From Simon Pearce 17th November

From Geoffrey  Gilson 8th October

A RESPONSE TO THE PAPER WHICH WAS PUBLISHED ON THE COPOV WEBSITE IN OCTOBER 2001 ENTITLED:

INTRODUCTION

Turning to the nine sections of the paper, I use the author's numbering and titles and begin each section by quoting in italics the appropriate key Party needs:

1. Party Assets and 5. Party Financial Organisation

Assuming that the amount of money available is fixed, will it be used more wisely and effectively if it is allocated remotely by people without personal knowledge of all 600+ constituencies, or if it is under the control of the present "owners", who raised the money and have a vested interest in making it work?

Is it absolutely certain that the total amount of money available would not be diminished by this proposal? (I have known of branches which cheerfully raised funds but which would not release them to their own Constituency officers until they were promised that none of the monies would go to CCO.)

Is there any discernible correlation between spending money and success at the ballot box? (If there is, instead of expensive advertising campaigns, we should have been directing available monies this way over the years.)

2. Agents and 4. Constituency Offices

3. Membership, 6. Branches, 7. Women and 8 CPF

From the centre it may seem that people become members because they are attracted by the leader, his policies and associates. This is - at best - only partially true. The effectiveness of the local MP, MEPs, County and District Councillors are of serious local interest and seem more relevant to the potential member than do handouts from Westminster or CCO. This is especially true when there is routine public dissent and backbiting in the Party which is featured endlessly on the media.

IN CONCLUSION

Firstly potential members need to be stimulated to join - by perceived failures by the Labour Government and by the successful presentation of the Conservative Party as being suitable for office: democratic, capable, united and armed with sensible, well-thought-out policies. There is a long way to go.

Secondly any new policies intended to change the present structure must not be imposed from the centre. The activists must be convinced that new ways are needed and they should be introduced gradually and build on what works now.

Thirdly - and most importantly - it is essential to find new Conservatives who have the talent, energy, time and abilities to take on the branch chairman's role. Such people will energise the officers and guide branch to new ways - such as making politics and the recruitment of new members their central activities. All senior Conservatives - especially those who are informed about the people in their areas - should be set to work identifying people of potential and persuading them to put their Party and the country before their personal convenience.

Tel: 01986 872425 E-mail: jclayton@freebie.net

(Active Conservative for more than 40 years. Currently Hon. Sec. Halesworth Branch of Suffolk Coastal Conservative Association. One time Vice Chairman (Finance) Central Suffolk & North Ipswich Conservative Association.)

The following article appears in the current issue of "Crossbow" magazine.

By

John E. Strafford

First of all who should be entitled to be nominated for Leader?

In a recent Bow Group pamphlet "Who Really Governs Britain", Nirj Deva MEP stated that 55% of the legislation that affects Britain was initiated in the corridors of power in Brussels and Strasbourg. It is possible that at some point in the future the Party would want the Leader of the Party to be an MEP. This possibility should be catered for. A distinction can be made between the Leader of the Conservative Party and the Leader of the Parliamentary Party at Westminster. For a period in 1940 Neville Chamberlain was the Leader of the Party whilst Sir Winston Churchill was the Leader of the Parliamentary Party. For as long as the Party accepts Westminster as the most important political institution, the Leader of the Party and the Leader of the Parliamentary Party will be one and the same person. What is clear is that MEPs should have a greater role in the nomination process than they have at present. The House of Lords as one of the national political institutions should also have a role to play in nominating candidates.

The nominating process should be designed to produce a maximum short list of four candidates who would then be put to the whole Party on the basis of One Member One Vote.

Nomination of a candidate should be by 25MPs, 5 MEPs and 5 members of the House of Lords. Should this nominating process produce more than four candidates then a ballot of the Conservative MPs, MEPs and members of the House of Lords should be held with the top four members in the ballot going forward for election by the Party membership. The members of the Party would then be asked to vote by placing the candidates in order of preference. The candidate with the lowest number of votes would be eliminated and his/her votes redistributed in accordance with the second preference and so on until the top candidate had over 50% of the votes.

Many people thought that the length of the last Leadership campaign was far too long. It is proposed to reduce this so that ballot papers go out four weeks after nominations have been called for with the closing date for the election three weeks after the ballot papers are sent out.

The qualifying date for members to be eligible to vote in the ballot ought to be the date nominations are requested. It was reported by Central Office that due to the qualifying date being three months prior to nominations being requested, in the last election some 20-25,000 members were excluded from voting.

One area of the Constitution that needs clarification and simplification is membership. There are too many different categories of member. We should have a straight membership fee of £10.00 with a membership year running from 1^st January to 31^st December. The membership list at Conservative Central Office should be updated monthly.

There should be a clause in the Constitution stating that anybody that is a member of another political Party is automatically excluded from membership of the Conservative Party.

We ought to make it easier for members to vote by developing the possibilities of voting on the Internet and telephone voting with each member having their own unique pin number.

Finally the rules for election the Leader should be in the Party’s Constitution and not left in the hands of the 1922 Executive Committee. The Electoral College system for changing the Party’s constitution should be scrapped with changes determined at the Party Conference with a proviso that a major change could go to all the members of the Party. If 1,000 members of the Party requested a change through the Party’s secure web site then the change should be put to the Party Conference.

The following paper was tabled at a meeting of Area Chairmen on 15th September: 

When I was 17 years old in 1964 I read Randolph Churchill’s book "The fight for the Tory leadership 1963". The book detailed the in fighting among the four contenders for the Premiership after Harold MacMillan’s retirement and how one of them, the 14^th Earl of Home, eventually was the winner. The book was fascinating to read and fired my interest in politics. As a result of the contest when the Earl of Home somehow ‘emerged’ after the customary processes of consultation (described by the late Iain Macleod as a ‘magic circle’) it was decided that in future the parliamentary party in the House of Commons would elect the leader. When Sir Alec Douglas-Home (as the 14^th Earl became) resigned in 1965, Edward Heath beat both Reginald Maudling and Enoch Powell in the subsequent election. That time, we were told, lessons had been learned and because the process was now open to the MPs, it would be more democratic. There would be no more 'quick’ fixes.

The current leadership election has been an unseemly spectacle in which a once great party of state and one of the oldest in a parliamentary democracy has been reduced to a laughing stock – and at a time when the Labour Government faces enormous problems both at home and overseas.

We have had grandees from both wings of the party – Thatcher, Hague and Tebbit from the right and Major, Heseltine and Rifkind from the left, squabbling in public and claiming that only their man can unite the party. In truth neither Kenneth Clarke nor Iain Duncan Smith can and, as a consequence, we face years and years in opposition. Whoever wins will do so in the knowledge that only one third of the parliamentary party in the House of Commons supports him and that a substantial minority of party members in the country voted for the other candidate. He has been handed a poisoned chalice.

It is quite obvious that whoever designed the rules for the election cannot have envisaged the present scenario where neither of the candidates has overwhelming support from any one section. It has been a complete disaster. A fiasco. We must have a wider choice in future and an election based on the transferable vote with candidates numbered in order of preference.

I write a fortnight before the actual result is known. It seems that Iain Duncan Smith is ahead but by an unknown margin. Many have thrown their weight behind him because he is a new face, not tainted by past failure, opposed to the Euro and further European integration. They fear that Kenneth Clarke is too ‘pro Euro’ and pro Euro at any cost. There would be an inevitable split. I understand their point of view.

I took the broader view and cast my vote accordingly. Clarke, to my way of thinking, would be more likely to broaden our appeal, more likely to win back Conservative voters who have defected to other parties or not voted ands also had the support of a few MPs who say they are ‘euro sceptic’. He also has held the highest offices, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Home Secretary. He has also served as both Health and Education Secretary, areas of prime concern to many voters who support we need to win back.

The problem I had with Iain Duncan Smith was that his support appeared to come only from Eurosceptic right wingers which included one or two unsavoury characters (notably Edgar Griffin in Montgomery) – the ‘hang ‘em, flog ‘em Union Jack waving brigade. Sadly, this does not win elections. I liked some of IDS’s ideas on health and education, although I believe a '‘voucher'’system in education is unworkable and a theme which has previously been explored. I also felt that, man of integrity though he is, IDS’s appeal was based solely on ‘shoring up’ the current core support in the country (32% or so) – something which William Hague tried to no avail.

The strategy, in fact, cost us former so called ‘safe’ seats. In both Ludlow and Guildford we failed abysmally to get out our ‘core’ vote and on June 7 we polled fewer votes than in 1997 and handed both seats to the Liberal democrats. We would have held Ludlow if we had polled our 1997 vote and this would have been in a seat where the Labour vote dropped by 6,000 and the Liberal Democrats were able to pour in supporters from neighbouring Wyre Forest, a seat which they did not contest.

I don’t honestly think you can win a General Election as a Euro sceptic right winger (Margaret Thatcher being the exception which proves the rule). So, despite his many faults and for want of a wider choice, I plumped for Ken Clarke. There is no doubt that Europe (particularly the Euro) is a cancer within the party and this is preventing us functioning effectively as an opposition. I doubt whether this can happen until the referendum on the Euro has been fought and won by one side or the other. Although not in favour of the Euro or the single currency I nonetheless feel we should be playing a full part in Europe. We fought two World Wars, the second to prevent a totalitarian, racist regime of gangsters from enslaving the continent in an alien philosophy. There are still many in Germany today who worship at the shrine of Adolf Hitler and want a German dominated Europe. Surely we have to prevent this at all cost? Why must our party tear itself apart when there are more important things to worry about?

One of the greatest concerns must be the ‘narrowness’ of our own support. Most of our members are over 60 and we are, at present, unable to widen our base. We have very few agents and are unable to get our own supporters to the polls. The loss of five to six million voters is proof of that. In individual constituencies it is down by as much as 10,000 (for example: Torbay, 1987 – 28,000: 2001 – 18,000). The Liberal Democrats hold 52 seats in the present Parliament. No less than 50 have been gained from the Conservatives. Only two, Bermondsey and Chesterfield from Labour. Of the 50 only about five were ever held by Labour and these during the decade immediately after the Second World War. We would do well to heed Francis Maude’s warning that we could, if we are not careful, become the third party in British politics. We talk glibly saying: "Oh, the pendulum will eventually swing back to us. It always does." It certainly won’t if we don’t replace the members and voters who have passed away.

When I received my ballot paper there was enclosed with a letter from Sir Michael Spicer MP requesting a donation to Party funds. I regarded this as an impertinence and of no relevance whatsoever in the election of our leader. I understand that we were given millions by a few wealthy supporters to fight the General Election and are in surplus. Why should I, as a member of the Party, give a donation when I am not sent a copy of the annual accounts? Every member of a limited company, public or private, is entitled to such. Michael Heseltine’s words "We seem to be talking only to ourselves" are, alas, true. The Labour Government is in all sorts of trouble largely because it has raised expectations too high, claiming that all that is needed for the public services is more money raised from the taxpayer.

Within the last two days I have read about the biggest teaching crisis in 36 years (too few teachers entering the profession, low pay being the main grievance) and of patients being forced to wait hours on end on a hospital trolley until a bed becomes vacant. Both are in a way the result of state monopoly provisions, funded by the tax payer and free at the point of delivery. No one in his or her right mind wants to work in an inner city comprehensive where discipline is either lax or non existent, where political correctness is the norm and the pass rates at O’ and ‘A’ levels are absurdly high And sadly our expectations of what the NHS can provide are at odds with reality. If a Conservative Secretary of State had got up and said: "I’m sorry the NHS cannot provide all the operations needed, we are going to send patients abroad to be treated", he would by now have been hounded out of office with the words "Lack of sufficient funding, too much spent on administration" ringing in his ears.

Foot and mouth has broken out once again despite assurance to the contrary that it was under control and the Government’s contribution to the crisis in the countryside is to propose a further ban on fox hunting. In Northern Ireland the so-called peace process shudders to a halt and flounders on the delicate issue of policing. Arguments break out as to what is or is not in the Good Friday agreement. The Government seems to favour all things ‘green’ and I happen to believe rightly or wrongly that it is preparing to abandon the six counties of Ulster. Labour’s long term goal has always been a United Ireland. It hopes that mainland Britain will become sick of its involvement and that somehow Northern Ireland’s 400,000 or so Protestants will be cajoled into acceptance and resigned to their fate. Then the problem will be solved, hopefully without a civil war (much the same as the white minority in South Africa).

Our party has always been a pragmatic party and in many ways the world ‘Conservative’ does not mean very much. Progressive legislation introduced by Labour governments is seldom repealed, if ever. The NHS, creaking though it may be, is still funded centrally through taxation (much as it was in the 1950’s and 1960’s). Bills setting up the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament as well as the removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords and the probable ban on fox hunting are unlikely to be overturned by a future Conservative administration (if there ever is one). Whoever leads the Party will have to do some clear, long term thinking. Labour, shorn of its socialism, is a timid beast but meddlesome and nannying, preferring to set up a whole host of committees to look into this and to look into that.

I despair when I read of a Minister in the present Government and earning about £80,000 a year, taking maternity pay. Of course she is entitled to it but whether she needs it is another matter. Frank Field MP tried to reform the system, pointing out its deficiencies, and was sacked for his pains.

Margaret Thatcher was able to win three successive General Election on the ‘divide and rule’ formula – a huge majority and a divided opposition. Exactly the same is happening today. Labour has an overwhelming majority of over 160 and 409 Members of Parliament whereas the main Opposition Parties can muster just 218 Members between them. This majority was achieved with 42% of the actual vote, 25% of those eligible to vote and the lowest turn out, 59%, since universal suffrage. This shows a disillusionment and a detachment from politics, particularly among young people.

The antics of our Party over the last four weeks, the mud slinging, the bitchiness and the settling of old scores will have done little to restore their faith in the democratic process and it is easy to see why. Until the Conservative Party starts listening, makes the necessary reforms in both policy and organisation, it will remain in opposition and be condemned to many years in the wilderness.

By John Strafford

The Party Reforms, which William Hague introduced in 1998, did not meet up to the vision, which he set out on becoming Leader in 1997. There were some important innovations:

• The creation of a Conservative Party Constitution
• The creation of a Party Board representative of the whole Party.
• National membership.

There were some spectacular failures.

• The Party is still undemocratic.
• We are still not "One Party".
• Participation by ordinary members of the Party in Party policy development is virtually zero.
• Communication to ordinary members is non existent.
• Motivation of Party workers has ceased.

How do we change the failures into success? Set out below are the changes required.

The Board of the Conservative Party

• A Deputy Leader appointed by the Leader should undertake the political role of the Party Chairman, leaving the Party Chairman responsible for Party Organisation.
• The Party Chairman should be elected by and thus accountable to the entire membership of the Party.
• Voting in elections could be by use of the Internet or by telephone.
• An elected Treasurer should be responsible for the income and expenditure of the Party with a remit to balance the books.
• The Treasurer should present the accounts of the Party to the National Convention for their adoption.
• The Leader of the Conservative MEPs should be a member of the Board. The political institutions of Westminster and Local Government are represented on the Board – Europe is not. This must be rectified.
• The Party Vice Chairmen should be appointed by the Board and answerable to the Board.
• The Vice-Chairmen of the Party are at present appointed by the Leader. Their responsibilities cover Parliamentary Candidate Selection and Conservative Future amongst other important aspects of Organisation.
• The Party Vice Chairmen should each make a report to the National Convention.

The National Convention

The National Convention consists of approximately 1,000 people. It is too big to be an executive body and too small to be representative. It does not comply with the concept of "One Party". The National Convention should become a representative body of the whole Party.

• MPs and MEPs should be members of the Convention and encouraged to attend and speak
• All Conservative group Leaders of District, Borough, County Councils and Unitary Authorities should be members of the Convention.
• In addition to the Constituency Chairman each Constituency Association should be entitled to an extra representative to the Convention for every extra 500 members in excess of 500.

National Executive

There should be a National Executive which would meet twice a year. Its function would be to take action in conjunction with the Party Board to maintain an effective organisation throughout the country. It would consist of

• The Party Board
• Members of the Executive of the 1922 Committee
• 1 MEP per Region
• Regional Co-ordinators
• Regional Treasurers
• Officers of the Conservative Councillors Association
• Leaders and Deputy Leaders of Conservative Groups of the Scottish, Welsh, and, if applicable, Northern Ireland Assemblies.
• Officers of the National Association of Agents
• Representatives of Recognised Bodies (Maximum 10)
• 10 co-options

Regions

The role of the Regions is to co-ordinate, communicate and motivate.

• Regional Co-ordinators should be elected by all the members in their Region.
• Twice a year meetings should be held in each Region to which all members of the Region are invited. The MPs and MEPs should attend these meetings for the Region. They should be socially motivating and politically inspirational.
• Regional Treasurers should be elected by all the members in their Region.
• Regional policy forums should be set up linking with the National Policy Forum. Any member living within the Region should be entitled to attend the Regional policy forum.

Areas

• Areas should be scrapped as part of the formal structure of the Party. The professional Agents should be grouped under the Regions. Where Areas can demonstrate success they can continue on an informal basis.

Conservative Policy Forum

• The Regional Policy Forums should elect Two thirds of the Council of the Conservative Policy Forum.
• Each Department Shadow Cabinet Minister should set up a Policy Group which would produce "Green" papers on policy for discussion through the CPF discussion groups.
• After discussion and consultation the Policy Groups would produce a "White" paper which would then be put to National/Regional Forums.
• The National Forum would be open to any member of the Party.
• After approval by the National Forum and the relevant Parliamentary Party back bench committee the "White" paper would go to either the National Convention or the Party Conference for approval.
• The Party Leader would determine priorities.

Conservative Central Office

• Central Office should service the whole Conservative Party and not be treated as the Leader’s private office.

Members

• Every two months each member of the Party should receive a newsletter explaining what the Party is doing. This could be expanded to include Regional and Constituency activities. It should be a two-way newsletter and not be afraid to include criticism in it.
• There should be an Ombudsman appointed by the Party Board to resolve disputes within the membership at grass roots level. The Ombudsman would report to the National Convention.

By adopting the above proposals we would create a democratic Conservative Party, increased participation by ordinary members improved communication and greater motivation. A political Party for the 21^st Century!

This article was published in the current edition of "Crossbow", the magazine of "The Bow Group"

7th October

August 2001

Although many Conservatives feel they face an uncomfortably stark choice between the experienced and well-known but perhaps too pro-European Kenneth Clarke on the one hand and the less experienced and less well-known but reassuringly Eurosceptic Iain Duncan Smith on the other hand, the choice need not be as stark as they may fear. Both to reconcile principled Eurosceptics to a Clarke leadership and, vice versa, pro-Europeans to a Duncan Smith leadership, the Conservative Party should adopt a policy to put major treaties negotiated with other European Union member states to a referendum, in which party members and MPs would be free to campaign on either side. As well as helping the party towards a sensible middle road on Europe, this policy would increase democracy in the United Kingdom and help address the democratic deficit of the European Union.

Many of the greatest stories of myth and legend are stories of the starkest choice and consequence, where the absence of compromise increases the challenge of the tale. In his famous Choice, Hercules opted for the life of toil and achievement, rather than the pleasures of idleness. What the hero might have chosen if offered hard toil Monday to Friday, with weekends idle and a year off after college, the legend does not speculate. Paris chose to give the Golden Apple to Aphrodite, the Goddess of Love, rather than Athena or Hera, which brought him the love of Helen, and disaster for his city of Troy. The rules did not appear to allow him to offer a third of the fruit to each of these estimable ladies.

Members of the Conservative Party might feel that they have been offered a similarly stark choice in the leadership contest. Conservative Members of Parliament have narrowed the field to two: Kenneth Clarke and Iain Duncan Smith. The one is a former Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer, indeed one of the most experienced candidates for the leadership of the party in its long history. He is a big man, hearty, strong-willed. It can be a pleasure to watch him cope robustly with difficult interviewers, such as Jeremy Paxman. Above all, opinion polls show that he is popular with those who have previously voted Conservative, but no longer do so. On the other hand, his views on the Euro, and the European Union more generally, differ from those of the majority of the party, which his opponent will not be shy in pointing out. Iain Duncan Smith has had an impressive career as an officer in the Scots Guards and in business. He is considered a success in his position of Shadow Defence Secretary. He has no ministerial experience, having spent the Major years as an active "Maastricht rebel", and his campaign has emphasised his Eurosceptic credentials. There is as yet no evidence of any wider affection among the public, although time may show otherwise by the next election.

The Conservative membership must therefore choose between a man of experience and popularity, but whose European policy does not sit well with those who spent the last election with "Save the Pound" signs in their front garden, and a man whose European policy is more in tune with theirs, but has yet to show popularity or effectiveness in government. In both cases, unfortunately, there may be those who object so strongly to their success that deep unhappiness or splits may not be avoided. Confronted with such a choice, after compromise candidates were eliminated in the earlier rounds of the contest, the membership of the party is understandably hesitating over to which of these grandes dames to award the Golden Apple.

What many of course would like would be some of Clarke and some of Duncan Smith - a Eurosceptic Kenneth Clarke, if you like. Such a hybrid would combine Ken’s many admirable qualities with that mild wariness toward the European project, and downright incredulity at Belgian federalists and their like, which many in the party (and the country) feel. Clarke has indeed recently emphasised his opposition to European federalism and his support for the sensible view that the governments of the nation states should continue to be the decision-makers in the European Union. He has emphasised his role in fighting some of Brussels’ wilder proposals while at the Treasury. For the future, he suggests that the party needs to tone down its "livid" language on Europe, and combine free speech for both pro-Europeans and Eurosceptics in the shadow cabinet with a recognition of the need for both wings of the party to move toward each other. He adds that the party needs to have a much wider range of attractive policies than those over which it fought the last election. This sort of argument seems to have been important in encouraging many Eurosceptic MPs and like-minded leading members of the party, such as Malcolm Rifkind, to support Clarke.

All this may be helpful, and offers a more attractive option for party members, but it is not yet enough to produce the Griffin-like hybrid creature many in the party desire. Such an ideal is not, however, going to materialise. The only person who could effect the necessary transformation would be Clarke himself. But his popularity stems in large part from his frank and straightforward nature and he is not going to change his views on Europe in order to win power. Any new policy on Europe for the Clarke campaign must continue to allow Ken to be Ken. The party therefore cannot have a "Eurosceptic Ken Clarke" as leader. Are party members then not facing the stark choice of the Judgement of Paris? If they choose Ken Clarke, those who feel strongly about Europe will not wish to support him, and may devote themselves to continual efforts to bring him down. If they choose Duncan Smith, unless the polling numbers improve, they may yet be enjoying the delights of opposition for a long while.

This article seeks to find a way of making the conservative leadership choice less unpalatable. It therefore proposes a method of separating the most significant questions of European policy from the choice of party leader.

Of course, both of the final two candidates would make very competent leaders of the party and the choice of candidate will depend on many issues beyond European policy (and indeed either, if successful, will need to work on many policies other than Europe if they want to get the Tories back into power). This article is however written from the point of view that the Conservative Party membership deserves the best set of choices possible and that the current set of candidates and policies could be improved on.

The key to the problem is to recognise that the split on Europe in the party is not related to the day-to-day business of discussions on European light bulb regulations and the like, but rather those big changes in the nature of the European Union which rise to constitutional significance. The answer is therefore for the party to promise that all future European treaties (the likes of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice) should be put to the people of the United Kingdom in a referendum before ratification. This proposal, if adopted by either candidate, will be attractive in the party leadership election and, vitally, will provide a way for the party leaders to navigate between Scylla and Charybdis both in opposition and in government. It would directly address concerns felt by many that European integration suffers from a lack of democratic input. It would also, not least, be good for Britain.

This paper first outlines the potential advantages for each of the candidates, and then considers the effect on European policy and British politics more generally.

For Clarke’s campaign, what is needed is a party policy which would take Clarke’s diagnosis of the party’s way forward – agreeing on the need to allow expression of divergent policies on Europe – and formalise it in a way which would be attractive enough to all sides to be acceptable, and yet robust enough to resist the strong forces which might try to overthrow it, if he is elected leader.

The proposal has many advantages for Clarke. It would reconcile many in the Conservative Party with his leadership because of their conviction that any significant steps toward further European integration would have to be approved by our mildly Eurosceptic public. A commitment to a referendum on European treaties would help make the party in Parliament leadable again. It may be the only way to avoid an internecine Maastricht-type parliamentary battle over the consideration of any future treaty. The policy would be that all Conservative MPs would support in parliament a treaty negotiated by a Conservative government, but (like all party members) they would be free to campaign on either side of the ensuing referendum. Just as with the Labour party in the 1970s, a referendum could be used to settle differences on Europe within the Parliamentary party. It would therefore address the question posed by commentators who wonder just how European policy would be conducted in a Clarke administration.

In short, just as the promised referendum on the Euro has permitted many anti-Euro Conservatives to support Clarke, so the policy proposed here would do the same for the future constitutional development of Britain’s place in Europe. If Clarke was elected leader, Eurosceptics could be sure of a strong role in the consideration of future European treaties, and would be secure in this without continuous plotting to challenge the party leadership. Clarke as leader would be free to voice his views on Europe, but would be constrained in his dealings by the real - but mild and non-dogmatic - scepticism of the British public. Eurosceptics would remain influential, but only to the degree that they were in tune with the public mood. Indeed preparations for any such referendum would occupy the energies of the most dedicated of Eurosceptics. For Clarke, this would be the sensible compromise on Europe through which both wings of the party would be able to move towards each other. And while the party would not be able to choose a "Eurosceptic Ken Clarke", it would be able to have both Ken Clarke and a democratic Euroscepticism. And this might be a popular choice.

For Duncan Smith, such a policy would also be beneficial, both in the leadership election and thereafter in opposition and in government. One of the most significant criticisms which has been made of Conservative European policy is that it is "extreme", and/or likely to be incompatible with Britain’s continued membership of the European Union. For Duncan Smith, a priority is to show that neither of these accusations is true. No party is helped at the hustings (or in the polls) by the accusation of extremism (no matter how unjustified), and the business community, which is the backbone of the Conservative Party in Britain, would never support a complete exit from the Union. With a policy of referenda on European treaties, both of these accusations could be comprehensively rejected. By definition, nothing favoured or rejected by a majority of the public can be held to be "extreme". A referendum would never support leaving the Union, not least because of the position of UK business as mentioned above. British business would also benefit from Britain’s strengthened bargaining position in negotiations.

In a strategic sense, Eurosceptics would also do well to build their criticism of the European project on a democratic basis. Arguments for the defence of "sovereignty", the concept of states as the legitimate units in international law and society, has insufficient resonance with the public to be effective. In short, legalistic critiques of the European Union have had little success. Democratic critiques are more likely to strike a cord with the public, and a referenda promise on new treaties would be a much more effective way to engage public opinion, not least with the possibility of a European "Constitution" on the agenda in the years ahead.

There is another reason why Duncan Smith would benefit from this policy. He too, like Clarke, but vice versa, needs to ensure that the Conservative Party remains a place where Pro-Europeans are welcome to give support and to make their careers. A policy of making European treaties subject to ratification by referenda would go a long way towards making the pro-European wing of the party (and those in the business community who support it) comfortable with European policy. It would not be party dogma but the will of the people which would decide European policy, and all would be able to play their part in shaping the people’s view. Thus this policy would allow the party to choose Duncan Smith and continue to be a place for Pro-Europeans. This might also be quite an attractive choice.

Beyond complementing the campaigns of both candidates, this policy would strengthen the British government – any British government – in its dealings in Brussels. In negotiation, weakness can be strength. It is widely believed that, for example, the Danes bargain effectively in Brussels on the big treaties because of their constitutional requirements for ratification by referendum. Just as the US administration says it cannot make negotiating concessions without endangering the likely agreement of Congress, so the British government would be able to point to public opinion as a reason for profitable intransigence when it was merited. With treaty ratification by referendum, certain of the wildest federal dreams of some in Brussels would be unlikely to ever come to fruition, and if the requirement for a referendum was put into law, and supported by public opinion, the Conservatives would be able to influence the shape of European integration even when out of power (just as they do at the moment on the question of whether to join the Euro).

In addition, such a policy would fit very well with the other proposals Clarke is putting forward (and which Duncan Smith should also adopt) to increase democracy and accountability within the United Kingdom. It is of a piece with ending Whitehall and No. 10’s disdain for Parliament, reversing the downgrading of Prime Minister’s Question Time and so on. Anyone reading the Irish Times in recent months can only have been impressed by how the Irish referendum process has resulted in a great deal of very informed debate. If this encourages more reading of European treaties, then despite Clarke’s well-known comments on the dubious merits of reading the Maastricht Treaty, this can only be a good thing (although it is likely to remain a minority pastime). A strong collection of democratising proposals, going much beyond those listed here, with the referendum pledge at its heart, would be very attractive to many both inside and outside the party. In fact it would be a vote winner, and put tremendous pressure on "control freak" Blair. It would show the Conservatives trust the people, and anchor the party at the centre ground of public opinion.

There are only two major arguments against. One is a general dislike for referenda as a method of government. But frankly, the time for that has passed in the United Kingdom. Referenda have become quite common now. On European policy, the principle is already accepted across the political spectrum for the question of membership of the Euro. Why should the question of a European "Constitution" not receive the same treatment? What is more, the classic dangers of referenda – the presentation of populist policies to an excited public opinion – are unlikely to occur with referenda on European treaties, which are hardly populist documents, and are not susceptible to loaded questions. The question would be whether the treaty should be ratified or not.

The second major argument against is that the UK would be unable to ratify any European treaties under such a proposal. But this is not right. The case of Denmark shows that even rather Eurosceptical publics can ratify treaties if they have been properly promoted by the government and the major interest groups. There is no reason to believe that this might not be true in the United Kingdom as well. The point is that some treaties could be ratified, where they have considerable support in (mildly Eurosceptic) British society, and that others, which lacked this support, would not. A treaty with the strong backing of British business, for example, would have every chance of success. So, depending on the details might a treaty, which expanded EU powers in some areas while reducing them in others. Not least, a treaty which addressed the many valid criticisms of the way the European Union currently works in terms of openness, accountability and democracy could be very popular. It is the democratic spirit of the referendum policy together with the uncertainty of the outcome of the appeal to the people which can make such a proposal acceptable policy to both pro-Europeans and Eurosceptics alike. It is a policy with new risks and opportunities for all parts of the party spectrum, and that, together with the partial separation of European policy from the choice of party leader, is its attraction. What is likely, moreover, is that any treaty negotiated under this procedure would be more respectful of British interests than one only considered by Parliament.

Both Kenneth Clarke and a democratic Euroscepticism? Iain Duncan Smith and a place for pro-Europeans? This is a much better set of choices for the party membership. Paris with his single and indivisible Golden Apple could only be jealous.

Will Phelan is a graduate student studying European politics. Email: phelanwill@yahoo.com

27th August 2001

The following letter has been sent by Ivan Prosser to Brian Hanson:

Some time ago on C.O.P.O.V.'s web site there was a misquotation mistakenly introduced by Mr.John Strafford. Mr. Brian Hanson thought it sufficiently important to ask for a retraction and apology, which he has received.

 It is ironic that as yet no retraction and apology has been received by me on account of a letter, written by Mrs. Wendy Powell, and produced to Mr. Hanson at a tribunal concerning the affairs of the Garston Conservative Association. This letter was written to an outside agency, The Yorkshire Building Society, concerning my wife and myself, which contained five deliberate lies. Some of these lies were repeated in a subsequent letter to the same organisation.

 What was written about us by Mrs. Powell was deliberate and malicious. How much more important, therefore, to have her retract and apologise?

 Also, the final report to the Board contained the mistaken remark that Mrs.Prosser had never been a member of the party. A letter to Mr. Hanson complaining about this was brushed aside as making no difference.

The last letter from the board signed by Mr. John Taylor, merely stated that the Party had spent a considerable amount of time considering these matters. In that case the time spent by the Party and by ourselves in preparing evidence for submission to the Board and to tribunals was utterly wasted.

 Nothing has been done to alleviate the sense of injustice,anger and even bitterness over the way we have been treated. Obviously not all members warrant the implementation of democracy and decency to resolve injustice.

Yours sincerely,