A Selfie with Claire Coutinho MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Energy at lunch organised by the Taxpayer's Alliance. She was magnificent, a true Conservative. I am sure she will be a Star of the future! Thank you to John O'Connell and Clare Rusbridge for organising the lunch which was splendid. The Taxpayer's Alliance is a great pressure group. It does a terrific amount of essential research on all government expenditure and well worthy of support.
A Draft New Conservative Party Constitution has been issued. I set out below various comments on particular clauses. I welcome any comments.
41.4 comply with the objects of Associations as set out in Paragraph 2 of Schedule 7 or 7a of this Constitution; No change (except for updating references) Should this go further, e.g. referring to the Defining an Association criteria or other Board guidelines issued from time to time?
1) Schedule 7a RULES OF THE CONSERVATIVE FEDERATION should be deleted.
a) Throughout Conservative Party history Federations have been created and then abolished. The reason is quite simple: the House of Commons is based on Constituencies. These are the building bricks of Parliament, so Conservative Party organisation should be similarly based.
b) This does not stop Constituency Associations from getting together on an ad hoc basis or collaborating on particular items with each other. Each Association should be able to decide these matters for itself.
c) Federations are another level of bureaucracy which the Party can do without.
Should this go further, e.g. referring to the Defining an Association criteria or other Board guidelines issued from time to time?
No! Defining an Association's criteria or other Board guidelines muddies the waters and gives opportunities to increase the powers of CCHQ without reference to the Party members.
The
following article was published on the ConservativeHome web site on 2 February
2026:
Here
is my response and the reply by Julian Ellacott (Chairman of the National
Convention).
John,
Julian, Clare
Some interesting points worth of debate but the most important
point you make is " How should we balance member voice with the
practical reality that many wards have very small memberships?" The Party
is doing nothing about this. For 25 years the members have been treated with
contempt by CCHQ and now the situation is getting desperate, prospective
Candidates are hard to find in many constituencies and yet feet on the ground
are essential. Tory Party membership has sunk to approx.100,000 and is sinking.
The last National membership drive was the Bulldog campaign in 1988. Reform has
understood the necessity of membership having built up their membership to
280,000 in just over a year. In my own constituency of Beaconsfield Reform have
had three training meetings this week! No wonder they now have more members
than the Conservatives. Unless the Party gives more rights to members and more
incentives to join the Party I am afraid the Party is heading for disaster.
Processes for selecting Council Candidates are important but if you do not have
any applicants they become meaningless!
Julian Ellacott
John - that is indeed an important question, to which colleagues
are rightly giving much thought, but it is outside the scope of this exercise,
which is about how we undertake the selections fairly.
Cllr John Cope is Chairman of the Conservative
Councillors’ Association. Julian Ellacott is Chairman of the National
Convention. Clare Hambro is Chairman of the Candidates
Committee
Selecting the right candidates
fairly is one of the most important things the Conservative Party does in local
government. Councillors are our frontline representatives. They shape local
services, set council tax (…much lower than any other party), make difficult
decisions under pressure, hold other parties to account and embody Conservative
values in their communities every day.
Done wrong, poor selections can
cost us winnable wards, or drive good people away.
That is precisely why we are
reviewing and consulting on the Party’s local government candidate selection
rules. This exercise is not about change for its own sake. It is about ensuring
our processes are fit for the realities of modern local government and modern
campaigning, and fully involving Associations and councillors, not dreaming up
new rules within CCHQ and handing them down without any local input.
Our consultation document is
available here, and you can submit your views here.
Over time, well-intentioned
rules have accumulated. In some places, that has left us with a system that can
feel slow, complex, and overly administrative. Too often, valuable volunteer
time is absorbed by process, paperwork, and far too many appeals, rather than
campaigning, recruiting members, and winning elections. In some cases, the
rules also prevent frank conversations with and about candidates who do not
pull their weight.
Our aim is therefore threefold.
First, to continue to select high-quality candidates who are committed to
Conservative values, their communities, and the Party. Second, to modernise and
streamline the process where we can, without weakening fairness or safeguards.
Third, to speed up selections in appropriate circumstances, freeing
Associations to focus on what really matters: campaigning and winning.
That is the context for the
draft rules now out for consultation. They are designed to simplify the
architecture, clarify responsibilities, reduce unnecessary duplication, and
lower the risk of dispute, while keeping member involvement at the heart of the
process.
We have already received a
substantial volume of thoughtful and constructive feedback, both in writing and
through online consultation discussions. The overall message is encouraging.
Many respondents support simplification and clearer governance, but there are
also clear pressure points where views differ and where further work is needed.
One of the first questions is
scope. Should these rules apply only to principal authorities, such as county,
unitary, district, and borough councils, or also to town and parish councils?
Some argue strongly that parish and town councils should not be burdened with a
heavy process, particularly where recruitment is already difficult. Others make
the case for consistency, noting that parish or town councils are really
significant bodies in many places, and often a pipeline into higher office. We
are keen to explore whether a two-track approach, with mandatory rules for
principal authorities and lighter-touch guidance for parish and town councils,
could strike the right balance.
Another area of debate is how we
handle applicants who are subject to Code of Conduct complaints. Some favour
exclusion until matters are resolved. Others point out that complaints can be
vexatious, slow-moving, or even weaponised. Feedback suggests there is appetite
for a clearer, more transparent decision framework that weighs severity,
status, timing, and relevance, rather than relying on ad hoc local judgement.
Conflicts of interest are a
recurring theme. There is broad agreement that conflicts must be managed
properly, but frustration with vague rules that leave too much to discretion
and invite appeals. Several respondents have suggested clearer recusal triggers
and a simple conflict register, with an escalation route for borderline cases.
We think this is an area where clarity could strengthen trust without adding
unnecessary bureaucracy.
We have also heard strong
support for consolidating the application and re-approval forms into a single
document, with tailored sections for new candidates and incumbents. The message
has been clear: reduce duplication, but retain the ability to assess councillor
performance and contribution properly.
The most debated issue,
unsurprisingly, is the final selection stage. How should we balance member
voice with the practical reality that many wards have very small memberships?
Feedback shows no single perfect model, but there may be workable compromises.
For example, binding member decisions where ward membership is above a clear
threshold, and joint member and Executive meetings where it is not. Online
ballots could also play a role. What many respondents agree on is the need to
avoid systems that feel like the Executive can routinely override members’
views.
There is, however, strong
consensus on proportionality. Many welcome simplified and emergency procedures
for less winnable seats and late selections, provided there are objective
criteria and transparency to prevent abuse. This reflects a wider theme running
through the consultation: processes must be rigorous, but also realistic about
volunteer capacity and where effort is best focused.
Finally, appeals. Moving
approvals to the Area or council level (a strong recommendation in the current
rules, but proposed to be mandatory) requires moving appeals from Area to
Region. This has attracted broad support as a way to reduce local conflicts of
interest, though respondents rightly stress the importance of clear timelines
and a focus on genuine procedural breaches, not re-running properly taken
decisions. There is also concern about the work this shifts onto Area teams,
which will need to be addressed. A final backstop body to resolve procedural
disputes will also speed up difficult cases.
We encourage all those involved
in local government, whether councillors, officers, activists, or Association
chairs, to engage with the consultation and share their views. The final rules
will be stronger for it.
This consultation is not about
centralising power, nor about defending the status quo. It is about designing a
system that is credible, workable, and trusted by members, volunteers, and
candidates alike.
And critically, it should help
us win.
If any Associations hold any meetings or take soundings of ordinary members please let me know! Otherwise the changes will be those put forward by the Party establishment.
Please note that when it says "Once all sections of the Constitution have been covered all of the proposed changes will be put to a vote (in line with the Constitution). This does not mean that the ordinary members will get a vote, it is just the members of the National Convention and MPs.
The Party Constitution should capable of being changed at a Meeting to which all Party members are invited. That is democracy.
From Julian Ellacott:
To: members of the National Convention and other
members participating in the Constitution Review
Thank you to the many of you who provided your input in response to the first two phases of consultation on changes to the Party Constitution. The responses have been analysed and draft text updated as a result.
The consultation will close on Saturday 28 February.
Association and Federation Chairmen are also encouraged to share this consultation with your fellow Officers, Executive Councils, staff and any particularly interested members, and host local meetings to discuss it and provide feedback (as some of you did for Phases 1 and 2).
Yours,
Julian Ellacott
Chairman of the National Convention and Chairman of
the Constitution Review Committee
To recap, the following are the members of the
Constitution Review Committee:
Democracy can only work in a legal and social culture
where there is freedom of thought, speech and association, uncontrolled access
to reliable information and a large tolerance of political dissent.
The opposite of democracy
is some form of authoritarian government.
It is of course possible
for democracies to confer considerable coercive power on the state without
losing their democratic character. It
has happened in wartime and it happened during the Covid-19 pandemic. But there is a point beyond which the
systematic application of coercion is no longer consistent with any notion of
collective self government. The fact
that it is hard to define where that point lies does not mean that there isn’t
one. A degree of respect for individual
autonomy seems to be a necessary feature of anything which deserves to be
called a democracy.
The chief enemies of
democracy are economic insecurity, intolerance and fear. Economic insecurity heightens concern about
inequality, yet inequality is an inevitable consequence of liberty. It reflects the diversity, energy, ambition
and enthusiasm of disparate human beings in any society in which these
qualities are not artificially suppressed.
In particular, it is a natural consequence of innovation, which is a
necessary condition of economic growth but inevitably disrupts the existing
distribution of wealth.
What is clear is that
when growth falters, people become more interested in the distribution of
income and wealth. This can poison
democratic politics, whether it is justified or not. Extremes of inequality can be socially
disruptive, promoting resentments that undermine the sense of shared identity
that is the foundation of any democracy.
Fear is another enemy of
democracy. People who are frightened
will submit to an authoritarian regime that offers them security against some
real or imagined threat. Historically
the threat has usually been war, but the real threat to democracies survival is
not major disasters like war. It is
comparatively minor perils, that in the nature of things occur more
frequently. We crave protection from
many risks that are inherent in life itself: financial loss, economic
insecurity, crime, sexual violence and abuse, accidental injury. Even the Covid-19 Pandemic, serious as it
was, was well within the broad range of mortal diseases with which human beings
have always had to live. People call
upon the state to save us from these things.
The problem of
intolerance or when it reaches a sufficient scale, polarisation, in many ways is the biggest threat to
democracy. It is not oppression by the
state, but the intolerance of our fellow citizens. John Stuart Mill foresaw that the main
threat to democracy’s survival would be the conformity imposed by public
opinion.
Demonstrations such as
those organised by Extinction rebellion are based on the notion that the
campaigners point of view is the only legitimate one. It is therefore perfectly legitimate to
bully people and disrupt their lives until they submit, instead of resorting to
ordinary democratic procedures. This is
the mentality of terrorists, but without the violence. Democracy can only survive if our
differences are transcended by our common acceptance of the legitimacy of the
decision making process, even when we disagree profoundly with the outcome. This implicit bargain breaks down if people
feel more strongly about the issues than they do about the democratic
procedures for settling them.
Direct action assesses
the value of democratic institutions by one criteria only, namely the degree to
which the activists programme has
prevailed. The contempt for politics
expressed by so many activists is potentially a mortal threat to our democracy.
Aristotle put his finger
on the reason why many people reject democracy. They feel alienated from the
political class that democracies inevitably generate. They do not regard politicians as representative
of themselves, even if they have voted for them.
Citizens assemblies are
currently the favourite proposals for circumventing professional politics, but
they are not chosen by the electorate and are not answerable to anyone. They therefore have no democratic legitimacy. Citizens assemblies by definition lack the
experience that enables professional politicians to assess what they are being
told. They are heavily dependent on the
expert advisors who endeavour to analyse the options and their consequences. The system is too vulnerable to manipulation
and facile solutions.
Whatever one thinks of
our politicians it is an inescapable truth that we cannot have democracy
without politics or politics without politicians! Democracy is an efficient way of getting rid
of unsatisfactory governments without violence.
There are three reasons
why people ought to believe in democracy.
It is the best protection we have for liberty. The creation of a political class may well
be the chief merit of democracy. Democracies
are usually more efficient.
Democracy requires a
common loyalty to the decision making process, which is strong enough to
transcend people’s disagreements about particular issues. That depends on a common sense of identity
and a large measure of solidarity. This
sense of solidarity exists only at the level of the nation state.
The transition from democracy to dictatorship is generally
smooth and unnoticed. It is easy to
sleepwalk into it. The outward forms and
the language of politics are unchanged.
Democracy is not formally abolished but quietly redefined. It ceases to be a method of government but
becomes a set of political values like communism or human rights which are said
to represent the peoples true wishes without regard to anything the people may
have chosen for themselves.
The United Kingdom
is slowly but surely going down this path towards an authoritarian state. Will the people wake up in time to stop it?
Do
Moral Principles affect our politics and if so what are they?
In his book The Righteous Mind the author
Jonathan Haidt sets out six moral principles.
They are:
· Care/harm evolved in response to the
challenge of caring for vulnerable children.
It makes us sensitive to signs of suffering and need, it makes us
despise cruelty and want to care for those who are suffering.
· Liberty/oppression shows concerns about
political equality and are related to a dislike of oppression and a concern for
victims, and no desire for reciprocity.
· Fairness/cheating evolved in response to the challenge of reaping the rewards of cooperation without getting exploited by free riders It makes us sensitive to indications that another person is likely to be a good (or bad partner) for collaboration and reciprocal altruism. It makes us want to shun or punish cheaters. It is primarily about proportionality. When a few members of a group contribute far more than the others most adults do not want to see the benefits distributed equally.
L Loyalty/betrayal evolved in response to the challenge of forming and maintaining coalitions. It makes us sensitive to signs that another person is (or is not) a team player. It makes us reward the team player and it makes us want to hurt, ostracize those who betray us or our group.
· Authority/subversion evolved in response to the challenge of forging
relationships that will benefit us within social hierarchies. It make us sensitive to signs of rank or status
and to signs that other people are (or are not) behaving properly, given their
position.
· Sanctity/degradation evolved initially in
response to the dilemma, and then the broader challenge of living in a world of
parasites. It makes us wary of a
diverse array of symbolic objects and threats.
It makes it possible for people to invest objects with irrational and
extreme values- both positive and negative – which are important for binding
groups together.
The
political left tend to rest most strongly on the Care/harm and
Liberty/oppression principles. These
support ideals of social justice, which emphasize compassion for the poor and a
struggle for equality among the groups that comprise society. Social justice groups emphasize solidarity –
they call for people to come together to fight the oppression of bullying
domineering elites.
Everyone
cares about Care/harm but the political left turn out to be more disturbed by
signs of violence and suffering compared to Conservatives.
Everyone
care about Liberty/oppression but the left are most concerned about the rights
of certain vulnerable groups ( e.g. racial minorities, children, animals) and
they look to government to defend the weak against oppression by the strong. Conservatives, in contrast, hold more
traditional ideas of liberty as the right to be left alone and they resent
programmes that use government to infringe on their liberties in order to
protect the groups that the left most care about. For example, small business owners support Conservatives
because they resent government telling them how to run their businesses under
its banner of protecting workers, minorities, consumers and the environment.
The
Fairness/cheating principal is about proportionality. It is about making sure that people get what
they deserve. Everyone cares about
proportionality, everyone gets angry when people take more than they deserve,
but Conservatives care more. Employees who work the hardest should be paid the
most. The left are ambivalent but Conservatives
in contrast endorse this enthusiastically.
Conservatives
think it is self evident that responses to crimes should be based on
proportionality, as shown in the slogan “Three strikes and you’re out” Yet the political left are uncomfortable
with retribution. After all retribution
causes ham and harm activates the Care/harm principle.
The
remaining three moral principles show the biggest and most consistent partisan
differences. The political left are ambivalent
about these principles at best, whereas Conservatives embrace them.
The
political left embrace the three moral principles of Care/harm,
Liberty/oppression and Fairness/cheating but are often willing to trade away
fairness when it conflicts with compassion or with their fight against
oppression. Conservatives believe in
all six moral principles although they are more willing to sacrifice Care and
let some people get hurt in order to achieve their many other moral principles.
Moral psychology can help to explain why the Labour Party has had so much difficulty connecting with voters, whilst Conservatives speak more directly to the voters because they have a better grasp of the theory of moral principles because they trigger every single principle.
One
of the great puzzles about democracy at the moment is why rural and working
class voters choose to vote Conservative when it is Labour that wants to
redistribute money more evenly? Labour
often say that Conservatives have duped
these people into voting against their economic self interest, but from
the perspective of Moral Principles, rural and working class voters were in
fact voting for their moral interests.
They don’t want to eat at expensive restaurant, they don’t want their
nation to devote itself primarily to the care of victims and the pursuit of
social justice.
For
130 years the Conservative Party understood these Moral Principles and targeted the voters accordingly, which is
why it dominated UK politics during this period. Unfortunately it lost sight of them in the last
25 years and has suffered accordingly.
The question is can it recover and get them back?
The
Conservatives have one further problem.
They have allowed their membership to decline to an insignificant level. This is fatal. People love groups, we develop our virtues
in groups, even though these groups necessarily exclude non-members. If you destroy your group you dissolve all
internal structure, you destroy your moral capital.
Real
Conservatives understand this point. The subdivisions add up to the greater whole.
Edmund Burke said it in 1790:
To
be attached to the subdivision (e.g. Christian Conservatives, Conservative Friends of Israel etc.) to love the little platoons we belong to in society, is the first
principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which
we proceed towards a love to our country, and to mankind.
Mark Littlewood of Popcon talks with Jonathan Gullis. Click on the heading below:
With thanks to BBC Newsnight.
Speculation has started regarding who will be the Conservative Candidate in the London Mayor election. As per Camilla Tominey of the Daily Telegraph 10 January 2026 "James Cleverly is being lined up as the Conservative candidate for mayor of London. This video shows what happened in 2006 when James Cleverly last put forward his name to be a candidate for mayor. It was at the height of the controversy over David Cameron's "A" List.
I had been asked by the Party Board to research the operation of the "A" list which was proving to be very unpopular with the grass roots Party members. To my surprise I found that the number of women applying to be candidates was approximately 30% and the number of women candidates being selected was also 30%. In my report I stated that the "A" list was not a solution to the problem of few women candidates and research should be done as to why so few women applied. The report was accepted by the Party Board and David Cameron told me that the "A" List was to be dropped privately with no public announcement. He went on to say that he only brought in the "A" List because he thought it would get him the women's vote in the Leadership election.
On 29 December 2025 the article
below by Grant Shapps appeared on the ConservativeHome web site:
Recommendation to Constituency
Associations:
Unless you want an Establishment
clone, your Constituency Association should not include a Candidate who has had
training by Conservatives Together.
They will
have been taught to present themselves in the best possible light, so you will
not get the real persons’ views.
If they
really wanted to be a Member of Parliament they would have found out what it
entails before applying to be a Candidate, so why are they applying now?
A six month
course but not a mention about Conservative objects, values or principles! Do you really want a greasy pole kind of
candidate who does not think for themselves but just trots out the propaganda
they have been given?
You don’t win
elections with just slogans and spin but by having enough credible people ready
to stand.
by
Grant Shapps
Grant Shapps is a former Defence Secretary,
Transport Secretary, and Party Chairman and was MP for Welwyn Hatfield
2005-2024
The most important Conservative revival work is
happening outside the spotlight.
A few months ago, I found myself in a room with
twenty Conservatives who had almost nothing in common – except ambition and
impatience. One had been running a business since their early twenties. Another
had spent years in local government, quietly fixing things without ever being
noticed. One had given up a safe professional career because they believed
politics could still be a force for good. None of them were household names.
None of them were part of a faction. All of them wanted to serve.
What struck me wasn’t their ideology. It was their
seriousness.
That room was the first cohort of the Conservatives
Together Fellowship Since then, we’ve run a second cohort and are about to
start our third, with applications remaining open until 31st December. Sixty
people in the programme so far. Remaining on track, that will be 500 trained by
the time the country next goes to the polls.
That number isn’t accidental.
It reflects something uncomfortable but obvious:
parties don’t win elections because of slogans and spin. They win because they
have enough capable, credible people ready to stand. People who can persuade
voters on doorsteps, survive hostile interviews, and govern competently when
they’re elected.
After the 2024 General Election, the Conservative
Party has been doing what it should do: reassessing, arguing, renewing. But
while ideas matter, infrastructure matters too. And one part of that
infrastructure – how we identify, prepare and support future candidates – has
been quietly underpowered for years. I know this because as a former
Conservative Party Chairman I appreciated there wasn’t time or capacity
in-house to do this longer term work.
That is the gap Conservatives Together exists to
fill.
CTog is not part of the party machine. It isn’t a
pressure group, a faction, or a rebrand of something familiar. It is a
not-for-profit organisation, sitting outside the formal party structure, with a
simple aim: to help grow a deeper, stronger pipeline of Conservative
candidates, free of charge to those taking part.
Why outside the party?
Because it allows honesty. About what works. About
what doesn’t. About the reality of standing for Parliament and being elected,
as opposed to the myth. It allows us to focus on skills, judgement and
resilience, rather than box-ticking or networking for its own sake.
The Fellowship is a six-month programme. It is
demanding. Participants are challenged on policy, communications, campaigning
and leadership. They are exposed to the pressures of modern politics as it
actually is, not as it used to be. They are supported by an Expert Network that
includes MPs, peers, former parliamentarians and specialists who give their
time because they believe the future of the party is worth investing in.
What we do not do is select candidates. That
remains, rightly, the job of CCHQ and the party’s democratic structures. What
we aim to do is ensure that when selection panels meet, they are choosing from
a broader, deeper pool of people who are actually prepared for what lies ahead.
This matters because politics is getting harder,
not easier. Voters are more sceptical. Media scrutiny is relentless. Populism
thrives where serious politics retreats. If conservatives want to win again –
and govern well when we do – we need people who are grounded, capable and
motivated by service rather than celebrity.
Which brings me back to that room.
At the end of the session, one Fellow said
something quietly revealing. “I didn’t realise,” they said, “how much
work this would be. But I also didn’t realise how much it mattered.”
That, in the end, is the point. The next
Conservative revival won’t arrive in a briefing note or a clever line. It will
come, slowly and unglamorously, from people willing to do the hard work.
Conservatives Together exists to help find them – and to make sure they’re
ready when the moment comes.
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. |
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.
