NONE IN THE North East; none in Bristol; one in Scotland; one in West and South Yorkshire; one in Merseyside and Manchester; two in Birmingham; three in Wales; 17 women: that is the current state of the Conservative Party in Parliament. The 198 Conservative MPs have given their reaction to these miserable figures. They have decided to take the vote for the leadership away from the members of their party. To whom do they want to give it? To themselves.

In her article in the latest Spectator, Theresa May has commented that “it is the view of the majority of Conservative MPs that they know best, and they would deny everyone but MPs any substantive say whatsoever in the election of our next leader”.

She then asks the key question: “If we aren’t willing to listen to and trust our own membership in the election of our leader, then how can voters believe that we will listen to them when it comes to understanding their problems and finding the right solutions?”

Theresa May is a significant figure. She has been a Shadow minister, as well as chairman of the party. Because she was a woman, she was probably over-promoted in terms of experience early in her career. There has been plenty of jealousy from other Conservatives in the Commons. But at the past election she defeated a very determined Liberal Democrat attack on her constituency. She is the senior woman in the Conservative leadership group. She certainly defends the interests of women in the Tory party. Her ideal solution for the leadership choice and for constituency nominations would be primaries among Conservative supporters on the US model.

The Conservative Party won more than 40 per cent of the women’s vote in all the elections from 1979 to 1992, and won all those elections. It won only 32 per cent of the women’s vote in 2005. Unless the Tories can regain their support among women voters, they have no prospect of winning an overall majority in any future general election. No women; no victories.

Under the existing system of electing the leader, the MPs choose two nominees, and the members of the local associations take the final decision between them. The only time this system actually operated, in 2001, the MPs nominated Kenneth Clarke, who was ahead in votes, and Iain Duncan Smith, who was just ahead of the obvious candidate, Michael Portillo.

The problem was a simple one. Kenneth Clarke and Michael Portillo had strong personality and leadership skills; Iain Duncan Smith did not — though he had other good qualities. Mr Clarke holds views on Europe that go against the majority of the party; Mr Duncan Smith is a Eurosceptic and Mr Portillo a moderate Eurosceptic. The MPs should have nominated Mr Portillo, who was acceptable in terms of European policy and charismatic in personality. For mixed reasons, including personal interest and jealousy, they nominated two unacceptable candidates. The MPs were to blame; the members of associations did their best with the choice they were given, and put policy first.

In the 2001 leadership election, approximately 120,000 women voted. If the Conservative MPs’ proposals are adopted, that number will fall to 17. The party in Parliament is predominantly male, middle-aged and elected from suburban and rural seats in southern England. They are an absurdly unrepresentative body, in terms of gender and of the national electorate.

Since 1965 MPs have chosen Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, William Hague and Michael Howard as leaders of the Conservative Party. Apart from Margaret Thatcher’s three successive victories, these leaders have won two general elections and lost six. The MPs sacked Margaret Thatcher, their only real winner. For 40 years the MPs have had their way, and it has usually proved to be a mistake.

Fortunately this July’s vote of the Conservative MPs has no force under the Conservative constitution. On September 27 there will be an attempt to change the democratic constitution which was introduced under William Hague. To make any change in that constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the leaders of the voluntary party, who mainly consist of the association chairmen, and a two-thirds vote of Conservative MPs. Those chairmen and MPs who think it important to do what they are told by their betters will vote for the rule change. Those who do not think it possible to win the next election if the party repudiates women, Scots, Welsh, Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Sheffield and most of the North, can block this anti-democratic proposal by voting against it. There would then have to be a full democratic vote for the new leader.

If the Conservative Party gets so frightened of democracy that it repudiates the only strongly democratic element in its constitution, that will prove to many people that it is incapable of reform.

If the party has any real attraction to the public, it is when it stands for the rights of the individual against the overweening power of the State. That is the basis on which Lord Strathclyde has led the Conservative Opposition in the House of Lords; in the late Parliament, that was more effective and more consistent than the leadership in the Commons. It proved to be good politics, opening alliances of principle with the Lib Dems, independents and Labour rebels.

There is still life in a modernising Conservatism, based on these principles of liberty and on Conservative workers and councillors — now the largest group of councillors in England. There is life in the Conservative Party of ordinary men and — notably — women. There is no life — no future — in a Conservative Party that cannot look beyond a small group of MPs who represent only a localised fragment of the people of Britain. On September 27 both the party chairmen and the MPs must vote “no” if they want their party to survive. That is their duty.

JOIN THE DEBATE
Send your e-mails via www.timesonline.co.uk/debate

Times Recommends

• Resist urge to throw voters red meat
• Slay sacred cows and be candid
• We cannot let these 100 deaths deflect us