Who should pick the next Prime Minister?

By Steve Gilmore, Media Manager at Unlock Democracy. The views expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of Unlock Democracy. 

If Andy Burnham wins the Makerfield by-election, Labour Party members should not elect him leader.

Nor should Labour members elect anyone else. This is not a candidate pitch. The point is process: who, democratically-speaking, is the proper kingmaker, should Labour MPs lose confidence in their current leader?

The answer is Labour MPs. 

Procedurally this may be difficult, if Keir Starmer decides to resist a leadership challenge. The Party rulebook grants the sitting leader an automatic place in the contest.

But democratically it would be preferable if Labour MPs reached a consensus on Starmer’s successor and persuaded him to step aside, avoiding the need for a membership-level contest.

That may sound anti-democratic. It is anything but.

Much is made of the unrepresentativeness of party memberships. Those who devote time and money to political parties are clearly a tiny minority of the population. That is not the issue here – the House of Commons is hardly a mirror-image of UK society, either.

No, the democratic problem with Labour members electing a new PM is not that its members are unusually ideological or engaged. It is that they are unaccountable.

MPs are elected by the public and accountable to the public. The decision about who governs the country should therefore rest with the people whom the public can reward or punish at the ballot box.

Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillan, Alec Douglas-Home, Jim Callaghan and John Major all became Prime Minister between general elections on the sole say-so of MPs. Few would argue their legitimacy was diminished for lack of grassroots involvement.

Even in the age of party members electing leaders, Gordon Brown and Theresa May were no less legitimate Prime Ministers for taking office unopposed. Yet had Andrea Leadsom not withdrawn as a candidate in 2016, May could well have been denied the premiership despite enjoying far greater support among Conservative MPs (199 backers to Leadsom’s 84).

The shift to open up party leadership elections beyond Parliament was presented as a democratic advance: fewer smoke-filled rooms, more power for ordinary members. But in a parliamentary democracy, where authority flows from the confidence of the House of Commons, vesting the power to pick leaders in unelected party members is not only a constitutional mismatch, it creates perverse incentives.

In 2016, Labour MPs voted no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn as leader, and when he refused to resign, triggered a leadership challenge. Party members responded by re-electing Corbyn with an even larger mandate. Cowed, MPs did not try to unseat Corbyn again, but his inability to command the confidence of much of the parliamentary party continued to hamper Labour's effectiveness as an opposition.

Perhaps learning from this experience, Conservative MPs have increasingly sought to game leadership contests. Because MPs can only narrow the field to two candidates, endorsements are shaped by who is likely to win among members, not necessarily who is likely to win among the public – let alone who would make the best Prime Minister. James Cleverly directing supporters to lend their vote to the weaker of his potential run-off rivals, only to fail to make the final two himself, was one, farcical consequence. Liz Truss was another, altogether more damaging. MPs harbouring serious concerns about her suitability nevertheless helped propel Truss into the run-off, calculating that she was likely to win among members and that loyalty might be rewarded in office.

In short, member ballots can leave parties with leaders MPs do not rate, or encourage MPs to back leaders they do not believe in. Neither is conducive to stable and effective politics.

If Makerfield does provide the launchpad for a Burnham leadership challenge, Labour MPs should settle the question themselves. Not because MPs are more worthy people – scandals routinely suggest the opposite. But because, in a democracy, power stems from the voters.

It’s right that party members influence the direction of their parties. They should help to shape policy, select local candidates and hold leaders to account.

But choosing a Prime Minister should not be a niche subscriber benefit. That decision must rest with those accountable to the voters: MPs.