MASARYK UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

The Process and Selection of the New Conservative Party Leader in the UK Bachelor thesis

Nathalie Marková (439740)

Thesis supervisor: Mgr. Peter Spáč, Ph.D.

Political Science – International Relations

Matriculations year 2014

Brno 2017

Declaration of Authorship

I hereby certify that this bachelor thesis has been composed by me and is based on my own work, unless stated otherwise. No other person’s work has been used without proper acknowledgement. All references and all sources of information, including graphs and data sets, have been specifically acknowledged.

In Brno, 15th of May 2017 ......

Nathalie Marková

2

I would like to give my thanks:

To my supervisor, Mgr. Peter Spáč, Ph.D. for his help, constructive advices and priceless guidance, as well as, for friendly environment and communication

To my friends and family for their kindness, support and help

3 Keywords:

Conservative party, Great Britain, UK, Theresa May, 2016, Brexit, leadership selection, leadership race, leadership election, Reuven Y. Hazan, Gideon Rahat, candidate selection theory

Abstract:

The main aim of this thesis is to use the Reuven Y. Hazan and Gideon Rahat candidate selection theory and apply it on the 2016 UK Conservative Party leadership selection. The theory and all its four main dimensions shall be applied on the process which led to the election of Theresa May as the new Conservative Party leader.

Klíčová slova:

Konzervativní strana, Velká Británie, UK, Theresa May, 2016, Brexit, volba předsedy strany, selekce předsedy strany, předsednická soutěž, Reuven Y. Hazan, Gideon Rahat, teorie výběru kandidátů

Anotace:

Cílem této bakalářské práce je aplikovat teorii výběru kandidátů vytvořenou Reuvenem Y. Hazanem a Gideonem Rahatem na volbu nového předsedy Konzervativní strany ve Velké Británii, která proběhla v roce 2016. Daná teorie je složena ze čtyř dimenzí, které jsou postupně aplikovány na proces zvolení Theresy May do čela strany.

4 Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 6

Selection of Party Leaders ...... 8 Importance of Given Topic ...... 8 The Force Behind the Change ...... 11

Research Design ...... 13 Research Questions and Data ...... 13 Analytical Framework - The Hazan and Rahat Theory ...... 14

Political and Electoral System in the UK ...... 21

History of Leadership Selection in the UK Conservative Party ...... 24 The Magic Circle and the 1922 Committee ...... 24 Members of Parliament Having the Selection Power ...... 26 Partial Power to the Grass Roots ...... 27 Failed Attempts to Change the Rules ...... 29

Table of Leadership Selections from Churchill to May ...... 31

The Application of the Theory on the Case of Theresa May’s Election ...... 32 The Candidates ...... 33 The Elimination Process ...... 36

Conclusion ...... 43

References ...... 46

85 633 characters

5 Introduction

The Conservative party was never one of the strongest supporters of the European Union. In 2012 calls for referendum on the relationship with the EU appeared yet again and even though “date and question” was not set right away, the referendum was promised (BBC 2012d). The promise of the referendum was set to be fulfilled after the 2015 general elections. The general elections were won by the Conservatives and the referendum was indeed to be held (Swinford 2015). Nevertheless, Tories1 were not united on the matter, thus officially staying neutral as a party. However, the leadership with David Cameron in lead were campaigning for the “remain” camp. On the other hand, Boris Johnson, former mayor of London, was openly campaigning for the “leave” camp as many other prominent members of the party such as former leader of the Party Ian Duncan Smith. Initially, the date of the EU referendum was set to be held in June 2016. In the referendum British citizens chose to rather leave than to stay. David Cameron the PM2 and leader of the Tory Party decided to resign, even though he received support from both camps to stay in the position. However, Cameron chose to leave and therefore triggered the election of the new Tory leader and consequently the Prime Minister. The list of potential candidates composed of five names in which both camps were represented. After a series of eliminative ballots and one withdrawal, two names were to compete in front of the grass roots members. Nonetheless, the competition was cut short by withdrawal of Andrea Leadsom leaving Theresa May as the only candidate to potentially face the party members and therefore becoming the new leader and Prime Minister of the UK. As previously mentioned, the main aim of this thesis is to use the Hazan and Rahat theory of candidate selection and apply it on leadership selection of Theresa May into the office of the UK Conservative leader and consequently the UK Prime Minister. Therefore, the focus of this thesis is as following: The process of leadership selection in the UK Conservative party of 2016, using the Hazan and Rahat theory of candidate selection. As it is clear from the paper headline, the main focus is on the UK Conservative Party. However, firstly the general theory of intraparty selection will be discussed. That is because there is a need to establish general rules and ways of how parties proceed when selecting their leaders. Afterwards, the attention will be moved to the UK political and electoral system. This

1 Another name for member or supporter of the Conservative Party 2 Short for Prime Minister

6 is important to fully understand the position parties and Prime Ministers have in the system. Next chapter discusses a brief history of the selection processes in the Conservative Party. The following chapter is focused on current rules. In both previously mentioned chapters the players and their roles in the selection will be stressed. All this is necessary to wholly understand the development and forces which may have influenced the last selection. Afterwards the candidate theory created by Hazan and Rahat will come into focus. Each part of this theory is to be examined and explained and afterwards used on the last leadership selection within the UK Conservative Party.

7 Selection of Party Leaders

The selection of candidates does not belong among the most favourite topics for political scientists to study and the matter of leadership selection is only small part of that topic. In this thesis I would like to emphasise the importance of this issue. Thus, I believe that by this work I can contribute to the subject matter. First of all, it is necessary to highlight the importance of differentiating between the selection of candidates and those aspiring for the leadership post. A candidate who is aspiring to be the leader may become a leader of the entire country. Furthermore, sometimes a party chooses not only a leader but the prime minister at the same time as well. As an example I shall use the case of the UK Conservative Party which is also focus of this thesis. There were nine Prime Ministers after WWII representing this party and only four of them achieved this position by winning general elections first. The other five came after winning leadership contest within the Party (Kenig, Rahat and Hazan 2013, Denham and O'Hara 2008). Another difference is that the party leader has big authority and influence on the given party such as choosing ministers or on policy making. Additionally, the selectorate differs since there are plenty of different ways of how to select a leader and those ways are discussed below. Moreover, a party leader can be ousted at any time because the candidates who compete in elections are elected on fixed term. To wrap it up, the position of a party leader is more important, thus it deserves more attention and distinction (Kenig, Rahat and Hazan 2013). The importance will be further stressed below.

Importance of Given Topic Leadership selection within political parties is a complex and diverse procedure. Every party has its own methods and customs of how to do so. Furthermore, the leader of a political party is the most visible party member and therefore his or her selection should be well thought through. Such a person should be amiable to the public and have support within the party as well. The trend of personalization in politics is a well-known and key factor in today’s understanding of political life. Pognutke and Webb 2005 adopted the theory of presidentialization of politics. This theory argues that the importance of leader is on the rise. And even though this theory is questioned by Curtis and Blais 2001 it does not change the fact that because of the way political parties run their campaigns the post of the political leader is the most visible one. The new leader can renew attention to the party and clarify its policies and position of the party (Somer-Topcu 2017). And it is indeed much easier for voters to hold accountable one person rather than the whole party which may seem abstract to them.

8 Moreover, the media can focus on one person which helps those on spotlight to have a greater influence because people will remember them (McAllister 2015). Even after all that, leadership selection does not belong, as mentioned above, between the most popular fields of study in Political Science (Hazan and Rahat 2010). In fact, leadership selection is just a small part of candidate selection which is already a neglected theme. Leadership selection belongs among the most important and interesting topics and deserves further study. Who else than leader has more say and influence within a party? To fully understand the dynamics between a party and its leader requires to fully understand the formal relationship both entities have. Political parties have strong position within the democratic system. Even though some are questioning if that is still true, if parties are still capable of functioning as they should. “The age of party democracy has passed. Although the parties themselves remain, they have become so disconnected from the wider society, and pursue a form of competition that is so lacking in meaning, that they no longer seem capable of sustaining democracy in its present form” (Mair 2013, 1). Nevertheless, there are some who go so far as claiming that institutions are structured around parties (Cross and Blais 2012). “The political party is the one agency that can claim to have as its very raison d'etre the creation of an entire linkage chain, a chain of connections that runs from the voters through the candidates and the electoral process to the officials of government” (Lawson 1988, 16). Furthermore, one of the core tasks political parties have to endure, is recruiting candidates for higher governmental positions (von Beyme in Hloušek, Kopeček, and Šedo 2011, Sartori 2001). The way of how they do it, should be under public scrutiny, especially when we are talking about one of the highest positions there is. Nonetheless, that is not the case. Even though parties have power to influence the regime itself. Nowadays we can see a movement towards a bigger internal democratization of parties which are pressured by their grassroots members to do so (Bille 2001). Adaptation of such rules should reduce the tendencies for oligarchic and elitist way of running the parties (Kenig 2009). Some even suggest that the way of selection is crucial in terms of internal party democracy (Gallagher and Marsh 1988). Of course there are exceptions to every rule, however the majority of parties decided to change their processes of selecting a leader (Kenig 2009). We will demonstrate this claim on case of Westminster democracies (Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and UK) where Canadian parties gave some power to hands of its party members prior to 1965. However, most change occurred between 1965 and 2008. On the other hand, Australia and New Zealand did not move towards bigger grass roots involvement what so ever (Cross and Blais 2012).

9 3

Of great importance is the entity which selects a leader. Selectorate is a key feature in distinguishing the processes of selection within parties. The matter is even more important when we realize that different selectorates can and will choose different candidates (Pennings and Hazan 200, Kenig 2009, LeDuc 2001). Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the pre- selection process since the selection can be decided there. So called steering agent which vary from official selectorate can influence it before the official one can. Such a steering agent draws its identity from intra-party arenas and is as strong as his capability to control the selection with stress on control of the information (Aylott and Bolin 2017). When focusing on democratization within parties, it is important to note the matter of exclusiveness or inclusiveness (Rahat and Hazan 2001). Usually the parties abandon more exclusive approach and move towards more inclusive one, therefore the change goes from elite group towards the party members or broader support base of given party (Kenig, Rahat and

3 (Cross and Blais 2012, 35)

10 Hazan 2013). That means bigger internal democratization. However, the process of democratisation is not automatic because even today there are parties which do not democratize their leadership selection (Cross and Blais, 2012). Leaders are chosen by either Leader, Party Elite, Parliamentary Party Group, Party Members or Voters (Kenig, Rahat and Hazan 2013). Another possibility is selection by Party Agency such as convention, conference etc. This approach is most common in continental Europe (Kenig 2009). Cross and Blais 2012 mentioned one more option, Other Groups with formal vote such as trade unions in the UK Labour Party. Furthermore, combinations of above mentioned is possible. The UK Conservative Party uses party members as well as parliamentary party group (Heppell 2008). Such a combination of two selectorates is called “multi stage method”. Another method is “weighted selection” used by the UK Labour Party where final votes of more selectorates are weighted together (Kenig, Rahat and Hazan 2013). Leadership selection is perceived as internal party process therefore it is not usually state regulated (Cross and Blais 2012, Rahat 2007). The person who can become the head of a party usually has to fulfil requirements which are specified by the given party, and as such, vary among parties. Generally, there is a necessity to have some kind of support within the party, you have to be a member of parliament, or to be a member of a party for certain period of time (Kenig, Rahat and Hazan 2013).

The Force Behind the Change What forces the parties to abandon their previous approach of selection? Because as is stated in Harmel et al. 1995, political parties as all large organisations are reluctant to change, and only severe threat forces them to do so. Electoral defeat may be one of those forces (Frantzich 1989 in Meyer and Oddom 2016, Panebianco 1988 in Bille 2001, LeDuc 2001). Other may be the opposition status of a party. “Party officials suggest two reasons why parties may be more open to this sort of reform in opposition than in government: a reluctance to expand the selectorate when choosing a Prime Minister, as opposed to an opposition leader, and a shift in the balance of power away from the parliamentary to the extra parliamentary party with removal from government” (Cross and Blais 2012). Two reasons mentioned above are usually viewed as the most usual ones (Meyer and Oddom 2016). Nonetheless, there are other reasons than loosing and that is need for “innovation”. Today, a voter likes the appeal of more open and direct elections within parties. So the internal change is appealing to parties since it attracts more voters. Moreover, change in one party is forcing their competitors to do so as well and take “the advantage” away (Harmel

11 and Janda in Cross and Blaise 2012). The change in one party is used by activists in another one to “bolster their case” and cheer for change in their own as well (Cross and Blaise 2012). New parties may implement democratic way of selection in order to distinguish themselves from older parties (Gauja 2009). Regionalization of political party changes in the approach of selecting party leader is apparent as well. One of the problems with this statement are different political systems given that leaders in Westminster democracies have a bit different position than in the rest. For example, when talking about regionalization as one of the forces behind change. The link in the non-Westminster democracies is rather weak (Meyer and Oddom 2016). Overall more inclusive approach is introduced when there is demand for more transparency, participation and accessibility. However, no clear evidence for claim that inclusiveness causes bigger competitiveness was found (Kenig 2009). Finally, there are also other consequences than positive ones. “In seeking to open their internal processes of leadership selection to wider participation by the electorate, political parties create opportunities for internal factions to contest nominations” (LeDuc 2001, 326). This may lead to division within the party itself. Furthermore, with more inclusiveness party can eventually lose control over its own leadership selection (LeDuc 2001). Against more inclusive selection is the possibility that the party members may be more ideological and not foresee bad electoral appeal of chosen person in general elections (Cross and Blais 2012). Some argue that inclusiveness may even cause worse electoral results (Kernell 2009 in Cross and Blais 2012a).

12 Research Design

Research Questions and Data This thesis focuses on Theresa May’s leadership selection in the UK Conservative Party. The importance of the given topic was already discussed; hence I shall briefly sum up why this field of study deserves more attention. Very often, the person who holds the highest position in a party is the first candidate of that party in general election, therefore he or she has the potential to win the most important office in the country. Furthermore, this person is the most visible advocate of that party and the most visible person as well. Therefore, the main aim of this paper is not only to popularize this field of study and highlight its importance, but also to stress the importance of the leadership selection and its value in the political and electoral system, such as the one in the UK. As this thesis explains, political parties have a strong position within the UK system and consequently their leaders do too. This thesis uses a framework which was set up by Gideon Rahat and Reuven Hazan. However, this thesis does not use all the aspects of the given theory, so even though all of the four dimensions are used, not all of their traits are. For example, the aspect of social decentralization is very hard to peruse in a leadership selection, and despite the fact that it is mentioned in the thesis, it is not researched. The reason for that is that the Tory party has no rules which push forward for minorities nor women. Research questions are following: What was the inclusiveness of the selection process of Theresa May in terms of candidacy and selectorate? This question is important, since it addresses the issue of who chose Theresa May and consequently the new Prime Minister of the UK. Moreover, it addresses the issue of candidacy as well, because that will answer the question of who had a shot on becoming the new leader of the party and of the entire country. Did the party use any kind of decentralisation of the selection process? This question shall explain how much influence the regions could have had on the leadership selection. What was the mechanism leading to the selection of the leader? This question is addressing the ways which are used to elect a party leader; if there is a disproportional gap between the voting power of each selectorate, or if they are the same. Was the selection influenced by any informal factors? This question is aimed to cover the potential backside deals or other factors which might have influenced the election of T May; for example, the pressure of a foreign policy or tension within the Tory Party.

13 This thesis uses multiple books about the Conservative Party as well as a book written by Hazan and Rahat from which the framework for the analysis is taken and academic articles along with articles written by mass media. The latter articles are used especially in the description of the T May selection since academic works are yet scarce. Several official documents such as the constitution of the Tory Party are used, accompanied by official statements by the Tory MPs and other officials.

Analytical Framework - The Hazan and Rahat Theory This theory was chosen for the prominent position both authors have in the given field. They belong to the most cited4 authors among those analysing selection processes in political parties. Furthermore, this theory became one of the most important base stones of the candidate selection study and provided a framework for several papers such as Alexandre-Collier 2016, Shomer 2009, Sheafer and Tzionit 2006, Cordero and Coller 2014. The theory is used as an important feature of the Pilet, Van Haute, and Kelbel 2015 paper as well. Even though this thesis is focusing on leadership selection, the above-mentioned theory is possible to be used in this case as well. It is based on four dimensions which are as follows: candidacy, selectorate, decentralization and voting versus appointing systems. These four dimensions are somewhat important for leadership selection, even though some are more important than the others.

Candidacy This is the first dimension of the given theory and is all about who can be selected focusing on existence of requirements and restrictions. If there are any, how strict they are and consequently from how many people selectorate can choose. This dimension is one of the most important ones. There are parties with no requirements on who can be a candidate, therefore anyone can become one. If there are requirements, they are either provided by the state and state regulated, as it is in the case of the USA, or by a party. Sometimes a party chooses not to have any in hope of appealing to wider electorate. In case of party rules, there are parties which try to control those aiming high, and to have certain control over them by providing restrictions on candidacies. That is the case of the Belgian Socialist Party where a candidate needs to fulfil several requirements before he or she can stand. Such restrictions may be the minimal length

4 This theory was cited up to 1000 times together with other two articles dealing with this theory (“Gideon Rahat” 2017).

14 of membership or loyalty to the party. Such requirements are usually aiming for party unity and assurance of common party culture. “Overall, the more electorally oriented and catch-all parties might decide to pursue inclusive candidacy requirements, while the more ideological parties may adopt exclusive restrictions that ensure a candidate’s “socialization” into the party culture” (Hazan and Rahat 2010, 21). Some parties can restrict their candidates by more “general” limitations such as age, citizenship or monetary deposit. Others may be of more ideological nature such as previous activities in a party etc. If there are restrictions imposed by the state (e.g. citizenship), party does not have to address this issue any further. Impact of requirements on inclusiveness and exclusiveness is further illustrated in Chart 1.

Chart 15

The Selectorate This second dimension is focused on those selecting. Together with candidacy, this dimension belongs to the most crucial ones. Party changes in selectorate come from three levels of party politics. First is the intraparty arena where the party members compete for power. The second is the interparty arena where parties compete for power (elections). The third is the political level system – which is the environment where parties compete. In the one stage continuum is the selectorate divided yet again on the scale of inclusiveness and exclusiveness. The most inclusive selectorate are voters and the most exclusive one is leader. In between there are party members, party delegates and the party elite as illustrated in Chart 2.

5 (Hazan and Rahat 2010, 20)

15 Chart 26

Voters - this chart represents those who are eligible to vote in general election. This type is used in the USA through several types of primaries. Party members are those who are registered in a party registry, therefore excluding those who are simple supporters. Some parties indeed do use only party members as their selectorate but some are using party members and others even more exclusive selectorate. It means that for example in Canada the leadership have veto power over the grass roots members, hence using not one stage continuum but multi stage one. Party delegates are representatives which are selected by party members. The choosing itself can be done by agency, congress or convention. The smaller the selectorate is the more exclusive the continuum is. This method is used by most of the parties in continental Europe. Party elite are all those who are not elected. Such as specially appointed nomination committees or non-selected party agencies. The possibility of using multi stage method is available here as well. A degree of exclusivity is determined by who has bigger power in given scheme. For example, in the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party (between 1950s-1990s) the final decision was in the hands of committee composed of senior party leaders. Finally, we have the single leader option. Since the candidates are selected by single individual, this method is the most exclusive one. This is the case of Jean-Marie Le Pen in French National Front or New Zealand’s First founder Winston Peters. Often, more than just one selectorate provides the selection. In such circumstances, we speak about multistage selection processes. Therefore, as a candidate you have to face more than one selectorate. This theory presents three methods of multistage continuum: assorted method, multistage method and weighted method. In the assorted method different candidates face divergent selectorates which vary in their inclusiveness. In the multistage method candidates face extra selectorates and do so in more stages. Usually, the first selectorate is commissioned to filter the candidates who are presented to the other one. In the weighed method

6 (Hazan and Rahat 2010, 35)

16 the candidates are facing more selectorates at once. At the end those votes are weighted. Methods which uses more selectorates are illustrated in Chart 3.

Chart 37

Decentralization This dimension is about representation of interests, to be precise if interests of regions and minorities are represented in voting procedure which is illustrated in Chart 4. This particular part of the theory is more complicated when talking about the leadership selection. Of course it is much harder to talk about decentralization when a party is choosing just one leader. Thus, the link will be weak and to be perceived as less important than other features of the theory. Even though we do not expect strong linkage in this fragment, it is necessary to outline it. Decentralization can be social or corporate, meaning that this section is about representation of women, minorities or trade unions as well as representation of regions. For example, candidates who are chosen on national base are perceived as more loyal towards the national party leadership. On the other hand, those selected on regional level are expected to be loyal to the regional party members more than the national party leadership. Nevertheless, we cannot directly link decentralization with democratization.

7 (Hazan and Rahat 2010, 37)

17 Chart 48

Finally, we cannot deny that the candidate selection is heavily influenced by electoral system. This is because it forces parties to choose either list of candidates or candidates who are competing in single member districts. This fact is important since single member selection on its own is decentralized, therefore it is more likely to use more decentralized candidate selection.

Appointment and Voting System This dimension is focusing on technique of selection. Parties usually choose among appointment, voting or combination of both. This element of H+R theory is one with smaller importance. Appointment system is when candidates are chosen by single leader or smaller number of people. This system is usually represented by deliberation among smaller number of people through negotiating between those selecting. This type of system is not wildly used. In the voting system is the position of candidate on a list resolved by number of given votes. Obviously this is possible only when there is a list with more candidates. If we are talking about single candidacy, the basic requirement is to have at least two candidates for position and choose among them. Selection method is not voting system but appointment unless following is fulfilled: “1. The candidate’s votes must be the sole determinant of their candidacy. 2. The

8 (Hazan and Rahat 2010, 57)

18 voting results must be used to justify and legitimize the candidacy” (Hazan and Rahat 2010, 72). Single- and Multi-round system. Where in single-round voting in multi-member districts all candidates are elected at once in multi-round voting they are elected one by one. Another type of electing is majoritarian system. In this system each selector has equal number of votes, to number of realistic candidacies. Plurality method is method which determines either if candidate won or ranking of candidates in case of a list. Ranking is determined by number of votes in case of list, in case of single district is winner candidate with more votes. Some parties use majoritarian way of selecting which means that selected candidate needs to have more than half of votes. In case of no winner second round is declared. This can happen through two- round system in which the second round does not require majority but the first one does. Or alternative vote in which selector ranks candidates and if no candidate has majority in first round, second round takes in account choice number two, until and so on until one candidate achieves majority. Last option is eliminative vote where if no candidate wins majority the last one is ousted and vote is repeated. This method is repeated until majority is achieved. Semi- majoritarian system – inflated vote. In this system has selector more votes than there are realistic candidacies. Semi-proportional representation system is system where selector has less votes than positions for candidates. Proportional representation system can be done in two ways. The first way is competition among lists of candidates. The second is personalized system with single transferable vote. “In this system, selectors are asked to rank the candidates. The preferences of the voters are revealed from top to bottom. Candidates are selected if they achieve a certain quota” (Hazan and Rahat 2010, 78). The types of the systems are represented in Chart 5.

Chart 59

9 (Hazan and Rahat 2010, 75)

19 Ordinal system is a system, for example alternative vote, where selector can show his/her preferences by ranking candidates. The categorical system, for example plurality, run off, elimination vote, where selector is either supporting one candidate or does not. Mixed appointed-voting system is used when there are more selectorates such as in multistage system. That is when different selectorates use different methods or one selectorate appoints and other confirms. This type is possible even in single selectorate, one body appoints, other confirms.

20 Political and Electoral System in the UK

As it is clear from the above mentioned, there are plenty of different ways of how to select leader of political party. Since this paper is focusing on the UK Conservative Party we shall go through history of selection and its developments. Nevertheless, it is important to briefly outline the political and electoral system first to fully understand the position of political parties in it and to underline the importance of party leaders. To wholly recognize the position Conservative Party has in the UK, we have to briefly analyse the position it has in the whole political system. Because parties indeed have very strong position and are internally very disciplined thanks to not only tradition, but to the role of whips10 as well. When one party has majority within House of Commons it merely approves government propositions. So even though Britain is a constitutional monarchy with parliament having the leading role, government poses the key role (Hloušek, Kopeček, and Šedo 2011). Position of PM is very strong and Sartori 2001 qualifies Britain as part of Prime Minister systems. Key issue in such a system is bi-partisan system where wining party takes majority in the House and position of PM. This is possible due to majoritarian electoral system which favours strong party system before representative one (Sartori 2001). The electoral system in Britain is first past the post voting system which has its consequences. “Its effect can be expressed in the following formula: The simple-majority single-ballot system favours the two party system” (Duverger 1959, 217). Therefore, is Britain by most perceived as bi-partisan system, even though such a claim is still quite complicated. According to some, problem lies in third strong party; Liberal Party which is still a solid player (Clark 2012). Now and then the party appears with quite big voter support. This is backed by electoral results in which party received in general elections of 2010. Liberals later even became members of coalition with the Conservative Party (McGuinness et al. 2012). Nevertheless the system is perceived as bipartisan “Mild conditions for a system that operates according to the rules of bipartisan system, would thus be as follows: (1) two parties are in a position where they can compete for an absolute majority of seats; (2) one of the two parties actually succeeds and obtains sufficient parliamentary majority; (3) the party wishes to govern itself; (4) The alternation or alternation of power remains credible expectation” (Sartori 2005, 202). The

10 Appointed by each party, among other responsibilities, they try to get to vote as many Members of Parliament (MPs) or Members of House of Lords (Peers) as possible for certain proposal.

21 claim that Britain is bipartisan is further supported by results of general elections as is shown in Table 1.

Table 111 Election CONS - Vote share LAB - Vote share CONS - Seats share LAB - Seats share Year % % % % 1945 39,7 47,7 32,8 61,4 1950 43,3 46,1 47,5 50,4 1951 48 48,8 51,4 47,2 1955 49,6 46,4 54,6 44 1959 49,4 43,8 57,9 41 1964 43,3 44,1 48,1 50,3 1966 41,9 47,9 40,2 57,6 1970 46,4 43 52,4 45,6 Feb 1974 37,8 37,2 46,8 47,4 Oct 1974 35,7 39,3 43,5 50,2 1979 43,9 36,9 53,4 42,2 1983 42,4 27,6 61,1 32,2 1987 42,2 30,8 57,7 35,2 1992 41,9 34,4 51,6 41,6 1997 30,7 43,2 25 63,4 2001 31,6 40,7 25,2 62,5 2005 32,4 35,2 30,7 55 2010 36,1 29 47,1* 39,7 2015 36,9 30,4 50,9 35,7 * Coalition with Liberal Party

Overall are political parties dominant factor in the UK politics (McKenzie 1955). Even though there are discussions if the UK political parties are still as dominant as McKenzie said over 60 years ago or their importance is declining. “Instead of declining, it is therefore more useful to see British parties undergoing a constant process of adaptation to changing circumstances” (Clark 2012, 227). More or less stable relationship of the two main parties is based on twin pillars where the first one are party loyalties. Butler and Stokes argue that our political preferences are influenced by views of our parents (in Clark 2012). Therefore, if our parents vote for either the Conservative or the Labour Party we are most likely to follow them

11 Data taken from: McGuinness et al. 2012, BBC 2015

22 in their vote. The second pillar is based on the theory of cleavages within society created by Lipset and Rokkan (1967). This theory is based on cleavages which are dividing society into certain groups. Such groups are than more likely to support certain party (Hloušek, Kopeček, and Šedo 2011). In case of British parties we can see cleavages centre/periphery; land/industry. Both were later outweighed by cleavage worker/owner. In elections of 2010 was the Labour Party voted by: supervisory, workers, greater proportion of public sector workers. On the other hand, is the Conservative Party voted by: managerial, professional and white collar classes with half of small business owners and with bigger support from privet sector (Clark 2012).

23 History of Leadership Selection in the UK Conservative Party

The selection of Conservative leadership went through several changes over past century. From process of selection by elite without any democratic features to grass roots members having a decisive vote on the matter. In this part we will closely map the selection process and map changes within the procedure. Conservative party moved from selecting its leader by Party Elite to selection by the Members of Parliament to combined approach where members of the Tory Party have their say as well. Therefore, we can see clear rise of inclusiveness over the past century. Up to 1965 new leaders were selected by party elite where so called Magic Circle was used.

The Magic Circle and the 1922 Committee The UK Conservative Party is the oldest party in the UK mainstream party politics. Nevertheless, it is only in 1965 the Party changed its leadership selection process towards more inclusive one, being the last one to do so (Denham and O'Hara 2008). Up to that point, all the decisions were in hand of party elites, rather than broader membership. This way of selection was called the “The Magic Circle”. Under this system the process of selection was kept secret. Outgoing leader would consult with other high ranking members new face of the Party. At the end only one name was presented to the rest of the Party and to the public. This way the Party stayed united because no clear opposition was made public. There were no formal rules and the Circle who were choosing new leader were changing as well (Cross and Blaise 2012, McSweeney 1999, Heppell 2008). This fact is nicely summed up by following sentence “one of informal soundings of an unidentified nature among a limited but variable number of unspecified party nobles” (Punnet 1992, 32). Therefore, members of the Conservative Party nor its MPs12 were included in the decision. Furthermore, “Before 1965, the Conservative leader was always either the incumbent or a former, Prime Minister” (Denham and O'Hara 2008, 2). Thus, the number of people who were considered for leading position was quite limited. Moreover, if the party was in opposition and no former Prime Minister was available, the Party would have two leaders, one of whom would be the leader in the House of Commons and other who would be leader in the House of Lords. Both would be elected by their MP’s or members of the House of Lords. The solemn party leader would be chosen by Queen or King as she or he would appoint him as new Prime Minister and by that action the person would

12 Short for Members of Parliament

24 become the party leader as well. Therefore, becoming Prime Minister was essential for becoming Party Leader. Legitimacy of new leader is given by appointment from Queen or King (Denham and O'Hara 2008, McKenzie 1955). Of course such a decision would be made upon consultation and not by Queen or King alone (Denham 2009). Since there were no clear rules on how to select the leader, there were no clear rules on how to remove such a person. It usually needed persuasion or pressure from other party members (McSweeney 1999). Leader also does not have to face periodic re-election process which makes his position in the party very strong. Nevertheless, we have to note that leader achieves his office and stays in it as long as he has support from his followers (McKenzie 1955). Last of the leaders who was selected in accordance with rules of the Magic Circle was Macmillen in 1957. Someone who would like to be a leader had to prove his oratorical skills in the House of Commons. Current leader had to notice his skills and invite him into the party councils. Current leader had to guide him and that had to be recognised by others. After that such a person is called “the heir apparent”. If there is someone who threatens his position, such a person needs to be outshined since the position of “heir” is not fixed (McKenzie 1955). One of the most important bodies of Conservative party is the 1922 Committee which was created in 1922-3 after meeting of Conservative Members at the Carlton Club13. This committee is composed from so called back-benchers14. Before creation of this committee the MP’s were not anyhow organized (Goodhart 1973). The fact that MP’s would organize themselves did not please the leaders. “It is always so much easier to deal with either supporters or opponents individually than collectively” (McKenzie 1955, 58). Committee was also created to assist and integrate new MP’s (Goodhart 1973). This committee is solemnly for those who have no post in government or for Whips neither leader. The committee quickly became the voice of opinion of MP’s in The Commons. Furthermore, leader is dependent on committee’s support and chairman of the committee has access to the Leader to voice the opinion of back- benchers. That is supposed to happen when they do not agree with some policies presented by leadership. Although, there are no sanctions if the leader does not listen (McKenzie 1955, Goodhart 1973). After adaptation of more democratic rules would the Chairman of 1922

13 Club used as meeting and discussion place for Tory members and supporters. By some perceived as the most important of Conservative Clubs (Goodhart 1973). 14 Those MPs who does not hold any governmental position or spokesman of opposition. On the other hand, those in government or spokesman for opposition are called frontbenchers (Clark 2012).

25 Committee have the task of managing the selection, also the Committee would have the power to discuss any further changes to current rules.

Members of Parliament Having the Selection Power After Macmillan announced his resignation on post of the Leader he had addressed 1922 Committee with proposition of how his successor should be chosen. He stated that he would first name his preferred successor, and after this would come series of soundings, if that successor is acceptable to whole party. This proposed procedure was used only once and that was to elect Lord Home to the post. The first step was to collect the opinions of the Ministers and MP’s and peers15. The second step was that National Union16 collected the views of constituency chairs, agents and parliamentary candidates. At the end the results were presented to Macmillan who informed the Queen. Later Lord Home was invited to the palace and confirmed as the new Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party. Nevertheless, he had to renounce his peerage and therefore became Sir Alec Douglas-Home, formally was as new party leader endorsed few weeks later (Denham and O'Hara 2008). The Conservative Party changed its rules of selection only after the Labour Party did and after losing 1964 general elections (Pennings and Hazan 2001). Some members of the Party even said that if in government they would not change the procedure (Cross and Blais 2012). The move to open the selection was discussed even before the elections. Nonetheless, when the party lost it was obvious that change is needed. The party wanted to change and at the same time preserve all the advantages of the old system. So new concept was presented where the leader is selected by MP’s from House of Commons, those from House of Lords were excluded. System where was series of maximum three eliminative ballots. In first ballot was candidate successful if he or she received overall majority, plus 15% more votes than candidate in second place. If no candidate achieved required majority second ballot was held where anyone could run. Overall majority was needed to win. If that did not happen third ballot was held where top three candidates from second round ran and vote would be according to alternative vote (Denham and O'Hara 2008, Heppell 2008). Rules were again amended later on by the 1922 Committee after dissatisfaction with Heath as leader. Threshold for winning the first round was heighted by changing the 15% of all actual voters to all eligible voters. Plus, procedure for removal of party leader was established.

15 Members of House of Lords 16 Later on renamed on National Convention (for further explanation see footnote 17)

26 It was through annual challenge where in 3 or 6 months after general elections or in first 28 days of new parliamentary session could the leader be challenged. To be nominated a candidate still had to receive backing of 2 MP’s whose names till 1990 were anonymous. Another amended came in 1991 when re-election process was not automatic but 10% of MPs had to write letter within first 14 days of new parliamentary session or first 3 months of new parliament to the Chairman of 1922 Committee to challenge the current leader. Margaret Thatcher in 1993 even wanted to return to the Magic Circle and required that no sitting PM can be ousted from office (Alderman 1999, Denham and O'Hara 2008). Thanks to new rules there was possibility of grass-roots activists to influence the election. The selection rules had possibility of canvassing opinions of party members by National Union. Results were than given to MP’s through 1922 Committee. MP’s could even consult their decision with their constituency associations (Alderman 1999). “This was a rather modest attempt to address demands from party activists for a voice in the leadership choice” (Cross and Blais 2012, 27). However, the final decision is up to MP and they are not obliged to listen. In the case of leadership selection in 1997 the National Union put up a survey from which was obvious that grass-roots members prefer Clark over Hague nevertheless Hague won (Alderman 1999). If MP’s are afraid of its constituency member’s reactions, they sometimes try to at least explain their decision to their voters since it is them who elected the MP to office (Cross and Blais 2012). New leaders who rose thanks to this process of selection struggled to establish legitimacy. For example, winning election is sometimes not enough i.e. John Major after he succeeded Thatcher in leadership won elections but lost support of the right wing MP’s (Denham and O'Hara 2008). The election of John Major is interesting because he was not elected according to the rules. The rules were bended by the Chairman of 1922 Committee. That was because Major did not receive enough votes in first nor second ballot and therefore third one was supposed to be held with first three candidates to attend. However, those on second and third place conceded even though according to the rules they could not do so. After this experience the rules were changed so conceding was possible (Denham and O'Hara 2008). The last leader who was selected by these rules was William Hague.

Partial Power to the Grass Roots The Conservatives were last from the UK mainstream parties to democratize its leadership even further. However, broader selectorate was discussed long time ago. Since 1965 the party tried to include its grassroots members as well but giving them power of vote was not

27 on the table. As previously mentioned it was done through National Union (Cross and Blais 2012). However the new impulse was given again by electoral defeat in 1997. Because of this defeat, constituencies in Wels and Scotland had no representation in the House of Commons. Therefore, the grass roots activists did not believe that only English MPs possessed legitimacy to elect new leader after Hague resigned (Denham and O'Hara 2008). Newly adopted selection rules had two steps. If more than two candidates would stand in leadership selection, series of eliminative ballots would be held by the Conservative MPs. In the second step would last two candidates face mass membership which would than select new leader by postal ballot. New selection procedure would be longer than previous one. It would take up to three months to elect new leader. This quite long period of time was because of 2 months long campaign before candidates would face the Conservative membership (Heppell 2008). “The parliamentary party, fearful in this environment that it might lose complete control over the leadership choice, adopted a “one member one vote” rule in 1998 with the caveat that caucus would choose the two candidates who would appear on the final ballot” (Cross and Blais 2012, 46). Thus they believed that they shall prevent grass roots members to choose for them unacceptable candidate (Alderman 1999, Denham and O'Hara 2008). Mechanism of how de-selecting incumbent leader was changed to vote of no confidence and was not held annually but any time necessary. To trigger vote of no confidence you needed 15% of MPs whose initiative would be send to the Chairman of 1922 Committee and their names would stay confidential. The official vote of no confidence would be held only if the incumbent leader would fail to win a preliminary vote in which the incumbent leader needed to secure simple majority of those actually voting. If the leader had won the vote of confidence, he/she would have been protected from this vote for next 12 months. It is clear that even though the grass roots members had the final say in leadership selection, the process of de-selection was in hands of MPs (Alderman 1999, Denham and O'Hara 2008). The first election under the new rules was held in 2001 after the resignation of William Hague. First selection under the new rules showed weaknesses of the given system. First of all, there was no list of party member or no clear procedure on what to do if there is tie between last two candidates on first ballot. However, these problems could be easily fixed. What was more problematic was a requirement that only two candidates are allowed to face mass membership of the party. Since this selection in third ballot had no clear leader all of the candidates received close support by the MPs. Finally, the two remaining candidates who secured the nomination of MPs were Iain Duncan Smith and Kenneth Clarke after Michael Portillo was eliminated by margin of one vote. Portillo won all of the other ballots and was

28 presumed as favourite of this selection. However, after his elimination most of the MPs supported Clarke who went in front of grass roots members with biggest support from MPs. Nevertheless, mass membership of the party chose Iain Duncan Smith who then became new Conservative leader even though Clarke was far more experienced. This situation was not very easy especially for Duncan Smith who had to rely on MPs whose support he did not have (Alderman and Carter 2002, Denham and O'Hara 2008). After voices within the party that its badly run and from donors who did not want to contribute to the poorly run party was his position weak. Overall his leadership was presumed to be very frail and the only thing which was holding him in the highest position was lack of clear successor. No confidence vote was passed and Duncan Smith has lost his leadership position. Hague rules proved to be quite problematic since Duncan Smith had no strong position right from the beginning which combined with his bad leadership skills inflicted distrust from MPs and the party (Denham and O'Hara 2008).

Failed Attempts to Change the Rules The question of a new leader was sorted very quickly since Michael Howard stood unopposed. All previous candidates announced either support for Howard or decision not to run. Therefore, Howard was “coroneted” by the MPs and grass root members did not have opportunity to vote. So the core of new rules meaning more power to mass membership was in this case avoided. Voices demanding amendment to the rules appeared yet again (Denham and O'Hara 2008). Howard remained the party leader for 2 years and after general election decided to step down. He lost general elections but that was not the main reason why he decided to leave. The official reason was his age and the date of next election which were to be held in 5 years, plus he wanted to give his successor time to adjust. However, his decision was not to step down right away but leave space for possible modification of rules, which he announced in his resignation speech. The main problem was that with resignation he set off campaigns of persons who wanted to succeed him. Those were doing so without certainty that current rules will remain the same or how will party change them. The existing rules had four main problems. The first one was the division between those who elect and those who de-select. The second one were high costs and uncertainty. The third one was that membership had only two options which MPs gave them. The fourth was fear that grass roots members do not have enough knowledge about candidates. Less than MPs have and new leader relay on them, he/she has to have their trust (Denham and O'Hara 2008).

29 New rules were aimed at reducing the power of mass membership. First of all, candidate would need 10% of MPs to be nominated. If a candidate would be nominated by majority of MPs he/she would automatically become new leader. If not, National Convention17 would vote after questioning all of the candidates. Vote would than go back to the MPs, previous vote by the National Convention would be only advisory. The process of choosing would be determined by the 1922 Committee but the candidate who won their vote would have place in each of the ballots including the final one. Top amount of money on campaign was introduced as well. Nevertheless, this proposition was rejected by the 1922 Committee. Members rather wanted to have the power in their hands alone and only consult local associations. This would mean that they would just recycle rules prior to 1997. After the rejection of these rules the 1922 Committee proposal was revised. To be nominated you needed 5% support from the party or support of 10 MPs. At the end a list of candidates would be drafted and MPs would return to their constituencies and consult them, MEPs18 and local associations. Results would be presented to the Chairman of the 1922 Committee who would than introduce two candidates with biggest support. A series of eliminative ballots would be than held with all of the candidates and MPs would decide by their vote. Nonetheless, this proposition was refused by the Constitutional College19 (Johnston and Maer 2016). After these failed attempts was the 2005 election done by The Hague rules. From this vote David Cameron emerged as winner and became the new leader.

17 Represents voluntary wing of the Party. It is composed from all Association Chairs, officers from Areas and Regions as well as 42 representatives from Conservative Future and the Conservative Women's Organisation. Usually this body meets twice a year. The most senior representatives of National Convention also sit in the Conservative Party Board {Chairman, President and three Vice Presidents}. They ultimately represent the views of voluntary wing to the Party Leadership (“Party Structure And Organisation” 2017). 18 Short for Members of European Parliament 19 Is composed of members of National Conservative Convention, MPs, MEPs, peers {Officers of the Association of Conservative Peers and Frontbench Spokesmen in the House of Lords, as appointed by the Leader} (Constitution Of The Conservative Party 2009).

30 Table of Leadership Selections from Churchill to May

Elected leader*20 Year Selectorate Comments Sir Winston Churchill 1940 Magic Circle Sir Anthony Eden 1955 Magic Circle Harold Macmillan 1957 Magic Circle Sir Alec Douglas- 1963 Series of soundings One-time rule Home Edward Heath 1965 MPs New rules Margaret Thatcher 1975 MPs John Major 1990 MPs William Hague 1997 MPs Iain Duncan Smith 2001 Combined New rules Michael Howard 2003 Combined Unopposed Failed attempts to change the David Cameron 2005 Combined rules Resignation of second contestant Theresa May 2016 Combined before mass membership vote *1940-2015

Magic Circle: Selection by party elites, no clear rules, new leader "emerged" Series of soundings: Opinions of MPs, peers, ministers and lower branches of the party MPs: Up to three ballots, in first two majority required, third according to Alternative Vote Combined: Series of eliminative ballots by MPs, two remaining faces mass membership

20 Data taken from: Denham and O'Hara 2008, BBC 2016e

31 The Application of the Theory on the Case of Theresa May’s Election

When the citizens of the United Kingdom chose to leave the EU, they also started a different political process, which they did not anticipate beforehand. Because of the result of the EU referendum, which was held on 23 June 2016, David Cameron announced stepping down as the UK’s PM. From the very beginning David Cameron was openly campaigning for the “remain” camp. And although he had received a support from the “leave” Tory MPs to stay in the office, even before the referendum was held, he chose not to (Cooper 2016). In fact, after the decisive vote, he settled on resigning from his post to allow a new face to hold out the future negotiations with the EU. “I will do everything I can as Prime Minister to steady the ship over the coming weeks and months, but I do not think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination” (“Pm Statement: Eu Referendum Outcome:” 2016). By that decision David Cameron started a new Tory leadership contest (Johnston and Maer 2016). In his resignation speech he stated that new leader could be elected before the Conservative Party conference in October (“Pm Statement: Eu Referendum Outcome:” 2016). Nevertheless, in charge of the selection is the 1922 Committee21. “The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board22” (Johnston and Maer 2016, 20). Plus, is the Chairman of the 1922 Committee acting as Returning officer for all the stages of the selection (Constitution Of The Conservative Party 2009). Therefore, the 1922 Committee had power to decide to speed up the process which they did. The proposed timetable would fasten the process of electing a new leader to the beginning of September i.e. one month before the date previously suggested by David Cameron (Stone 2016). The Party Board later decided to propose postponing the declaration of a new leader by a week, to enable a full participation of all members. Therefore, the new leader was to be announced not on 2 September as planned by the 1922 Committee but a week later on 9

21 This Committee is composed from backbenchers of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons and meets weekly when is the parliament in session. It represents the political wing of the Party. In terms of leadership up to 2010 was the main task to report on moods and opinions of involved MPs. Since 2010 frontbenchers are allowed to attend meetings which was before allowed only after invitation. The Chairman of this Committee is in charge of leadership election and the vote of confidence (Goodhart 1973, “The 1922 Committee” 2017, BBC 2010). 22 Conservative Party Board - this is governing body which focuses on fundraising, membership, candidates and internal elections. It is divided between voluntary, political and professional wing (“Party Structure And Organisation” 2017).

32 September (BBC 2016g). This request made by the Party Board had to be agreed on by the 1922 Committee which, later on, was. The official campaign started very early on, the applications ought to come between 29 and 30 June. Consequently, the candidates had only six days from Cameron’s announcement, which happened on 24 June, till the application window closed. Five days later, on 5 July, the first eliminative ballot was held and the second one followed two days later. The only requirement for addressing dates of eliminative ballots in the Tory constitution is that the ballots are not held on the same day. The eliminative ballots are held until only two candidates remain and those two then face the membership. The plan was to distribute the voting ballots to the party membership in mid-August and end the vote in time, to be able to announce the result on 9 September. From the day of the final elimination, two remaining candidates were to campaign for a winning support from the party members (BBC 2016e).

The Candidates If there is only one candidate, he or she automatically becomes the new leader. “In the event of there being only one valid nomination at the close of nominations prior to the first ballot being held by the Parliamentary Party for the election of the new Leader, the election of the nominee may if so ordered by the Board be ratified by a ballot of the Party Members and Scottish Party Members to be held within one month of the close of nomination” (Johnston and Maer 2016, 20). However, that was not the case of this selection, since several names emerged to have the potential to lead the Party and the country. The candidate is nominated after he or she obtains support of two MPs whose names are made public; meaning, that the application form, which must be delivered to the Chairman of the 1922 Committee, is to be signed by two MPs, one proposing and the other backing that proposal. That is the only requirement apart of being willing to stand and abide to rules outlined by the 1922 Committee (Stewart and Elgot 2016). This can be compared with the USA, where the parties usually do not have any requirements for who can run under the party name. This case is formally even more inclusive than the case of the Tory party, since rather than party rules they use the rules established by the state laws. The rules created by the Tories expect that nomination by the party MPs is enough to ensure the seriousness of the candidacies (Cross and Blais 2012). Punnet 1992 observed that candidates are either standing MPs or those who recently lost their seat. Nevertheless, as the history of the leadership selection goes, those who lost their seat lost the leadership bid as well (Heppell 2008).

33 Eventually two public figures were perceived as most likely to win. The first one was the former mayor of London Boris Johnson and the second the home secretary Theresa May. Both had long been among the top Tory MPs and important members of the party. Nonetheless, Boris Johnson later stepped down as Michael Gove (by that time the justice secretary) decided to not support his nomination. That came as a surprise since they cooperated very closely throughout the “leave” campaign and were perceived to run together as Gove was supposed to be Johnsons closest ally. Nonetheless, Gove decided to withdraw support from Johnson and to run for office himself instead. As an explanation he said that he realized Johnson is unfit to lead (Stewart and Elgot 2016). That left Theresa May as a favourite of the race. Apart from Theresa May and Michael Gove, the Chairman of 1922 Committee received the nominations of Stephen Crabb, Liam Fox and Andrea Leadsom. Theresa May was the longest serving home secretary in the modern history of Britain. She campaigned for “remain”, however kept very low profile and was not the main protagonist. Overall she is an experienced politician with a long history of public service and she is well known for her strict stances (Hope 2016). Michael Gove was by that time a justice secretary and several times refused the highest ambition to lead the party as being unable to do so. He campaigned for “leave” and was presumed to support Johnson in his leadership bid, as explained above. Nevertheless, his decision to run himself instead was met with a wave of disapproval, especially by those supporting Johnson (Hughes 2016). Andrea Leadsom was by that time junior minister23 in the energy and climate change department and got famous only during campaigning for the “leave” campaign alongside Johnson who also backed her during her leadership bid. She worked in the private sector and moved to politics very recently, therefore she had less experience than her rivals (BBC 2016e). Stephen Crabb at a given time worked as the work and pensions secretary. Originally from Scotland, he emphasised the need to unite the country after the Scottish independence referendum and during the EU referendum he campaigned for “remain”, he holds seat in the Commons since 2005 (BBC 2016e). Liam Fox was the former defence secretary and during the referendum campaigned for “remain”. He contested in the 2005 leadership race and came close third (BBC 2016e). The EU referendum was the most important question of leadership contest and soon it was clear that only a candidate who would be able to unite both sides were to succeed. Even though, there were other important issues which needed to be addressed, such as question of Heathrow airport, the future Brexit talks dominated. Upon asking, all contestants refused the possibility of calling early elections (BBC 2016e). All the

23 Minister of low rank

34 candidates, their position, referendum stance and declared MP supporters are clearly outlined in Table 2.

Table 224

Number of Candidate Function Brexit stance declared supporters (MPs) Theresa May home secretary remain 132

junior minister in the Andrea Leadsom energy and climate leave 42 change department

Michael Gove justice secretary leave 27 Stephen Crabb pensions secretary remain 23 former defence Liam Fox remain 9 secretary

The Hazan and Rahat theory shall be taken into account in the following part. Since there are no formal restrictions on who can be a candidate for the leadership position the selection is officially perceived as an inclusive one. Nevertheless, it is presumed that the candidate should be a MP to have the opportunity to become the UK Conservative Party leader. To support this claim I shall use the example of Michael Portillo who lost his leadership bid when he lost his seat in the Commons (Denham and O'Hara 2008). Furthermore, we cannot forget that in the Tory party and the UK as a whole, traditions play an important role and after the 1965 and adaptation of more inclusive rules only MPs were among the candidates. Additionally, as a heritage from the days of Magic Circle, it is highly unlikely that just any person would gain support of even two MPs. Therefore, we can state that even though it is not directly mentioned in official rules, only the MPs can become the candidates for the highest party position. That is further supported by the choice of the candidates in the latest selection given that all of the candidates have their seat in the Commons. Consequently, the spectrum is moved to the exclusive side. The need to be a member of Parliament is connected with state restrictions as well, that is when we work with the assumption that to be able to become a

24 Data taken from: BBC 2016e, BBC 2016b

35 leadership candidate, one must become MP first. In case of Britain the state restrictions which needs to be fulfilled in order to run in elections are age, citizenship, and an obligation to submit a deposit; there are also specified professions which cannot run, the candidate cannot be subjected to bankruptcy or debt relief (England, Wales Northern Ireland), adjudged bankrupt in Northern Ireland or have their estate confiscated in Scotland (“How Can I Stand In An Election?” 2017).

The Elimination Process The first round of eliminative ballot was held on Tuesday 5 July, the second on Thursday 7 July and the third round was planned to be held the following Tuesday 12 July (Allen 2016, Johnston and Maer 2016). This part of the selection was done behind the closed doors and the result were made public by the Chairman of 1922 Committee Graham Brady afterwards. The vote was open from 11am to 5pm (BBC 2016b, Johnston and Maer 2016). Results of the first eliminative ballot are stated in Table 3

Table 325: The first round ended as follows:

Candidate Number of votes % share Theresa May 165 50,2 Andrea Leadsom 66 20,1 Michael Gove 48 14,6 Stephen Crabb 34 10,3 Liam Fox 16 4,9

In the first round, 329 out of 330 MPs voted. The result led to the elimination of Liam Fox leaving four remaining candidates. Liam Fox later supported Theresa May as he believed her to be the best future leader (BBC 2016f). Later that day, Stephan Crabb announced his decision to step down from the race and gave his support to Theresa May as well. He decided to step down because of rather small support from his fellow MPs (Sims 2016). By that move Crabb shortened the leadership race, since only three candidates remained and the last series of

25 Data taken from: BBC 2016c

36 the eliminating ballots remained to be held, before the last two names were introduced, to compete for the party membership endorsement. Those were May, Leadsom and Gove. As already mentioned above, the second round was to take place on Thursday 9 July and by the given circumstances, it was the last one to be held since only three candidates remained to compete for votes. Declarations for all slightly changed, Theresa May was now a favourite of 175 MPs who declared support including both previous candidates. Andrea Leadsom was supported by 49 fellow MPs and Michael Gove by 27 of his colleagues (BBC 2016c). Results of last eliminative ballot are stated in Table 4.

Table 426: The second round ended as follows:

Candidate Number of votes % share Theresa May 199 60,5 Andrea Leadsom 84 25,5 Michael Gove 46 14

In the second round, again 329 out of 330 MPs voted. Michael Gove came last and therefore was eliminated. The finalists of the selection were Theresa May and Andrea Leadsom, ahead of them more than a month of campaigning which was to end on 9 September. The budget allowed to be spend on the final campaign was set by 1922 Committee to be £135 000 (BBC 2016h). Andrea Leadsom nor any other candidate declared any donations. On the other hand, Theresa May declared receiving £275 000. “A source close to Mrs May said that any additional cash will go into Tory party coffers, as agreed under rules set out by its ruling 1922 committee of MPs” (Hope and Dominiczak 2016). The biggest advantage of Theresa May over her opponent was Leadsom’s lack of experience since May served in all the Shadow Cabinets since 1999 and became the first female Chairman of the Conservative party. She was also the longest serving home secretary in history with the reputation of a tough negotiator. Andrea Leadsom on the other hand has become the MP only in 2010. Before that she worked as a banker in the City. However, she highlighted her experience from “the real world” (Hope 2016, BBC 2016h).

26 Data taken from: BBC 2016e

37 The following survey was done by the server YouGov for The Times with the participation of 994 Conservative Party members. Their voting intentions are stated in Chart 6 and are as following:

Chart 627

SURVEY RESULTS 1ST - 4TH JULY

May Leadsom Undecided Would not vote

1% 5%

31% 63%

The campaign before the membership vote was met with some controversies and controversial statements. The first one was a claim of Andrea Leadsom that she held a senior investment manager position. She was then accused of exaggerating her CV and, even though, she refused such a claim she was put under severe criticism (Micklethwaite 2016). Nevertheless, the problems with Leadsom’s campaign continued. In an interview for The Times, Leadsom stated following: “Andrea Leadsom has said that being a mother makes her a better choice for prime minister than Theresa May because it means that she has “a very real stake” in the future of Britain” (Sylvester 2016). She later apologized to Theresa May who has no children. All the same, she was wildly criticized for her words (BBC 2016a).

27 (“Yougov / Times Survey Results” 2016)

38 Overall, Theresa May founded her campaign on three stances. First one was the emphasis on her experience in politics. Second one was underlining the need of a good deal with the EU. Third one was that Britain should be for all and not only privileged few. On the other hand, Andrea Leadsom based her campaign on the freshness she would bring to the Party since she lacked the experience in comparison with May. And even though both candidates where on the different sides during the EU referendum, Theresa May had proven herself as a uniting candidate for both sides. She did not question the outcome and claimed to be strong in future negotiations with the EU. Andrea Leadsom was heavily campaigning for the “leave” camp and was therefore seen as the choice for the “leave” member voters (BBC 2016h). The final elimination ballot was held on Thursday 7 July and on Monday 11 July Andrea Leadsom decided to step down from the race. A press conference was called on which she read a letter addressed to the Chairman of 1992 Committee. In that letter Leadsom announced stepping down from the leadership race. “For me personally, to have won the support of 84 of my colleagues last Thursday was a great expression of confidence for which I am incredibly grateful. Nevertheless, this is less than 25% of the parliamentary party and after careful consideration I do not believe this is sufficient support to lead a strong and stable government should I win the leadership election.” She then supported May as “ideally placed” to carry out Brexit and even though she would be honoured to serve as a leader. “I have, however, concluded that the interests of our country are best served by the immediate appointment of a strong and well-supported prime minister”. Furthermore, underlining that “A nine-week leadership campaign at such a critical moment for our country is highly undesirable”. Moreover, that there is a need of certainty for the EU workers in Britain and businesses (Leadsom 2016). Consequently, by stepping down she allowed Theresa May to take on the leadership position without the final membership vote. That eliminated the final, most inclusive part of the selection. According to the rules there was no need for May to face the membership election having no opponent. Before the announcement of Andrea Leadsom, Theresa May started her campaign by giving speech in Birmingham (“Theresa May's Campaign Launch Speech In Birmingham, 11/7/2016”). Some supporters of Andrea Leadsom were surprised by her decision to withdraw, accusing the press and the hostility of some Tory MPs as the main reasons why she left the race. However, Chris Grayling who chaired May’s campaigned was impressed and stated following: “what a principled and decent politician she is and how willing she is to put the interests of the country before her own. She is a true public servant” (Astana, Mason, and Elgot 2016). The Chairman of 1922 Committee gave a statement later that day, in which he confirmed the

39 resignation of Andrea Leadsom and refused the possible need of re-running the election. He said that everything was according to the rules and in the last step the Conservative Party Board and 1922 Committee had to formally agree with May becoming a new Tory leader. David Cameron then said that he will visit Buckingham palace with his resignation on Wednesday 13 July. Theresa May was appointed by the Queen on the same day. Meanwhile, May returned from Birmingham and gave a speech where she thanked David Cameron and all the contestants (Wilkinson, Watson, and Henderson 2016). Theresa May Became the Prime Minister on Wednesday 13 July almost two months earlier than the Tory leadership elections winner was to be announced. Later she appointed some of her rivals into her new cabinet. Liam Fox became responsible for the international trade and Andrea Leadsom was appointed as the environment secretary. Boris Johnson was given the task of managing foreign affairs (“Ministers” 2017). The end of this chapter shall be used to apply the last three dimensions of Hazan and Rahat theory on the 2016 selection. The Tory party uses a majoritarian system where each selector possesses an equal number of votes, specifically the eliminative ballot. In such a ballot MPs vote for their candidate, at the end the candidate with the smallest number of supporters is eliminated and losses the possibility of becoming the leader. If there are more than two remaining candidates the process is repeated until only two names remain. This way of selection is qualified as a categorical system in which the selector either supports a candidate or does not. Each ballot is separated from the other, as a result, one person can vote for a different candidate each time. As was already mentioned, the UK Conservative Party uses multi stage continuum therefore using two different selectorates during more stages of the selections. Each time the selectorates differ in terms of inclusiveness or exclusiveness and both selectorates play different role in the selection. The first selection is done by the party’s Members of Parliament, specifically those in the House of Commons. This is the first stage of the selection and the selectorate filters the candidates. This selectorate is rather exclusive one since only 330 elected MPs of the UK Conservative Party were eligible to vote in 2016 leadership contest (BBC 2016b). Furthermore, to become the MP one must fulfil other requirements as well. The second selection is done by the party members and as such is more inclusive. This selectorate is than expected to choose the leader from the candidates previously selected by the MPs. Consequently, the second selectorate has only limited power and control over the final choice since only two candidates previously chosen by the MPs are presented to the grass roots members.

40 As mentioned, the last hurdle, which according to the rules the candidates have to overcome to become the leader is to win the support of their party members. Consequently, the whole competition is happening in the first level of party politics – intra party continuum since only the party members are involved. As mentioned above, in the multi stage continuum, the party members are the second selectorate choosing leader and as such the step is more inclusive than the previous one. Nonetheless, the party members must be registered and simply supporting given party in elections is not enough to be eligible to vote. Only those party members who were members three months prior the day of the call by the Chairman of 1922 for the new leadership election are eligible to vote (Constitution Of The Conservative Party 2009). In practise to be able to vote the person had to register before 9 June since 9 September was set to introduce the winner. To become a member of the Conservative Party, one must pay an annual fee which varies from £5 to £25. Furthermore, the applicant also has to be accepted by a local branch of the party (“Join” 2017). Parties are under no legal obligation to publish the membership figures and Tories do not regularly do that. Nonetheless, in the leadership election of 2005, 253 689 members were eligible to vote (Johnston and Maer 2016). Since then the number of members fell and is estimated to be between 130 000 and 150 000. This figure was guessed by the professor Tim Bale of Queen Mary University of London (Bounds 2016). Party members exercise their vote through postal ballot and each member has one vote. To win, the candidate needs to secure more than 50% of mass membership votes. The rules by which the mass membership will vote is to be decided by the Board and Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee (Constitution Of The Conservative Party 2009). Tory MPs do not have veto vote over party members’ decision, however it is important to note that even though the party members make the final choice, the decision of removing the incumbent leader is solemnly in the hands of MPs and party members have no direct say in it. In this case, we can see an interesting split in voting and removing power. So even though they made the selection more inclusive, the removal stayed the same. Furthermore, it is necessary to note that MPs have bigger say in the selection since they present two names from which party members must choose. And even though in the case of 2001 selection the party members chose a candidate who did not receive the highest support from the MPs, the first selectorate was than able to make that candidate leave. Moreover, as is the case of this particular selection, the second selectorate can be avoided altogether. Due to all what is mentioned above, the selection process becomes relatively exclusive one. A decentralization is in the terms of the leadership selection hard to fully recognize. The electoral system in the UK uses single member districts, which alone can help a bigger

41 decentralization during the rounds of eliminative ballots. We can argue that local members can pressure their MP to vote according to their believe, we could witness this action it in the past. Nevertheless, such a link is rather weak. The second point of the decentralization is the vote of members itself. This vote is able to represent the interest of conservative members even though limited by the choice from two candidates. We can conclude that a corporate decentralization exists. On the other hand, a social decentralization is much more complicated since there are no rules favouring minorities or women in the leadership selection, therefore this kind of decentralization does not exist. Even though there is no positive discrimination in the leadership selection, both final candidates were women.

42 Conclusion

The rules upon which the UK Conservative party selects its leader went through several changes in the 20th Century. Everything started with The Magic Circle and small group of party officials. With other party changing its rules of selection and desperate need for change, the Tory Party decided to put more inclusive way of selection forward. From 1965 all the Tory MPs in The Commons had the right to choose new leader. It took more than 30 years for the party members to get at least partial say in the selection. The first leader of the Conservative Party who had backing from the grass roots members was elected in 2001. As was argued above, parties and their leaders have strong position within the UK political system. And even though the Prime Minister has big authority, little attention is paid to the processes of how those aspiring for the topmost position are selected. The study of leadership selection is wildly underestimated and therefore does not belong among the most favourite fields within the political science. There are several ways of how the leaders are selected for the highest position. They are all different in terms of selectorate, potential candidates and methods they use. The main aim of this thesis was to apply the Hazan and Rahat candidate selection theory on the last selection of the UK Tory leader. Even though this theory focuses on the candidate selection, its aspects can be easily used on the leadership selection as well. Consequently, to answer four research questions. The first question addressed the issue of inclusiveness of candidacies and of selectorate. All candidates who stood in 2016 leadership race were members of the Commons. Hence, only those previously elected to the Commons were given the opportunity to run in this selection. Therefore, the candidate part of the selection was on the exclusive side of the scale since no one from the outside of the Commons took part in it. Because of Andrea Leadsom’s resignation, the race was cut short and the party members had no opportunity to influence the outcome of this race. Therefore, Theresa May was elected by “only” the first, more exclusive selectorate and the more inclusive one was not used. Maybe the lack of “approval” by grass root members of the Tory party could have been one of the reasons why Theresa May eventually called for general elections, even though refused to hold them during her leadership bid. Nevertheless, the answer for our research question would be that the selectorate was significantly exclusive as well since only 330 people were involved able to cast a vote. To sum it up, both the candidate and the selectorate were rather exclusive. The second question addressed the decentralisation. The link between the leadership selection and the decentralisation of this selection is relatively weak. The social decentralization

43 does not exist in this case and since the second selectorate did not participate, the only decentralizing aspect in this race were MP’s themselves because of the UK’s electoral system. But again, this link is very weak. The third question was focused on the mechanism used during the 2016 selection. Since only one selectorate participated, Theresa May was selected by two rounds of eliminative ballots that each eliminated the last candidate, one resigned. Out of 330 MP’s who were eligible to vote, 329 did so in each round. In the last one, May received 199 votes. After Andrea Leadsom quitted the race, the Chairman of 1922 Committee refused the need of approval of May by grass roots and stated that a confirmation by Party Board and the 1922 Committee was enough. The last question is taking into account the informal influences which might have impacted the outcome. Firstly, informal pressures within the Tory party shall be discussed. The first controversy was Gove’s withdrawal of support from Johnston who was perceived, with May, as a favourite of the race. Johnson’s decision not to run then eliminated the biggest rival for May. Furthermore, one week before the first eliminative ballot was to be held, the Chairman of 1922 Committee received a formal complaint by some MP’s who were dissatisfied with the fact that the chief whip lobbied for Theresa May (Walker 2016). Another pressure on MP’s was put by the server Leave.EU which was persuading the supporters of T May to reconsider and support Leadsom instead. Moreover, Gove’s campaign sent text messages to May supporters trying to persuade them to vote for Gove claiming that the party should not offer inexperienced Leadsom as one of the choices for party members (McCann, Swinford, and Hope 2016). Possible pressure could have appeared from the side of donors as well since only T May received any donations from her campaign showing that she has a support from them as well. Nonetheless, the biggest controversy came with Leadsom’s announcement of resignation. Thus, shortening the elections by almost two months and preventing grass roots members to voice their opinion. The question is why after all the effort Leadsom put into the race, she decided to step down only a few days after the last eliminative ballot? Allow me now one short quote: “A senior Conservative parliamentarian suggests that should the party be in the position of choosing a Prime Minister, it is highly unlikely that it would leave the authority to the membership” (Cross and Blais 2012, 25). There is a possibility that certain members were scared of what could happen if Andrea Leadsom was to be elected new leader. The time frame could have played its role as well. In the times of instability Britain was in because of the referendum outcome, it was better to have a new PM as quickly as possible. That is why Andrea Leadsom could have been pressured to step down given that at the end the preferences within

44 the party members showed that T May was more likely to win. With Leadsom stepping down, the race was shortened and she was appointed a secretary for environment, food and rural affairs. There is no clear evidence, that Andrea Leadsom was pressured to step down, however it can be concluded that the Conservative Party was happy with the outcome since it took only approximately two and a half weeks from the Cameron’s announcement to appoint a new PM with overwhelming support in the Commons. Theresa May became the second female Prime Minister and second female leader of the Conservative Party. Both positions were previously held by her predecessor Margret Thatcher to whom is May constantly compared. However, the position of T May is yet to be determined by results of the June snap elections and Brexit negotiations.

45 References

Alderman, Keith, and Neil Carter. 2002. “The Conservative Party Leadership Election Of 2001”. Parliamentary Affairs 55 (3): 569-585. (Alderman and Carter 2002)

Alderman, Keith. 1999. “Revision Of Leadership Election Procedures In The Conservative Party”. Parliamentary Affairs 52 (2): 260-274. (Alderman 1999)

Alexandre-Collier, Agnès. 2016. “The ‘Open Garden Of Politics’: The Impact Of Open Primaries For Candidate Selection In The British Conservative Party”. The British Journal Of Politics And International Relations 18 (3): 706-723. doi:10.1177/1369148116636518. (Alexandre-Collier 2016)

Allen, Kate. 2016. “Conservative Leadership Contest Next Steps”. Online. The Financial Times 2017. https://www.ft.com/content/e12484e8-3eac-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.

Astana, Anushka, Rowena Mason, and Jessica Elgot. 2016. “Andrea Leadsom Pulls Out Of Conservative Leadership Race”. Online. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/11/conservative-leadership-andrea-leadsom- pulls-out-of-race.

Aylott, Nicholas, and Niklas Bolin. 2017. “Managed Intra-Party Democracy”. Party Politics 23 (1): 55-65. doi:10.1177/1354068816655569. (Aylott and Bolin 2017)

BBC 2016a: “Andrea Leadsom Apologises To Theresa May Over Motherhood Remark”. 2016. Online. Bbc News. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36760986.

BBC 2016b: “Conservative Leadership Race: First Round Of Voting Closes”. 2016. Online. Bbc News 2017. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36709218.

BBC 2016c: “Conservative Party Leadership: Who's Backing Who?”. 2016. Online. Bbc News 2017. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36704241.

BBC 2012d: “David Cameron 'prepared to consider EU referendum'”. 2012. Online. Bbc News. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18659072.

BBC 2016e: “Guide To The Conservative Leadership Race: May V Leadsom”. 2016. Online. Bbc News. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36618738.

46 BBC 2016f: “Liam Fox: 'i Will Campaign For Theresa May'”. 2016. Online. Bbc News 2017. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36718458.

BBC 2016g: “New Tory Leader 'should Be In Place By 9 September'”. 2016. Online. Bbc News. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36640889.

BBC 2016h: “Theresa May V Andrea Leadsom To Be Next Prime Minister”. 2016. Online. Bbc News. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36737426.

BBC 2010: “1922 Committee: David Cameron Wins Vote On Rule Change”. 2010. Online. Bbc News. UK. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8693078.stm.

BBC 2015: “Results, Election 2015”. 2015. Online. Bbc News. http://www.bbc.com/news/election/2015/results.

Bille, Lars. 2001. “Democratizing A Democratic Procedure: Myth Or Reality?: Candidate Selection In Western European Parties, 1960-1990”. Party Politics 3 (7): 363-380.

Bounds, Andrew. 2016. “Who, And Where, Are The Conservative Party’S Members?”. Online. The Financial Times 2016. https://www.ft.com/content/97b44f88-4509-11e6-9b66- 0712b3873ae1.

Clark, Alistair. 2012. Political Parties In The Uk. 1st ed. Contemporary Political Studies (Palgrave Macmillan (Firm)). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Constitution Of The Conservative Party. 2009. Http://politike.al/wp- content/uploads/2016/03/Statuti-i-Partise-Konservatore-Britani.pdf. London: Conservative Party.

Cooper, Charlie. 2016. “Eu Referendum: Pro-Brexit Tory Mps Call On David Cameron To Remain As Pm Regardless Of Result”. Online. The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-brexit-tory-mps-david- cameron-remain-as-pm-leave-latest-updates-a7098726.html.

Cordero, Guillermo, and Xavier Coller. 2014. “Candidate selection and party discipline.” Parliamentary Affairs.

47 Cross, William P., and André Blais. 2012. Politics At The Centre: The Selection And Removal Of Party Leaders In The Anglo Parliamentary Democracies. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cross, William, and André Blais. 2012a. “Who Selects The Party Leader?”. Party Politics 18 (2): 127-150. doi:10.1177/1354068810382935.

Curtice, John and André Blais. 2001. “Follow my Leader? A Cross-National Analysis of Leadership Effects in Parliamentary Democracies”. Working paper number 91. CREST.

Denham, Andrew, and Kieron O'Hara. 2008. Democratising Conservative Leadership Selection: From Grey Suits To Grass Roots. 1st ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Denham, Andrew, and Peter Dorey. 2006. “A Tale Of Two Speeches? The Conservative Leadership Election Of 2005”. The Political Quarterly 77 (1): 35-42.

Denham, Andrew. 2009. “Far From Home: Conservative Leadership Selection From Heath To Cameron”. The Political Quarterly 80 (3): 380-387. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.01994.x.

Duverger, Maurice. 1959. Political Parties. 2nd ed. UK: Butler and Tanner.

Gallagher, Michael, and Michael Marsh. 1988. Candidate Selection In Comparative Perspective: The Secret Garden Of Politics. 1st ed. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Gauja, Anika. 2009. “Internal Party Democracy and Policy Formulation: Rationales, Trends, Relevance”. Paper for the ECPR Joint Sessions. Lisbon.

“Gideon Rahat”. 2017. Online. Google Scholar. Google. https://scholar.google.cz/citations?user=t2RF6OMAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao.

Goodhart, Philip. 1973. The 1922: The Story Of The Conservative Backbenchers Parliamentary Committee. 1st ed. London: Macmillan London limited.

Harmel, Robert, Uk Heo, Alexander Tan, and Kenneth Janda. 1995. “Performance, Leadership,factions And Party Change:an Empirical Analysis”. West European Politics 18 (1): 1-33.

Hazan, Reuven Y., and Gidʻon. Rahaṭ. c2010. Democracy Within Parties: Candidate Selection Methods And Their Political Consequences. 1st ed. Comparative Politics (Oxford University Press). New York: Oxford University Press.

48 Heppell, Timothy. 2008. Choosing The Tory Leader: Conservative Party Leadership Elections From Heath To Cameron. 1st ed. London: Tauris Academic Studies.

Hloušek, Vít, Lubomír Kopeček, and Jakub Šedo. 2011. Politické Systémy. Brno: Barrister.

Hope, Christopher. 2016. “Theresa May Vs Andrea Leadsom - What Do They Stand For And Who Is In Their Team?”. Online. The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/conservative-leadership-election-runners-and-riders-for- the-tory2/.

Hope, Christopher, and Peter Dominiczak. 2016. Online. The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/04/theresa-may-pulled-in-21000-a-day-in- donations-to-her-successful/.

“How Can I Stand In An Election?”. 2017. Online. Www.parliament.uk. London. http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/elections/standing/.

Hughes, Laura. 2016. “Conservative Mps In Uproar As Boris Johnson 'rips Party Apart' By Withdrawing From Leadership Contest After Ambush By Michael Gove”. Online. The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/30/boris-j. www.telegraph.co.uk.

Johnston, Neil, and Lucinda Maer. 2016. Leadership Elections: Conservative Party. Briefing Paper. London: House of Commons.

“Join”. 2017. Online. Conservatives. UK: Conservative party. https://www.conservatives.com/join.

Kenig, Ofer; Gideon, Rahat and Reuven Y. Hazan. 2013. “Leadership selection versus candidate selection in parliamentary democracies: similarities and differences”. Paper presented on 7th ECPR General Conference. Bordeaux.

Kenig, Ofer. 2009. “Classifying Party Leaders’ Selection Methods In Parliamentary Democracies”. Journal Of Elections, Public Opinion And Parties 19 (4): 433-447. doi:10.1080/17457280903275261.

Kenig, Ofer. 2009. “Democratization Of Party Leadership Selection: Do Wider Selectorates Produce More Competitive Contests?”. Electoral Studies 28 (2): 240-247. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2008.11.001.

49 Kenig, Ofer. 2009. “The Democratization of Party Leader's Selection Methods: Canada in Comparative Perspective”. Paper prepared for the delivery at the Canadian political science Association Annual Conference. University of Carleton. Ottawa.

Lawson, Kay. 1988. “When Linkage Fails”. In When Parties Fail: Emerging Alternative Organizations, Kay Lawson and Peter H. Merkl, 1st ed., 13-38. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Leadsom, Andrea. 2016. Resignation Letter. UK: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5829a293e4fcb505194767d9/t/582ee4a1579fb3ef8b0b1 b71/1479468195808/20160711+Letter+to+Graham+Brady.pdf.

LeDuc, Lawrence. 2001. “Democratizing Party Leadership Selection”. Party Politics 7 (3): 323- 341.

Lisi, Marco. 2010. “The Democratisation Of Party Leadership Selection: The Portuguese Experience”. Portuguese Journal Of Social Science 9 (2): 127–149.

Luther, Kurt R., and Ferdinand Müller-Rommel. 2002. Political Parties In A Changing Europe. 1st ed. Keele: SPIRE, Keele University.

Mair, Peter. 2013. Ruling The Void: The Hollowing Of Western Democracy. 1st ed. UK: CPI Group.

McAllister, Ian. 2015. “The Personalization Of Politics In Australia”. Party Politics 21 (3): 337- 345. doi:10.1177/1354068813487111.

McCann, Kate, Steven Swinford, and Christopher Hope. 2016. “Michael Gove Ally Urges Theresa May Supporters To Back Him And Keep Andrea Leadsom Off Ballot In Extraordinary Text Message To Mps”. Online. The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/michael-gove-ally-urges-theresa-may- supporters-to-back-him-and-k/.

McGuinness, Feargal, Richard Cracknell, Martin Davies, and Marc Taylor. 2012. Uk Election Statistics: 1918-2012. Research Paper 12/43. London: House of Commons.

McKenzie, R. T. 1955. British Political Parties: The Distribution Of Power Within The Conservative And Labour Parties. 1st ed. UK: London : William Heinemann.

50 McSweeney, Dean. 1999. “Changing The Rules Changed The Game: Selecting Conservative Leaders”. Party Politics 5 (4): 471-483.

Meyer, Chase B., and Brett N. Oddom. 2016. “Raising A Big Tent: Internal Party Composition And Leadership Selectorate Expansion”. Online. Electoral Studies, no. 43: 1-9. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379416301093.

Micklethwaite, JAMIE. 2016. “Andrea Leadsom Cv: Tory Hopeful's Former Colleague Disputes Claim Mp Was A Banker”. Online. Evening Standard. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/andrea-leadsom-cv-tory-hopefuls-former-colleague- disputes-claim-mp-was-a-banker-a3291191.html.

“Ministers”. 2017. Online. Gov.uk. UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers.

“Party Structure And Organisation”. 2017. Online. Conservatives. London: Mabbutt. https://www.conservatives.com/Members/Party-Structure-and-Organisation.

Pilet, Jean-Benoit, Emilie Van Haute, and Camille Kelbel. 2015. Candidate Selection Procedures For The European Elections. Brussels: Study for the AFCO Committee.

Peele, Gillian. 1998. “Towards `new Conservatives'? Organisational Reform And The Conservative Party”. The Political Quarterly 19 (3): 141-147.

Pennings, Paul, and Reuven Y. Hazan. 2001. “Democratizing Candidate Selection: Causes And Consequences”. Party Politics 7 (3): 267-275.

“Pm Statement: Eu Referendum Outcome:”. 2016. Online. Gov.uk. London. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eu-referendum-outcome-pm-statement-24-june- 2016.

Poguntke, Thomas, and Paul Webb. 2005. The Presidentialization Of Politics: A Comparative Study Of Modern Democracies. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Punnet, R. M. 1992. Selecting The Party Leader: Britain In Comparative Perspective. 1st ed. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Quinn, Thomas. 2005. “Leasehold Or Freehold? Leader-Eviction Rules In The British Conservative And Labour Parties”. Political Studies 53: 793–815.

51 Rahat, Gideon, and Reuven Y. Hazan. 2001. “Candidate Selection Methods: An Analytical Framework”. Party Politics 3 (7): 297-322.

Rahat, Gideon. 2007. “Candidate Selection: The Choice Before The Choice”. Journal Of Democracy 18 (1): 157-170.

Sartori, Giovanni. 2001. Srovnávací Ústavní Inženýrství: Zkoumání Struktur, Podnětů A Výsledků. Studijní Texty (Sociologické Nakladatelství). Praha: Sociologické nakladatelství.

Sartori, Giovanni. 2005. Strany A Stranické Systémy: Schéma Pro Analýzu. Klasikové Společenských Věd. Brno: Centrum pro studium demokracie a kultury.

Sheafer, Tamir, and Shaul Tzionit. 2006. “Media-Political Skills, Candidate Selection Methods And Electoral Success”. The Journal Of Legislative Studies 12 (2): 179-197. doi:10.1080/13572330600739447.

Shomer, Yael. 2009. “Candidate Selection Procedures, Seniority, And Vote-Seeking Behavior”. Comparative Political Studies 42 (7): 945-970. doi:10.1177/0010414008330600.

Sims, Alexandra. 2016. “Tory Leadership Contest: Stephen Crabb Withdraws From Race With 34 Votes From Mps”. Online. The Independent 2017. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-leadership-contest-stephen-crabb- withdraws-from-race-with-34-votes-from-mps-a7121716.html.

Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2017. “Agree Or Disagree”. Party Politics 23 (1): 66-75. doi:10.1177/1354068816655568.

Stewart, Heather, and Jessica Elgot. 2016. “Boris Johnson Rules Himself Out Of Tory Leadership Race”. Online. The Gurdian. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/30/boris-johnson-rules-himself-out-of-tory- leadership-race-brexit-eu-referendum.

Stone, Jon. 2016. “Tory Mps Plan To Bring Start Of Party Leadership Contest Forward To This Week”. Online. The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-mps- vote-to-bring-start-of-leadership-contest-forward-to-this-week-a7105691.html.

Swinford, Steven. 2015. “Election 2015: How David Cameron's Conservatives Won”. Online. The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11592230/Election- 2015-How-David-Camerons-Conservatives-won.html.

52 Sylvester, Rachel. 2016. “Being A Mother Gives Me Edge On May — Leadsom”. Online. The Times. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/being-a-mother-gives-me-edge-on-may- leadsom-0t7bbm29x.

“The 1922 Committee (The 22)”. 2017. Online. Www.parliament.uk. London. http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/1922-committee-the-22/.

“Theresa May's Campain Launch Speech In Birmingham, 11/7/2016”. Online. Youtube.com. AlphaX News. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac6VJVDOOz4.

Walker, Peter. 2016. “Tory Mps Complain Party Whips Are Lobbying For Theresa May”. Online. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/28/tory-mps-complain- whips-office-lobbying-theresa-may.

Wilkinson, Michael, Leon Watson, and Barney Henderson. 2016. “'together We Will Build A Better Britain': New Tory Leader Theresa May Delivers Vision For The Country Ahead Of Coronation As Prime Minister On Wednesday”. Online. The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/11/theresa-may-launches-conservative-leadership- bid-as-andrea-leads/.

“Yougov / Times Survey Results”. 2016. Online. Yougov. UK. https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/dgak27s1eh/TimesResults _160704_ConservativeMembers.pdf.

53