Recent media reports suggest Labour MPs may be gearing up to move against Jeremy Corbyn. This is supposed to happen before a change in rules could see the number of nominations needed for any would-be candidate to enter a leadership contest reduced. Yet Corbyn was not elected by mistake, explain Tim Bale, Paul Webb and Monica Poletti. A large number of Labour members – whether they joined before or after Corbyn was nominated by MPs – wanted what they got. Persuading them to change their views now they’ve got it will not be easy.
A recently published blow-by-blow account of one of the biggest upsets we’ve ever seen in a Labour Party leadership contest reminds us that Jeremy Corbyn only made it onto the ballot paper due to the nominations of 35 MPs – ‘morons‘, according to John McTernan, Tony Blair’s Director of Political Operations from 2005 to 2007. Whether it’s right to blame them (or for them to blame themselves) is debatable, however. After all, the final choice lay in the hands of the Party’s grassroots. And when it comes to the role played by Labour’s members in Corbyn’s election, there’s some conventional wisdom that needs challenging.
Haydn CC BY-NC-SA
The leadership electorate
It is all too easy for Labour moderates to comfort themselves with the idea that the 2015 contest was somehow hijacked by a bunch of left-wingers who joined over the summer. The truth is very different – and shows just how big the challenge facing those MPs who want to get rid of their leader really is. In fact, if we’d looked hard enough at Labour’s membership even before it surged over that summer, then we probably should have seen Corbyn coming.
Just after Labour lost last May’s general election, we surveyed its grassroots members as part of a study of party membership in 21st Century Britain. Rather than being presented with a pre-cooked list of runners and riders, those members were asked to write in who they would like to see take over from Ed Miliband. Out of 1,180 Labour Party members we surveyed, just two (yes, two) wrote down ‘Jeremy Corbyn’. A few months later he won the leadership by a landslide. So how on earth did that happen?
Certainly, the influx of £3 supporters over the summer helped. But we have no hard evidence that it proved decisive. Indeed, Corbyn would have won even if the franchise been restricted to members only. True, Corbyn won ‘only’ 49.6 per cent of the membership, as opposed to the 83.8 per cent of registered supporters and the 57.6 per cent of ‘affiliated’ (mainly trade union) supporters. But even if more rounds of counting had proved necessary, it is inconceivable that he would have failed to pick up sufficient second preferences to have put him over the top on members’ votes alone.
Just as importantly, many of those members who helped elect Corbyn were already in the Party before the contest was even declared. YouGov, which conducted the fieldwork for our survey, also carried out a couple of polls of the Labour leadership electorate during the summer of 2015. Those polls suggested that almost two-thirds of members voting in the leadership contest had joined the Labour Party before, not after, the 2015 general election.
Admittedly, it looks as though the ‘old’ members were rather less keen on Corbyn than the ‘new’ members. In YouGov’s final poll in September – the one which saw them get the actual result almost spot-on – Corbyn was more highly rated by those who had joined after the general election than before it. Among those new-joiners, Corbyn won 62 per cent, as opposed to 51 per cent among those who joined when Ed Miliband was leader, and 42 per cent among those who were members before he became leader in 2010.
Yet, even with the influx of all these new people after the election, the membership which voted in the leadership contest probably looked pretty similar, and thought pretty similarly, to the membership that had campaigned for a Labour victory in May 2015.
True, there were a slightly greater number of younger party members (and a slightly smaller number of older members) in YouGov’s final poll than in our survey. But the difference (5 percentage points when it came to the 18-24 group and 3 percentage points when it came to the over 60s) was hardly huge. Socially, three-quarters of the members in YouGov’s later poll could be classified as broadly middle-class, which was also true of the members we surveyed back in May. Men were in the majority in both cases (62-38 in May compared to 59-41 later that summer). Old and new members also came from the same regions of the country: 46 per cent from London and the South, 47 per cent from the Midlands and the North.
In fact, many of those members we surveyed in May 2015 were included in YouGov’s poll of Labour members conducted just before the leadership election. Tellingly, some 44 per cent of them had by that stage decided to vote for Corbyn.
The two reasons for the swing
This huge swing to Corbyn among those members who were already in the Party at the general election of 2015 was arguably down to two things. First, there was – right from the start – very little enthusiasm for any of the other candidates. Second, there was a good deal of latent dissatisfaction, as well as latent demand for a leader who was even more socially liberal and economically left-wing than Ed Miliband.
When we asked members to write in who should succeed Ed – back when Jeremy Corbyn received two mentions – Andy Burnham was the nominal front-runner among those who eventually stood. But – and this is a big but – he was the choice of a mere 18 per cent of members, while Yvette Cooper was on 8.5 per cent and Liz Kendall on just 2 per cent. Indeed, the most striking thing was that, in May 2015, nearly 4 out of 10 grassroots members of the Labour Party (37.5 per cent to be precise) said they didn’t yet know who they wanted as leader. Add that to the 34 per cent who named somebody other than the four candidates who eventually made it onto the ballot, and we perhaps had every reason to expect the unexpected.
But attitudes mattered too. When we asked grassroots members in May 2015 to place themselves on a left-right spectrum running from zero (‘very left-wing’) to ten (‘very right-wing’), the average score was 2.39 – slightly to the left of the average SNP member and only just to the right of the average member of the Greens.
On specific issues, 9 out of 10 Labour members who were in the Party in May 2015 wanted to see government redistributing income and thought cuts to public spending had gone too far – hardly surprising, perhaps, when nearly half of them were public sector employees. Meanwhile, probably reflecting the fact that between 60 and 70 per cent of them were middle-class graduates, eight out of ten Labour Party members in May 2015 thought that immigration was a good thing.
When asked to rank the qualities they most valued in a leader, Labour members in May 2015 put a premium on he or she having strong beliefs, while very few put the ability to unite the party top of their list. Finally, around a third of members in May 2015 didn’t feel the leadership paid them much attention and a quarter felt it didn’t respect them; 6 out of 10 wanted ordinary members to have more influence on policy.
Given all this, Jeremy Corbyn’s rise to power was, in effect, an accident waiting to happen. Grassroots members – whether they joined before or after he was nominated by MPs – weren’t so much ‘waiting for Jezza’ in particular as longing for someone, anyone, like him – or, more precisely, someone, anyone, like them – to come along and tell them what they wanted to hear. Persuading those members that they were wrong will take quite some doing.
____
You can read more about the ESRC Party Members Project here.
Tim Bale is Professor of Politics at Queen Mary University London.
Paul Webb is Professor of Politics at the University of Sussex.
Monica Poletti is an ESRC Post-Doctoral Fellow in Politics at Queen Mary University of London, a Guest Teacher at the London School of Economics and a Research Fellow of the COST-Action ‘True European Voter (TEV)‘ project.
Perfectly plausible hypothesis.
However, how do you explain Dianne Abbot losing so badly in 2010?
She was as far to the left of Ed Miliband then as she is now. And the membership came down (very marginally) for David Miliband.
Were Labour members lacking in dissatisfaction after Gordon Brown’s defeat? Were they really enthused by the Miliband’s?
Or did they change substantially (individually or in terms of people coming in/leaving) between 2010 and 2015?
Marios
The last line of the post is not really a comment of any academic standing. Wrong in what sense? The pursuit of centre-left economic policies? Greater social libertarianism? Or, more specifically, the election of a left-wing leader in a party dominated by MPs with right-wing economic views and who will cling on to the party due to the electoral system?
There are several long-standing issues that this country is facing. Climate change, the dominance of financial services, robotisation of the workforce, rising living costs, loss of community, the decline of public services, etc. New Labour fundamentally failed to take on these issues, and helped create many of them. Now, if we see a Labour candidate emerge that is even vaguely ideologically-aligned with real fixes to these problems, than we can start to talk about Corbyn supporters being wrong. Until that point, another careerist is not an answer. Power with no principles is not the point, not that power looks to be on the cards post-2015 anyway.
I am an enthusiastic admirer of both Jeremy Corbyn and John MacDonnell but two things make me hesitant. Momentum is recommending Ken Livingstone as a member of the NEC, a man I would not vote for under any circumstances, and Jeremy Corbyn’s son appears to work for hix fatber in some capacity, making a mockery of Labour’s stance against nepotism.
Corbyn does not employ his son in any official capacity, and certainly not on the public purse, unlike so many other MPs who claim public money for family members
Rubbish. He is paid as a researcher for John MacDonnell and also to run his father’s re-election campaign. It’s a joke. He’s such a hypocrite.
“Meanwhile, probably reflecting the fact that between 60 and 70 per cent of them were middle-class graduates, eight out of ten Labour Party members in May 2015 thought that immigration was a good thing.”
In other words, a significant proportion of Labour members did NOT consider immigration to be “a good thing” and they tended to be the ones exposed to the consequences: Tower Hamlets corruption, Birmingham Trojan Horse, Rochdale, Rotherham……
There is an unbridgeable gap between the wants and needs of members and the voting public . The PLP has to be outward looking and therefore interested in the voting public because they need the public to vote to get their seats.
Members are inward looking and far more interested in converting the Labour party into one that only reflects their views.
The secret report into why Labour failed in the 2015 election has been revealed http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/03/revealed-secret-report-labour-s-2015-defeat
Members who are interested enough to read this will know that Labour is now unelectable but why should they care as elections are of no interest if you own the Labour party.
Many know Labour now will fail which is why they are putting in place ways and means of ensuring Corbyn stays as leader regardless of how terrible election results are.
Labour is now a left wing club with no interest in being in power.
That begs the question as to why their policies lost us the last two elections!
Thanks for a revealing and interesting analysis but I feel it spends a little too much energy attacking the straw man of infiltration and thus not enough on what most people regard as the real problem, the party’s insular recruiting under Miliband. The leftwards shift in the membership may not have been intentional but nor was it an accident – it was the inevitable result of the 35% strategy and the more left-focused campaigning of Miliband. Recognising Palestinian statehood, for example, of course brought it a slew of activists.
I agree that primarily the problem was the mediocrity of the 3 candidates opposing Corbyn and that fundamentally the membership did want to elect someone more stridently and shamelessly left-wing, but I am not sure that much of the PLP would disagree with that. The problem is not so much the political leanings of the membership but the belief that “it matters not whether you won or lost, but how you played the game”.
Well, that’s nonsense. It’s electoral politics. Winning is literally a life and death issue – I’d say ask everyone who has frozen to death under Cameron but obviously that’s tragically impossible – and how you played the game is a nice concern which can only be afforded by winners.
Eventually the membership will come back round to this; just like the Tory membership eventually realised that Hague and IDS did a good line in preaching to the converted but less than nothing to persuade the undecided. I just hope that it doesn’t take as long as last time. .
Well as he has wiped the floor with Cameron at every PMQ’s showing a considered and statesmanlike attempt to kill off the punch and Judy Show politics so beloved of the Tories, perhaps the public rather than the parliamentary party got it right. He fostered Cameron so badly that cameron was blaming the previous government for all the ill of the world, completely forgetting he had been prime minister of the previous government.
“Fostered” what do you mean? Surely none of the following!
Dictionary.com Meaning “to bring up a child with parental care” is from c.1200; that of “to encourage or help grow” is early 13c. of things; 1560s of feelings, ideas, etc. Old English also had the adjective meaning “in the same family but not related,” in fostorfæder, etc.
I would assume ‘flustered’. I suspect you would to, if you were feeling more charitable.
* too 🙂