Review of the Conservative Party Constitution - Update

 See link below

https://fb.watch/E9mxO3z37u/ 

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

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

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

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

Conservatives

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

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

Yours sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

They all should have priority but the three most important are 

a) Rules for the election of Leader

b) The Board of the Party

c) How future changes are made to the Constitution.

The most important issue is c) above

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

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

How to smother the Conservative Party out of existence!

 

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

Here is my response to both articles:

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

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

 

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

Response:

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

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

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

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

Article by John Moss: 

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

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

So far, so familiar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 The day Conservative Party members elected the Party Chairman!

Be Bold Says Mark Littlewood to John Penrose

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

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

Net Zero and a Constitutional crisis!

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

                                                 With thanks to Photo by David Moore.

Margaret Thatcher. We miss her!

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

COPOV Mulled Wine and Mince Pies Forum 13 December 2025

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

Marginal Seats and Selection of Candidates with Tom Tugendat MP

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

The Leadership Election of William Hague

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

Conservative Candidates Committee! What is going on?

 

Dinah Glover: Our leader has handed the party a proper Conservative blueprint, but are the candidates team onboard?

The following article (edited) was published on the ConservativeHome website on 10 October 2025

It is joked amongst us on the right of the Party that at least a third of the current Parliamentary Party are Liberal Democrats, in which case they may be reluctant to scream our policies from the rooftops. 

Well if there are that many of our MPs who are not fully on board with the project, we have to ensure that next time our Parliamentary Party is fully Conservative.

Candidates need to be put through their paces so we understand their views, philosophy, able to debate cogently, have the ability to have original policy ideas, as well as be a good campaigner and constituency MP which, to be honest, is the easy bit.

It is crucial we build this talent for the future.

It can be argued that the most ‘dangerous’ man in the Conservative Party has been Gareth Fox, the former Head of Candidates. He stands accused by many of ensuring that only ‘soft’ or One Nation Conservatives got selected to seats. He seems to have delivered a Parliamentary Party which is a Liberal Democrat tribute act, no wonder they are all so silent.

The Rt Hon Grant Shapps has set up Conservative Together – I think he prefers the cooler name CTog – for potential candidates.

I find it worrying that its mainstay seems to be campaigning, delivering more nonsensical leaflets and probably a re-run of Team 2015 and we all know where that ended up! I do hope that we can produce a more intellectual grouping of our candidates to allow them to explore their ideas, passions, philosophies and test out ideas for Government. Surely that would be more likely to lead to a Conservative Government that can deliver.

My warning to the Party is clear:

The Candidates Committee needs to be at the forefront of providing the talent for ‘Our Great Comeback’.

I have severe reservations this is the case.

In the interest of transparency I was a Parliamentary Assessor of 4 years standing but was sacked back in late June by the Hon Clare Hambro, Current Chairman of the Candidates Committee for being too political.

I had always been told how highly valued I was as an Assessor, especially since my background was as a Recruiter, so I brought all those skills to the table. The very odd point is that after I was sacked, I submitted a Subject Access Request to the Candidates Team about myself. There was literally no evidence to sack me; not one complaint against me. When I asked Clare if she had viewed the recordings of my interviews, she said she had not. She was literally basing her decision on no evidence whatsoever, just the say so of her Deputy, who is a committed Remainiac.

Having myself worked closely with the ERG during the Brexit battles and led the Voluntary Party petition against Theresa May for attempting to deliver a non-Brexit Brexit; I can only assume my sacking was political. Since then, I have asked our Chairman what the process is to have my case reviewed. Silence was the reply. I have also asked Julian Ellacott, with the same reply.

My huge concern is the quality of the Candidates Committee going forward.

After Kemi has delivered her barnstorming speech, LOTO needs to ensure she has a team behind her fit for purpose.

During the last Parliamentary session I always felt the assessments were a little too much geared towards recruiting Project Managers rather than politicians. I understand the current team wants to make the process more political and combative which is a move in the right direction. However, that’s where my confidence stops. I understand that right wing former MPs went for the role of Chairman of the Candidates Committee. Instead it went to the Hon Clare Hambro, a former London Region Chairman, who I have never heard espouse a political opinion and strikes me as an obedient party loyalist. I fear it’s a consolation prize for not getting the Vice President role of the National Conservative Convention.

I would also question her judgement, having sat on a panel with her when Edmond Yeo, who it subsequently turns out allegedly has links to the China, applied to be a London Assembly candidate, but was rejected as he came unprepared and dressed in joggers and t-shirt. Clare as she knew him, begged us to change our minds, luckily, we didn’t.

Kemi has complained, in Government we talked Right and governed Left.

The Candidates Committee appears to be making the same mistake.

The Conservative Party should be the home of conservative thought, economic soundness, individual freedom, rolling back the state, opposing woke, securing our borders and patriotism. We need a Parliamentary party totally committed to these ideals. My sacking is just one example that the Candidates Committee may not be signed up to the same ideals.

In order for the Conservative Party to be in shape to win and govern in 2029, Kemi needs to get a grip on the Candidates Team. If she does not the alternative is that our Parliamentary party remains a weak imitation of the Liberal Democrats.

That is not a route to power.

Conservative Party Leadership Election 2024

 The following article in the Independent by John Rentoul on 12 November 2022 has been brought to my attention and I wondered what would have happened if my suggestion had been taken up?

In the 2024 Leadership Election the final vote of the MPs was as follows:

Badenoch    42

Jenrick        41

Cleverley    37

Cleverley was eliminated so his votes would have been spread between Badenoch and Jenrick.   It is possible Jenrick would have won!   How different things might have been!

Extract of a article by John Rentoul in the Independent 12 November 2022:

The important question now is whether either or both parties can go back to the election of leaders by MPs alone. The Conservatives seem more likely to. It is significant that Conservative Home, the activists’ website founded by Tim Montgomerie and now edited by Paul Goodman, a Tory former MP, has proposed a deal by which members give up the right to vote in leadership elections in exchange for the right to elect the party chair, who has a seat in the cabinet.

Even more significant was that this was supported this week by John Strafford, who is a `a junction-box in the hidden wiring of the Tory party. He runs an outfit called the Campaign for Conservative Democracy, and for decades he has been a mirror image of the Bennites in the Labour Party – except that he is no ideologue and is not promoting a faction within the party. He is a sincere advocate of members’ rights, but he can see that the idea that such rights are advanced by a vote in leadership elections is “fatally flawed”. He rightly focuses on the right to select candidates free of interference from Tory HQ, a form of party democracy that is  compatible with constitutional principle.

Unfortunately, it will never be a prime minister’s priority to change the rules back. Rishi Sunak will not want to antagonise the majority of Party members who want to retain their vote in leadership elections. A rule change depends on a cluster of people, including Nadhim Zahawi, the party chair, Peter Booth, the deputy chair, and activists such as Strafford: they have to accept that it is in the party’s and the country’s interest to make the change.

Tribute from Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg to John Strafford

 

A Great evening by Beaconsfield Constituency Conservative Association.  Many thanks to David Moore and Kathy for organising this memorable evening

Lovely to see Sir Jacob pay tribute to @John Strafford at our Edmund Burke dinner on Thursday.

Changes to the Conservative Party Constitution

 

Review of the Conservative Party Constitution - Phase 2

Document sent to Party members by the Chairman of the National Convention, Julian Ellacott 29 September 2025

Suggested changes

II-1

Membership of the Party is not compatible with membership of, association with or support for, any other registered political party in the UK except where the Board permits otherwise.

Note; Such as in relation to Unionist parties in Northern Ireland, where there has been a history of support.

The Note undermines the Conservative Party in Northern Ireland.   Delete “Except where the Board permits”.

11.3

Be bound by this Constitution, the Rulebook and any other decisions of the Party Board (including, where the Board establishes such, a code of conduct)

Work to sustain and promote the objectives and values of the Party and not unreasonably hinder any other Member doing so; and

What is the Rule Book and where is it? What are the "objectives and values" and where are they?   How do you "hinder any other member"?  What about freedom of speech?

X11-2

The Board shall establish a Disciplinary Committee of suitably qualified members, which shall from time to time propose to the Board a Code of Conduct for approval, which shall set requirements applying to all Party Members in relation to ethics, conduct and standards.

Will the Code of Conduct be sent to all Party members?

Conservative Parliamentary Candidates - Contract with CCHQ!

 The Guardian 25 September 2025

Addressing a meeting of the Thatcherite Bruges Group thinktank on Wednesday night, Jenrick was asked (by John Strafford) whether he was concerned that Conservative candidates were being asked to sign a contract with the party under which they could be kicked out if their views differ from central office.

Jenrick replied: “I would get candidates to sign a contract, not some kind of technocratic one. I would get them to sign a contract to say they actually stand for Conservative values. I would get them to say you have got to leave the European convention on human rights, and if you don’t want to do that, don’t stand as a Conservative.” His comments drew murmurs of support.

The ECHR was established in 1950 and sets out the rights and freedoms people are entitled to in the 46 signatory countries.

It is a central part of UK human rights law and has been used to halt attempts to deport people who are deemed to be in the UK illegally.

During the Conservative leadership election, the ECHR became a key dividing line between the two main candidates, Jenrick and Badenoch.

Badenoch argued that leaving the ECHR would not solve the UK’s problems, while Jenrick said his party would “die” if it argued to stay within it.

In June, Badenoch set up a commission to examine whether the UK should withdraw from a series of international legal agreements and overturn some domestic legislation.

Announcing the review, she told the Telegraph: “If we make that decision that we have to leave the ECHR, then that will be a condition of standing for parliament under the Tory banner.”

Although I agree with Robert that we should leave the ECHR, I disagree with his answer to my question.   Setting out conditions that Conservative Candidates and MPs to have to comply with, further reduces the right of Conservative Party members to select their parliamentary Candidate without interference by CCHQ.   Their role should be solely one of due diligence.

The Party Constitution states that in order to be a member of the Party you have to agree to its "objects and values".   Unfortunately nowhere in the Constitution are these defined.   They should be.   If this were done then Robert's answer becomes redundant.

A Question for the Reform Party! PopConversation with Gawain Towler

A question for the Reform Party and their answer! Is it democratic?

Start at 25 minutes in.

Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch - What a surprise!

What a lovely surprise to receive the following yesterday on my birthday!

 Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP

Leader of the Conservative Party

Dear John,

On behalf of the entire Conservative family, I would like to wish you a very Happy Birthday.

I also want to take this moment to thank you for continuing to support our party. Members like you play a critical role and even more so as we renew our party to take us from Opposition back into Government.

But for today John I hope you enjoy your special day.

Conservative Party Annual General Meeting?

 Time for the Conservative Party should have an Annual General Meeting to which all Party members are invited?

Party Chairman elected Sir James Cleverley responds

 I asked Sir James Cleverley MP whether the Conservative Party Chairman should be elected by the Party Members.  He responds!

Conservative Party Chairman - The Reality

 The following article was published by conservativehome.com on 1st September 2025

See my reply:

The Party cannot rebuild without a long-term Chairman

By 

Ryan Stinger

Ryan Stinger worked in CCHQ for nine years, latterly as Chief of Staff to two Chief Executive Officers and seven Party Chairman.

"Let me give you a list.

Lord Eric Pickles, Lord Feldman, Baroness Warsi, Grant Shapps, Sir Patrick McLoughlin, Sir Brandon Lewis, Sir Ben Elliot, Sir James Cleverly MP, Amanda Milling, Sir Oliver Dowden MP, Andrew Stephenson, Sir Jake Berry, Nadhim Zahawi, Greg Hands, Richard Holden MP, Richard Fuller MP, Nigel Huddleston MP, Lord Johnson and Kevin Hollinrake MP.

Since I joined the Conservative Party as a member in 2010, we have had 18 Party Chairman.

I worked at CCHQ from 2013-2024, starting my career as a Campaign Manager, before moving to CCHQ where I most recently served from 2022-2024 as Chief of Staff to two Chief Executive Officers and seven Party Chairman.

Let me just reiterate that. In two years, I worked for seven Party Chairman.

That is bonkers. If a business or charity had that much change, investors would not invest, and the Charity Commission would most certainly be raising concerns.

Being Chairman is a deeply political role, where commentators will often describe you as a media attack dog – but there is so much more to it and constant change cause chaos.

Let me share how I oversaw the process between saying goodbye to a Chairman and welcoming a new one, seven times over.

I feel bad about this one.

Under my desk were four red folders. These were updated every few months. This was a welcome pack for the new Chairman and presumably the team that would replace me. It had the latest on CCHQ, the key people from the National Convention, membership figures and AOB such as conference planning or the inevitable re-review of the membership fee.

This also included a series of recommendations on how they could engage with the Parliamentary Party who desperately needed listening to.

As well the latest Board papers and a call list which included all members of the Party Board, Officers of the National Convention, the leader of the Party in Scotland and Wales, the Chairman of Northern Ireland, top donors and our mayors Andy Street and Ben Houchen.

Why do I feel bad about this?

Well because I ensured these folders were continually up to date, even without a change. Because sadly, I assumed there would and could be a change at a moment’s notice and it would not be fair to welcome a new Chairman unprepared.

Then it was relatively simple.

When a change did come, I quietly packed up the office of the former Chairman, which I always tried to do outside of work hours or very quietly to not cause a stir in front of the rest of CCHQ. I waited for a phone call of who our next Chairman was. I was then on the phone to the lucky chosen individual and getting them into CCHQ. On arrival they would be welcomed by the CEO and myself. The team would clap them in; they give some words and then I always put them in their office and gave them a large coffee and let them catch their breath.

Whilst taking a breather, they got two draft emails to approve. One to staff, introducing themselves and reassuring the team, the other to all members of the Party. They were then given the red folder and left alone to start to get up to speed on what is going on.

Phone calls to key stakeholders were the next priority as it showed that the Chairman was listening to the Board and voluntary Party. They would then start to sit down with Directors and get briefed on what their teams were working on.

After this they were presented with a series of options for visits. Whilst Chairman need desk time, getting them out was always a massive priority. Finally, I would sit down with them and talk through the problems they had inherited. Whether a legal or a disciplinary issue which they would have to review, ensure that they were happy with how we were handling it or give instructions to change tack.

Once this was all complete. We would then work at the speed which they felt comfortable working at and on the priorities which they set.

The first 48 hours was frantic and always stressful. Always at the back of my mind was a nervousness as to whether I would still be in my job because they could have, and they would have been well within their right to replace me with ‘their person’. Thankfully (for me) this never happened.

By the time I welcomed my third Chairman, I had this process nailed. It gave them space for a breather but also got them talking to the people they needed to touch base with quickly – buying brownie points.

However, after so much change, people became cynical. The phone calls were never taken as seriously. Board members became rightly frustrated. It caused huge morale issues. Every time a new Chairman comes in, long-term issues were long grassed, or tack changed, and priorities changed. Putting people under pressure and crucially rarely allowing the organisation to move forward.

I must say from my own perspective, having to have the same conversations seven times, answering the same questions and briefing them on the same issues time after time became incredibly tedious. Because of so much change, the more complicated issues were rarely tied up and dealt with.

My point here is that whilst you are an attack dog. You are the Chairman in charge of the very beating heart of the Conservative Party. You cannot fix the long-term issues which face both the professional party and the grassroots without a long-term Chairman.

Going back to a single Chairman is a very sensible starting point. I hope our new Chairman, Kevin Hollinrake MP is given the time he needs to get to know the key players, understand the weaknesses of both CCHQ and the grassroots and then be allowed to develop and deliver long-term change.

If he is not allowed this time, we will end up going around the roundabout of briefings and phone calls, wasting more crucial time in rebuilding the Party and answering the toughest questions."

Reply by John Strafford

    "Ryan, what an appalling way to run an organisation! You make some very interesting points. The role of Party Chairman was created in 1911 after the Tories lost the General Election. The position was occupied by 11 Chairmen in the next 35 years. In the last 35 years we have had 32 Party Chairmen!

The role of Chairman should be responsibility for the Party organisation. It should not be the attack dog role. Running the organisation needs both short and long term policies and implementation. The attack dog role is mostly short term and immediate. The best Party Chairman was Lord Woolton who served for 9 years. He was not used as an attack dog but concentrated on organisation.

    I am afraid that whilst ever this is an appointed position things will not change. What is needed is for the Party Chairman to be elected and accountable to ordinary Party members at an Annual General Meeting of the Party to which all Party members are invited."

 

Conservative Party Chairmen - What a Farce!

 The following video clip was made at the 2022 Conservative Party Conference by the great Aleksandra Turner.

The role of Conservative Party Chairman was created in 1911.   In the first 35 years there were 11 Party Chairmen.   In the last 35 years there have been 32 Party Chairmen!   In 2022 the then Party Chairman was Jake Berry.   I optimistically said he would be gone within a year.   He went within a month! Today he is no longer a member of the Party, having joined the Reform Party in July 2025.   What a Farce!

Comments on "The Way We Were", Conservative Party Conferences

 Some Comments on "The Way We Were":

Tricia Gurnett

Thank you John, that brought back memories. I had forgotten all about how we "borrowed" conference places from other constituencies like Ebbw Vale. You are quite right, we did!

Paul Marks

John E. Strafford for many years you have campaigned for democracy within the party - only to see it decline. I am reminded of Elrond's words in J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" - about "fighting the long defeat", but God bless you Sir.

Brian David Moore

Your a good man for your beliefs on how the Party should be run Charles Heslop

Andrew Rosindell MP

Wonderful John, well done! Our traditional Party Conference for the members should be brought back. My first was in 1982. Then we could truly debate the issues and argue about policy. Time to restore that! At least last year the National Anthem at the end of the Conference was restored, having been shamefully scrapped in the early 2000s when woke ideas started to infect the Conservative Party! 

Nicholas Bennet (Former MP)

I went to my first conference in 1970 in Blackpool aged 21. Found a B&B for £12 a night. Not only was there a conference handbook but an addendum with amendments to motions. These included the names of the proposer and seconder. I first spoke at the 1972 conference again in Blackpool (conference alternated between Brighton and later Bournemouth and Blackpool). For impoverished young conservatives the trick was to find fringe meetings with the all important words 'refreshments provided'. For the 1972 conference I went with the late Derek Stone in his van and we arrived in the early hours and slept in it.

The leadership worried about the outcome of the debates and, although the platform chose the speakers, they had to allow Enoch Powell (before he defected to the UUP in 1974) to speak and in the 1990s Norman Tebbit.

Conference was the high point of the political year, hob nobbing with the great figures of the party, meeting up with friends, going for a meal in the evenings and then to the bar at the main conference hotel.

Fortunately in 1984 I had to go back to teach in the Friday so left Brighton after the debates in Thursday afternoon missing the bomb in the Grand Hotel that night.

I last attended conference in 2015. Full of lobbyists and armchair style chats on the stage at Birmingham. Not being a spotty young man on the make any more the fringe meetings and receptions with questionable warm wine no longer appeal.

John Strafford Replies to Nicholas Bennet

Nicholas I also missed the bomb in 1984. I left the bar of the Grand Hotel at 11pm on the Thursday evening to drive home as I had a meeting the following day!

Ben Patterson (Former MEP)

There used to be real debates then. And most of those attending were Conservative Party members - a large number of them YCs - rather than representatives of lobbies, think-tanks, commercial organisations and the press.

Caroline Strafford

My first Conference I attended as Chairman of Chelsea Young Conservatives and was held in Blackpool. Captain Litchfield was our MP and he took all Chelsea attendees to lunch! I was called to speak at one session - I think because my name was Caroline and it was about pirate radio! One evening we had the Mayor's reception, another the CPC lecture, and on another evening the Conference Ball. I can only tell you that the Conference Hall was always packed out for debates and the Agents were busy trying to "fix" for Central Office the one motion to be chosen at Conference by the members. I can remember staying in a bed and breakfast establishment on the sea front and and you had to ask for a bath plug!

Andrew Kennedy

John, I have always been a huge admirer of your courage and steadfast determination in support of democracy and the rights of members and associations. I first heard you speak at the debate for the party to the organise in Ulster - I think it was 1989. In my 40 years of attending Conference, it remains one of the most powerful and effective speeches I have ever heard, including those delivered by Ministers and Secretaries of State. I do hope I will see you both in Manchester.