Desperate Central Office try to salvage Michael Howard's rollback of party democracy

It is now clear that Tuesday's letter from senior members of the voluntary party - protesting against Michael Howard's attempt to reverse party democratisation - caused panic at Central Office.  Last minute attempts have been made to get senior MPs to mount high profile defences of the reforms designed by Michael Howard, Francis Maude and the hapless Raymond Monbiot.

It was always possible that the reforms would be defeated by a principled third of party members who did not think that a narrowing of the franchise was a good thing for a modern, inclusive political party.  That principled number is now being joined by Eurosceptic party members who see rejection of the 'Howard democratic rollback' as the only sure way of stopping an MPs-only election producing a Ken Clarke leadership.

It may also be that there will now be enough MPs to block the reforms.  66 MPs are required to be sure to veto the Howard reforms but 66 might not be necessary because approval of the reforms requires a 'yes' vote from two-thirds of those 197 MPs eligible to vote (rather than those who actually do vote).  Fifty MPs opposed the reforms in July.  That fifty did not include David Willetts (who was in America at the time) and Liam Fox (who abstained).  Dr Fox has now 'come out' against the reforms and he may persuade some of his followers to do the same.  It can also be hoped that some anti-Clarke MPs might vote tactically to force Clarke to have to face the party membership that rejected him by three-to-two in 2001.

If Michael Howard's reforms are defeated there will be serious repurcussions.  The party board, which has been so unrepresentative of grassroots opinion, may decide the honourable thing to do is resign en masse.  Their clumsiness may mean that the installation of a new leader might be delayed until December or even January '06.  There is talk, however, of MPs slimming the field down to two candidates and the second-placed candidate folding.  This attempt to avoid the time-consuming balloting of rank-and-file members does depend, of course, on the second-placed candidate deciding to fold!  In this week's Spectator Peter Oborne reports "anger felt by many Tory MPs" at Francis Maude's "railroading [of] the rule changes through in a secretive and possibly illegal way."  Read Mr Oborne's article for background on this...

Comments

[James Hellyer]

"A party conference can be many things: a show of confidence, an agonising reappraisal, or, as in this case, a series of auditions by pretenders to the throne, while the lost leader withers before our eyes."

- Francis Urquhart, House of Cards

[Wat Tyler]

Is it really possible that right will triumph?

Maybe we should all have more faith.

[AnotherNick]

Interesting developments. I must say I think Ken would now have a chance now in a vote of the members.

[James]

Ken preceded the declaration of his candidacy by making a series of disparging comments about the party membership. Even his cheerleader Peter Oborne admits he would face a real struggle. After all, a poll a few months ago said he would be unacceptable to 42% (I think) of party members.

[Wat Tyler]

Maude in the Telegraph: "I cannot emphasise too strongly that no one would have gone down this path unless there was pretty strong evidence that this was what the voluntary party wanted. It is not a case of us trying to hijack it."

It seems to have escaped him that modern democratic parties collect such "evidence" through the ballot box, not over drinks at the Carlton Club.

But they're certainly rattled.

And oh the aching irony of it all- they changed the rules to nobble DD in favour of DC, and now find they've actually nobbled DC in favour of their 'old mate' Ken.

As James suggests- they need help from Urquhart.

[Selsdon Man]

One of Francis Maude's most interesting comments was that the Party is expecting Brown to succeed Blair in 2 years time and call a snap election.

If so, given the huge debts, will the Party be able to finance a campaign? This greatly concerns me.

It also means that all candidates must be selected within the next 18 months. That is a huge task - especially if the Candidates List is culled.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

I have managed to get hold of (and post on my blog) the press release and letter sent to every member of the National Convention that the New Politics Network has put out today on the subject of the leadership rules. Quite lengthy - but worth reading.

[Selsdon Man]

BTW, great quote James! House of Cards author Michael Dobbs was a perceptive observer of our Party from the inside. Any more quotes?

[AnotherNick]

Don't worry Francis, it isn't a disaster, I have a plan!

Every potential candidate knows if they have enough supporters by now, so give them a week to declare if they are going to stand.

Two or maybe three live prime-time TV debates, unleash Paxman on the leadership contenders on one occasion.

With the voting forms issue each member with a 2-4 page document that the candidates can use to put forward their policies and priorities (as Conservative Future are doing at the moment). Then we will vote and you'll have a new leader by the conference!

Sadly I don't think this quote will apply for us this year, Selsdon:

"After the silly season comes the conference season. Opposition did rather well this year. Abandoned their usual tactic of squabbling in public and shooting themselves in the foot and had a go at us, in particular the Prime Minister, very unsporting of them."

[Selsdon Man]

Sadly very true, anonymous!

Party conference should be a coronation for the new Leader rather than a contrived hustings!

[James Hellyer]

I am anonymous no longer! The risks of using a strange PC, I'm afraid!

[James Maskell]

It is good to hear that the dark democracy destroyers might lose out to common sense. I don't particularly like Francis Maude anyway but his comments are silly to put it lightly. Does Francis Maude have any respect for democracy at all? I dont give a damn whether it leads to a debacle, democracy isn't there to be thrown aside until the right person is picked. That's not the way it works. I am as passionate about this, if not more passionate, than I have ever been about any issue.

[Selsdon Man]

When we renewed our memberships this year, the party web site used democracy as a selling point. If we lose our vote, are we entitled to a rebate? Could the Party be sued for breach contract? Just a mischievous thought!

[Simon C]

"When we renewed our memberships this year, the party web site used democracy as a selling point. If we lose our vote, are we entitled to a rebate? Could the Party be sued for breach contract? Just a mischievous thought!"

It's a serious point though, Selsdon. I raised this basic issue of fair-dealing in my submission on A 21st Century Party

[James Maskell]

I have decided (very reluctantly) not to renew my membership until September 27th. I want to see which way the Party wishes to go before renewing my membership.

[Selsdon Man]

The television coverage of Ken's speech yesterday showed having dark brown hair. It looks as it if he has dyed it or put on the old Grecian 2000! If you look at the pictures on his web site, his hair is a light grey - as it was when I saw him in April. It looks as if even "unspun" Ken has succumbed to the image makers.