Far from Home: Conservative Leadership Selection from Heath to Cameron ANDREW DENHAM The Conservative party is the oldest of the `mainstream' British parties, but has only elected its leader since 1965. In this article, I explain the variety of methods used by the party to select its leader and assess the impact of `democratisation' over time. I begin by examining the informal `system', known as the `magic circle', which existed until 1965, and ex- plain how and why it came to be aban- doned. I then discuss the six elections between 1965 and 1997, when the Tory leader was chosen exclusively by the party's MPs. Finally, I assess the impact of the `Hague rules', according to which party members have the ®nal say, between their adoption in 1998 and the election of David Cameron in 2005. The `customary processes' In 1964, a year before the introduction of formal selection rules, Robert McKenzie's classic study British Political Parties was published as a second edition. The pro- cess, he observed, had `few parallels in the struggle for power that goes on within other democratic organisations. The most striking fact . . . is that each leader has been elected [sic] by acclamation; no ballot, nor any formal contest of any kind, has ever taken place.' 1 Instead, following an unspeci®ed procedure, a single name would be presented to a party meeting, whose exact composition was never formally prescribed. Before 1965, the Tory leader was invariably the incumbent, or a former, prime minister. When in opposition, the role of party leader would remain vacant unless a former prime minister was available; if not, the party would have two leaders: one in the Commons, and another in the Lords. When the party next returned to oce, the King or Queen would invite a senior Conservative to form a govern- ment and serve as prime minister. Hav- ing been endorsed at a party meeting, he would then become `party leader' as well. This `system', later known as the `magic circle', was seen as oering sev- eral advantages. It was discreet, and kept disagreement if any) out of the public eye. It was ¯exible, in that it could be adapted to the circumstances of the time. It was ecient, in that the process could be completed within days, or even hours. It was sophisticated, in that opinion could be `weighed', as well as measured. It also allowed, as in the case of Bonar Law in 1911, a `compromise' candidate to `emerge' in the interests of party unity. Finally, `expert' opinion could be and invariably was) accorded greater signi®c- ance, in keeping with the party's estab- lished ethos and ideology. 2 The days of the `magic circle' were clearly numbered, however, following the `war of the Macmillan succession' in 1963. In October, Macmillan resigned as prime minister, and the party's annual conference suddenly became an uno- cial leadership conventionÐa situation for which the Tories were clearly unpre- pared, and for which there was no histor- ical precedent. There was no formal procedure for candidates to declare them- selves, but the principal contenders were presumed to be Butler, Hailsham and Maudling. The Foreign Secretary, Lord # The Author 2009. Journal compilation # The Political Quarterly Publishing Co. Ltd. 2009 Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA 380 The Political Quarterly, Vol. 80, No. 3, July±September 2009 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.01994.x