Archive05

Parliamentary Candidates - Question Time - European People's Party - The Leader's Speeches - The "A" List - Candidates - The Listening Chairman - Conservative Policy Forum - Conservative Home - The Connection - Lord Archer's Membership - European People's Party - Hustings - Northern Ireland conservatives - Who are They?(2) - Who are They? - Leadership Candidates - Candidates
List - Congratulations - Leadership Election Rules - Leadership Election - Turkeys and Christmas - Membership - MP's Expenses - Boundary Reviews - Sleepwalking to
Dictatorship - Election of the Leader - Question Time - Paying for the Election - The "Today" programme - Email the Candidates - Data Protection Act - Gravy Train and the South East Regional Assembly - Congratulations - Leadership Election - Good News for Candidates - Good News for Robert Oulds - National Convention - Conference Fringe - National Conservative Convention - Chairman of the Candidates Committee - No Role For Ken?

The following letter was sent by Simon Mort ( Chairman of the Candidates Committee) to Constituency Chairmen. He has asked for transparency so we thought you ought to know. Will he publish the new processes?

You will have heard something of the speech which the Leader made in Leeds yesterday and will have received an e-mail from Bernard Jenkin, the new Deputy Chairman responsible for candidates.

In the Candidates Department we are faced with an important challenge in implementing the new policy candidate selection. We will address it with vigour and we will deliver.

Please rest assured that at all times I will be mindful of the great varieties of demography, culture and employments in the different constituencies throughout the country. I have been vigorous and successful in feeding this into the discussions over the last few days. The Leader shares my wish that this variety should be represented in the types of candidate that are chosen in the next couple of years.

Both the selections in Liberal gain seats which are currently in progress (Taunton Deane and Westmoreland & Lonsdale) will continue their selections, as will all Fastracks which have started.

I am keen to visit as many parts of the country as possible to talk about procedures. If you would like me to visit your neck of the woods, please let me know. My first response will be to ask the ACD if they can assemble a critical mass of Chairmen and then we can agree a mutually convenient date.

Above all, I am most anxious that our processes should be transparent. If at any time you feel that they are not, please e-mail me and I will be happy to explain what we are doing.

Very best wishes
Simon Mort
Vice-President Conservative National Convention
Chairman, the Candidates Committee

I have occasionally noticed a colleague in the audience of Question Time. Asked how it was that he got invited he answered that it was very simple. When asked about his race in the Question Time questionnaire. He always puts "African"!

The row over membership of the EPP is building up. Watch out for developments. My prediction for 2006 is that after several months meeting politicians from other countries in the EU, William Hague will announce that nobody wants to join us so we will remain affiliated to the EPP for the foreseeable future.

This week David Cameron has made two important speeches. In one of them he invited Liberal Democrats to join the Conservative Party. This was one of the most superbly crafted speeches ever made by a Leader of the Party and he should be heartily congratulated on it.

The other speech he made was about an action plan for candidates. This was not so good. Both Cameron and Francis Maude held back from imposing an "A" list on the constituency Associations, but there was an implied threat in the speech that this might happen in the future.

Cameron spoke of a priority list based "on merit" open and transparent. Does this mean it will be published? Who decides what "merit" is? He wants to ensure "that we attract the widest range of top quality people". Who decides what is top quality? He says "Ensuring that someone's potential to be a good MP is the only factor that counts in being selected as a parliamentary candidate. Who decides what is "good"? So the little oligarchy at Central Office will decide who is good, top quality and has merit and at the same time ensure that half of the candidates are female and half male, but with ethnic minorities and disabled amongst them. What about the old, the young and homosexuals? Will they be given a quota and if not why not? Will they ensure that there are not only Asians but Afro - Caribbeans. Whilst we are about it what about Jewish, Roman Catholics and Muslims? It is also important that the different Regions of England are represented as well as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In fact in order for all these different interests to be represented we must have every Conservative Party member on the list. A list of 140 is clearly too small. When, or if the list is published, unless we see a good, top quality disabled old lesbian Jewish candidate from Yorkshire of Asian origin chosen on merit on the list the Conservative Party will stand accused of discrimination and under the terms of reference given in David Cameron's speech, rightly so.

Has the world gone mad? Never mind, Cameron does say that he will be "preserving the autonomy that constituencies have to select the candidate that is best for them." pull the other one!

Finally there was one part of his speech which the media entirely ignored. He called on constituencies to set up a panel of local community stakeholders to interview the candidates from the priority list and report to the Association on the relative strengths of each candidate. Who are these "local community stakeholders"? He gives examples GPs, school governors, head teachers, local business leaders. In other words the local establishment. Are not the fish wife, the window cleaner and the dustbin men equally "local community stakeholders"? Does David Cameron betray a middle class bureaucratic approach to the important matter of choosing candidates?

Why not leave candidate selection to the Local Constituency Association to decide on their candidate and let them decide from a list of all Party members after excluding the mad the bad and the sad. After all it is these same Party members which have just elected David Cameron as the Leader of the Party. It is a bit ironic if they are not to be allowed to choose their own candidate for parliament.

We all want more representative Conservative MPs in parliament so why don't Central Office concentrate on persuading more people to put their names forward. That is where they should be making an effort.

We offer our congratulations to David Cameron on being elected Leader of the Conservative Party. We hope that he will change the Party and bring it into the 21st century by making it a democratic Party. If press reports are correct he is not starting on a very promising subject. We are told that he will announce that there is to be an "A" list of candidates amounting to 140 in number who will be given priority in the marginal seats. If this "A" list is to be imposed on the Constituency Associations it is the supreme irony that the very members who made him Leader are not to be trusted with the decision on their local candidate for Westminster.

Of course it is possible that the "A" list will not be imposed in which case we would not object to it, and the candidates that were given an "A" list classification could show it on their CV. The Constituency Associations would soon detect whether they were the best or not. If they were the Associations would insist on having them. This is the right approach. It encompasses freedom choice and democracy. Isn't that what the Conservative Party should be about? Are we to be liberators or control freaks?

The biggest problem with the control freak approach is that it will not succeed. What we should be doing is opening the list up. If we want more women and ethnic minority candidates to ensure that the Conservative Parliamentary Party is more reflective of the people, surely a good thing, then what we should be doing is making it easier to be a parliamentary candidate. Allow anybody who is a Conservative member to be on the list other than the mad,sad or bad. This immediately removes the first barrier a candidate faces, which is getting onto a list. Then allow the Constituency Associations the widest possible choice, If they want to interview a local candidate then let them do so. This will eleinminate any resentment a Association might have if a candidate is imposed on them. Finally set up a task force to encourage as many women and ethnic minority candidates to come forward.

A local Constituency Association is like a small business and when they are looking to employ someone consciously or sub-consciously they look at the age of a woman. If she is of child bearing age they worry that she will take time out as a result of becoming pregnant or having to give priority to her children, It is alright if you are a big business or in government. A temp can be found to substitute for a period, but as yet we do not have substitute MPs. This is the real world and a problem we have to overcome so why not target the over 45 year old women, many of whom have a great deal of experience and some of whom are looking to start a second career now that the children have left home and gone to university or work. Take the age limit off candidates.

This is a Conservative approach. Open up the selection process and watch the results flow in. Be a liberator not a control freak. More democracy not less. That is the solution.

Many congratulations to Francis Maude. This week he took the first step to reorganise the Conservative Party by advertising for nine Regional Directors. This is great news for it means that we are moving in the direction that COPOV proposed of bringing back the Regions and downgrading the Areas. Hopefully Francis will remain as Party Chairman to see through these changes. We could even be moving towards a democratic Party. Now that would be something. With a new Leader let us get on with creating a 21st Century Party.

We set out below our submission to John Glen - the director of the Conservative Policy Forum. You will see that we are basing our suggestions on Regions (see above) Email John Glenn with your support for these proposals at cpf@conservatives.com

At a meeting of the Campaign for Conservative Democracy held on 26^th November 05 (twenty members present) the following was agreed regarding the Future of the CPF:

In view of the imminent changes to the Party Constitution we were uncertain as to how the CPF would be fitted in, but the following points were agreed:

"COPOV encourages you to join a new internet opinion panel that is live at
www.ConservativeDemocracy.com. By joining this panel you will ensure that
your views are counted in what will be a regular survey of opinion amongst
people who belong to - or support - the Conservative Party. By identifying
yourself as one of our supporters (in the space provided at the end of the
survey) you will also allow COPOV to set our own questions for future
surveys of panel members. Please click on www.ConservativeDemocracy.com to
take part in this three minute survey."
Let the democratic voice be heard in the Conservative Party

Now we know (see below), Sandip Verma and Mohammed Sheik are both members of the Ethnic Diversity Council set up in October this year. Of the ten Council members six are now members of the House of Lords. At this rate membership of the Ethnic Diversity Council will overtake fat donations as the route to the House of Lords.

There has been speculation that Lord Archer has rejoined the membership of the Conservative Party. He should not have been excluded in the first place. No one has accused Lord Archer of deliberately doing anything that would harm the Party. He should be allowed to resume his membership of the Party. There are, however two caveats. The first concerns his membership of the House of Lords. It is totally wrong that one day you can be in Her Majesty's Prison and the next day legislating on behalf of your fellow citizens. If you are a member of the House of Commons and commit a serious crime involving a prison sentence in excess of two years you are excluded from the House. The same should apply to the House of Lords. The Party should ensure that Lord Archer has no position in the Lords.

Also after a lengthy spell in prison a certain amount of contrition would do Lord Archer a world of good. It is to be hoped therefore that he is not given any Conservative platform except in special circumstances e.g. speaking on prison reform; certainly not in any fund raising capacity.

There is one further aspect of this episode which is disturbing. It is reported that David Cameron has said that Lord Archer would be excluded from membership if Cameron becomes Leader. The Party has a proper process for determining membership and that process should be gone through if Lord Archer has applied. It is wrong of a Leader or potential Leader to interfere in that process and does not augur well for democracy in the Party if a new Leader starts by throwing his weight around and behaving as a dictator. Justice demands fair play.

David Cameron has pledged to take the Conservative Party out of affiliation as the European Democrats to the European Peoples Party in the European Parliament. The wires are hot as speculation grows as to what will happen if he becomes Leader. This could be his first big test. Whatever he decides there will be a big row. Watch this space!

Hustings meetings were held this week at the Central Hall Westminster. Some 1500-2000 members turned up for an excellent meeting. Unfortunately half those attending (those seated in the balcony) could not hear any of David Davis's speech and missed half of David Cameron's speech because someone had forgotten to turn on the balcony loudspeakers. To the annoyance of Gavin Barwell of Central Office the Chairman of COPOV loudly complained about the incompetence of Central Office. Why didn't somebody check the loudspeakers before the meeting began? It is not good enough to just blame the building staff.

The members of the party on Northern Ireland were promised a video link up to a regional meeting for the Leadership hustings. This has been cancelled. Let the candidates go to Northern Ireland for a meeting. David Davis stated publicly that he was prepared to go if the other candidate went. Its up to you David Cameron. Go for it! For too long Northern Ireland has been neglected by the Conservative Party. It is time this was changed.

“The Tories have also nominated two Asians for peerages this year one of whom, Mohamed Sheikh is a solicitor from Croydon who donated �38,000 to the Conservative Party.”

�38k for a peerage. Cheaper for Asians! A new form of “positive” discrimination?

We have also been told that Mohamed Sheik is Chairman of the Conservative Muslim Council so perhaps this is why he has received a peerage.

I am grateful to one of COPOV's correspondents for the following: Rodney Leach was apparently Chairman of Business for Sterling. Sandip Verma fought Wolverhampton SW in May. See Guardian stats below. The Conservative share of the vote dropped to its lowest level ever! The reduced Labour majority was due to a swing to the Lib Dems. A Peerage for failure – typical of Michael Howard’s leadership. But who then is Mohamed Sheik?

Labour majority: 2,879
Time of declaration: May 06 2005 02:08
Turnout: 62.1 %

Labour majority: 3,487
Time of declaration: June 08 2001 01:53
Turnout: 60.9 %

Labour majority: 5,118
Time of declaration: May 02 1997 00:52
Turnout: 72.5 %

We know so little of what David Cameron will do it is somewhat harsh just to pick complaints with David Davis's campaign. At least the Davis campaign respond to emails unlike the Cameron campaign. Nevertheless a couple of points of criticism. David Davis says regarding Parliamentary Candidates: The first thing to tackle is the Candidates List. It needs to be shorter and made up of the very best men and women who are prepared to work hard to win. Sounds good, we all want the very best men and women, the trouble is that we have differing views as to what is best, so who will be the genius that will decide? Will they be accountable to the members? What happens if they screw up? If you believe in the autonomy of Constituency Associations why not let them decide from the widest possible list?

The other issue is Davis's obsession with the Women's Organisation. He states: I want to make more use of women's knowledge and expertise in the following ways:

Ensure the Women's Organisation is represented on the key campaigning committees - including the Target seats, Candidates and Party Conference committees;

Ensure the Leader works closely with the Board to maximise the involvement of the Women's Organisation;

Ensure the Party's headquarters is reopened to the Women's Organisation - both in terms of office and secretarial support;

Ensure the Shadow Cabinet pays real regard to the policy papers submitted by the Women's Organisation;

Ensure there are regular, face-to-face meetings for the Women's Organisation with the Leader and the Party Chairman.

You would think from this that the Women's Organisation is all powerful but just how many women in the Conservative Party does it represent? Let me enlighten you David - 3,000. Thats all, out of some 130,000 women in the Party. How do I know? At the time the Women were drawing up there constitution I was asked for my advice. I suggested that the National Officers should be elected by the grass roots members of the Organisation rather than branch chairmen doing the electing. This was turned down. Why, you might ask? Because it would disclose how small and weak the Women's Organisation was on the ground. They preferred the discredited pyramid democracy which the Conservative Party made illegal in the Trade Unions in the 1980s.

If the women want more say in the running of the Party why do they not support a democratic Party with the Party Chairman and Treasurer elected by the members. Campaign for the Vice Chairman of candidates and Vice Chairman of the Party Conference to be elected by the Party. If they did this they would get respect but campaigning to become part of the oligarchy which controls the Party only brings contempt.

We thought the candidates list had been put on hold until the new Leader was in position. We were wrong. They have been steaming ahead with the intention of having the list finalised by December 16th. It will consist of approximately 100 candidates 50% of whom will be women. All this so that the new Leader will be faced with a fait accompli when he takes power. The same thing is happening to the Conservative Political Forum. The organisation of this will also be presented as a fait accompli. They are working hard in Central Office! Which of the two candidates for Leader has the capability for dealing with the vested interests in the Party? After all it was these vested interest which in the end ruined William Hague's leadership. He could not handle them.

This week another 28 people were made Peers. Eight of them were proposed by the Conservative Party. At long last John Taylor was rightly given a peerage. This was long overdue and was delayed because he stood up for the Party Constitution during a spat with Iain Duncan Smith. Congratulations John.

The Party Treasurer, Jonathon Marland was also given a peerage, so if previous experience is followed the Party will soon be looking for a new Party Treasurer. To his credit the only former Party Treasurer who has continued working for the Party after receiving a peerage is Michael Ashcroft.

What of the others? David James and Sandy Bruce-Lockhart have put in long hours working for the Party. Has anybody heard of Rodney Leach, Mohamed Sheikh or Sandip Verma in Party circles?

Sadly a large donor, Robert Edmiston was given a peerage. Shame because otherwise we could have made a big play about the fat cat donors to the Labour Party. In their list of eleven Peers no less than four of them were fat cat donors.

It is time the toothless Electoral Commission put its foot down and demanded a limit on donations, and insist that State Funding of political Parties be based on those Parties meeting certain democratic criteria.

David Cameron seems to be moving on the rules for a future Leadership election - see last week. Another member of COPOV asked him his views on the subject.

At first he said that he favoured an electoral college. What would its composition be, I asked. He said 50/50? [MPs/members], then he said he might want to make a more complex college with MEPs, councillors etc having a proportion. I said it would lead to a lot of argument over the proportions. He then asked me for my view, to which I replied that I liked the present arrangement. He then said what about those who want all candidates to go before the members? I suggested that I thought that a strong third candidate should be included if he had the support of a minimum level of MPs , such as 30%. He seemed to be genuinely looking at a range of ideas. Finally he acknowledged that this should be looked at by the whole party. An interesting exchange!

If any members have similar exchanges we would be interested to hear. In the meantime we must try and obtain a commitment that he would not support any move to take the vote away from the members, electoral college or not. Always remember electoral colleges are a distortion of democracy. It is what is wrong with the United States constitution, where George Bush became President with less votes than Al Gore.

This Leadership election has been a credit to the Conservative Party. I have been to two meetings with the candidates. On each occasion the hall has been packed out with standing room only. At four o'clock on a Friday afternoon over four hundred members turned out from just two constituencies to hear one of the candidates. People have become interested in political meetings again. The atmosphere is terrific. The excitement flows. Democracy in action, and just think less than two months ago the Party hierarchy were trying to stop it. How out of touch can you get?

This week a member of COPOV contacted David Cameron's campaign headquarters and asked whether he would support the "grass roots" members of the Party retaining a vote in future Leadership elections. The headquarters said they could not give an immediate answer but would get back to them which they duly did. The answer that was given was that there would be a "review of the Leadership rules after the election". No commitment to support of the "grass roots" could therefore be given.

So take heed members of the Conservative Party, vote for Cameron and if he wins it could be the last time you will be able to vote in a Leadership election. It reminds you of the turkey voting for Christmas!

Now we know, in spite of being continuously told that membership is increasing it has fallen catastrophically in the last four years. 254,000 ballot papers are being sent out. This compares to 327,000 in 2001. This means we have lost 73,000 members in the last four years. At this rate the Conservative Party will be extinguished before the next general election. So what can be done? There is a simple solution which the Leadership candidates should take on board. Make the Party a democratic organisation and watch membership grow. As we have seen with the Leadership election nothing does the party more good than enabling its members to participate in its activities. The Party has had more good publicity than we have had for years. The contest is exciting, illuminating, an example of how to conduct political debate without resorting to nastiness. All in all the best thing to happen to the Party for at least a decade.

This week we had published a list of MP's expenses. The 19 MPs with the highest postage bills last year were all Labour MPs with slim majorities. The MP for Mitcham and Morden sent out 10,000 letters per month every month throughout the year at a cost of �37,442 in stamps and �11,191 in stationery.

MPs now receive up to �0.75 million over the course of a parliament in expenses. It is illegal for this money to be spent on Party political matters or to appeal for votes. It is quite clear that in many cases, if not all, this money is being spent illegally. So what is the Electoral Commission going to do about it? Sweet Fanny Adams. Why? Because the Electoral Commission is dependent on those very same MPs for its existence. Until we have a totally Independent Electoral Commission this farce will continue.

This situation increases the difficulty of throwing an MP out at a General Election because the sitting MP has such a huge advantage in the amount of money at their disposal. It is a disgrace.

The Electoral Commission has launched a public consultation seeking views on all aspects of electoral reviews: the application of the statutory criteria, the timing and scheduling of reviews, issues and information considered during a review and the review process used.

The Electoral Commission is currently undertaking a fundamental evaluation of the policies and procedures used by the Commission and The Boundary Committee for England to guide Periodic electoral reviews (PERs).

PERs have significant implications for voters, councillors, wards, county districts and MPs in England. They can and do affect the level of representation voters have in an area, the number of councillors elected to local authorities and the make-up of wards and county districts. Local authority wards are also the building blocks of Parliamentary constituencies.

The Periodic electoral reviews consultation paper, also released today, raises a number of questions on these issues. The consultation paper can be downloaded from the Commission’s website
www.electoralcommission.org.uk/your-say/ecconsultations.cfm

Whether you have views on all of the questions or just a few, we would encourage you to submit a response.

Responses can be submitted online via the website provided, by email perevaluation@electoralcommission.org.uk or sent directly to the Commission:

The Electoral Commission
Attention: PER evaluation
Planning and Development Team
Trevelyan House
Great Peter St
London
SW1P 2HW

Responses should be submitted by 12 noon, 25 November 2005.

We look forward to your involvement in this evaluation.

Tammy Ingold
Project Manager (Policy and Strategy)
tingold@electoralcommission.org.uk

It is essential for the Conservative Viewpoint to be put to the Commission. Too many times in the past the Labour Party have run rings around the Conservatives with the result that our electoral system is totally distorted. Far too many Conservative seats have seen this as an opportunity to increase their votes by grabbing Conservative areas from other seats and in the process giving an advantage to Labour, or making a safe Conservative Seat marginal. Is Conservative Central Office co-ordinating the Party's response? It should be. What is happening in your Constituency? Let us know.

Reviews should be implemented within five years and the Electoral Commission should be instructed that all seats should have a similar number of electors within + or - 10%

Imagine a country where the head of state is unelected. Where the government rules with absolute and unopposed power, although only 22% of the electorate voted for it. A country where ID will shortly be made compulsory.

This is a country where the old are left to die in poverty, where children are confined to schools from seven in the morning until seven at night in order that their parents can be absorbed into the state's consumerist ideals. A state where a family with two wage earners cannot afford to buy a home and private pension schemes have become worthless, while the ruling elite force the people to subsidise both their way of life and their own pensions.

A country which has banned demonstrations within a mile of its seat of power so that its leader is not embarrassed in the presence of foreign statesmen.

This week I was kindly sent at my request the rules of the 1922 Committee relating to the "Procedure For The Election of the Leader of the Conservative Party" by the Chairman of the 1922 Committee - Sir Michael Spicer MP. They raise a number of questions.

1 As these rules form part of the Conservative Party Constitution why are they not printed as part of the Constitution?

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

2 You will notice that under the Constitution it is the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, but the rules are determined by the Executive Committee. How can one body have a duty which is determined by another body?

3 The rules should be incorporated within the Constitution and changes to them should be done on the same basis as the rest of the Constitution.

4 There was much media speculation after Thursday's result as to whether David Davis would drop out and David Cameron given a coronation. You will see from the above that that would be a clear breach of the Duty of the 1922 Committee. But hold on what do the rules of the 1922 Committee state?

"Neither of the two candidates to go forward to the general membership may withdraw without the agreement of both the Chairman of the 1922 Committee and the Board of the Party"

. So now we have it, the Duty of the 1922 Committee can be overridden by the Chairman of the Party and the Party Board, or is this a clear conflict between the rules of one body and the Party Constitution which incorporates those rules. This is why it is ludicrous that these rules wre not part of the main document and subject to the agreement of the electoral college.

5 Many people thought that all four candidates should be put to the members for election, but we were told it was too late to make the change so what provision is there for changing the rules of the 1922 Committee? The rules state:

"These rules are drawn up under the authority of the 1922 Committee, and any future changes which may be deemed necessary will be made by the 1922 Committee... "( you will note here that this is different to what the main Constitution says which refers to the Executive of the 1922 Committee)

There are no time scales for notice or special meetings etc. within these rules if change is required. In other words if the 1922 Committee or its Executive wished to change them so that four candidates were put to the members it could have done so within twenty four hours. Why didn't it?

All in all this really is a bit of a mess. It is what happens when you begin to distort democracy. In doing this you destroy it, which brings us to the votes this week. This has been a bad week for the Conservative Party for all its wheeling and dealing have been exposed. The MPs did not vote for the person that they thought would be the best Leader. Some voted on the basis of what is in it for me? Others voted for Liam Fox in the first round in order to keep Ken Clarke out. In the second round we are told some of David Cameron's supporters voted for David Davis in order to not have to go to the members against Liam Fox. If Liam Fox had been knocked out in the first round it is a virtual certainty that David Davis's score would have gone up in the second round. He would now be on a roll.

This system is rotten, but we are stuck with it for this election. Let us hope that immediately afterwards we can put it right.

How experienced are the two candidates for Leader. In the next six weeks why not let them take alternatively the Leader's position for the Conservative Party at Prime Minister's Question Time?

The two candidates are being asked to pay for the costs of the hustings meetings. This is disgraceful. It will force them to find private backers for their campaign. Private backers do not do these things for nothing so watch for their names in a future peerage list. What a tragedy when we should be thoroughly condemning the Labour Party for giving peerages to its fat cat donors.

On the "Today" programme this week there was a disgraceful allegation that Francis Maude would determine who amongst the mass membership would get a vote. Amongst other points it stated that married couples would be at a disadvatage if they had paid less that �30.00 membership. The Chairman of COPOV raised this point on the "Today" programme at the 2001 Leadership election (and was derided by Steve Norris for doing so) and to be fair to the Party it has been proposed to simplify membership and reduce the minimum subscription to �3.00 Unfortunately this will not come into effect until after the election, so the rules for this election are virtually the same as they were in 2001.

There has been much unfair criticism of Francis Maude. When he became Chairman the changes to the Party Constitution were presented to him as a fait accompli. All he could do was write the introduction or resign as Party Chairman which would have made his tenure as Chairman the shortest in history. Of course he may not be Chairman when the new Leader is elected but if he is let him show what he really believes, rather than having to handle the poisoned chalice which was given to him.

Have you tried emailing the candidates for the Leadership election? Go to their web sites and look up the contact. For three candidates contact was easy. You just click on the "contact us". In Liam Fox's case you have to write the email address down in order to email him.

On Friday we sent a simple question to all four candidates. So far only David Cameron has replied. His reply was a standard reply to all emails saying look at his web site. Good marks for a quick answer, but why have none of the candidates answered the question?

We are informed that under The Data Protection Act none of the candidates in the Leadership election should have access to membership records, and under no circumstances should Constituency Associations give membership details to a candidate. This must be the only election where the candidates cannot have direct access to their electors. If this is a correct interpretation of the Act then the Act should be changed.

What is happening of course is that candidates are contacting Constituency Offices and giving information by email. The offices are then in some cases forwarding this on to their members for whom they have email addresses, thus creating a privileged group of members. There should be a ruling on this from Central Office. Either all communications from the candidates should be forwarded on to those members with email addresses or none of them. What a mess we get into when bureaucracy rears its ugly head.

The Chairman of the South East Regional Assembly is Cllr. Keith Mitchell, the Leader of the Oxfordshire County Council. He is doubtless as well regarded as his predecessor, who had an allowance of �11,150 from SEERA.

In March Cllr. Mitchell and his Oxfordshire colleagues among the council nominees to SEERA voted by a two thirds majority for their assembly to be scrapped. Cleverly, however, the rules allowed the local government officials who also sit on the assembly to overrule them. So Cllr. Mitchell can continue to enjoy the rewards of the post he voted to abolish.

The Conservative Party Conference was the best Conference that the Conservative's have had for years. Electricity was in the air, the Conference Hall was packed. There was real debate taking place. Debate revolved around the differing views of the candidates for the Leadership, nevertheless it was for real, because the representatives were involved. At the end of this process they will have a vote. Unlike the Labour Conference nobody was thrown out for expressing a contrary view! This was democracy in action and nobody attending the Conference can have any doubt that democracy is the key to the Party's renaissance. This could be our Clause 4. Even the media were positive and that is a first for thirty years.

After such a good Conference the key now is to build upon it and the first step is to allow four of the candidates for the Leadership to be put to the members. There is nothing in the Party's Constitution to prevent this. The Constitution says:

In 2001 the Board were almost evenly divided as to whether three candidates should be put to the members, but in the end the Chairman of the 1922 executive said it was too late but would be reviewed next time. Now is "next time". The executive of the 1922 have spent so much of their time in between trying to alter the rules that they have not reviewed this point. It is time for the 1922 Committee to come into the twenty first century. Some times they act as though they were still in 1922!

If the Executive of the 1922 committee do not agree to four candidates going to the members all the goodwill created by the Conference will be dissipated. Judging from the latest opinion polls almost a third of the members will be bitter because they will be denied the right to vote for their candidate. As each round proceeds we will see more wheeler dealing amongst the MPs than in the last Christmas edition of "Only Fools and Horses". Conservative MPs will make Del Boy look as honest as a parish priest! All the old perceptions of dishonesty and lying will come back in full force to haunt the Conservative Party for years. We could even end up in a similar situation to 2001. Already we can see that David Davis has almost sufficient votes of MPs to guarantee a place in the final round. Any surplus of votes he gets can now be used to manipulate the results for the other candidates to try and ensure that his weakest opponent ends up in the final ballot. This would be appalling.

The iniquitous fifteen point candidates agreement has now been withdrawn. This is good news better late than never. Unfortunately a lot of candidates were forced to sign it in order to get on the candidates list. The declaration is now much simpler and in any case will be reviewed. It reads as follows:

"As a member of the Approved list or selected candidate I will do nothing to bring the Party into disrepute. Should I fail to maintain the standards the Party requires of me action may be taken against me which may result in removal from the List or my de-selection as a candidate."

Robert Oulds was the candidate for Slough and was disgracefully de-selected by Central Office just before the General Election as a result of an article in the "Sun" newspaper. Robert sued the "Sun" and has won the case. Central Office should now send an unreserved apology to Robert Oulds and ask him if he wants to be on the candidates list.

At the National Convention on 3 October Derek Tipp of New Forest moved a rule change to have the Chairman of Candidates elected by the Convention. The platform replied by suggesting that the Constitution Committee would be elected by the Convention and therefore accountable to them. The Constitution Committee would be able to look at the issue of candidates. This could be an excellent way forward for the Party. The Committee would be like a scrutiny Committee able to look at different aspects of the Constitution. The idea has to be developed but it could be a good one. Congratulations to Derek for pushing forward the cause of democracy in the Conservative Party.

In conjunction with the Charter Movement and Campaign for UK Conservatism, COPOV held a successful fringe meeting at the Party Conference. Read about it on:

On October 3rd the National Conservative Convention meets in Blackpool. As of yesterday (September29th) nobody knew what was on the Agenda for the meeting because no Agenda had been sent out. Central Office were hoping to send an email soon to all Constituency Chairmen! The incompetence at the centre knows no bounds. This will be an important meeting. On the Agenda (when it is finally published) will be a motion altering the Party Constitution so that the Chairman of the Candidates Committee is elected by the Convention rather than as present appointed by the Party Board.

In view of the disgraceful way some candidates have been treated recently this is a welcome overdue reform. At last we would have someone democratically elected and thus accountable to the Convention for this critically important task. No longer would arbitrary decisions be taken without due process. We might even get Constituency Associations being allowed to elect their own candidates without interference from Central Office. We might even get local candidates. This motion should be supported by every Constituency Chairman. It will help to address the imbalance of power that has developed between the Centre and the Constituencies. Go for it!

It has been announced that the Chairman of the Candidates Committee - John Taylor - will hand over as Chairman to Simon Mort. Strange wording! Did he resign? Was he dismissed? Did his term of office come to an end? Could it be because he did not support Michael Howard in changing the rules of the Leadership election? Could it be because he was one of the six "heroes of democracy" that signed the letter to "The Daily Telegraph" in support of the members? I think we should be told.

Every possible Tom, Dick or Harry Leadership contender has been given a platform slot at the party Conference except one. Yes you have guessed it - Ken Clarke. Of course they will argue that all the speakers have Shadow positions except Ken. True, but if this Leadership election is to be properly conducted he should be given a slot.

96 MPs have now declared their preferential candidate for the Leadership election. This makes a nonsense of any consultation that might take place if the decision is left to the MPs. However it now looks as though the rule change will be defeated and the contest be conducted under the present system.

Under the current rules the MPs have to put at least two candidates forward to the membership of the Party unless they can unanimously agree on one candidate. There is such strong feeling in the membership that it is unlikely that the members would accept this if they tried it. There is nothing to stop the MPs putting all the candidates to the members and in order to stop a similar situation arising as happened at the Iain Duncan Smith election this is what they should do. No rule change is necessary to do this. We will know on Tuesday which system of Leadership election will be used. Whatever happens look out for a stormy Party Conference.

This week Francis Maude promoted Primaries for the election of the Leader. This was tried out in the selection of the Parliamentary candidate for Warrington and was quite successful. The only qualification to this system is that the voters should be registered as Conservative Party supporters.

You will have by now seen the Agenda for the Party Conference. I cannot remember ever seeing such a miserable, dumbed down, boring Agenda in all my time in the Conservative Party. There are no motions for debate, just a succession of speakers including all the Leader hopefuls. However by the time of the Conference most of the hopefuls will have been eliminated. Any contributions from the floor will be limited to two minutes so will inevitably consist of froth. In a way it doesn't matter because the likelihood is that all the speakers will be speaking to an empty hall.

The only part of the Conference that matters or has any interest is the fringe meetings. For the first time they have realised they will be able to get a big audience by holding their meetings elsewhere in the middle of the afternoon and this they are doing.

All this justifies COPOV calling for the Vice Chairman in charge of the Conference to be elected by and accountable to the National Convention.

Michael Howard will leave the Party in the worst state it has ever been. History will judge him as the worst Leader in Conservative Party history, and remember he was elected unanimously by the MPs. Doesn't that tell you something?

Kenneth Clarke could find himself as the Leader of the Conservative Party and in the process destroy it. The only thing that could save him and it are the members of the Party which Ken so despises.

Were the rule change in the Leadership election to be successful and only the MPs have a vote and then the MPs voted for Ken Clarke, about 40,000 members of the Party would resign according to the most recent polls. The party would split from top to bottom. On the other hand if the rule change is unsuccessful and the members decide, there is a good chance that they might elect him, in which case all party members would accept it and give him their support.

In their joint letter to Members of Parliament and the National Convention Francis Maude and Sir Michael Spicer said:

First, we are concerned that the current Constitution seems to have put an unacceptable distance between the Parliamentary Party and the voluntary party. We are accordingly considering changes to the composition of the Board that would give more places to MPs. In addition we want to see MPs - MEPs and councillors - having active representatives on Area Management Executives and Regional Co-ordinating Teams.

What the Party Chairman and Sir Michael Spicer do not say is whether these positions will be filled by election by the Parliamentary Party or appointed by the Central Office hierarchy. Giving even more control to the centre will only increase the control freak tendency which has been so disastrous. It is one of life's tragedies that at last the Labour Party is waking up to realise that their own Party is undemocratic and have set up a commission to look into it, at the same time as democracy within the Conservative Party is being wiped out. Whichever of the major Parties becomes democratic first will put the other out of office for a generation.

This week Lord Norman Fowler added his name to those Party Chairmen that support the members having a vote in the Leadership election. This now makes six former Party Chairmen that support the members.

In a memorandum to the Constitutional College sent out on 24th August by Francis Maude and Sir Michael Spicer about the changes to the Party Constitution it says:

"It would have clearly have been better if all the proposals had been developed in collaboration (my italics) with the 1922 Executive in the same way that changes to the rules for electing the Leader of the Party were developed during the eighteen months that preceded the 2005 General Election."

So now we know. Whilst the rest of the Party were working hard to beat the Labour Party in the General Election the hierarchy were sitting in smoke filled rooms working out how to stitch up the Party members. And the result of all that collaboration was no doubt the proposal which was published in the 21st Century document in May. Just to remind everybody, that proposal was put to the Parliamentary Party which rejected it with only four votes in favour, one of which was Michael Howard and another Francis Maude. The two others have kept quiet, but presumably Sir Michael Spicer was one of them. So all this super collaboration over eighteen months demonstrated was that the hierarchy were totally out of touch with the Parliamentary Party, yet this collaboration is being advocated as the way forward for the rest of the rule changes. Give me strength!. This has become the biggest farce since Brian Rix dropped his trousers at the Whitehall Theatre!

Sir Michael Spicer should be considering his position. As for Francis Maude at least he has the excuse that he was not Party Chairman during the eighteen months, so why did he put his name to such gumph? The first rule of a Party Chairman ought to be "Do not believe what Central Office tell you" I hope Francis is a quick learner.

Now that David Davis has come out in favour of Party members having a vote in the Leadership election we now have five recent Party Chairmen in favour of the members - David Davis, Liam Fox, Theresa May, Michael Ancram, and Lord Parkinson.

The battle to change the Leadership rules continued this week. We show below a letter sent to all Constituency Chairmen by Raymond Monbiot together with a copy of the speech which Lord Hodgson made at the National Convention meeting on 3 September. If you have not done so yet, contact your Constituency Chairman, Area/Regional officers to ask them to vote against the change. They have until 27 September to vote.

A recurrent theme at the meeting of the National Convention on 3^rd September and indeed at the nationwide consultation in the two months that preceded it, was that the present system of electing the Leader of the Conservative Party needs to be changed. However as we would expect there is a variety of views on what to replace it with.

The Parliamentary Party unhelpfully voted on just about every conceivable system and it was clear from these votes that there was only one system that they would support. The Board has therefore put this system to the Constitutional College, although it has made some changes so that the consultation is transparent. It would have been pointless for the Board to propose another system, such as an electoral college, because it was clear that MPs would veto it.

The choice before us is therefore either to vote for the proposed system or reject it and stick with the current system. The proposed system, while not perfect, is considered to be an improvement on the current system.

Raymond Monbiot puts forward several points in his Case for Change, none of which stand up to scrutiny. He says of the present system:

In fact we were told by Central Office that 20,000 new members joined the Party when OMOV was announced. What happens with nearly all new members is that after a couple of years they realise they have no say, no influence and no vote on anything so they leave.

So we are going to go back to a system of only the MPs deciding, which they did in 1995 for John Major. We lost the 1997 election. Which they did in 1998 for William Hague. We lost the 2001 election. Which they did for Michael Howard in 2003. We lost the 2005 election. Some success for the MPs!

In the Leadership election of 2001 the MPs gave Ken Clarke 58 votes, Iain Duncan Smith 54 votes and Michael Portillo 53 votes. No candidate which the MPs put forward had the clear majority of the Parliamentary Party. The same could happen again.

If we stick with the current system we won’t have a new Leader until the new year; if we adopt the proposed system we would have one by early November.

Untrue. Central Office have said it would take 6-8 weeks to conduct an election under the present rules, so if the election was announced by the end of September we could have a new Leader before the end of November.

An election under the current system will cost several hundred thousand pounds. We could run an appeal alongside the ballot which will cover the costs. But we will run an appeal whatever the electoral system: the choice is between an appeal that covers the cost of the election or an appeal that raises funds for the fight ahead.

If they are going to run an appeal anyway, the cost of including a ballot paper is minimal. The real cost is postage which they are going to incur for the appeal. To say that the current system will cost several hundred thousand pounds is ingenuous. In addition the Party has had years to develop an internet or telephone voting system which could be run at a profit. They have not done so, because they are still stuck in the age of the carrier pigeon.And finally all the evidence is that the membership wants change.

Yes, but in an opinion poll of Party members 67% still wanted to retain a vote in the Leadership election.

“I am sorry to have to speak to you this afternoon. I have worked for the Party for over 30 years in many capacities – at all levels in the voluntary party, latterly as the first Chairman of the NCC, as a Member of Parliament and now as Frontbench Spokesman in the House of Lords.

I am therefore not naturally a rebel but these proposals to remove the vote completely from the membership have stretched my loyalty beyond breaking point.

To understand my opposition, a word of history. I was much involved in the negotiations that led to the creation of the present rules in 1997. They were the result of two things.

First we wished to create a united party which meant that members were entitled to a say in major developments affecting what is, after all, their party.

Secondly, and no less importantly, they were a reaction to the chronic indiscipline in the Parliamentary Party in the 1990s. The internecine in-fighting led to the catastrophe of 1997. Not only a catastrophe politically but a catastrophe for the reputation of the Party from which we have not yet recovered – witness our continuing low poll ratings.

Our objective was to create a delicate balance reflecting the needs of the parties involved.

It was clear that the Parliamentary Party had to be led by somebody MPs could work with so the MPs alone were allowed to draw up a short-list with the final choice then being given to the members.

So when it is said, and I am sorry to say that the Party Chairman said it again in the Daily Telegraph earlier this week, that the selection of Iain Duncan-Smith was the voluntary party’s fault, that is untrue. Iain Duncan-Smith could only be selected by the members because he was put on the short-list by the MPs who, presumably, felt that they could work with him.

Moreover the rules contained another important proviso which was that if the MPs agreed on a single candidate he or she would become leader of the Party without reference to the members. Therefore there was every incentive for the MPs to agree amongst themselves as indeed they did in choosing Michael Howard. The result was probably the most united General Election campaign for 20 years.

So the rules are beginning to work. The fact that the volunteers have the ultimate say is focusing the mind of the Parliamentary Party. It may yet happen again that on this occasion that they will find a single candidate they can unite behind. If so, no-one will be more happy than me.

What I am not confident about is that if they take back complete control of the process the indiscipline of the 1990s will not recur.

The objections to the present rules are four – all of them in my view deeply flawed.

First it is said that only MPs know enough about the candidates to make the selection of Leader. It is true that only MPs know enough about his or her parliamentary performance, that is why they control the short-list. But 200 MPs drawn primarily from the shires and the south-east of England do not necessarily know what is required to capture the imagination of people living in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the North of England and the cities as well as volunteers who live on the ground in those areas.

More importantly, we live in a presidential age where television is the means by which most people learn about politics, so television performance is very important. MPs and Peers watch very little television and it is you, the members, who can make a shrewder assessment of the television performance of leadership candidates and decide whether they are able to reach out to the uncommitted.

Second it is said that the election costs too much. Well the last ballot made a profit because if you put an appeal slip in with the ballot paper our members are quite prepared to send back �5 or �10 to cover the cost

Thirdly it is said that the process takes too long. This is particularly cynical because if the 1922 Committee had got on with the process when Michael Howard said that he was going to stand down, we could have had a new Leader in place now. Instead they preferred to begin a long period of negotiation hoping to “bounce” us at the end. This meeting is part of that “bounce”. Interestingly in 1997 the 1922 Committee argued the reverse saying that then we needed to have the Leadership Election before the rules were changed.

But in any case, it is perfectly possible for this election to be completed in eight weeks. We shall be assisted by the fact that the Party Conference takes place during this period, which is the biggest hustings of them all. But having been a Returning Officer myself for a national ballot I am confident that a new Leader could be in place by the end of November under the present rules if those in charge wished to make it happen.

Fourthly and finally, it is said that the new rules will involve the MPs taking the advice of the volunteers into account. I have to tell you that this provision formed part of the pre-1997 rules. I had the privilege of attending several meeting with the 1922 Committee when that advice was proffered. They received us with great politeness but I doubt if they could remember the figures we gave them five minutes after we had left the room.

By all means establish procedures for learning the views of the volunteers but do not expect it to have any impact on the outcome.

So I do not believe that any of these criticisms hold serious water. It is easy to criticise – what is my proposal?

First, carry out the Election forthwith under the present rules with the accelerated timetable I referred to above. Second, in the calm aftermath discuss whether changes are needed to the rules. It seems to me there is a groundswell of support for some form of Electoral College with MPs having a majority slice of the votes and smaller amounts for members, MEPs, Councillors and, dare I say it, Members of the House of Lords.

The sizes of the slices matter less to me than the principal, which is that every part of the Party must have some direct say in the election of the Leader.

May I conclude by making two points?

First, when I was NCC Chairman I was always incredibly impressed by your loyalty. You are now having many appeals to your loyalty. We have heard two today from Michael Howard and Francis Maude. I think you need to consider the long-term interests of the Party not short term pragmatic suggestions.

Interestingly in the letter which he sent us all, asking us to support these proposals, Michael Howard said that these proposals were “not my preferred choice”. So you are being asked to vote for something which is not the preferred choice even of the Leader of our Party.

Secondly, and most importantly, this is a “one-way street”. When we established the constitution we purposely made very high hurdles for changing the most sensitive parts of the constitution which requires the approval of two thirds of each of the parts of the Constitutional College – what Gavin Barwell called “the triple lock”.

Therefore, if you give this power back to the MPs you will never get it back again. It is inconceivable that two thirds of the parliamentary party will ever vote to return this power to the membership. So do not see this as a possibly two year experiment with the possibility of reversing it if this does not work. It will never happen.

So when you come to vote, tread carefully because you tread on the dreams of thousands of your fellow members.

I have been called a “dinosaur” by a Member of the Board. The Daily Telegraph says that I am leading a “peasant’s revolt”. I stand where I have always stood - for the maintenance of a proper degree of influence in the Party for its voluntary members who, unsung, unheralded and unpaid, give up so much time to preserve the Party we all support and love. If that makes me a “dinosaur” or a “peasant”, I am proud to accept those accolades.

These proposals are fundamentally flawed and represent an irreversible and unnecessary reduction in the influence of the voluntary members of the Party.

They represent a return to the narrow, deferential Conservative Party of the 1960’s rather than a move towards the outward looking, inclusive, self-confident Conservative Party we need to be if we are to win the next General Election,.

I hope, having heard the arguments this afternoon the Chairman will withdraw these proposals, but if he does not, I hope that you will defeat them.”

This week it dawned on the Party hierarchy that they were not going to get the rule change on the Leadership through. When Lord Hodgson and other past grandees had a letter published in "The Daily Telegraph" they became desperate. To add to their woes Liam Fox came out in support of the membership. This now means that four recent Party Chairmen - Liam Fox, Michael Ancram, Theresa May and Lord Parkinson - have all expressed their support for the members. So terrified were the hierarchy that Michael Howard sent out a letter personally topped and tailed to each Constituency Chairman. Then the Chairman of the National Convention sent out an e mail, both asking for support.

At the Convention meeting on Saturday the Party Chairman pleaded for support for the change and then in an unprecedented move the Leader Michael Howard was wheeled on to speak in favour. They were received with polite applause for when the debate began, it became clear that the majority view of the Convention was against the change. Indeed if i