We are all products of our environment. The peppered moth evolved darker coloring to better camouflage itself in the sooty landscape of post-Industrial Revolution Britain – then began to revert to its lighter form as clean air legislation reduced pollution. Sockeye salmon have changed their annual migration patterns in response to climate change. Urbanization is causing white clover populations to change the level of the defensive toxin cyanide they produce.
All this means: the conditions of the game decide the outcome. And both in nature and in leadership contests – as the Labor Party is currently discovering.
If Labor followed the same process for removing a leader as the Conservatives – the one we’ve become so accustomed to over the past decade – a challenge against Keir Starmer would undoubtedly have been launched by now. Instead of the high-pressure stalemate that has been going on since the election results last week (or, if you prefer, since the Prime Minister’s popularity and authority began to crumble months ago), the anonymous letters would have poured into the inbox of Labour’s equivalent of the chairman of the committee in 1922. Given that 92 Labor MPs so far had publicly called for Keir Starmer to step down, we can be sure that the threshold for triggering a Tory-style vote of confidence (a third of the parliamentary party now, 15 per cent by 2024) would have already been met.
But Labor is not the Tories. Labor MPs unhappy with Starmer must decide not only whether to move to the top, but who to back as an alternative when they do. The process affects the dynamics and momentum of the race. Whoever makes the first move to officially launch their bid (lone wolf aside catherine west) becomes a target, in a way they could avoid if they were allowed to keep their heads down until the messy job of removing the prime minister was done. That is why there has been so much concern, with Westminster waiting on tenterhooks for 36 hours while Wes Streeting decided his next move – only for him to resign as health secretary without mounting a challenge.
History is full of lessons about how the rules of the game shape how the game is played and who comes out on top. John Major was by no means weak in 1990 when he succeeded Margaret Thatcher (he was chancellor of the exchequer at the time, previously foreign secretary), but he certainly benefited from the Tory system of requiring a nominated challenger to run against the leader. That challenger was Michael Heseltine, whose unsuccessful bid weakened Thatcher’s authority to the point that she was forced to resign, but undermined his credibility in the process, paving the way for a non-toxic consensus candidate. like Guardian REPORT the next day said: “In the grassroots revulsion against the political assassination of their heroine, Mr. Heseltine’s cause was damaged,” and Major reaped the benefits. Heseltine might have fared better in a system of anonymous letters (which the Tories adopted under William Hague in 1998).
The same rules helped Major again when he was challenged in 1995. The Conservative heavyweights had learned their lesson and took a back seat, letting John Redwood take the lead and the punch. Major left to run against Redwood, asked his party to “endorse me or fire me,” and won. Had the figures waiting in the wings for the second round – Heseltine again, or Michael Portillo – been braver, Major might have been toast.
Margaret Thatcher herself had learned how to work this process. Her 1975 challenge against Ted Heath was ostensibly an attempt to chase horses, with her campaign whispering that she would drop out after the first round. If this reassured colleagues unsure of the possibility of a female leader temporarily supporting her, it backfired: the party voted for her so decisively that it was able to carry that momentum straight into the leader’s office.
This was all in the days when Tory MPs could choose their leader regardless of the views of party members. The decision to leave it up to the members fundamentally changed the dynamic. Rishi Sunak had the undisputed support of MPs in the summer of 2022 when Conservative members elected Liz Truss. Some Tory strategists even question whether Boris Johnson would necessarily have triumphed over Jeremy Hunt to succeed Theresa May in 2019 – Johnson’s buzz among his base of enthusiastic MPs was fueled in part by the membership’s frenzied adoration for the former London mayor. (Remember, in an urban environment, different levels of toxin are needed.)
As for the Labor Party, the rules for electing leaders have changed constantly over the years and are even more complicated, requiring a mix of support from MPs, Labor Parties (CLPs), affiliated unions and party members. In 2015, nominations were sought from just 35 Labor MPs to get a candidate on the ballot. Almost a third of MPs who put their names down to support Jeremy Corbyn’s candidacy actually supported other candidates but agreed to give their votes to widen the race. They hadn’t realized the extent to which the 2014 change to a “one member, one vote” system along with the inclusion of over 100,000 “three-time voters” — non-members who registered online as registered supporters — would change the game. The climate had changed dramatically, but the party didn’t notice until the competition was well underway.
What is the climate like now? After last week’s election meltdown, with support falling in all parts of the country for parties on the left and right, there are fears that Labor is facing extinction. There is also a sense of disbelief at how quickly everything has come crashing down, less than two years after a historic victory. The blame game is in full swing, with various factions despising each other almost as much as (or, perhaps in some cases, more than) the opposition parties. The assessment among MPs of what has gone wrong (not that they can agree among themselves) will not be shared by members and associated groups. But these members have the last word. And the MPs who are now considering their nominations know this.
In this new environment, anything can happen. Wes Streeting has finally resigned, but for now he appears to have launched the challenge we knew was coming for months, on the day Angela Rayner announces her HMRC headache has been lifted, while Andy Burnham’s chances of parachuting into Westminster in time for a race grow more remote by the minute. As toxicity grows, MPs may rally around someone deemed less contentious, fresher or better suited to unify a fractured party.
The idea of Ed Miliband or Yvette Cooper as a caretaker to hold the ship until a new rising star is ready to take the helm is looking more appealing. Lucy Powell, who won the deputy leadership contest late last year and has the benefit of deep dislike from either camp, could emerge as a consensus candidate. Bridget Phillipson has shown that she is capable of doing the work in front of her rather than being distracted by maneuvers – an attractive quality for those desperate for an end to the psychodrama. And Armed Forces Minister Al Carns is out and about reminding the party that, if they want a successor undermined by the historically unpopular Starmer government, options are available.
The rules of the contest and the context for its existence will shape the campaigns and chances of anyone who chooses to run in it. Under another system, another winner might emerge triumphant. As we await further developments, consider that Wes Streeting may discover that he is a moth whose wings are, sadly, adapted to darker skies.
(Further reading: Those who left the Labor Reform will never return)
