Review of the Conservative Party Constitution - Update

 See link below

https://fb.watch/E9mxO3z37u/ 

John Strafford addressing the COPOV meeting on the Review of the Party Constitution.

You will see from the below that it says the following, so at the COPOV Forum held on 13 December I asked the question " How many of the audience (20 people from 8 Constituency Associations) has heard of the Review of the Conservative Party Constitution?"  Not a single person had heard of the review, or had heard from their Association Chairman anything about the review and how to get involved!    So much for participation of the ordinary members!

We will provide regular updates on the progress of the review via the member email bulletin, but if you wish to receive more frequent updates you can also opt into this in the survey. Your local Association/Federation chairman will be involved at each stage, and will also be encouraged to discuss individual topics with local members throughout.

 Julian Ellacott (Chairman of the National Convention) has written to all Party members as follows:

Conservatives

Dear John,   The Party’s Constitution, last updated in 2021, underpins the way the Party is run.   As with any credible organisation, especially one which aspires to run the country, it is a pre-requisite to be able to run our own affairs fairly, robustly and transparently.   Reviewing the Constitution is therefore important, especially following our defeat in the General Election last year. We have to learn from our past mistakes and apply those lessons to our own structure (just as we are doing in terms of our policy platform).   To that end the Party Board has instigated a thorough review of the Party’s Constitution, which will run into 2026 and involve all members and elected representatives.  A dedicated committee will coordinate this work and will consult on potential changes in various phases, each covering different topics.   At the end of it the changes will be put to a vote of the Constitutional College (in line with the terms of the current Constitution).   The members of the committee want to hear your views on which subjects within the Constitution you think need to be focused on most, as well as your views on high level principles for guiding the review. Please therefore complete this short survey.

We will provide regular updates on the progress of the review via the member email bulletin, but if you wish to receive more frequent updates you can also opt into this in the survey. Your local Association/Federation chairman will be involved at each stage, and will also be encouraged to discuss individual topics with local members throughout.   Thank you in advance for your participation in this important task.

Yours sincerely,

Julian Ellacott  Chairman of the National Convention and Chairman of the Constitution Review Committee  This is excellent news.    First of all congratulations to Julian Ellacott for getting this important item onto the Party Agenda. I make the following initial comments: 1)    "A dedicated committee will coordinate this work and will consult on potential changes in various phases, each covering different topics." The "dedicated Committee" should include ordinary members who are not part of the vested interests mentioned in 2) below. 2) It states in the survey that the review will be implemented on 1 January 2027 We should aim to implement changes by 1 Jan 2026.

When the Constitution was created it took too long to review it, which meant that the members lost interest and the vested interests (CCHQ, Party Donors, Constituency Chairmen, Women's Organisation, 1922 Committee etc.) moved in to strengthen their positions to the detriment of ordinary Party members.

    3) The survey asks you to indicate how strongly you agree with making us a stronger campaigning force.   

Of course you have to answer "for the strongest possible", but what exactly does it mean?

    4) The survey lists a number of areas of the Constitution, and asks which three should have the highest priority?

They all should have priority but the three most important are 

a) Rules for the election of Leader

b) The Board of the Party

c) How future changes are made to the Constitution.

The most important issue is c) above

The new Party Constitution should be capable of being changed by a motion at an Annual General Meeting of the Party by Party members on the basis of One Member One vote, with a 60% majority of those voting.

In which case after the new Constitution has been agreed under the existing Constitution it should be put to a meeting of all Party members for approval, with the ability to move amendments to the Constitution at the meeting.

How to smother the Conservative Party out of existence!

 

This article (see below) "Candidates. The ‘assessment centres’ have begun – but what’s changed?" by John Moss appeared on the Conservativehome web site on 17 Dec 25.   The next day on 18 December 25 In response Conservativehome published an article by Henry Hill "Candidates. CCHQ is testing heavily for good campaigners – but being good legislators seems irrelevant"

Here is my response to both articles:

 John Moss is a campaign manager at College Green Group and helps people seeking election to navigate the approval and selection stages of the candidate process. He is also Sir Iain Duncan Smith’s constituency association chairman, a councillor, and former GLA and parliamentary candidate.

1) John, you clearly have a vested interest in promoting the bureaucracy of the Candidates department, but in doing so you are destroying the rights of Party members to choose their parliamentary candidate, by diminishing the parliamentary candidates they can choose from. CCHQ's sole role should be to conduct due diligence. Thereafter it should be left to the ordinary members of a Constituency Association to select their parliamentary candidate. Also I see that as well as being a Constituency Chairman you are also a Councillor. This is wrong because as a Councillor you are the local political voice of your Association and answerable to the Association. This creates a conflict of interest because you should not be answerable to yourself!

 

Henry Hill "Candidates. CCHQ is testing heavily for good campaigners – but being good legislators seems irrelevant"

Response:

2)Henry, your article together with John Moss's article yesterday make for depressing reading. Do you not realise that by developing the Candidate's Committee bureaucracy you are at the same time reducing the right of Party members to choose the Parliamentary Candidate of their choice?

Membership of the Party is in freefall. Events are being cancelled for lack of support, finances are being strained, Constituency Agents no longer exist. Many Constituency Associations have become Post Box numbers. Members no longer have any democratic rights. The Conservative Party as a democratic organisation has been destroyed. In my own constituency of Beaconsfield Reform now have more members than the Conservatives. Every week they are having training meetings with their members on campaigning, getting the vote out, manning polling stations etc.

The reality is that the Conservative Party is at last moving towards being Conservative, which I thoroughly applaud so we should hold our seats at the next General Election. However to increase the number of seats we have to win many marginals. This is where you need feet on the ground. Beaconsfield have today about 700 members which is still one of the highest in the country, (it had 6,500 when I was Chairman), but you need a thousand members (only about 15% will be active) to fight a General Election campaign on the ground, to organise Committee rooms, get the vote out, man the polling stations, distribute the literature etc.

Nothing has been done to encourage membership, nothing to improve their rights. Without this the Party will cease to exist. Time is running out.

Article by John Moss: 

Candidates. The ‘assessment centres’ have begun – but what’s changed?

Last month, emails dropped into the inboxes of those who had applied to re-join the Approved List of Prospective Parliamentary Candidates, passed the initial review of their applications and cleared the due diligence stage, inviting them to the first stage of the ‘Assessment Centre’. That dreadful term is hanging on, no doubt, from the HR background of the previous chair of the Candidates Committee – every one still calls it the PAB!

So far, so familiar.

This is the same process of approving future candidates as in the previous Parliament, but there have been changes, which have been developed under the leadership of Clare Hambro, who took over as Chair of the Candidate’s Committee in the spring. With admirable transparency, these were laid out to members of the Party’s National Convention at the Party Conference in Manchester.

First and foremost was a commitment that everyone applying would go through the same, full process with no ‘light touch’ reapproval for former MPs or those who were previously on the Approved List. This was applauded by almost everyone in the room, and whilst the questions to be put to applicants in their competency interview are likely to be tailored to their previous circumstance, this is a sensible variation, rather than any relaxation of the rigour of the process.

Since applications opened in late summer there have been over 500 applications. There is a much-reduced team at CCHQ and the system has been a little glitchy, but those who do clear this hurdle must then provide three referees and submit to financial and digital vetting. It would seem unlikely that anyone who felt their past might trip them up would apply, but a pre-emptive check perhaps ought to be considered.

Assuming those first two hurdles are cleared, the Assessment Centre beckons.

The first stage again consists of the interview with two assessors, though in-person this time, not online. Then there is the ‘Inbox’ exercise that challenges applicants to show how they would deal with scenarios MPs typically face, and to prioritise them. Unsurprisingly, you’re playing the role of an incumbent MP with a significantly reduced majority in a seat where control of the council has been lost by the Conservatives. Depressingly familiar!

In the last parliament there were eight scenarios presented for this exercise, to complete over 45 minutes. That remains, but the new set appears to be slightly less intricate and, surprisingly, a little less focused on how one might translate constituency casework into local campaigns. Expect challenging diary clashes, tough casework, internal relationship management, and how to deal with proposals by the left-wing council, as well as some personal integrity issues.

What looks like it has changed the most is the content of the interview. Whilst still following the ‘competency’ model where you need to find the stories from your life which illustrate the competencies the assessors are looking for, there is a stronger emphasis on campaigning experience, leadership, and problem solving from a Conservative perspective. Interviews last at least an hour, so a thorough grilling is to be expected.

Again, in the last parliament, about one third of those who took stage one didn’t make it through to the final stage, so nailing the interview is essential as these assessors will probably also recommend the level of pass you receive, should you progress and pass the second stage of the Assessment Centre.

That stage will continue to be in-person and the psychometric and situational judgement tests will remain, but the exercises to be done live in front of assessors are changing. Whilst not yet clear, the four-way collaboration test – the ‘group exercise’ – is likely to be more campaign focused and the public speaking/Q&A exercise may revert to one where you get the subject rather than use one of your own. It is likely that a mock media interview will be added to the suite of challengers too. So get reading those Weekend Briefs!

All assessors involved in your progress through the various stages will be involved in the final decision-making process. So every stage from the Application Form to the final in-person test will be a factor in deciding to pass you or fail you, and if it is a pass, what sort of pass you get.

We hear that the geographic restrictions and the rather pointless ‘key’ pass will be dropped, with successful applicants either getting a full pass or a development pass. Full passes allow you to apply for any seat, including target seats; those with development passes will be restricted to non-priority seats, possibly in a “Team Seats” cluster.

It is anticipated that the first constituency adverts will go out after the elections in May, by when a reasonable cohort of approved candidates will be in place so that constituency members have a good pool to choose from.

Credit is due to Clare and her team for getting this process underway, in good time to have all seats selected by late summer 2027, whilst also dealing with Mayoral and Welsh candidate selections. This ought to give all candidates a fair chance of embedding themselves in their constituencies and delivering the best possible result in the General Election – whenever that might be called.

It is intriguing that Reform are not yet advertising for potential future parliamentary candidates (other than for seats where there might be by-elections) and with more candidates to find than any other party apart from the Greens, it will be ironic if they end up doing the sort of head office stitch-up that Conservative constituencies faced in 2024, 2019 and 2017!

 

Discussion and Debate at a Conservative Party Conference. How it used to be.

 The day Conservative Party members elected the Party Chairman!

Be Bold Says Mark Littlewood to John Penrose

Discussion by Mark Littlewood of Popcon with John Penrose, Chairman of Conservative Policy Forum on 2 December 2025.

https://youtu.be/KmM43jYPGd8?si=cPvh7zbhbYjW1ezJ&t=3496 

Net Zero and a Constitutional crisis!

 At the Gerrards Cross Conservatives dinner on 27 November 2025, John Strafford asked Dr. David Starkey whether, now that The President of the United States and the Reform Party oppose the policy of Net Zero and the Conservative Party is moving in that direction, can King Charles II continue to advocate a policy of Net Zero, thus interfering in the political process, unlike his mother Queen Elizabeth II, who always stayed neutral, and the King is therefore creating a constitutional crisis.?   David Starkey's answer was "Yes, it will create a Constitutional crisis and the Prime Minister will have to have privately, a firm word with him!".

                                                 With thanks to Photo by David Moore.

Margaret Thatcher. We miss her!

Jim Davidson and Margaret Thatcher  Watch this video to the end It is a wonderful anecdote by comedian Jim Davidson about Margaret Thatcher. I was introduced to Jim some years ago at a Party conference by Dr. Liam Fox MP who said to Jim "John is one of my patients in Beaconsfield" to which Jim said "I wonder you are still alive!"

COPOV Mulled Wine and Mince Pies Forum 13 December 2025

 Do come and join us for the Mulled Wine and Mince Pies Forum on 13 December 2025 in Gerrards Cross, Bucks.   Full details and AGENDA are shown on the Events Page in the column on the right!

Marginal Seats and Selection of Candidates with Tom Tugendat MP

A question to Tom Hugendtot about marginal seats and selection of candidates at a Beaconsfield Conservatives reception held on 13 November 2025

The Leadership Election of William Hague

 Do You Remember the General Election of 1997 and what happened afterwards?

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.