The rules by which political parties elect their leaders might be thought of as the yawn-inducing preserve of lonely anoraks and obsessives. Yet the technicalities of these procedures — often, it is true, tedious in their complexity — affect each and every one of us. Today’s campaign to change the process by which a particular party selects its leader could determine the identity of tomorrow’s Prime Minister.

Which is why the demands of the Campaign for Conservative Democracy to amend the system by which the Tory Party will elect Theresa May’s successor is not simply a specialist story for those intrigued by the inner machinations of the Conservative tribe (though it is certainly that).

Why has John Strafford, the campaign’s chairman, written to the Tory party board urging a rule-change so that any MP with the support of a mere 20 parliamentary colleagues can go forward to a final ballot of the grassroots members? For a very specific reason: at present, MPs whittle the field of contestants down to only two finalists — from which the members choose the victor.

Since her poor performance in last year’s snap general election , May has been horribly vulnerable and clings on to power only with the Commons support of the Democratic Unionist Party (purchased by the taxpayer, thanks very much). The lunatic hurricane of Brexit might sweep her away at any moment.

That being so, and the date of Britain’s scheduled departure from the EU (March 29) drawing ever closer, hard-line Leavers are keenly aware that they might be faced quite soon with a make-or-break challenge. It is essential to their unlovely vision of the future that May’s successor is a flame-eyed Brexiteer.

What if the party were somehow to choose a leader of diplomatic temperament, willing to compromise with the EU to protect Britain’s future prosperity and integration? A statesman hoping to salvage a workable deal from the present fiasco? It doesn’t bear thinking about. The Right of the party is determined to prevent such an outcome at almost any cost.

Hence, Strafford’s initiative: what especially bothers hard Brexiteers is the possibility that Tory MPs might contrive to exclude Boris Johnson (or his understudy, Jacob Rees-Mogg) from the final pair of candidates put forward to the membership.

It is certainly true that the former Foreign Secretary would be a strong contender in this last round — retaining, as he does, a powerful visceral appeal among grassroots Tories who continue to regard him as a flushed pimpernel, a tousled tribune who speaks wittily but authentically on behalf of the supposedly forgotten masses. It is also true that his appeal in the parliamentary party has faded significantly over the years.

Scroll back to 1998, when William Hague introduced the present system of selection. Then, as now, the dominant issue was the politics of Europe: as the party’s first leader of the Opposition for 18 years, and its youngest since Pitt the Younger, Hague was aware that he was structurally vulnerable to a challenge by Ken Clarke.

The former Chancellor’s love of the EU was not shared by many in the party but he was undoubtedly a big beast who might sell himself as better-suited to take on the (seemingly unbeatable) Tony Blair. Clarke was also — like Blair — committed to Britain’s eventual membership of the euro.

In this sense Hague was animated not only by self-interest but a patriotic anxiety that, were he to be supplanted by Clarke, the nation’s economic stability might be in serious jeopardy (historical footnote: in those days it was the pro-EU politicians who were the reckless ones, making ludicrous promises).

"There is a campaign by ex-Ukip members to colonise the Tory Party, like a virus attacking an organism with a depleted immune system"

To prevent his own defenestration and to save the pound Hague put in place the current system, handing the final say to party members, not its MPs.

Twenty years on, the spirit of the age has shifted even farther towards direct democracy and populism. Strafford’s proposal — which would all but remove Conservative MPs from the selection process — is in keeping with this zeitgeist. Who are the parliamentary elite to thwart the wishes of the mass membership?

The answer is twofold: the Tory membership is not really “mass” any longer, amounting, according to one source, to fewer than 100,000 individuals with an average age of around 70.

At present, there is a campaign by former Ukip members to colonise the Tory Party, like a virus attacking an organism with a depleted immune system. Is it really sensible to delegate the choice of the next Prime Minister to such a small club, especially one which is being systematically infiltrated, as The Londoner reports today?

Second: a mainstream party should always seek to install a potential Prime Minister as its leader, rather than a tribal chieftain. As elected representatives of constituencies rather than part-time activists, MPs are well placed to judge who is capable of rising to that formidable challenge. For the Tory Party to diminish their say in the selection process would not only be an act of self-harm but — in the circumstances — radically against the public interest.

All this is going to be a clear and present danger very soon. Next month the Conservative Party will gather in Birmingham for its final conference before Britain’s official departure date from the EU. It is safe to say that Johnson and his supporters will be on manoeuvres and that the question of May’s survival will loom over the proceedings.

She has, it seems, a peculiar talent for hanging on. But, when she does go, it might be an idea not to replace her by a system that pleases only a tribe of furious ideologues.