 The Labour right have one priority that exceeds all else, locking the left out of power. And if rumours are true, a key moment in that effort could be at next week's Labour Party conference. It's now expected that plans are afoot to change the rules for electing Labour's next leader. The plans would involve abandoning the system of one member, one vote. That's the method by which both Corbyn and Stammer were elected. Every member gets one vote and they're all counted equally. The proposed replacement, according to these rumours, is reviving the Electoral College. So how the Electoral College works is that members have a third of the vote, MPs have a third of the vote and the unions have a third of the vote. And they're all weighted equally. So if you've got half a million members, they will collectively have the same vote as 200 or so MPs. Aaron, I think you were the first person to tweet this actually. It's now going to be a bit of momentum. I've seen Sienna Mahler from Labour back you up. How likely do you think it is that, one, the right will attempt to do this and two, that they'll be successful? Thank you. I did break the story, Michael, which is always good. I first heard of it this morning. There were whispers about it. And we can talk in abstraction about whether or not somebody would try something. I think this move would only be made if they thought they could win it. And the view of those behind it, the Labour right, people like Labour First and so on. Their view, and of course, they've always wanted to do this, this is probably one of their biggest ambitions during the Stammer leadership. If they can do this and nothing else, they'll be incredibly happy. They viewed it as really hinging on to unions, Unison and the GMB, if they could get one of them on board, it was go. Their view is again that the composition of delegates this year at party conference is sufficiently right-wing that they could get it through. It would be mighty strange, Michael. Can you imagine you're a delegate? Obviously, the delegates were chosen months ago. This wasn't on the cards. You send the delegate off to conference, they come back and say, yeah, I've just voted for us all to have less influence. I think most members would be livid, but there we are. They're going to try and get it through on the Friday, and I think they're going to try and put it on the conference floor over the following days. Like you say, Sienna followed it up. John McDonald's tweeted something as well saying, speculation, Labour leadership aims to bounce through conference, return to electoral college, which is effectively a return to what we had before, the status quo ante. So just to clarify for our audience, right now, if you want to change the Labour leader or if there is an election for a Labour leader, you have the candidate selection, which is effectively MPs decide who's put forward to the membership. There's a certain threshold that has to be met with the nominations. Once you're on that list of nominees that's then put to the membership, it's one member, one vote. And it's not just the membership, it's also affiliate organisations. So if you remember the Fabian Society or Unite or whatever, you also get a vote. Now, what the Labour right want to do, and this is now in train, is they want to return to a previous system where voting for the leader still had that same nominations process. Parts of it were different, but fundamentally Labour MPs decided who could be a nominee, a prospective leader. And then the voting system was a bit arcane, quite strange. It was an electoral college, so trade unions had a bunch of votes, members had a bunch of votes, CLPs had a bunch of votes, and Labour Party MPs had a bunch of votes. And we're now being presented with something like that. So you would basically see an even division of influence between trade union movement, 1.5 million people, huge organisations like the GMB, Unison, Unite, CW, many others. About 450,000 members right now. And then equal to both of these, you'd have sort of one-third each, would be around 200 Labour MPs. Clearly not a very democratic system, but it's about the Labour right empowering the very small number of people who agree with them on most things, which is Labour MPs, who aren't just the odds actually with the party membership, but I think actually with the public and a bunch of things. We saw that in response to the Afghan pull out. A few weeks ago, I think my club was a really classic example of it. You saw people on the Labour benches saying that we should stay in Afghanistan, even if America's pulling out, which I think is effectively a death sentence for UK soldiers that would be there. And again, most of the public didn't agree with that. 70% of the public, some of the pubs in the public disagreed with that. So you have people as Labour MPs who are quite unrepresentative of public opinion on a bunch of things. And the move here is to make those people even more influential in deciding who the next Labour leader is. Particularly ironic if it was pushed through while Keir Starmer was leader, given that Keir Starmer himself was voted through one member, one vote. And I think most importantly, Mike, for people on the soft left and Liberals who say, oh, well, Labour are going to offer proportional representation or constitutional reform. Come on. If a political party is working backwards in terms of its own democratic processes, do you really think they're going to enact meaningful constitutional reform or change the electoral system? Of course they're not. So it's a big story. Let's see where it goes. I mean, I had one person tell me a sort of senior figure on the Labour left telling me just before he went on air, they don't think it would get through. They think it could go to the conference floor, but they don't think it would get through because they don't think Unison and GMB and or GMB would back it. I mean, that remains to be seen. Maybe there'll be some horse trading. I mean, I think it would reduce the influence of trade unions. Of course, you could say, well, they had the block vote. They would have that back again. It would actually increase their influence. But if you look at the role of trade unions and how much influence they've had in the Labour Party, under Keir Starmer as well, by the way, since 2015, since the rule change, I think it would be a very strange move by any trade union to do that. The GMB, Unison, particularly GMB and Unite really, have had massive extraordinary influence over party politics in 2015. So it would be a very strange move. But look, they've done strange moves before. The GMB likes to sort of articulate itself, present itself as this really sort of blue-collar work in class trade union. They backed up quite and quite people's vote, far before Labour did, because some people inside the organisation staffers wanted it because they had different political views to their members. So if that happened, I wouldn't write this off either. But like I say, the last person I spoke to on this who I agree with, politically, I'm not going to mislead people, there's somebody on the left, and who I trust in terms of their judgement, that they don't think this will go through. But it could very well be put to people over the next week.