COPOV Forum 29th October

Do come to the COPOV Forum on the 29th October. Hear the latest on the Party Review. Debate and discussion on the latest topics. We look forward to seeing you. For further details look at events.

From the Grass Roots - Brexit

FROM THE GRASS ROOTS

(The author is a member of the Conservative Party.   The views expressed are personal ones and should not be interpreted as the views of COPOV or of any of its other members)

                                                                 

It is now nearly three months since the British public voted to leave the European Union albeit by a margin of less than 4%.  As one who had voted ‘Remain’ I was somewhat surprised by the outcome but not that disappointed as my ‘Remain’ vote had been cast with no great conviction and only on the principle of ‘better the devil you know that the devil you don’t’. I was never really enthusiastic about economic, monetary and political union and the retention of the pound as a currency was one thing I think the Blair government got right. The loss of sovereignty and the continued mass migration to the United Kingdom from other European countries obviously had a big impact on those who voted ‘Leave’  and no effective answer to these concerns was given by the ‘Remain’ camp. Coupled with the extraordinary claim made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer that if we left the European Union each family would be £4300 worse off each year only served to confirm the suspicion that the figures could not actually be verified and were being used as a scaremongering tactic.

From the outset it was quite clear that the losing side would cry ‘foul’ and not accept the result. So it has proved. The ‘Remain’ camp talks about having a second referendum; that it is not binding on Parliament but only advisory. It has even been claimed in some quarters that because 28% or so of the electorate did not vote at all they must be satisfied with the ‘status quo’ and thus support remaining in. Another absurdity is this statement from a voter: ‘I wanted to remain in but as I thought ‘Remain’ would win I voted ‘Leave’.  What part of Brexit do these people NOT understand?  Many on the ‘Remain’ side are now banking on a ‘fudged’ renegotiation of the minor concession David Cameron gained last March.  Others are hoping that the conditions for leaving the European Union will be so complex and difficult that in the end the government will weakly cave in and concede that ‘Remain’ is the only realistic option. For the writer the most depressing indictment is that many in the ‘Remain’ camp believe that those voting ‘Leave’ were stupid, did not really understand the issues because they were elderly and had by voting as they did somehow robbed our young people of their future. They need to be reminded that our parents and grandparents fought in two world wars to secure the freedoms we now have and enjoy today. From May 1940 to June 1941 this country and its then empire (assisted by the lend=lease arrangements with the United States of America) stood alone against Nazi aggression and fascist aggression. The original Common Market came about in the mid nineteen fifties so as to prevent France and Germany going to war with each other again. After the United Kingdom joined the then Common Market in 1973 the subsequent referendum in 1975 confirmed our intention to remain within a block of nations trading freely with each other. Economic, monetary and political union were, as far as the writer remembers, seldom if ever discussed or fully explained. It saddens the writer that these days so many are ready to belittle the achievements of the United Kingdom over the centuries and regard themselves primarily as European rather than British.  BREXIT MUST MEAN BREXIT.  Surely it is better to have a complete break and not to get involved in a messy compromise over the single market and border controls?

We need to get on and trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty but only at a time suitable to us and when it is clearer as to what the future holds. Obviously we will need to reassess our trading position but there will be many countries, including some in the E U who will be glad to negotiate trade agreements with us. Freed from the shackles of the bureaucratic European Union who knows what the future might hold? And as the great American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in an entirely different context: ‘We have nothing to fear but fear it’.

The election of Theresa May as Prime Minister and leader of our party solely by Members of the House of Commons will again have brought into question the role of party members in the selection of the leader. When on the 24^th June David Cameron announced his resignation as Prime Minister it became quite clear to the writer that we could not have three months of electioneering and jockeying for the position of leader and thus Prime Minister. It would have been completely impractical given the volatility of the markets and the uncertain future after the referendum vote.

While the result was conclusive the majority was not overwhelming. The sooner a new Prime Minister was in Number 10 the better. As a party member the writer was quite happy to leave it to the Members of Parliament who knew better the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates. This is not to suggest that party members should have no say in the election of the leader but maybe different rules should apply when the party is in opposition. The Conservative Party loves to be in government and M P s will quickly remove leaders who have lost their confidence or who are not considered Prime Minister material – as Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher and Iain Duncan Smith found out to their cost.

The question of restoring grammar schools has reared its ugly head and it caught the new Prime Minister ‘off guard’ at a recent Prime Minister’s Question Time.  If Margaret Thatcher was anything she was certainly a ‘conviction’ politician. If Theresa May believes that grammar schools should be restored in parts of the country then she should say so and not fudge the issue. She might be guided by her Chief of Staff who the writer understands went to a grammar school in Birmingham. The writer attended a famous grammar school in South Wales from 1958 to 1966. There were two streams ‘A’ and ‘B’ but the gulf between the two was enormous. The ‘B’ stream had the poorer teachers and many in the ‘B’ stream left with few Ordinary level subjects and some none at all. The writer is convinced that many of those who did not pass the eleven plus examination and thus went to the secondary school could have done as well, if not better, than many of our ‘B’ form collegues. Indeed a number of those who were transferred from the secondary school did very well and went on to study at university. It would be fair to say that in primary school everything was geared to the eleven plus examination and little was done to prepare those who were not fortunate to pass the exam for the wider world and a non grammar school education.

If grammar schools are to once again become part of the education system then it would seem important to lay down certain criteria.

a)      The parents in a particular area must overwhelmingly support it – say 75% on a turnout of 75%

b)      The parents must be made fully aware that some children might not get places

c)      Proper arrangements should be made for those pupils who do not get places; they should not be classed as failures but given as much opportunity to fully develop their skills and talents in other fields.

The most important thing is the child.  Every child has been given a talent and a good teacher will recognise this talent and try to develop it.  No two schools are exactly alike – whether they are public, grammar. comprehensive or church. The writer believes in diversity not conformity. Many of the writer’s friends who did not go to grammar school have been successful in their particular field and done well for themselves and their families. And they have skills that make the writer envious on times.

Finally some thoughts on David Cameron’s controversial resignation honours list. Despite the expenses scandal six years ago nothing much has really changed. Following the practice of previous Prime Ministers chums and cronies were as usual rewarded.  As well as Harold Wilson’s ‘lavender’ list from 1976 we have this gem from when Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister and in July 1962 sacked one third of his cabinet.

On the resignation of Mr. Maclay as Secretary of State for Scotland.

‘You i.e. Macmillan would like to recommend him for a C H (Companion of Honour) Now and a Viscountcy later at a suitable time’

(‘Yes he agrees’ Macmillan wrote by the C.H. ‘Yes it’s yours at any time’ he (Macmillan) scribbled next to the proposed Maclay Viscountcy)

(Extract from ‘The Prime Ministers’ by Peter Hennessy Chapter 5 Page 76)  

In terms of balance Theresa May’s Cabinet is one of the best in the history of the modern Conservative Party. The overall parliamentary majority is very small but even the most pro EU fanatic on the government benches would be foolish to rock the boat at this critical time. Outside London every English region voted ‘Leave’ ,17 of the 22 Welsh counties voted ‘Leave’, I million people in Scotland voted ‘Leave’  and many in Northern Ireland also.  Theresa May has been given her mandate. She must act upon it.

19 September 2016

50,000 New Conservative members?

Actually, most of them joined immediately after Brexit and before Theresa became Prime minster. Every Party Chairman talks about the number of new members that have joined. Interesting that what we have not heard is what our total membership is now. From my information it is about 150,000. In other words we have now recovered what we had lost prior to Brexit. Perhaps the Party Chairman could release membership figures on a regular basis. Transparency is the key to having a democratic Party.

COPOV Forum 10th September

Do come to the next COPOV Forum for a lively discussion on topical events.  For the Agenda see the events page

COPOV Barbecue

Do come to the COPOV Barbecue on August 13th in Beaconsfield. Details are shown under "Events" on right hand side.

The Biggest Stitch up since the Bayeux tapestry?

Listen to "The World Tonight" from ten minutes in.

Once again it appears that the Parliamentary Party have shafted the ordinary members. Democracy denied is democracy distorted. This whole system of electing a Leader is wrong. All candidates should have been put to the membership and they would vote on a preferential basis and the first candidate to get 50% would be elected. This way no one would ever know how many MPs supported which candidate.

Party Chairman and the Party Review.

Lord Feldman, the Chairman of the Conservative Party has announced that he will be stepping down as Chairman when David Cameron leaves Downing Street.   Cameron will go on 9th September, so we can expect a new party Chairman then.   Liam Fox has called for the Party Chairman to be directly elected by Party members.
In the circumstances the Party Review should be put on hold so that a much more fundamental review can be carried out.
 On 22nd April I wrote to Lord Feldman about the review a follows:

The Rt. Hon. The Lord Feldman of Elstree,

Chairman, The Conservative Party,
4 Matthew Parker Street,
London,
SW1H 9HQ

 Dear Lord Feldman,

Party Review

            At a meeting of the Campaign for Conservative Democracy held on 16^th April the Party Review was discussed at some length.   I was asked to put the following questions to you:

1)      Some of the changes proposed will require alterations to the Party’s Constitution.   Will the changes be made in accordance with the Constitution or will some other process be adopted?

2)      Will there be any point in the process when ordinary members can propose amendments to any changes proposed or propose changes in their own right?

3)      The Review states on page 17: “The Membership Department, in consultation with senior volunteers will be able to award a finite number of Gold memberships to activists who have given outstanding service to the Party…….”   Will these awards be for life or for a finite period?

4)      Regarding an Association opting out from a proposed MCA (Multi Constituency Association) is there any Constituency Association in the country which currently fulfils all the functions outlined in Appendix 1?

5)      What is the proposed democratic structure of the proposed MCAs? Will the Officers be elected by all the members of the Constituencies comprising the MCA?

6)      Will the full time professional in each MCA be employed by the MCA or by Conservative Central Office?   Will the campaign manager be accountable to the Officers/members of the MCA or to Conservative Central Office?

7)      Who and by what process will the delegates? to the National Convention be decided by the MCA (page 39)?

8)      How are “small” changes to the Party Constitution to be made and how is “small” defined (page37)?

 One final point: the Spring National Convention is normally the meeting at which Officers of the Convention are elected.   This did not happen this year so unless there is an early meeting of the Convention there will be a clear breach of the Party Constitution.   What is the position on this?

            I look forward to hearing from you.              

                                                      Yours faithfully

                                                             John E. Strafford

                                                                Chairman       


Lord Feldman's office replied as follows:

                                                         

So, once again questions unanswered.   Just pushes them into the long grass.  Another exaample of contempt for the grass roots!

What may happen in the Leadership election.

Listen to the World Tonight from 13 minutes 30 seconds in

Letter to Chairman of 1922 Committee

The following is an excellent letter to the Chairman of the 1922 Committee from The Bow Group

Statement to the Chairman of the 1922 Committee:

Dear Mr. Graham Brady MP,

The Bow Group wishes to register our disappointment as to the schedule and form of the Conservative Party Leadership election.

As an organisation which has consistently argued for greater democratic engagement and grassroots involvement within the Conservative Party, we believe that a serious opportunity to address deep-rooted deficiencies has been missed.

Party members have witnessed their traditional roles of Parliamentary candidate selection slowly reduced, while Conference has become a scripted media event without real access for members to set an agenda or policy deliberation.

This has now been exacerbated in the same approach being taken towards the election highest position within the Party: the Leadership.

Whilst we understand there is a view that the nation's need for new leadership is pressing, we feel that an election should have been scheduled to conclude at the end of Conservative Party conference and that the decision should have been one solely for the membership, with the maximum number of candidates and widest debate possible placed before them.

It has been 11 years since members have been able to have a say on the Party leadership. We believe that the 1922 Committee decision and chosen Party process make it difficult for a candidate, popular with the wider membership but not necessarily as popular in Parliament, to stand a fair chance of being elected.

Ideological preferences are being compressed and ultimately discarded through this narrow process.

During the tenure of David Cameron's leadership the Conservative Party membership  has halved, with two severe scandals being linked to that decline.

There has been a growing feeling in the grassroots membership of the Party that there is a disconnect between the membership and leadership, and that power is increasingly conducted from the centre rather than the broad membership.

Under the current scheduled process the newly elected leader will lack the mandate of an appropriate and comprehensive election, which is likely to weaken their position before the membership, and the country.

Many members that have been dissatisfied with the direction of the Party in recent years will undoubtedly be watching this election with interest, as will those who have left the Party but would consider returning under the right circumstances.

Recent elections and events have demonstrated quite conclusively that the Conservative Party needs a large and committed membership to win elections and engage effectively with the nation.

We would therefore ask that serious consideration is given to extending the period of the election to include the Conservative Party Conference itself, and that the number of candidates to be placed before the membership is extended to at least four.

We would hope that consideration is also given to significant reform of the Conservative Party to place membership back at its core, and that candidate selection and the election of the Conservative Party Chairman is handed back to the membership.

We hope to work with the Conservative Party towards this end, and beyond the leadership election.

Yours sincerely,

The Bow Group

COPOV Forum 9th July 2016

Do come to the COPOV Forum on 9th July.   See Events for details.
This is an opportunity to discuss politics at one of the most important times in our history.