Membership Reforms in Political Parties: Lessons from Canada and the UK
February 7th, 2025
With the announcement of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation and the start of a leadership campaign, focus has returned to the issue of membership reform – who exactly gets to vote for the new leader? The Liberal Party of Canada announced one major rule change for eligibility to vote, the removal of the residency requirement. Previously, individuals had to “ordinarily reside in Canada” to register as a member and participate in the leadership selection process. The party also kept its minimum vote age at 14, allowing young Canadians to participate in party decision-making at an early age.
Political parties often reform their internal rules to enhance participation, improve governance, increase fund-raising and ensure leadership stability. Two notable examples are the Liberal Party of Canada and the UK Labour Party, both of which have reshaped how members and supporters engage in leadership selection.
In 2013, the Liberal Party of Canada introduced a major reform by creating a “Supporter” category, allowing Canadians to vote in leadership races without becoming formal party members. This move aimed to engage a broader base, particularly younger and disengaged voters, while eliminating membership fees to remove financial barriers. The reform significantly increased participation and played a crucial role in Justin Trudeau’s 2013 leadership victory, attracting thousands of new supporters. It also aligned with international trends toward reducing barriers to political engagement. However, critics feared voter manipulation, arguing that non-members or even political opponents could influence leadership races without long-term commitment. Others worried that eliminating fees weakened party loyalty. By 2016, the Liberals reintroduced paid memberships, indicating some drawbacks in the 2013 system.
The UK Labour Party has also undergone leadership election reforms, particularly under Keir Starmer. In 2021, the party debated shifting from a “one member, one vote” system to an electoral college model, where MPs, party members, and trade unions would have equal voting power. Though this proposal was dropped, other changes were implemented. Labour raised the MP nomination threshold for leadership candidates, ensuring they had significant backing before running. Additionally, new members now face a waiting period before voting in leadership elections, a measure meant to prevent external groups from rapidly enrolling members to influence results.
Labour’s reforms have had mixed results. Requiring stronger MP endorsements has helped ensure leadership stability, while the waiting period prevents outside interference. However, some members feel their influence has been reduced, sparking internal tensions. The reforms have made the process more controlled by party elites, leading to dissatisfaction among grassroots supporters. In contrast, some party members feared that wider participation in and ease of access to party decision-making allowed party governance to be more erratic and result in less viable results; indeed, the number of younger voters in the Labour Pary leadership vote allowed Jeremy Corbyn from the left wing of the party to win the leadership at a crucial moment in British politics.
While both the Liberal and Labour parties have pursued internal reforms, their approaches have been markedly different. The Liberals prioritized inclusivity, aiming to expand participation by removing membership barriers. In contrast, Labour focused on consolidating internal control, ensuring that leadership candidates had strong support within established party structures before standing for election. The Liberal Party’s reforms encouraged broader engagement, but also raised concerns about party loyalty and external interference, leading to later adjustments. Labour’s approach strengthened leadership stability but sparked dissatisfaction among some members who felt sidelined in the decision-making process.
These contrasting approaches highlight the ongoing challenge political parties face in balancing openness with control. The long-term effectiveness of these reforms will depend on how well each party can maintain engagement while ensuring that their leadership selection processes remain fair, stable, and representative of their broader political goals.
Catherine Waters is the Director, Learning Design and Evaluation, at the Institute on Governance.