The UK’s system of parliamentary government requires both a functioning government and a functioning opposition. Since the attempted “coup” against his leadership, Jeremy Corbyn seems to be unable to provide the latter. Peter Harris argues Corbyn should resign so as to ensure that the UK’s political system can function once more.
Jeremy Corbyn should resign. Even though he was elected Leader of the Labour Party with the support of a resounding majority of Labour members and supporters, it is now clear that Corbyn cannot fulfil the most important aspect of his job: the role of Leader of the Opposition. This is reason enough for him to admit defeat and stand aside.
When the Labour Party chooses a leader, its members are not merely selecting a national spokesperson or an organiser-in-chief. Instead, every Labour leader since Ramsay MacDonald has automatically been slotted into one of two very important constitutional positions: Prime Minister of the United Kingdom or Leader of the Opposition.
This is because Labour has been the first or second largest party in the House of Commons for nearly 100 years. When in power, Labour’s leadership contests have determined the occupant of 10 Downing Street. If out of government, the party’s leaders have ex officio been responsible for forming the Official Opposition—effectively a government-in-waiting, and an essential organ of the UK’s democratic parliamentary system.
In a way, Leader of the Labour Party is thus something of a quasi-governmental office. Bearers of the title are not just responsible to members of their own party—whether grassroots activists, affiliated organisations, or parliamentary colleagues—but they are also subject to certain logics that pertain to their constitutional role, whether in government or opposition.
It is well understood, of course, that prime ministers are not just accountable to their party members: they also need to retain the formal confidence of the House of Commons (and, for m practical purposes, their cabinet colleagues). Without such parliamentary support, no prime minister could do her or his job; they would have to resign—no matter how popular they might be with their party’s grassroots.
Similar dynamics govern who can and cannot survive as Leader of the Opposition. That is, in order to lead a functioning government-in-waiting, a party leader simply must have the confidence of the parliamentary party that he or she heads. Support from parliamentary colleagues is not merely desirable, but should be considered absolutely essential to a leader’s ability to discharge their role.
After all, Leaders of the Opposition are not supposed to hold the government to account on their own: they are expected to appoint a Shadow Cabinet and dozens of shadow ministers, all of whom collectively are charged with contributing to the important constitutional task of holding to account the government of the day. Without the backing of a sufficient number of colleagues, no such shadow government can be put in place, thereby gutting Parliament of its most important democratic function.
Moreover, no Leader of the Opposition can be considered a viable candidate for the office of Prime Minister if they lack the support of their own MPs. For even if he were miraculously to win a General Election at the next opportunity, how could Corbyn credibly claim to be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons given that 172 of his own MPs are on record as not supporting his leadership? Prime ministers need far more than 39 loyal MPs to be able to govern the country. But the whole country now knows that this is all that Jeremy Corbyn has.
And so either he is swapped out for another leader, one capable of uniting the parliamentary party, or else over 80 percent of Labour MPs must be replaced by Corbyn loyalists at the next election—an impracticable solution to say the least—and all future Labour MPs must also be drawn from the ranks of the Corbynistas. Only then will Corbyn be in a political position to carry out the role he was elected by the party membership to perform.
All of this means that, whatever his personal mandate to lead the Labour Party, Corbyn is now unable to function as Leader of the Opposition. The membership’s enthusiasm for Corbyn’s leadership—even if it has persisted from last year, as looks likely—does nothing to change the fact that he simply cannot carry out the essential constitutional functions that are required of him. He does not head a government-in-waiting and nor is it possible for him to do so.
Of course, it is Corbyn’s technical legal right to cling onto power as Leader of the Labour Party for as long as he is defeated in a leadership contest. But it is out of his hands whether he can serve as an effective Leader of the Opposition or entertain realistic hopes of becoming Prime Minister. Labour MPs’ consent to be led by Corbyn is theirs to withhold—and nothing can be done to change that.
In democracies—and especially in parliamentary democracies—power and authority are rightly diffuse. There are proper limits to how far one man’s mandate can take him. Jeremy Corbyn has now run up against the limits of his.
So that the UK might have a functioning Official Opposition once more, he should resign.
____
Note: This was originally posted on Democratic Audit.
Peter Harris is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Colorado State University.Credit: thierry ehrmann, CC BY 2.0
Dear Writer,
As I have said to Jeremy the night of his last speech before being elected into Leader of the Labour Party in the Tufnell Park Tavern “if anyone ever dictates to you that they are RIGHT!, RIGHT!, RIGHT! (wing), let them know that ONE (ETERNAL) DAY they shall be proven WRONG and it is those LEFT (wing) of pure Demos-Cratos (Government of the people, By the people, For the people {A. Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, Nov. 19 1863}) that will save humanity and the day.
You concur that you preside on the assumption that the current powers that be are RIGHT???
Peace and A’Hu’men
Peter Harris may be correct from an establishment view of the order of things in our democracy but he fails to give sufficient weight to the fact that historically the vast majorityn of MP’s have commanded the support of the members of their party. Of course we are in a very difficult situation after some 30 years of organisational manipulation. Ironically this probably started with the focus of working class members of the importance of education and the idea that to represent the labour party candidates should have a university degree preferably form Oxbridge. Unfortunately this has made being a Labour MP into a career rather than a principled vocation.
Peter Harris is wrong in terms of the way forward for the Labour Party. We need to rebuild our collective democratic structures and it does seem at the moment that the only way to do this is to put in place MP’s who respect Party democracy and support our core socialist principles. Once again Labour needs to represent all working people not the post modernist interests of the upper middle class careerists who infest the Labour benches at present!
A failure here to recognise that within the democratic structures that exist there is an enormous groundswell within the membership to do things differently. The weakness that exists in being an effective opposition has come about due to a resistance to change by many within the PLP. This has little to do with leadership and more to do with refusal to recognise the changing views and culture within the body of the membership.
The fact that there has been rapid growth of an enthused and energetic membership and supporters of the party demonstrates strong leadership from a team that is developing a new vision, based on core values, of the party alongside its membership. Ultimately, those who refuse to participate fully in the activities required of the parliamentary party will be answerable to their local constituency membership, for it is here that the party is currently being less effective than it might be in opposition.
Exactly.Jeremy Corbyn does have a huge mandate from the membership. But the mandate is not unconditional. Rather, he has a mandate to be party leader – and since this is the Labour party – as well as Leader of the Opposition.
But he cannot practically fulfil these roles if he has the support of so few of his MPs. He is unable to carry out his mandate, for he does not have a mandate to be useless. So his mandate is redundant. He should resign.
And that young man is exactly why Jeremy is the man to represent the people, lead the Labour party and become the next Prime Minister
Since becoming Labour leader, Corbyn has succesfully opposed cuts to disability payments proposed by HMG and the forced academisation of all schools by HMG. He has done this out of conviction and principle and done it faster than the New Labour old guard could rustle up a focus group and consult a polling company for directions before deciding if, when, how or whether to oppose Tory schemes. Somehow, those obsessed by focus groups and poll numbers are not accused of populism, but principled Corbyn is.
After decades of UK political discussion being dragged more and more to the right, to extremes unimaginable in 1980, he has been promoted by party members like me to draw a line in the sand. Corbyn has lead the debate against the nonsense of austerity, at last. He has helped to drag the centre of debate leftwards, at last. That is good leadership.
I do not agree or approve of everything he says and I have not sainted him. The Corbynista label, amongst other attempts to insult and smear his supporters, is wearing thin. Last year, Corbyn won me over because he actually said what he meant. He had something tangible to vote for (or against) when the other contenders were all vacuous presentation and no solid policy.
It’s the resigning MPs, disrespecting their party members wishes, who have put Corbyn in this position. Peter Harris thinks Corbyn should resign because Corbyn can not fulfill his Establishment responsibilities. I believe he should stay because of his anti Establishment responsibilities. It is the current Establishment that has allowed inequity to become so extreme in the UK. It is the current Establishment that has allowed so many to feel left behind, with little to no hope.
This is not, for me, about the personality of Jeremy Corbyn. This is about democracy functioning properly within the Labour Party and then, by extension, as Opposition or Government, the whole country. The Labour Party was built from the grass roots up to oppose the then Establishment and represent ordinary workers in Parliament. How ordinary and representative are the rebel MPs?
This, I suspect, is part of a regular historical cycle where the elites, even those with genuine good intent, have become so distant from ordinary folk that they find the feelings and desires of the demos baffling. Rebel MPs are surprised we don’t approve of their attempts to offer us a less painful version of austerity. Peter Harris might be surprised we don’t care for the stability of traditional constitutional niceties It is hard to care for institutions that forgot how to care about us unless there was an election campaign.
The game was up for Corbyn after his lack luster support for Remain. He never for Remain and saying you are 7.5% for the EU is just wrong.
As you say with 80% dont support him. So lets be clear he is Never, Ever, Ever going to be prime minister.
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Though it is true that the Conservatives have made several reverses regarding Disability Cuts and Academisation, it is simply weird to attribute these reverses to Corbyn. Rather, they are the result of Conservative infighting and their small parliamentary majority. Once Iain Duncan Smith had resigned as Work and Pensions secretary, Osborne’s entire budget was derailed – specifically the disability cuts (the main focus of IDS’s resignations.) The resignation of a Cabinet minister and the likelihood that the budget could be defeated in Parliament due to rebellions by Conservative MP meant it was dropped. The latter applied to the academy scheme as well.
Regardless of whether the MPs were right to rebel, lacking their support means that the party cannot function politically and Corbyn has to go. Hence why previous party leaders resign after losing votes of no confidence by their MPs (and usually they lose the votes by much smaller margins than Corbyn did.) By staying, Corbyn has revealed himself as a careerist, and someone who puts himself before party. And since the party in question is the Opposition, by staying he also put himself before the needs of the country.
The article is not about whether you care for “constitutional niceties.” These “constitutional niceties” are central to the entire parliamentary process. Since Corbyn cannot meet them, he has to go.
Why doesn’t the same logic apply to the rebel MPs? They’ve been elected to provide support to their party in opposition [in the case of not winning] and if they can’t do that they should resign?
Owen, because they aren’t elected to blindingly follow any one MP who happens to be their leader. They are elected to represent constituencies, not to merely be beholden to whoever the membership of a party wish to unilaterally impose as leader.
It is a bit rich for any Corbynite to make that argument, since Corbyn relentlessly rebelled whilst Labour was in power and has pretty much undermined every single Labour for the past 30 years.
“Labour MPs’ consent to be led by Corbyn is theirs to withhold—and nothing can be done to change that.”
What ridiculous nonsense! In reality, something can most definitely be done.
After the Labour Party leadership is reconfirmed in the upcoming vote, any diehard rebel MPs who persist in refusal to work under the Party’s democratically elected leadership should be deselected and replaced with new Labour candidates who are willing to respect democratic norms and work for the team.
Such deselections quite obviously CAN be done, and can be done directly by the pro-Corbyn rank and file membership acting in full accordance with the rules.
“… or else over 80 percent of Labour MPs must be replaced by Corbyn loyalists at the next election—an impracticable solution to say the least …”
That’s a risibly simplistic straw man argument. There would be no need to replace ALL the 172 MPs who joined the coup, because tender concern for their own personal interests must, for the more careerist rebels, ultimately win out over their disappointment and their overblown feelings of entitlement. Sensible opportunists will see reason and won’t need to be sacked.
Now that the ignominious failure of the anti-Corbyn coup is an established fact, what careerist rebels need is a face-saving way to climb down off their high horses and back into senior jobs in Mr Corbyn’s shadow cabinet. They will use Mr Corbyn’s re-election triumph, when it happens, as the excuse they need to end their anti-Party strike and go back to work.
The Party’s overwhelming majority imposing its collective will on the coupsters through moral, political and ultimately administrative pressure … that is the legitimate, democratic solution to the conflict and the only really practical one.
It’s the only practical solution, because the Labour Party crisis is not really about the person of the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. It’s fundamentally about a political division that has opened up over the basic direction of the Labour Party, between, on one hand, the Party’s newly empowered, socialist, mass membership, and, on the other hand, the legacy “NewLabour” parliamentary cadre, the Party’s former owners.
That fundamental question could never be resolved by the facile, elitist, anti-democratic pseudo-solution advanced in the putschist article above. All in all, the article is just a fatuous rationalisation for the coup and for the rebels’ public sabotage of the Labour Party’s parliamentary effort, a failed apology whose obvious logical and evidential weaknesses correspond directly to the incompetence, arrogance and bad faith of the coupster faction.
There are a lot of blogs/articles purporting not to be partisan that none-the-less work Corbyn over[in the nicest possible way].They are produced by a commentariat who seem to think that they have an authoritative view on the these matters and certainly make their bona fides known.
They come across as hangers on to a ‘busted flush’and cannot let go.This is made obvious by their reductionist treatment of the new situation-Corbyn in this case-without allowing that there is something meaningful going on.Not cultists,delusion,mob rule.
These terms reflect more their denial of the situation.
It has to be said they are coherent arguments but discuss the barn without the horse,and deliberately.
The main issue is what the electorate believes the Labour party stands for, is it still the ‘party of the working man ‘ ? Does it support a neo liberal or a socialist ideology? Old Labour or New Labour?
I’m not a Labour supporter but can understand why so many people especially the younger generation, see Corbyn as their ‘saviour’. He proposes a life where everybody matters, not just the elite.
It’s just unfortunate that other politicians either didn’t notice or mocked Corbyn in the hope he’d just fade away. He won’t.
So, what does the Labour party REALLY stand for?
Excellent article. Corbynism remains little more than the utopian political manifestation: that somehow it will all still work out despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But then utopian ideas have long dominated the ideologues of the far left as much as they do on the right.
What evidence are you referring to? Do you mean anti-austerity? His lack of photogenic appeal ? Or that he is not a Neoliberal?