Impact

Abstract

Conventional wisdom holds that elections for party leadership are inherently damaging to parties conducting them. Malcolm Punnett captured this view when he explained, ‘In each party there is a feeling that, other than when a natural vacancy occurs, leadership contests should be avoided because they can threaten party unity, provide comfort to the enemy and distract the party from its tasks in government and in opposition.’¹ Martin Redmayne, who had been chief whip during the 1963 Conservative contest, thought contests were so harmful that it was best to allow leaders themselves to decide when to stand down. ‘[A]ny idea that a party can find profit in forcing its leader to resign is nonsensical’, Redmayne said.² This opinion remains prevalent. Lord Blake counselled the Conservatives to stick with Margaret Thatcher in 1990, since an ‘attempt to overthrow her would do the party far more harm than any which she can do by remaining’.³ At the same time, R. K. Alderman and Martin J. Smith predicted that a ‘party seen to be repudiating its chosen leader would almost inevitably damage its public image — at least in the short run’.⁴

‘Perhaps one should be wary of the new orthodoxy that leadership elections must be dangerous for political parties.’ — Geoffrey Smith, political columnist