British leadership election to replace Michael Howard
The 2005 Conservative Party leadership election was called by party leader Michael Howard on 6 May 2005, when he announced that he would be stepping down as Leader of the Conservative Party in the near future following the party's third successive general election defeat. However, he stated that he would not depart until a review of the rules for the leadership election had been conducted, given the high level of dissatisfaction with the current system. Ultimately, no changes were made and the election proceeded with the existing rules, which were introduced in 1998.
The contest formally began on 7 October 2005, when the Chairman of the 1922 Committee, Michael Spicer, received a letter of resignation from Howard. Nominations for candidates opened immediately, and closed on 13 October.
The first round of voting amongst Conservative members of Parliament took place on 18 October and Kenneth Clarke was eliminated (38 votes) leaving David Davis (62 votes), David Cameron (56 votes) and Liam Fox (42 votes) to go through to the second ballot on 20 October. In the second ballot, Fox was eliminated (51 votes), leaving Cameron (90 votes) and Davis (57 votes) to go through to a postal ballot. The ballot, whose result was declared on 6 December, saw Cameron win 68% of votes to Davis' 32%.
Candidates.
 ;templatestyles src="Col-begin/styles.css"/ ;
Results.
The first ballot of MPs was held on 18 October. The results were announced, ten minutes later than expected, at 5:30 pm by Sir Michael Spicer, the Chairman of the 1922 Committee.
 ;section begin="Results"/ ;
 ;section end="Results"/ ;
The rules of the contest.
Much speculation surrounded the review of the rules, as it was widely perceived that the system eventually adopted could prove a help or hindrance to particular candidates with strong support in certain areas of the party. However, on 27 September 2005, the proposal to change the rules was rejected.
The existing rules.
Under the rules adopted in 1998, under which both Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard were respectively elected in 2001 and 2003, a leadership contest can be initiated either by the incumbent leader resigning or by the Parliamentary Party passing a vote of no confidence in the present leader, the latter being called upon a request by 15% of the Parliamentary Party to the Chairman of the 1922 Committee, who serves "ex officio" as the returning officer of a leadership election; if a vote of no confidence is passed, a leadership election is called, with the incumbent barred from standing.
Prospective candidates would require nominations from any two of their fellow MPs taking the Conservative whip. Were only one candidate to stand (as happened in the 2003 leadership election), they would have been elected "nem con" (uncontested); were two candidates to stand, the election would immediately proceed to a ballot of all members of the party. In the event that more than two candidates stood, MPs would hold a series of ballots to reduce the number to two, with the candidate garnering the fewest votes in each round eliminated. (Were two or more candidates to tie for last place, as happened in the 2001 contest, the ballot would immediately proceed to a revote, with all bottom-placed candidates eliminated if the tie still remained.) Candidates would also be permitted to withdraw between rounds (as also happened in the 2001 contest). 
Once only two candidates remained, the all-member ballot would be proceeded to, lasting for some weeks, with the candidate topping the poll to be declared leader. To be eligible to vote, an individual would have to have been a paid-up member of the party for at least three months.
Criticisms of the existing rules.
Many prospective criticisms were made of the aforementioned rules, in light of some problems encountered in previous elections:
Structural.
Many criticised the system as having been devised to try to answer those who believed that a leader should have the backing of the bulk of MPs, to answer demands for ordinary party members to have a say, and to allow for the removal of a failing leader, with it possible for a candidate to reach the final two with the support of barely a third of MPs in the final ballot (or even less if the rival candidate has overwhelming support in the Parliamentary Party) and then be elected leader by the party members; conversely, an incumbent leader is perpetually vulnerable to being removed by the MPs. Additionally, some argued that the party membership was unrepresentative of the electorate at large and thus prone to elect a leader reflecting only their views rather than those of the country at large.
Proposals to change the leadership election process.
Initial proposals for electing a new leader.
Following the Conservative Party's defeat at the 2005 general election, in a speech on 6 May 2005, Howard announced his intention to resign as leader of the Conservative Party. However, he indicated that before he stood down, he wanted to oversee changes to the party’s process of electing a new leader. These new proposals were set out in principle in the Conservative Party document, "A 21st Century Party":
This proposal was put to the 1922 Committee on 15 May 2005, but rejected. About 100 of the 180 backbenchers that attended the meeting instead endorsed a motion drawn up by the executive of the committee, proposing instead to hold a consultative period with all local associations, but leave the choice of leader to be ultimately decided by the parliamentary party.
Revised proposals for electing a new leader.
Under the 1922 Committee's proposed system, Sir Michael Spicer, Chairman of the 1922 Committee, would seek nominations for leader from Conservative MPs. Contenders would need the support of 5% of the party, or 10 MPs (in the 2005 Parliament), in order to stand. Once nominations had closed, MPs would then start a two-week consultation process with their constituencies, MEPs and local councillors to ascertain their preferred candidates. They would then report back to Spicer, who would assess their findings and inform MPs of the two candidates who had gained the most support, in order of preference. MPs would then hold the first ballot, in which all nominated candidates would be able to participate. As in the existent system, the MP with the lowest number of votes would be eliminated. The process would then be repeated, as required, until one candidate remained.
Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative MP for Chichester, hailed the decision by the parliamentary party to accept the new proposal by 127 votes to 50 at the 20 July 2005 meeting of the 1922 committee as a "victory for common sense". The 1922 Committee proposal was then put to the Conservative Party Board, which duly supported it. Following this result, Party Chairman Francis Maude commented: "I am pleased that these changes, agreed by the Party Board and the 1922 Committee, are going to be put forward. If these changes go through, the Conservative Party will have a new Leader in place by the middle of November." However, other MPs were less enthusiastic about the proposed system; in a letter to the "Daily Telegraph", a number of MPs, including David Willetts, Michael Ancram, Andrew Lansley, Theresa May and Iain Duncan Smith, wrote: "It is not too late for the parliamentary party to find a way of involving grassroots members in the Conservative Party’s most important decisions. Any proposals that do not facilitate democratic involvement deserve to be defeated."
Proposal not backed by the Constitutional College.
When the results of the ballot of the Constitutional College of the Conservative Party were announced on 27 September 2005, the proposal had failed to gain enough backing. With a total of 1,001 (87.7% of full membership) ballots were returned, the votes in each section were:
This equated to a total of 61 per cent of the constitutional college in favour. For the changes to be approved, 50 per cent of all those eligible to vote were required to vote in favour, along with 66 per cent of MPs who voted and 66 per cent of the National Convention members who voted; it is this final threshold that was not reached. As a result of this failure in the Constitutional College ballot, no changes were made to the party’s rules on electing a leader.
Party Conference.
At the 2005 Conservative Party conference, each of the five announced candidates at the time was allowed a 20-minute speech. This was seen by many as the start of the leadership campaign by each of the candidates and their speeches were closely analysed by party members and the media. Many felt that front-runner (at the time of his speech) David Davis had performed rather poorly, while the speeches of Kenneth Clarke, Liam Fox, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and David Cameron were much better. This led to a rapid change in the odds of the five candidates on the betting markets – on the morning of 6 October, David Davis was the clear leader and David Cameron third, but by the evening of the same day the two had swapped places. By the end of the conference, David Cameron had become the front runner, with Kenneth Clarke and David Davis closely behind.
The conference was also seen as similar to the Conservatives' 1963 conference, where there was also a race to become leader.
Polling.
The Sunday Times and YouGov polled 746 members of the Conservative Party just after the conference. The poll showed support slipping away from David Davis (14%) and Kenneth Clarke (26%) and moving to Liam Fox (13%) and David Cameron (39%) instead.
The Daily Telegraph and YouGov polled 665 members of the Conservative Party just after the first ballot, where Clarke was eliminated leaving only three contestants. The poll showed that 59 per cent backed David Cameron, against 18 per cent for Liam Fox and 15 per cent for Mr Davis. This poll showed support for Mr Cameron being strong amongst the grassroots of the party on the eve of the final (membership) ballot.
In a YouGov poll published on 12 November, more than two-thirds of party members looked set to vote for the younger candidate as party leader. Around 68 per cent of voters who had already returned their ballot papers had opted for Mr Cameron, while 66 per cent of those still to vote said they were likely to choose him over the then-Shadow Home Secretary David Davis. 57 per cent of those still to vote said they may change their minds between then and the postal ballot deadline on 5 December.
References.
 ;templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" / ;