Wilfred Aspinall is a member of Hitchin Conservative Association and convenor of the HCA Policy Forum. He previously served as Honorary Chairman of the Forum in the European Parliament for Construction and Energy Users.
There is a mix of opinions on how the leader of the Conservative Party should be elected. But most favour a procedural change and more involvement by Party members. Without any rush, we have to get this right.
I noted from ConHome “comments” the desire for transparency, democracy, integrity, and life experience, managerial ability, ability to delegate and smell a problem, and the quality to act calmly, get “stuff done” and lead.
We may have a problem when MPs have a vested interest in who becomes the leader based on their chance of a frontbench position and therefore they think it is in their best interest to support a particular candidate.
Normal survival I suppose but not best practice in a subscriber-based organisation.
Too much obvious maneuvering has taken place in the past which has not given a good result, and is often hampered by outside influencers.
The 1922 Committee decided that candidates who wished to stand as leader need to declare before recess. These are the same MP’s who had difficulty in organising the vote for their new Chairman. Did someone say get back confidence?
The Party needs to accept that it is not business as usual.
With only 121 MPs we may get well-funded organisations, even former MPs influencing the process.
Following this election the 121 MP’s may not know one another (certainly that applies to those newly elected). Those MPs mentioned as self-nominees are from the body of the 14 years of well-known government ministers. Frankly, a government that had run out of ideas to present to the electorate. Of more importance are actual policy ideas for the future.
The parliamentary party had ceased to listen even to Constituency Association members.
So what is the current potential group of known candidates going to offer that is different? How are we going to find out?
Perhaps Conservative MPs should have taken time to meet one another and have time to chat to one another before nominations were declared. Even to have internal hustings.
With only 121 MPs voting put them all in an isolated place, with no outside contact (no mobiles and no leaks), and get them to come forward with not two but three or four nominations (to avoid the self-interest saga). No manoeuvres.
Those three or four candidates should have been found to be put to the membership of the party with hustings internally organised throughout the UK only attended by Party members and then a final vote of all members.
I noticed that as the pre-election debate was closing three spokespeople were frequently fielded for the press circuit. All Secretaries of State, all knowledgable, and in positions where they were working to restore some credibility in their department of state. They all appeared to be genuine and competent, and didn’t come across as vying to denigrate colleagues during their interviews
I am referring to Victoria Atkins, Mark Harper, and Mel Stride. All were competent performers. All have worked outside the Westminster bubble with a credible career history.
During the next 5 years a new Leader will be tested to keep their Shadow Cabinet and all MPs working within an agreed policy strategy that aims for the 2029 General Election and in the interim holds the Labour government to account. A responsibility they must take on with total cohesion.
It will mean absolute vigilance and a lot of work from all MPs listening to Constituency Association Members who in turn have a responsibility to express their policy preferences
The transparency and democratic process will kick in during the vote by party members hence not two but three or four nominations from Members of Parliament. All are vetted and supported.
I must admit I have not considered what role, if any, should be played by members of the HoL but there are so many of them and they will have their vote like all Party Members.
It has to be said the Conservative Party has not been well managed under a Constitution that centralised everything and put fear into local Constituency Associations that if they did not toe the CCHQ line action would be taken against them. Individuals were threatened with expulsion from the Party under the direction of anonymous people, and prevented from participating in the selection of their constituency’s candidate.
The words “stitch up” have been heard. We need a more democratic and transparent Constitution with greater power given to the membership. Let us be clear: the Party should be better managed and under the control of the subscribing members not by inexperienced CCHQ staffers.
I finish where I started. The Party has not been well managed under the present Constitution and CCHQ needs to be revamped under a new mode of operation to advise the Shadow Cabinet and Ministers, Parliamentary Party, members of the HoL and Constituency Associations. Certainly not act as the Party controller under anonymous people in CCHQ.
Members of Parliament do not own the Party. They represent Constituency Associations.
It is the Members that are the Party
