Oliver Middleton is a member of the Conservative Party and former Labour PPC.
Defeats are always tough, but to experience one on the scale of 4 July shakes any political party to its core. In these circumstances, there is a very understandable will to avoid a situation where one could make an overly emotional and reactive decision. The 1922 Committee’s decision to opt for an extended leadership contest therefore makes a lot of sense.
However, though there are clear benefits to such a timetable, we must be clear-eyed about the risks of being without a permanent leader for four months. Labour knows these only too well – and will be ready to take full advantage.
Cast your mind back to May 2010. David Cameron has just become the first Conservative prime m
inister in 13 long years, with Labour suffering its own significant defeat after an extended period in government. Sure, this wasn’t on the scale of 4 July, and Labour may have exceeded pre-election expectations, which were very low. But, as we know, going from running the country to opposition in the space of hours, as our system necessitates, is brutal.
For Labour in 2010, as is the case now, figures from all wings of the party were quick to point out the jeopardy of not taking the time to fully understand and digest the result. To do this, there needed to be an extended period of ‘debate’. This, they argued, was the only way to avoid a knee-jerk reaction, which could land the party with the ‘wrong’ leader.
As a result, Labour also opted to select its leader over a period of nearly five months. The leader Labour ended up electing? Ed Miliband, who oversaw an even more disastrous electoral defeat than in 2010 and put in place the conditions that enabled Jeremy Corbyn to become leader.
Though the circumstances differ, and there are counterexamples, such as David Cameron’s election in 2005, we should remember that longer leadership contests do not automatically lead to better leaders and outcomes.
Setting Labour to one side, we must also keep in mind that when you are made to think about a decision over a more extended period, whether in politics or life generally, you get to a stage where you struggle to recall as clearly the facts and experiences upon which you are basing the decision.
In these circumstances, rewritings of recent history also become easier and more common; instinct or gut decisions, which science tells us are valuable, meaningful and not to be ignored, become secondary. This brings real risks if we are not as able to see through them
However, there is an even bigger risk associated with longer leadership contests – and one we must avoid falling victim to at all costs.
Let’s briefly turn back to 2010, and Labour’s experience. Having been a member of the Labour Party, and a parliamentary candidate in 2015, I know how much Labour regret opting for a five-month leadership content.
Why? Because, rightly or wrongly, in their view, it allowed Cameron and George Osborne to set the narrative with little challenge. In this case, that revolved around reinforcing the connection between Britain’s poor finances and Labour’s economic competence, or lack of it. In 2015, I remember how damaging this was to Labour and how hard it was to challenge once this narrative had been set.
It was great politics for sure, and of course, based on a significant element of truth (and some help from Liam Byrne), but there’s no doubt Cameron and Osborne were effectively shooting at an empty net. There are already signs that Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are trying to replicate this.
In 2010, Labour consoled itself by pointing out that Harriet Harman was an able stand-in leader. However, as Rishi Sunak will discover over the coming months, despite his commendable humility and grace in the face of defeat, the public seldom listens to someone they know won’t be prime minister in the future; frankly, neither do large sections of the media.
Interim leaders themselves are also naturally cautious, aware that they only have a limited mandate, which, not for lack of trying, makes it harder to fulfil what is now our constitutional duty as His Majesty’s Official Opposition.
So, how do we mitigate these risks? Acknowledging them is half the battle, but most importantly, let’s not lose sight of the task at hand: holding this Government, intent on taking us back to the age of the omnipotent and omniscient state, to account.
This means Sunak and the vast majority of the Cabinet, who choose not to stand themselves, must be laser-focused on this task, not letting their focus become split between their shadow briefs and supporting their desired candidate. (This is also where Labour became unstuck.)
Sunak, unlike Harman, who always had one hand tied behind her back, must be given the space and trust to operate as a permanent Leader of the Opposition in all but name. After all, he was running the country less than a month ago.
Some may argue this is undemocratic, but it is the only way to ensure his interim leader status doesn’t dilute the Conservative response to Labour attacks. While, of course, Sunak, as interim leader, can’t set out specific policy positions, he should still feel able to articulate what a Conservative alternative could look like in terms of values and priorities for the country; the why, rather than the what.
As a relatively new member of the party, I trust that the members of the 1922 Committee have made the right decision and fully acknowledge the rationale. I simply speak from experience.
Remember how easy it is to cede ground and lose focus in this crucial period, meaning whoever becomes our new leader begins a tough job even more on the back foot. This is not something we can accept.
