Your editor was told yesterday that eighty Tory MPs were already backing David Davis. A lot of such figures are going to be gossiped around the Westminster village over coming weeks and they all deserve to be treated with a Nicholas Soames portion of salt.
Only a few days after the 2001 election Michael Portillo's leadership team was claiming 100 parliamentary supporters. Mr P ended up a poor third as his campaign fell apart and MPs "committed" to his cause abandoned the once "certain winner".
The Conservative parliamentary party has been called the world's least trustworthy electorate... and with some justification. When IDS faced his no-confidence motion his aides received enough assurances from MPs for him to survive as leader. But, of course, there was the "lie factor" - leading one of those aides to warn IDS that he probably didn't have enough supporters. And sure enough he didn't - the "lie factor" equals at least 10%. One MP after 1997 promised his vote to all five then leadership candidates. Some MPs lie to leadership candidates in the hope of future preferment and others lie to the constituency associations they have promised to "consult". It's not the Conservative Party at its best.
Least trustworthy electorate - all the more reason to trust the decision to party members or even go one step further and follow conservativehome's suggestion - belatedly picked up by Theresa May this morning - to move to a primary election.
Posted by: Adrian Owens | 22 June 2005 at 08:22
All too true, Tim.
I spoke with my new MP about all this on Saturday. He'd voted with the 1922 committee because he thought MPs knew the candidates best and were therefore best positioned to choose.
I never got an answer to the following points:
firstly, I don't know members of any party's frontbench team other than through the media; does this therefore mean I shouldn't be allowed to vote in general elections, and if I can, how is this different?
secondly, a Westminster elite seizing control away from the ordinary members is not philosophically consistent with a party that has repeatedly campaigned on a platform of taking power from elites and returning it to the people.
thirdly, the "you picked IDS and he was useless" argument reared its head. To which (besides his poll ratings never being matched by Michael Howar) the best response was that the MPs gave us a choice of two turkeys, so it therefore seems a bit rich to complain that we chose a turkey.
At this point he made his escape...
The interesting thing to note was that the more active and political (by which I mean members from conviction rather than, dare I say, habit) members of the local party were quite incensed by the proposed changes. The prevalent feeling was that if our MPs sold us out, they might have a surprise when their envelope lickers vanished.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 22 June 2005 at 09:42
I agree wholeheartedly with Adrian Owens and James Hellyer.
Posted by: GZufar | 22 June 2005 at 09:48
I quite like the caucus idea where everyone who wants to vote goes to a meeting where they can go through the stages until one candidate has a majority.
Or the electoral college maybe 1/3 members, 1/3 MPs and 1/3 MEPs, MSPs, MWAs and councillors.
Posted by: Edward | 22 June 2005 at 11:29
Roger Helmer MEP had the following to say on giving MEPS a special say in the leadership election:
"The debate is hotting up over the election of the new Tory leader, and various groups - the Lords, councillors, constituency chairmen - are staking claims for special status. One group the party will be hearing from is the British Conservative MEPs in Brussels, of whom I am one.
"The party should not give the MEPs any special status in the leadership election. In all three major parties, the MEPs are a self-selecting and unrepresentative group, because the sort of people who offer themselves as candidates for the euro-election are, for the most part, those who are more interested in, and more positive about, the EU project.
"In this sense, the Tory MEPs are unrepresentative of the party's views on the greatest issue of our generation. They must not be allowed to skew the result."
They can each use their one vote or get disenfranchised with the rest of us!
Posted by: James Hellyer | 22 June 2005 at 11:39
Has Roger Helmer had the whip restored? With comments like that above, I fear it might be withdrawn again!
Posted by: Adrian Owens | 22 June 2005 at 13:23
Not yet, but he has had a good deal of suport in the East Midlands. Persnally I am delighted to have him and Chris Heaton-Harris as my MEPs.
Roger wrote this in a letter to the Telegraph some time ago.
Posted by: Simon C | 22 June 2005 at 13:35
"Has Roger Helmer had the whip restored? With comments like that above, I fear it might be withdrawn again!"
Why? I don't see that MEPs should get special consideration, especially if the paid up members don't!
Posted by: James Hellyer | 22 June 2005 at 13:58
Agree with most of the comments above.The last few weeks have not been good for the Conservative Party at all.At the very time when we should be undermining Gordon Browns (undeserved) reputation for competence( source BBC) over the disastrous Tax Credit policy we are all feeling sore with our own party.
BTW James who is your MP?
Posted by: malcolm | 22 June 2005 at 14:51
Agree with most of the comments above.The last few weeks have not been good for the Conservative Party at all.At the very time when we should be undermining Gordon Browns (undeserved) reputation for competence( source BBC) over the disastrous Tax Credit policy we are all feeling sore with our own party.
BTW James who is your MP?
Posted by: malcolm | 22 June 2005 at 14:53
"BTW James who is your MP?"
Geoffrey Cox, the new MP for Torridge and West Devon. He's very plesant and seems capable, but I think he's likely to "go with the flow" on issues like the proposed rule changes.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 22 June 2005 at 15:45
"One MP after 1997 promised his vote to all five then leadership candidates."
Chris Grayling, reportedly Liam Fox's campaign director, was said in yesterday's Standard to have offered his support to both Cameron and Davies as well. Whether this is true, or a spoiling operation on the part of two camps trying to nobble a third, I have no idea.
Posted by: Simon C | 28 June 2005 at 11:55
Further to my last, today's Standard carried a rebuttal from Chris Grayling, emphasising that he is for Fox.
So it was disinformation then.
Posted by: Simon C | 28 June 2005 at 20:44