Dr Cooper's letter to The Scotsman

In a letter to The Scotsman, Dr Cooper, of Maidenhead, says that Ken Clarke's European views made him the wrong choice for Tory leader in 2001 and that it was rank-and-file Tory members who saved the Conservative Party (and Britain) from his enthusiasm for the euro and constitution:

"Of course it is an internal matter how the Conservative Party chooses its leader, and who that person may be. Nevertheless, current attempts to change the rules, primarily to block one candidate, and to improve the chances of another, hardly offer an attractive spectacle to outside observers who might consider voting for the Tories in the future.

One argument for the retrograde proposal to disenfranchise the ordinary members is quite extraordinary: that they chose the "wrong" candidate in 2001. Yet we all have good cause to be grateful that they preferred Ian Duncan Smith over Kenneth Clarke.

If Clarke had been the leader, he would never have permitted Conservatives to campaign against the European Union constitution, and the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, would not have conceded a referendum.

By now, the bill to ratify the constitution would have slipped through parliament with little fuss. Also, as the French president, Jacques Chirac, only gave in to calls for a French referendum because Mr Blair had given in here, the constitution would also have received parliamentary ratification in France. The Dutch would have followed suit.

Conservative MPs showed an appalling lack of judgment by naming Mr Clarke as their first choice for leader, and the country owes the rank and file members a debt of gratitude for their common sense and patriotism in rejecting him. It was hardly their fault that the alternative put forward by the MPs was a good man, but a poor leader.

So, if either group is now to be disenfranchised, why should it be the party members?"

Good question, Dr Cooper.  Perhaps one of those 127 MPs who voted for an MPs-only election can give us an answer... 

Comments

[Derek]

Dr. Cooper has made an excellent case. The choice made by members was the right one and as a result the Party took a different political direction to that which it would have taken under a Clarke leadership. His scenarios are extremely plausible, in fact highly likely. Often a little extra persuasion can in the end lead to enormous political changes.

My only criticism is that he says that IDS was a poor leader. I think he was badly let down by some of his MPs, and so was not given a chance to grow into the job. We should not expect instant brilliance from our leaders, they need to be given time and loyalty. He actually did a lot of excellent things, most of our good policies were announce under IDS and he actually gave the Party a higher poll rating than we achieved under Mr. Howard.

[Wat Tyler]

Dr Cooper puts it very well, and of course his MP- Theresa M- agrees with him on member voting.

My MP however reckons it's 'all very difficult' and that he's spoken to many members who want MPs to have the sole choice. And judging from comments around the blogosphere, he may be right.

Which I find baffling.

[James Maskell]

We know the numbers but does anybody know which MPs voted which way? Im curious to see how my MP voted.

[Selsdon Man]

Am I right in thinking that MPs will vote again as members of the constitutional convention?

If so, the pro-democracy activists could contact each MP and ask them how they plan to vote. We could then have three categories - pro-democracy, anti-democracy and won't say.

If not, MPs could be asked how they voted last time. If we can find out most of the Pros, we can then work out the antis, even if they won't say.

The lists could be published on web sites and sent to the press. Those in the last two categories could incur the wrath of their associations.

[James Maskell]

You're right Selsdon Man, MPs vote as part of the CC along with MEPs, Peers and Senior party officials, like association chairmen.

I suspect the majority will not wish to say which way they will vote. They are under no duty to tell the people how they will vote. However they are supposed to consult their members before making a decision.

[Selsdon Man]

My association held a series of ward meetings. Their views were considered by the association who gave the Chairman the Line To Take (pro-democracy I believe).

It would be useful to know what is happening in other associations.

[malcolm]

My constituency have had no meetings about anything.I wrote to our MP and put the pro democracy case and recieved no reply. Found out recently that he has already voted to give MPs control over the leadership elections though he himself is unable to make up his mind as they are all unimpressive!Makes you want to weep doesn't it?

[carol]

Agree 100% but why should the members be blamed? what choice did we have? I wanted Portillo but was not given that choice. I was not impressed after hearing IDS and Clarke speak but, reluctantly voted for Clarke despite his awful 'take it or leave it' attitude to members. As my husband voted for IDS it didn't matter anyway. Clarke could have been leader any time after 1997 if he had been prepared to bend a bit on Europe, the fact that he refused to do so suggests he learned nothing and never will. This suddenly finding he was wrong fools nobody, he will be back to his pro Europe stance as soon as he can. Let the members choose a short list and then let the MPs decide, at least they will know what we think although I suspect they know that already and that is why some want to change the rules. If they choice Clarke I, for one, will not be a member any longer.

[James Hellyer]

Here's what Torridge and West Devon's agent told me during the "consultation" period for A 21st Century Party:

"We have not submitted a formal constituency response to the Constitutional proposals put forward in the consultation, as we have been consulting branches internally and we have discussed it at our Executive Council. We have encouraged individual members and branches to put forward their own views, and one Conservative Council Group has also done likewise.

"There has been a meeting held to discuss the constitution at Devon Area level. Alas, the timing of this meeting was not conducive to notifying all members 1,000+ members but all branches were informed."

Which is why I didn't find out until afterwards, obviously.

[James Maskell]

I believe my Association, North Thanet will be having a joint meeting with South Thanet and will be discussing the Constitution as part of a post election discussion from the Conservative Policy Forum. I wont be able to attend due to work commitments, but I will be sending my opinions ahead in advance of that meeting.