Even today, Labour has a deep institutional culture and a set of rules that anchor the legitimacy of the leader in the broader party membership as much as in parliament. In the past, Labour\u2019s systems for selecting its leader were as complex as the structure of the party itself. Rules were repeatedly redrawn in factional conflicts<\/a> between activists, trade unions and the party in parliament. <\/p>\n The modern process<\/a> is simpler but still presents challenges to anyone tempted to climb the greasy pole. The Conservative process<\/a> can be neatly separated into two phases: removing the current leader and then electing a new one. For Labour it is different, and depends crucially on what a sitting leader decides to do \u2013 resign or stand up to the challenge.<\/p>\n Both processes require a portion of the parliamentary party to demand new leadership \u2013 though the bar is higher for Labour at 20% of MPs versus 15% for the Tories. Labour raised this from 10% to 20%<\/a> in 2021 \u2013 specifically to deter challenges.<\/p>\n But from there everything diverges. In the first place, the Labour process requires much more open coordination. The chair of the Conservatives\u2019 1922 Committee keeps a secret running tally of letters privately sent to express no confidence in the leader. Because of the secrecy, this might even trigger a surprise contest. <\/p>\n On the other hand, Labour challengers need to submit a full list of supporting MPs to the party\u2019s general secretary. Currently this is 81 MPs. <\/p>\n The general secretary and the 1922 chair are also very different institutional figures. While the latter is an MP, seen informally as a sort of \u201cshop steward\u201d representing MPs\u2019 interests in a variety of matters<\/a>, the general secretary is a party official responsible to the NEC and usually aligned to the leadership.<\/p>\n Another difference is that the Labour process lacks a confidence vote stage. This means a leader cannot be deposed directly in favour of a fresh slate of candidates. Rather, as confirmed by a 2016 court case<\/a> involving the abortive post-Brexit \u201ccoup\u201d against Jeremy Corbyn, the leader is free to run in the contest without requiring their own list of supporters.<\/p>\n As such, if a leader opts not to resign, the fight will be longer and harder than the one Conservative MPs face in the same position. While some recent Conservative contests were more protracted, Liz Truss was replaced in just four days<\/a>. Labour rules simply do not allow for this speed.<\/p>\n Moreover, while Corbyn survived as leader in the 2016 Labour contest precisely by winning over members in spite of MPs\u2019 opposition, this left lasting scars on the party. It damaged Labour\u2019s credibility, even in the face of an increasingly chaotic Conservative government.<\/p>\n Of course, whatever the party rules, the constitution also gets its say. Any leader who is also prime minister must have the support of a majority in the House of Commons and, in practical terms, of their cabinet colleagues. <\/p>\n Boris Johnson survived the party process but was brought down by the constitutional one, with a little help from Rishi Sunak. The then-chancellor set off a chain of resignations that ultimately made the PM\u2019s position untenable. That may also be what happens to Starmer if the Labour internal process similarly fails to bring him down.<\/p>\n Even if Starmer resigns or opts not to run in a contest, the difficulties do not end there. While the Conservatives whittle down the candidates to only two through sequential MP-only votes, Labour allows any MP with the support of 20% of the parliamentary party to face the membership vote. <\/p>\n The higher threshold, not to mention greater desire for unity in the party right now, will probably lead to fewer candidates than the contests in 2015 or 2020. But it still points to a process that can play out as a protracted multi-faction fight rather than a clean and (relatively) brief succession.<\/p>\nToppling a prime minister<\/h2>\n
![\"The](\"https:\/\/counter.theconversation.com\/content\/282683\/count.gif\")
<\/p>\n