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: Technical The provision for resolving a tie was originally lacking and hastily devised during the 2001 election. The tie-breaking mechanism was arguably clumsy. In the contests in both 1997 (although taking place under previous rules) and 2001, the position of Chairman of the 1922 Committee was vacant for some weeks because the previous holder retired or was defeated in the recent general election. Many felt that this prolonged the contests unnecessarily and called for the Returning Officer to be the bearer of a