Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 2001
|
|
The 2001 Conservative leadership election was held after the United Kingdom Conservative Party failed to make any in-road into the Labour government's lead in the 2001 general election, party leader William Hague resigned. A leadership contest was called under new rules Hague had introduced and five candidates stepped forward Michael Ancram, David Davis, Kenneth Clarke, Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Portillo.
| Contents |
Candidates and their platforms
Ancram stood declaring that none of the other candidates were close to his form of Conservatism, as well as arguing that he was best placed to unite the party. As the party chairman for the previous three years, he was widely seen as the candidate who most represented a continuity in the direction of the Hague years.
Clarke had previously stood in the 1997 leadership election but had otherwise maintained a low profile in the subsequent four years. It was argued that his non-involvement in the party's election campaign meant that he was free from blame. His manifesto involved taking a softer line on the European Union, allowing a free vote on many issues, whilst concentrating heavily on the economy and public services.
Davis was very much an outsider candidate, having not served on the frontbench under William Hague, though he had served as a junior Minister in the government of John Major. As Chairman of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee in the previous Parliament he had gained a good reputation at Westminster, whilst his relatively unknown profile amongst the electorate was argued to be an asset.
Duncan-Smith stood as the standard bearer of the Thatcherite wing of the party, arguing the need for the party to stick to its principles and take a hard line on the European Union, whilst making use of the talents of all sections of the party.
Portillo ran on a very liberal manifesto, calling for the party to reform and reach out to groups not normally associated with the party, calling for greater involvement of women, ethnic minorities and homosexuals. His supporters, and the platform, became dubbed "Portilistas".
Prominent Conservatives who did not stand
There were several prominent Conservative politicians who did not stand despite having been speculated about by political commentators in preceding years. Amongst them included:
Michael Howard, the former Home Secretary, who stood in the 1997 leadership election had subsequently withdrawn from frontline politics and was not at this stage widely considered, though he would subsequently make a comeback as Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, then Leader from 2003.
Francis Maude, the Shadow Foreign Secretary had been popular with the liberal wing of the party, but after his ally Portillo had returned to Parliament the lead shifted. Maude instead ran Portillo's campaign.
John Redwood, who had stood in both the 1995 and 1997 leadership elections initially gave no confirmation of his intentions but eventually decided not to run.
Malcolm Rifkind the former Foreign Secretary had been unsuccessful in his attempt to return to Parliament. Whilst the rules did not actually specify on paper that candidates had to be MPs, political realities meant that a non MP was in practice an unviable option. (It was because of this that Portillo had been ineligible to stand in the 1997 Conservative leadership election.)
Ann Widdecombe, the Shadow Home Secretary, took preliminary soundings but found that despite being popular amongst the full party membership she had limited support in the Parliamentary Party, who voted in the initial rounds. As a result she decided not to run.
Contest rules
The election was conducted by the 1922 Committee, with that committee's chairman serving as Returning Officer. As the outgoing Chairman, Sir Archibald Hamilton, had stood down from Parliament at the election, no Returning Officer was available for some time until Sir Michael Spicer was elected. This led to calls for the job of Returning Officer to be reallocated in future.
The rules required MPs to vote in a succession of ballots, with the lowest scoring candidate eliminated each time, until only two candidates remained. MPs could only vote for a single candidate, but could change their vote each time.
The MPs' ballots
Portillo was the first candidate to declare and many commentators saw the contest as coming down to whether or not the party agreed with him, since his platform proved deeply controversial in some quarters.
The first ballot proved problematic. The results were as follows:
- Michael Portillo: 49
- Iain Duncan Smith: 39
- Kenneth Clarke: 36
- Michael Ancram: 21
- David Davis: 21
The party rules made no provision for a tie. As a result Michael Spicer ordered a fresh ballot be held the next day and declared that if the tie prevailed then both lowest scoring candidates would be eliminated. However as it turned out, a few MPs shifted their votes and the next round's results were as follows:
- Michael Portillo: 50
- Iain Duncan Smith: 42
- Kenneth Clarke: 39
- David Davis: 18
- Michael Ancram: 17
Ancram was now eliminated by virtue of placing last. There was speculation about Davis' position in the race, since even if every Ancram voter now supported him, he would still place last in the next round. He soon withdrew.
Also telling was that whereas Duncan Smith and Clarke had both advanced ground, Portillo had only gained the support of a single additional MP. His campaign was widely seen as losing momentum and commentators no longer predicted he would top the final round of MPs' voting, looking instead towards Duncan Smith. The final round results were:
- Kenneth Clarke: 59
- Iain Duncan Smith: 54
- Michael Portillo: 53
By a single vote Portillo was eliminated from the contest. It later transpired that he had been the victim of tactical voting.
Criticisms
The MP only stage of the contest attracted much criticism. Many questioned the validity of MPs eliminating the candidates, potentially denying the ordinary members the opportunity to vote for a favourite candidate (Ann Widdecombe declined to run because she believed she would not reach the last two). Others questioned how it could be claimed that the eventual winner could be assured of support amongst MPs (the argument often given for previous elections being conducted by MPs only and now for holding these initial rounds) given that on the final round each had attracted the support of only a third of the Parliamentary Party. The potential for tactical voting also came in for question. On more technical grounds, the lack of provision of a tie and the delay in appointing a returning officer also sparked concerns, with the former point also leading to ridicule from political opponents.
The full membership vote
Duncan Smith and Clarke's names now went forward to the full party membership in a three month contest that was at times acimonious. The announcement of the result was delayed due to September 11th 2001 but Iain Duncan Smith emerged triumphant winning over 60% of the vote, although not a clear majority amongst MPs, which many believe hampered the inexperienced leader and led to the events which saw Michael Howard replace him in 2003.
See Also
- Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1965
- Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1975
- Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1989
- Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1990
- Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1995
- Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1997
- Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 2003
- Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 2005