Why should Tory party members choose the next Prime Minister?

Last March there was an announcement from Amanda Milling, then the Conservative Party Co-Chairman, that party membership had risen to over 200,000. That had increased from 160,0000 — which was the figure in 2019 when Boris Johnson beat Jeremy Hunt in the leadership ballot. The tally of 200,000 may have shrunk a bit since and, in any case, is rather small compared to the UK’s population of 68 million. The rest of the nation might feel a bit put out at those of us who stump up our £25 sub each being left with the rather daunting responsibility of the final choice of Prime Minister, were Boris Johnson to stand down, or be forced out, during this Parliament.

But there are checks and balances involved. The 359 Conservative MPs have considerable power. Not only do they whittle the contenders down to the final two. But if a candidate finished with a clear lead among MPs, this will give them a big advantage among the wider membership who have a preference for Party unity. Also, while the general public doesn’t get a vote, the opinion pollsters will be on hand to give a pretty good indication of their preferences. This will also be a factor that will count heavily with the party membership.

Some elitists still argue that MPs alone should decide. “MPs have a greater understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates than the membership as a whole,” writes David Gauke, the former minister, on Conservative Home. “Westminster is an intimate place. MPs know each other well. They know who is good in the Parliamentary Chamber; they know who is clever, industrious and decent.”

That case is not convincing. On Gauke’s logic, why not go back to the “magic circle”, whereby informal soundings were made among senior figures? That was how Alec Douglas-Home became Prime Minister in 1963. After all, his predecessor Harold Macmillan, and the handful of others involved, probably felt that they too had a “greater understanding” of the decision, being on more “intimate” terms with the possible candidates than the hundreds of backbenchers milling around the House. But nobody is advocating a return to that system.

Whatever the leadership rules that apply, the mandate of the new Prime Minister will be questioned. That was a factor in prompting Theresa May to hold that disastrous early general election in 2017. Conservative MPs who don’t want to exert pressure for an early election, perhaps because their seats are at risk, might be swayed to stick with Boris Johnson.

Many pundits keep predicting a challenge will come this year and that Boris will be ousted. “It is a matter of when, not if,” has become a familiar phrase. I’m not so sure. The challenge to Mrs May took longer than many expected to come about. When the 48 letters that were then required to challenge her materialised in 2018, over half of the letter-writers — 27, in fact — had already gone public about what they had done. A challenge to Boris Johnson requires 54 letters. Thus far, only eight have been open about having sent in a letter. On a rule of thumb that about half the letters to Sir Graham Brady have been sent in secret, we would still be a long way off 54. Who knows?

Anyway, whenever the next party leadership contest does take place, it is right for the membership to have the final say. The wisdom of crowds favours 200,000 making the decision rather than 359. How many of those MPs might have their choice skewed by who has offered them a job? Or due to being embittered by whoever didn’t? How many of them subscribe to woke “groupthink” — without which they would have been thwarted from being on the CCHQ approved candidate’s list? How many have ever had a “real job”? How many really understand the cost of living or other financial pressures on voters, given their Parliamentary salaries of £81,932 a year plus expenses?

Even after the triumph at the last election, there are plenty of important places without a single Conservative MP. Glasgow, Cardiff, Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester, to name a few. But these cities do all have Conservative Party members, whose views will thus carry weight.

There will be plenty of sneering about Conservative Party membership, but often the caricature put forward by critics in the media is outdated or unfair. Turning up at a social event or campaign session for a Conservative constituency association is to embark on a great adventure on who you will encounter. The lazy assumption that they will be rich, old, white men is invariably disproved. Despite the controversy prompted by the claims of anti-Muslim prejudice from the Tory MP Nusrat Ghani, the Conservative Party is generally a very welcoming place to people from a wide array of backgrounds.

It is true that Conservatives who are willing to donate some money and volunteer some time to the cause will tend to be strong believers. This will give a preference for someone who offers a clear message of Conservative principles: patriotism, individual liberty, the rule of law, free enterprise, personal responsibility and a small state. They will be attracted by promises of lower taxation and reduced bureaucracy. Their only motive will be to support someone who they conclude can be a strong leader for our country and believes what is right. Far from being selfish or insular, Conservative Party members tend to be active in the community more generally — in churches, charities or residents’ groups — more than the average citizen.

The only caveat would be that the process of election should be as open as possible. The Conservatives should make an effort to recruit more members and engage more with the existing ones. When the next leadership contest takes place, there should be plenty of hustings around the country with the media invited and proceedings on YouTube for everyone to see.

I’ve just been reading a book by Andrew Roberts called Eminent Churchillians. Fascinating stuff about all the machinations in the Conservative Party of 70 or 80 years ago, involving Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, Bobbity Salisbury and Tufton Beamish. Deference has since given way to a thrusting openness and meritocracy. Despite being in Government, the Conservatives have become anti-establishment. In that spirit, decision making should be made as wide as possible. That includes the decision on who the next Prime Minister should be.

A Message from TheArticle

We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation.