I’m not sure I agree that the Labour party would be in a better position to choose a leader because of the electoral system. There’s a theory that after an election loss, the strongest element of a party left is the ‘core’ element, since an election defeat may shave off the more moderate elements. In these circumstances, I think an overtly ‘new Labour’ candidate could struggle against someone like Harriet Harman or Alan Johnson.

The 2001 Conservative leadership contest is fascinating though, and part of the problem is that the winning candidate was the favourite amongst Conservative members but least favourite amongst the wider electorate.

It does seem strange but Portillo has only really improved his public image since 2001. In fact in the late 1990s he was widely despised as the symbol of Tory arrogance and priviledge. I think as well, he was the first ‘modernising’ Conservative candidate which was difficult for the party to swallow. Remember Lord Tebbit saying that Portillo’s homosexual experiences at University meant he shouldn’t lead the party. Fairly incredible that someone said that in hindsight but it illustrates how inflexible and backward looking some traditional elements in the party were, even as late as 2001.

Ultimately, Portillo came third in the ballot amongst MPs and was never in the membership election run-off. In fact, he only came third by a single vote in the final round of voting amongst MPs. Supposedly one Conservative MP promised to vote for him if he compromised his reforming agenda, he refused and lost by a single vote.

The fact that Portillo was infinitely more electable than Duncan-Smith doesn’t seem to have come into it. Strange that a leadership ballot should actually be about politics rather than personalities!

I entirely agree with you; at the beginning of my article I acknowledge the fact that Brown may stay on; though I didn’t really have the space to fully explore it.

I’m interested in whether you believe that he would stay on were Labour to suffer a 10-15% swing against them? My contention would be that Brown would be both unwilling and unwelcome to remain as leader in such a circumstance. I think there is every chance he would stay on should we end up with a hung Parliament.

It’s a good point you make about the danger of parties choosing leaders in a state of panic; though it is arguable that the tripartite electoral system of the Labour Party removes this danger to a degree. Whereas the PLP may choose candidates based on deal-making and career self-interest (to take a cynical view); Labour Party members will choose candidates based on their wider appeal, an appeal that will be (perhaps) able to attract non-Labour members. A little convoluted argument maybe, because it also allows the Unions to have a control that might not reflect the best electoral interests of the whole Party. Their control having increased significantly recently given Labour’s own financial troubles as they (the Unions) remain the Party’s main financier.

I have actually been reading about the Conservative’s leadership elections recently; of particular interest to me is Portillo’s leadership bid in 2001. I am no expert on the intricacies of the contest and do not recall it especially, but it seems strange that in a three-way race between Portillo, Duncan-Smith and Ken Clarke; Portillo should come in last. For me; he would seem to have clear credentials that his rivals lack; more articulate and likeable and with more experience than the eventual winner and far-less divisive within the Party than Ken Clarke.

Of course, you’ve forgotten one other alternative. Which is that Brown stays on. I’ve seen a couple of pieces lately (one in last weeks Sunday Times and another since then) arguing that Brown would be keen to hold onto the Labour leadership even after a general election defeat.

Although it seems counter-intuitive, there’s actually a good logic here. Having to choose a leader quickly after a defeat can be difficult for a party, whereas a little transition time can allow the party to make a more reasoned choice. Being faced with leadership elections immediately defeats in 1997 and 2001, the Conservative party made fairly poor choices. However, given a little time in 2005 the party chose wisely. But the Conservatives would almost certainly have elected David Davis as their leader if there had been a snap contest in 2005.

There’s also a precedent for this in the Labour party. Remember, that Jim Callaghan stayed on as Labour leader until 1980, and Labour party did not ditch its leaders after the two previous election defeats in 1970 and 1951.

Of course, all of this doesn’t distract from the central point of your article, since the Labour party would still be choosing a new leader eventually.

Additionally, an interesting point raised by William Rees-Mogg recently is that if Labour are looking at a long period of opposition, the next Labour Prime Minister may well not even be a Member of Parliament yet.