toryleadership: An unnecessary, untruthful and expensive campaign to disenfranchise party members draws to a close

Conservative Home's debate blogs

Advertising

DVD rental
Conservative Books

About

NewsNow

Conservative News Now

Conservative blogs

US sites

Australian sites

Middle Eastern sites

Audio debates

Blog powered by Typepad

Subscribe to this blog's feed

Tracker 2
Extreme Tracker

Addressing climate change

Drugs policy

Family policy

An open, democratic and decentralised Conservatism

David Cameron's first 100 days

Countdown to Gordon Brown

Political funding

Genocide in Darfur

Interviews

« Editorial: Dr Fox's extra mile compassion | Main | And the result is... »

An unnecessary, untruthful and expensive campaign to disenfranchise party members draws to a close

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.

27 September 2005 in Election process | Permalink

Comments

This is really bad this could add 10 weeks to the leadership election. Thats 10 weeks of very public back biting and division in the party.

Democracy or no democracy having a 2 man runoff is a really bad idea.

Whats strange is that David Davis will almost certainly win whatever so it doesn't really matter what the system is.

We need a leader NOW in reality we'll go from May6 to early December with no leader. A ridiculous situation from an increasingly ridiculous party.

Posted by: wasp | 27 September 2005 at 16:41

Mark, there is no evidence at all that the policies we put forward on Europe and immigration were disliked by the electorate. We have comfortably outpolled Labour in the last two European elections, and on immigration, we are far preferred (if polls are to be believed) to either Labour or the Lib Dems.

One can disagree about how much emphasis should be placed on these issues, but the idea that europhilia and support for mass immigration will somehow win support for the party beggars belief.

Posted by: Sean Fear | 27 September 2005 at 16:45

The 14 MPs who did not vote have let the Party and the members down. It appears that they did spoil their ballot papers - a disgraceful act. If they cannot vote on a vital issue such as party democracy, how can we rely upon them in the House?

Posted by: Selsdon Man | 27 September 2005 at 17:05

There is another explanation, Selsdon Man. They may just be functionally illiterate.

Posted by: Sean Fear | 27 September 2005 at 17:12

They didn't spoil their ballot papers. There was only one spoilt ballot...

Posted by: James Hellyer | 27 September 2005 at 17:24

"the idea that europhilia and support for mass immigration will somehow win support for the party beggars belief."

True. The problem was that issues like immigration, where we enjoyed a lead, were low priority issues for the majority.

Posted by: James Hellyer | 27 September 2005 at 17:27

Sean, it beggars belief that you paraphrased my criticism of last election's Europe / immigration stance as "europhilia and support for mass immigration". The fact of the matter was that we lost the last election, and not because of our policies on taxation, healthcare or education. To find out why we lost, ask some of the natural Tory voters who still went Labour!

Posted by: Mark Fulford | 27 September 2005 at 18:20

Going back to the vote and what was needed for the changes to pass I think that some have still got the 50% issue wrong.

It is not that a 50% turnout is required but that 50% of all those eligible to vote actually voted in favour. In this case 1,141 people were eligible to vote and thus 571 votes in favour were needed to meet the 50% criteria.

Posted by: Richard Allen | 27 September 2005 at 21:17

Half of the college had to approve it (i.e. half of those eligible), with 66% of those voting being in favour in each constituent part of the College.

Posted by: James Hellyer | 27 September 2005 at 21:36

Mark, that seems a reasonable inference from your initial comment (promise to keep Labour's policies on the EU and immigration for four years).

The polling evidence suggest overwhelmingly that voters preferred our stance on immigration to that of Labour.

Posted by: Sean Fear | 27 September 2005 at 22:43

Sean, in a March 2005 Populus poll that compared Labour and Conservative immigration policy, 92% of Tory voters agreed with the Labour policy (they were not told whose policy it was).

The electorate's perception of the Conservative party is that it's hung-up on issues such as immigration. They don’t hear the words: they hear us banging on about immigration and it reinforces the impression that we're a party of xenophobes. It’s essential that we dispel the misconception and the best way is to say we're happy to adopt Labour's policy on it. After all, it's a policy that 92% of Tory voters agreed with - not one of "europhilia and support for mass immigration".

Posted by: Mark Fulford | 27 September 2005 at 23:09

Posted by: JEROGatch | 22 October 2006 at 20:36

Hey would you mind letting me know which webhost you're utilizing? I've loaded your blog in 3 different browsers and I must say this blog loads a lot faster then most. Can you suggest a good internet hosting provider at a fair price? Thanks, I appreciate it!
Nikon カメラ人気 http://www.4dmm.com/【nikon】ニコン-hotsale-6.html

Posted by: Nikon カメラ人気 | 09 October 2013 at 12:31

, Payday loan, 527972, Bankruptcy lawyers, ikdzle, Online dating sites, evf, Paydayloans, 718970, Online casino, 194, Payday loans, lceuo, Dui arrest, >:-[, Cash advance, jwyb, Buy essay, =((,

Posted by: Cash advance online | 07 November 2013 at 13:50

, Cialis online, nza, Viagra online, 592, Order Cialis canada, 172, Viagra, 815, Online cialis, :OOO, Buy cialis, 9959, Sildenafil, 728855, Kamagra, >:-OO, Viagra, >:-[,

Posted by: Generic viagra | 05 December 2013 at 07:02

toryleadership

Conservative Home's debate blogs

Advertising

About

NewsNow

Conservative blogs

US sites

Australian sites

Middle Eastern sites

Audio debates

Addressing climate change

Drugs policy

Family policy

An open, democratic and decentralised Conservatism

Editor's blog choice

David Cameron's first 100 days

Countdown to Gordon Brown

Political funding

Genocide in Darfur

Interviews

An unnecessary, untruthful and expensive campaign to disenfranchise party members draws to a close

Comments

About Conservative Home

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Categories

Israel's elections

War on terror

Compassionate conservatism

Tax

Pro-life

Political polls