tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/angela-eagle-29175/articlesAngela Eagle – The Conversation2016-07-19T16:35:50Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/627282016-07-19T16:35:50Z2016-07-19T16:35:50ZHere’s what we know about Labour’s £3 supporters – and whether they’ll pay £25 to help Corbyn again<p>Forces on both sides of the Jeremy Corbyn debate are apparently trying to make the most of the 48-hour window within which anyone can register as a supporter of the Labour Party and have a vote in the impending leadership election. Both pro and <a href="http://labourlist.org/2016/07/saving-labour-tells-supporters-it-is-last-chance-to-sign-up-and-topple-corbyn/">anti-Corbyn campaigners</a> are hitting the phones and the streets to convince people to pay £25, either to get the current leader out, or keep him in. </p>
<p>The committed Corbynistas of Momentum are apparently doing their best to <a href="http://labourlist.org/2016/07/dont-be-silenced-momentums-anger-over-reforms-to-labour-leadership-election/">re-establish contact</a> with people who joined as registered supporters during the last leadership contest at the bargain price of just £3. The aim is to get as many Corbyn backers as possible to pay the increased fee of £25. That way, Momentum hopes, they will deliver another victory for Labour’s sitting leader. </p>
<p>The battle for these £3 supporters is so intense because so little is known about who they are and why they signed up last time. Were they hardline Corbynistas, hard-up party loyalists, or simply troublemakers willing to fork out a few quid to troll Labour? And, just as importantly, what might they do this time?</p>
<p>We surveyed nearly 900 of them a couple of months ago in May 2016, so we thought it would be interesting to take a look at what sort of people they are. Why did they take that cheaper, lower-commitment option rather than going the whole hog and becoming full members of the Labour Party? The answer to this question may, perhaps, tell us something about the £25 supporters who might be clamouring to sign up for a vote now – and whether their interest is good or bad news for Corbyn.</p>
<h2>The three quidders</h2>
<p>The first thing to say about the £3 supporters is that they weren’t very different from those who joined Labour as full members after the 2015 general election. Although they were slightly more likely to be male rather than female than those who went the whole hog, some 74% fell into the ABC1 category (roughly middle or upper class) and 56% of them were graduates. That’s very similar proportions to full members.</p>
<p>Since they were, on average, 51-years-old, they were also around the same age as the full members. In other words, although high social grade does not necessarily always equate with high social income, the majority of those people are not going to find it too difficult to pay the £25 required to express their support and vote for the leader again.</p>
<p>Interestingly, those who joined as supporters (and remained as such without upgrading, as it were) were slightly less likely to belong to a trade union (17%) than those who joined as members (23%). They were also less likely, ironically enough, to consider themselves members of Momentum (3%) than those who joined as full members (9%). That suggests that Momentum’s ability to get them to pay up again to save Corbyn may be rather more limited than some imagine.</p>
<p>Another difference between those who registered as supporters after the general election and those who joined as full members is that the former were less likely to have voted Labour in 2015 (64% vs 72%) and more likely to have voted Green (19% vs 13%). One reason why they chose a lower level of commitment may well have been because, quite simply, they felt less partisan loyalty toward Labour in the first place. Or maybe they just felt less politically engaged than those who chose to join as full members. Whether Corbyn has upped that level of engagement enough to see them take up the same offer but at a much higher price will be interesting to see.</p>
<p>It is also true – although here we are talking about very fine differences of degree – that those who registered as £3 supporters were ever so slightly less left wing, socially liberal and pro-immigration than those who joined the party as full members.</p>
<p>But, like those full members, this means they were still very left-wing, very socially liberal and very pro-immigration compared with most voters – even most Labour voters. So all in all, if they can be persuaded to re-register to vote in this election – or if the people who register for the first time today and tomorrow are anything like them – that’s likely to favour those hoping to keep Corbyn rather than ditch him.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62728/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Bale receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Monica Poletti receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Webb receives funding from The Economic & Social Research Council.</span></em></p>They signed up in their droves to vote in the last leadership election, but will they back Corbyn again?Tim Bale, Professor of Politics, Queen Mary University of LondonMonica Poletti, ESRC Postdoctoral Research Assistant, Queen Mary University of LondonPaul Webb, Professor of Politics, University of SussexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/624542016-07-13T16:14:38Z2016-07-13T16:14:38ZSaving Labour: a four-point checklist for eager leaders<p>Having argued about it constantly since the EU referendum, the Labour Party now, finally, has a leadership contest underway. For the moment, there are three potential candidates. Current leader Jeremy Corbyn is being challenged by two former members of his shadow cabinet – Angela Eagle and Owen Smith. If any of them are to survive the turmoil they will need four things:</p>
<h2>Courage</h2>
<p>The Labour modernisers of the 1980s and 1990s believed what they were doing. Whatever may be said against Corbyn, he usually does, too. Anyone hoping to be leader has to sound authentic.</p>
<p>The first problem is that nobody is even listening to the party right now. The unfortunate moment when journalists marched out of Eagle’s leadership <a href="http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/the-unbearably-awkward-moment-angela-eagle-realises-all-the-journalists-have-already-left-her-leadership-bid-launch--Z1l6g04t5BZ">campaign launch</a> for a more interesting engagement was just the tip of the iceberg. The party has got to do something.</p>
<p>We can quibble on the details but some of the reforms brought in by the 2010-2015 Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government were nods in the right direction. Devolution, elements of open public services, and parts of welfare reform, are all examples. The past year has certainly seen the Conservative government veer off course, but if all Labour can offer is blanket opposition and a belief that it can beat the new prime minister, Theresa May, <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/07/angela-eagle-will-need-do-better-if-she-beat-jeremy-corbyn">“because she’s a Tory”</a>, then, frankly, it deserves to lose.</p>
<p>This is not appeasement of Toryism. It is strategic communications management. When the opposition agrees with the government on something, it should have the courage to say so. That only helps amplify those areas of genuine disagreement. The low-hum of “nasty Tories” emitted by Labour during Cameron’s tenure has just lost all meaning.</p>
<p>The last five British general elections have been won by the prime ministerial candidate who appears decent enough and willing to build on, rather than just tear down, previous achievements in office. No doubt, some of what Cameron learned from New Labour was for presentation, but not all of it. In any event, whatever can be held against him, any criticisms of Cameron come after six years in Downing Street – not ten months of oppositional bedlam.</p>
<p>Parties which exist in a bubble, only talking to themselves, almost inevitably pay the political price. Labour is currently very much trapped in its bubble. Its leader needs to emerge from it. </p>
<h2>Fresh ideas</h2>
<p>On foreign policy, it would be great if the Labour leader could actually have a sensible one that accords to the party’s values. Even after Brexit, there are probably new diplomatic “friends” higher up the queue than Cuba and Hamas. Corbyn may have been misquoted on <a href="http://www.politico.eu/article/labour-party-leader-jeremy-corbyn-regrets-calling-hamas-friends-hezbollah-anti-semitism/">some of this stuff</a>, but the things he gets in trouble for shouldn’t issues at all. The bar isn’t high right now.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130441/original/image-20160713-12392-udhkls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130441/original/image-20160713-12392-udhkls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130441/original/image-20160713-12392-udhkls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130441/original/image-20160713-12392-udhkls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130441/original/image-20160713-12392-udhkls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130441/original/image-20160713-12392-udhkls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130441/original/image-20160713-12392-udhkls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Eagle’s Labour leadership bid.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dominic Lipinski/PA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On domestic affairs Labour needs a sacrificial lamb to show it is ready to make some tough decisions. This could be the 50p top rate of income tax, it could be corporation tax, or it could be something else. New Labour got this. At the moment the only debate within Labour seems to be between a John Smith-esque desire to tax and spend, and a Corbynista programme of tax and spend plus increased nationalisation.</p>
<h2>Better advice</h2>
<p>Back in 2015, Labour had an image for being well meaning but bumbling. Now it simply has an image for being toxic. In its own way this transformation is rather impressive. But it means the next leader’s job is more difficult. Commissioning Labour grandee X to conduct a review into areas of policy – <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/background/pastelec/ge92lab.shtml">as Neil Kinnock attempted</a> in the late 1980s – won’t cut it.</p>
<p>If the next leader is to save Labour’s electability, the party needs an initial push. It needs to seek new ideas post-haste. This was actually something Ed Miliband did rather well, but the next leader needs to cast their net wider when looking for contributors – into the City and into business, small and large.</p>
<h2>Charisma</h2>
<p>On a basic level, the next leader should be able to read out his or her questions at PMQs without stumbling over their pre-prepared words each week. They should recognise that the “mainstream media” is mainstream because, well, people watch it and read it, and act accordingly. And they should be pleasant to everyone – friend or foe. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-gives-david-cameron-the-cold-shoulder-and-completely-ignores-his-joke_uk_573c51d0e4b058ab71e60019">Refusing to chit-chat</a> to the prime minister at the state opening of parliament frankly made Corbyn look plain odd.</p>
<p>And they should speak like a normal human. Farage’s pint-in-hand shtick is obviously somewhat contrived, but better than Miliband’s imagined world of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/23/labour-party-conference-gareth-ed-miliband">chats with strangers in the park</a>.</p>
<p>I’m sure there is a lot to disagree with here but the alternative is chaos and then collapse. Whoever plans to stand in this leadership election, the very best of luck to them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62454/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Carr is a member of the Labour Party, a Senior Visiting Fellow at the think tank Localis, and a Lecturer at Anglia Ruskin University. He writes in a purely personal capacity.</span></em></p>Whoever the next Labour leader is, they’ll need to crack on with doing something if the party is to shed its increasingly toxic label.Richard Carr, Lecturer in History and Politics, Anglia Ruskin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/622422016-07-11T15:44:53Z2016-07-11T15:44:53ZAre women party leaders set up to fail? What business tells us about the ‘glass cliff’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130050/original/image-20160711-9264-1fe62xg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A win for feminism?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Andy Rain</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s an interesting time for feminists following politics. The post-Brexit political landscape in the UK looks a bit different to the norm. With Theresa May set <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/jul/11/andrea-leadsom-apologises-to-theresa-may-politics-live">to become the next prime minister</a>, and MP Angela Eagle <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36761370">challenging Jeremy Corbyn</a> to be leader of the Labour Party, you might be forgiven for thinking that this generation of female politicians has finally cracked Westminster’s gender imbalance. </p>
<p>But research from the business world tells a different story, and rather than this being a sign that the feminist battle has been won, the idea of the “glass cliff” could explain how these female party leaders are being set up to fail. </p>
<p>The UK was an early adopter as far as female political leaders are concerned, with Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, but she proved a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2012/jan/05/margaret-thatcher-feminist-icon">divisive figure for feminism</a>. Many argued that she did little to support the career progression of those women beneath her, and had no obvious legacy of high level female political success for decades afterwards. </p>
<p>But now, look around, and all of a sudden there are women competing and winning in the political arena at all levels. Across the UK, there has been compelling leadership from key players in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and now in Westminster too, you can barely move without bumping in to a female leadership challenger of one persuasion or other. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130007/original/image-20160711-9277-1m4ok54.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130007/original/image-20160711-9277-1m4ok54.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130007/original/image-20160711-9277-1m4ok54.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130007/original/image-20160711-9277-1m4ok54.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130007/original/image-20160711-9277-1m4ok54.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130007/original/image-20160711-9277-1m4ok54.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130007/original/image-20160711-9277-1m4ok54.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Margaret Thatcher, a divisive leader.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premiership_of_Margaret_Thatcher#/media/File:Margaret_Thatcher_(1983).jpg">Rob Bogaerts / Anefo</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We are hearing different responses to this – many cheering the rise of such positive female role models, seeing this as a sign that the glass ceiling has finally been smashed. Others, such as Sophie Walker, the leader of the Women’s Equality Party, are frustrated at the focus on the gender of the candidates <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/sturgeon-may-leadsom-women-to-the-rescue-amid-political-turmoil">rather than their policies</a>.</p>
<p>But there is another explanation to throw into the mix. </p>
<h2>The glass cliff</h2>
<p>In 2003 The Times <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/article2102633.ece">published</a> the results of a survey which appeared to show that having women on executive boards was detrimental to the success of the companies they served. It seemed that following the appointment of a women CEO, the share price and performance of the company declined.</p>
<p>Research published two years later told a different story. Michelle Ryan and Alexander Haslam decided to probe the data and looked at the direction of travel of share prices before the appointment of new CEOs. They <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00433.x/full">found</a> that female CEOs were more likely to be appointed to organisations whose share prices were already falling.</p>
<p>So failing companies were not the result of female CEOs; female CEOs were the result of failing companies. And this of course meant that the female leaders had an uphill struggle in trying to make their organisations successful, and ultimately were more likely to fail. The called the phenomenon the “glass cliff”.</p>
<p>It’s a complicated story with a number of different strands, but the key explanation put forward by the authors lies in the notion that in times of crisis we are more likely to take risks. If all the usual plans and ideas have failed, the organisation is likely to look around, desperate to try anything which might work. Even a woman.</p>
<p>This glass cliff effect has been seen in a range of other arenas in the private and public sectors, including politics. Examining data from the 2005 UK election, one <a href="https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10871/8363">study</a> of Conservative MPs showed that, while female MPs tended to have won fewer votes than male MPs, this was entirely explained by the fact that they were standing in seats which were less safe. </p>
<p>Female Conservative candidates were put forward in unwinnable Labour strongholds, needing to secure on average an “almost impossible swing” of over 26% of the vote. Again, it’s not that women candidates lead to unwinnable seats but that unwinnable seats lead to women candidates. And before you ask – yes, this finding was replicated in an experiment which controlled for factors such as experience and qualifications: the women were selected for risky seats because they were women.</p>
<p>I’m sure you can see where I’m going. The political arena in the UK right now is the messiest it’s been for a long time. Westminster is in shock that the Vote Leave campaign won, and no-one has really thought through where exactly the UK is heading and how on earth it is going to get there. </p>
<p>The two main parties have been split, leaderless and confused. It is the most challenging of times and, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00433.x/full">as we see from Ryan and Haslem’s study of the business world</a>, women are selected for leadership positions ahead of equally qualified men “when (and only when) there is a high risk of organisational and leader failure”.</p>
<p>So back to the female Westminster leadership hopefuls. Are these unprecedented opportunities a sign of a feminist breakthrough? Maybe. Or might the situation lead to further “evidence” that women aren’t up to the top jobs as Theresa May and Angela Eagle edge out over a glass cliff, appointed in impossible circumstances and almost destined to fail?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62242/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julia Yates does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Are women only selected for leadership when (and only when) there is a high risk of failure?Julia Yates, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University of East LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.