How Michael Foot Won the Labour Party Leadership

2011

This article examines the 2010 Labour leadership contest, seeking to explain why Ed Miliband narrowly defeated his brother, and erstwhile favourite, David. The article places this contest in the context of previous Labour leadership contests, and also the historical development of the often controversial electoral college which, on this occasion, meant that the first preferences of the Party's parliamentarians were outweighed by the votes of affiliated bodies, most notably the trade unions. Crucially, though, we argue that while undeniably important, the role of the trade unions in ensuring Ed Miliband's victory has been somewhat exaggerated by his political and media opponents. His success over his brother was also due to the fact that he attracted enough second preference votes cast by MPs/ Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and members of the constituency Labour parties (CLPs) to increase his share of overall support in the electoral college. David Miliband remained more popular than his brother among Labour parliamentarians and CLPs, but Ed Miliband reduced his brother's lead sufficiently over four rounds to ensure that when added to his share of the votes of individual trade union levy-payers, he secured a narrow victory over David Miliband. The votes of the latter were crucial to Ed Miliband, and ultimately decisive, but would still not have been sufficient to secure victory had he not also increased his support, via second preference votes, among Labour MPs/MEPs and CLP members.

Section: The Labour Party Leadership Election Of 2010mentioning

confidence: 97%

‘O, brother, where art thou?’ The Labour Party leadership election of 2010

2011

“…With the possible exception of Wilson in 1963 (Heppell, 2010a;Heppell, 2010b: 30-41) the 'expected' winner of all seven of these contests at the close of nominations (Healey had been the clear 'favourite' in 1980, but subsequently lost that status following Foot's belated decision to enter the race) invariably went on to win Carter, 1993, 1995;Drucker, 1976Drucker, , 1981Drucker, , 1984Heppell 2010b;Heppell and Crines, 2011;Stark, 1996: 118-120 (Dorey and Denham, 2011;Jobson and Wickham-Jones, 2011;Pemberton and Wickham-Jones, 2013;Quinn, 2012: 64-82). …”

Section: From Wilson To Corbyn: the Labour Partymentioning

confidence: 99%

Tales of the unexpected: The selection of British party leaders since 1963

2017

Jeremy Corbyn's election as Leader of the Labour Party in 2015 stunned observers and practitioners of British politics alike. In this article, we first outline a theoretical framework that purports to explain why political parties operating in parliamentary systems choose the leaders they do. We then examine 32 leadership successions involving five major British parties since 1963, and note that many of these were unexpected, in that they were triggered by unforeseen circumstances, such as the sudden death or resignation of the incumbent.Examining each party in turn, we briefly explain why the winners won and identify at least eight cases (a quarter of our sample) where a candidate widely expected to prevail at the outset was ultimately defeated by a 'dark horse', 'second favourite' or even 'rank outsider'. Of these, Corbyn's election in 2015 was the most unexpected and, consistent with the findings of studies of party leadership conventions in other parliamentary systems, namely Canada and Spain, suggests that ideological and policy concerns are sometimes more important than considerations of party unity and electability, especially when a leadership contest is dominated by party activists.

“…Quinn, 2005). When a vacancy did arise, the 'favourite' and early front-runner almost always went on to win (Drucker, 1976(Drucker, , 1981Stark, 1996;Heppell, 2010a;Heppell et al, 2010;Heppell and Crines, 2011 (Stark, 1996;Drucker, 1976;Heppell, 2010a;Heppell et al, 2010). In theory, these changes would significantly reduce the power of union leaders and officials.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When a vacancy did arise, the 'favourite' and early front-runner almost always went on to win (Drucker, 1976(Drucker, , 1981Stark, 1996;Heppell, 2010a;Heppell et al, 2010;Heppell and Crines, 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

‘The Longest Suicide Vote in History’: The Labour Party Leadership Election of 2015

2016

Abstract:The Labour leadership contest of 2015 resulted in the election of the veteran Leftwing backbencher, Jeremy Corbyn, who clearly defeated the early favourite, Andy Burnham. Yet Corbyn enjoyed very little support among Labour MPs, and his victory plunged the PLP into turmoil, particularly as he was widely viewed as incapable of leading the Party to victory in the 2020 general election. Given that much of the established academic literature on Party leadership contests emphasises the ability to foster unity, and thereby render a party electable, as two of the key criteria for electing a new leader, coupled with overall competence, important questions are raised about how and why the Labour Party chose someone to lead them who clearly does not meet these criteria. We will argue that while these are the natural priorities of MPs when electing a new leader, in Corbyn's case, much of the extraparliamentary Labour Party was more concerned about ideological conviction and purity of principles, regardless of how far these diverged from public opinion. This was especially true of those who signed-up to the Labour Party following the 2015 general election defeat. Indeed, many of these only did so after Corbyn had become a candidate. This clearly suggests a serious tension between maximising intra-party democracy and ensuring the electability of the parliamentary party itself. 2The Labour Party has long been viewed by most of its members as a democratic socialist party, but this clearly has two meanings. The first is that the Party seeks to create a democratic socialist society, in which wealth and power are widely shared, and equality is a primary objective. The second meaning is that Labour is a democratic party in terms of the participatory role played by its members. However, this second definition immediately raises a problem when applied to the election of Labour Party leaders, namely whether they should be elected solely by the MPs who they will lead and work with on a daily basis in the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), or by the extra-parliamentary Party, whose members often play such a vital role in constituencies and the workplace, and who also make a major collective contribution to the Party's funding. The purpose of this article is thus to explain how Jeremy Corbyn was elected as Labour Party leader in September 2015, from where and whom his support emanated, and why he attracted this support. In so doing, we will highlight the divergence between the criteria usually adopted by Labour parliamentarians when electing a new leader, and the qualities sought by much of the extra-parliamentary membership. Whereas the established academic literature emphasises the importance of party unity, electability and policy competence as the three key criteria for leadership candidates, we argue that these are the attributes usually (and understandably) prioritised by MPs themselves.By contrast, as Corbyn's election highlights, extra-parliamentary members, and particularly a party's rank-and-file activists, are much mo...