toryleadership

Goodbye Michael Howard

I'm now back in Salisbury after three weeks away from home and I'm shattered.  Until last night I hadn't had more than four hours' sleep for a week.  There was so much to see, hear and discuss at this year's Blackpool conference.  It was, of course, the first conference I've ever been to where my opinion actually mattered.  The conference would still have been interesting if members had had their vote taken away from them but many of the most important meetings would have taken place in private rooms with candidates wooing (or arm-twisting) their parliamentary colleagues.  The experience of the last week will ensure that any future attempts to steal our vote will be met with still greater resistance.  At Blackpool 2005 members tasted their democratic power and it tasted good. 

Today's Telegraph gave Michael Howard the credit for the week's events:

"He had been criticised for leaving the party effectively rudderless over the summer. But the strategy of offering all the leadership contenders a chance to set out their stalls had transformed the contest and exposed the strengths and weaknesses of the main candidates."

That is partly true but a three or four month contest would probably have achieved the same result - with a special party conference taking place at the midway-point of such a period.  Michael Howard's attempt to disenfranchise members has added several months to the process and created uncertainty for the Party Treasurers who have struggled to keep the party afloat over this period.

Michael Howard has now resigned and, yesterday, he gave a dignified farewell speech.  His "I am going to announce who I want to be the next Leader of the Opposition' joke was the best of conference.

Mr Howard may have been an unsuccessful Tory leader but he was a brilliant Home Secretary and his lasting legacy will be the tough approach to crime and prison that Labour have (unevenly) maintained ever since.

Party democrats urge more than two names to be presented to country

Every Tory Conference for as long as I can remember has taken place against the backdrop of leadership speculation. Fortunately, at this conference, the speculation is legitimate and open. There is a real buzz in Blackpool because an open and democratic process is underway. Real issues and the merits of the five declared candidates are being seriously and maturely discussed.

I attended a lunchtime meeting of the Conservative Democracy Group – who helped to successfully campaign for the retention of one-member-one-vote. John Strafford of the Campaign for Conservative Democracy said that it was not too late for more than two names to be presented to the party membership. He said that he hoped that members would be able to rank three or maybe more candidates in the OMOV ballot (by an electoral system similar to that which chooses London’s Mayor). A simple vote of the 1922 backbench committee of Tory MPs could deliver that change to procedure. Mr Strafford said that such a change would avoid the temptation of David Davis’ (possible) ‘surplus voters’ (those above the 67 he needs to be sure of reaching the final round) supporting the candidate they would most like their candidate to face.

It seems unlikely that Mr Stafford’s preferred choice of election process will be taken up on this occasion but it’s worth considering for the future.

67 days until the next leader of the Conservative Party is elected...

The Conservative Party Board issued the following statement yesterday:

"The Board of the Conservative Party yesterday took a number of decisions regarding the forthcoming leadership election.  The ballot will close on 5th December with the result being declared on 6th December.  The Party will be asking Electoral Reform Ballot Services Limited, the independent electoral administrators, to send out, receive and count the ballot papers. They oversaw the last leadership election.  Under Article 9 of Schedule 2 of the Party's Constitution, the Returning Officer will be the Chairman of the 1922 Committee, Sir Michael Spicer MP."

And the result is...

I don't know - because I'm in Washington at the First International Conservative Conference On Social Justice but please blog away below as soon as the result is declared...

An unnecessary, untruthful and expensive campaign to disenfranchise party members draws to a close

It won't be until approximately 4pm that we will know if Michael Howard (the leader who is 'forgotten, but not gone') has succeeded in reversing the 1997 democratisation of the Conservative Party.  We do already know, however, that the threats employed by the anti-democrats on the party board were exaggerated.   Warnings that there would be chaos and no chance of a new leader being elected until the new year (if the existing one-member-one-vote rules were not scrapped) were simply not true.  Pro-democracy campaigners like Lord Hodgson and John Hayes MP refuted these warnings at the time but CCHQ is now admitting it, too (now that the ballot papers are safely gathered in).  Today's Telegraph reports:

"Conservatives still aim to have a new leader by Christmas even if the party decides to retain its lengthy one-member, one-vote electoral system, it emerged last night... Francis Maude, the party chairman, previously warned that opting for no change could delay the leadership result until the New Year while the MPs-only solution would deliver a new leader by mid-November... But in a significant climbdown last night, party sources confirmed that even with the existing mass ballot, Mr Howard's successor should be in place by "early December".

If the Howard-Maude-Monbiot axis succeeds today it will be a victory - not for the merits of their disenfranchisement scheme - but for CCHQ's groundless threats.  If the axis fails we have a great opportunity to start fashioning the mass participation party that the internet age can enable.  Whatever the result a little more poison has entered the bloodstream of the Tory Party because of the unnecessary nature of the contest and the ways in which rank-and-file party members have been set against MPs.  The Times reports the possibility of a legal challenge to the way in which the ballot has not been independently overseen.  There has also been the huge financial strain that Michael Howard's delayed leadership election has produced.  Today's news from Lord Ashcroft only underlines the precarious final situation that Michael Howard will leave his poor successor.      

Ferdinand Mount casts another vote for primaries

Michael Howard yesterday ended increasingly feverish speculation that he might resign immediately if he does not succeed in disenfranchising rank-and-file party members.  CCHQ issued a statement that detailed his 'resignation timetable'.  The statement included another last minute appeal from Mr Howard for members not to reject his reforms.  This post is this site's last appeal for those reforms to be thrown out  I ask any Chairman, MP or other member of the Constitutional Convention who is yet to cast and post their vote to read Lord Hodgson's excellent speech on the subject and then answer this one question...

Can you name one other political movement in the world that has given their members the vote and then taken it away?

The Conservative Party - with its fine democratic traditions - does not belong in such a club of political movements.  It is a disgrace that it is even a possibility that we join it.

As has been said before - if the problem is that the party membership is unrepresentative the solution is a wider franchise - not a retreat to the narrow group of Tory MPs who never watch GMTV, Big Brother or any of the other media that form peoples' views and outlook.

In today's Telegraph Ferdinand Mount becomes the latest commentator to urge Tory members to reject the retreat from democracy.  He, like this site and Theresa May, urges adoption of US-primary-style elections.  Here is his case in a nutshell:   

"The [Tory] leadership now frankly does not trust its own members to choose the party's leader, on the grounds that they are so elderly and crusty and thus unrepresentative of Tory voters as a whole.  But if the last vestige of power is removed, the membership will dwindle further and they will become even more unrepresentative. The only way to break out of this vicious circle is to go in the opposite direction: towards more democracy and decentralisation. Far from restricting the vote for the leader - and indeed for parliamentary candidates - they should throw it open to anyone who is prepared to register as a supporter without necessarily becoming a full-blown member."

Omigod. What have I done?

Take a look at the top of the right hand column and the Who is (publicly) backing who? link...

This morning David Davis' tally has hit the impressive total of fifty.   Just as impressively he has got there with a public declaration of support from the whole of the frontbench home affairs team.  Those who have worked most closely with him in the last two years haven't run into the hands of another courtier but have stayed loyal to Mr Davis.

With just over 25% of the parliamentary party backing him, Mr Davis must be secretly wishing that he won't have to face the party grassroots.  At the beginning of this phoney election process a Davis victory was thought most likely amongst rank-and-file members.  He is now more vulnerable if the Constitutional Convention rejects the Howard-Maude-Monbiot disenfranchisement.

This reality was brought home to me yesterday when a leading disciple of Kandidate Ken thanked me for the work I had been doing to help defeat H-M-M.  I responded with a thin smile.  I try and keep this blog reasonably even-handed (outside of Good Week, Bad Week and my occasional editorials) but regular readers will probably have guessed that KC isn't my favourite contender.  Kandidate Ken's best chance now lies with the vote staying with rank-and-file activists.   Have I played my small part in helping him win?  The price of democracy can be high...

Francis "Maud" encourages preparations for rejection of leadership election rules

Conservative Party Agents have received a second message in a week from Conservative HQ encouraging them to ensure membership records are up-to-date - just in case, the message states, that "the National Convention decides against changing the rules for the election of a leader... we will need to ballot all members of the Party very quickly".

The message mis-spells the Party Chairman's name ("Maud" not "Maude") so don't expect your ballot paper to be correctly addressed... if and when it is sent.

Michael Howard’s double whammy hit on Tory finances

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.

Lord Hodgson's case for democracy

I have been emailed a summary of Lord Hodgson's remarks to Saturday's special Constitutional Convention meeting - at which Michael Howard also spoke.  Conservatives.com have posted the leader's remarks but not Robin Hodgson's.  The summary is a very good read and explains why the grassroots voted for IDS in 2001; how the 2001 ballot made a profit; how party workers are (in some ways) better placed to judge leadership candidates; and how the new leader could still be in place by the end of November if the party got on with it.  If you haven't got time to read the whole thing read the following three paragraphs - which are my favourite:

"I have been called a “dinosaur” by a Member of the Board.   The Daily Telegraph says that I am leading a “peasant’s revolt”.   Is tand where I have always stood - for the maintenance of a proper degree of influence in the Pasrty for its voluntary members who, unsung, unheralded and unpaid, give up so much time to preserve the Party we all support and love.   If that makes me a “dinosaur” or a “peasant”, I am proud to accept those accolades.

These proposals are fundamentally flawed and represent an irreversible and unnecessary reduction in the influence of the voluntary members of the Party.

They represent a return to the narrow, deferential Conservative Party of the 1960’s rather than a move towards the outward looking, inclusive, self-confident Conservative Party we need to be if we are to win the next General Election."

SUMMARY OF LORD HODGSON'S REMARKS
[For his biography click here.]

"I am sorry to have to speak to you this afternoon.   I have worked for the Party for over 30 years in many capacities – at all levels in the voluntary party, latterly as the first Chairman of the NCC, as a Member of Parliament and now as Frontbench Spokesman in the House of Lords.

I am therefore not naturally a rebel but these proposals to remove the vote
completely from the membership have stretched my loyalty beyond breaking point.

To understand my opposition, a word of history.   I was much involved in the negotiations that led to the creation of the present rules in 1997.   They were the result of two things.   

First we wished to create a united party which meant that members were entitled to a say in major developments affecting what is, after all, their party. 

Secondly, and no less importantly, they were a reaction to the chronic indiscipline in the Parliamentary Party in the 1990s.   The internecine in-fighting led to the catastrophe of 1997.   Not only a catastrophe politically but a catastrophe for the reputation of the Party from which we have not yet recovered – witness our continuing low poll ratings.

Our objective was to create a delicate balance reflecting the needs of the parties involved.   

It was clear that the Parliamentary Party had to be led by somebody MPs could work with so the MPs alone were allowed to draw up a short-list with the final choice then being given to the members.   

So when it is said, and I am sorry to say that the Party Chairman said it again in the Daily Telegraph earlier this week, that the selection of Iain Duncan-Smith was the voluntary party’s fault, that is untrue.   Iain Duncan-Smith could only be selected by the members because he was put on the short-list by the MPs who, presumably, felt that they could work with him.   

Moreover the rules contained another important proviso which was that if the MPs agreed on a single candidate he or she would become leader of the Party without reference to the members.  Therefore there was every incentive for the MPs to agree amongst themselves as indeed they did in choosing Michael Howard.   The result was probably the most united General Election campaign for 20 years.

So the rules are beginning to work.   The fact that the volunteers have the ultimate say is focussing the mind of the Parliamentary Party.   It may yet happen again that on this occasion that they will find a single candidate they can unite behind.   If so, no-one will be more happy than me. 

What I am not confident about is that if they take back complete control of the process the indiscipline of the 1990s will not recur.

The objections to the present rules are four – all of them in my view deeply flawed.

First it is said that only MPs know enough about the candidates to make the selection of Leader.   It is true that only MPs know enough about his or her parliamentary performance, that is why they control the short-list.   But 200 MPs drawn primarily from the shires and the south-east of England do not necessarily know what is required to capture the imagination of people living in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the North of England and the cities as well as volunteers who live on the ground in those areas.

More importantly, we live in a presidential age where television is the means by which most people learn about politics, so television performance is very important.   MPs and Peers watch very little television and it is you, the members, who can make a shrewder assessment of the television performance of leadership candidates and decide whether they are able to reach out to the uncommitted.   

Second it is said that the election costs too much.  Well the last ballot made a profit because if you put an appeal slip in with the ballot paper our members are quite prepared to send back £5 or £10 to cover the cost

Thirdly it is said that the process takes too long.   This is particularly cynical because if the 1922 Committee had got on with the process when Michael Howard said that he was going to stand down, we could have had a new Leader in place now.   Instead they preferred to begin a long period of negotiation hoping to “bounce” us at the end.   This meeting is part of that “bounce”.   Interestingly in 1997 the 1922 Committee argued the reverse saying that then we needed to have the Leadership Election before the rules were changed.

But in any case, it is perfectly possible for this election to be completed in eight weeks.   We shall be assisted by the fact that the Party Conference takes place during this period, which is the biggest hustings of them all.   But having been a Returning Officer myself for a national ballot I am confident that a new Leader could be in place by the end of November under the present rules if those in charge wished to make it happen.

Fourthly and finally, it is said that the new rules will involve the MPs taking the advice of the volunteers into account.   I have to tell you that this provision formed part of the pre-1997 rules.   I had the privilege of attending several meeting with the 1922 Committee when that advice was proffered.   They received us with great politeness but I doubt if they could remember the figures we gave them five minutes after we had left the room. 

By all means establish procedures for learning the views of the volunteers but do not expect it to have any impact on the outcome.

So I do not believe that any of these criticisms hold serious watter.   It is easy to criticise – what is my proposal?   

First, carry out the Election forthwith under the present rules with the accelerated timetable I referred to above.   Second, in the calm aftermath discuss whether changes are needed to the rules.   It seems to me there is a groundswell of support for some form of electoral college with MPs having a majority slice of the votes and smaller amounts for members, MEPs, Councillors and, dare I say it, Members of the House of Lords.

The sizes of the slices matter less to me than the principal, which is that every part of the Party must have some direct say in the election of the Leader.   

May I conclude by making two points.   

First, when I was NCC Chairman I was always incredibly impressed by your loyalty.   You are now having many appeals to your loyalty.   We have heard two today from Michael Howard and Francis Maude.   I think you need to consider the long-term interests of the Party not short term pragmatic suggestions.

Interestingly in the letter which he sent us all, asking us to support these proposals, Michael Howard said that these proposals were “not my preferred choice”.   So you are being asked to vote for something which is not the preferred choice even of the Leader of our Party.

Secondly, and most importantly, this is a “one-way street”.   When we established the constitution we purposely made very high hurdles for changing the most sensitive parts of the constitution which requires the approval of two thirds of each of the parts of the Constitutional College – what Gavin Barwell called “the triple lock”.

Therefore, if you give this power back to the MPs you will never get it back again.  It is inconceivable that two thirds of the parliamentary party will ever vote to return this power to the membership.   So do not see this as a possibly two year experiment with the possibility of reversing it if this does not work.   It will never happen.

So when you come to vote, tread carefully because you tread on the dreams of thousands of your fellow members.

I have been called a “dinosaur” by a Member of the Board.   The Daily Telegraph says that I am leading a “peasant’s revolt”.   Is tand where I have always stood - for the maintenance of a proper degree of influence in the Pasrty for its voluntary members who, unsung, unheralded and unpaid, give up so much time to preserve the Party we all support and love.   If that makes me a “dinosaur” or a “peasant”, I am proud to accept those accolades.

These proposals are fundamentally flawed and represent an irreversible and unnecessary reduction in the influence of the voluntary members of the Party.

They represent a return to the narrow, deferential Conservative Party of the 1960’s rather than a move towards the outward looking, inclusive, self-confident Conservative Party we need to be if we are to win the next General Election.

I hope, having heard the arguments this afternoon the Chairman will withdraw these proposals, but if he does not, I hope that you will defeat them."