ConservativeHome.com has learnt that the Conservative Party Board and the 1922 Committee of Tory MPs are on a dramatic collision course that is likely to result in no change to the process by which the next Tory leader is elected.
Only three weeks ago a majority of MPs voted to restore their exclusive control over the leadership process. They rejected proposals for grassroots members to have any say in choosing Michael Howard’s successor.
But the Party Board is demanding that the 1922 Committee votes again. When the ‘22 voted on 15th June it voted with a show of hands (1970s-trade-union-style). The Party Board is insisting that the Committee votes in a way that verifiably establishes that two-thirds of MPs support assuming total control of the election process. A two-thirds vote is required to approve any change to the ‘22’s constitution and some MPs believe that as many as a third of MPs do not support rank-and-file members losing all say in the leadership election. Sir Michael Spicer MP, Chairman of the ’22, is apparently resisting voting again on this divisive issue.
Champions of membership democracy – including IDS, Theresa May, Andrew Lansley, Eric Forth, John Hayes, Andrew Rosindell, Ann Widdecombe, David Willetts, Paul Goodman and Michael Ancram - believe that they can muster a one-third blocking vote.
If enough MPs oppose both the ‘MPs only’ option and the Party Board’s election process reforms (supported by Francis Maude and Michael Howard) then it is likely that the old one-member-one-vote rules will have to be used to choose between David Davis and the chasing pack.
Let's do it then!
Posted by: Steve hampson | 05 July 2005 at 14:02
If the leadership election is fought under present rules I think its almost certain that in about two years you will get a re-run of the IDS fiasco and we will have yet another leader.
It is becoming clear that the Conservative Party is heading for self destruction and perhaps its time for those on the moderate centre and left of the party to breakaway and form a new party that was more interested in winning power than committing political suicide.
Posted by: Jack Stone | 05 July 2005 at 14:41
"If the leadership election is fought under present rules I think its almost certain that in about two years you will get a re-run of the IDS fiasco and we will have yet another leader."
Why? Last time tactical voting knocked out Portillo and then it was Clarke versus the next strongest Not Ken Clarke candidate.
Although this could be characterised as the unacceptable versus the unexceptional, it's also unlikely to be repeated.
"perhaps its time for those on the moderate centre and left of the party to breakaway and form a new party that was more interested in winning power than committing political suicide."
Why don't you call it Blue Labour?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 05 July 2005 at 15:01
The leadership system may not be perfect, but at least this time the MPs will be careful about who they send to the constituencies.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 05 July 2005 at 15:04
The Tories are sunk unless one of the M.P's shows some guts, and leads a breakaway from the past. The old consensus One Nation politics have no future. We need a Leader similar to Governor Schwarzenegger - pro-abortion; pro-gun control;
pro-glamour; pro- environment; pro-balanced budget. Narcissism rules the Tory Party, and it stinks.
Posted by: Tim Stroud | 05 July 2005 at 15:16
IDS had to stand up to excess media pressure as well as being stabbed in the back by his own side.
Davis, Bercow and Macgregor have a lot to answer for.
There is also the monoculture created by the broadcast media particularly in politics.
Support Blair and get a gong!
IDS was further ahead in the polls, prior to the Davis/Howard coup, than Howard ever got.
The rank and file can determine who comes across best on TV and IDS outshone all of the other contenders.
IDS is still our “elected leader” and I would like to see him back.
Posted by: malcolm shykles | 05 July 2005 at 15:29
"perhaps its time for those on the moderate centre and left of the party to breakaway and form a new party that was more interested in winning power than committing political suicide"
Feel free to leave (if you really are a member); the sooner the better.
Posted by: | 05 July 2005 at 15:37
IDS was an embarassment as leader whether he was being the quiet man or it was time to shout. His terrible image, frog in the throat etc. just encouraged the media to attack. He was clearly out of his depth. Like Hague however he has started to come across better now he is no longer leader.
Still however I don't think that MP's will pick a better leader - choosing on the basis of petty rivalries / personality clashes instead of the good of the party and electoral prospects. MP's gave the membership the choice of IDS / Clarke - and they shouldn't have been surprised who got chosen.
Posted by: John T | 05 July 2005 at 15:46
"His terrible image, frog in the throat etc."
I am not quite sure how David Davis is going to come across any better to be honest.
Posted by: Ray Davies | 05 July 2005 at 15:52
"I am not quite sure how David Davis is going to come across any better to be honest."
A certain Mrs Thatcher used to have an awful public speaking voice. Some speech thereapy got her past that. I don't see why the same can't be true for Mister Davis.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 05 July 2005 at 15:57
"A certain Mrs Thatcher used to have an awful public speaking voice."
Indeed. She has was also surrounded by good advisers among several other things.
People used to come out with that when IDS was made leader. I am getting such deja view.
Posted by: Ray Davies | 05 July 2005 at 16:10
Deja vu even!
Funnily enough Thatcher was 56 when she became Prime Minister. Davis will be 57 when he becomes leader.
Posted by: Ray Davies | 05 July 2005 at 16:11
"She has was also surrounded by good advisers among several other things."
Yes, the likes of Conway and Forth don't exactly fill me with confidence. Nick Herbert and Iain Dale are far more confidence inducing.
But I agree that Davis's entourage is one of his biggest negatives...
Posted by: James Hellyer | 05 July 2005 at 16:17
Tories have got to get over their hangups about the importance of the party leader's persona. It is generally thought IDS was a mediocre Commons performer, whereas Bill Hague and Michael Howard were considered very sharp. But this didn't seem to make any difference in the Tory Party's poll numbers or electoral success. Leaders are overrated; to give one example, Labor won with Clement Atlee.
Posted by: Bruce | 05 July 2005 at 17:55
Perhaps we should consider a dynasty - the likes of Bush, Kennedy and Gandhi etc. This may initially sound laughable but lets give it some thought - why not ask Mark Thatcher to stand. He comes with baggage but then who doesn't? He may not appear to be the sharpest guy in the world but is Dubya or was Reagan? It is the team he will have around him that matters and we are blessed with a surfeit of them. He will certainly pull the shires and being relatively young he will be a match for Blair when it comes to appealing to the younger voters. He is also an egocentric which is a huge plus factor. We need a guy who believes in his ability and backs himself. That way he will exude confidence in others.
Posted by: Quinton Haslett | 05 July 2005 at 21:45
There is some weird stuff here,like the person who said the Conservative party needs a leader who is "pro gun control". Britian already has some of strictist gun control on the planet - this is not Vermont you know. Really "gun control" just means that conservative householders can not own firearms (criminals still do), but leave that as it may.
As for the left of the party breaking away and setting up their own party - well it has already been done. The Pro Euro Conservatives of 2001 - they got a handful of votes.
This is the basic fact that which the supporters of the left seem unable to understand. If people want "progressive" (i.e. B.B.C. approved) policies they will vote Labour or Liberal Democrat they will not vote for a Conservative party (however leftwing it makes itself).
When we have gone into a general election with a record of wage and price control and worshipping Mao (the elections of 1974 under that odd person Edward Heath) we have not won (if Mr Heath's Mao worshipping conservatism is not enough for the "moderate" wing of the party what do they want - Pol Pot?). Nor did we win in 1997, 2001 and 2005 - all elections where we matched (or more than matched) Labour on spending pledges for the "public services". Indeed in 1997 the mantra of John Major was "we have spent more money than Labour promised to spend".
This selling out of any Conservative principle does not win elections - it looses them.
We have to produce policies that will attract conservative minded people - and make sure these people understand that we really BELIEVE in these policies. It is getting people out of their houses to vote that is the big thing (a lot of people who believe in British independence and their own independence from the state never come out to vote at all, they do not trust any political party) - not trying to win over leftists who would never vote for us this side of hell freezing over.
As for Governor S. in California - he is trying to cut government spending, any takers on the "moderate" wing of the party for such a policy?
On the election of a leader.
What we must avoid is a lot of special boards and other such.
The system (whether it be of M.P.s or of party members) must be simple, not some Chinese puzzle.
Posted by: Paul Marks | 05 July 2005 at 23:39
The trouble with a lot of Conservatives is that they have not only forgot about the great one nation centre ground politicans we have in the party and the many victories the party have had standing on the centre ground they have become so right-wing, extreme and intolerant that they even give the impression that they regard Michael Howard of all people as a dangerous leftie.
If the party turns yet again to another right wing leader who will stand on a platform more extreme than Margaret Thatcher wouldn`t dream of standing on they will, mark my words, have the Liberal Demorcats replace them as the official opposition.
Posted by: Jack Stone | 06 July 2005 at 15:01
Jack,I really don't understand some of your comments anymore.What have ANY of the leadership candidates done or said that could be in any way construed as 'extreme right-wing'.
Although a Eurosceptic I am generally of the centre-left of the Conservative Party but have found nothing that DD or Liam Fox the supposedly rightwing candidates have said that I could disagree with.Things will probably become more interesting when they flesh out their ideas but at the moment most of them seem like commonsense.
If you are going to make these comments perhaps you will provide us all with some examples?
Posted by: malcolm | 06 July 2005 at 15:25
"the party have had standing on the centre ground they have become so right-wing, extreme and intolerant that they even give the impression that they regard Michael Howard of all people as a dangerous leftie."
Are you on a sponsored straw man or can you actually cite one person who called Michael Howard a dangerous leftie?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 06 July 2005 at 15:26
I'm convinced that "Jack Stone" is simply a troll who wants to wind us up. Nothing he says is grounded in any sort of reality.
Posted by: Sean Fear | 06 July 2005 at 16:17
It is sometimes grounded in a bizarre gloss on what other people here have said. For example, denying Michael Howard ran a hard right campaign because he wanted to increase public spending translates as "you said he was a dangerous leftie". Reform the public services translates as "you want to abolish the NHS!"
Posted by: James Hellyer | 06 July 2005 at 16:30
Can anyone tell me what these wonderful "centre ground" policies are which the Tories are missing out on and which will catapult them to victory? As far as I can tell, the Tory left is now so demoralised and bereft of ideas that it now regards it as "extreme" to deviate from ZaNu Labour thinking, other than on insignificant managerial matters which floating voters will never notice.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | 06 July 2005 at 17:36
Well Michael, the "centre ground" involves sounding a lot like Labour, but with the added benefit of an inexperienced leader who happens to have a nice smile.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 06 July 2005 at 17:42
I sometimes wonder whether the parliamentary party tried to rig the system the last time we elected a leader. Could it be they were so desperate to have Ken Clarke as Leader that they contrived a situation where they put him up against what "they" perceived to be a weaker candidate in IDS? They clearly thought that IDS would not hold popular sway but instead got an anti Clarke vote from the membership. Pure supposition and no evidence, I accept.
A prime minister is supposed to "primus inter pares" and therefore there is a good argument for future PM's to be the same and to be selected by his "equals". However, having given the power to members it looks a bit poor to then take it back again in totality.
IDS was dealt a pretty bad hand by the system, the process and the Parliamentary party and I think it laudable that he has sought to defend the rights of members to choose their next leader.
Posted by: Kevin Davis | 06 July 2005 at 17:54
We can count ourselves lucky that the London devices were neither chemical nor nuclear.
If the Israelis have proved anything over the past 57 years it is that “War on Terror” actually breeds terror.
We need more of the Muslim faith in the party and we will not get these having a leader brought up under a faith shared by whom they consider as a war criminal one Ariel Sharon.
Posted by: malcolm shykles | 08 July 2005 at 07:47