Senior figures in the party are pushing for a controversial rule change at next month’s party conference, which would change the way Labour elects its leader if the party is in power.
The scheme is viewed as a way to avoid a repeat of the Tory leadership contest in 2022, when Tory members made Truss leader despite her not having the support of the majority of MPs.
[…]
Allies of Starmer believe a similar [long leadership contest] should be avoided at all costs, by reforming how his successor is elected if the party is still in government. They want only MPs to have a say over who should succeed Starmer as leader.Those behind the move also believe the timing is right for Starmer to use his first party conference as prime minister to tighten the centre-left wing’s grip on the party.
They are confident that conference delegates this year are tilted in the “moderate” wing’s favour and would pass the proposal if it were put to a vote.
“There’s a plan to bring a constitutional reform to conference that would cut out the membership for electing a leader when we’re in government, and only allow the MPs to decide,” said a senior Labour source.
“This is seen as the last reform that needs doing to syphon off any threat from the left,” they added. A second said: “It’s known as the ‘Liz Truss lock’. The Tories compounded the country’s misery by letting their members put someone in No 10 the parliamentary party wouldn’t work with. So we need to make sure that can’t happen again.”
[…]
Labour declined to comment. However, a source denied the party leadership was behind the move or would support it, calling it a “non-starter”.Starmer did successfully change the rules for a leadership contest in 2021, when he managed to raise the number of MP supporters a candidate needed to make it on to the ballot from 10 per cent to 20 per cent.
He also tried to move the leadership voting rights back to an electoral college system, but was forced to abandon it in the face of opposition from union leaders and other left-wingers.
You’re broadly supportive of less party democracy?
Having democratically elected leaders choose the candidate rather than people who’ve paid a few quid to join? It’s not that clear that either alternative is more democratic than the other.
Here’s an idea: let anyone eligibile to vote in an election choose party leaders. Every possible stakeholder would have a voice, so one could argue that it’s a more democratic process than either that are being discussed.