Disraeli's decision to broaden the franchise by the Second Reform Act of 1866 ushered in over a Century of largely Tory rule. It was the Duke of Wellington who ensured that the Great Reform Act of 1832 passed the Lords where it had previously been rejected. In short, we are a Party that believes in democracy and the party that made Britain democractic.
And yet, it would seem, that Mr. Howard and his merry band of moronic modernisers think it is 'modern' to deny us the vote in this leadership election. It is only modern in that it runs against the grain of our Party's history. How can we ask our fellow countrymen to lend us their votes when as a party we refuse to trust our own membership to elect our leader? We all accept that IDS was a disaster, but let us not forget that it was the MPs who offered us an impossible choice - between:
(a) a non-entity; and
(b) a fat, cigar-smoking, Federast who should have joined the anti-British Liberal Demagogues.
Under the circumstances, the Party only did what it could and voted for IDS.
Those who think that the answer is to take away our democractic rights are fundamentally mistaken. The answer is to give us, the members, more democracy, not less. If we had been able to choose between all the candidates in 2001, I would have voted for Mr. Davis. If the party does not take away our democractic rights, then in 2005, I will vote for Mr. Davis.
In the final analysis, Mr. Howard is simply an upstart Grammar-school boy who failed to leave his mark in the General Election so is damn determined to point the Party towards another defeat by ensuring that one of these so-called modernisers who will turn the public away from us. Mr. Howard is determined that history will judge his failure a success by making sure that we lose more seats in 2009 than we did in 2005.