Campaign for Conservative Democracy

Newsletter November 2003

[ Up ] [ Archive00 p2 ]

Up
Stop Press
Personal Opinions
Membership
Links
Notice Board
Archive99
Archive00
Archive01
Archive02
Archive 2003

      Archive 2000                                                                                      

Chairman's Report to the Annual General Meeting of
COPOV - 8th March 2000

Highlights:

• Web site has gone from strength to strength, with over two thousand hits in the year and the number of hits
  increasing.

• We published the Conservative Party accounts on the web site and no doubt this pressure made the Party publish
  the March 99 accounts on its extranet.

• We have had an increasing number of academics interested in the site for their research in the Conservative Party.

• The main campaign of the year was to try and get an Elected Treasurer for the Party.   At present this position
  is appointed.   We received considerable publicity for this campaign, particularly in "The Times"    That paper's
  campaign regarding the Treasurer was specifically mentioned when it won the "Newspaper of the Year" award. 
    The Chairman of COPOV was invited to the Editor's reception at the Party conference.

• Articles about Party democracy were produced for two separate editions of the Bow Group magazine "Crossbow",
  and an article was published in the "Independent" newspaper.

• The Campaign held a very successful barbecue and this helped to put the funds in a healthier position, so much so
  that we were able to put an advertisement in the latest edition of "Crossbow".

• We acquired our own web site domain name of copov.

• Our support is now nation-wide with the Chairman regularly receiving letters and E mails from all parts
  of the United Kingdom.

• We have been campaigning for justice regarding Liverpool Garston and reluctantly have had to go public in order
  to increase the pressure to find a solution.   It looks as though this pressure is starting to pay off.

• Finally I would like to thank the Treasurer Anne Egleton, Membership Secretary Molly Andoe, Secretary Steve
  Lorton, Vice Chairman David Futcher particularly for his E mails, and all the members of the Committee for
  their support during the year.

• I would also like to thank Jack Clayton, Stephen Parker and Martin Ball for their articles which we published
  on the web site and our Patron, John Wilkinson MP for his continued support. 

December 24th

An Elected House of Lords

There are many Conservative MPs that want to have an elected House of Lords.   It is time for them to stand up and be counted.    When asked, over three quarters of the electorate consistently support an elected second chamber - we must speak for them.   Labour's cynicism is our opportunity.

Tony's Cronies

Tony Bliar has appointed nearly one third of the members of the House of Lords.   Soon it will be one half.   He is treating the 92 Hereditary Peers as hostages.   We must not give in to his blackmail.

Superstate

Could someone please explain what it is that a Superstate has that the European Union does not have already?

There has been much speculation in the media about a Leadership election and in each case the assumption is made that it would be decided by the Party members.    This is not necessarily so.   In "The Times" report of 28th November "Top Tories plot Hague succession" it stated that Miss Widdecombe’s "popularity among Tory activists could see her win the leadership if she was one of the two candidates who made it through to the final round". However there is no certainty that there would be a final round.

The Executive of the 1922 Committee never did want to have One Member One Vote for the Leadership election and only conceded it by doing a deal on the re-selection of MPs.   If they can avoid the decision going to the membership they will.

Is it true that in the European Parliament for a motion to be passed it has to have an absolute majority of MEPs.    In other words if 300 MEPs voted against the motion and nobody voted for it, it would be lost because with a total of 650 MEPs, 300 is not a majority.

Congratulations to Edward Heath MP

He is in favour of electing the House of Lords, the most sensible thing he has said for years.

In a recent discussion paper for the Conservative Policy forum the following question was put:

December 10th

Preparation for a General election.

The accounts of the Conservative Party for the year ended 31st March 1995 are comparable to those of 31st March 200 in terms of the electoral cycle, so how are we doing.

In simple terms we raised £2 million less in 2000 than we did in 1995, but on analysis the situation is even worse.   The figures for 2000 include financial assistance paid by Parliament of £3,468,000.    Were it not for this the reduction in income would have been more than £5,000,000.   Is it any wonder that Lord Ashcroft voted for expenditure in the General Election to be limited to £13million for any one Party?

Reselection

This week there is a meeting of Ian Taylor's Constituency Association to decide whether he should be reselected as their Parliamentary candidate.   I hope he is reselected for from my limited acquaintance he is bright, intelligent and knowledgeable.   However it is the right of any Association to decide that they wish to have a new candidate and if the sitting MP cannot win the selection process then he must go.   Members of Parliament are not selected for life and although it is perfectly legitimate for colleagues to express their support it is totally wrong of the Party Chairman to intervene and when he says that it is against Tory tradition then this is one of those traditions that the Conservative party is going to have to get rid of if it wants to have any future, just like the tradition of an appointed Chairman and the tradition of having an appointed Treasurer.   It is time for the Party to join the 21st Century.

Dear Reader,

This was the month when the Labour government launched its attempt to turn round British opinion about the European Union. The key phrase in Tony Blair's Mansion House speech on 13 November was that Britain should pursue "engagement, not isolation". Labour's strategy is to caricature us as the isolationists, whereas our policy of "in Europe but not run by Europe" continues to sum up our desire to reform and improve the EU, and to limit its responsibilities – working from within. In fact, what happened in the weeks after Blair's speech, in the European Parliament and outside it, showed how hard it is to put across an unrelentingly positive message about the EU when events conspire to trip the messenger up.

First, foreign politicians will think aloud about the future of Europe and no Labour spin machine can stop them. Two days after Blair, the German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, called for future presidents of the European Commission to be directly elected, and invoked "a European Parliament and a European Government which really do exercise power". (Conservatives sometimes want the Commission elected, and object to its non-elected nature. The call should be resisted. Election would give the Commission far greater power). Fischer's views highlight a big difference of opinion with the French. Their Foreign Minister, Hubert Vedrine, wrote to Fischer in the summer questioning his enthusiasm for a strong federal European government, and asking what powers would then remain for the nation state. Fischer has not given an answer.

Then there are the skeletons in Europe's cupboards. A regular one is maladministration of the EU budget and this duly tumbled out, right on time, in the November report to the European Parliament by the President of the European Court of Auditors. This audits the EU budget, over half of which goes to finance agriculture. It also pays for spending in the South West under Objectives 1 (Cornwall), 2 (parts of Devon and Somerset), and 3 (everywhere else).The President, Jan Karlsson, reported to MEPs that in 1999 there was "an unacceptable incidence of error affecting the amounts or the reality or eligibility of the transactions underlying them".

Of course, 80 per cent of the EU budget is spent under the control of the Member States, and a lot goes wrong there. But the Commission is still doing an appalling job at handling the schemes it does have responsibility for. On payments they have adopted the Railtrack principle that virtual inactivity will at least guard against misfortune. Today I have received a cry for help from a firm in Cornwall which is working on a European research contract. But they are now "exasperated": the Commission is way behind with the payments to them. I will try to accelerate their payment, but someone else will have to wait. On the evidence from the Court, the Parliament is likely to provoke another crisis by withholding approval from the 1999 accounts until we have better evidence of reform.

The "Justice and Home Affairs" section ("pillar" in the jargon) of the Treaty this month provided Blair with possible extensions of EU competence which he will have to explain. The Parliament adopted, by 410 votes to 93 with 27 abstentions (most Conservatives against, Lib-Dem and Labour for), the draft Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, which many MEPs (but not the Conservatives) want explicitly referred to in the EU Treaty. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, Andrew Duff MEP, sees the Charter as only a beginning since, after its proclamation "the Union can then proceed to grant more extensive protection of European fundamental rights as European integration proceeds".

We also considered the proposal for a "Provisional Judicial Co-operation Unit ". This would be a forerunner to the eventual "Eurojust" plan for a unit of public prosecutors and magistrates in Brussels, dedicated to reinforce the fight against serious organised crime. In the British mind this development is too easily associated with continental threats to the British legal system. Conservatives would prefer to see us more actively exploring the means of intra-European judicial co-operation to fight such crimes, rather than appointing an embryo "European public prosecution service" which is what the Socialists wanted.

Meanwhile on the Environment Committee this month I followed up what had happened to the fine of £14,000 a day which the European Court of Justice levied on the Greek government from 4 July 2000 because the Greeks had failed to comply with a previous judgement of the Court ordering them to stop the dumping of military and hospital waste into a river in Crete. This was a rare case brought to the Commission's attention by a Greek environmental organisation.

I wanted to know how much of the money had been paid. I asked the Environment Commissioner, Margot Wallstrom, one October evening at a dinner. She said:"Oh we are just sending them the bill so far". That rather ruined my dinner because I had hoped that some payments system had already been set up. At the committee meeting this month the Commission official described the state of play. Greece has not paid anything. It had taken until 26 October for the Commission to work out with them a method of payment. Greece is expected to pay the fine for the first three months at the end of December. Thereafter it will pay for three months in arrears. Meanwhile the Greeks are negotiating with the Commission so that the fine will stop when they have submitted plans to show how they are going to put the Cretan situation right. To its credit, the Commission will resist such an early stop to the fine, and I will certainly help them. I will now put the item, for a "progress" report, on every agenda of the Environment Committee until the situation is dealt with and the fine really can cease.

But is everything so clean at home that we have a right to criticise the Greeks? We certainly do when they ignore the Court of Justice, but in terms of pollution controls, consider the case of the Sandhurst waste recycling plant near Gloucester. This caught fire at the end of October, and was then flooded this month. It has emerged that 6 drums of BSE-contaminated material is missing. It is amazing that our country, which prides itself on efficient regulation, could allow such a badly run and dangerous plant to continue to operate, apparently without effective action by the Environment Agency. I support the local MP, Lawrence Robertson, in his call for a public enquiry: I dread to think how many EU directives were infringed.

The Environment Committee was of course depressed by the failure of the Climate Change summit at The Hague. But I don't think we were surprised. We know Madame Voynet, the French Minister, and appreciate that, as a Minister from the Green party, she was unlikely ever to move towards the US position, even if Prescott had possessed greater sensitivity.

Name and shame
by
Grey Owl
These are the members of the Runnymede Trust Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain:
Lord Parekh (chairman). Emeritus professor of political theory at the University of Hull. Former deputy chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality.
Lady (Kate) Gavron (vice-chairman). Trustee and research fellow, Institute of Community Studies. Wife of the publisher and New Labour benefactor Lord "Bob" Gavron.
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. Writer and broadcaster. Member of the Home Office race relations forum.
Muhammad Anwar. Research professor at the Centre for Research in Ethnic Relation at the University of Warwick.
Colin Bailey. Former chief constable of Nottinghamshire and chairman of the race relations committee of the Association of chief Police Officers.
Amina Begum. Social worker with the London borough of Tower Hamlets.
Michael Chan. Professor of ethnic health (!), University of Liverpool.
Lord Dholakia. Chairman National Association for Care and Resettlement of Offenders.
David Faulkner. Senior research associate University of Oxford centre for criminological research. Former Home Office official.
Stuart Hall. Emeritus professor of sociology, Open University.
Bob Hepple, QC. Master of Clare College and professor of law at Cambridge University.
Judith Hunt. Chairman of Camden and Islington health authority. Former equal opportunities adviser to the GLC.
Anthony Lerman. Former executive director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research.
Matthew McFarlane. Chief inspector, Nottinghamshire police.
Andrew Marr. Resigned from commission in April on his appointment as political editor, BBC.
Tariq Modood (adviser). Professor of sociology, University of Bristol.
Sir Peter Newsham. Former director of the Institute of Education, London university. Chief adjudicator of school organisations and administrations.
Sir Herman Ouseley. Former chairman of Commission for Racial Equality.
Anne Owers. Director of Justice and former general secretary of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants.
Trevor Phillips. Broadcaster and Labour Chairman of the Greater London Assembly.
Sarah Spencer. Director of the citizenship and governance programme, Institute for Public Policy Research.
Seamus Taylor. Head of equality and diversity policy, Haringey Council, London.
Sally Tomlinson. Emeritus professor of educational policy, Goldsmith's College, London.
Lady Hollick. Chairman of Index on Censorship and founding commissioning editor of multi-cultural programmes for Channel 4. Wife of Labour peer, Lord Hollick, owner of Express newspapers.
The first thing one notices about this list is that not one of them has a "proper job", i.e. one that creates wealth and employment. They are all members of the "quangocracy", feeding off public sector budgets, which of course come from the taxes paid by the rest of us. Where are the scientists, engineers, doctors, small businessmen, indeed anybody who lives and moves in the real world?
Is it a step too far to describe them as parasites feeding off the success of the "Britishness" they hate and despise so much? Or are they "fifth columnists", beavering away to destroy what has been achieved in the last two centuries? It should not be forgotten that 1 January 2001 is the two hundredth anniversary of the Act of Union and the Union flag, an anniversary the Government is refusing to celebrate. In that two centuries alone the Union flag has flown over Napoleon's Paris and Hitler's Berlin. It has flown from Everest's summit, from the Royal Navy ships that ended the slave trade. Denise Lewis wrapped herself in the Union flag after winning the Olympic gold medal in the women's heptathlon at the Sydney Games in September. And of course it has flown over the parliament that brought representative government to the rest of the world, but for how much longer will it do so?
This what Tony Blair's official spokesman said about Britishness when the Report was published: "Britishness to us is about issues as varied as how you manage the economy, the approach you take to issues like unemployment, your vision of society." I have read this bizarre definition several times and still don't know what it means. Since I do not agree with New Labour's "vision of society", I am presumably anti-British.
Now that these Commission members have been exposed, let's face it, how many of us had heard of them before? But these are dangerous people, they will not go away and it behoves all Conservatives to keep an eagle eye on their activities. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

View from Scotland
by
Gerry Frew

October 18th  
It is the time for a review of what has happened at our new Holyrood Parliament here in Scotland since its inception in May 1999.
The great hopes for a parliament that would be different from the Westminster version in many ways, promised, but never realised, has led to much disappointment. Since no one group of politicians had a majority, the largest group, Labour, made a deal with the Lib/dems to thwart the SNP.
Initially a great deal of time was spent discussing terms and conditions for the MSP’s themselves followed after a long holiday break, by pet items raised by some very inexperienced labour politicians. Including the disastrous and time consuming overturning of section 28, by a new cabinet minister who had no previous experience of politics at any level whatsoever A private referendum later demonstrated that a majority were against change for this particular item. Another was on the banning of fox hunting, much time being spent on this while items of more relevance to the people of Scotland were passed over.
Since the main business of Holyrood was being televised on a regular basis, the grassroots were able to judge for themselves just how well or badly our affairs were conducted by our representatives. The most recent fiasco of the failure of the Scottish Qualifying Authority, and the procrastination of the Education minister Sam Galbraith, resulted in many students here being unsure of their ability to obtain a place at the university of their choice.
It had been hoped that the normal cut and thrust of parliamentary politics while being retained, would no longer be besmirched by the rudeness often handed out by the ruling party in debate with the opposition as often seen at Westminster.. Alas that was not to be in the new Holyrood model . Only a couple of weeks ago the first minister was rightly reprimanded by Margo McDonald MSP for an aside to a question from an SNP member, Fergus Ewing.
Now we are about to be faced with an election for a new first minister and the inexperienced are once again thrusting for the position. If we are in for another year of the same from the ruling Labour group, then we will need a really strong and steadfast opposition to fight our corner.
There are so many items that affect us here in the north that are still not being addressed by our representatives the year ahead looks pretty bleak.
September 8th
With both Holyrood & Westminster up and running again there is much scope for comment on what is happening both sides of the border with respect to our Central Offices.
View from over the border.
Many Scottish grassroot Tories, ( yes we still exist up here) are apprehensive about our chances in the upcoming Westminster elections.
The 'infighting' and 'plotting' that went on before, during and after the Conference in Dundee against the Scottish leadership left a bad taste. If we carry on in this way then we do not deserve to form a government, nor will we be able to.
Unfortunately when we look to the South there is much evidence of the same thing happening there.
Until the whole Party is thoroughly democratised and existing problems thrashed out, knowing that we have a wide range of opinions, we will struggle.
The unfortunate aspect of all this is that the inner conflicts have distracted our chosen leaders, when the Governments north and south of the Border are making monumental mistakes, the opposition have failed to cash in.
Right now in Scotland we have just experienced the 'SQA' fiasco with students still not sure if they will get a place at their chosen university or even if the results they have been given are correct !
The Labour party Executive and their minister of Education have been greatly damaged in the country and the Tory MSPs failed to exploit their advantage when questioning the minister. The greatest lasting damage to the minister was inflicted by the retiring leader of the Scottish National Party .
Once we have chosen our leaders, it is madness to let loose cannons like Mr Heseltine, who has his own agenda after all as a Commissioner for the Dome, damage the our leadership to an extent that give sustenance to the Government. These people should know better.
Like the rest of us Mr Hague has his faults but once we have chosen our leadership we have to accept all fourteen pints.!!
Gerry Frew.

Let me begin with the situation in the United States. Thirteen days ago a new President was elected yet we still do not know who has won. In the popular vote Vice President Gore leads Governor Bush by about 200,000 votes yet the Electoral College is not complete, waiting on the result from Florida where, after hand counting part of the ballot, a final decision is likely to be taken by the courts. If Bush wins he will be the first President since the 1880’s to have won with his challenger polling more votes overall although having won over 2,000 of the 3,000 counties that make up the United States, his base will be broader. If Gore wins, it will be because of his strength in the main "Democrat" cities and among special interest groups such as Jews, blacks and union members. Gore would also have to work with a Republican Congress and Senate. For either it will be a poisoned chalice. Situations where the eventual winner polls fewer votes than his main challenger are not new and it has happened in this country in the last 50 years. In 1951, Attlee’s Labour Party polled 200,000 more votes than Churchill’s Conservatives yet the latter had an overall majority. In 1974, Labour under Harold Wilson polled 500,000 votes less in the February election than Edward Heath and the Conservatives, yet had five more seats in the House of Commons (although in a minority). But you can hardly knock the electoral system when, under most circumstances, the winner (or leader) in the popular vote will have the most seats.

The present Government has been talking recently about changing the way we vote (i.e. over a longer period, in the supermarket or on Internet etc.) but America must surely have some lessons for us:-

The simple hand-written "X" by your favoured candidate’s name must be the best. (no chance or a voting machine breaking down).

The fixed voting hours, 7am – 10pm on a particular day can only be good (none of this York votes from 6am – 6pm with Southampton votes from 8am – 8pm nonsense).

No declaration of a winner with only 96% of the vote counted (Bush’s Florida lead of 50,000 votes was down to 1,000 within the space of two hours).

No disincentive to vote for your favoured candidate because you have been told his or her opponent has won.

The presence at the count of scrutineers from the different political parties to ensure that the votes are being counted correctly must, surely, be a good thing.

I do not believe we need to make it easier for people to vote. If they are interested in the composition of the next government they will make the effort to get to a polling booth. Ninety per cent of the population has cars and even those in the most outlying districts can get to a polling station.

In my view those who don’t vote feel that no Party has anything to offer them or are just not interested.

You can be suite sure that if we do change our present system, it will be complete confusion and chaos – even more so if we adopt proportional representation. The present system is well tried and tested and simple to operate.

Turning to the political situation at home, I see that the present Cabinet feuding over the "Euro" is set to continue. The Government’s difficulties are as great as those that John Major had but are camouflaged because of its huge majority in the House of Commons. We know (despite protestations to the contrary) that this new European defence force is part of a step towards a European "super state". Why else would Lords Healey and Owen (Defence and Foreign Secretaries in past Labour Governments) combine with Lord Carrington and Sir Malcolm Rifkind (both Defence and Foreign Secretaries in past Conservative governments) and write to the "Daily Telegraph"? The Government, so desirous of getting a full second term, is unable to tell the truth and wants to face both ways until after the General Election. But we do know that Gordon Brown is concerned only with the economic arguments regarding entry into the Euro and has little time for the constitutional issues involved. For me these are all important. As soon as we hand over to the bankers of Frankfurt, we have lost all control over taxation and setting of levels of public expenditure. You can also forget a thousand years of history – Plantagenets, Tudors, Stuarts, Hanoverians and Windsors etc. Queen Elizabeth II will be the United Kingdom’s last Head of State. You will have as President somebody voted in by 300 million people as different in their language, culture and outlook as it is possible to be, and under a system of proportional representation. The tragedy is that no leading politician is prepared to stand up and say so for fear of either rocking the boat or of being accused of adopting a selfish "Little Englander" position. But 65% of the British public, whichever way they vote, are not fooled. But make no mistake if we are to prevent this continued slide into the "super state" it will need a concerted effort with all (and I meal all) Party support. That is why the letter which included the signatures of Lords Healey and Owen is a good thing.

On the domestic front I note that the House of Lords is still sitting and doing its job as required by the constitution. I see that it has for the third time rejected repeal of Section 28 and that the Government is now determined to "ram" the legislation through the House of Commons despite it not being in the Labour Party’s manifesto at the last election. In this matter the Government is totally and completely out of touch with its own working class supporters and seems to be totally enthralled by what can only be described as a "metropolitan liberal elite". As I understand it, the only act criminally punishable would be either active or passive anal intercourse, buggery to use the correct word) when practised by or upon a 16 year old boy even if he had consented. What kind of message is being sent out by the Government to our young people many of whom at this formative age are confused about their sexuality? Are they not concerned about the possible spread of sexually transmitted diseases? Have they not seen the pictures of those who have lost their immune system? The emaciated faces of young men and the senile dementia and loss of body function which accompanies it? Do they ignore the advice of the medical profession? If a youngster stops and says: "No, I won’t do it; it’s against the law" then it will be a good thing. As a society, generally, we have lost all sense of moral values – the difference between right and wrong. But we have to face the fact: MANY IN THIS COUNTRY DON’T WANT AN AGE OF CONSENT AT ALL. The Government sees the House of Lords as a nuisance, an anachronism from the past and would like to see it abolished – as would many left wing Labour MPs. Why else would it ask for applications from the general public regarding membership thereof? The House of Lords may have been Mr. Balfour’s poodle but it is certainly not Mr. Blair’s – and we should be thankful for that. Particularly as a number of Labour, Liberal and Crossbench Members supported Lady (Janet) Young. In questions of social conscience it is always difficult to get the balance right but Lord Tebbit is probably correct in saying that in trying to be "all inclusive" the Party will probably not gain many more votes and probably lose many of our natural supporters.

Writing before the three Parliamentary by-elections at West Bromwich, Preston and Glasgow, Anniesland it will be interesting to see whether the Conservative urban vote is still holding up percentage wise at lease. The two English seats will tell us if we are falling behind, particularly the Liberal Democrats, who beat us into second place in the Leeds Central and Tottenham by elections. We learn that Gordon Brown has £35billion, yes billion, surplus (the largest in the country’s history) to distribute. "Prudence" has gone out of the window and hospitals, schools and pensioners will be the main beneficiaries. What is the Conservative reaction to all this going to be? One of muted amazement at such largess, to judge by the reaction of Michael Portillo. We should be bold, please. Tell the electorate that you would prefer less spending and more tax cuts. Labour believes in high public spending and redistribution through the tax system (stealth taxes included). It thinks that schools and hospitals can improve by simply giving them money – a billion here, two billion there. Its social security bill is massive (over £100billion) and when Frank Field thought the unthinkable he was sacked – and the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer were so arrogant that neither stayed in the House of Commons to hear Field’s resignation speech.  As for the Liberal Democrats, why vote for them? Their 50% higher rate on incomes over £100,000 is chicken feed to what Labour is promising.

We have some good ideas on health and education but these need to be thought out in greater detail. The Government knows it is going to face a Winter beds crisis in the NHS (probably because it got it wrong in the first place) and is now prepared to use the private sector to help it out. The Health Secretary, Alan Milburn, had his usual dig at the Conservatives, saying that we would do it as part of a general policy, whereas Labour were only doing it out of necessity – but everyone knew he was just "nit picking" and when the medical professions says that it cannot guarantee everyone will see a GP within 48 hours by 2004, Giselda Stuart, the Minister in charge, cannot understand why. Has she not heard of a situation in which there are different size waiting lists in different areas? Or where there might possibly be a down turn in the economy? Or does she regard the spending plans of Gordon Brown as sacrosanct no matter what the economic position? By that time there might even be an EU edict saying: You may have to wait a week before seeing a GP unless your case is considered very urgent. Predicting the future four years hence is extremely hazardous to say the least. We need to restore Parliamentary democracy and give more power to the House of Commons to check the Executive. Margaret Thatcher found some of her Cabinet Ministers irksome to say the least (not one of us) and preferred to work with small groups of Ministers (which were of the "Yes, Ma’am" type) and, judging by the remarks of some ex Ministers always liked to have her own way. John Major behaved more as a "primus inter pares" (first among equals) but even he was stabbed in the back by his "bastards". This Government has a Prime Minister who behaves like a President (who else but Tony Blair would wave to the crowds at the same time as the Queen?) and a Chancellor of the Exchequer who together hold all the levels of power. We know that no-one likes Robin Cook and that Mandy wants his job. We know that Gordon and Mandy dislike each other and that Gordon has never forgiven Mandy for not supporting him in the 1994 leadership contest. So there is concealed in-fighting which we know little about. The Government is no different from any of its predecessors and Cabinet meets only for about an hour a week, if that. What is new is that the so-called honeymoon has lasted for so long and, although the petrol crisis threw the Government, it now seems to have regained the lead in the opinion polls (and a substantial one at that).

The Conservatives do not appear ready for Government (as the fiasco that surrounded Ann Widdecombe at the Party Conference showed). We are still not liked very much (although fewer people are actively hostile and people are not convinced we would do any better. This is not to say we cannot increase our share of the vote at the next election. Returning to the Untied States for a moment – in spite of a booming economy and massive prosperity Al Gore was only 0.2% ahead of George Bush in the popular vote. And Bush was supposed to be "dumb" compared to Gore.

Labour is very difficult to beat these days because it is a chameleon – it’s certainly not "old Labour" in the accepted sense of the word. It calls itself "new Labour" (whatever that may mean) and talks about a "third way". Tony Blair even talks about "one nation" which he has pinched form an early 1950’s Tory Group. And in Tony Blair we have a Prime Minister who cannot understand why anyone in the world could possibly disagree with him.

The Conservatives can put up a good fight by pointing out the Government’s shortcoming, its "cronyism" and dependency on "spin doctors" and "focus groups".

And William Hague would be better to play on what strengths he has, his own judgement and instincts, than to rely on people who will tell him what he wants to hear and who will, when the going gets really tough in the heat of a general election, prove to be "fair weathered" friends.

26th November

The Enemy Within

Advance Britannia! Long live the cause of freedom!

Winston Churchill, VE Day, 8 May 1945

The first "enemy within" has got to be the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, for his assertion that Britain must give up its veto over more areas of EU decision making in order to remain a key player in Europe.

One shudders to think what Robin Cook's illustrious predecessors, Anthony Eden (Conservative) and Ernest Bevin (Labour) must be making of this blatant toadying to an unrepresentative and undemocratic European farrago.

David Futcher

Accounts of the Conservative Party for the year ended 31st March 2000

The first thing that strikes you when reading the Report and Accounts is how much the information included in them has been cut down from previous years.   What happened to "Openness" and "Transparency" or have these concepts now been quietly dropped?

The Chairman's statement from The Rt. Hon. Michael Ancram QC MP is a typical piece of gung ho, which could have been given to any Conservative audience at any time in any place.   There was no information or comment about the state of the Party organisation.   For the first time ever not a word was said about finance or membership.   Not a single word of thanks to anybody anywhere in the Party.   This is not the way to motivate the workers.

There has been a subtle change between the accounts for 1999 and 2000.   In 1999 Michael Ashcroft is described as "Chairman of the Board of Treasurers".   In 2000 Sir Michael Ashcroft has become "The Party Treasurer".   This distinction perhaps explains why in 1999 all transactions of the Treasurers were treated as related transactions but not in 2000, unless of course there were no transactions, which would be a first!    Update: There are now 21 Party Treasurers.    No wonder they have stopped showing related transactions.

For the first time at the Party Conference the amount paid as quota by the constituencies was not shown in the Conference Year book.   It is now not shown in the Annual Accounts.   Is this because it is now so small as to be insignificant?   The total income from constituencies has dropped by almost £150,000 and although there is probably a small drop in payments for Agents ( 58 employed now compared to 65) it would seem unlikely that this would account for the full amount of the shortfall.

Sadly no analysis of expenditure is given by type of activity.   In this regime of tough budgetary control do they no longer know or is it that they do not want to tell us.   So we do not know what was spent on Research (Is this because of the "Short" money?), The voluntary Party, Campaigning, Office expenditure or the cost of raising donations and sundry income.    What is clear is that Regional staff have been cut by 20% from 30 to 24, just at the time when we should be building up our organisation or is it a case that more and more power moves to Central Office?.   We are moving inexorably towards American style politics.

What is clear from the Accounts is that the Party has become dependant on State funding and to lose this funding now would be devastating.   The total income of the Party for the year ended 31st March 2000 was £13m including £3.5m subsidy.   Even with this subsidy the Party only managed to break even and at 31st March there was still a negative net asset position of over £5m.   Creditors at 31st March which were payable within one year amounted to the staggering total of £13.9m.   This was £0.5m more than the entire income for the year then ended.   Clearly the loss of the £3.5m subsidy would raise serious questions about the financial viability of the Party.

Perhaps it is time to grasp the nettle of State funding and ask the State to pay a per capita amount to each political Party dependant on the audited members of the Party and subject to the Parties having democratic Constitutions.   By doing this we would know the true number of members of the Parties.   It would encourage them to build up their membership, and to be democratic.   The subsidy would only last for a specified period to prevent them from becoming dependant on the subsidy - which is what has now happened to the Conservative Party. 

Next Week - A comparison between the financial position now and that in 1995(the comparable point before a General Election)

Did someone say "Peace Agreement?

There have been the following incidents since the "Peace Agreement" was signed in Northern Ireland:

Terrorist murders                                                                   60

Shootings                                                                               235

Assaults                                                                                  352

Bombing incidents(not including petrol bombs)        278

When will the Conservative Party scrap the ridiculous bi- partisan approach and begin to campaign for a democratic Northern Ireland?

P.S. Congratulations to John Cope for persuading the House of Lords to throw out the proposal for Sinn Fein to sit in Dublin Belfast and London.

November 19th

Transparency

The Conservative Party published its Accounts for the year ending 31st March 2000 on October 27th.   Why did it wait so long when the Chairman and the Auditors signed off the Accounts on 24th July?    Why, also does the Party's extranet site even now still show the Accounts for the year ended 31st March 1999?  

Losing Northern Ireland

Why is it that the Conservative Party continuously loses Northern Ireland?   On the front page of the Party's web site, under Parliamentary candidates we have a map showing England, Scotland and Wales only.   On the Party's extranet site we have the same.   How can we claim to be the Party of the United Kingdom when we continuously ignore Northern Ireland?

House of Cronies

Tony Bliar has appointed almost one third of the members of the House of Lords.   At this rate by the next General election he will have appointed Half the members.   And this is a democracy?

November 12th

Election of a President

Democracy is the process by which you determine the will of the majority with each vote having equal value. It is, therefore, of concern to see that the United States, the most powerful nation in the world, is acting in an undemocratic manner in the election of their President.

The electoral college system by which the President is elected means that a candidate could win a majority of votes of the people and yet not be elected President. It means that a few hundred votes of an electorate of over 100 million will determine almost 5% of the total needed to win (Florida has 25 votes out of a total 538). Electoral colleges are an affront to democracy and are shorthand for "political stitch up".

When on top of this undemocratic process there is a layer of dollar democracy in which the wallet is king -  $3billion was spent on the election - and vast sums are spent by the candidates on advertising which inevitably excludes candidates that are not multi millionaires.   In such circumstances we have to ask ourselves what message does all this send to undemocratic nations in the rest of the world?

The first priority for the new President should be democratic reform, for without it the people’s disillusion with politicians will inevitably increase.

Majorities

If 168,000 more people had voted Conservative in the most marginal seats in the 1997 General Election Labour's majority in Parliament would have been wiped out.   Makes you think doesn't it?

A long time in politics

In 1948 Henry Brooke MP presented a report on Conservative Party finance as part of the Maxwell Fyfe report.   In presenting the report he stated "the most crucial part of our report was  a greater openness about the Party's financial position."   "We have recommended and the Treasurers did not flinch when we told them, that an annual statement of accounts should be issued."   It was 45 years before this was done. 

November 5th

Property

There are persistent rumours that after the next General Election Central Office will acquire all the property of Constituency Associations to support their overdraft.   They are already doing this in Constituency Associations where they are supported.   In addition Constituency Agents will be abolished and Agents will be employed in Campaign Centres directly by Central Office.   All membership will be controlled by Central Office (they believe the Constituencies do not know how to get the maximum amount of money out of members).   These actions will complete the take-over of the Party and effectively eliminate the voluntary Party.   We will be just like the Republican Party in the United States.   Thus is democracy destroyed!

Presidential Election

It looks as though the turnout in the Presidential elections in the United States will be the lowest ever.   Is this a surprise?   Not when you realise that the whole system of election is undemocratic.   It is not enough to be a millionaire to be a candidate in the States, you have to be a multi millionaire.   In Michigan alone the presidential candidates have spent £20,000,000.   On top of this the system for electing a President uses the discredited Electoral College, with each State being a separate part of the College, so it is possible that the person elected President will have obtained less votes than the defeated candidate.   Where else do Electoral Colleges exist?    Why, in the Conservative Party and the Labour Party.   That is part of the reason why voters in both nations have become disillusioned with their politicians.    Electoral Colleges are undemocratic and should be eliminated.

Tatton

In the Tatton General Election campaign the Independant candidate Martin Bell imposed a limit of £100.00 on the amount that any individual could give to the campaign by way of a donation, yet they still raised more than twice as much money as they were allowed to spend on the campaign.   When will the Conservative Party realise that the way forward is to attract the "little " people ,not the "fat cats"

Kosovo

Since the military intervention was over the unexploded bomblets from Natos cluster bombs  have claimed more lives and limbs lost than Serb laid land mines.

October 29th

What is Politics?

"What is Politics?" the little boy asked his Father.   "Well" said Father, "Consider our family"

I am the breadwinner, so call me 'Capitalism.'

Mother is the administrator so call her 'Government.'

We both look after you, so we will call you "The People"

Your baby brother is 'The Future', and

The au-pair works hard for little money so we will call her 'The Workers.'

The boy goes to bed thinking about it.

In the night the baby is crying - wet bed

Boy goes to parent's room, Mother is fast asleep.

Boy goes to au-pair's room - Father is there.

Boy goes back to bed.

In the morning he tells his Father "I understand it all now"

"Whilst 'Capitalism' is exploiting 'The Workers' the 'Government' is fast asleep, the 'People' are being ignored and the 'Future' is in deep dodo".

Baby Bonuses

The Government is considering paying "baby bonuses" to employers to encourage them to take on women returning to work after maternity leave.   One more step down the road to the "Nanny" state.

Ethnic Minorities

In the General Election of 1997 only 11% of Ethnic minorities voted Conservative.   If the Conservative Party wants to have more Conservative members of the Ethnic minorities in Parliament it will have to improve its share of the Ethnic minority vote.

Irish Government

Why does the Irish Government not support the banning of the Real I.R.A. in the United States?

Peace?

In July the Assistant Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary said that two thirds of Belfast was now controlled by "Mafias"

October 22nd

A Democratic Europe

Tony Blair said a series of far-reaching democratic reforms had to be agreed because the "citizens of Europe must feel that they own Europe, not that Europe owns them" He could start that reform process by changing the system by which we elect Members of the European Parliament.

The present system using a "Party closed list" on a regional basis strikes at the heart of democratic accountability. Without constituency representation the electorate is too remote for those elected to be accountable.

The "party list" means that those at the top of the lists produced by the Labour and Conservative Parties are virtually incapable of being thrown out by the electorate.

Because there are no by-elections when membership of the European Parliament ceases by death or resignation the next person on the list, who failed to secure the vote from the electorate, automatically replaces them.

So come on Mr. Blair, practise what you preach and put our own house in order before telling others in Europe what should be done.

Media event

Commenting on the fact that the television coverage of the Democratic and Republican Conventions was very low, the American commentator - Dan Rather said that "they had become pure media events.    If they do not make news we will ignore them"   The Conservative Party should remember this for next years Conference.

October 15th

Are we being told?

On Friday 13th October the Chairman of COPOV was sitting in a traffic jam in Waterloo, just over the river from Whitehall listening to the radio traffic report.   It said that Whitehall was closed and there had been a controlled explosion.   I listened to the News in the evening and I looked at the newspapers but not a mention was made of this incident.   Is the Government censoring the news?   Do "D" notices still get issued?   Are they terrified that in reality the so called "Peace Agreement" has broken down.    We know it has in Northern Ireland, but has it also on the Mainland, and we are not being told?

Democracy in Northern Ireland

The people of Northern Ireland now know that the "Peace Agreement" was a confidence trick and that a totally undemocratic institution has been imposed upon them.   Why then does the Conservative Party persist in supporting the minority of Unionists that support it?   Why is the Party insisting that any parliamentary candidates for the General Election have to support it when they know that the Northern Ireland Conservatives almost unanimously oppose it?

Jeffrey Donaldson MP

It is reported that Jeffrey Donaldson said that he might be the "first Conservative MP from Northern Ireland."    If the Ulster Unionist Party made him their Leader and adopted his policies and scrapped the sectarian elements in their constitution we could well see a Conservative and Unionist Party in Northern Ireland once again.   Andrew Mackay MP would have to change his attitude for this to happen.

Party Conference

Has it occurred to anybody that if genuine issues were debated at the Conference gaffes like those from Ann Widdecombe just might have been avoided?   Why won't the Party Hierarchy trust the members?    This conference did not have a single debate or a single motion for debate.    How long will members put up with this dumbing down?

Speech at the Conference

The following is the speech (One Minute only allowed) made to the Party Conference by the Chairman of COPOV:

It is time for the British people to fightback.

October 1st

Fuel Tax

The Fuel Tax protest is not just a protest against higher taxation. It is a symptom of something much more significant. Our democracy is under threat. To the politician representative democracy has come to mean on election day only but to the people representative democracy means all of the time.. The result of this is that the people have become deeply cynical about politicians.

Freedom is the ability of a people to govern themselves with protection for the rights of minorities. Democracy is the process by which the will of the majority is determined. Under this Labour Government democracy has become distorted. In three years we have seen Local Government forced to adopt structures which devalue the role of the Councillor; Regional Assemblies introduced by stealth with no democratic accountability; the House of Lords almost wholly appointed; devolution in different ways in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland upsetting the constitutional balance; the European Union taking more power yet because of the Party list system members of the European Parliament are unaccountable to the electorate.

When people find that democracy no longer determines the will of the majority they stop voting and turnout at elections drops – well illustrated by the low turn out in the European elections last year. The next stage in the process of alienation from the democratic process is to take to the streets. We are now at that point. Who can restore democracy? We cannot look to our politicians for they are controlled by political parties which themselves are undemocratic. The Trade Unions still dominate the Labour Party and in the Conservative Party the Chairman, Vice Chairmen and Treasurer are all appointed positions. Both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party are controlled by cabals, cliques and wealthy donors.

The Fuel Tax protest is the beginning of many such protests which will continue until the people’s faith in democracy is restored. The first thing the politicians should do is to put their own houses in order by creating democratic political parties. Then they can address the task of creating a truly democratic and free society. Who has the vision and leadership to put their trust in the people?