A group of about twenty socially conservative Tory MPs has united to invite the principal leadership contenders to be interviewed by them – one-by-one.
The group, which is coordinated by John Hayes and Edward Leigh, is likely to quiz the candidates about their views on family values, abortion, euthanasia, harm reduction approaches to drug-use and faith-based welfare.
In order to maximize their leverage on the race there is even talk of the group deciding to vote for the ‘best’ candidate en masse. If, however, none of the existing contenders for the Tory crown prove satisfactory the group may even run a candidate of its own.
The group is expected to lean towards David Davis or the pro-life Liam Fox but David Cameron’s pro-marriage intervention earlier in the week will have muddied the waters. The Hayes-Leigh group believes that the rebuilding of the family is essential to child welfare and poverty-reduction.
The in-your-face tactics of this group might encourage others to do something similar. The party’s Euro-sceptics are in a particularly strong position to flex their muscles. Many were unhappy at the way that Michael Howard continued the Conservative Party’s relationship with the federalist European Peoples’ Party, within the European Parliament. They might seek explicit commitments from would-be leaders for a divorce from the EPP.
Oh great. A chance to vet candidates on issues that have nothing to do with winning elections and everything to do with the personal convictions - deeply felt, I acknowledge - of the candidates. What a gift for our liberal friends in the media!
Posted by: Graeme Archer | 02 July 2005 at 21:08
Alan Duncan won't get many votes here.
Posted by: Joie Benz | 02 July 2005 at 22:16
Alan Duncan won't get many votes here.
Posted by: Joie Benz | 02 July 2005 at 22:19
I know what you mean Graeme. It’s certainly disappointing, although which is more disappointing: the fact they’re asking questions which serve little purpose to winning an election, or the fact that despite the leadership content not yet being announced we are aware of most of the people who will stand, and the majority being concerned with the people themselves as opposed to the future direction of the party?
I guess it at least gives them something to do. *shrugs*
Posted by: The Political Thinker | 02 July 2005 at 22:23
It is wretchedly depressing isn't it, the whole "leadership" "race". No-one has yet done anything but re-arrange various buzzwords like "centre", "common", "reach out", "reconnect" blah blah blah. Sometimes these words come from half way down a post office tower, sometimes they are delivered to me via the Telegraph... Meanwhile, here in Hackney, we keep delivering the leaflets... and my feelings of barely contained joy when Michael Howard took over become an ever more distant memory. OK it's probably too late at night, so I'm getting needlessly blue!
Posted by: Graeme Archer | 02 July 2005 at 23:12
While I'm probably in sympathy with the group's concerns, I'm not convinced about this. The last thing we want is for the party to lapse into factionalism - that a leader has to 'buy' the social conservatives and then 'buy' the Eurosceptics and then 'buy' the economic liberals. The risk is we start to come apart again... especially if some of the factions become identified with a losing candidate.
Posted by: Blimpish | 03 July 2005 at 13:35
Do we know who some of the group's MPs are, besides Hayes and Leigh?
Posted by: Peter | 03 July 2005 at 20:36
Showing an ability to reform welfare through, among other approaches, faith-based schemes has a LOT to do with winning elections. So too does support for marriage.
If we market ourselves as a brutalist libertarian party, we will win even fewer seats than we have managed at recent elections.
Oh yeah, and the other stuff is about the right thing to do, which some of us still care about.
Posted by: Tom Greeves | 04 July 2005 at 12:20
Faith-based welfare has a LOT to do with winning elections. So too does support for marriage.
If we market ourselves as a brultalist libertarian party, we will win even fewer seats than we have managed at recent elections.
Oh yeah, and the other stuff is about the right thing to do, which some of us still care about.
Posted by: Tom Greeves | 04 July 2005 at 12:20
I think this all leads back to the "Soho-mod/Easterhouse-mod" point made elsewhere.
The fact is that the family delivers for kids: education, healthcare, anti-crime policy, anti-drugs policym, childcare, and, as any parents out there will know, a comprehensive transport service and treasury! What's wrong with promoting this?
I think this debate has to be had. If we continue the undermining of the family, in 50 years we'll have huge strain on housing, healthcare, the benefits system , pensions and the environment.
This group of MPs are only looking to adapt Conservative principles to some of the most important issues facing the country.
Posted by: MPW | 13 July 2005 at 22:24