Since yesterday's lunchtime post on conservativehome.com (about David Davis folding if he comes a poor second in today's ballot) there has been a lot of media speculation about 'a coronation'. A statement issued yesterday by David Davis on the speculation was no where near as emphatic as the one issued by Team Fox:
The LF campaign: "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."
The DD campaign: "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.''
On this morning's Today programme Damian Green, speaking for the Davis campaign, insisted that Mr Davis would exceed expectations and perform well in today's ballot. He would then go on to win in the country. He refused, however, to rule out the possibility of DD folding if he comes a poor second.
The Davis campaign is privately furious about this row and believes that Cameron supporters at Central Office are promoting the idea of a 'Cameron coronation'.
A coronation would (quite understandably) suit the Cameroons who could avoid the scrutiny that a six week contest would engender. A leader in today's Telegraph notes that the contest in the country is essential to probe Mr Cameron on policy issues where his campaign has been "far less impressive" than on the 'big issues'.
Because Dr Fox has not won many new public supporters since Tuesday (although he appears to be the second choice of members in the country and today's Sun argues for a Cameron-Vs-Fox contest) he appears likely to come behind Mr Davis.
ConservativeHome.com believes, however, that should a second-placed David Davis fold, Dr Fox will have the legal right to be the candidate that opposes David Cameron in the country. For the sake of the next leader of the Conservative Party to be fully scrutinised - and for the sake of party democracy - we urge that that right be exercised should it be necessary.
Do the rules actually allow for reintstating candidates?
And could Fox really overcome the negative impact of "FOX EJECTED!" followed by "FOX FORCES HIS WAY BACK IN"? Once the former headline goes out, any attempt by Fox to return to the contest will be seen as a sore loser moment. He will be emanating not Bush but Gore.
Posted by: Tim Roll-Pickering | 20 October 2005 at 09:26
I don't agree that a coronation would suit Cameron. For a united party, he needs proven support at every level. If Davis were to pull out, I'd guess that his motive would be to poison the Cameron leadership by making a members' mandate impossible.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 20 October 2005 at 09:27
The politics of it wld be difficult Tim R-P but if he is only one, two or three votes behind DD he might almost match DD's moral authority. We members should demand a contest in any case - it doesn't need to come from LF.
Posted by: Editor | 20 October 2005 at 09:31
How much would a contest cost?
Imagine "Fox costs the party £XX,XXX."
Posted by: Tim Roll-Pickering | 20 October 2005 at 09:35
I'm quite happy for the members to endorse David Cameron in a final vote. Of course the one big advantage of a 'coronation' would be we have the leader be the end of the week instead of the end of the year.
Posted by: | 20 October 2005 at 09:37
How much would a contest cost?
The candidates have been told they have to pay the costs. Oh, and the last one made a profit.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 20 October 2005 at 09:38
I agree with you Mark.The Conservative party would be seen as a laughing stock if after all the pain of recent months with the Maude-Monbiot proposals the leadership was settled by 'Coronation'.
There would also be big problems with the legitimacy of the winner.When times get tough as they inevitably will there will be lots of 'what ifs' if the leader has not been elected by the majority of members.
Financial considerations should be of secondary importance.
Posted by: malcolm | 20 October 2005 at 09:48
Anyone catch John Redwood right at the end of the 'Today' programme this morning?
He made what I think is a very good point, which is that in some ways, rather than being a disadvantage, the membership round and the debate occasioned by it (I'm paraphrasing here obviously) constitute an excellent opportunity to showcase Conservative policies and values.
It really would be an outrage, though, if the membership were not allowed a chance to question and scrutinise two real candidates, and then make a real choice between them.
Posted by: Michael Smith | 20 October 2005 at 09:52
I absolutely do not support a coronation, but I cannot see that the third placed candidate could challenge it.
After the vote today, Candidates A and B will progress to the membershio vote, and Candidate C will be eliminated. After that, surely either candidate has the prerogative to pull out of the race.
Candidate C doesn't move up a spot. He's been eliminated. He stopped being a candidate when the second round result is announced.
What if both Candidates B and C drop out? Can Ken Clarke get back in? Rifkind?
Plus, he'd look silly challenging it in court, and would drag the party through the mud.
Candidate B shouldn't drop out, but if he does, Candidate C would be barking to assert his right to take his place.
Posted by: Bob | 20 October 2005 at 09:56
What would be the point of staging a two horse race when one horse no longer wanted to run?
Posted by: Tim Roll-Pickering | 20 October 2005 at 09:57
Redwood's appearance was presaged by a feature about how Cameron was a lightweight (which featured our own site editor, who said things that will have made Guido Fawkes fume). Is this the shape of media coverage to come...
Posted by: James Hellyer | 20 October 2005 at 09:58
The issue here is that supposing Cameron gets a majority of MP's votes say 100, and then the runner up wins in the country (unlikely I know). Then we would be in a situation that would be far worse than IDS or anything else. On balance I would like to be able to vote for my preferred candidate, but there are some pretty sound logical reasons for not going ahead with a member ballot as well.
Posted by: James Burdett | 20 October 2005 at 09:59
The Conservatives need more time before Cameron is crowned. He is a complete gamble - an unknown with no declared policies bar a me-too on the EPP. He might be a two week media phenomenon with holes below the water line, which will sink the ship. By going to the membership the Conservatives are giving themselves time to be sure about their new 'star'.
With the public Fox is far closer to Cameron - even with nil publicity - 47/32 in Sky poll. The public are not as keen on Tory toffs from privileged backgrounds as Conservatives dream. Fox would do far better in an election in a few years time after the Cameron sheen has had time to tarnish...and you can be sure Blair/Brown will be very happy to expose the old Etonian right wing silver spoon story every day of the year.
Also the Conservatives are guaranteed massive media coverage for another six weeks by playing the Tory X-factor game til the 5th December. This is reality TV for real - people cannot look away. Don't make this gladiatorial contest dull by choosing Davis, MP's. He hasn't a hope in hell with either Conservative members or the public. He's all about 'me'. The Tory attitudes everyone hates. Pick Fox. Let the show roll on. The public are hungry for Conservatives once again but only if the show keeps them on the edge of their seats. The cricket's over now, but this will be an excellent replacement to keep everyone entertained til Decem,ber. What else can we find to fill the long dark winter evenings. Come on Tory MP's. Give us some fun for once. Pick Foxy. And get down the bookies!
Posted by: henry curteis | 20 October 2005 at 10:00
I doubt any candidate will pull out. I find the idea of a "coronation" unlikely at worst. I fear the media's jumping the gun over this one.
Posted by: James Maskell | 20 October 2005 at 10:03
http://openeurope.moodia.com/
appears to be launching today.
Leach - Hickman (supports Cameron) - O'Brien (supports Davis).
http://openeurope.moodia.com/site/research/research.html
http://openeurope.moodia.com/site/about/about.html
Posted by: davis | 20 October 2005 at 10:04
With the public Fox is far closer to Cameron - even with nil publicity
Which only makes me wonder how well he could do if the press lost their excuse to sideline him.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 20 October 2005 at 10:04
A Davis-Cameron contest in the country could be just what the party needs. It would be the moment the party shows that it rejects arrogance and hard line policies. Who better to be the flag bearer for all the public dislikes about the party than Davis?
Posted by: Tim Roll-Pickering | 20 October 2005 at 10:08
Rejects arrogance? So Cameron would lose! ;=)
Posted by: James Hellyer | 20 October 2005 at 10:09
Can you explain, Editor, why you believe the third placed candidate has the right to re-enter the contest? The relevant part of the Party Constitution states "The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election [by the membership] shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation with the Board." Has any set of rules been published? If not then they could make it up as they go along!
Posted by: Derek | 20 October 2005 at 10:10
James, do you know if support has significantly shifted over the past day from Davis to Fox? I thought it would, but the media say not.
Posted by: | 20 October 2005 at 10:12
I recall in 2001 there was an attempt to get Portillo reinstated (not by the man himself) that argued this point. I know that contest did see a rewriting of the rules (adding the silly procedure for resolving a tie) but this really would be clutching at straws.
Posted by: Tim Roll-Pickering | 20 October 2005 at 10:15
Can you explain, Editor, why you believe the third placed candidate has the right to re-enter the contest?
In 2001, Sir Michael Spice received legal advice indicating that he could submit three names to the country. He declined to do so. However, I believe the circumstances under discussion, in which the third place candidate could re-enter the contest, are those where the second placed candidate withdraws.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 20 October 2005 at 10:15
Tom, that's a good point - the members massively rejecting Davis could be the Party's Clause 4 moment.
Posted by: Michael | 20 October 2005 at 10:17
In tonight's Evening Standard, Liam Fox admits to having a gay past. Note to Ed - call the Fox HQ to check the veracity of my info.before removing this truthful post.
Posted by: Gordon | 20 October 2005 at 10:20
Gordon: I think he hasn't answered questions on his past. I'm not sure he's admitted to anything. No more posts on this please until we have clarity.
Posted by: Editor | 20 October 2005 at 10:25