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

Dorey, Peter; Denham, Andrew

doi:10.1057/bp.2011.19

Cited by 24 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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

Denham

Dorey

2017

Br Polit

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: From Wilson To Corbyn: the Labour Partymentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Denham

Dorey

2017

Br Polit

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 2010, David Miliband was widely seen as a strong candidate. He was a former foreign secretary who was well-known among voters (Dorey and Denham, 2011). In contrast, the line-up of moderates in 2015 was weaker.…”

Section: A Weak Line-up?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The British Labour Party’s leadership election of 2015

Quinn

2016

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the British Labour Party's leadership election of 2015, which resulted in the unexpected victory of the radical-left candidate, Jeremy Corbyn. It looks at the contest using Stark's (1996) academic model of leadership elections, based on the tripod of selection criteria, acceptability, electability and competence, and finds it wanting. Selection rules, which are downplayed in Stark's model, are then examined, as Labour used a new selection system based on one-member-one-vote in 2015. While these are found to have had some impact, Corbyn's victory cannot be explained primarily by institutions. The paper reconsiders Stark's model and shows that it failed because of the diminished significance of electability as a selection criterion in the Labour leadership contest of 2015. That largely reflected the circumstances in which the contest took place, in the aftermath of a demoralising election defeat for Labour.

show abstract

“…Ultimately, Ed Miliband was thus (marginally) more acceptable than David to the party as a whole. 16…”

Section: 'We Band Of Brothers': the Labour Partymentioning

confidence: 99%

From Ted to Ed: Electing British Party Leaders

Denham

2012

Political Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 1965, British political parties have radically, and repeatedly, changed the ways in which they choose their leaders. In this article, I explain how and why these changes occurred and assess the consequences of the ‘new’ selection procedures adopted by four ‘mainstream’ parties: Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Party and the Liberal Democrats. In the first section, following Sjoblom and Stark, I outline a theoretical framework which purports to explain the criteria used by parties in parliamentary systems when choosing their leaders. I then examine the four parties in turn and consider two questions. First, how and why has the process of selecting British party leaders changed over time; and secondly, to what extent, and why, have the ‘new’ selection procedures adopted since 1965 produced different outcomes, resulting in the election of leaders who would not have been chosen had the decision rested with their party's elites and/or MPs alone?

show abstract

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

Cited by 24 publications

References 16 publications

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

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

The British Labour Party’s leadership election of 2015

From Ted to Ed: Electing British Party Leaders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About