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 2024
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!
