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?

 

 

Morality and Politics

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.

 It appears that people rely upon these principles in different ways or to different degrees.   Socialists rely primarily on the Care and Liberty principles. Whereas those on the right of politics use all six.   If so, does that give Conservative politicians a broader variety of ways to connect with voters?

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 in conversation with Jonathan Gullis

Mark Littlewood of Popcon talks with Jonathan Gullis.   Click on the heading below:

 Jonathan Gullis talk with Mark Littlewood

Plus ca Change! Conservative Candidate Selection for London Mayor

 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.

"Conservatives Together" & Grant Shapps - Selection of Parliamentary Candidates

 

On 29 December 2025 the article below by Grant Shapps appeared on the ConservativeHome web site:

 Here is my response;

 Grant, CCHQ's responsibility is to conduct due diligence on candidates. No more no less. It is the right of the ordinary members of the Party to select their candidate without interference by CCHQ. Conservatives Together are training people to go through a selection process which should not be taking place. All it is doing is giving the Party Establishment the opportunity to manipulate the process of selection by eliminating people they do not like or whose views they do not like. If I may say so, the quality of candidates was much higher pre the new Constitution of 1998 when the Constituency Associations were autonomous and chose their candidate without CCHQ interference.

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.

 

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.