Lord Hodgson's case for democracy

I have been emailed a summary of Lord Hodgson's remarks to Saturday's special Constitutional Convention meeting - at which Michael Howard also spoke.  Conservatives.com have posted the leader's remarks but not Robin Hodgson's.  The summary is a very good read and explains why the grassroots voted for IDS in 2001; how the 2001 ballot made a profit; how party workers are (in some ways) better placed to judge leadership candidates; and how the new leader could still be in place by the end of November if the party got on with it.  If you haven't got time to read the whole thing read the following three paragraphs - which are my favourite:

"I have been called a “dinosaur” by a Member of the Board.   The Daily Telegraph says that I am leading a “peasant’s revolt”.   Is tand where I have always stood - for the maintenance of a proper degree of influence in the Pasrty for its voluntary members who, unsung, unheralded and unpaid, give up so much time to preserve the Party we all support and love.   If that makes me a “dinosaur” or a “peasant”, I am proud to accept those accolades.

These proposals are fundamentally flawed and represent an irreversible and unnecessary reduction in the influence of the voluntary members of the Party.

They represent a return to the narrow, deferential Conservative Party of the 1960’s rather than a move towards the outward looking, inclusive, self-confident Conservative Party we need to be if we are to win the next General Election."

SUMMARY OF LORD HODGSON'S REMARKS
[For his biography click here.]

"I am sorry to have to speak to you this afternoon.   I have worked for the Party for over 30 years in many capacities – at all levels in the voluntary party, latterly as the first Chairman of the NCC, as a Member of Parliament and now as Frontbench Spokesman in the House of Lords.

I am therefore not naturally a rebel but these proposals to remove the vote
completely from the membership have stretched my loyalty beyond breaking point.

To understand my opposition, a word of history.   I was much involved in the negotiations that led to the creation of the present rules in 1997.   They were the result of two things.   

First we wished to create a united party which meant that members were entitled to a say in major developments affecting what is, after all, their party. 

Secondly, and no less importantly, they were a reaction to the chronic indiscipline in the Parliamentary Party in the 1990s.   The internecine in-fighting led to the catastrophe of 1997.   Not only a catastrophe politically but a catastrophe for the reputation of the Party from which we have not yet recovered – witness our continuing low poll ratings.

Our objective was to create a delicate balance reflecting the needs of the parties involved.   

It was clear that the Parliamentary Party had to be led by somebody MPs could work with so the MPs alone were allowed to draw up a short-list with the final choice then being given to the members.   

So when it is said, and I am sorry to say that the Party Chairman said it again in the Daily Telegraph earlier this week, that the selection of Iain Duncan-Smith was the voluntary party’s fault, that is untrue.   Iain Duncan-Smith could only be selected by the members because he was put on the short-list by the MPs who, presumably, felt that they could work with him.   

Moreover the rules contained another important proviso which was that if the MPs agreed on a single candidate he or she would become leader of the Party without reference to the members.  Therefore there was every incentive for the MPs to agree amongst themselves as indeed they did in choosing Michael Howard.   The result was probably the most united General Election campaign for 20 years.

So the rules are beginning to work.   The fact that the volunteers have the ultimate say is focussing the mind of the Parliamentary Party.   It may yet happen again that on this occasion that they will find a single candidate they can unite behind.   If so, no-one will be more happy than me. 

What I am not confident about is that if they take back complete control of the process the indiscipline of the 1990s will not recur.

The objections to the present rules are four – all of them in my view deeply flawed.

First it is said that only MPs know enough about the candidates to make the selection of Leader.   It is true that only MPs know enough about his or her parliamentary performance, that is why they control the short-list.   But 200 MPs drawn primarily from the shires and the south-east of England do not necessarily know what is required to capture the imagination of people living in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the North of England and the cities as well as volunteers who live on the ground in those areas.

More importantly, we live in a presidential age where television is the means by which most people learn about politics, so television performance is very important.   MPs and Peers watch very little television and it is you, the members, who can make a shrewder assessment of the television performance of leadership candidates and decide whether they are able to reach out to the uncommitted.   

Second it is said that the election costs too much.  Well the last ballot made a profit because if you put an appeal slip in with the ballot paper our members are quite prepared to send back £5 or £10 to cover the cost

Thirdly it is said that the process takes too long.   This is particularly cynical because if the 1922 Committee had got on with the process when Michael Howard said that he was going to stand down, we could have had a new Leader in place now.   Instead they preferred to begin a long period of negotiation hoping to “bounce” us at the end.   This meeting is part of that “bounce”.   Interestingly in 1997 the 1922 Committee argued the reverse saying that then we needed to have the Leadership Election before the rules were changed.

But in any case, it is perfectly possible for this election to be completed in eight weeks.   We shall be assisted by the fact that the Party Conference takes place during this period, which is the biggest hustings of them all.   But having been a Returning Officer myself for a national ballot I am confident that a new Leader could be in place by the end of November under the present rules if those in charge wished to make it happen.

Fourthly and finally, it is said that the new rules will involve the MPs taking the advice of the volunteers into account.   I have to tell you that this provision formed part of the pre-1997 rules.   I had the privilege of attending several meeting with the 1922 Committee when that advice was proffered.   They received us with great politeness but I doubt if they could remember the figures we gave them five minutes after we had left the room. 

By all means establish procedures for learning the views of the volunteers but do not expect it to have any impact on the outcome.

So I do not believe that any of these criticisms hold serious watter.   It is easy to criticise – what is my proposal?   

First, carry out the Election forthwith under the present rules with the accelerated timetable I referred to above.   Second, in the calm aftermath discuss whether changes are needed to the rules.   It seems to me there is a groundswell of support for some form of electoral college with MPs having a majority slice of the votes and smaller amounts for members, MEPs, Councillors and, dare I say it, Members of the House of Lords.

The sizes of the slices matter less to me than the principal, which is that every part of the Party must have some direct say in the election of the Leader.   

May I conclude by making two points.   

First, when I was NCC Chairman I was always incredibly impressed by your loyalty.   You are now having many appeals to your loyalty.   We have heard two today from Michael Howard and Francis Maude.   I think you need to consider the long-term interests of the Party not short term pragmatic suggestions.

Interestingly in the letter which he sent us all, asking us to support these proposals, Michael Howard said that these proposals were “not my preferred choice”.   So you are being asked to vote for something which is not the preferred choice even of the Leader of our Party.

Secondly, and most importantly, this is a “one-way street”.   When we established the constitution we purposely made very high hurdles for changing the most sensitive parts of the constitution which requires the approval of two thirds of each of the parts of the Constitutional College – what Gavin Barwell called “the triple lock”.

Therefore, if you give this power back to the MPs you will never get it back again.  It is inconceivable that two thirds of the parliamentary party will ever vote to return this power to the membership.   So do not see this as a possibly two year experiment with the possibility of reversing it if this does not work.   It will never happen.

So when you come to vote, tread carefully because you tread on the dreams of thousands of your fellow members.

I have been called a “dinosaur” by a Member of the Board.   The Daily Telegraph says that I am leading a “peasant’s revolt”.   Is tand where I have always stood - for the maintenance of a proper degree of influence in the Pasrty for its voluntary members who, unsung, unheralded and unpaid, give up so much time to preserve the Party we all support and love.   If that makes me a “dinosaur” or a “peasant”, I am proud to accept those accolades.

These proposals are fundamentally flawed and represent an irreversible and unnecessary reduction in the influence of the voluntary members of the Party.

They represent a return to the narrow, deferential Conservative Party of the 1960’s rather than a move towards the outward looking, inclusive, self-confident Conservative Party we need to be if we are to win the next General Election.

I hope, having heard the arguments this afternoon the Chairman will withdraw these proposals, but if he does not, I hope that you will defeat them."

Comments

[James Maskell]

I completely agree with Lord Hodgson here. This is something that will stretch members loyalty to breaking point.

I dont think Howard and Maude will withdraw the proposed changes. If they lose, well its another loss to add the the 3 over the last 8 years... If they were going to withdraw it they would have done it by now.

[Selsdon Man]

I agree - an elegant and excellent exposition of the case for party democracy. The background information Lord Hodgson gives is particularly informative.

I suggest that copies are printed out and displayed in as many association offices and Conservative clubs as possible.

[Oberon Houston]

Small point, interested in other Bloggers views though.

Is it appropriate that IF there is a collage system, should MEP’s be included?

I don’t fully buy this argument that a 1 member 1 vote system more fully represents the Country as a whole rather than just the SE of England. Local Associations around the Country do not always represent a more colloquial view likely to engender wider support outwith the Party, is it possible that an IDS selection by them was predictable? Furthermore, is it not predictable who they will vote for this time round?

It’s a tough call, but I’m still plumbing for the MPs can decide.

[James Hellyer]

"Is it appropriate that IF there is a collage system, should MEP’s be included?"

Let them have a vote, but strictly one MEP one vote, as opposed to 5%(say) of an electoral college.

MEPs are the least representative part of the party. Only people with an especial interest in Europe and the EU seek such a post. As they are so out of the ordinary, I fail to see why their views should be given undue precedence.

"I don’t fully buy this argument that a 1 member 1 vote system more fully represents the Country as a whole rather than just the SE of England."

How many votes would come from target seats outside the SE of England under the MPs only system? NONE. The MPs would only be reflecting the hopes and concerns of the areas they are familair with - which we already represent.

"It’s a tough call, but I’m still plumbing for the MPs can decide."

It worked so well for John Major and William Hague too...

[Simon C]

If only MPs have the vote:

Sussex will have 10 votes
Wales will have 3 votes
Scotland will have one vote
Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Coventry and Leicester will, collectively, have no votes.

The 10 Sussex MPs are all white males.

[malcolm]

I am quite suprised at you Oberon.Other than the fact that we (the activists)are accused of making the wrong choice in 2001 I have not heard one argument being made in favour of restricting the vote to MPs.
Lord Hodgson has made the case against far more elegantly than I ever could,can you really suggest that he's wrong?
If so why?
As regards MEPs there is nothing special about them,they should have the same number of votes as eveyone else in the party...1

[Oberon Houston]

Its a fair challenge Malcolm, I will try to allocate some time to setting out my views on the case for. Francis has put the case for, Lord H has replied, but your right the debate needs to mature some more.

The question I am wrestling with is this - Would an Association from the NW of England (or wherever) vote differently from a Westminster MP? Would they be more likely to pick the best candidate, or less likely? On past performance, its not obvioue. I'm a member too , so I am affected the same as everyone else remember.

[James Hellyer]

"On past performance, its not obvioue. I'm a member too , so I am affected the same as everyone else remember."

It's not obvious that the MPs would pick the best candidate. If you think that's Clarke, remember that they rejected him in '97 and a final ballot of MPs would also have rejected him in '01.

It's also not obvious that Ken would have been the right choice in either of those elections (his case is stronger now the euro and constitution are off the cards).

in any case, ask yourself who is most likely to be in touch with the concerns and needs of a target seat in the North: the people who live there or an MP for the stockbroker belt?

[Richard Allen]

"Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Coventry and Leicester will, collectively, have no votes."

Actually Birmingham has one vote. To the great ire of the locals Sutton Coldfield remians part of the city.

Anyway, great comments from Lord Hodgson. Pretty much what many of us have said, but done far more eloquantly.

[James Maskell]

My view on the "who is the electorate?" point is that if you are a member of the Conservative Party, you are part of the electorate and are allowed a single vote. MEPs included. The MPs might not like this approach but I have to put the point again, this system MUST be democratic, otherwise the Conservatives will be slapped down so hard itll make our heads whirl... Even the Liberal Democrats arent that radical!

[Selsdon Man]

I agree James - One Person One Vote! Why should MPs have a block vote like the unions in the Labour Party? The argument that they know the candidates better is irrelevant. Apply that argument to a general election - it is simply elitist.

As for MPs judgement - they imposed Michael Howard on us and look what has happened!

[Wat Tyler]

Lord Hodgson has put the case for democracy much more effectively than we real peasants have managed.

Of course, as National Union Chairman in 1997, he was the prime mover in getting the old MPs-only voting system replaced by the current one. And he was resisted by many of our MPs all the way.

Good for him in returning to the fray. He is one of our few barons to have proved a true and trusty defender of this vital principle.

I don’ understand.

I ask.

[david walker]

only MPs have the vote:

Sussex will have 10 votes
Wales will have 3 votes
Scotland will have one vote