Both The Times and The Scotsman run significant pieces on yesterday’s ConservativeHome.com story on ‘The Board vs The 1922’. Other newspapers - including the Guardian - make brief references to it.
The fundamentals of the story were:
> The Party Board (or leading members of the Board) wants the 1922 Committee of MPs to vote again on what kind of leadership election process it wants.
> When MPs voted on 15th June they failed to establish that a constitutional two-thirds wanted to retake exclusive control of the leadership election.
> If MPs fail to approve a MPs-only election and also reject the Party Board’s reforms then Michael Howard’s successor will be chosen by William Hague’s one-member-one-vote process.
Andrew Rosindell MP told The Scotsman that “a stalemate” was very possible: "It is far from clear that any one option would be supported by two-thirds of MPs," he said. One unnamed Shadow Cabinet member, however, said that champions of grassroots democracy would fail to find the 58 MPs needed to pass all power to MPs. He said: "We will easily get two-thirds of the party. It's a technicality."
Yesterday Theresa May encouraged party members to fight for their vote. "Fight for all you are worth," she told rank-and-file members.
Commenting on ConservativeHome.com’s scoop David Charter of The Times wrote: “A spokesman for the Conservative Party said that there was “no major dispute” between the board and backbench MPs. He added: “Everything is on course for a draft of the new rules to be ready by the end of this parliamentary session (on July 21).”
You publicity junkie!
Posted by: James Hellyer | 06 July 2005 at 10:08
If there's going to be a fightback, let's have some ideas for what we do.
Posted by: buxtehude | 06 July 2005 at 12:56
On another subject... Blair continues to walk on water (with Beckham in Singapore, for example). Being seen to win the Olympics will just add to the sense that Blair (and Brown) can run things well. When thinking about the leadership, always remember how tough it's going to be tough for the Tories to win in four or five years - and therefore how vital it is to get the strategy right.
I've said it before, but only DD can offer the radical programme that gives us a chance. Cameron and the 'me too' Notting Hillers offer Pepsi to Labour's Coca Cola - why on earth should any voters switch?
Posted by: buxtehude | 06 July 2005 at 13:06
The Olympics news is fantastic for Britain... but it was a Conservative - Lord Coe - who ran what had been a flagging bid.
Coe for Mayor of London?
Posted by: Editor | 06 July 2005 at 13:21
Doh...Ed.
This circus is going to cost every British household 500 quid, and bring large parts of London to a halt. Plus we're now in for seven years of mindless Olympics puffery from the state broadcaster.
The only benefit- and I admit it's a big one- is the look on M Chirac's face.
Posted by: Wat Tyler | 06 July 2005 at 15:54
Oh dear Wat... why do some Conservatives always see the problem with things like Live8 and the Olympics? Sometimes it's better to just enjoy what every normal person is enjoying and avoid Scrooge-like comments.
Posted by: Editor | 06 July 2005 at 18:52
Yes. It's a real problem with Conservatism isn't it. You see, I don't mind Live8, because it was privately funded (in the spirit of 'normality' we'll ignore all those hidden subsidies from free policing, promotion by the BBC, Tony etc)
But, Ed, really- why should the taxpayer shell out uncapped billions on a corrupt overblown sports event? More specifically, why should I pay higher tax to finance a couch potato TV event in which I have absolutely no interest?
If you want it, you pay for it.
It's a disgrace, Sir.
Posted by: Wat Tyler | 06 July 2005 at 20:17
Perhaps some of us have problems with things like Live8 because although their goals are fine, their means (pressure for unconditional debt relief, more aid, "fair" trade, etcetera)are muddleheaded and won't solve the problems they are meant to.
As for the Olympics... what Wat said!
Posted by: James Hellyer | 07 July 2005 at 09:14
Wat - as a DD enthusiast you really ought to read what he said about the need to recapture Tory idealism. This means getting excited about a positive vision - not carping on the sidelines.
Sure, on Live8, we might disagree with the simplistic solutions proposed, but we should really be sharing the sense of moral outrage at the entirely avoidable mortality rates in Africa, and harnessing that to the cause of freedom: free trade; rule of law; human rights.
And Annie Lennox was brilliant.
As to the Olympics - the overall cost spread over the next 7 years will not be noticed. It's being funded at least in part by the lottery, and the overall boost to our national self-esteem is priceless.
Come on Wat & James - didn't even the glimmer of a smile cross your faces when you heard the news?
Posted by: Simon C | 07 July 2005 at 10:06
Well said, Simon.
Posted by: Editor | 07 July 2005 at 10:15
"Come on Wat & James - didn't even the glimmer of a smile cross your faces when you heard the news?"
No. I hate sport and wanted the French stuck with the costs (and thought a French win might make Chirac more co-operative at the G8).
I did smile at the footage of sad French people though. Does that make me a bad person ;=)
"Sure, on Live8, we might disagree with the simplistic solutions proposed, but we should really be sharing the sense of moral outrage at the entirely avoidable mortality rates in Africa, and harnessing that to the cause of freedom: free trade; rule of law; human rights."
Except Live8 and Make Poverty History *aren't* doing that. They are encouraging a "solution" that puts more power and money into the hands of the governments that are the cause of many of the problems they want to fight.
It's all very well to praise idealism... but crass stupidity?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 07 July 2005 at 10:46
"Except Live8 and Make Poverty History *aren't* doing that. They are encouraging a "solution" that puts more power and money into the hands of the governments that are the cause of many of the problems they want to fight.
It's all very well to praise idealism... but crass stupidity?"
They are raising awareness of the scale of the problem to a huge degree & ensuring it's very high on the agenda. That is a good in itself.
The issue now is to channel the sense that something must be done into ensuring that the right things are done.
Basking in a sense of intellectual superiority really won't achieve that. We should instead be asking what we need to do to avoid LiveAid/8 2025 - in other words a repeat 20 years down the line. Sustainable systems of governance & the rule of law are the answers.
Posted by: Simon C | 07 July 2005 at 11:01
"They are raising awareness of the scale of the problem to a huge degree & ensuring it's very high on the agenda."
Unfortunately they are also pushing forward their agenda for tackling these problems. The two things aren't seperable - people like Geldog simultaneously raise awareness and then say "this is what must be done".
"We should instead be asking what we need to do to avoid LiveAid/8 2025 - in other words a repeat 20 years down the line."
But people and politicians seem to be uncritically accepting their agenda. It only seems to be a small number of newspaper columnists who are speking out.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 07 July 2005 at 11:10
I am very sad to see both your comments James and Wat Tylers.A perfect example of Conservatives completely misjudging the national mood.Still we've been doing it for a while now so I guess nothing new
Posted by: malcolm | 07 July 2005 at 16:49
"A perfect example of Conservatives completely misjudging the national mood"
I'm not judging the national mood or trying to be in step with it so your point is moot.
Unsurprisingly the London based press and Londoners were exceited by the news. I saw little evidence of mass excitement outside the capital (merely a sense of satisfaction at getting one over the French).
But we have new things to think about now...
Posted by: James Hellyer | 08 July 2005 at 09:05