The following is an edited version of a speech given by John Strafford at a packed meeting of the Vote Leave Group on 22nd October
Election of the Leader of
the Conservative Party
It is generally
recognised that the Tory Party was formed under Sir Robert Peel in 1834. From the party's formation until 1922, the
leader of the Conservative Party was not a formal position; instead, there was
a party leader in each chamber of Parliament and they were considered
equal unless one took precedence over the other, such as when one was serving
as Prime Minister. The party leader was appointed by high-ranking members of
the Party.
Since 1922, the leader of
the Conservative Party has been formally elected, even when the party is in
opposition at a “Party Meeting" Attended by peers and MPs who receive the
Conservative whip, ... prospective candidates who have been adopted by
constituency associations, and ... members of the executive committee of the
National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations from England and
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland."
This is the theory and is still to some extent the case.
The Party Meeting. In the 1980s there was a court case between
the Inland Revenue and Conservative Central Office about whether CCO was an
unincorporated association or not. The decision determined whether CCO paid
Corporation tax or income tax on its investment income. The case went to appeal and the High court
said:
The Conservative Party
does not exist. It consists of three
separate bodies:
The Parliamentary Party
The National Union of
Conservative Associations and
Conservative Central
Office.
The only time they come
together as the Conservative Party is at the Party meeting to confirm a new
Leader, but no one knows who can call this meeting or who is entitled to attend
the meeting.
During the 1990s I went
to three Party meetings. 1990, 1995 and
1997.
In 1997 the meeting was
held in the QE2 centre and was packed out.
From memory the Chairman was Cecil Parkinson. He stood up and introduced himself. At that point Eric Chalker a great fighter
for Party democracy stood up and said he had a point of order. Groan from the audience. He asked who called
the meeting, who was entitled to attend and what authority did it have/ Bigger
groan from the audience. The Chairman
stated that he was following the usual procedure so he would continue with the
meeting. Applause from the
meeting. End of Point of order!
The Party Meeting doers
not appear anywhere in the Conservative Party Constitution. Today would the judges take the same view as
they did in the 1980s?
When there was a request
for a judicial review because Conservative Party members were in effect
electing a Prime Minister the judges made the point that the Prime Minister is
not elected by the Party members. It is
the monarch who invites an individual to form a government by getting a
majority in the House of Commons and if successful becomes the Prime Minister.
1940 Churchill became Leader
of the Parliamentary Party, but Chamberlain remained as the Leader of the Party
until his death later in the year.
There was no Party meeting!
1963 When Harold
Macmillan’s decision to resign was announced during the Tory party conference,
there was no formal procedure for selecting a new leader, only vague ‘customary
processes’. Among the leadership contenders, the 2nd Viscount Hailsham (Quintin
Hogg) was ready from the outset and disclaimed his peerage by means of the
recent reform won by Anthony Wedgwood Benn,
Home’s eventual emergence
as leader fuelled the suspicion that Macmillan had been determined all along to
thwart Rab Butler. Enoch Powell and Ian
McLeod refused to serve under Home and the furore meant that rules were drawn
up for Leadership contests.
1965 Home resigned after
the Conservative defeat in 1964 and the new rules were brought in for the
Leadership election. The rules required
the victor to have both an absolute majority (which Heath narrowly achieved)
and, in the first ballot, at least a 15% lead of votes actually cast (not
counting abstaining members - this would be changed in the mid-1970s review of
the rules). As Heath had not achieved the latter hurdle, the election could
therefore have gone to further rounds. However, Maudling conceded defeat and
Heath was duly declared leader.
The 1975 Conservative
Party leadership election was held in February 1975. The party's sitting
MPs voted Margaret Thatcher as Party Leader on the second
ballot. Incumbent leader Edward Heath stood aside after the first
ballot, in which he unexpectedly finished behind Thatcher. The rules also allowed new candidates to come forward in a second
ballot if the first ballot was not decisive.
The voting in the second
ballot was by the alternative vote and Margaret Thatcher got over 50% and the
other candidates withdrew.
A review was conducted under the auspices of Heath's predecessor Sir Alec
Douglas Home. Two recommendations were made, the leader
would henceforth be elected annually, whether the party was in opposition or
government, in the period following a Queens speech though in most years
this would prove a formality. Also on the first round the requirement for a
victorious candidate to have a lead of 15% over their nearest rival was
modified so that this would now be 15% of the total number of MPs, not just
those voting for candidates.
1989 Margaret Thatcher
easily beat Sir Anthony Meyer but Meyor got 33 votes and there were 30 odd
abstentions. Up to this point a
candidate only needed a proposer and seconder.
1990 John Major won in
1990 on the second ballot. Michael Heseltine had challenged Margaret Thatcher
on the first ballot. Thatcher had won but was four votes short of the required
15% threshold and withdrew. Major was
two votes short of receiving over 50% on the second ballot, however the other
two candidates withdrew.
1997 Leadership election
won by William Hague after 3 ballots.
1997 Party conference
Jeffrey Archer proposed that the Leader should be elected with the MPs having
50% of the vote and the Party members having 50% of the vote. I spoke and demanded the full monty of Party
democracy 100% of the vote. This was
accepted but then the MPs introduced a rule that they would only put two
candidates to the Party membership for election.
In 1998 Hague was elected
by the MPs and had a confirmatory vote on his Leadership which he easily won
and at the same time brought in a Party Constitution which made the 1922
Committee responsible for the rules for a Leadership election in consultation
with the Party Board. The new
Constitution included a clause which said that if only one Candidate came
forward for election by Party members there could be a confirmatory vote of the
membership. This did not happen when
Michael Howard, Theresa May and Rishi Sunak became Leaders.
2005 Michael Howard tried
to change the rules so that members reduced the number of candidates to two and
the MPs then elected the Leader. His
motion was defeated as it did not get the required majority.
Current position and why it must be changed
Under the Party's rules,
a member can vote in a leadership election even if they are not a British Citizen,
do not reside in the UK, and do not have the right to vote in British Elections. It cannot be right that a citizen of Russia,
China, India, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, etc. can vote in a Conservative Party
Leadership Election as there is clearly a conflict of interest. Are they loyal to the UK or to their home
country? This must be changed
The Leadership election
is an election in which ultimately the members decide who the Leader should be
and yet every election the rules are changed by the 1922 Committee without any
reference to the members. No consultation, no vote nothing. The members have no say about the process.
The
rules for the election of the Leader should be part of the main Party
Constitution and which could only be changed by a meeting of Party members to
which all members are invited.
How
is the current process undemocratic?
1)
Under the original rules to be a
candidate all you needed was a proposer and seconder. This changed to 10
nominations, 8 nominations, back to 10 nominations and in the last election 100
nominations. This time it is back to 10.
We should stick to having ten nominations.
2)
The length of the contest. Last time for the Rishi Sunak election it
was to be done in 8 days. Graham Brady
thinks it should be 3 weeks. This
contest is being spread over 14 weeks. It
is absurd to spread it over the length of this election, 3 weeks is sufficient.
3)
There should be 4 candidates go to
the members to vote upon and voting should be done by preferential vote for
both the MPs vote and the members vote. Balloting round by round as the MPs do
leads to manipulation as the MPs vote on the basis of what’s in it for me.
Margaret Thatcher was elected using the preferential vote, we should do the
same.
4)
The expenses that MPs can spend on
campaigning should be limited and the size of donations they can accept should
be limited to £10,000 from any one individual.
Corporate and other donations should not be allowed. The current limit for
expenditure is £400,000 and I am afraid that in the current election in raising
this amount of money hedge funds offshore have been prominent.
5)
The four candidates who went to the
Party conference had each to pay CCHQ £50,000.
The last two candidates had to pay a further £150,000 to CCHQ. This is totally unacceptable. It restricts
the candidates to the wealthy, or those with wealthy friends or they have to
mortgage their home. This is not
democracy and these payments to CCHQ should be abolished.
6)
If there is only one candidate then
that candidate has to have a confirmatory vote from the members of the
Party. This is in the Party
Constitution but only William Hague has done it.
7)
Voting should be secret and counted
after the ballot has closed.
Graham Brady was given the voting figures every two
days!
