Might a second-placed David Davis fold tomorrow?

Imagine the scenario: David Cameron tops the poll with 101 votes tomorrow - more than half the parliamentary party.  David Davis comes second with 52 votes.   Liam Fox comes third with 45.

In such an improbable (but possible) scenario David Davis would have won the right to challenge David Cameron in the run-off but would have lost the confidence of his colleagues.  His opponent would have the support of more than 50% of the parliamentary party.  That kind of endorsement is what David Davis believes should decide the Tory leadership.  If Mr Davis were to win the Tory crown (a more improbable scenario) he has said that the final decisive round of voting should be amongst MPs only and the leader would be chosen by a majority vote.  If DD folded after such a vote, as described above, Mr Davis would be acting in accordance with his ideal method of election.

I don't think he will fold.  Although Mr Cameron's lead amongst grassroots members looks unassailable this race has already been transformed once and it could be again.

More important than that is the need for this contest to continue for the sake of party democracy.  The next six weeks are an essential opportunity for both of the final two candidates to be thoroughly tested on policy.  Mr Cameron has yet to clarify his policy position on drugs, for example.  What does he mean by the modern part of 'modern compassionate conservatism'?  What would he do about Iran's nuclear weapons programme?  These and other questions should be put to him and his opponent in the final round.  The members deserve their right to question and elect the next Conservative leader.  The party needs more clarity from Mr Cameron.

Comments

[Innocent Abroad]

If the DD defections (going both ways) continues at the current rate, DD could end up folding tonight - which would of course be the *responsible* thing to do, as it would nullify the prospect of a 2nd ballot, and Fox and cameron would have to proceed to the mass membership on the basis of their current tally.

It's going to prove to be very interesting here Cameron explain to the membership why he didn't think they should have a chance to vote for him!

[Samuel Coates]

Thinking about a long contest between the two finalists makes you wish Fox was one rather than Davis. Davis is a busted flush whilst Fox has momentum and interesting ideas.

[David G]

If any candidate received close to 50% of the MPs in the second ballot I think the popular clamour for the 2nd placed candidate to "drop out" would be unstoppable.

The arguments against a members' ballot are: (a) we will have no leader until December
(b) voluntary members would not want to vote against a clear mandate of MPs
(c) it is a chance for Labour and Lib Dems to rubbish the frontrunner. They will no doubt focus on "splits" between something Michael Howard says and the candidate's views.

The only argument I have heard for a members' ballot is that something unexpected (i.e. dirt) might emerge on the frontrunner between now and December. But how would that help the party? We would be in a worse position than if something bad emerges after a leader had been elected. In that case the leader would resign and there would be a fresh election with fresh candidates. But if there is a delay a new leader will be picked who has the support of a minority of MPs. How long would he last?

Contrast the "waiting scenario" with the image of unity if the second placed candidate withdraws and a new leader is in place next week.

[comstock]

If Davis did fold, would Fox be allowed to go on to the members ballot if he wanted to (I know he would be unlikely to do so) or would that automatically be it?

[Ted]

Editor - is there a latest whos backing who view or is it all too underhanded for that?

[Bruce]

David G., your post suggests that supporters of party democracy need to prove that party democracy is desirable. That's thinking backwards. Democracy is by definition desirable, and the burden of proof should be on those who would like to eliminate the voting rights of party members.

[David Taylor]

Davis is far too arrogant to bow out gracefully. He'll go down fighting.

[a]

DD campaign meltdown.
People storming out.
Mitchell and Dale swinging handbags at each other.
Fox could win...
And was right about NoW

[Wat Tyler]

Ed- I agree with you. Even if we did get the result you hypothesise, we should still go ahead with the member vote. Enough of stitch-ups- member democracy must be seen to be done.

Plus,like you, I want to find our more about DC's substance. In my view- despite all the hope and excitement- we're still taking one helluva gamble here. Rawnsley isn't the only one who wonders if Tony wouldn't "eat him for breakfast".

And is it my imagination because we look like being defeated, or is the posted volume of gratuitous abuse going up on your otherwise admirable site? Amusing digs are one thing- undiluted vitriol is quite another (and I speak as a chastened former offender). Hope it doesn't continue after this is all over.

[Matt K]

In principle I agree with David G. Witness the honeymoon period of unity and purpose experienced when Michael Howard was able to slip into the role without going to a ballot. (How soon things changed after Hutton... ) This contest of the past few months has been exciting and has been a very useful debate, however, should DC emerge as the clear favourite with the parliamentary party (95+?) and DD and LF opt not to face possible humiliation at the hands of the members, then installing DC now, rather than limp on with an ever more invisible Mr Howard could only be an advantage. Perhaps under those circumstances DC may wish to have a courtesy ratification vote among the members, similar to William Hague in '97.

In practice however, I can't see either DD or LF standing aside to allow a DC coronation, so we can enjoy this drama till December...

[Wat Tyler]

Plus of course, the race could yet turn again. Here's the Times editorial from just before DC's fantastical campaign launch:

"Mr Cameron...is a moderate and reasonable soul who has made several speeches in the past few weeks which, while sound, have not delivered messages of distinction. If the Tories are to plump for a young man who has been in the House of Commons for only four years, they have to be convinced that he is a star of the highest quality. If Mr Cameron cannot illustrate this compellingly in the coming fortnight, he would be wise to emulate Mr Willetts and depart with dignity."

With six weeks of member voting, there's still be time for things to change again. We should not risk rushing into a big mistake.

[Michael Smith]

I'm literally astounded at some of the posts here today (except in particular those of Mr Tyler, which seems at least to restore some sense of perspective to all of this).

David G., let me use your post as an example (only because you set things out so neatly and reasonably btw):

The arguments against a members' ballot are: (a) we will have no leader until December
(b) voluntary members would not want to vote against a clear mandate of MPs
(c) it is a chance for Labour and Lib Dems to rubbish the frontrunner. They will no doubt focus on "splits" between something Michael Howard says and the candidate's views.

(a) Why does it matter if we have no leader, other than a caretaker one, until December? Is it such a bad thing to expect MPs to behave responsibly over e.g. identity cards for a few weeks with only their old leader, and the hope of a new leader, to guide them? Seriously, what difference could this possibly make?

(b) Voluntary members, that much-abused and much-misunderstood population, can make up their own minds, thank you very much. They were perfectly capable in 2001 of choosing their own leader more or less irrespective of their MPs original wishes, and if that leader was never given the chance to face the general electorate, that had more to do with his ill-starred decision to give important Central Office roles to those who had neither his, nor the Party's, best interests at heart. The degree to which 'the support of MPs' mattered is grotesquely overstated. And I am sure the voluntary membership would prefer to maintain their genuine say in the selection of a leader - preferably, with a real choice between different alternative futures for the party.

(c) Again, who cares what Labour and the Lib Dems say? By the time a general election rolls around, it won't matter whether the new leader was chosen in early November2005, or a month later.

Meanwhile the 'unity scenario' won't look that rosy if, a few weeks after the new leader is selected, the libel lawyers at the MoS and the NoW get all permissive all of a sudden - but then any decent hack, or seller of stories, will doubtless wait until the leader is in place, because that makes any possible story so much more interesting - and lucrative.

I do so hope it will be Fox v. Cameron in the end, and that we'll have a proper membership round which will focus on the real, and serious, differences between what the two men want for the future of our Party. A Parliamentary stitch-up would be an injustice that no Conservative voter ought ever to forgive.

[David G]

Michael Smith

I sat down to answer your points and, rather to my surprise, found I was forced to agree with almost all your post.

I think we are both agreed there should be a wider vote if the MPs' ballot does not return a decisive result.

But what if, as the Editor hypothetically suggested, it showed 99+ votes for one candidate? I don't think it should matter which candidate receives the most votes.

I think, if this happened, it is unrealistic to think most party members, whatever their personal views, will want to vote against that candidate. I think the position is different from the 2001 election when the MPs did not give anyone a clear mandate.

If that is right, I think (all other things being equal) a second placed candidate would not want to continue his campaign against a candidate-leader with 100+ MPs because he would know he was going to lose.

However, having read your post, I do see the force of your point that the voluntary party deserves to have its say and it will be deprived of this if the second placed candidate withdraws.

[Rick]

Whatever will the country do with two Liberal parties ? Must we continue to vote New Labour for conservative ones ?

Will Cameron job-share with Charles Kennedy ?

[Jonathan Sheppard]

From the horses mouth (well the DD campaign blog)

"David Davis is fighting for every vote. He is confident of going through to the next round and intends to take the contest to the party membership and win."

[Michael Smith]

But what if, as the Editor hypothetically suggested, it showed 99+ votes for one candidate?

David G, thanks for a serious and sensible post - the sort of thing this excellent site does so much to encourage.

In a sense, you get to the heart of my post. What if, to push theory to its limits, one MP got everything and the other only managed a single vote?

I stil think the grassroots membership has a right to make the final decision. Will they be constrained by the decision of their parliamentary representatives? If so, we'll find out soon enough. But if not - well, their willingess to express dissent makes a very strong statement.

Please, let's never forget that these are the people who do much of the hard work for the party, and their views deserve respect and consideration.

I still think they deserve a real choice. Any individual who aspires to lead the Party should have nothing to fear from a bit of scrutiny from its voluntary wing.

[Editor]

Fox has made the following statement: ""After all the consultation of recent months, it would be unthinkable if our members were denied their say in the leadership election. Those who favour such an approach demonstrate an astonishing arrogance. I campaigned to defend our members participation in that ballot. I will do all I can to defend that right."

[Jonathan Sheppard]

So in whose interests is it for there to be no membership vote - and who has put the story out?

[Editor]

DD has said the following: "David Davis is fighting for every vote. He is confident of going through to the next round and intends to take the contest to the party membership and win.''

[Richard Allen]

Who has been spinning all sorts of stuff and controling the media agenda for weeks?

[Richard Carey]

"Contrast the "waiting scenario" with the image of unity if the second placed candidate withdraws and a new leader is in place next week."

My immediate instinct is to agree with this. Let's get this over with and immediately get back down to the serious business of real politics, especially at ground level where any uncertainty about the leadership and direction of the Party can be used by a minority as an excuse for inactivity and prevarication in local campaigning, recruitment and fund-raising over the next 6 weeks or so.

However, I am only swayed by the fact that the contest so far has been in many ways beneficial for the Party, especially in the way that we displayed so much talent at the conference. If we can somehow continue the contest in the same positive vein, and dig into the normal work of the Party in parallel, perhaps I can be convinced that having to go through the full process can be turned to our ultimate advantage!

[Henry Fitzpatrick]

There's a real Brown/Blair thing going on here, but it's Fox/Cameron, not Osborne/Cameron. And by that I mean -

*If* Cameron becomes Leader, the next-in-line is clearly going to be Fox. BUT if Fox were to drop out this week, after coming 2nd tomorrow, he'd confirm everyones worst fears about him. Fox, despite hating everything Portillo stood for, and everything all of the creeps round Portillo were doing to Hague, eventually backed him in 2001 'because a majority of the shadow cabinet had come out for him'. If Fox were to walk away from the fight now, who would want to back him in the future? And since Fox is young enough to want and expwect a future, it strikes me that it's in his interest, as much as the Party's, for him to take this to the country as and when he comes 2nd, even if Cameron gets 50%+1'.

Though on the 'what if DC gets 99 plus votes?' point, I've only this to say. The rules are perfectly simple, and we're Tories, so we more than anyone else should be committed to playing by the rules. The system we have in place (and confirmed in place this summer, the Leader's best efforts notwithstanding) gave the final say to the mass membership. And is anyone seriously suggesting that were they to give the prize to Fox that Cameron would refuse to accept this? Remember, the 'true-believing' Cameroons can be very firmly delineated: there are 56 of them, at the very most. All sorts of other calculations will go into arriving at whatever figure he has after 5pm tomorrow.

Incidentally, for what it's worth, I agree with everything Michael Smith said. Sorry for the ongoing love-in, but there we are, that's what Tim Mont has done to us all.

[Tim Roll-Pickering]

DD has said the following: "David Davis is fighting for every vote. He is confident of going through to the next round and intends to take the contest to the party membership and win.'"

Is anyone else reminded of these seven words?

I fight on. I fight to win.

That was Thatcher's release of defiance at this stage in 1990...

[James Hellyer]

The deciding factor tomorrow will be how Davis's vote holds up. I'm not unsympathetic to him, but his current plight is all of his own making.

[air jordan]

It really a useful idea.I will have a tiral of this idea as soon as possible as have already frustrated by them for a long time.Thank you very much for your continously post of effective tips.