Last week, I proposed a bargain whereby the right of the membership to vote for the Conservative Party leader would be exchanged for the right to vote for the Chairman of the Party Board. Our panel disagrees with the plan – with 32 per cent supporting the proposal and 60 per cent opposing it.
Of course, this is not an exact science. There might be respondents who believe that party members should have a right to neither, or both. We might also be facing a situation similar to the referendum on the monarchy in Australia in 1999. Polls suggested a majority of Australians supported a republic, but they voted against the particular proposal put to them for selecting a President.
So a majority of respondents might agree that the leadership election system needs changing, but believe that allowing the vote for the Chairman is insufficient compensation. Or – the more likely option – is that my article was insufficiently convincing, and members would rather retain their right to vote for their next leader.