Name and Affiliation - Draft Conservative Party Constitution

 A Draft New Conservative Party Constitution has been issued.   I set out below various comments on particular clauses.   I welcome any comments.

Draft New Conservative Party Constitution (4)

Sch 7-3 1 NAME and AFFILIATION

1.1 The name of the Association shall be “............ Conservative Association” (if the Association covers a single Parliamentary Constituency) or “…. Conservative Federation” (if the Association covers more than a single Parliamentary Constituency).

Hereafter, for this draft, the term “Association” is used throughout, but could be amended to say “Association/Federation” if desired.

Delete: Conservative Federation” (if the Association covers more than a single Parliamentary Constituency).

Hereafter, for this draft, the term “Association” is used throughout

1.2 The Association shall be a member of, and affiliated to, The Conservative and Unionist Party (“the Party”) and shall at all times be bound by the Constitution of the Party (as amended 1 January 2027 and thereafter), and any rules laid down by the Board.

Delete : , and any rules laid down by the Board

Sch 7-4 Objects

The Objects of the Association shall be to sustain and promote the objects and values of the Party in the Parliamentary constituency of ...................... (“the Constituency”); to provide an effective campaigning organisation in the Constituency; to secure the return of Conservative Candidates at elections; and to raise the necessary funds to achieve these objectives; to contribute to the central funds of the Party.

Proposed change

The Association’s primary objective, in support of the Party’s Purpose (as set out in Part I of the Constitution) is to secure the return of Conservative Party candidates at elections, by providing an effective campaign organisation and the raising of funds to do so.

Ignore the proposed change and stick with the original.

Sch 7-5 3 Membership

3.2 All members of the Association shall be bound by the Constitution of the Party, the Party’s Code of Conduct, and any rules set out by the Board.

Delete: “the Party’s Code of Conduct, and any rules set out by the Board.”

Existing rule:

3.3        All members of the Association shall have the right to attend and vote at any General Meeting (including an Annual or Special General Meeting) of the Association or Branch of which they are members, save that no member of the Association may vote or nominate, propose or second any person or motion at any meeting of the Association unless they have been a member of that Association for at least three months prior to the date of the meeting.

Proposed

All members of the Association shall have the right to attend and vote at a General Meeting, provided that they have been a member of that Association for at least three months prior to the date of the vote, and fulfil any other requirements of being Qualifying Members as set out by the Board from time to time.

The existing rule is sufficient, so stick with the existing rule.   Why should the Board have the power to determine “other requirements of being a Qualifying Member”?   They could say that only people with red hair should be qualifying members!   This is control freakery gone mad.   If the Board was accountable to the members the position would be different!

Existing rule:

3.5        The Officers of the Association may move before the Executive Council the suspension or termination of membership of the Association of any member whose declared opinions or conduct shall, in their judgement, be inconsistent with the objects or financial well-being of the Association or be likely to bring the Party into disrepute. Similarly, the Officers may move the refusal of membership of the Association for the same reasons. Following such a motion, the Executive Council may by a majority vote suspend, terminate or refuse membership for the same.

Proposed:

The Management Team may propose to the Executive Council the suspension or termination of membership of the Association of any member whose declared opinions or conduct shall, in their judgement, be inconsistent with the objective or financial well-being of the Association or be likely to bring the Party into disrepute (as defined in the Code of Conduct).

Similarly, the Management Team may move the refusal of membership of the Association for the same reasons.

Following such a motion, the Executive Council may by a majority vote suspend, terminate or refuse membership for the same reason.

The Board shall set any procedures or rules to be followed in order for a suspension, termination or refusal of membership to be considered valid.

The existing rule is perfectly satisfactory and should be retained. Once again we have proposed widening  powers of the Board to do what ever they like.   I am afraid the Board has got a dose of control freakery.   They have destroyed any vestige of democracy in the Conservative Party.   The end result, if all these changes go through will be the death of the Conservative Party.

Sch 7-6             4 Honorary Positions

Proposed:

4.1 The members of the Association shall elect a President at each AGM.  The President shall be a non-voting member of the Executive Council. The President shall not be an Officer.

Insert after Officer: “The term of office of the President shall be a maximum of five years.”

Proposed

4.3 The members of the Association may, at a General Meeting, elect as Honorary Vice-Presidents or Patrons persons who have made an exceptional contribution to the Party.  These Honorary Vice-Presidents or Patrons shall retain this title for however long they remain as a member of the Party, unless the Executive Council resolves to require them to submit to re-election at the subsequent AGM.   This role does not confer any ex-officio rights to any other role within the Association or its Committees.

Delete: or Patrons shall retain this title for however long they remain as a member of the Party, unless the Executive Council resolves to require them to to submit to re-election at the subsequent AGM.

Insert after Vice -Presidents shall be subject to re-election at subsequent AGMs.

Sch 7-7   5  Officers

Proposed:

5.1.3a Within an Association comprising more than one Parliamentary constituency (namely a Federation), Constituency Officers for each of those constituencies.

Delete

5.1.4 With the exception of the roles of Deputy Chairman (Membership & Fundraising) and of Treasurer, which may be held by the same person, no person shall hold more than one of the Principal Officer roles.

Delete :With the exception of the roles of Deputy Chairman (Membership & Fundraising) and of Treasurer, which may be held by the same person,

An Officer of one Association may only stand for election for an Officer position in another Association if the two Associations are within the same Area and prior consent of the Area Management Executive is given.

Delete

Should there be restrictions on sitting councillors being eligible to stand as Chairman, or any Officer role?  (If so, should it exclude current Officers?

Insert:”A sitting Councillor shall not be the Constituency Chairman.”

Councillors are accountable to the Constituency Association. There is a conflict of interest if the same person is a Councillor and the Constituency Chairman.

Should there be restrictions on paid staff (of the Association, CCHQ and/or an MP or candidate) being eligible to stand as Chairman, or any Officer role?

Paid staff of the Association or CCHQ may only be appointed to a non voting position.   An MP or parliamentary candidate is not eligible to stand as the Chairman of their Constituency Association.

 

Proposed

5.6 If an Officer ceases to hold office, for whatever reason, the Executive Council shall elect their successor who shall hold office until the next Annual General Meeting. An officer so elected will be deemed to have served a year, for the purposes of clause [X], if by the time of that Annual General Meeting they have been in post for six months or more.

Should any such vacancies be required to be advertised first?

No

Should there be a mechanism for removing an Officer during their term?

An Officer may be removed from office at a General Meeting of the Association by a vote of no confidence.

Should provision be made for Associations to elect Officers using an online ballot with results reported to the AGM, if they so wish?

No

Proposed

The Board may set out mandatory training for Officers.

Delete  “The Board may set out mandatory training for Officers.”

  Who is going to monitor all these Board requirements?   If we continue to keep on increasing the Board’s power to demand more and more from the officer soo we will find that no one is prepared to be an officer.   Then what?

Sch-10   

Existing:

5.10 Ensure that accounts for the year ending 31 December prior have been approved by the Executive Council and are available for presentation to members, regardless of whether they have been submitted to the Party or any regulatory body prior; Produce a Report on the Association’s activities in the year.

 

5.10.1 prepare all Association accounts which shall be submitted for audit or certification by a person or persons appointed by the Association and a certified true copy of the duly audited or certificated statements of accounts shall be available for all members of the Association and shall be sent to the Area Management Executive immediately following the Annual General Meeting of the Association; and

5.10.2 produce a Constituency Report which shall be available for all members of the Association and shall be sent to the Area Management Executive immediately following the Annual General Meeting of the Association and shall include the following information:

Not less than one month prior to the Annual General Meeting of the Association, the Management Team shall:

Ensure that accounts for the year ending 31 December prior have been approved by the Executive Council and are available for presentation to members, regardless of whether they have been submitted to the Party or any regulatory body prior;

Proposed

Produce a Report on the Association’s activities in the year to 31 December prior, in line with any rules laid down for the purpose by the Board.  The Report shall be circulated with the Notice of the AGM to all entitled to that Notice.

Stick to the existing rules. Under the proposal once again we see the unaccountable Board asking for carte blanche to introduce whatever it wants.

 

Supported Status - Draft New Conservative Party Constitution (3)

 

Draft New Conservative Party Constitution (3)

 A Draft New Conservative Party Constitution has been issued.   I set out below various comments on particular clauses.   I welcome any comments.

VII-6

49 The Board may, at its discretion, designate an Association as being in Supported Status.

Should there remain an explicit trigger on membership for Supported Status?  Should there be more of these explicit triggers?  Or should it be fully discretionary?

INSERT after Status: “if its membership falls below 100”

There should not be any more explicit triggers.

50.4 the Area Management Executive may, together with Officers of the Association, draw up shortlists for the selection by the Association of prospective Parliamentary Candidates from the United Kingdom Parliamentary List as defined in Paragraph 7 of Schedule 6 herein.

Delete – specific provision not needed in this circumstance

Retain this paragraph after deleting “as defined in Paragraph 7 of Schedule 6 herein.” and insert after Parliamentary List “after receiving a report on Due diligence on prospective candidates drawn up by the Committee on Candidates”

VII-8

61 If, after giving the Association Chairman reasonable time to investigate and remedy the matter, the member remains dissatisfied, they may report the matter to the Area Management Executive, which shall have the power to investigate the matter and take such action as it thinks appropriate to remedy the breach.

Should “reasonable time” be more precisely defined?

Delete “reasonable time” Insert “30 days”

63. The Rules of the Conservative Party Associations, as contained within Schedule 7 or 7a, shall be reviewed from time to time by the National Conservative Convention which may propose amendments in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 3. Any amendments to the said Rules shall be in accordance with the provisions of Article 91.

Delete: 7a, Delete: “Any amendments to the said Rules shall be in accordance the provisions of Article 91.”

Area Councils Draft 2 New Conservative Party Constitution

 Draft New Conservative Party Constitution (2)

 A Draft New Conservative Party Constitution has been issued.   I set out below various comments on particular clauses.   I welcome any comments.

VII -3

44 Should the Constitution mandate/encourage Federations/Groupings?  If so, how can this be suitably phrased?

The Constitution should abolish Federations and neither encourage nor discourage groupings.   Groupings should be determined by the Constituency Associations involved.

VII-7

48

 Elections to the Area Council

Delete: Representatives  on the Area Council.   Every Constituency within every Association shall be represented on their respective Area Council in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 7 

Insert: Each Area Council shall comprise:

1)    The members of the Party resident within the Area.

2)    The members of the Area Management Executive, who must be resident within the Area.

Meeting with the great Claire Coutinho MP!

 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.

Draft New Conservative Party Constitution (1)

 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.

Conservative Party Constitution - Another stage!

 

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.

 

John Cope: Reforming local government candidate selection. Fairer, simpler, and fit for the future

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.

 

Conservative Party - Changes to the Party Constitution!

 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.

 To recap on the process, we are reviewing the Constitution in phases, starting last year and running until later this year.  Each phase covers different topics, on each of which you will have the opportunity to have your say.  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).

 We have now moved onto to Phase 3, which covers provisions relating to Associations and Federations, including their standard rules (Schedules 7 and 7A).  These are lengthy sections and of direct relevance to the way Associations and Federations are run.

 The document setting out suggested changes and questions for your consideration is here: Phase 3 - Discussion Paper.

 Please review the document and then use the following online survey to submit your views on these topics: Survey here

 Regional and Area Chairmen are also being asked to arrange localised online calls between Association Chairmen to discuss feedback and ideas, which will be passed back to me.

The consultation will close on Saturday 28 February.

 There will be an online call from 6.30pm to 8.00pm on Tuesday 24 February for you to discuss the Phase 2 topics and provide your input.  Please use this link to register for the call in advance: REGISTER HERE.

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).

 If you wish to submit marked up text instead, please download the discussion document above, mark up the text in the first column, and email as an attachment to national.convention@conservatives.com, or if you prefer a freeform text response, just email it to the same address.

 Thank you in for your participation in this important task.

 

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:

• Julian Ellacott (Chairman, National Convention)
• Kevin Hollinrake MP (Party Chairman)
• Stewart Harper (President, National Convention)
• Gotz Mohindra OBE (former Board member)
• Bob Blackman CBE MP (Chairman, 1922 Committee)
• Nominee of the Association of Conservative Peers (currently vacant)
• Cllr John Cope (Chairman, CCA)
• Cllr Tomos Davies (representing the Welsh Conservatives)
• Lord McInnes CBE (CCHQ Chief Executive Officer)
• Aimee Henderson (CCHQ Chief Operating Officer)
• Megan Tucker (CCHQ Nominating Officer)

The Challenges Of Democracy by Jonathan Sumption

 

The following article comprises edited extracts from the book “The Challenges of Democracy and the Rule of Law” by the former Supreme Court Judge:

Jonathan Sumption,

The Challenges Of Democracy

 Democracy is a way of entrusting decision making to people acceptable to the majority, whose power is defined and limited, and whose mandate is revocable.

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?