Don’t alter rules to elect Boris, Hague warns Tories

Party risks ‘swamp’ of entryists by giving grassroots too much say in leadership vote

THE Conservatives should not change their leadership rules to make it easier to elect Boris Johnson, because it could damage the party in the long term, Lord Hague warns today.

The former party leader says giving grassroots Tories a greater say in electing a leader could end in entryism and the party “swamped by new recruits”.

He compares the idea to Labour’s rule changes in 2015, when opening up its membership led to the election of Jeremy Corbyn, which he says left democracy “fundamentally weaker”.

Grassroots Tory activists are putting pressure on the party’s ruling board to change the rules so that any MP with the support of 20 colleagues can go forward to a final ballot of party members. At present only two go through, a rule set under his leadership.

Lord Hague, a former foreign secretary, says the change would help Mr Johnson, “who is currently thought to be more popular with the party members than with parliamentarians”.

He warns that it would ultimately put too much power in the hands of Tory activists, who he says “are often the first to point out that they are not remotely representative of society at large or even of their voters”.

He says: “I am not arguing against boldness and radicalism, but against decisions easily swayed by the fashions of the moment, determined by unrepresentative minorities or unconnected from a much wider electorate.

“The worst of all arguments to change a system of such importance is to favour a particular candidate or outcome in the short term. For one thing, calculations of this kind are often wide of the mark or counter-productive, and most Conservative leadership battles have sprung a major surprise. But in any case, short-term needs make poor long-term rules.” He highlights a call by Leave. EU, a hard Brexit campaign group, for its supporters to “flood” the Conservative Party to ensure a “true Brexiteer” like Mr Johnson becomes prime minister.

Lord Hague’s reform gave party members the deciding vote in a leadership contest for the first time. He says he had hoped the rules would lead to the revival of the Conservatives’ grassroots but had been proved “spectacularly wrong” after membership of the party halved to its current level of 124,000.

Party membership costs £2.09 a month and supporters are entitled to vote in leadership elections after three months. Under the 2015 Labour reforms people could join and vote in leadership elections for £3 a year. It led to a surge in hard-left supporters.

Lord Hague says: “A small membership is then at risk at any time of being swamped by a sudden influx of new recruits – the very thing that happened in Labour in 2015. Having not thought to include the three-month membership requirement in their own new rules and having all candidates put to the whole party, Labour’s former leaders inadvertently produced the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, complete with extremism, anti-semitism, divisiveness and the impossibility of removing him.

“The result of what might be thought of as a more perfect and open democracy in Labour is that British democracy as a whole is now fundamentally weaker, since there is currently no moderate, easily electable alternative to the government of the day.”

He also draws parallels with the US, where open primaries replaced the influence of senators and governors, leaving voters with a choice of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

While many of us hope that there will be no imminent leadership election in the Tory party, the minds of others are evidently turning to what would happen if there were to be one. The Leave.eu campaign has started urging its supporters to “flood” the party with new members ready to vote in any such contest, while some MPS have become alarmed at the possibility of the party being “hijacked” in this way.

One grassroots organisation has written to the party board to call for a change in the rules, so that any candidate with the support of 20 other MPS could go forward to the decisive ballot of the membership, rather than only the top two having that privilege. Such a change would be seen as helping my fellow columnist Boris Johnson, who is currently thought to be more popular with the party members than with parliamentarians.

I feel a special responsibility for all of this, because it was under my leadership of the party that today’s rules were put in place. I was the last Tory leader to be elected under the previous system in which MPS alone had a vote, and the big change that followed – MPS choose two candidates and all party members of at least three months’ standing then decide between them – was at my behest and with my strong approval.

Twenty years on I can reflect on this with no axe to grind. I am no longer an MP and am not committed to any future aspirant to lead my party. Having reflected, I really and absolutely would not change the rules to reduce the role of MPS and enhance the power of the general membership.

This is not because I am protective of my earlier decisions and think I was always right. Oddly enough, it is partly because in a very important respect I turned out to be spectacularly wrong. I believed at the time that giving a vote to members would help to enlarge the membership and make it more representative of the country, and aimed for a million members of a revived grassroots organisation.

The sad reality is that, since then, the total number of Conservative members has halved, and earlier this year officially stood at 124,000. Most of these are wonderful people. I have spent much of my life among them, fundraising and campaigning. But they are often the first to point out that they are not representative of society at large or even of their own voters.

This is true of most parties. A highly mobile and digital society is not conducive to the growth of most mass membership organisations, which had their heyday at a time of fewer distractions and stronger community roots. A small membership is then at risk at any time of being swamped by a sudden influx of new recruits – the very thing that happened to Labour in 2015. Having not thought to include the three-month membership requirement in their own new rules, and having all candidates put to the whole party, Labour’s former leaders inadvertently produced the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, complete with extremism, anti-semitism, divisiveness and the impossibility of removing him.

The result of what might be thought of as a more perfect and open democracy in Labour is that British democracy as a whole is now fundamentally weaker, since there is currently no moderate, easily electable alternative to the government of the day. The main opposition party has a leader whose views are grossly unrepresentative of both the MPS around him and the British voters. If Labour had adopted the Conservative rulebook, Corbyn would never have had a chance of becoming leader.

It is crucial to appreciate that pursuing “one member one vote” democracy within parts of the political system does not necessarily lead to a more democratic country overall. Of course, if our two great parties had millions of members, there would be a significantly stronger argument for extending their power. Yet even then, the mounting evidence from America should tell us to be cautious – as open primaries have entirely replaced the influence of senators and governors, voters were left with a choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, which many found appalling.

So there is a powerful case to ensure some balance between representative and direct decision-making. MPS are elected to make decisions on our behalf. One of the most important of those is to have a major say in choosing an individual who might be best placed to govern the nation, based on long and personal acquaintance with the candidates as well as knowing their views. If you remove the gatekeepers from a political system, you have no idea who or what is going to come through the gate.

Anyone who thinks that reserving such power for MPS is automatically to defend the status quo should read some history. It was the Tory MPS who overthrew the coalition government in 1922, and who installed Margaret Thatcher in the leadership in 1975 – in the latter case against the apparent wishes of the party members of the time. I am not arguing against boldness and radicalism, but against decisions easily swayed by the fashions of the moment, determined by unrepresentative minorities or unconnected from a much wider electorate.

The worst of all arguments to change a system of such importance is to favour a particular candidate or outcome in the short term. For one thing, calculations of this kind are often wide of the mark or counterproductive, and most Conservative leadership battles have sprung a major surprise. But in any case, short-term needs make poor long-term rules.

My advice to my old colleagues will be to keep the Conservative Party rules exactly as they are. In the meantime, it would be a great thing for politics and good government if large numbers of people would join whichever party they would like to support. They might be interested in politics, or have hoped they don’t need to take an interest but are learning from the direction of world events that they ought to stir themselves.

The more people take part in choosing their local councillors and MPS the better. And yes, they should vote for the next leader of their party too, but a leader who has had to jump through the extra hoop of showing strong support from those who know them best.