COPOV Forum 30 July Gerrards Cross

 Come and join in the debate and discussion within the Conservative Party.

Have your say! Check out EVENTS 

Rules of the 1922 Committee for the Election of the Leader.

 I set out below the Rules of the 1922 Committee for the Election of Leader together with a letter from the then Chairman of the 1922 Committee, Sir Michael Spicer.   As far as I am aware the Rules have not been changed since I received his letter.

Can the Rules be changed?

The Constitution of the Conservative Party states:

Schedule 2

RULES FOR THE ELECTION OF THE LEADER

Election of Leader

3 Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board.

Clearly the rules can be changed so how?

Clause 3 of the Rules states:

3    These rules are drawn up under the authority of the 1922 Committee, and any future changes which may be deemed necessary will be made by the 1922 Committee, as provided for in Schedule 2 of the Constitution of the Conservative Party.

So, as long as the Board is consulted the Executive of the 1922 Committee can change the Rules, e.g the Rules could be changed so that after a Leadership Election the "twelve months" as stated in clause 6 could be reduced to say "three months".

However there is one caveat to all this because under clause 17 of the Party Constitution it states:

17 The Board shall have power to do anything which in its opinion relates to the management and administration of the Party.

In other words, it can overturn whatever the Executive of the 1922 Committee decides.   That would lead to a serious clash, particularly if the 1922 committee had the support of the voluntary party and they were making the Party more democratic and it could be seen that ordinary Party members were getting more power.   In these circumstances the Party Board would be seen to be out of touch not only with the voluntary Party but also the Parliamentary Party.   The whole legitimacy of the Party Board would come into question. e.g. why is the Party Chairman and a Deputy Chairman appointed by the Leader and not elected by the members of the Party and accountable to them?   Is the Party Chairman just a spokesman for the Leader and not speaking in the interest of the whole party?

I am sure in this situation the Party Board would back down!

If the Executive of the 1922 Committee decide on a change to the Rules perhaps they might also consider puttin four candidates to the members of the Party and asking them to vote on a preferentialbasis with the first candidate getting over 50% of the vote becoming Leader.   This would cut out a lot of the vested interest votes when MPs are choosing which candidate to support.