Unison)

  • Lucy Powell 3 unions - 17% of 112,000 = 19,000: Bridget Phillipson 30%, Lucy Powell 70% (Assumption with TU backing Powell does better than her polling with Labour members)

  • No Nomination 2 unions -36% of 112,000 = 40,000: Bridget Phillipson 35% , Lucy Powell 65% (Membership assumed to vote broadly similar to Lab members but now with a slightly more left bias similar to when TU levy payers were to left of Lab members before 2015 as shown above.

• Totals from assumptions above: 

  • Bridget Phillipson 6 unions - 53,000: Bridget Phillipson 37,000, Lucy Powell 16,000

  • Lucy Powell 3 unions - 19,000: Bridget Phillipson 6,000, Lucy Powell 13,000

  • No Nomination 2 unions - 40,000: Bridget Phillipson 13,000, Lucy Powell 27,000

• Total of 112,000 TU Vote: Bridget Phillipson 56,000  (50%), Lucy Powell 56,000 (50%)

Caveats on this model:

• This is a model not a prediction and if you put in different assumptions you will naturally get different outputs.

• TU electorate and vote turnout may be overstated due to duplication with Labour members.

• We do no know the impact of the rise of the 138k member Greens and even the so far badly organised but perhaps 50k member "Your Party". It's possible now that post 2020 ex-members who may have voted in TU ballots prior to 2015 may simply ignore the ballot or even vote for a candidate they most dislike with a personal aim to open up more political space for their new party? 

• Of the abstaining unions, the Unite 15% turnout may be overstated as unlike 2010 they may not be promoting the ballot so this estimate above assumes 10% turnout. However a lot of their levy payers now may be ex-members so those that do vote may well be quite left leaning as per historic data above. TSSA at 11% looks in line with their election turnouts.

• The vote % in each group is an assumption based on historic TU votes (ie tend to be more left when those people are not in the party) and the TU vote being more left when some ex-members are not in the party any more.

Model 5. An Initial Current Estimate based on the other Models - will change if any final polls come out

This model has been added to bring together what we know. If there are any final polls I will do a final estimate based on those. A post-election model will also be produced based on adjusting for the final result.

This model assumes the following:

• Paid up membership eligible to vote at 260,000 after recent media reports

• Member Turnout of 60% due to hearing of possibly higher member turnout than earlier assumed in recent days as perhaps a final surge of member votes and campaign GOTV may have lifted it from around 50% at the weekend to close to 60% at close of poll.

• Trade Union Turnout revised back up at 9% due to hearing of possibly higher member turnout than earlier assumed in recent days - see above

Possible Votes Cast under assumptions above:

• Members: 156,000

• Trade Unions: 126,000

• Total: 282,000

• Assumptions for the vote in each type of trade union by nomination decision:

  • Bridget Phillipson 6 unions - 47% of 126,000 = 59,000: Bridget Phillipson 70%, Lucy Powell 30% (GMB NE dominance for Phillipson offsets a smaller majority in a more evenly balanced Unison)

  • Lucy Powell 3 unions - 17% of 126,000 = 22,000: Bridget Phillipson 30%, Lucy Powell 70% (Assumption with TU backing Powell does better than her polling with Labour members)

  • No Nomination 2 unions -36% of 126,000 = 45,000: Bridget Phillipson 35% , Lucy Powell 65% (Membership assumed to vote broadly similar to Lab members but now with a slightly more left bias similar to when TU levy payers were to left of Lab members before 2015 as shown above.

• Totals from the assumptions above: 

  • Bridget Phillipson 6 unions - 59,000: Bridget Phillipson 41,000, Lucy Powell 18,000

  • Lucy Powell 3 unions - 22,000: Bridget Phillipson 7,000, Lucy Powell 15,000

  • No Nomination 2 unions - 45,000: Bridget Phillipson 16,000, Lucy Powell 29,000

• Total of 126,000 TU Vote: Bridget Phillipson 64,000  (51%), Lucy Powell 62,000 (49%)

  • See caveats in Model 4 above for how this could be wrong

Possible Vote Shares based on data above

• Member vote share at polling average of Bridget Phillipson 38%, Lucy Powell 62%. Feedback from some campaigners over the last 2 weeks suggests the poll average may be more accurate than the last YouGov or Survation polls, so this is being used for this model. This could change if any final polls come out.

• Trade Union: Phillipson 51%, Powell 49% as suggested by Model 4 but with a slightly higher turnout due to what now looks like a better member turnout than was assumed a week ago.

Member Votes % based on those % assumptions:

• Member: Phillipson 38%, Powell 62% 

• Trade Union: Phillipson 51%, Powell 49%

Member votes based on those assumptions:

• Member: Phillipson 59,000, Powell 97,000

• Trade Union: Phillipson 64,000, Powell 62,000

Total Vote: Phillipson 123,000, Powell 159,000

Total Vote %: Phillipson 44%, Powell 56%

Model 6. Result based on October Survation Poll

This model has been added to take account of a smaller member gap between candidates than the previous polling average model. A post-election model will also be produced based on adjusting for the final result.

This model assumes the following:

• Paid up membership eligible to vote at 260,000 after recent media reports

• Member Turnout of 60% due to hearing of possibly higher member turnout than earlier assumed in recent days as perhaps a final surge of member votes and campaign GOTV may have lifted it from around 50% at the weekend to close to 60% at close of poll.

• Trade Union Turnout revised back up at 9% due to hearing of possibly higher member turnout than earlier assumed in recent days - see above

Possible Votes Cast under assumptions above:

• Members: 156,000

• Trade Unions: 126,000

• Total: 282,000

• Assumptions for the vote in each type of trade union by nomination decision:

  • Bridget Phillipson 6 unions - 47% of 126,000 = 59,000: Bridget Phillipson 70%, Lucy Powell 30% (GMB NE dominance for Phillipson offsets a smaller majority in a more evenly balanced Unison)

  • Lucy Powell 3 unions - 17% of 126,000 = 22,000: Bridget Phillipson 30%, Lucy Powell 70% (Assumption with TU backing Powell does better than her polling with Labour members)

  • No Nomination 2 unions -36% of 126,000 = 45,000: Bridget Phillipson 40% , Lucy Powell 60%  (If membership vote is closer with a 16% gap then membership is assumed to vote broadly similar to Lab members but now with a slightly more left bias similar to when TU levy payers were to left of Lab members before 2015 as shown above.

• Totals from the assumptions above: 

  • Bridget Phillipson 6 unions - 59,000: Bridget Phillipson 41,000, Lucy Powell 18,000

  • Lucy Powell 3 unions - 22,000: Bridget Phillipson 7,000, Lucy Powell 15,000

  • No Nomination 2 unions - 45,000: Bridget Phillipson 18,000, Lucy Powell 27,000

• Total of 126,000 TU Vote: Bridget Phillipson 64,000  (52%), Lucy Powell 60,000 (48%)

  • See caveats in Model 4 above for how this could be wrong

Possible Vote Shares based on data above

• Member vote share based on October Survation Poll: Bridget Phillipson 42%, Lucy Powell 58%. 

• Trade Union: Phillipson 51%, Powell 49% as suggested by Model 4 but with a slightly higher turnout due to what now looks like a better member turnout than was assumed a week ago.

Member Votes % based on those % assumptions:

• Member: Phillipson 42%, Powell 58% 

• Trade Union: Phillipson 52%, Powell 48%

Member votes based on those assumptions:

• Member: Phillipson 66,000, Powell 90,000

• Trade Union: Phillipson 66,000, Powell 60,000

Total Vote: Phillipson 132,000, Powell 150,000

Total Vote %: Phillipson 47%, Powell 53%

Model 7. "Close Result" Scenario - this includes a TU vote assessment that can be easily adjusted 51%-49% either way but initially models a Lucy Powell 51%-49% win

This model has been added in view of media speculation of a closer result and also some analysis of the Phillipson "path to victory" here. A post-election model will also be produced based on adjusting for the final result.

This model assumes the following:

• Paid up membership eligible to vote at 260,000 after recent media reports

• Member Turnout of 60% due to hearing of possibly higher member turnout than earlier assumed in recent days as perhaps a final surge of member votes and campaign GOTV may have lifted it from around 50% at the weekend to close to 60% at close of poll.

• Trade Union Turnout revised back up at 9% due to hearing of possibly higher member turnout than earlier assumed in recent days - see above. This also likely benefits Bridget Phillipson. Also see the note below on potential mix of TU electorates which may change individual union turnouts but not necessarily the number of actual votes cast.

Possible Votes Cast under assumptions above:

• Members: 156,000

• Trade Unions: 126,000

• Total: 282,000

• Assumptions for the vote in each type of trade union by nomination decision:

  • Bridget Phillipson 6 unions - 47% of 126,000 = 59,000: Bridget Phillipson 75%, Lucy Powell 25% (GMB NE dominance for Phillipson offsets a smaller majority in a more evenly balanced Unison and USDAW Facebook operation has a bigger impact than some have noticed)

  • Lucy Powell 3 unions - 17% of 126,000 = 22,000: Bridget Phillipson 30%, Lucy Powell 70% (Assumption with TU backing Powell does better than her polling with Labour members)

  • No Nomination 2 unions -36% of 126,000 = 45,000: Bridget Phillipson 40% , Lucy Powell 60% (If membership vote is closer with an 12% gap then membership is assumed to vote broadly similar to Lab members but now with a slightly more left bias similar to when TU levy payers were to left of Lab members before 2015 as shown above.

• Totals from the assumptions above: 

  • Bridget Phillipson 6 unions - 59,000: Bridget Phillipson 44,000, Lucy Powell 15,000

  • Lucy Powell 3 unions - 22,000: Bridget Phillipson 7,000, Lucy Powell 15,000

  • No Nomination 2 unions - 45,000: Bridget Phillipson 18,000, Lucy Powell 27,000

• Total of 126,000 TU Vote: Bridget Phillipson 69,000  (55%), Lucy Powell 57,000 (45%)

  • Note: If on all these electorate and turnout assumptions Bridget Phillipson gets 58% or over of the TU vote (as Models 1-3 firstimplied with a 60% estimate) and assuming a YouGov/CLP 56%-44% noms member vote score for Lucy Powell, then Bridget Phillipson would win by 51%-49% under that 3% TU adjustment to this model

Possible Vote Shares based on data above

• Member vote share based on YouGov and CLP Nominations vote estimate of Bridget Phillipson 44%, Lucy Powell 56% rather than the more recent October Survation Poll of  Bridget Phillipson 42%, Lucy Powell 58% though vote shift is only 3,000 from one to the other

• Trade Union: Phillipson 55%, Powell 45% as suggested by Model 4 but with a stronger Phillipson showing in her nominating unions and No Nomination unions and a slightly higher turnout due to what now looks like a better member turnout than was assumed a week ago.

Member Votes % based on those % assumptions:

• Member: Phillipson 44%, Powell 56% 

• Trade Union: Phillipson 55%, Powell 45%

Member votes based on those assumptions:

• Member: Phillipson 69,000, Powell 87,000

• Trade Union: Phillipson 69,000, Powell 57,000

Total Vote: Phillipson 138,000, Powell 144,000

Total Vote %: Phillipson 49%, Powell 51%

Post Result Update Model Development - Pre-Result Early Notes

• Both Survation (67%) and Find Out Now (68%) final polls have shown a higher member turnout than the models above. If we r cautious & add Survation's extra 7% to turnout models that might mean 18k more memb voting & up to 3% more of final vote compared to TU turnout model. However we do not know TU turnout so it could be that is higher 2 in a higher turnout election? Since Lucy Powell has led in all 5 polls & CLP nominations too an 17k extra member vote wd look to benefit her. One final caveat is that in 2010 the Poll overestimated Ed Miliband member vote by 6% however it was more accurate in 2015, 2016 & 2020. At this late stage I don't think I would adjust models for turnout before the result as what is stated above looks like a clear trend so one can look at them in that context. However I will adjust them after in the light of results & any turnout data 

• TU electorate (USDAW look to have emailed 250k levy payers whilst Unite may have lower 75k to 105k "opt in") may not be very consistently developed. It may mean turnout of TUs will b higher than 9% but actual numbers voting may b less changed than people think due to a mix of "widespread but low turnout" and "self-selected opted in higher turnout" votes.

• To give an example if Union mix of some widespread emailed and some explicitly opted leads to an electorate of 500,000, then a 25% turnout reflecting a likely lower turnout score than the 49% and 35% of purely signed up "affiliated supporter" turnouts of 2015 and 2020 it would still lead to the 126,000 TU ballot vote suggested above.

Ballot Turnout Flow - Estimate Models

Whilst much of the campaign happens up until first ballots go out, the period after is sometimes seen as an anti-climax. However this assumption misses out when voters actually cast their vote as a result of candidate campaign GOTV which goes on all through the balloting period. The balloting period is not that well researched in terms of flow models of voter behaviour as to when they cast their vote. Here are two models that try to look at that aspect based on voting in other contexts with slightly different electorates. A lot depends on where campaigns target their GOTV. With postal vote campaigns there is a lot of effort just prior to ballot issue, whilst the Estonian model below suggests a slightly later GOTV effort.  

Model 1 - Postal Vote Return

This is an estimate based on postal vote turnout rule of thumb which shows the turnout flow during the two weeks of the ballot may be of follows: 

• First 3 days - perhaps 33% have voted 

• First 3rd of the ballot - perhaps 50% of those intending to vote have voted 

• Half-way through - perhaps two-thirds of those intending to vote have voted 

• Final 2 days - perhaps 10%+ vote

This may reflect voting behavior by an older electorate

Model 2 - Estonian Online Voting

This is an estimate based on evidence from a 7 day ballot period for online voting in Estonian elections.

• First 2 days of ballot time - 33%

• Middle 2 days of ballot time - 19%

• Final 3 days of ballot time - 48%

This may reflect voting behaviour by a younger electorate

Data here. 

And key chart from it below

Segmentation Estimates from Polling

There has been some recent Labour member demographic data published in the Times and YouGov recently and pre-conference polling of member views was published in YouGov. Both help contribute how we can break down Labour membership. There are also other ways and some are set out below.

Below are 4 segmentation models of the current Labour membership. This is to give a flavour of the current member polling but also explore 2020's Instrumentalist v Expressive member polling with some current approximate estimates. CLP STV NEC elections in 2026 will also add to the data on member segments in future just as it has in the past. Past data on that will in due course be added to the Labour Archive webpage.

All the data that exists means more segmentation models can be created & current ones refined. The data that exists is below for you to create your own if you wish?

Segmentation Model 1: Instrumentalist v Expressive

This aims to draw from a basket of public survey data to identify broad segments of members. Media coverage on this segmentation often talks about secret polling but this sort of segmentation was well known as early as 2015 as this  article from Peter Kellner shows. 

There should be more transparency over segmentation in this or other elections thus reducing negative narratives on use of campaign segmentation, which is pretty standard when used for candidate Get Out The Vote (GOTV) campaign prioritisation.

More data will be added to tighten up this data.

• 5/6/25 Survation views on government policies 30-32% Instrumentalist

• 10/6/25 Survation poll on spending priorities 26% strongly expressive

• 16/6/25 Survation poll on Lab Foreign policy 23% strongly expressive

• 23/6/25 Survation poll on members expecting a Lab majority 32% instrumentalist

• 28//6/25 Survation political direction polling 31% Instrumentalist

• 14/7/25 Survation polling on migration policy 36% instrumentalist

• 3/9/25 Survation polling in Digital ID 30% expressive

• 26/9/25 Survation poll on Party Conference sovereignty 38% intrumentalist

Current member segments estimate: 

• Strongly Instrumentalist: 30%-38% 

• Mixed instrumentalist/expressive views: 32%-47% - needs to be broken down more

• Strongly Expressive: 23-30%

Note: Why relatively few members were "mislead" to vote Keir Starmer by Instrumentalist v Expressive polling in 2020

This is a regular narrative of a supposedly secret way to hoodwink members (despite the segmentation being well known) that often appears online but is not thought through in any detail and in its angriest form implies 100% of Labour members were mislead in 2020, so it needs to be seriously broken down:

• Clearly the 38% 2016 Owen Smith voters were not mislead in 2020 as they did not vote Jeremy Corbyn anyway in 2016.

• Nor were the 27% who voted Rebecca Long-Bailey in 2020 mislead as they voted for her and presumably wer advocating for her as a stronger safe-guarder of the 2017 and 2019 manifestoes.

• The two above blocs of votes already comprised 55%-60% of the cast votes in 2020, so what of the rest?

• Nominations by organisations in 2020 showed only two out of 32 affiliates shifted from left to right in 2020 from 2016: Unison and TSSA - mainly for their own internal political reasons and TSSA even balloted their members which then supported Keir Starmer. Most organisations stuck to their 2016 politics so clearly few experienced officers of organisations thought they were being mislead at any point.

• 110k joined Labour for the 2020 Leader election and around 90% voted Starmer or were Nandy 2nd transfers to him according to polling at the time & were clearly motivated for a different leader as many joiners were likely "People's Vote" supporters not necessarily expecting any candidate to quickly get them back into the EU, but more as instrumentalists driven by anger over the entire handling of the Brexit process by the Party. In many ways this surge of people was far more decisive than any specific candidate campaign & was driven far more by people within very large 500,000+ networks in over 250 active Local Groups acting mainly under their own volition to join Labour. This very big 2018-19 network development was not really registered by those close to 2015-19 LOTO as few apart from John McDonnell ever bothered attending a march to see the operation of those big local networks in action preferring to fall for a "Hampstead Guardian Readers" narrative instead. Those who did attend realised it was far more like a standard TUC march in terms of type of people (many Lab members & public sector worker types) but without the big TU balloons at the front and no IST-SWP or CWI-SPEW recruitment gazebos at start and finish. It's perhaps a surprise people who put value on "big movement events/rallies" did not spot this as in many ways as the 3 biggest People's Vote marches  of 2018 and 2019 & their networks had exactly the same mobilising/recruitment affect in the long-run as the 2015 People's Assembly march held on 20 June that Jeremy Corbyn spoke at and asked people to sign up for the 2015 election. That big mobilising event came in between his initial 9% polling just before it and his subsequent July 17-21 40% polling. 

• The smaller & more left leaning franchise of 430k paid up members as at 12/11/2019 for the 2 NEC by-elections (it was a wider franchise of 550k members & Supporters voting for Leader) was held at same time as the Leader election, and showed the 3 left slates that stood combined vote was 46% compared to 56% & 62% single left slate votes in 2018 and 2019 for the NEC so there was already a clear swing for other separate elections at the same time as the leadership vote. No one nowadays talks of the complex left v left factional warfare for the NEC in early 2020 which is documented here, here, here, here and here. This is important as it shows the still under-researched 2018-2019  "Corbynite v Corbynite" battles (partly covered by Owen Jones in his book) which occurred when a perception of "left ascendancy" then led to older left factional battles to reassert. In the absence of a Labour right "unifying opponent" we are again seeing this factional warfare all explode again with the formation and founding of "Your Party". Thus 2020 Labour internal election battles were an early warning of the present.

• On top of that shift at the same time as the Leader ballot another smaller franchise selection with only 2019 members was taking in place in London (which has around 21% of Lab members) showing a shift away from the left especially in geographical seats. 

• Liam Byrne's selection as West Midland's Mayoral candidate at the same time also showed that there was a shift going on with National Momentum and Unite backed Salma Yaqoob polling 26% quite similar to Rebecca Long-Bailey's result.  

• The 2020 Scottish Labour Deputy Leader Election Result held at the same time as the 2020 election was reported the day before the 2020 Labour Leader election and few noticed at the time it showed a 15% swing from left to right from the 2017 Scottish Labour Leader Election similar to shifts in the NEC by-election and regional selections above showing further that these swings were independent from the nature of the Keir Starmer campaign. 

• The then 217,960 Affiliated supporter section was around 50% Unite members and had a direct Unite recommendation to vote Rebecca Long Bailey (& Richard Burgon for Deputy too) but then had a large swing from right to left between 2016 and 2020 at over 30% indicating a far deeper shift by supporters after two election defeats.

• It's likely also forgotten that Rebecca Long-Bailey came third to Lisa Nandy in the affiliated section vote which was then 50% Unite by their own 2020 claims. No one has, as such, accused Lisa Nandy of misleading members with her campaign or Unite of not actively promoting their preferred candidate.

• The similarity of the vote size for both Rebecca Long-Bailey in the leadership election (27% in a 3 candidate election & 31% if it had gone to a 2nd ballot due to 85% pro-Starmer Nandy transfers) and Richard Burgon in the different candidate Deputy Leader election (21% in 3rd ballot when down to 3 candidates and would have got 23% in a 2 candidate vote v Rayner if the 91% Starmer/Nandy voting Rosena Allin-Khan vote had been distributed) would also suggest the swings described above were pretty consistent in both elections and thus could not have just been achieved due to the policies of one candidate in one of two elections.

• The policy agenda that was argued over in the 2020 election clearly was - as the mislead narrative fairly points out - very popular with members as polling by the Rebecca Long Bailey campaign also showed, but the very high numbers for many positions also showed that a majority of 2016 Owen Smith voters voting in the 2020 elections would have backed those left policies too, but those voters still did not back Jeremy Corbyn before at the height of his support. This illustrates when people who may hold a mix of instrumental and expressive values nevertheless lean into their intruemental values which they didn't so much in 2015 but did in 2020.

• At the same time 79% of members in poll at the time thought Keir Starmer would likely move the Party "towards the centre". and only 18% thought he would keep it "broadly the same". Asked about their “top issue or policy when it came to choosing who to vote for in the Labour leadership contest”, respondents were most likely to indicate that “credibility as a potential Prime Minister” was a priority. 34% picked the credibility option, while 14% picked “maintaining current Labour platform”, 12% “anti-austerity policies”, 11% “uniting the party” and a further 11% “winning back traditional Labour voters”. Evidence there of a plurality (45%) focused on instrumentalist outcomes compared to 26% focused on more expressive views. In November 2020, when many members who voted in the leadership election were still in the party, polling showed 58%, 63%, 55% instrumentalist responses to some questions yet at the same time 74% saw the 2019 Manifesto as "broadly correct" indicating a large number of members who voted for Owen Smith in 2016 and Keir Starmer in 2020 might like past policies but did not support the previous messenger of them.

• Something else that few noticed at the time is that the very accurate final YouGov poll (page 4) did ask members, affilaites and supporters their view if Jeremy Corbyn has been on the leadership ballot, how they would vote and excluding Won't vote and Don't know the result was Keir Starmer 45%, Jeremy Corbyn 32%, Lisa Nandy 14%, Rebecca Long-Bailey 9%. As the poll gave 2nd preference data for the two main ballot we can do a final round and being reasonable and adding all the Long-Bailey vote to Corbyn and transferring 85% of the Nandy vote to Starmer and 15% to Corbyn we get a final result Keir Starmer 57%, Jeremy Corbyn 43%. It's important to know that if the actual ballot had gone to a second round the official result would have been Keir Starmer 69%, Rebecca Long-Bailey 31% showing that Jeremy Corbyn would have likely added 12% to the Long-Bailey vote share but would have been 14% behind Keir Starmer in a second round ballot. Those 12% who would have voted Jeremy Corbyn but in his absence voted Keir Starmer could well be the % who might have been misled. 

However trying to be very fair here, based on all the above points, at most 10-15% of Labour members might have been "mislead" by Keir Starmer messaging but that would not have a made a difference to the result as with 85% Lisa Nandy transfers Keir Starmer would have won by 69% in a two candidate election and thus with a 10-15% change to his vote share, he would have still won by 54%-59% in a second ballot without any of those votes.

The above mistaken 100% mislead narrative is known as a "unifying narrative" as it plays to some people's anger and avoids looking at the detail of a Leadership election loss and instead blames others campaigns for your own campaign's defeat thus uniting people against opponents but at the same time learning little for the future. Looking at all the data above the question no one answers since a still large 27% voted for Rebecca Long-Bailey (plus 5 trade unions backing her) and all her team and online and alt-media advocates were naturally in their campaigning saying "he's misleading you" (& if they claim they were not then they were then missing a major piece of political messaging which would be both gobsmacking and imply political amateurness), then why did their confident "he's misleading you" message fail?

The fact there were 3 Left slates for the 2020 NEC by-elections (more on that above) & a relatively half-hearted Long-Bailey campaign, (which was also undermined when both first Ian Lavery and then Barry Gardiner were also promoted as alternative left candidates by some very senior sources at some points) illustrates how likely those left internal differences would emerge again in Your Party with no external opponents and how  a unifying narrative was good to paper over the cracks when there were external opponents to blame

That narrative above, however inaccurately explained, will likely continue to exist though as it is likely to form one of the founding myths of "Your Party" to recruit it's members. 

Segmentation Model 2: Member View on Past Leaders 

20/3/25 Survation Poll on Leaders

• Blairite - 39% (Possibly taps into some of centre/soft left because seen as "effective" so an indicator of wider "instrumentalist" views outside 30-36% instrumentalist policy views

• Corbynite - 17% (Some of the wider Corbynite vote in the Party - especially it more pro-EU bits may have "moved on" to others now such as Clive Lewis & Andy Burnham & some also to Richard Burgon & Bell Ribeiro-Addy)

• Brownite/Kinnockite/Millibandite - 14% (possibly lower than the wider soft left vote because all lost their elections)

• Starmerite - 6% (likely crosses over some of the other divides as possibly more loyalty to the current leader)

• John Smith supporter - 24% (Not given an "ism" as almost seen as above that by members & may soak up a lot of centre/soft left support as he was seen as "effective" due to parliamentary Maastricht tactics even though never electorally tested)

Segmentation Model 3 - Member Views on potential Future Leaders polling 

29/9/25 Survation poll on future leaders 

Wider than PLP

• Andy Burnham - 43%

• Right/Centre (Streeting/Mahmood/Jones/Cooper/Phillipson/Lammy/Kyle/Alexander/Phillips) - 28%

• Soft Left (Rayner/Haigh/Miliband/Nandy/Healey/Thornberry) - 14%

• Socialist Campaign Group (Lewis/Burgon) - 8%

PLP only candidates 

• Right/Centre (Streeting/Mahmood/Jones/Cooper/Phillipson/Lammy/Kyle/Alexander/Benn/Reynolds/McFadden/Phillips) - 40%

• Soft Left (Rayner/Haigh/Miliband/Nandy/Healey) - 32%

• Socialist Campaign Group (Lewis/Burgon) - 14%

Note: Implication here is the Burnham vote is approximately: Right/Centre 13%, Soft Left 18%, Left 6%.

29/09/25 YouGov Polling on on Future Leaders

Wider than PLP

• Andy Burnham (Plus Milliband and Rayner voted added) - 54%

• Right/Centre (Streeting/Cooper/Mahmood) - 15%

• Soft Left (Miliband/Rayner) -16% - Quite possible other Soft Left would unite around Burnham

• Someone else (Left candidate?) - 4%

The mayor of Greater Manchester is preferred over Angela Rayner by 67% to 24%, over Yvette Cooper by 72% to 20%, over Wes Streeting by 74% to 19%, over Ed Miliband by 77% to 13%, and over Shabana Mahmood by 80% to 12%. 

A preference for Burnham as leader isn’t just limited to hypothetical leadership contenders, with members saying they would back the mayor over Starmer in a leadership contest by 62% to 29%. 

However the party right/centre would also note the most evenly split head-to-head of those polled is Streeting versus Miliband (47% vs 44%), while Streeting vs Mahmood is 45% vs 24%.

Note: The YouGov poll does also show appetite for a leadership election is seemingly in the minority among Labour members right now, with 53% believing that Starmer should lead Labour into the next election. However, this is against 37% who think the prime minister should not seek re-election.

Segmentation Model 4 - Membership by Significant Join Dates

Motivation to join is often driven by who is the party leader at the time, though there will be local activity factors too. The data below is from a small basket of CLPs and likely to be less accurate than total membership number estimates due to local factors. However it does give a feel for the composition of the membership. Useful notes below explaining context as not all these groups (eg 2015-19) may be uniform.

Kinnock/Smith/Blair/Brown eras - 13%

• Pre-1992 - 7% (Kinnock era. Membership join date only goes back to 1/1/89 when the national system was established)

• 1992-1994 - 1% (Smith era, but only 2 years long)

• 1994-2007 - 3% (Blair era. Perhaps surprisingly small, which may be because some resigned over Iraq & rejoined later)

• 2007-2010 - 2% (Brown era. National membership was at its lowest at 180k then)

Milliband era - 8%

• 2010-2015 - 8% (Miliband era. National Membership rose a bit to 200k in this era)

Corbyn era - 37%

• 2015-2019 - 37% (Corbyn era. This will include people who joined to support him but may now have a higher proportion within it of those who joined to oppose him in the two Leader elections who may have still retained membership since 2020, when some of his supporters will have left)

Starmer era - 42%

• 2020-to present - 42% (Starmer era. Around 13% of current members joined for the 2020 Leader election & around 90% voted Starmer or were Nandy 2nd transfers to him according to polling at the time whilst 29% have joined since Keir Starmer became leader)

Even before the ballot closes we can learn a lot from this election about issues for future leadership elections

Here are some general and specific points which I will continue to add to for the rest of the campaign and also after when we have the final data to update the models above and others have drawn lessons too.

Organisational

• We now know the full procedure for a future leadership campaign. 

• Apart from the 2021 rule changes, the one difference from 2020 was the Procedures Committee required all CLPs (even those with GC structures) to have a quorate all members meeting. CLPs rose to the occasion and with 434 nominations, which was the second largest set of CLP nominations - see above - after 2020s.

• The one further clarification this time is that all affiliated voters have to have 6 months membership

• There is one anomaly in that members with 8 weeks membership can vote in a nomination meeting for a Leadership election but then don't get a vote in the ballot. One assumes the NEC will change this to bring in a consistent 6 month rule in future?

• Labour has been far more careful with candidate access to data in this election with the party sending out emails and text messages on behalf of candidates. Also an innovation is that member phone-banking is through a Labour party system (logged in via a standard Lab member access email & password) with limited access across the membership list. This is likely a response to how the Jeremy Corbyn data handling companies were able to build a 100k+ Momentum mailing list in 2015/6, perhaps also how other campaigns subsequently built data too and also an outcome of any ICO investigation into alleged data issues around one parliamentary selection.

Campaign Related

What are the lessons for the Leadership campaigns of the future?

No candidate made the many "campaign mistakes" of 2010 and 2015 & the one political mistake of 2020, which had some impact over a number of years:

• Have a long election period of 5 months & not 2 or 3 - David Miliband & Andy Burnham

• Add a "widen the debate" candidate to the ballot who either transfers to your opponent (David Miliband) or beats you (Andy Burnham) 

• Waste time on setting up a "Community Organising" body that adds few votes to your campaign - David Miliband

• Only run any sort of campaign in the unions that nominated you - David Miliband

• Using the term "pledges" for internal elections. when Members and the media associate that very much with the sort of very strong pledges made at General Election so best kept for General Elections only. - Keir Starmer

Here are general and specific points for five types of campaign for leader:

Most types of campaign by candidates

• Avoid the term "pledges" for internal elections. Members and the media associate that very much with the sort of very strong pledges made at General Election so best kept for General Elections only. Better terms to use are "Commitments", "Future Plans", Early Plans" "Proposals" etc

The Early Favourite Candidate

• Have a short election of no more than 3 months - it worked for Blair in 1994. What is interesting with this election is it has been completed quite effectively in 2 months flat, so expect some to push for 2-3 months if they have a clear "early favourite" candidate they want to succeed by minimising mistake time?

• Don't waste time on projects that don't win you votes

• Ensure you have a campaign operation in all unions or at least: Unite, GMB, USDAW, Unison and CWU that cover 93% of the TU vote at conference and political levy payers.

• Focus on a turnout strategy simply encouraging members to cast their vote in the areas you are strong as you seek to "social norm" an "inevitable result" in the areas where you lead. 

Not necessarily the favourite candidates - key points for each type:

Below is simply practical political advice to each type of candidate campaign from what we have learned above so advice to one campaign may naturally contradict advice to another.

Right of Centre "Moderate" candidate

• If you are not the favourite at first going for a longer campaign may not help you as other campaigns to the left of you may benefit more. A no more than 3 month campaign is likely better as right of centre ground game in the CLPs from conference results is far better

• Never "widen the debate" to allow a Hard left candidate on the ballot as at the very least they will bring out extra votes and then transfer to a soft left opponent.

• Develop strong  practical "instrumentalist" messages to mobilise your vote with that segment. Expressive messages will likely work best when related to your backstory as you may be constrained in what you can say on policy if you are seeking to replace another person from your wing.

• Make the most of what seems nowadays to be a more united right of centre unions with 59% of the affiliated membership to engage with their members with a turnout strategy. This is different to 2010 when some of those unions split and like "soft left scar tissue" below may have also had a long-term impact on TU support behaviour?

Left of Centre "Soft Left" candidate

• If you are not the favourite go for a longer election period of 5 months as it will likely help you build your ground game.

• Do a full risk assessment of any suggested "widen the debate" strategy  to transfer extra votes to you and do it with lots of polling. If it shows an extra such candidate could do far better than expected, it is better not to take any risks at all after the substantial impact  was predicted in 2010 and actually happened in 2015. In any case you can still pick up votes from your left especially if they particularly dislike the right's candidate and through your local volunteers applying a GOTV message. 

• If the right candidate does win the majority of TU nominations still ensure you have a campaign in the TUs that nominated you and the big 5 of Unite, GMB, USDAW, Unison and CWU which comprise 93% of the TU vote. At same time also focus on a high turnout campaign with party members.

• You will likely win a lot of "expressive" segment members with a positive hope message and some signature policies. However still have practical "Instrumentalist messages to win over some of that member segment too.

Left of Centre "Hard Left" candidate

• Go for a longer election period of 5 months as it will likely help you build your ground game. Bear in mind though that the Party will be giving you less access to data and managing it for you, so building the equivalent of a 100k+ Momentum mailing list of 2015 will be harder.

• Be clear what sort of campaign you are running. Is it essentially promotional to make a strong political point about "widen the debate" followed later by a strong point about "exclusion from the ballot" or if it serious where you may need to make early compromises to win wider support? In this election SCG secured just 24 of the 80 (30%) of the nominations to get on the ballot with the 17 of the eligible 20 SCG nominating & securing another 7 MPs well below the % level of soft left support it secured in the "widen the debate era" of 2010-2020.

• The Socialist Campaign Group looks to be still split as it has been many times in the past. From McDonnell/Meacher to Ribeiro-Addy/Barker to possibly Lewis/Burgon in future. That may happen again so agreement on a single consensus candidate before any election is important. The polling here indicates  that future possible candidate option to be a pretty evenly split group in terms of member vote with a small Lewis lead overall with it being Lewis 4%, Burgon 4% if Burnham were to run, but Lewis 8%, Burgon 6% without Burnham running.

• Be aware there is a lot of "scar tissue" from soft left MPs from their experience of 2015-19 when they put a left candidate on the ballot but still got it heavily in the neck from their new local activists after. What are you going to do to apologise for that and be able to say it will be different this time such as on issues as party boundaries regarding any new members, which soft left MPs will be concerned over?

• Be aware unlike 2010 and 2015 there will be far more member polling so other candidates will be assessing your potential impact in a way they would not have done in the 1998-2015 "complacency era" when the SCG vote was often discounted. This may mean "widen the debate" is harder to secure for the next generation or more at least.

• The 2021 rule changes established the 6 month rule for member or affiliate voting. That change along with the lack of fixed term parliaments setting potential leadership election dates well ahead (2 things that were different in the 2010-2020 era and together uniquely & contingently created more scope for populist left political insurgencies within Labour) means inviting a vote into the party for an election is now far harder than then.

• If you do get on the ballot, much of your vote will be expressive segment members and your effort there will be more messages reaching out to members with mixed instrumentalist and expressive views seeking to accentuate the key values principles that often strengthen expressiveness within their decisions.

Below is a series of Sequential Lists that will maximise the involvement of those watching conference online. Other parties have hybrid conferences and it has to be said even the Tories encourage and online conference to a degree and Labour held "Labour Connected" in 2020 during the Covid pandemic, so this is an attempt to make you feel part of Conference more.

If using X, try to use the official #Lab25 hashtag to help find information easier. Other hashtag options are here.

1. Watch Labour Conference live

Livestreams Link

Individual days will be added at each link below when they come on stream:

Sunday  - Mainly Organisational reports and Consitutional dicussion

Monday - Chancellor Speech from 12 noon.

Tuesday - Leader Speech from 2pm

Wednesday + Deputy Leader Hustings debate at 12 noon to 1pm.

Live from Liverpool online 6pm Zoom Sun-Tues by Labour's Training Team - useful updates 

IPPR are livestreaming their fringe. Big up to IPPR who did over 30 fringe events shown online and did it quite simply with a stage & a mix of panels and interviews.

Let me know if there are any other livestreamed fringe events?

2. Reports and Documents

Main Reports

Annual Conference Reports all here - this includes all the CAC reports which covers the daily agenda.

The NPF Report and NEC Annual Report (not online) get approved. 

Treasurer's Report - this was published before conference and ends up in the NEC Annual Report

Delegates Report along with the CAC reports explain the business of Conference.

Conference Agenda

My X feed on conference process and results data analysis

My annual faction estimate 

Sunday - CAC1 and Addendum for Motions

Monday - CAC2 and Addendum for Composites and Emergency Motions

Tuesday -  CAC3

Wednesday - CAC4

Announcements

Labour One App launched at conference - a little more detail

Results and Ballots

Priorities Ballot result here  and faction vote score here.

NCC result and analysis

CAC result and analysis

Rule Changes - NEC proposed pages 21-37 (passed) & CLP proposed pages 38-41 (defeated) Results here.

Current 2025 Labour Party Rule Book - to see where the above rule changes impact

Other Materials

2025 Conference Timetable and Key Deadlines and Rules

2024 full conference report courtesy of David Boothroyd who has recreated the full conference reports produced from at least 1918 to the 1990s

In the next 4 sections we cover the 4 main elements that make up much of the institutional nature of Conference

• The factions and groups particularly affecting the CLP half of conference

• The CLP's themselves

• The affiliated trade unions and socialist societies 

• The organisations (eg think tanks) often operating much of the fringe along also with the factions/groups/TUs and socialist societies above 

Support Levels

My estimates of faction/group support among CLP delegations at conference far past years are posted here:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

My initial 2025 estimate will be posted here on Monday.

LabourList Labour Tribes graphic

This can be viewed here.

List of Factions/Groups

This is a useful list of all the internal Labour Political factions and political groups and what they are advocating for at conference. Where possible the link will go to any specific conference page. 

Quite a lege number will be holding fringe meetings too.

Labour First

Progressive Britain

Labour Together

Labour to Win & their X Feed lists vote recommendations

Labour Red Wall Group

Labour Future

Blue Labour

Labour Tribune MPs

Empower Labour

Open Labour

Mainstream

Momentum & their X Feed lists vote recommendations

CLPD

Socialist Campaign Group

Labour Black Socialists

Labour Representation Committee

Policy Subject Area Groups - these are not affiliated socialist societies 

Labour Yimby

Labour Growth Group

Rural Labour

Labour for Coast and Country

Labour Climate & Environment Forum

Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform

Labour Society for Sport

Labour for Trans Rights

Labour Women's Declaration

Labour Friends of the Forces

Labour CND

Between the role of factions organising and the operation of the 11 Labour Unions the general role of CLPs as 50% of the conference vote tends to be forgotten. On the last page of each CAC report there is a diagram of where all the delegations sit and CLPs are sat in regions. Whilst CLPs vote individually or more often on factional recommendation above, the actual voting strength of the CLPs is shown below to show how they compare with trade unions. To get conference voting strength in the 50/50 CLP/TU vote share just halve the numbers below. When you see the factional strength in the CLPs above (67% LTW/LF) and look at the unions strength below (59%-41% politically or 98%+ of TU vote when united), that means in a 50/50 CLP/TU vote share any other political space between those two scenarios is currently quite small at conference.

Nations/Regional Distribution of the Labour Membership in CLPs 

Based on past research from 2010.

• London - 21%

• North West -12%

• South East - 10%

• Yorkshire/Humber - 9%

• West Midlands - 8%

• Eastern - 8%

• Scotland - 7%

• East Midlands - 7%

• Wales - 6%

• South West - 6%

• North - East - 6%

A more recent estimate based on incomplete data had it as:

• London - 22% (+1)

• North West -12%

• South East - 12% (+2)

• Yorkshire/Humber - 9%

• West Midlands - 7% (-1)

• Eastern - 8%

• Scotland - 5% (-2)

• East Midlands - 7%

• Wales - 5% (-1)

• South West - 8% (+2)

• North - East - 5% (-1)

Sister Political Party - 1

In an electoral pact and not an affiliate, though it does have Labour Party representation rights at a local, regional and Scottish & Welsh level

Cooperative Party and also Sign up for Coop party Conference Emails

Affiliated abour Trade Unions - 11

Larger ones will be holding receptions or sponsoring fringes.

This list is in order of a reasonably accurate % of the TU vote at Labour Conference. Halve that number to get their conference card vote size under the 50/50 CLP/TU vote vote share.

Unite -29%

GMB - 24%

USDAW - 18%

Unison - 15%

CWU - 7%

FBU - 1%

ASLEF - 1%

Musician's Union - 1%

Community - 1%

TSSA - 1%

NUM - 0%

Affiliated Socialist Societies - 20 

Many of these groups will be holding fringe meetings or receptions at conference.

Two largest in terms of % of the Socialist Society vote (around 1% of the affiliate vote along with TU's) followed by the rest:

Fabian Society and also Fabian Women - 41% 

Jewish Labour Movement, (formerly Poale Zion)- 18%

Black, Asian Minority Ethnic Labour (BAME Labour) (formerly Labour Party Black Sections and Black Socialist Society)

East & South East Asians for Labour (formerly Chinese for Labour)

Christians on the Left (formerly The Christian Socialist Movement)

Disability Labour (formerly Labour Party Disabled Members Group)

Labour Animal Welfare Society

Labour Business (formerly Labour Finance and Industry Group)

Labour Campaign for International Development

Labour Housing Group

Labour Movement for Europe

Labour Party Irish Society

Labour Women's Network

LGBT+ Labour

National Union of Labour and Socialist Clubs

Scientists for Labour

Socialist Educational Association

Socialist Environment and Resources Association (SERA)- Labour's Environmental Campaign

Socialist Health Association

Society of Labour Lawyers

A useful list of media and fringe organiser social media here to be able to keep up with news and fringe events:

Key News Sources

BBC News 

BBC Politics

Sky News

Sky News Politics

GB News

Groups that are organising or a partner in Fringe Meetings

Labour List

Campaign Lab

New Statesman

Daily Mirror

Politico

Total Politics

The House Mag

Demos

IPPR

IPPR North

More in Common

Ipsos in the UK

UCL Policy Lab

The Policy Insititute

Institute for Government

Hope Not Hate

Power to Change

We Own It

Compass

Tony Blair Institute for Global Change

Social Market Foundation

Re-State

Centre for Social Justice

Education Policy Institute

British Future

European Movement

Future Governance Forum

Good Growth Foundation

This is a helpful list of links to help new members. 

Party Values and History – A political education primer

As a new member, learn more about the Party, it’s values and its more than century of national and local campaigning for the democratic socialist values of equality and social justice. Here are a range of short and long articles, books, PowerPoints and lectures that you might find helpful:

Party Values

Welcome to the Labour Party Powerpoint 2021

Welcome to the Labour Party Video 2025

Our Local Labour Party History

National Labour History

Labour History Webinar Series on Labour Learn Website

A century of Labour Government Achievements

1997-2010 Labour Government Top 50 Achievements

Lecture on the History of the Labour Party 1900-2018 by historian Vernon Bogdanor

History of the Labour Party 1914-1948 by G.D.H Cole

History of UK Trade Unions

History of the Co-operative Movement

People’s History Museum Manchester online site

International Political Organisations that the Labour Party is affiliated to (at the bottom of this link)

How the Local Party Works

The following should help you understand how the local party operates and how you can participate:

Labour Learn Party Glossary

An example local CLP's own Glossary is here:

Glossary of Party Terms

Take part in Policy Making

The process by which Labour makes policy is set out here:

Labour National Policy Development Process

The local Party proposes policy ideas to National Policy Forum (NPF) consultations and also through motions and reference backs to Labour Party Annual Conference which we send delegates to:

Labour National Policy Forum (NPF)

The following link from a CLP covers current and past policies of the Party (including all Labour Manifestos back to 1900) but also includes various declarations of principles the Party subscribes to:

Note: Some of this section will later be added to the "Labour Archive" page

Current and Past Labour National Policies

The Fabian Society Think Tank (a Labour Party affiliate) develops policy ideas and has a large series of recent publications to stimulate discussion:

Policy Issues – current Fabian Society Publications to stimulate ideas

The Fabian Society digital archive also has all their policy “tracts” publications back to 1884

Policy Issues – Fabian Society publications 1884-2000

In London as well as other regions there are consultations on Metro Mayou policy and motions are often submitted to Regional Conferences: London Policy meterial is here:

Note: Some of this section will later be added to the "Labour Archive" page

London Mayoral Manifesto & London Policies

The Local Party helps develop local policies along with our Labour Councillors through a Sutton Borough Local Government Committee (LGC) which we send delegates to. An example of local policies are set out below:

Local Manifesto and Local Policies

Get involved with campaigning in the local community and more widely

The local Party has campaign activities which are listed below:

Local Campaign Events

You can also make phone calls from home to build our local engagement with voters. All the information you need is at this link:

Online Phone Bank to call voters

Members in our local branches can also develop their campaigning on local issues in their community and here is an example useful toolkits to help below:

Community Involvement and Local Issue Campaigning

As well as local campaigning the Party is also involved in national campaigns and shows solidarity on global issues: Examples are here:

National Issues and Campaigns

Global Solidarity Activity

Training, Skills and Mentoring

In recent years the Party has strongly developed its training offer to members using online tools and webinars that can be accessed at the “Labour Learn” website which you can use the at website below to undertake training and skills acquisition at your own speed. It is particularly good at helping you to develop skills such as doorstep and online campaigning and learning to run an election campaign:

National “Labour Learn” Online Training Hub

You can also take part in many national live online training webinars below. We will be supplementing this with local training either face to face or online.

Upcoming National Online Training Webinars

The Party has a Future Candidate’s Programme it advertises from time to time. Labour affiliates also organise future candidate training programmes:

Labour Unions individual and collective Political Schools

Co-operative Party Candidate Development Programme

There are also national level Leadership Skills training programmes to encourage Women and Black members and some local parties also try to ensure all equalities strands are taken account of in their own local training:

Labour Women’s Network Training Programmes

Labour Women’s Network “Making your mark” online training course

Jo Cox Women in Leadership Programme

Bernie Grant Leadership Programme

Local Action on Equalities

Standing for Election for the Labour Party

Useful Guidance on this is a local example here:

How to Stand for Election for the Labour Party

This information above will be supplemented by national online webinars run by the national, regional and local Party to encourage members to step forward to stand for us