Look Who Will Be Choosing Our Next Prime Minister
Blair has given us a chance to rethink how we pick our political leaders. For over a century, British prime ministers have climbed to the top of the greasy pole by more routes than the historically unwary may suppose.
For over a century, British prime ministers have climbed to the top of the greasy pole by more routes than the historically unwary may suppose. Of the 20 prime ministers of the 20th century, only five - including Tony Blair - first entered No 10 as outright general election victors; the other 15 either inherited from a party predecessor, or took over without an intervening general election. The idea that the electorate may elect one premier and subsequently get another is hardly novel.
If Blair wins a third term - and Labour's nine-point lead in the weekend Sunday Telegraph/ICM poll suggests he will - he has already announced an intention to step down before the subsequent election. Whoever takes his place will, therefore, do so in a manner in tune with a majority of their 20th-century predecessors.
There will, though, be a big difference. Never before will a prime minister have been chosen by his party in the country, rather than by MPs alone. The last two leaders to inherit - Jim Callaghan and John Major - did so by winning a party contest confined to MPs. Since then, both their parties have opened the franchise beyond Westminster. So far, they have used these systems to elect leaders of the opposition. Now, for the first time, such a system will produce a prime minister.
If the Conservatives were in government, the same issue would now arise. But it is the Labour party process that matters more immediately. Whether in government or in opposition, a Labour leader is now chosen by an electoral college, in which three groups - MPs and MEPs, constituency party members and Labour-supporting members of affiliated trade unions - each have a third of the votes. One member, one vote (Omov) applies in all three sections. This is the system that will elect Blair's successor.
Such systems raise political and constitutional issues. The most striking of the latter is one that also applies, through a different mechanism, under the Tory rules. Under Labour's system, the unions and constituency sections could choose a leader whom a majority of MPs did not vote for. In extreme circumstances, this could result in the choice of a new leader, and thus a new prime minister, who was not supported by the Commons majority on whose support a prime minister's authority traditionally rests.
The result would be a genuine constitutional crisis. If such a government were to fall, the monarch could be put in the unusual position of asking one of the defeated candidates to form a government, even though they were not party leader - a distant echo of Churchill's emergence in 1940, when Chamberlain remained leader of the Conservative party.
The most politically controversial aspect of Labour's system, though, remains the role of the unions. In steady decline as a force in British life, well to the left of the party and the public on most issues, and representing a whole set of special interests, especially in the public sector where the great majority of union members work, the unions will nevertheless have a third of the votes in choosing the nation's next leader. Sharper-eyed Tories have already spotted the political mischief that they can make of this. Many others, including some Labour supporters, will also have qualms about the effects, not just on the outcome of the leadership contest, but on its conduct too. Few candidates will risk antagonising the unions as the contest approaches. Some may be tempted to make offers that will not be in the wider national interest.
In practice, these may prove to be exaggerated concerns. In the actual contest to succeed Blair, as opposed to a theoretical one, it currently seems possible that Gordon Brown could win in all three sections of the electoral college - just as Neil Kinnock, John Smith and Blair did. The bark of union leaders, moreover, has been shown to be much worse than their members' bite, as Blair proved in 1994. Then, only two out of the 26 affiliated unions recommended their members to vote for Blair; the other 24 preferred John Prescott or Margaret Beckett or made no recommendation. In the event, thanks to Omov - one member, one vote - Blair won almost as comfortably among the unions as in the other two sections.
There is, though, a deeper point. Political parties and trade unions are institutions in decline. Labour's individual membership, which topped a million in the 1950s, was down to 305,000 by the time Blair was elected leader in 1994. Enthusiasm for New Labour boosted the total to 407,000 in 1997, but since then the decline has resumed, accelerated by Iraq. The latest official figure is 214,000. Unions, too, are steadily losing members. From 6.4 million members in 54 trade unions affiliated to the Labour party in 1980, numbers slumped to around 4 million in 1994, and are now down to 2.7 million in 18 affiliated unions.
T hough not unique to Labour, this precipitate decline in participation leaves the appropriateness of the party's leadership electoral system seriously at issue. Introduced in the name of greater democracy, the system now raises as many questions about democracy as it solves. For the first time since Sir Alec Douglas-Home "emerged" to succeed Harold Macmillan in 1963, the next prime minister could take office with a contested mandate. Yet it is almost inconceivable that Labour would go to the lengths of changing its system at this stage. Charges of contest-fixing would be unavoidable and hard to deny.
Yet this also connects to another large issue that will not easily disappear. Since 1997, there has been intense debate about the way that the office of prime minister has expanded and changed. Talk of centralism and even presidentialism are routine in some quarters, though the best book on the workings of Blair's Downing Street - by Dennis Kavanagh and Anthony Seldon - concludes that Britain has an "under-powered rather than an over-powerful premiership". What is beyond doubt is that the relationship between the prime minister and parliament has changed significantly - and that a prime ministerial election of the kind that has been signalled will change it further.
Can anything be done to shape these changes for the greater public good? It may seem absurdly naive to think that politicians could be expected to allow wider civil society to attempt to mould political institutions and practices, especially party ones. Yet this would be a good time to at least look at some options. By giving advance notice of his own departure, Blair may have given the country a space in which constructive consideration can be given to a range of parliamentary, governmental and constitutional reforms that would make politics in the 21st century more accountable and better.
It is, of course, a big ask. But someone has to do something about the wider decline that currently clusters around the concern about trust. The 300th anniversary of the death of John Locke this month would seem like a suitable moment to start providing some answers.
If Blair wins a third term - and Labour's nine-point lead in the weekend Sunday Telegraph/ICM poll suggests he will - he has already announced an intention to step down before the subsequent election. Whoever takes his place will, therefore, do so in a manner in tune with a majority of their 20th-century predecessors.
There will, though, be a big difference. Never before will a prime minister have been chosen by his party in the country, rather than by MPs alone. The last two leaders to inherit - Jim Callaghan and John Major - did so by winning a party contest confined to MPs. Since then, both their parties have opened the franchise beyond Westminster. So far, they have used these systems to elect leaders of the opposition. Now, for the first time, such a system will produce a prime minister.
If the Conservatives were in government, the same issue would now arise. But it is the Labour party process that matters more immediately. Whether in government or in opposition, a Labour leader is now chosen by an electoral college, in which three groups - MPs and MEPs, constituency party members and Labour-supporting members of affiliated trade unions - each have a third of the votes. One member, one vote (Omov) applies in all three sections. This is the system that will elect Blair's successor.
Such systems raise political and constitutional issues. The most striking of the latter is one that also applies, through a different mechanism, under the Tory rules. Under Labour's system, the unions and constituency sections could choose a leader whom a majority of MPs did not vote for. In extreme circumstances, this could result in the choice of a new leader, and thus a new prime minister, who was not supported by the Commons majority on whose support a prime minister's authority traditionally rests.
The result would be a genuine constitutional crisis. If such a government were to fall, the monarch could be put in the unusual position of asking one of the defeated candidates to form a government, even though they were not party leader - a distant echo of Churchill's emergence in 1940, when Chamberlain remained leader of the Conservative party.
The most politically controversial aspect of Labour's system, though, remains the role of the unions. In steady decline as a force in British life, well to the left of the party and the public on most issues, and representing a whole set of special interests, especially in the public sector where the great majority of union members work, the unions will nevertheless have a third of the votes in choosing the nation's next leader. Sharper-eyed Tories have already spotted the political mischief that they can make of this. Many others, including some Labour supporters, will also have qualms about the effects, not just on the outcome of the leadership contest, but on its conduct too. Few candidates will risk antagonising the unions as the contest approaches. Some may be tempted to make offers that will not be in the wider national interest.
In practice, these may prove to be exaggerated concerns. In the actual contest to succeed Blair, as opposed to a theoretical one, it currently seems possible that Gordon Brown could win in all three sections of the electoral college - just as Neil Kinnock, John Smith and Blair did. The bark of union leaders, moreover, has been shown to be much worse than their members' bite, as Blair proved in 1994. Then, only two out of the 26 affiliated unions recommended their members to vote for Blair; the other 24 preferred John Prescott or Margaret Beckett or made no recommendation. In the event, thanks to Omov - one member, one vote - Blair won almost as comfortably among the unions as in the other two sections.
There is, though, a deeper point. Political parties and trade unions are institutions in decline. Labour's individual membership, which topped a million in the 1950s, was down to 305,000 by the time Blair was elected leader in 1994. Enthusiasm for New Labour boosted the total to 407,000 in 1997, but since then the decline has resumed, accelerated by Iraq. The latest official figure is 214,000. Unions, too, are steadily losing members. From 6.4 million members in 54 trade unions affiliated to the Labour party in 1980, numbers slumped to around 4 million in 1994, and are now down to 2.7 million in 18 affiliated unions.
T hough not unique to Labour, this precipitate decline in participation leaves the appropriateness of the party's leadership electoral system seriously at issue. Introduced in the name of greater democracy, the system now raises as many questions about democracy as it solves. For the first time since Sir Alec Douglas-Home "emerged" to succeed Harold Macmillan in 1963, the next prime minister could take office with a contested mandate. Yet it is almost inconceivable that Labour would go to the lengths of changing its system at this stage. Charges of contest-fixing would be unavoidable and hard to deny.
Yet this also connects to another large issue that will not easily disappear. Since 1997, there has been intense debate about the way that the office of prime minister has expanded and changed. Talk of centralism and even presidentialism are routine in some quarters, though the best book on the workings of Blair's Downing Street - by Dennis Kavanagh and Anthony Seldon - concludes that Britain has an "under-powered rather than an over-powerful premiership". What is beyond doubt is that the relationship between the prime minister and parliament has changed significantly - and that a prime ministerial election of the kind that has been signalled will change it further.
Can anything be done to shape these changes for the greater public good? It may seem absurdly naive to think that politicians could be expected to allow wider civil society to attempt to mould political institutions and practices, especially party ones. Yet this would be a good time to at least look at some options. By giving advance notice of his own departure, Blair may have given the country a space in which constructive consideration can be given to a range of parliamentary, governmental and constitutional reforms that would make politics in the 21st century more accountable and better.
It is, of course, a big ask. But someone has to do something about the wider decline that currently clusters around the concern about trust. The 300th anniversary of the death of John Locke this month would seem like a suitable moment to start providing some answers.
Use the feedback form below to submit your comments.
Use the form below to email this article to your friends.
