NO LITTLE ROCK HERE
Ronald Butt warns against the Tory leader being chosen by those who don't know him well WHEN a wind of political fashion is blow- ing at force, who dares stand against it? The prevailing wind for change is almost a gale as New Labour prepares for a new constitution, a new Disunited Kingdom and a new bill of rights which, enforced in the courts, will make parliamentary statute subservient to the judges' discretion. A wholly nominated second chamber would enhance prime ministerial power still fur- ther. Even the principle of retroactive leg- islation is now considered respectable because the government's majority and mandate are deemed to sanction the so- called windfall tax.
It is a brisk new world symbolised by the personalised style which Mr Blair brought to the election campaign and to what might be described as his inauguration. 'Judge me', he said during the campaign, 'by what I have done to the Labour party.' Repeatedly, in one form of words or another, he exhorted us during the cam- paign to put our trust in him personally to see that we were all right. He means well, but the cult of the leader's special relation- ship with the people hangs uneasily over this government.
All this presidential-style populism is having an impact on the poor defeated and leaderless Tories on the opposition bench- es who number only 164 souls and face a Labour majority of 179. How can they cope with bouncing Mr Blair unless to some extent at least they copy his style? In particular, the urge grows among some of them to follow Labour and 'democratise' the leadership election mechanics by creat- ing some sort of electorate in the country, whether of constituency chairmen or of all local Conservative party members.
The urge may prevail. Everyone wants to be up-to-date. But to end the system by which Conservative MPs alone elect their leader would be worse than a grave mis- take in the party's own interest. It would also weaken further the concept of the accountability of government to the House of Commons. That would be a betrayal of their pre-eminent role in politics which is to guard the spirit of the constitution so that evolutionary change does not under- mine its tested principles. It is now three centuries since Charles II discovered that, to get the money he need- ed from Parliament to carry on the gov- ernment's business, he must by hook or by crook build up his own party in the Com- mons. By the reign of William and Mary it was established that the Crown must have ministers supported by a majority in the Commons. That principle underlay the rise and fall of all governments both under the old illogical and corrupt franchise and after the Reform Acts of the 19th century had ushered in democracy.
Governments have come and gone according to whether they have had or lacked a majority in the House, whether it was one gained in a general election or one lost to a cross-party alliance against the government on some great issue of principle. What would happen if the Tory MPs found that they could no longer sup- port the leader whom the constituencies had chosen over them? The Tories' and Labour's rather different attitudes to their parties outside Parliament still in some degree reflect their history. The Tory party was made in Parliament and later planted a supporting organisation in the country. But Labour was sent to Parlia- ment by the unions. Its external organisa- tion has always been more powerful, hence Labour's recent long-lasting politi- cal ineffectiveness.
One advantage of the British political system is that it allows the chief executive to be removed between elections by the majority party itself, if he or she is thought 'We don't have a set.' not to be doing the job acceptably. Mrs Thatcher was only the latest of a distin- guished list of leaders who met this end. We are spared the American system under which the president cannot be removed between elections except for truly shatter- ing misdemeanours.
But the supreme advantage of allowing the prime minister, or opposition leader, to be elected by his party in the Commons is that he is chosen by those who know him well and who can judge him as only close colleagues can who have watched a candi- date as he rose from the ranks. It is an incomparably superior system to that which allows a presidential candidate to be plucked from Little Rock and then pack- aged and presented to an electorate which can only judge him to the extent that the media makes it possible to penetrate the decorative wrapping paper.
As we watch the six declared Tory candi- dates making public claim to the leadership almost as though appealing to the general public, we must ask the blunt question: how can the wider Conservative member- ship possibly be equipped to understand them as their Commons colleagues can? The answer is that it cannot and the party should stick by its present election system.
But some reform is possible. It should become a formal party rule that every Con- servative MP is in future obliged to hold some sort of prescribed consultative meet- ing with his constituency at which views could be expressed and a vote for a recom- mended candidate taken. This would inform the local MP of local feeling but leave him free to cast his untrammelled vote for the leader at Westminster. Con- stituencies without a Conservative MP could hold similar meetings under their local chairman and send reports to all Tory MPs.
The only serious cause for worry is how to deal with Tory opinion in Scotland and Wales which have no Conservative MPs. But hard cases make bad law. The outcome of the election in Scotland was in part a quirk caused by tactical voting against the party in government — with the result that the Liberal Democrats took 11 seats on a smaller total vote than the Tories had. Next time, when Labour will have been the party in government, it could be different. Mean- while, winning back Scottish seats requires better Tory policies, not new processes for electing the Tory leader.
If the Blair government damages the economy, that can be put right. But if it weakens our parliamentary constitution the harm could be irreparable. The Tories in the Commons should keep themselves in good shape to defend the accountability of a power-hungry executive to Parliament and prepare for the future by keeping the election of their new leader and the future prime minister firmly in their own hands.
The author's books include The Power of Parliament (1970).
Previous page
