From the Wembley Conference to the ‘McDonnell Amendment’: Labour's Leadership Nomination Rules

Abstract

A recent change to the Labour party's nomination rules for leadership elections was the eighth such major modification of this brief clause in the party's rule book since 1981. These changes have provided a barometer of factional conflict over this period and indicate the importance of gate‐keeping powers in leadership selection. This article recounts the history of these eight rule changes. It shows how the proportion of Labour MPs (and later MEPs) required to nominate candidates in leadership elections has oscillated markedly, as the left has tried to reduce it while centrists have sought to increase it. The most recent change in 2017, when the threshold was decreased to 10 per cent of Labour MPs and MEPs, was a victory for the left. The article argues that the changes to Labour's nomination rules, while lower‐key than the extension of voting rights from MPs to ordinary members, have been just as significant.

The Labour Party leadership election: The Stark model and the selection of Keir Starmer

“…profiling the candidates and the campaigning period, before offering explanations as to who won and why by examining their bases of support and their mandate to lead (Drucker 1976 , 1984 ; Alderman and Carter 1993 , 1995 ; Heppell 2010a , b ; Heppell et al 2010 ; Heppell and Crines 2011 ; Dorey and Denham 2011 , 2016 ; Quinn 2016 ; Crines et al 2018 ; Heppell and McMeeking 2021 ). Alongside these agency-driven accounts are more institutionally orientated analyses, which have concentrated on the importance of the rules for selecting the party leader, including debates on nomination procedures; ejection procedures; membership participation and the trade union link (Drucker 1981 ; Alderman and Carter 1994 ; Quinn 2002 , 2004 , 2005 , 2010 , 2018 ; Jobson and Wickham-Jones 2011 ; Pemberton and Wickham-Jones 2013 ; Wickham-Jones 2014 ; Bennister and Heppell 2016 ; Johnston et al 2016 ).…”

Pop-socialism: A new radical left politics? Evaluating the rise and fall of the British and Italian left in the anti-austerity age

“…The tension between the need for factional control and the pursuit of more direct forms of democracy also played out in controversies over major party reform. As stated at the beginning of this section, Corbyn won the leadership contest partly due to his commitment to members led democratisation, and this was followed by some minor reforms (see Quinn, 2018). However, the two reforms which generated considerable enthusiasm among the grassroots – the Democracy Review and ‘open selections’ (which would have seen every MP face a reselection contest between each election) – eventually fell by the wayside (see Ward, 2021).…”

Leadership election reform in the British Labour party: democratisation or power struggle?

“…While party leadership reform has only recently received broader attention as a topic of international comparison, especially through the extensive research around the COSPAL group (Cross and Blais 2012a, b;Hazan and Rahat 2010;Lisi et al 2015;Chiru et al 2015;Kenig et al 2015b), it has been a research subject with a long tradition in the UK. Beginning with the seminal studies of the 1970s to early 1990s by Drucker (1976Drucker ( , 1981Drucker ( , 1984, Punnett (1990Punnett ( , 1992Punnett ( , 1993, Alderman and Carter (1991, 1993, 1995, it has created an extensive body of literature (specifically for the Labour party see Quinn 2018Quinn , 2016Quinn , 2012Quinn , 2004Jobson and Wickham-Jones 2011;Bale and Webb 2014;Denham 2016, 2011;Denham and Dorey 2018;Heppell et al 2021;Heppell 2021Heppell , 2010aHeppell , 2010bCrines et al 2018;Stark 1996). This raises the question of what can still be learned from such an analysis, both specifically for the Labour party as well as party leadership elections in general.…”

“…The larger part typically deals with reviewing the outcomes of either one or multiple elections and tries to explain how the results came about (for example Dorey and Denham 2016, Jobson and Wickham-Jones 2011, Quinn 2016, Heppell 2021, Crines et al 2018. The second part is more focussed on outlining structural features' consequences for the electoral process or their influence on other organisational aspects (for example Quinn 2018, 2004, Stark 1996, Heppell 2010b, Pemberton and Wickham-Jones 2015. Both approaches are, however, strongly influenced by the seminal work of Leonard Stark (1996).…”

“…The seemingly high volatility of the electoral rules, the ideological profile of the elected leaders and the high frequency of elections itself all warrant a variety of questions about Labour's handling of leadership elections in the past 20 years (Quinn 2018, pp. 480-481, Heppell 2010a.…”