Ferdinand Mount casts another vote for primaries

Michael Howard yesterday ended increasingly feverish speculation that he might resign immediately if he does not succeed in disenfranchising rank-and-file party members.  CCHQ issued a statement that detailed his 'resignation timetable'.  The statement included another last minute appeal from Mr Howard for members not to reject his reforms.  This post is this site's last appeal for those reforms to be thrown out  I ask any Chairman, MP or other member of the Constitutional Convention who is yet to cast and post their vote to read Lord Hodgson's excellent speech on the subject and then answer this one question...

Can you name one other political movement in the world that has given their members the vote and then taken it away?

The Conservative Party - with its fine democratic traditions - does not belong in such a club of political movements.  It is a disgrace that it is even a possibility that we join it.

As has been said before - if the problem is that the party membership is unrepresentative the solution is a wider franchise - not a retreat to the narrow group of Tory MPs who never watch GMTV, Big Brother or any of the other media that form peoples' views and outlook.

In today's Telegraph Ferdinand Mount becomes the latest commentator to urge Tory members to reject the retreat from democracy.  He, like this site and Theresa May, urges adoption of US-primary-style elections.  Here is his case in a nutshell:   

"The [Tory] leadership now frankly does not trust its own members to choose the party's leader, on the grounds that they are so elderly and crusty and thus unrepresentative of Tory voters as a whole.  But if the last vestige of power is removed, the membership will dwindle further and they will become even more unrepresentative. The only way to break out of this vicious circle is to go in the opposite direction: towards more democracy and decentralisation. Far from restricting the vote for the leader - and indeed for parliamentary candidates - they should throw it open to anyone who is prepared to register as a supporter without necessarily becoming a full-blown member."

Comments

[James Maskell]

I agree with Ferdinand Mount up to the point of open primaries. If we have open primaries we will have members of other parties coming in and voting. Do we want people from Labour and the Lib Dems and other smaller parties coming to the gatherings and voting alongside members? I dont really see the justification for allowing non members to decide our leader. They may deliberately vote a certain way to skew the result. It wouldnt be fair.

[Selsdon Man]

With open primaries, how do you stop infiltration by other parties and organisations? All they have to do is register their activists as Conservative supporters with the Party. There is a substantial risk of fraud too.

[Wat Tyler]

I must say I completely agree with James and Selsdon. In these web days, we know very well how easy it is to nobble these popular votes (and not just Today type polls- there are still unanswered questions about our banana republic postal votes in the Election). And I have very little confidence in the ability of CCO to safeguard us against such abuse. Efficient admin is...hmmm, well hardly their strongpoint.

So paid up members only...Jeez, you can join for as little as 15 quid a year.

[Blimpish]

Agreed with all of the above - why not go for a Iowa caucus-type model, where the only members getting to vote have to do so in person, after taking part in an open discussion with representatives? That way, you at least make sure it's an informed choice.

[Adrian Owens]

Blimpish

An Iowa style caucus is exactly the way to go. People should have to pre-register as Conservative supporters and then show enough interest to turn up and listen and debate with the contenders.

This could work for leadership elections and for other selections in the party. I have moved to this opinion driven by the control freakery so evident in sections of the party. It's time to open the doors and let some frsh air and fresh thinking in.

[James Hellyer]

So we'd all pack into out local Con Clubs, Blimpish, and then harangue our fellow members about out candidate of choice, before taking a straw poll?

[Blimpish]

Exactly - just add large quantities of booze...

[Blimpish]

More on the Iowa caucuses here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus

[James Hellyer]

Conservative Caucus in binge drinking horror!

[Derek]

I agree with the above. We need to be cautious about letting non-members share voting rights with members, but I would be willing to look at ways of enrolling additional supporters, provided we get some sort of commitment from them, may be a five pound registration. It's certainly worth a try, and once we find these supporters, we might be able to get them to help with deliveries etc.

[Bruce]

In Iowa, both parties (by law) caucus on the same day, every 4 years. That way the threat of supporters of one party invading the caucus of another is minimized, since the activists who might "cross over" are kept busy with their own party caucus. Absent such a law (which, given the practicalities of British politics, would never be passed) some sort of membership or fee requirement would seem necessary. I believe the Canadian Conservative Party, for selection of delegates to the national nominating convention, has such "open" caucuses and imposes such membership/fee requirement. Perhaps they should be used as a model instead of Iowa.

[James Maskell]

I think the system for primaries must be strictly controlled. I think being a fully fledged member for 3 months prior to the vote as the system is now is right. However for this to work completely, power must be passed down to the local associations and not have a central party list, which can be inefficient. If you join the party you do it through your local association.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

I still havent seen evidence to suggest that primaries lead to greater electoral participation. Isnt turnout in the US less than hear?

Then of course Labour and the Lib Dems have been successful in their own terms at winning elections - without primaries. Its one that I really need to be convinced upon. I actually think in a way it could be undemocatic. Letting MPs vote on the leadership takes away the rights of the paid up members - just as giving registered supporters would do.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

And I cant even spell here!!

[Wat Tyler]

OT- Excellent local council results yesterday. Gains from Labour and LibDems- strong swings to us- over 20% in some cases.

Er...do we actually need a leader at all?

[James Hellyer]

I think a state of permanant leadership election get us lots of coverage, Wat.

Of course, the Clarke-ites will soon tell us that those results represent an enthusiasm for the incipient Clarke leadership!

[malcolm]

James,I thought perhaps we could go one day without you make snide remarks about Clarke or his supporters.We are, after all supposed to be on the same side.

[James Hellyer]

Lighten up.

[malcolm]

Try and be nice James,it's not that difficult.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Fair point Malcolm. As said often before, if Conservatives put the same amount of effort into attacking the other parties as they do their fellow Conservatives then the party would be in a much healthier condition.

[James Hellyer]

It's not a fair point. It's a severely humourless and patronising point.

[James Maskell]

James, I think you might be overreacting a bit. Lets try to show some calm here please. Malcolm does have a point. There arent many days when we arent arguing incessantly. Its not the best of signals that the Party is being united.

[James Hellyer]

Nope, the one overreacting was Malcolm. I am perfectly calm.

"There arent many days when we arent arguing incessantly. Its not the best of signals that the Party is being united."

... which is further evidence that Ken Clarke is too divisive a figure to be Party Leader...

So there ;=)

[Bruce]

Published figures for general election turnout suggest that turnout in the U.S. is less than in Britain. However, much of that is due to the fact that America is more mobile. Voters tend to move from town to town and from state to state more than most (all?) other nations. As I can verify from personal experience, those who move tend not to be stricken from the electoral rolls. Thus election turnout appears to be low, because the rolls of registered voters are inflated.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Thanks Bruce - My father and family live in the US - actually in Tallahassee home to a certain amount of political intruige at one point. I still fail to see how primaries will lead to an increase in Conservative support which is what the party wants. My view is that there are better ways to do this - without trying to introduce something which may well serve to antagonise the membership.

Primaries would be yet another step in the downgrading of the paid up member and the local association. Why pay £15 is you can have as much say as a member without being one?

I'm all for having "Conservative supporters" which is something that Conservative Direct is looking to help with (although it didn't help so much in the constituency I stood in) - however if people want to take a more active role, and play a part in a selection process I dont think asking for £15 and for them to become members is too much to ask for.