Conservative Candidates Committee! What is going on?

 

Dinah Glover: Our leader has handed the party a proper Conservative blueprint, but are the candidates team onboard?

The following article (edited) was published on the ConservativeHome website on 10 October 2025

It is joked amongst us on the right of the Party that at least a third of the current Parliamentary Party are Liberal Democrats, in which case they may be reluctant to scream our policies from the rooftops. 

Well if there are that many of our MPs who are not fully on board with the project, we have to ensure that next time our Parliamentary Party is fully Conservative.

Candidates need to be put through their paces so we understand their views, philosophy, able to debate cogently, have the ability to have original policy ideas, as well as be a good campaigner and constituency MP which, to be honest, is the easy bit.

It is crucial we build this talent for the future.

It can be argued that the most ‘dangerous’ man in the Conservative Party has been Gareth Fox, the former Head of Candidates. He stands accused by many of ensuring that only ‘soft’ or One Nation Conservatives got selected to seats. He seems to have delivered a Parliamentary Party which is a Liberal Democrat tribute act, no wonder they are all so silent.

The Rt Hon Grant Shapps has set up Conservative Together – I think he prefers the cooler name CTog – for potential candidates.

I find it worrying that its mainstay seems to be campaigning, delivering more nonsensical leaflets and probably a re-run of Team 2015 and we all know where that ended up! I do hope that we can produce a more intellectual grouping of our candidates to allow them to explore their ideas, passions, philosophies and test out ideas for Government. Surely that would be more likely to lead to a Conservative Government that can deliver.

My warning to the Party is clear:

The Candidates Committee needs to be at the forefront of providing the talent for ‘Our Great Comeback’.

I have severe reservations this is the case.

In the interest of transparency I was a Parliamentary Assessor of 4 years standing but was sacked back in late June by the Hon Clare Hambro, Current Chairman of the Candidates Committee for being too political.

I had always been told how highly valued I was as an Assessor, especially since my background was as a Recruiter, so I brought all those skills to the table. The very odd point is that after I was sacked, I submitted a Subject Access Request to the Candidates Team about myself. There was literally no evidence to sack me; not one complaint against me. When I asked Clare if she had viewed the recordings of my interviews, she said she had not. She was literally basing her decision on no evidence whatsoever, just the say so of her Deputy, who is a committed Remainiac.

Having myself worked closely with the ERG during the Brexit battles and led the Voluntary Party petition against Theresa May for attempting to deliver a non-Brexit Brexit; I can only assume my sacking was political. Since then, I have asked our Chairman what the process is to have my case reviewed. Silence was the reply. I have also asked Julian Ellacott, with the same reply.

My huge concern is the quality of the Candidates Committee going forward.

After Kemi has delivered her barnstorming speech, LOTO needs to ensure she has a team behind her fit for purpose.

During the last Parliamentary session I always felt the assessments were a little too much geared towards recruiting Project Managers rather than politicians. I understand the current team wants to make the process more political and combative which is a move in the right direction. However, that’s where my confidence stops. I understand that right wing former MPs went for the role of Chairman of the Candidates Committee. Instead it went to the Hon Clare Hambro, a former London Region Chairman, who I have never heard espouse a political opinion and strikes me as an obedient party loyalist. I fear it’s a consolation prize for not getting the Vice President role of the National Conservative Convention.

I would also question her judgement, having sat on a panel with her when Edmond Yeo, who it subsequently turns out allegedly has links to the China, applied to be a London Assembly candidate, but was rejected as he came unprepared and dressed in joggers and t-shirt. Clare as she knew him, begged us to change our minds, luckily, we didn’t.

Kemi has complained, in Government we talked Right and governed Left.

The Candidates Committee appears to be making the same mistake.

The Conservative Party should be the home of conservative thought, economic soundness, individual freedom, rolling back the state, opposing woke, securing our borders and patriotism. We need a Parliamentary party totally committed to these ideals. My sacking is just one example that the Candidates Committee may not be signed up to the same ideals.

In order for the Conservative Party to be in shape to win and govern in 2029, Kemi needs to get a grip on the Candidates Team. If she does not the alternative is that our Parliamentary party remains a weak imitation of the Liberal Democrats.

That is not a route to power.

Conservative Party Leadership Election 2024

 The following article in the Independent by John Rentoul on 12 November 2022 has been brought to my attention and I wondered what would have happened if my suggestion had been taken up?

In the 2024 Leadership Election the final vote of the MPs was as follows:

Badenoch    42

Jenrick        41

Cleverley    37

Cleverley was eliminated so his votes would have been spread between Badenoch and Jenrick.   It is possible Jenrick would have won!   How different things might have been!

Extract of a article by John Rentoul in the Independent 12 November 2022:

The important question now is whether either or both parties can go back to the election of leaders by MPs alone. The Conservatives seem more likely to. It is significant that Conservative Home, the activists’ website founded by Tim Montgomerie and now edited by Paul Goodman, a Tory former MP, has proposed a deal by which members give up the right to vote in leadership elections in exchange for the right to elect the party chair, who has a seat in the cabinet.

Even more significant was that this was supported this week by John Strafford, who is a `a junction-box in the hidden wiring of the Tory party. He runs an outfit called the Campaign for Conservative Democracy, and for decades he has been a mirror image of the Bennites in the Labour Party – except that he is no ideologue and is not promoting a faction within the party. He is a sincere advocate of members’ rights, but he can see that the idea that such rights are advanced by a vote in leadership elections is “fatally flawed”. He rightly focuses on the right to select candidates free of interference from Tory HQ, a form of party democracy that is  compatible with constitutional principle.

Unfortunately, it will never be a prime minister’s priority to change the rules back. Rishi Sunak will not want to antagonise the majority of Party members who want to retain their vote in leadership elections. A rule change depends on a cluster of people, including Nadhim Zahawi, the party chair, Peter Booth, the deputy chair, and activists such as Strafford: they have to accept that it is in the party’s and the country’s interest to make the change.

Tribute from Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg to John Strafford

 

A Great evening by Beaconsfield Constituency Conservative Association.  Many thanks to David Moore and Kathy for organising this memorable evening

Lovely to see Sir Jacob pay tribute to @John Strafford at our Edmund Burke dinner on Thursday.

Changes to the Conservative Party Constitution

 

Review of the Conservative Party Constitution - Phase 2

Document sent to Party members by the Chairman of the National Convention, Julian Ellacott 29 September 2025

Suggested changes

II-1

Membership of the Party is not compatible with membership of, association with or support for, any other registered political party in the UK except where the Board permits otherwise.

Note; Such as in relation to Unionist parties in Northern Ireland, where there has been a history of support.

The Note undermines the Conservative Party in Northern Ireland.   Delete “Except where the Board permits”.

11.3

Be bound by this Constitution, the Rulebook and any other decisions of the Party Board (including, where the Board establishes such, a code of conduct)

Work to sustain and promote the objectives and values of the Party and not unreasonably hinder any other Member doing so; and

What is the Rule Book and where is it? What are the "objectives and values" and where are they?   How do you "hinder any other member"?  What about freedom of speech?

X11-2

The Board shall establish a Disciplinary Committee of suitably qualified members, which shall from time to time propose to the Board a Code of Conduct for approval, which shall set requirements applying to all Party Members in relation to ethics, conduct and standards.

Will the Code of Conduct be sent to all Party members?

Conservative Parliamentary Candidates - Contract with CCHQ!

 The Guardian 25 September 2025

Addressing a meeting of the Thatcherite Bruges Group thinktank on Wednesday night, Jenrick was asked (by John Strafford) whether he was concerned that Conservative candidates were being asked to sign a contract with the party under which they could be kicked out if their views differ from central office.

Jenrick replied: “I would get candidates to sign a contract, not some kind of technocratic one. I would get them to sign a contract to say they actually stand for Conservative values. I would get them to say you have got to leave the European convention on human rights, and if you don’t want to do that, don’t stand as a Conservative.” His comments drew murmurs of support.

The ECHR was established in 1950 and sets out the rights and freedoms people are entitled to in the 46 signatory countries.

It is a central part of UK human rights law and has been used to halt attempts to deport people who are deemed to be in the UK illegally.

During the Conservative leadership election, the ECHR became a key dividing line between the two main candidates, Jenrick and Badenoch.

Badenoch argued that leaving the ECHR would not solve the UK’s problems, while Jenrick said his party would “die” if it argued to stay within it.

In June, Badenoch set up a commission to examine whether the UK should withdraw from a series of international legal agreements and overturn some domestic legislation.

Announcing the review, she told the Telegraph: “If we make that decision that we have to leave the ECHR, then that will be a condition of standing for parliament under the Tory banner.”

Although I agree with Robert that we should leave the ECHR, I disagree with his answer to my question.   Setting out conditions that Conservative Candidates and MPs to have to comply with, further reduces the right of Conservative Party members to select their parliamentary Candidate without interference by CCHQ.   Their role should be solely one of due diligence.

The Party Constitution states that in order to be a member of the Party you have to agree to its "objects and values".   Unfortunately nowhere in the Constitution are these defined.   They should be.   If this were done then Robert's answer becomes redundant.

A Question for the Reform Party! PopConversation with Gawain Towler

A question for the Reform Party and their answer! Is it democratic?

Start at 25 minutes in.

Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch - What a surprise!

What a lovely surprise to receive the following yesterday on my birthday!

 Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP

Leader of the Conservative Party

Dear John,

On behalf of the entire Conservative family, I would like to wish you a very Happy Birthday.

I also want to take this moment to thank you for continuing to support our party. Members like you play a critical role and even more so as we renew our party to take us from Opposition back into Government.

But for today John I hope you enjoy your special day.

Conservative Party Annual General Meeting?

 Time for the Conservative Party should have an Annual General Meeting to which all Party members are invited?

Party Chairman elected Sir James Cleverley responds

 I asked Sir James Cleverley MP whether the Conservative Party Chairman should be elected by the Party Members.  He responds!

Conservative Party Chairman - The Reality

 The following article was published by conservativehome.com on 1st September 2025

See my reply:

The Party cannot rebuild without a long-term Chairman

By 

Ryan Stinger

Ryan Stinger worked in CCHQ for nine years, latterly as Chief of Staff to two Chief Executive Officers and seven Party Chairman.

"Let me give you a list.

Lord Eric Pickles, Lord Feldman, Baroness Warsi, Grant Shapps, Sir Patrick McLoughlin, Sir Brandon Lewis, Sir Ben Elliot, Sir James Cleverly MP, Amanda Milling, Sir Oliver Dowden MP, Andrew Stephenson, Sir Jake Berry, Nadhim Zahawi, Greg Hands, Richard Holden MP, Richard Fuller MP, Nigel Huddleston MP, Lord Johnson and Kevin Hollinrake MP.

Since I joined the Conservative Party as a member in 2010, we have had 18 Party Chairman.

I worked at CCHQ from 2013-2024, starting my career as a Campaign Manager, before moving to CCHQ where I most recently served from 2022-2024 as Chief of Staff to two Chief Executive Officers and seven Party Chairman.

Let me just reiterate that. In two years, I worked for seven Party Chairman.

That is bonkers. If a business or charity had that much change, investors would not invest, and the Charity Commission would most certainly be raising concerns.

Being Chairman is a deeply political role, where commentators will often describe you as a media attack dog – but there is so much more to it and constant change cause chaos.

Let me share how I oversaw the process between saying goodbye to a Chairman and welcoming a new one, seven times over.

I feel bad about this one.

Under my desk were four red folders. These were updated every few months. This was a welcome pack for the new Chairman and presumably the team that would replace me. It had the latest on CCHQ, the key people from the National Convention, membership figures and AOB such as conference planning or the inevitable re-review of the membership fee.

This also included a series of recommendations on how they could engage with the Parliamentary Party who desperately needed listening to.

As well the latest Board papers and a call list which included all members of the Party Board, Officers of the National Convention, the leader of the Party in Scotland and Wales, the Chairman of Northern Ireland, top donors and our mayors Andy Street and Ben Houchen.

Why do I feel bad about this?

Well because I ensured these folders were continually up to date, even without a change. Because sadly, I assumed there would and could be a change at a moment’s notice and it would not be fair to welcome a new Chairman unprepared.

Then it was relatively simple.

When a change did come, I quietly packed up the office of the former Chairman, which I always tried to do outside of work hours or very quietly to not cause a stir in front of the rest of CCHQ. I waited for a phone call of who our next Chairman was. I was then on the phone to the lucky chosen individual and getting them into CCHQ. On arrival they would be welcomed by the CEO and myself. The team would clap them in; they give some words and then I always put them in their office and gave them a large coffee and let them catch their breath.

Whilst taking a breather, they got two draft emails to approve. One to staff, introducing themselves and reassuring the team, the other to all members of the Party. They were then given the red folder and left alone to start to get up to speed on what is going on.

Phone calls to key stakeholders were the next priority as it showed that the Chairman was listening to the Board and voluntary Party. They would then start to sit down with Directors and get briefed on what their teams were working on.

After this they were presented with a series of options for visits. Whilst Chairman need desk time, getting them out was always a massive priority. Finally, I would sit down with them and talk through the problems they had inherited. Whether a legal or a disciplinary issue which they would have to review, ensure that they were happy with how we were handling it or give instructions to change tack.

Once this was all complete. We would then work at the speed which they felt comfortable working at and on the priorities which they set.

The first 48 hours was frantic and always stressful. Always at the back of my mind was a nervousness as to whether I would still be in my job because they could have, and they would have been well within their right to replace me with ‘their person’. Thankfully (for me) this never happened.

By the time I welcomed my third Chairman, I had this process nailed. It gave them space for a breather but also got them talking to the people they needed to touch base with quickly – buying brownie points.

However, after so much change, people became cynical. The phone calls were never taken as seriously. Board members became rightly frustrated. It caused huge morale issues. Every time a new Chairman comes in, long-term issues were long grassed, or tack changed, and priorities changed. Putting people under pressure and crucially rarely allowing the organisation to move forward.

I must say from my own perspective, having to have the same conversations seven times, answering the same questions and briefing them on the same issues time after time became incredibly tedious. Because of so much change, the more complicated issues were rarely tied up and dealt with.

My point here is that whilst you are an attack dog. You are the Chairman in charge of the very beating heart of the Conservative Party. You cannot fix the long-term issues which face both the professional party and the grassroots without a long-term Chairman.

Going back to a single Chairman is a very sensible starting point. I hope our new Chairman, Kevin Hollinrake MP is given the time he needs to get to know the key players, understand the weaknesses of both CCHQ and the grassroots and then be allowed to develop and deliver long-term change.

If he is not allowed this time, we will end up going around the roundabout of briefings and phone calls, wasting more crucial time in rebuilding the Party and answering the toughest questions."

Reply by John Strafford

    "Ryan, what an appalling way to run an organisation! You make some very interesting points. The role of Party Chairman was created in 1911 after the Tories lost the General Election. The position was occupied by 11 Chairmen in the next 35 years. In the last 35 years we have had 32 Party Chairmen!

The role of Chairman should be responsibility for the Party organisation. It should not be the attack dog role. Running the organisation needs both short and long term policies and implementation. The attack dog role is mostly short term and immediate. The best Party Chairman was Lord Woolton who served for 9 years. He was not used as an attack dog but concentrated on organisation.

    I am afraid that whilst ever this is an appointed position things will not change. What is needed is for the Party Chairman to be elected and accountable to ordinary Party members at an Annual General Meeting of the Party to which all Party members are invited."