- PARTY LEADERS
- Since 1998 Conservative MPs vote in a series of ballots that involve party members and narrow the field of leadership candidates down to two – members vote on a one member, one vote basis to decide which of these two becomes party leader.
- A leadership contest can be triggered if the current leader resigns or dies, or if 15% of Conservatives write to the Chairman of the 1922 Committee saying they no longer have confidence in the leader.
- In the 2017 leadership election, there were five candidates, after two rounds of MP ballots, May and Leadsom emerged as the top two candidates.
- From 1981-1992 the Labour party used an electoral college system (30% vote for MPs, 40% for delegates representing TUs, and 30% vote for delegates representing constituency parties) – votes were cast in blocks by delegates attending the party conference – union leaders would decide how to vote on behalf.
- It was later argued that individuals’ members should decide how to vote individually and in 1993, a new system of one member one vote was introduced – trade unions and constituency Labour parties now had to ballot their members individually.
- 1/3 of the vote went to Labour MPs, a third to affiliated organisations, and third to constituency parties – the election used the AV system.
- Candidates must secure the nomination of 15% of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) to qualify for the ballot if previous leader steps down, 20% if wish to challenge existing leader.
- PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATES
- All-women shortlists – Labour’s practice of employing women-only shortlists existed in its original form between 1993 and 1996.
- Although it was briefly outlawed under the Sex Discrimination Act in 1996, the government subsequently amended the legislation to allow such lists.
- This exemption to anti-discrimination legislation was subsequently enshrined in the Equality Act 2010.
- The use of all-women shortlists in many safe Labour seats contributed to the significant increase in the number of women MPs returned to parliament at the 1997 general election.
- Labour has seen a change in the class demographics of Labour MPs. In 1964, 37% had worked in manual jobs. Today that figure is 7%.
- In a similar attempt to bring greater diversity to the House of Commons, David Cameron created a controversial ‘A-List’ of diverse candidates that local associations were encouraged to include in their shortlists.
- In 2009, the Conservative Home website reported that the ‘A-list’ was being quietly dropped and that local party associations would once again choose freely from the list of approved candidates.
- It has also experimented with open primaries, in which all registered voters, not just party members, can vote to select the party candidate.
- In August 2009, the constituency of Totnes selected the-now-MP Dr Sarah Wollaston as the Conservative candidate after the party posted out postal ballots to all 68,000 registered voters.
- Despite making a pledge in the Coalition Agreement to fund open primaries for 200 all-postal primaries, the party soon fell quiet on the issue of further open primaries.
- POLICY
- They have recently made efforts to involve members by re-launching the Conservative Policy Forum in 2011 to allow members to discuss policy and make suggestions for the future direction of the party.
- In addition, party members have spoken up when policies are introduced that they do not agree with.
- In 2013, former PM David Cameron introduced same-sex marriage in the UK, despite a lack of support from party members.
- Several MPs and senior party members spoke out against the decision, accusing Cameron of ‘betraying’ the grassroots of the party by not allowing for “adequate debate or consultation.”
- In the past, The Labour Party conferences were genuine policymaking events but from 1997 the party adopted a 2-year policy-making cycle.
The National Policy Forum appointed policy commissions to make proposals which were then formalised in the National Executive Committee, before passing to the party conference for approval – this process helped the party to avoid the kinds of nasty surprises and public shows of disunity that had characterised earlier party conferences – bur such reforms could be said to have reduced the party conference to little more than a rubber stamp for policies agreed elsewhere.