Michael Howard - and grassroots members - "dealt humiliating blow"

"Michael Howard was dealt a humiliating blow by Conservative MPs last night when they threw out his proposals for changing the party leadership rules. They insisted that only they should have the final say on choosing his successor. Representatives of the party's grassroots would be consulted informally but would not have a vote."

This quote is taken from p1 of this morning's Telegraph. The Telegraph focuses on the humiliation of Mr Howard but according to one MP the grassroots members were also effectively humiliated. The MP told this blog:

"Last night's meeting was like a meeting of 1970s trade unionists. There was no secret ballot - just a show of hands. When some MPs asked for a recount of one of the votes, other MPs shouted them down. It is ironic that the Conservative Party - that, under Margaret Thatcher, forced the trade unions to democratise their proceedings - has now voted for the elite of MPs to rob rank-and-file Conservative members of any direct say in the Party's next leader."

MPs didn't even discuss the various propositions under discussion at yesterday's meeting. There was just a series of votes.

Only half-a-dozen MPs - including Francis Maude and Mr Howard himself - voted for the leadership election process drafted by the Conservative Party Board. The second most popular option was an electoral college (of individual party members (40%) and MPs (60%)) proposed by John Hayes MP.

The MPs' vote is not decisive. The leadership election process can only be amended by a two-thirds vote of the National Convention - which includes constituency association chairmen and MPs. If the MPs and National Convention cannot agree on a way forward the existing election process will have to be used to elect Michael Howard's successor.

For your say on the way ahead visit ConservativeDemocracy.com.

Comments

[Wat Tyler]

1970s trade unionists, the EU ruling elite, and our MPs- none of them believes in democracy where it conflicts with their own ambitions.

[Editor]

I now understand that the 1922 Committee's own internal rules require two-thirds votes. So, by their own internal standards, MPs failed to pass their motion of retaking control of the leadership process.

[Tom Odell]

Do Conservative MPs want party members?

[Edward]

I think the problem is this "final say" thing, I prefer an electoral college where both MPs and activists have a say but MPs have control.

[Michael McGowan]

In answer to Tom Odell, the answer is "No they don't want their party members".....other than on the basis that they pay up and shut up. I have heard more than one Conservative MP talk in private in the most unpleasant tones about constituency members.... the very people who spend hours of unpaid time on the thankless tasks of fundraising, postering, canvassing, etc etc. The membership has its faults (not least the fact that there need to be more members, younger members and a wider social and geographical spread of members) but the attitude of some Tory MPs just shows how mired in the Edwardian past many of them are. The last thing they want is the great unwashed having any say in how they run their cosy all-expenses paid club at SW1A 0AA. Roll on 10 more years of opposition.

[Sean Fear]

The funny thing is Michael, is that most Conservative MPs are, these days, drawn from the ranks of the "Great Unwashed" - but many of them still aspire to be Sir Tufton Bufton.

[robert highfield]

Sometimes I wonder why I get so worked up, sitting on the sidelines cheering or booing a cast of actors in an absurdist drama. Since they don’t seem to know who they are, what they want, or where they are going, while the other lot (Labour) do a reasonable impression of competence, the chances of them running the country in 5 years is very unlikely (and, one might think, undesirable). Now they grab for themselves all the voting power, with less debate than Scargill would have allowed - and there’s not even a peep of protest from the members. So why worry?

Yes, Davis looks fairly normal, and Willetts says some interesting things, and Duncan can be amusing, and Rifkind provides a touch of nostalgia and a funny voice, and Clark is brilliant at improvisation, and Cameron is an amiable airhead - but this isn’t really about the future of the country, is it?

[Wat Tyler]

So what should we members do?

1. Protest to local Tory MP (if extant)- ask why he/she voted for rule change

2. Protest to Constituency Chairman (who will have a say in ratifying rule change)-ask for assurance he/she will oppose rule change

3. Protest to Chairman Maude

I know it's like fighting tanks with a pea-shooter, but they need to know of the intense anger down here. This isn't a free hit.

[buxtehude]

I would add

4) No vote, no money

[Michael McGowan]

What should members do? Easy. Don't canvass for them; don't fundraise for them; don't dish out posters for them. If you feel sufficiently disenhanted with them, don't vote for them either and encourage others to do the same. There are plenty of centre-right-leaning voters out there who have increasingly concluded that the Tory Party isn't up to the job of representing their point of view.

[Bruce]

The right-wing party that is enjoying the most electoral success these days--the Republican Party in America--is also the one that has the most democratic method of nominating its candidates and its leader--the open primary. In addition, the world trend (e.g., the Reform/Conservative Party in Canada and the Tory Party, until this vote) was toward a more democratic nomination process. By this vote the Tory Party turns its back on its members, in favor of the nomination template that gave us the 1997 and 2001 disasters.

[James Hellyer]

How can we find out how our MPs voted?

[Bruce]

The prime task of the new Tory leader will be to appeal to the voters in the 400+ constituancies the Tories lost in the latest election. By this leadership vote, the selection of the new Tory leader will (in essence) be confined to the 197 MPs representing only seats the Tories carried. In other words, voices from the areas the Tories need to win will be shut out of the process altogether, in favor of voices only representing the "safe" seats. Is this any rational way to appeal to voters in the marginal seats?

[Editor]

As for James' post - two above - I don't think we can find out how they've voted - except by writing to them and seeking an honest answer.

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

Bruce's point is a good one. It make no sense to have the MPs already sitting selecting a leader. They already have their seats and want to retain them...this means they probably are only aiming for the status quo.