For those readers who are fortunate to have a Conservative MP it would be good to know if any are making special efforts to seek your opinion on who they should support in the first round of voting...
If Michael Howard's disenfranchisement proposal had succeeded there would have been a formal consulation of rank-and-file members. That is not so necessary now - given that we all have a vote in the final round. The question remains, however, as to whether we will get the opportunity to vote for our preferred candidate in that final round? Those of us/ you who are enthusiastic Clarke-ites or Cameroons, for example, may fear that our/ your choice could be excluded from the pair presented by MPs.
Crispin Blunt, who was Malcolm Rifkind's campaign manager until the former Foreign Secretary dropped out of the race earlier today, has promised a proper survey of his Association members' opinions. He told BBCtv's Daily Politics programme:
"I'm going to take the opportunity to consult with my constinucncy on which two candidates they would like to be choosing between. Today I'm sending 1,500 ballot papers to establish which choice they would like."
Is any other MP doing anything half as good as that?
No.Mine has declared for Fox.I'm not sure if he consulted anyone.I do know that he support the Maude-Monbiot proposals however.
Posted by: malcolm | 11 October 2005 at 15:42
Our Geoffrey doesn't seem to have engaged on any consultation exercise. However, I dare say that some of his constituents may have taken it upon themselves to express their preference.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 11 October 2005 at 15:48
Nice idea - but I'm very suspicious. With the first ballot a week away, printing ballot papers, stuffing envelopes and postage leave precious little time for replies to come back in time for study before the first ballot.
Would be interesting to know who is paying for Crispin Blunt's little consultation. If I know MPs (and generally I do) it won't be coming out of his pocket. So instead already members' fundraising efforts will be going towards this project rather than campaigning.
A challenge to Crispin Blunt - publish the results of the consultation in full, pay for it yourself and pledge to vote for whoever your members support. If this is done, I apologise for my scepticism and congratulate him on being genuinely responsive to the views of local members.
Posted by: Julia McIntyre | 11 October 2005 at 15:58
"I'm going to take the opportunity to consult with my constinucncy on which two candidates they would like to be choosing between. Today I'm sending 1,500 ballot papers to establish which choice they would like."
Did you do that before supporting Sir Malcolm, or is this just a publicity gimmick?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 11 October 2005 at 16:02
I would have had a Conservative MP but for UKIP. Oh well.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 11 October 2005 at 16:10
My MP, James Duddridge, for Rochford and Southend East, has already declared for Davis, as has my old MP David Amess, to my knowledge neither has consulted their constituents, and i dread to think how they voted in the disenfranchisment attempt. Oh to have an MP i can respect. Maybe i will move to Maidenhead, i would love to have Theresa May as my MP, she really supports the members. Theresa May should be Party Chairman again!!!
Posted by: Kris | 11 October 2005 at 16:15
Philip Dunne, MP for Ludlow, mailed all 40,000 voters in his constituency enclosing a freepost reply envelope. He asked them who he should support. He has, however, said this is a consultation and he will not be bound by the result. Still, results should be interesting. Oh, and he is paying for it himself.
Posted by: NickL | 11 October 2005 at 16:25
In that case Philip Dunne gets my 'Theresa May Party Democracy Award' of the day! Alongside Mr Blunt.
Posted by: Editor | 11 October 2005 at 16:28
Roger Gale is down for DD. I dont know if the Association is supporting DD though. Ive not heard of a member saying he should be leader. Ive only heard of calls for Hague and Clarke. I dont expect to be consulted by him...
Posted by: James Maskell | 11 October 2005 at 16:29
What a guy Mr Dunne sounds, i wish he was my MP. But maybe, just maybe, the party will adopt Theresa May's idea of Primaries and we'll all have a real influence over our leaders in the future.
Posted by: Kris | 11 October 2005 at 16:29
Yes what a good chap.I wish I lived in Ludlow.Nice place too.
Posted by: malcolm | 11 October 2005 at 16:37
Mine's backing clark no attempt to consult at all
Posted by: wasp | 11 October 2005 at 16:49
"Philip Dunne, MP for Ludlow, mailed all 40,000 voters in his constituency enclosing a freepost reply envelope. He asked them who he should support."
What a waste of money! Many would be Lib Dems in such a marginal seat. Can you trust their judgement? Not in my experience!
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 11 October 2005 at 17:00
Mark and wasp - who are your MPs?
Posted by: Editor | 11 October 2005 at 17:00
I have a Lib Dem MP so I have to wait for the pair that the MPs give to choose from.
Let's skip the MP ballot and allow the members to choose from all four candidates. That would be real localism and true democracy - one person one vote. But should it be STV or first past the post?
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 11 October 2005 at 17:03
Just asked a Labour supporter which system he'd think would be best. He reckons STV. Im more towards FPTP, since its established. Change the system after this leadership election.
Posted by: James Maskell | 11 October 2005 at 17:10
Dear Selsdon. Of course there will be some LD activists who will try to shift the result, but it's good to see an MP trusting his electors, whoever they support, and giving them the respect some of his colleagues seem to take for granted. It's the same argument with primaries - give people reponsibility and you'd be amazed how many act responsibly.
Posted by: NickL | 11 October 2005 at 17:13
My MP backed Fox yesterday. For someone who one back a Conservative safe seat of a majority of 17,000 pre-1997, with a 2005 majority of 1,714 he must be mad if he thinks Fox can win the next election.
Posted by: Convince me | 11 October 2005 at 17:21
My MP is backing DD, and I don't intend doing anything to unsettle him. What would he actually do with the info about who else I might like to see in the final? I'm not at all sure how good his multi-tasking capabilities are.
Posted by: Wat Tyler | 11 October 2005 at 18:16
The Daily Mail noted who my MP was backing before he made it public and before he made it public I told him I approved of his choice.
Posted by: Rick | 11 October 2005 at 21:24
Ed, my MP is Chris Huhne (LD). Conor Burns (Con) was 569 votes short - a tragedy as he is an extremely hard-working and talented candidate.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 11 October 2005 at 21:45
Kris - Im still not convinced by the idea of primaries. If w are concerned not to remove the rights of members why would we want to take away the little power they have - that of selecting parliamentary candidates and our leader by throwing it open to anyone? Why bother joining the party at all if you could have the same rights without paying the £15?
Posted by: Jonathan Sheppard | 11 October 2005 at 22:43
"If w are concerned not to remove the rights of members why would we want to take away the little power they have - that of selecting parliamentary candidates and our leader by throwing it open to anyone?"
... because it's not about members' rights. It's about being representative of the population as a whole. The members are more representative than MPs, but they still aren't very representative.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 11 October 2005 at 22:55
Labour have done electorally OK without primaries James. Again - why would someone pay £15 to join - what would you get if you allow people who dont join the same rights?
Posted by: Jonathan Sheppard | 11 October 2005 at 23:01
Labour already have deeper representation through things like the trade union movement.
Again - why would someone pay £15 to join - what would you get if you allow people who dont join the same rights?
Sorry, but that's something of a false argument. Admittedly it's the flipside of the argument used by campaigners for party democracy (we were promised a vote when we joined), but ultimately people joina party because they support its policies and aims more then they do any other party's.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 11 October 2005 at 23:05