This time next week we’ll know which of the two leadership candidates that ‘we rank-and-file members’ will have to choose between. Your Editor had hoped that we would have a choice of three candidates. Such a wider choice would reduce the scope for disappointment amongst the supporters of, say, Dr Fox and Ken Clarke (the two men most likely to be eliminated by MPs). Unfortunately a choice of three now looks very unlikely. Also unlikely to be accepted by the 1922 Backbench Committee of MPs – but an interesting idea – is Charles Moore’s proposal for an additional ballot amongst MPs. The final ballot, under current rules, is held to decide which two (of three) candidates are presented to the membership. In this week’s Spectator 'Notes' Mr Moore suggests that MPs should vote again so that grassroots members have a clear idea as to which candidate enjoys the support of those MPs who voted for the eliminated contender.
Mr Moore (an eleventh hour opponent of the disenfranchisement of party members) bases his proposal on the fact that, in 2001, IDS never had (or never knew if he had) the support of more than a third of MPs. Political anoraks have long debated whether most of Michael Portillo’s 53 supporters would have supported IDS or Ken Clarke. An extra ballot would certainly establish which of the two candidates had most parliamentary supporters but it might presage new problems if the rank-and-file vote for the candidate with the backing of the fewest number of MPs. Things are probably best left as they are.
PS Sometime soon it will be important for the candidates to be asked if (or how) they’ll reform the election process should they become leader...
The feeling I get from the dozens of members I have spoken to is that David Davis will be resoundingly rejected. Should he come first with the MPs ballot that would then put real pressure on whoever becomes the leader if they have the support of less than half the MPs.
Posted by: wasp | 14 October 2005 at 09:58
It's difficult for someone as 'intelligent' as Charles Moore to accept that such lowly beings as Party Members should be allowed to decide who will lead their Party. He claims a last minute conversion, but is it to be trusted?
Why does no commentator of whatever IQ level ever acknowledge that the most popular Conservative leader by far in recent times was IDS? Howard and Hague never came close to his level of public recogniton or support. Maybe intelligent types have to admit occasionally that 'you can learn from a fool' and even admit that they too suffer from the odd prejudice.
The commentariat only ever understand intellectual intelligence. That's about 10% of the total available - Charles Moore stands out as one of the better ones, but he too should learn to respect that the opinions of thousands of people with a range of intellectual levels will usually make better decisions than the supposed genius working alone. Have faith, Charles. It's called 'DEMOCRACY'.
Posted by: henry curteis | 14 October 2005 at 11:46
This extra ballot would be an unwelcome distraction, also irrelevant, because these MPs would be giving their second, or in some cases their third choice. What is clear is that there is no consensus among MPs as to who should be leader, so they might just as well leave it to the members and then get behind the final choice. Of course since members only have two to choose from, we will never know if their choice would have coincided with that of the MPs
Posted by: Derek | 14 October 2005 at 12:39
What a bad idea. My thinking is that the only justification would be so that in future, IF the next leader doesnt do well, the MPs can say "we told you so".
Posted by: James Maskell | 14 October 2005 at 15:28