Candidates in this leadership election have been whispering sweet nothings to members about party democracy. Since the members will ultimately select our next chief, the six have little to lose from pledging to extend the frontiers of activist control at the expense of CCHQ.
Robert Jenrick has promised to “breathe life into the party with a renewed role and respect for members”, and called for the approved candidates list to be scrapped in a quest for “greater party democracy”. He is parking his tank on Priti Patel’s lawn. Having spoken at the Conservative Democratic Organisation conference last year, it was a pitch she hoped to make her own.
She plans to allow members to directly elect the party chair and have a greater say on the party board, in contrast to the dictatorial structure of Nigel Farage’s political company. Mel Stride will only go so far as backing an elected deputy chairman, with a greater role for members in policy formulation. James Cleverly has pledged a “proper, meaningful choice” in candidate selection.
So it goes. Our post-election survey tested members’ opinions on party democracy. 69 per cent wanted to retain the final vote on the party leader. 53 per cent wanted an elected party chairman. And 64 per cent wanted associations to be free to select their own candidates.
Last year, 73 per cent of respondents thought the leadership should be more accountable, 71 per cent wanted a partially elected board, and 53 per cent believed party members don’t have enough control over the party’s finances. Vox Populi, Vox Dei (at least for our panel).
After the ignominious downfall of the Rishi Sunak Führerbunker – a leader, many hasten to point out, that members did not elect – it’s hard to not be sympathetic to empowering members at the expense of the centre. A chaotic, ill-prepared election campaign. The parachuting of candidates, best encapsulated by Richard Holden’s chicken run. The final, unequivocal, and total defeat.
Something must change. CCHQ is not fit for purpose. A party that has rattled through eight chairmen (with apologies to Amanda Milling) since the 2019 election has not been able to focus on long-term planning. Membership has dwindled as donations have dried up. Thirty years ago, we possessed a million members. Today we worry we’ll be laughed at if we publish the figures.
Richard Fuller, chairman number eight, has promised a “thorough review of the general election campaign and a root-and-branch examination of the wider Conservative Party”. Whilst this post-mortem is welcome, any hopes Fuller has of playing Lord Woolton must be tempered by the assumption that he will be replaced by an ally of the new leader. I suspect they will have written a book.
Notably, the frontrunner hasn’t specified how she plans a “new respect for our members”. Perhaps she hopes it can be achieved with a change of tone and greater conviviality. But other candidates would surely deliver on their pledges. An elected chairman, or at least deputy. No more approved list. An elected board, prying into party finances. Sunlight as a disinfectant.
For activists who feel long neglected and for leadership candidates for whom party democracy is more than an easy route to tickling their electorate’s bellies, this must all sound marvellous. But our next leader should be careful what they wish for. Just ask William Hague.
As a former consumer of 14 pints a day, Hague will not be unfamiliar with the perils of a nasty hangover. He must receive a similar sensation when considering the leadership rule change he introduced in 1998. Helping to boost participation after a record election defeat (plus ca change), Hague gave members the final say on the leader: a new contract with our disappointed members.
Following the reign of the 49-Day Queen and our totentanz towards a Boris Johnson restoration, Hague changed his mind. A system where members could vote one way and MPs another was a recipe for instability. The fates of Iain Duncan Smith and Liz Truss – and most likely Andrea Leadsom, had she not dropped out – were evidence enough. Physician, heal thyself.
Unfortunately, as Hague acknowledges, this is not a position popular with the activists themselves. For this, he has himself to blame. As John Strafford has argued, Hague gaveth the leadership vote as he tooketh away the members’ wider role in the party, centralising control over candidate selections and funds. A vote on the leadership was not what members had wanted.
But now they have it, they are keen to defend it. Many feel it is by far their best opportunity to influence the party’s direction. If they can’t choose the candidate short-list of one that CCHQ may foist on them, they’ll be damned if they give up the opportunity to elect a Leader of the Opposition or Prime Minister.
Our surveys have found that, even when surrendering the leadership vote is coupled with an expansion of party democracy, members won’t budge. Who would rather be able to elect a deputy chairman than the leader? Who worries what the Party Board does? Who fights for the approved list?
Being a Tory always requires defending lost causes. I believe in elites and am democracy’s critical friend, party or otherwise. Winston Churchill’s wit competes with Curtis Yarvin’s latest sermon. My faith in the inherent wisdom of crowds died during the Truss premiership. I worry things have been going downhill since the Great Reform Act, or at least since Dizzy dished the Whigs.
Aside from coveting my copy of Salisbury: Victorian Titan, I’m also unconvinced that a lack of democracy or member control is currently the party’s biggest problem. The biggest problem with the existing party is the quality of the people within it. With apologies to my friends in CCHQ, we have a scarcity of talent.
As party membership shrinks, not only does the average activist become more atypical compared to the general electorate, but the pool from which future MPs, ministers, and Prime Ministers are chosen contracts enormously. The onward march of the super-councilllors continues as politics becomes an ever-more unattractive profession except for those long since bitten by the bug.
The talent pipeline diminishes. Initiatives such as Munira Mirza’s Civic Future or the Thatcher Fellowship of the Centre for Policy Studies hope to counteract this by encouraging more public-spirited youngsters or frustrated private sector fellow travellers to be interested in and equipped for political careers. Gradually, one hopes such programmes will expand Westminster’s talent bank.
Yet the dictates of Tory Leninism, the pressing need to prepare for our return to office in 2029, and the myriad national crises we will confront once there mean that we cannot wait for the cream to naturally rise to the top. The next Conservative leader might smile broadly and call for scrapping the candidates’ list. But the centre needs to reserve the right to impose their own A-list.
Naturally, this provokes annoyance from associations. They wish to defend their limited freedoms. Fairly enough, they believe they know best how to win their seats. Often this means a local candidate, since they do perform better. Look at the cautionary tale of Will Tanner. Holden scraped home by only 20 votes. Ex-SPADs do not always make good MPs, ministers, or party leaders.
But amongst the local champions and favourite sons fighting tooth and nail to keep their local A&Es open and the grey belt grey, you do need a smattering of those who know how Westminster works, or who have experience from outside SW1 or a council chamber. All members should read Sebastian Payne’s thoughtful reflection on his selection quest. What does the party require?
Once the centre surrenders power, it is very difficult for it to get it back. Michael Howard’s attempt to reform the leadership rules was rejected. Changing them for this contest has been the dog that has not barked. We lament not putting the clock back one second in government, but have no willingness to do it to ourselves. For a party of Tories, our history is undoubtedly Whiggish.
The democratic ratchet sees control ceded in only one direction. It also creates alternative sources of power. Who has the authority when a party leader and elected chairman disagree? What happens if an elected party board withholds funds from a leader whose policies or strategy they dislike? Are checks and balances more helpful to winning back power than an elective dictatorship?
As a beneficiary of the original A-list, Patel makes for a concerted convert to the cause of party democracy. But all candidates should be aware that power, once handed over, will prove impossible to get back if they ever require it. It may be popular with our survey, their voters, and their own consciences. Reform in haste, repent at leisure. Do they want to be another Hague?