ABSTRACT
The question of leadership poses particular difficulties for the British Labour Party. This is for two important reasons. First, Labour has traditionally thought of itself as a class party. In however limited a form, down to 1994 it believed its ideology to be based on the ethic of socialism. It naturally tended to emphasise collectivity, the general will, ‘pulling through together’, and was reluctant to elevate the role of dominant individuals. Secondly, Labour sees itself as a democratic party, instinctively reluctant to concede powers to the leadership. Its first leader, Keir Hardie in 1906– 08, was designated ‘chairman’ (as he had also been within the Independent Labour Party). Not until 1922 did it give its new head, Ramsay MacDonald, the formal title of ‘leader’. In any case, to a pioneer such as Keir Hardie, the very notion of leadership was an uncomfortable one. Bruce Glasier wrote that leading the party was ‘a seat of misery for him’. 1 The populist spirit in the early Labour Party is exemplified in the 1918 constitution where policy-making is vested in the party members at the grass roots. Labour activists hailed the innate democracy of their own party conference compared with that of the Tories, a triumphalist forum where leaders from Disraeli to Thatcher mounted the saluting base to receive the acclaim of the faithful.
