Battle for Monte Natale book

 

Battle for Monte Natale

For those wishing to buy the "Battle for Monte Natale" at a pre order discount please go to:

https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/John-Ernest-Strafford/a/5971

The book is a hard back and contains over 100 photos and maps.

We Will Remember Them

 We will remember them!

With my father at the Commonwealth War Graves Cemetery in Minturno, Italy. He was killed in the Battle for Monte Natale. Next week Pen & Sword will be publishing my book "Battle for Monte Natale" Details later!

er

National Convention Handbook - economic with the reality!

 

National Convention Handbook

National Convention Handbook

In September 2024 CCHQ published a National Convention handbook.   It is a useful publication with many good points included in it, but why spoil it in the first sentence by saying:

“The National Convention is the oldest national institution within the Conservative Party, …”

To be charitable this is being economical with the reality!   The National Conservative Convention was formed in 1998 when the Conservative Party constitution was created.   I set out below the differences between the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations which was created in 1867 and the National Convention and you can decide whether the Convention follows on from the National Union!

The National Union was an autonomous body which consisted of autonomous Constituency Associations which could select or deselect their Member of Parliament or their Parliamentary Candidate without interference by CCHQ.

The National Convention is a body controlled by the Party Board of the Conservative Party and Constituency Associations can only select their Member of Parliament or elect their Parliamentary Candidate from a list produced by CCHQ.

The National Union Central Council representatives included five Constituency Association members.

The National Convention has one Constituency Association member.

The National Union included all Conservative MPs and all Conservative Parliamentary candidates.

The National Convention includes no MPs or Parliamentary candidates.

The Constitution of the National Union could be changed by a Constituency Association tabling a motion at a General Meeting of the Central Council and that motion passed by two thirds of the votes of those present and voting.

The National Convention Constitution can only be changed by an electoral college consisting of the National Convention and the Conservative Parliamentary Party, or by the Party Board exercising its rights under Article 17 of the Party Constitution.

The Party Conference was controlled by the National Union which determined its agenda and procedures.

The Party Conference is now controlled by the Party Board through a sub committee of the Board.   It decides its agendas and procedures>

 

 

History of the Selection of Conservative Party Leaders

 

The following is an edited version of a speech given by John Strafford at a packed meeting of the Vote Leave Group on 22nd October

Election of the Leader of the Conservative Party

 It is generally recognised that the Tory Party was formed under Sir Robert Peel in 1834.   From the party's formation until 1922, the leader of the Conservative Party was not a formal position; instead, there was a party leader in each chamber of Parliament and they were considered equal unless one took precedence over the other, such as when one was serving as Prime Minister. The party leader was appointed by high-ranking members of the Party.

Since 1922, the leader of the Conservative Party has been formally elected, even when the party is in opposition at a “Party Meeting" Attended by peers and MPs who receive the Conservative whip, ... prospective candidates who have been adopted by constituency associations, and ... members of the executive committee of the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations from England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland."   This is the theory and is still to some extent the case.

 The Party Meeting.   In the 1980s there was a court case between the Inland Revenue and Conservative Central Office about whether CCO was an unincorporated association or not. The decision determined whether CCO paid Corporation tax or income tax on its investment income.   The case went to appeal and the High court said:

The Conservative Party does not exist.   It consists of three separate bodies:

The Parliamentary Party

The National Union of Conservative Associations and

Conservative Central Office.

The only time they come together as the Conservative Party is at the Party meeting to confirm a new Leader, but no one knows who can call this meeting or who is entitled to attend the meeting.

During the 1990s I went to three Party meetings.  1990, 1995 and 1997.

In 1997 the meeting was held in the QE2 centre and was packed out.   From memory the Chairman was Cecil Parkinson.   He stood up and introduced himself.   At that point Eric Chalker a great fighter for Party democracy stood up and said he had a point of order.   Groan from the audience. He asked who called the meeting, who was entitled to attend and what authority did it have/ Bigger groan from the audience.   The Chairman stated that he was following the usual procedure so he would continue with the meeting.   Applause from the meeting.   End of Point of order!

The Party Meeting doers not appear anywhere in the Conservative Party Constitution.   Today would the judges take the same view as they did in the 1980s?

When there was a request for a judicial review because Conservative Party members were in effect electing a Prime Minister the judges made the point that the Prime Minister is not elected by the Party members.  It is the monarch who invites an individual to form a government by getting a majority in the House of Commons and if successful becomes the Prime Minister.

1940 Churchill became Leader of the Parliamentary Party, but Chamberlain remained as the Leader of the Party until his death later in the year.   There was no Party meeting!

1963 When Harold Macmillan’s decision to resign was announced during the Tory party conference, there was no formal procedure for selecting a new leader, only vague ‘customary processes’. Among the leadership contenders, the 2nd Viscount Hailsham (Quintin Hogg) was ready from the outset and disclaimed his peerage by means of the recent reform won by Anthony Wedgwood Benn,

Home’s eventual emergence as leader fuelled the suspicion that Macmillan had been determined all along to thwart Rab Butler.   Enoch Powell and Ian McLeod refused to serve under Home and the furore meant that rules were drawn up for Leadership contests.

1965 Home resigned after the Conservative defeat in 1964 and the new rules were brought in for the Leadership election.  The rules required the victor to have both an absolute majority (which Heath narrowly achieved) and, in the first ballot, at least a 15% lead of votes actually cast (not counting abstaining members - this would be changed in the mid-1970s review of the rules). As Heath had not achieved the latter hurdle, the election could therefore have gone to further rounds. However, Maudling conceded defeat and Heath was duly declared leader.

The 1975 Conservative Party leadership election was held in February 1975. The party's sitting MPs voted Margaret Thatcher as Party Leader on the second ballot. Incumbent leader Edward Heath stood aside after the first ballot, in which he unexpectedly finished behind Thatcher.   The rules also allowed  new candidates to come forward in a second ballot if the first ballot was not decisive.

The voting in the second ballot was by the alternative vote and Margaret Thatcher got over 50% and the other candidates withdrew.
A review was conducted under the auspices of Heath's predecessor Sir Alec Douglas Home.   Two recommendations were made, the leader would henceforth be elected annually, whether the party was in opposition or government, in the period following a Queens speech though in most years this would prove a formality. Also on the first round the requirement for a victorious candidate to have a lead of 15% over their nearest rival was modified so that this would now be 15% of the total number of MPs, not just those voting for candidates.

1989 Margaret Thatcher easily beat Sir Anthony Meyer but Meyor got 33 votes and there were 30 odd abstentions.   Up to this point a candidate only needed a proposer and seconder.

1990 John Major won in 1990 on the second ballot. Michael Heseltine had challenged Margaret Thatcher on the first ballot. Thatcher had won but was four votes short of the required 15% threshold and withdrew.  Major was two votes short of receiving over 50% on the second ballot, however the other two candidates withdrew.

1997 Leadership election won by William Hague after 3 ballots.

1997 Party conference Jeffrey Archer proposed that the Leader should be elected with the MPs having 50% of the vote and the Party members having 50% of the vote.   I spoke and demanded the full monty of Party democracy 100% of the vote.   This was accepted but then the MPs introduced a rule that they would only put two candidates to the Party membership for election.

In 1998 Hague was elected by the MPs and had a confirmatory vote on his Leadership which he easily won and at the same time brought in a Party Constitution which made the 1922 Committee responsible for the rules for a Leadership election in consultation with the Party Board.   The new Constitution included a clause which said that if only one Candidate came forward for election by Party members there could be a confirmatory vote of the membership.   This did not happen when Michael Howard, Theresa May and Rishi Sunak became Leaders.

2005 Michael Howard tried to change the rules so that members reduced the number of candidates to two and the MPs then elected the Leader.   His motion was defeated as it did not get the required majority.

  Current position and why it must be changed

Under the Party's rules, a member can vote in a leadership election even if they are not a British Citizen, do not reside in the UK, and do not have the right to vote in British Elections.   It cannot be right that a citizen of Russia, China, India, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, etc. can vote in a Conservative Party Leadership Election as there is clearly a conflict of interest.   Are they loyal to the UK or to their home country?    This must be changed

The Leadership election is an election in which ultimately the members decide who the Leader should be and yet every election the rules are changed by the 1922 Committee without any reference to the members. No consultation, no vote nothing.   The members have no say about the process.

The rules for the election of the Leader should be part of the main Party Constitution and which could only be changed by a meeting of Party members to which all members are invited.

How is the current process undemocratic?

1)    Under the original rules to be a candidate all you needed was a proposer and seconder. This changed to 10 nominations, 8 nominations, back to 10 nominations and in the last election 100 nominations.  This time it is back to 10. We should stick to having ten nominations.

2)    The length of the contest.   Last time for the Rishi Sunak election it was to be done in 8 days.  Graham Brady thinks it should be 3 weeks.   This contest is being spread over 14 weeks.   It is absurd to spread it over the length of this election, 3 weeks is sufficient.

3)    There should be 4 candidates go to the members to vote upon and voting should be done by preferential vote for both the MPs vote and the members vote. Balloting round by round as the MPs do leads to manipulation as the MPs vote on the basis of what’s in it for me. Margaret Thatcher was elected using the preferential vote, we should do the same.

4)    The expenses that MPs can spend on campaigning should be limited and the size of donations they can accept should be limited to £10,000 from any one individual.  Corporate and other donations should not be allowed. The current limit for expenditure is £400,000 and I am afraid that in the current election in raising this amount of money hedge funds offshore have been prominent.

5)    The four candidates who went to the Party conference had each to pay CCHQ £50,000.   The last two candidates had to pay a further £150,000 to CCHQ.   This is totally unacceptable. It restricts the candidates to the wealthy, or those with wealthy friends or they have to mortgage their home.   This is not democracy and these payments to CCHQ should be abolished.

6)    If there is only one candidate then that candidate has to have a confirmatory vote from the members of the Party.   This is in the Party Constitution but only William Hague has done it.

7)    Voting should be secret and counted after the ballot has closed.     

Graham Brady was given the voting figures every two days!

 

Tory members measure up leadership finalists

 

Tory members measure up leadership finalists

BBC News, 9 October 2024

By Joshua Nevett, Brian Wheeler

“John Strafford, veteran campaigner for greater grassroots democracy in the party, said the system currently used for choosing leaders is an “absolute disaster”.

He argues that the final four should have been put to a vote of the membership after they had delivered their speeches at last week’s party conference, rather than being whittled down to two by the MPs.

Under the current system, which was brought in by former leader William Hague, the best candidate does not necessarily win, argues Mr Strafford, who chairs the Campaign for Conservative Democracy.

“The whole thing is manipulated. Bribery takes place. The MPs will only vote on the basis of ‘what’s in it for me?’ They are looking for jobs, titles and honours. It’s a terrible way in which to do things.”

He is campaigning for leadership contests to be taken out of the hands of the 1922 committee of backbenchers, which he says keep changing the rules, and put into a new party constitution.”

 

Meet the Leadership Candidates, Tom Tugendhat MP - Party Reform

 23 Sept 2024 John Strafford

Meeting with Tom Tugendhat MP on Thursday with the Chesham & Amersham Conservatives. He asked me about the rules for the Leadership Election. I told him the rules should be in the main body of the Party Constitution and should only be capable of being altered by the members of the Party in a General Meeting to which all Party members were invited. Also that four candidates should go forward to the members for them to ballot and that voting should be on a preferential basis including when MPs ballot to produce the four candidates to go forward so that the wheeler dealing between rounds was eliminated. He agreed. I agreed with his speech, 100%. Great speech.

Meet the Leadership Candidates - Robert Jenrick MP

6 September 2024 - John Strafford

 I put the following question last night to Robert Jenrick MP; "Do you agree that the Conservative Party Chairman should be elected by and accountable to Party members? His response: "I am sympathetic to the idea."

Democratic Reform of the Conservative Party and Country with John Strafford

 

Democratic Reform of the Conservative Party and Country  

 Watch now

Another distortion of Democracy in the Conservative Leadership Election?

 

Another distortion of Democracy in the Conservative Party Leadership Election!

Shown below is an edited version of an Article by

Ben Quinn – in “The Guardian”  

It raises a series of questions:

Is it right that Candidates can spend £400,000 on their Leadership campaign and how many candidates may be excluded by this? A maximum of £150,000 seems a reasonable limit.

Why should a Candidate pay anything to CCHQ just to get into the last Four?  When did democracy have a price attached to it?   Even worse than this why do they then have to pay a further £150,000 to be in the last two Candidates.?   Each Can should pay a Deposit of £5,000 to CCHQ which is forfeited if they receive less than %5 of the votes.

It cannot be right to raise money for the Leadership Election from Corporations and Non UK Citizens.   For what?   Donations should be limited to £7,500 per individual who must be a UK citizen.

CCHQ say the monies received are to offset the costs of the Party Conference but in recent years the Conference has made substantial profits so why charge the Candidates now?   There are minimal extra costs involved.

This whole process is going down the road similar to the United States system where money dictates politics – a dangerous route to tread.   The Presidential Election in the USA costs billions of dollars.   Do we really want to follow suit?

In 2006 a Director of CCHQ told me that the Conservative Party should be like the Republican Party in the USA.   The Republican Party does not have members.   When there is a Presidential Election they set up a Committee to support the candidate.   Billions of dollars are raised to fight the election.   As a result pork barrel politics dominates.   States are promised government money, Companies are promised contracts, gerrymandering is rife!   Big donors dominate policy.   Democracy disappears!   Every Senator is a multi- millionaire!

Over the last 20 years we have seen the Conservative Party travel down that road moving ever closer to the USA system:

·        Members rights have effectively been eliminated.

·        No longer do Constituency Associations have an open list when selecting their MP

·        No longer can they deselect their MP without vigorous opposition from CCHQ.

·        The members vote in a Leadership election is distorted in the process.

·        Membership has become worthless and has declined to its lowest level in Conservative Party history and the Party has done nothing about it.

·        Motions at the Party Conference have been scrapped so members have no influence on policy.

·        There used to be a limit on the amount an MP could give to his Constituency Association to prevent Associations being bought, but that has now been abandoned.   Jeremy Hunt MP has given over £100,000 to his Constituency in the last couple of years.

·        Now we see the big money syndrome creeping into the Tory Party.   How many promises will be given when candidates are raising money for their campaigns? We  now know that large donors to the Labour Party have been given jobs in the Labour Government administration.   Could the same happen in the Tory Party?

·        How many candidates will be put off by the requirement to raise such large sums of money?

 

The following is an edited version of an Article by

Ben Quinn – in “The Guardian” 

Fri 26 Jul 2024

The Conservatives have set the spending limit in their leadership contest at £400,000, as the party tries to use the race to cover costs.

Robert Jenrick, a frontrunner who has been preparing for the contest for some time, had pressed for a higher cap. The £400,000 limit is £100,000 more than it was in the last contest, two years ago.

The contest will also be a “pay to play” affair, with candidates needing to have raised £50,000 to reach the final four, who will make their case to party members at the Tory conference in the autumn. Money raised will go towards the cost of that event.

Candidates will then need to have £150,000 to make the final shortlist of two, which will be put to party members.

The higher spending limit reflects what will be a longer race, but it also comes as the party’s coffers are badly depleted after a disastrous election campaign in which many donors who supported the Tories in 2019 turned their backs.

The ability to attract donors is likely to be brandished as an asset in the race. A friend of Jenrick’s said: “In order to build back we will need a leader who can raise funds. Rob has a track record of not only being a significant fundraiser himself but also as someone who has helped other colleagues.”

The former immigration Minister had already raised £50,000 from three donors in the months running up to the general election.

Records show they included a donation of £35,000 on 3 April from Quantum Pacific Corporation UK Ltd, owned by Idan Ofer, a London-based shipping and mining heir whose father, Sammy, was once Israel’s richest man.

Jenrick also received a £10,000 donation in May from Financial Recovery Technologies UK Ltd, which is controlled by two American brothers, Howard and Jeffrey Wolk.

As well as their staffing costs and their contribution to the party conference, each candidate will be spending money on polling and advertising. “It’s hard to convey just how you burn through money in campaigns like this,” said one source.

Donors are expected to open their wallets now that the full slate of declared candidates has become clear. A breakdown of what has been donated in recent weeks will be declared at a later date.

A source in one of the campaigns said: “It might be the case that at least one of those running has already raised a considerable sum. But also when you start running, that is when you can really go in front of someone and ask for that support.

In 2022 Liz Truss was given more than £500,000 for her leadership campaign, with about half coming from donors linked to hedge fund bosses and other City financiers.

A Conservative party spokesperson said: “There is always a spending limit set for each campaign during  a Leadership contest.”    

CCHQ strikes back!

 At last action from CCHQ in response to my post Conservative Clowns Head Quarters:

See https://www.conservativepolicyforum.com/cpf-papers/conservative-values-in-policy-making