MPs set to reject Michael Howard's leadership election process - but can't agree on alternative

Conservative MPs will vote this evening on changes to the way the party elects its leader. They are expected to reject the Party Board's proposal - backed by Michael Howard and Francis Maude - of a three-part process involving an expanded National Convention.

But if they are largely agreed about their opposition to the Board's reforms they are not expected to unite around one of the other proposals for reform. These include:

> A proposal from MPs Edward Leigh and Ann Widdecombe - reported in The Times - that all party members retain a vote but only to produce a shortlist of three candidates, from which MPs would choose the leader.

> A proposal for an electoral college where party members have 40% of the votes and MPs have 60%. This has been proposed by John Hayes who has consistently advocated a continuing role for individual grassroots members.

> A reversion to the MPs-only method of election that saw Thatcher, Major and Hague become party leaders.

MPs are not expected to even vote on conservativehome.com's idea of open primary elections - supported by Stephan Shakespeare and Alan Sugar.

Tonight's vote by MPs has no binding power. It is the National Convention of MPs, MEPs and Association Chairman which has the constitutional power of decision. It will, however, be difficult for opposition from MPs to be ignored. If the Party Board and MPs cannot agree it is likely that Michael Howard's successor will be chosen by the existing rules.

MPs supportive of David Davis will also use tonight's meeting to try and raise the £25,000 spending limit imposed on each leadership candidate.

Comments

[Michael McGowan]

I think the public will draw its own conclusions about the Tories' willingness to engage with the 21st Century if they end up being the only major party in this country whose ordinary members have no significant direct say in the choice of Party leader.

[Tom Greeves]

How utterly fatuous to have a spending limit for candidates. It is redolent of the worst of sort of anti-business carping that the campaign finance reform lobby indulges in across the pond in the United States.

Perish the thought the candidates should be encouraged to establish support and to set out their stalls in the media.

I appreciate that few people are likely to agree with me on this one ... !

[buxtehude]

I agree with you, Tom. It's wrong to limit campaign spending. But then everything is being organised by the party to hinder Davis and help Cameron.

[Editor]

The democratic way of regulating the funding would be to impose a limit on how much an individual can give (say of 200 pounds) but allow as many UK citizens as wish to, to give up to that amount.

David Davis would do well from such a set up - given the enthusiasm for him amongst the rank-and-file.

[Dave J]

Editor, donation caps are just as stupid and needless as spending caps. I've seen a variety of campaign finance laws in action at both the federal leval and in multiple states here in the US, and without fail, all they do is encourage creative accounting and undermine real transparency. The ONLY campaign finance law should be to require full public disclosure.