Sunday, August 28, 2022

The Next Prime Minister?

 The Next Prime Minister 

by Mike Baker

I have my ballot paper and a letter saying “…final two candidates, both would make excellent prime ministers, and your ballot paper to choose is enclosed.” 

So, I as one of 160,000 British Conservative Party members, plus an unknown number of overseas Conservative Party members of any nationality, get to choose the next prime minister of one of the most powerful countries in the world. Wow. 

Great Britain is a parliamentary democracy, not a presidential one. Our elected members of parliament are representatives not delegates. It is their responsibility to provide a Prime Minister, the whole British nation elects members of parliament for every constituency in the country. 

In my judgement on a matter of principal, I think it should be the MPs in parliament who should decide who should be the Prime Minister. In the circumstances as I have confidence in my MP I would support their choice for Prime Minister. 

Mike Baker

Conservative Party Member

Bromley and Chislehurst Conservative

Association.


Mike, this was the original position of COPOV when it was set up in 1994.   At that time we wanted the Party Chairman to be elected by the members.    When that was not offered in the new Constitution of 1998 we then campaigned for the members to elect the Leader.   I would happily go back to a position where the MPs elected the Leader on a preferential basis, if the Party members could elect the Party Chairman at an Annual General Meeting of the Party to which all members were invited.   John Strafford.

Wednesday, August 24, 2022

The Conservative Party Leadership Election. Is it a distortion of Democracy?

 The Conservative Party Leadership Election.   Is it a Distortion of Democracy?

Changes that should be incorporated into the Party Constitution.

By 

John E. Strafford

Recommendation:

1. Those that elect the Leader should be the same electorate as those that decide to dismiss the Leader.

The Leader of the Conservative Party is chosen by the members of the Party out of two candidates selected by Conservative MPs.   However, a Leader can be dismissed from office by a majority of Conservative MPs.

If at an Annual General Meeting to which all Party members are invited there was a majority in favour of a motion of “no confidence” in the Party Leader then the question should be decided by a ballot using the internet (with suitable safeguards} of all Party members.   Any such motion should have a minimum of 10,000 signatures.

Recommendation:

2. Only a UK Citizen over the age of 18 should be able to be a member of the Conservative Party.

To be member of the Conservative Party you have to pay the annual subscription and agree to support the objects and values of the Party.   You can only vote after you have been a member for three months.  

 Under the current rules for membership of the Conservative Party you can join the Party even if you are not a UK Citizen.   This means that if you are a foreigner, i.e., a Russian citizen living in Moscow with no allegiance to the UK you can join the Conservative Party and vote in a Leadership election.  It cannot be right that the Leader of the Conservative Party and possible future Prime Minister of the United Kingdom could  be determined by foreigners.

Age is not mentioned in the Party Constitution but I understand that you can become a member at the age of 16.   This should be stopped.   The minimum age should be 18.

Recommendation:

3. Four candidates should be put to Party members for them to decide who the Leader should be.  Preliminary voting should be done by Conservative MPs on a preferential basis with the top four candidates being put to the members.

At present only two candidates are put to the members of the Party by the MPs from which to choose the Leader.

MPs have a vested interest in a Leadership election because inevitably they want to know what position they might hold in the new administration, so instead of voting for the best candidate they may be influenced to choose the candidate that offers them the highest position.

According to a Conservativehome poll of Party members the clear favourite to be Leader was Kemi Badenoch and yet she is not in the two names to go forward to the membership. 

A further problem with the MPs only putting forward just two candidates is there is a temptation to try and manipulate the result.   In the 2001 Leadership election the favourite candidate of the MPs was Michael Portillo, but they wanted  two anti- Europe MPs to go to the members and Iain Duncan Smith was perceived as being the weaker candidate so votes were transferred from Portillo to Ian Duncan Smith.   Due to a miscalculation Portillo ended up one vote less than Ken Clarke so he was eliminated.

Recommendation:

4. The whole election process should be conducted in one month with the MPs deciding on the four candidates within one week and the members then having three weeks to cast their vote in the final ballot.

Under the present system  the election of the Leader takes over eight weeks, a length of time decided by the 1922 Committee.

This is far too long.   The vote on the election of the Leader by Party members should be conducted by using the internet with suitable safeguards to prevent manipulation and should be done on a preferential basis so that the winning candidate is the one that gets over 50%.

Recommendation:

5. The maximum expenditure by any Candidate in the campaign for Leadership should be £50.000 with no individual donor allowed to give more than £5,000.   CCHQ should pay for the hustings and the Ballot.

I understand that in the current campaign each Candidate can spend up to £300,000 with no limit on donation, an amount determined by the Party Board.   £300,000 is an excessive amount to spend on the campaign and raising such an amount without a limit on individual donations could give rise to favours being requested or given!

Recommendation:

6. The Rules for the election of the Leader should specifically exclude  the Party Board from exercising any rights it may have under Para 17 of the Party Constitution.

The rules for the election of the Leader are determined by the Executive of the 1922 Committee after consultation with the Party Board.   However, under Para 17 of the Party Constitution the Party Board can override any rule if it considers it is in the best interests of the Conservative Party.

   


Friday, August 12, 2022

Are You a Conservative? Find out now!

 In order to be a member of the Conservative Party you have to agree to share its objects and values (shouldn’t that be objectives and values?).    Throughout the Constitution there is mention of the “Objects and Values”, and yet nowhere is there any definition or explanation of what these Objects and Values are. 

However, under the Code of Conduct for Members and Representatives of the Conservative Party it states:

“Objects and Values” of the Conservative Party

        These are set out in the Party Constitution. (where?).   The test we use to identify an object and value is objective based on relevant evidence.   That evidence may be common or historical knowledge, or common sense, Conservative manifestos past and present, guidance notes from the Party Board, Government policy and speeches from senior Party spokesmen including the Party leader and so on.

Have you ever read such gobbledygook?   So, a speech by a senior Party Spokesman can create a Conservative objective and value?   Objectives and values should reflect the DNA of the Conservative Party.   They should be based on a clear philosophy.   We show below our view of what Conservative Philosophy and Values should be.   As a Party these are what should unite us.

  Extracts from the Constitution of the Conservative Party - Objects and Values

PART I

 NAME, PURPOSE, OBJECTS AND VALUES

2 Its purpose is to sustain and promote within the Nation the objects and values of the Conservative Party. 

PART II

MEMBERSHIP 

3 The Party is a political Party for the Nation, open to all who share its objects and values and who undertake to be bound by this Constitution. The Party shall consist of its Members. Membership of the Conservative Party is not compatible with Membership of or, association with any other registered political party.  

PART IV

THE BOARD OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY

17.22 The suspension of membership or the expulsion from membership of any member whose conduct is in conflict with the purpose, objects and values of the Party as indicated in Part I Article 2 or which is inconsistent with the objects or financial well-being of an Association or the Party or be likely to bring an Association or the Party into disrepute. 

PART V

THE NATIONAL CONSERVATIVE CONVENTION

24 The functions of the National Conservative Convention shall be to

24.1 support and promote the objects and values of the Party.

                                                    SCHEDULE 7

RULES OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY ASSOCIATIONS COVERING A SINGLE CONSTITUENCY

2 OBJECTS 

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

We set out below what we believe the Philosophy (Objectives) and Values of the Conservative Party should be:   Do you Agree?






Thursday, August 11, 2022

What do local Tory members think about the Leadership Campaign?

The following article was published by the New Statesman on 9th August

 Inside the Tory grassroots: what do members really want?

In Beaconsfield, one of the largest Conservative associations in the country, activists are frustrated and fearful of defeat.

By Anoosh Chakelian

The Beaconsfield town hall green was a parched yellow. Wrought iron figures of Noddy and Big Ears danced among other wholesome English scenes on its decorated trellis. Their creator, Enid Blyton, lived in this south Buckinghamshire market town. It is a jumble of Victorian red brick, Tudor timber and Waitrose green – and ground zero of the famed “Tory shires”.

Local Tory members were receiving their ballot papers for the Conservative Party leadership election, in the early and thirsty days of August. Beaconsfield is home to probably the biggest local Conservative association in the country, though they don’t release official figures. From asking around, I understand this “Premier League” local party has around 1,100 members – down from 1,400 in 2019.

Once nicknamed the “Chiltern millions” by Tory officials for the area’s fundraising heft, even party members here are dwindling in number. They have an outsized influence, however, as a slice of the 160,000 or so Conservatives members (they don’t release that figure either) that will vote for the UK’s next prime minister. Both leadership candidates had visited the weekend before my trip; local members with the biggest houses (“we are Conservatives, after all!”) hosted their speeches and Q&As.

According to 2020 research by Queen Mary University and Sussex University’s Party Members Project, more than a third of Conservative Party members are 65 and over, and the majority are 50-plus. They are overwhelmingly middle or upper class, and white British. In the 2016 EU referendum, 76 per cent voted Leave.

Most of this minute electorate are concentrated in safe Tory seats in the south of England, such as this one, said Tim Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary who has been studying UK party membership since 2013.

While polls suggest the Foreign Secretary Liz Truss is far ahead of her rival, the former chancellor Rishi Sunak, voters in Beaconsfield seemed less sure. Many members felt the race was closer than assumed and were disappointed not to have a broader choice. (Tory MPs whittled eight candidates down to two in advance of the final round.)

“I’m not happy with the candidates, and this election’s a farce,” said John Strafford, an 80-year-old Beaconsfield resident who has been a Conservative member for 58 years. We sat at a patio table outside Jung’s café on the high street, an olive tree shielding us from the hum of elect

Strafford runs the Campaign for Conservative Democracy and is a legendary member of the grassroots. As Tory MPs tried to oust Boris Johnson in a confidence vote in June, he was said to be the only man in the country with a copy of the elusive rules for deposing a leader. As he sipped his flat white, his signet ring flashed his initials and those of his wife Caroline. They first met at a Young Conservatives event in Chelsea and married more than 50 years ago. Aged 83, she’s been a Tory member for 67 years, and also joined for a chat.

“There should be at least four candidates for us to choose from. MPs vote for their next promotion, whoever offers the most to them gets their vote – it’s a distortion of democracy,” John said.

While he feared Truss’s relaxed attitude to debt (“all this finance is going to start costing mega money”), he also wished Sunak would cut taxes sooner.

“What they should be arguing out is which taxes can be cut that will help the cost of living and the very poor, and how quickly they can start reducing the borrowing,” John said. “They aren’t really addressing these pretty major issues. So, I will wait and see.”

Caroline said she was “rather worried about Liz Truss, because she was a Lib-Dem, and I don’t know why she changed her mind”. Neither husband nor wife have decided who to vote for. Both preferred Kemi Badenoch, the anti-woke candidate voted out by MPs earlier in the contest. They seemed disillusioned.

“Over the last 18 months, membership morale has dipped quite significantly, in my opinion. I think it’s a combination of Covid, the economy and the shenanigans that have been happening in Westminster, particularly in No 10,” said Jackson Ng, a 39-year-old barrister and Beaconsfield councillor, who chaired the Beaconsfield Conservative Association from 2019-20. “When the top of the party has issues, it filters down.”

Deputy mayor of the town, he moved from Pimlico in central London to Beaconsfield six years ago, with his young family. He has nine-year-old twin daughters.

The town neighbours the constituency of Chesham and Amersham, a once true-blue enclave that switched to the Liberal Democrats in a by-election last year. The shock still haunts the Beaconsfield Tories. Residents worry about development: a tunnel for HS2 has been chewing up some of the countryside, while green-belt land has been carved up for housing.

“Especially in such a historical town like Beaconsfield, people move out here for its green space,” Ng said, speaking to me down the phone from a work trip in Hong Kong. “I think a lot of people just felt that the local Conservative Party perhaps took their vote for granted and were doing something local residents felt very protective about.”

Central government housing targets spooked voters in so-called Blue Wall constituencies like this, where affluent erstwhile Tories have also been put off by Brexit and Johnson’s leadership style. This is an electoral concern for Tory MPs, and may be why Sunak – in a video leaked to the New Statesman – told members he redirected Treasury funds from “deprived urban areas” to southern heartlands such as Tunbridge Wells. Undecided himself, Ng revealed that his fellow councillors are trying to work out which candidate would have the best planning policy. “The race is tighter than the media has portrayed it to be,” he said.

“It’s split, people are undecided,” said Jaspal Chhokar, a mild-mannered 39-year-old solicitor who joined the party when he was 18. “The polls are not [reflecting] the impression I’ve got.” (Representative surveys of party members are notoriously tricky, but the polling company YouGov has accurately predicted past results.)

Chhokar chairs the 240-member strong Tory branch of Gerrards Cross, an affluent commuter town in the Beaconsfield constituency. Its blue community noticeboard advertised a classic car show, and children squealed on a zip wire across its scorched east common.

Speaking at a circular meeting room table at his family’s law firm, on the edge of the common, Chhokar said he had been to see both candidates. “Truss was down to Earth, talking to you at the same level – I can see her taking the fight to Labour, the SNP, whoever else,” he said. While he admired Sunak’s success story, he feared the wider public might view him as out of touch (the former Goldman Sachs banker’s wife was revealed to have non-dom tax status earlier this year). He preferred Penny Mordaunt, who finished third in the MPs’ ballot, and will not vote immediately. “I think I’ll wait a little bit of time just in case anything major happens. I’ll go to the hustings in London later this month.”

His father Santokh, a Tory councillor who chaired Beaconsfield Conservative Association from 2016-19, was also frustrated with the “limited choice” offered by what he described as a “centralising, controlling party”. Yet he felt Truss “came across better than I feared she would” during her visit.

“She’s not a David Cameron, she’s not a Tony Blair – Rishi’s trying to be. But I found that she was pretty straightforward and authentic. She said at least twice, maybe more, ‘I’m a Yorkshire woman’. And I thought ‘you sound like a plain-speaking Yorkshire woman!’” he laughed, with the delight of a southerner.

“Assuming she’s elected as leader, then we’ll find out: was she just telling us what we wanted to hear? Was she underestimating the task? Or will she actually decide to do something about it?”

The Chhokars are worried about inflation: their office utility bills are going up, clients have less money to spend, and staff will need higher wages.

Tory members are closer to the centre of public opinion on economic policy than their MPs, contrary to the stereotype of the party faithful being right-wing zealots (or “mad, swivel-eyed loons”, in the infamous words of an ally of David Cameron when he was prime minister). While Truss and Sunak debate the precise timetable of tax cuts, Tory members want fixes for crumbling public services: as older people, they are more likely to need healthcare, after all.

“We’ve got a crazy situation where the ambulances are queuing up because they can’t get people out of hospitals,” said Ed Costelloe, a 75-year-old party member, and the original “swivel-eyed loon” (the insult in 2013 was aimed at him and a group he chairs called Grassroots Conservatives). A former chairman of the Somerton and Frome Conservative Association, he spoke to me down the phone from Somerset, another hot spot of Tory members.

“They need to be honest about the economy and the NHS,” he said. “The figures are actually terrifying: it’s an issue for millions and millions of people in the country, certainly Conservative voters and members. So, it’s strange it’s been overlooked.” Instead, he scoffed, the Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries was contrasting the thriftiness of Truss’s £4.50 Claire’s Accessories earrings with Sunak’s £3,500 suits and £450 Prada shoes.

“If you go to Church’s for a pair of gentleman’s first-class leather brogues off the shelf, they cost about £380, so people have actually forgotten what real shoes cost!”

Like many other members he’s heard from, he hasn’t made his mind up yet. “I’m going to do a lot of head-scratching.”

A minority of Conservative Party members wish they could vote for Johnson. More than 10,000 people signed a petition in late July to put him on the ballot paper, although it was unclear whether they were all valid members.

“I have come across members who’ll perhaps have buyer’s remorse; they’ve seen what’s available and start to prefer what they had before, but I think they’re in the minority,” said Ng. “Certainly in my local town, the membership has not been pleased with the way Boris Johnson has conducted government.”

Even John Strafford, who helped draft the wording of the pro-Johnson petition and wants members to decide whether to depose a leader, would not have voted to have him back.

“There are too many occasions where I’ve thought the guy’s just lied, he says what you want to hear. You can’t govern like that,” he said. Caroline added: “I voted for Boris. He didn’t act like a prime minister, or dress like a prime minister, or behave like a prime minister. Sad.”

Conservative Party members most want “honesty and integrity”, “strong personal character” and “strong leader/leadership skills” from their next leader, according to a July YouGov poll. Rather than any particular ideological zeal, I sensed a desire in Beaconsfield to move on from the Johnson days.

“Most party members just pay their subs and watch the TV and read the newspapers,” said Tim Bale. “They don’t follow politics obsessively, as some people assume they would – they’re not this bunch of bug-eyed obsessives!” He has found that only 15 per cent of Tory members could be described as “core activists” (ie, very actively campaigning for the party).

A little lost and uncertain, subjected to weeks’ more wooing from Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak, Conservative Party members will choose a leader they think can hold on to power. They know, however, how tired their party is after 12 years in government and an endless series of crises.

“Anoosh, Anoosh,” John Strafford said, leaning across the café table towards me, puffing on a cigarillo. “We’re going to lose the next general election. Bad news is coming flooding towards us.

“With the energy bills, there are going to be demonstrations in the streets, and at some stage it’ll turn violent. This is a poll tax-plus situation. If Labour were clever and linked up with the Lib Dems, they could wipe the Tories out for a generation.”

Tuesday, August 9, 2022

Monday, August 8, 2022

Wednesday, August 3, 2022

Letter to the Leadership Candidates re. Party Reform

 3rd August 2022


To Candidates for Leadership of

The Conservative Party individually addressed.


Dear Candidate,

Re: Party Reform

As a candidate for the Leadership of the Conservative Party you may be aware that the Campaign For Conservative Democracy is campaigning for greater democracy within the Conservative Party.   We have Six Essential Reforms which I show below:

Six Essential Reforms

1) The National Convention should be replaced by an Annual General Meeting to which all Party members are invited.

2) The Chairman of the Party Board, Deputy Chairman, Treasurer, Chairman of the Candidates Committee and Chairman of the Policy Forum should be elected by and accountable to Party members, and present annual reports to the Annual General Meeting.

3) Constituency Associations should have the right to determine who their Parliamentary Candidate should be, with an advisory role for CCHQ who would conduct due diligence. There would be safeguards for Constituencies where the membership is below a certain level.

4) Motions for debate should be re-instated at the Party Conference and/or at the Spring Forum.

5) The Party Constitution should be capable of being changed at a General Meeting of the Party, by Party members on the basis of One Member One Vote with a 60% majority. 

6) Four candidates should be put to the membership in a Leadership election and voting done on a preferential basis with the winner being the first to obtain more than 50% of the vote.

You will know how divided the Party is at the moment and how we urgently need to repair the damage that has been done and we believe that our reforms are part of a programme that can start to bring the Party back together.

We would like you to consider adopting these Reforms as part of your leadership bid.

We will at the same time as writing this letter publish it on our web site and on 19th August  we will publish any reply from you or if no reply received we will indicate accordingly.   Please consider this and let me know your response as soon as possible.  

Good luck with your candidacy and for the sake of the Party I hope that the best candidate wins.

With best wishes

John E. Strafford

Chairman



Tuesday, August 2, 2022

COPOV Barbecue 20th August Beaconsfield

 Do come to the annual COPOV Barbecue on 20th August in Beaconsfield and bring a friend.   For further details see  EVENTS

Wednesday, June 22, 2022

COPOV Forum 30 July Gerrards Cross

 Come and join in the debate and discussion within the Conservative Party.

Have your say! Check out EVENTS 

Wednesday, June 8, 2022

Rules of the 1922 Committee for the Election of the Leader.

 I set out below the Rules of the 1922 Committee for the Election of Leader together with a letter from the then Chairman of the 1922 Committee, Sir Michael Spicer.   As far as I am aware the Rules have not been changed since I received his letter.

Can the Rules be changed?

The Constitution of the Conservative Party states:

Schedule 2

RULES FOR THE ELECTION OF THE LEADER

Election of Leader

3 Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board.

Clearly the rules can be changed so how?

Clause 3 of the Rules states:

3    These rules are drawn up under the authority of the 1922 Committee, and any future changes which may be deemed necessary will be made by the 1922 Committee, as provided for in Schedule 2 of the Constitution of the Conservative Party.

So, as long as the Board is consulted the Executive of the 1922 Committee can change the Rules, e.g the Rules could be changed so that after a Leadership Election the "twelve months" as stated in clause 6 could be reduced to say "three months".

However there is one caveat to all this because under clause 17 of the Party Constitution it states:

17 The Board shall have power to do anything which in its opinion relates to the management and administration of the Party.

In other words, it can overturn whatever the Executive of the 1922 Committee decides.   That would lead to a serious clash, particularly if the 1922 committee had the support of the voluntary party and they were making the Party more democratic and it could be seen that ordinary Party members were getting more power.   In these circumstances the Party Board would be seen to be out of touch not only with the voluntary Party but also the Parliamentary Party.   The whole legitimacy of the Party Board would come into question. e.g. why is the Party Chairman and a Deputy Chairman appointed by the Leader and not elected by the members of the Party and accountable to them?   Is the Party Chairman just a spokesman for the Leader and not speaking in the interest of the whole party?

I am sure in this situation the Party Board would back down!

If the Executive of the 1922 Committee decide on a change to the Rules perhaps they might also consider puttin four candidates to the members of the Party and asking them to vote on a preferentialbasis with the first candidate getting over 50% of the vote becoming Leader.   This would cut out a lot of the vested interest votes when MPs are choosing which candidate to support.