The ‘Liz Truss lock’: Why Labour want to change how it chooses a new leader

In brief...

• Keir Starmer wants to return to Labour Party only relying on votes from its MPs to choose a new leader for the party.
• It has been dubbed by some as the "Liz Truss lock" after she became Tory leader, despite lacking support from MPs in her own party.
• The News Agents believe this would be a welcome change in the party, as the current system is "not very democratic" due to payments made by members, which entitles them to a vote.

What’s the story?

When a UK political party needs to change its leader, it can be a lengthy, and messy, process. Just ask the Conservatives. They burned through five leaders in less than 10 years – Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak.

And the situation within the Tories over this time is believed to be the main reason behind new Labour proposals to change how it would decide its next leader, should or when it needs to. It reportedly wants to end rules that permit its members to vote for a new leader, and instead put the decision in the hands of its MPs only.

This is, however, not a new idea and was in fact how both Labour and the Conservatives operated in the past. Only Labour MPs voted for a new leader until the 1980s, and it wasn’t until the 21st century that Tory members voted for its leaders.

There is no suggestion that the Labour Party is planning a new leader, but simply setting the groundwork for any future changes, should they occur.

Why might they make these changes?

There are three likely reasons Labour might reportedly want to make this change – and two are to do with Liz Truss.

1. When Liz Truss became leader of the Conservatives in 2022, this was because of members’ voting – she didn’t have the majority support of Tory MPs.
2. Time will be of the essence. The 2022 Tory leadership contest lasted almost two months, as the UK’s energy price crisis developed, meaning the party spent a huge amount of time on internal wrangling, rather than the state of the country they were governing.
3. The News Agents believe that while some are calling this rule change as a “Liz Truss lock”, it’s more likely to be a “Jeremy Corbyn lock”, attempting to ensure the left wing of the Labour Party never takes control again.

“The Starmer project has always been as much about the country as about the Labour Party,” says Lewis Goodall.

“It has always been about the right of the Labour Party, ensuring that the near-death experience, as far as they're concerned, of a left wing takeover of the Labor Party, which so nearly reached fruition, never, ever happens again.”

Jeremy Corbyn won 59.5% of members’ votes in 2016 to become the leader of the Labour Party, but later conceded an 80 seat defeat to the Conservatives under Boris Johnson.

The new motion is likely to be voted on by delegates at the Labour Party conference in September 2024, with insiders telling The Times newspaper they are confident this new process would be approved.

The News Agents, however, believe the stumbling block in getting this change voted through would be from trade unions, who would consider it a “dilution of their power”.

What’s The News Agents take?

Jon Sopel suggests that trying to pass this change could be a key test of Keir Starmer’s power – but it could backfire.

“The thing about Keir Starmer is he's king right now, he’s got a majority of 170 seats,” says Jon,

“If he comes forward with a proposal that he then fails to get through a Labour Party conference, he looks very much less king-like.

“He’ll look like a man who's there in title, in office, but not in power if he can't get his own party to agree to a rule change.”

Lewis believes the risk is worth the gamble, if only for the sake of UK democracy.

“I think it would be a good idea, just the pure constitutionality of it,” he adds.

“It was always awkward within the British Constitution that you could have a situation where the Prime Minister – who, remember, is supposed to be the man or woman who could command the confidence of the House of Commons – could theoretically be installed by 100,000, 200,000, maybe half a million people.”

He also says it’s important to remember where the vote, and responsibility, ultimately lies when it is in the hands of party members, rather than MPs.

“These are people who've just paid a few quid, a fiver a month, or whatever it is, to basically have a vote,” he says.

“You can basically pay to have a vote in one form or another. That's not very democratic.”

Listen in full on The News Agents.