General elections are always expensive but a good polling day result or the installation of a new leader normally reaps a financial harvest that steadies the financial ship. That hasn’t happened this time.
The long gap between the expensive ‘Are you thinking what we’re thinking?’ election campaign and the election of a new leader has created a dangerous gap that Tory Treasurers are having to work overtime to bridge. The long gap is a consequence, of course, of Mr Howard’s decision to change the process by which his successor is chosen. If the new leader had been chosen by the existing rules he would likely be in place by now and Tory coffers would be benefiting from the new donors attracted to his leadership. [I hope Theresa will forgive the use of “he” and "his"].
The second punch of the double whammy comes from the fact that the multiple leadership candidates have a gannet-like hunger for Tory donors’ cash. Each leadership contender is incurring multiple expenses. Different campaigns are hiring extra staff, running websites, conducting opinion polling and mounting nationwide roadshows. This is expensive and money that might have gone into central funds is being dispersed widely.
When the Howard-Maude-Monbiot disenfranchisement alliance issue threats that failure to endorse their disenfranchisement proposals might further prolong the election of a new leader it is worth remembering who were the architects of this mess. Lord Hodgson has, of course, poured cold water on the idea that the ‘prolongation’ need be long.
Meanwhile Norman Fowler has become the latest former Tory Chairman (following Theresa May, then Michael Ancram, then Liam Fox, then David Davis) to argue that disenfranchising the rank-and-file members is a bad idea. Speaking at 6.55 this morning on Radio 4’s Today programme he said that he held a principled objection to under 200 MPs – representing a narrow section of Britain – choosing the next Tory leader. Lord Fowler also endorsed Ken Clarke during the interview.
What about the Smith Square? That has cost the party millions.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 14 September 2005 at 10:12
Another wonderful example set to the public. Not only will the Party strip you of the vote...itll also put the country into huge amounts of debt. This is not the sort of publicity the party needs right now.
Norman Fowler comes out now...I struggle to see why people with such strong principles wait so long before coming out against these proposals. It just seems very late to come out now when the vote is in 13 days. Why not come out 2 weeks ago, or earlier when the proposals were put out initially?
Posted by: James Maskell | 14 September 2005 at 12:28
The problem with people coming out against the Monbiot-Maude-Howard proposals now, is that it looks like its solely motivaterd by getting their choice of leader installed. In this case there's some evidence that a member's ballot may be more favourable to Clarke than an MPs only vote. Coincidence?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 14 September 2005 at 12:34
James...yes, I heard Fowler's interview.
Go figure.
Posted by: Wat Tyler | 14 September 2005 at 12:38
The answer my friend is blowing with the wind. Apologies to Bob Dylan.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 14 September 2005 at 14:14
How can the debt can be cleared in time for a 2007/8 general election. CCHQ thinks that PM Brown might call an early election to get his own mandate.
We outspent all the other parties in last year's European Elections but the result was poor.
It is time that, to use Howard's phrase, that those responsible were held accountable.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 14 September 2005 at 14:23
Even 'though I work in advertising I'm still very sceptical as to whether spending huge amounts of money on election campaigns actually achieves anything.Maybe I'm being niave.
PS Selsdon,I didn't understand your Bob Dylan post.
Posted by: malcolm | 14 September 2005 at 17:33
FAO Malcolm - from Bob Dylan's Blowin' In The Wind
"Yes, 'n' how many years can some people exist
Before they're allowed to be free?
Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesn't see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind."
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 14 September 2005 at 17:46
Howard tells people that they should vote for the proposals because they were passed by the MPs and the Board...of course they were. Why would the Board, which is at least partly made up of MPs along with the other head honchos, vote against the proposals? Also why would the MPs wish to give the membership their powers? Howard sounds increasingly desperate here. If I was Howard I would just let nature take its course. Its hard for him to accept his proposals might be defeated but he should know that this was likely to happen.
Posted by: James Maskell | 14 September 2005 at 17:48
Malcolm, I agree that spending alone does not bring success. Other key factors are the message and the issues.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 14 September 2005 at 17:50
Selsdon,I know the words old boy,(used to play drums in a very unsuccessful band in the early '80's and we played a few Dylan numbers including this one when we had a more mature audience) I just didn't understand the context of your post!
Posted by: malcolm | 14 September 2005 at 17:53
I meant that senior figures in the party were blowing with the wind (the members) - i.e. they think that the reforms will be defeated and want to be seen backing the winning side. They would have kept quiet if they thought that Howard would get his way.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 14 September 2005 at 18:03
Mrs T won't let me play my Dylan LPs (sic)- she says it's a depressing reminder of how "mature" we've become.
But of course, not as mature as Norman F, Ken and Hezza.
Posted by: Wat Tyler | 14 September 2005 at 21:12
Although I did like one of Ken's comments in his characteristically cocky Times interview this am. Denying he was too old for the job, he said: “You can tell when someone is too old when they spend too much time reminiscing.”
Which reminds me of the time when...
Posted by: Wat Tyler | 14 September 2005 at 21:19
Francis Maude is making things worse again by warning MPs if they dont vote for the proposals they will look "pretty damn silly". Its on the BBC. He calls it a "gentle reminder"!
No Francis Maude...YOU'LL look pretty damn silly.
Another thing noticed is that Edward Leigh is considering standing for election since the candidates dont sound good enough for the Cornerstone group.
Posted by: James Maskell | 15 September 2005 at 11:53
Leigh, if he stands, will look pretty damned silly. If he cannot back Fox or Davis, no one will satisfy his pathetic ego.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 15 September 2005 at 12:51
I think delusional is clearly a better word for describing Edward Leigh.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 15 September 2005 at 13:45