Abstract
The article aims at assessing the functioning and characteristics of the most recent systems employed by the British Labour Party for selecting its leader. To this end I compared five leadership races: the huge success of Tony Blair in 1994 in the newly reformed electoral college system; the undisputed election of Gordon Brown in 2007; the narrow and disputed victory of Ed Miliband in 2010, still held under the electoral college system; the large but controversial successes of Jeremy Corbyn in the 2015 and 2016 closed primaries. The article first traces the evolution of the Labour leadership election systems in recent decades. Secondly, the five leadership races are analyzed and compared, taking into account two main variables: inclusiveness and divisiveness. These have been addressed looking at indicators such as selectorate and candidacy inclusiveness, campaign negativity, race competitiveness and elite attitude, which transversally affects all the other dimensions. The findings suggest that intra-party democracy may be dangerous for party unity and electability but the political context remains much more important than the intrinsic characteristics of the system of leadership selection used.
Highlights
According to Stark (1996) leadership elections in the UK are determined by the general selection criteria of acceptability, electability and competence
It means to go beyond the simple intrinsic characteristics of the Labour leadership election system, in order to understand to what extent elements different from formal rules affected the final outcome and the successive fate of the newly elected leader
Concluding remarks Is there a trade-off between maximising intra-party democracy and ensuring party unity and electability? Is there something suggesting that inclusiveness and divisiveness are not two separate concepts but rather two extremes of the same variable? My findings do not provide a clear answer to this question: while it might be good to have a large number of voters involved, is possible to suspect that leaving them with too much freedom of choice increases the risk of a divisive contest, whose aftermath is likely to be disastrous
Summary
According to Stark (1996) leadership elections in the UK are determined by the general selection criteria of acceptability (namely capacity to unite the party, reconciling the party elite and the grass-roots), electability (capacity to be elected Prime Minister) and competence (political experience). This race rewarded Ed Miliband, whose election was widely criticised, because of the distortions produced by the trade unions’ vote, as we will see later on To respond to such criticisms and to re-legitimise himself with party members (as the majority of them had voted for another candidate), the newly elected leader immediately committed to supporting a new reform of the leadership selection method. This reform materialized a few years later by adopting the proposals of the February 2014 Collins Report, headed by Ray Collins, trade unionist and former Labour General Secretary. TAB. 2 - 1994 and 2010 Labour leadership elections by the electoral college
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
