It won't be until approximately 4pm that we will know if Michael Howard (the leader who is 'forgotten, but not gone') has succeeded in reversing the 1997 democratisation of the Conservative Party. We do already know, however, that the threats employed by the anti-democrats on the party board were exaggerated. Warnings that there would be chaos and no chance of a new leader being elected until the new year (if the existing one-member-one-vote rules were not scrapped) were simply not true. Pro-democracy campaigners like Lord Hodgson and John Hayes MP refuted these warnings at the time but CCHQ is now admitting it, too (now that the ballot papers are safely gathered in). Today's Telegraph reports:
"Conservatives still aim to have a new leader by Christmas even if the party decides to retain its lengthy one-member, one-vote electoral system, it emerged last night... Francis Maude, the party chairman, previously warned that opting for no change could delay the leadership result until the New Year while the MPs-only solution would deliver a new leader by mid-November... But in a significant climbdown last night, party sources confirmed that even with the existing mass ballot, Mr Howard's successor should be in place by "early December".
If the Howard-Maude-Monbiot axis succeeds today it will be a victory - not for the merits of their disenfranchisement scheme - but for CCHQ's groundless threats. If the axis fails we have a great opportunity to start fashioning the mass participation party that the internet age can enable. Whatever the result a little more poison has entered the bloodstream of the Tory Party because of the unnecessary nature of the contest and the ways in which rank-and-file party members have been set against MPs. The Times reports the possibility of a legal challenge to the way in which the ballot has not been independently overseen. There has also been the huge financial strain that Michael Howard's delayed leadership election has produced. Today's news from Lord Ashcroft only underlines the precarious final situation that Michael Howard will leave his poor successor.
Those of us in the East Midlands also today await the decision of the European Parliamentary Party's Tribunal concerning Roger Helmer MEP.
Whatever he may have said or done to upset the political hierarchy, Roger is a bloody good constituency MEP and well-liked in this part of Lincolnshire.
I earnestly pray for two good decisions today. decisions that will start to unite the Party, enthuse the activists and help all of us who the public have trusted with their votes to bring renewed hope and encouragement to this Great Nation of ours.
Posted by: Cllr Graham Smith | 27 September 2005 at 07:22
Raymond Monbiot said yesterday (see BBCi) that 80% of the ballot papers had been returned. The proposals, I believe, need the support 66% of those eligible to vote (not just those that actually vote) to succeed. That looks virtually impossible unless there is a last minute rush in this morning's post.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 27 September 2005 at 09:27
So todays the big day...Ive said my piece so I wont bother repeating myself. BUT if the proposals do make it through and the rank and file are disenfranchised I will not renew my subscription. The Party will be setting itself up for a 4th election defeat already. Jean Searle hit the nail with her comments on the BBC. This is an issue which is a foundation of out country.
Im sorry, Cllr Smith, but Im not aware of the Helmer situation...are you able to let us know what the problem was?
I eagerly await the results.
Posted by: James Maskell | 27 September 2005 at 09:41
Helmer was suspended from the party on 26 May 2005 after voting against party instructions on a motion to censure the European Commission and openly criticising his party leader in a parliamentary debate.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 27 September 2005 at 09:52
Selsdon, you're not correct, the rules state that 66% of those actually voting must vote for the proposals, and the turnout must be at least 50% of those eligible to vote. There are two separate hurdles to overcome with the 66%; it must be 66% of the MPs voting and 66% of the members of the National Convention.
Posted by: Derek | 27 September 2005 at 10:44
If the new rules are defeated then the financial situation won't be so bad, the 2001 election made a large amount of cash for the party as most voters put a fiver in the envelope with the ballot paper.
Posted by: wasp | 27 September 2005 at 10:46
Are you sure, Derek? I was under the impression that the two thirds of those eligible to vote had to support the motion before it could pass.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 27 September 2005 at 11:03
was interested to hear Ann Widdecombe this morning stating that we sell membership on the fact members get a vote for Party leader. How many people join the Party on this basis?
Posted by: michael fishwick | 27 September 2005 at 11:04
Click on this link to see the Constitutional rules regarding changing the constitution. This'll clear it up.:
http://www.abetterchoice.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=21&Itemid=55&limit=1&limitstart=2
Posted by: James Maskell | 27 September 2005 at 11:05
Looks like its 2/3s of those voting not those eligible to vote.
Posted by: James Maskell | 27 September 2005 at 11:08
Okay, I see where the confusion lies. 66% of the MPs eligible to vote have to approve the change. 66% of those voting in the National Convention have to approve then change (on a minimum 50% turnout).
Posted by: James Hellyer | 27 September 2005 at 11:08
The MPs vote will be in favour of the changes I reckon, but the NC vote I reckon will go against the changes. Its their votes that go. I know that its being given in exchange for a quicker election, so Fraude says but I really do struggle to see the justification for such dramatic change. The higher the turnout in the vote the better I think. This constitution is quite good. Designed not to be changed unless people really do want the change. Credit to Hague on this one.
Posted by: James Maskell | 27 September 2005 at 11:18
I actually think it will fail on the MPs' vote. Lat time 50 were against and a lot (was it 30?) abstained. Some of those abtstainees (e.g. Fox, Davis) have now come out against the the change. Similarly some MPs who voted for it have changed their mind (e.g. my MP, Geoffrey Cox).
Posted by: James Hellyer | 27 September 2005 at 11:26
What will Howard/Maode/Monbiot say to gloss their rejection? "A triumph for democracy?"
Come. Let us go forward together onto those broad sunlit uplands...
Posted by: Wat Tyler | 27 September 2005 at 11:29
1. Who cares so long as we crack on and elect a leader?
2. Will members really leave the Party in droves if they haven't got a vote?
Posted by: michael | 27 September 2005 at 11:33
And another thing (OT- previous thread)...the shambolic way in which this vote has been conducted- leaving open the possibility of legal challenge- underlines how wary we should be of jumping into an open primaries system for selecting ppcs and future leadership candidates.
We just don't have the admin capability at present to handle anything like that without it degenerating into a shambles and being hijacked by undercover LibDems (many of whom routinely cruise this site, for example).
Let's keep that in mind.
Posted by: Wat Tyler | 27 September 2005 at 11:40
Undercover Lib Dems?!?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 27 September 2005 at 11:43
Wat, I think we have the makings of a poet in our midst!Shame you didn't finish the oration.Perhaps you should 'phone Maude this afternoon offering to write his speech.
Perhaps most members apart from James M won't leave the party (at least I hope not)Michael, but I wonder how many will be unable to go out delivering leaflets on a wet night or refuse to donate to the party.That I think will be the real problem if Maude gets his way.
Posted by: malcolm | 27 September 2005 at 11:48
Sorry everybody...Im the Undercover Lib Dem! :)
Posted by: James Maskell | 27 September 2005 at 11:48
Interesting. Ken Clarke is launching a campaign tomorrow aimed at Tory members, under the banner "it's time to win". Would he be doing this if he and his team thought the proposals would be accepted? I think not!
As a KC supporter, I hope desperately that these anti-democratic rule changes are defeated. Otherwise you might as well give it to that utter nonentity, Davis, now. KC wants it this time and he stands head and shoulders above the others, especially Davis and Cameron.
Posted by: Adrian Sherman | 27 September 2005 at 11:52
Davis is not a nonentity. A nonentity would have secured the support of so many MPs from both wings of the party.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 27 September 2005 at 11:57
Just read something thats come into my inbox. The ballot finishes in the next couple of minutes.
Posted by: James Maskell | 27 September 2005 at 11:58
Oops - put "not" between "would" and "have" above!
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 27 September 2005 at 11:59
That's what I'm wondering malcolm. People got wet before they had a vote and will do if it's taken away, beacause it's a leader with the prospect of power which motivates members. At least those who are concerned about delivering a Conservative Government above systems & processes, rights & priveliges.
Posted by: michael | 27 September 2005 at 12:02
The fact that Davis has attracted support from his peers is, I'm afraid, a pretty sad reflection on the Party. Let's not forget that the MPs elected wee Willie Hague and put IDS in the members' run off; yeh, great calls, what a sophisticated electorate!!! Both disasters at the ballot box and elected solely because of Europe, which says a great deal.
Posted by: Adrian Sherman | 27 September 2005 at 12:19