December 3rd ***Star of the Week*** - Snouts in the Trough - Charity - Tossers
November 26th *** Star of the Week *** Anniversary of the Leadership Election
November 19th House of Lords Reform - The Conservative Party
November 12th The Politics of Fear
November 7th Sir Hayden Replies
October 31st Party Funding - Politics for the People - Target Seats
October 23rd Rules for Selection - The War in Iraq is lost - The Veil - The General
October 16th Selection of Parliamentary Candidates - Constituency Boundaries -
October 9th The "A" List - Party Conference
September 10th "Built to Last" or Jerry Built? - Association of Constituency Chairmen -
Party Conference
September 3rd Nazisraeli War Crimes - Movement for European Reform - "Any Questions"?
August 27th Stop Digging Dave - Labour's Idea of Party Funding - Did You Know?
August 20th The "A" List - "Built to Last" - Tesco
August 13th Terrorist Attack - Congratulations Don - Short List
August 6th Nazisraelis - London Mayor - "A" List - Built to Last
July 30th We are all Nazis now - "Built to Last" - Parliamentary Candidate Selection
July 23rd Conservative Party Accounts Analysis - European Candidate Selections
July 16th ***Star of the Week*** - Cash for Peerages - European Parliament Selections - Extradition Treaty - Bournemouth Hotels
July 9th The "A" List - Conservative Accounts
July 2nd ***Star of the Week*** - Bromley By-election - European Peoples Party - Members
of the Party? - Two Conversations
June 25th   Women Candidates - Jonathon Ross - Mayor of London - Electoral Registration
June 18th ***Star of the Week*** - London's Mayor Primary Election - England's Flag
June 11th The Party Chairman
June 4th Common Sense 1   "A" List   0
May 28th ***Star of the Week*** Abolish the "A" List Campaign latest - Conservative MEPs
May 21st   Abolish the "A" List Campaign - The "A" List Carrott
May 14th The "A" List - Director of Campaigning - Ulster Unionists
May 7th *****Stars of the Week***** - Director of Campaigning - Candidates

30th April Candidates - Strategy - Statistics
23rd April ***Star of the Week*** - Slogans - Selection of Candidates - The "A" list
16th April Pin No. - Aims and Values - Machiavelli - North West Conservatives - Control of
the Party - Peers
9th April Spring Forum - Candidates - MEPs
2nd April Party Funding - Candidates
26th March Party Political Loans - 32 Smith Square
19th March European Candidates - Bias in the BBC - Party Funding
12th March Candidates - Membership
5th March More on Candidates - The Old - How the Party can save money - Donations
26th February Candidates List - Conservative Policy Forum - Democracy
19th February - Triple Whammy
12th February Party Conference - Congratulations to David - Parliamentary Candidates -
5th February Conservative Policy Forum - Spring Forum - The Missing Voters I D Cards
29th January Good Timing - Candidates - How to Make Friends - Party Chairman? - BBC License - "Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad" - Candidates - Spring Forum - Tory Finance - Congratulations - Freedom - Tory Finances Again - Party Membership - Tory Finances - Did you Know? -

October 23rd 
FROM THE GRASSROOTS
BY
A CONSERVATIVE
BOURNEMOUTH CONFERENCE DIARY – 2006

Sunday, 1st October
15.15pm. Headed for Conference. Entrance this year via the hill on the sea front leading to the Highcliffe Hotel where all the bigwigs stay. Heard part of William Hague’s address – typical Hague. Witty, urbane, generous,delighted to be part of the Cameron team.
Prospective U.S. Republican Presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, was warmly received. Speech was that of a well respected elder statesman – thoughtful, measured and fairly low key. My immediate thought: "The Christian ‘moral majority’ on the right who now control the Republican Party probably won’t wear it." Might be better for him to stand as a Republican-Independent. Probably would not win but might poll a lot of votes leaving a possible Democrat President to extract the United States (and us) from the Iraq/Afghanistan mess.
16.45 David Cameron’s first major speech to the party faithful. Another great communicator and he seems to have clear objectives for the future. We are charting a new course, thankfully. Generally well received but I suppose he would have got a standing ovation had he simply ready out the Bournemouth telephone directory. The lady sitting near me muttered to the gentleman next to me "But it’s not Tory." I nearly said to her: "Madam, we’ve tried basic Tory and it still left us with less than 200 MPs in 2005". Between Senator McCain’s speech and that of our Dave, the wide conference screen reminded us of past Tory leaders and philosophers, starting with Edmund Burke and William Pitt. Poor Edward Heath was booed by some representatives – a pity because going into the then Common Market in 1973 seemed a good thing (not the cumbersome bureaucracy it is now) and Heath’s 1971 Industrial Relations Act was passed 10 years before its time. On the other hand it was nice that John Major got a cheer. Though his administration ended in disaster it is generally forgotten that in 1992 he polled over 14 million votes, the highest Conservative vote ever, and was rewarded with one of the smallest overall majorities ever (21) since universal suffrage.
And so to one of the over 200 fringe meetings arranged over the four days. I chose to go to the Trouville Hotel to hear George Osborne speak. Room packed. Very interesting interview followed by questions on tax, council tax, pensions, housing, public spending etc. Most memorable quote, repeated in his main speech on Tuesday, "There’s no such thing as a tax cutting Shadow Chancellor". On the way back to my hotel the taxi driver told me they had been ferrying representatives back to the station as they had no conference passes. Who is responsible for this mess up? Will heads roll? Probably not.
Monday, 2nd October
10am Arrived in conference when David "Two Brains" Willetts was speaking. Session wound up by a speech, mainly on health, by Andrew Lansley. In between a good array of speakers, a number of whom were professionals and not members of the Party. How refreshing this is. Interesting footnote: in today’s Daily Telegraph a letter from Diana Heimann, daughter of the late Iain Macleod (one of my heroes) who was Minister of Health from 1952 to 1955. Even in those early days Macleod was conscious of the problems the NHS might face and wrote: "The quicker we can actually decentralise more authority to those who actually work in the service, the better for the NHS itself." Ingenious foresight or simply a pipe dream?
Late morning
Debate on crime and anti social behaviour particularly by teenagers and young adults opened by Damian Green in a well constructed and thoughtful speech. Close speech by Shadow Home secretary David Davis. Enough here to please the ‘true blues’ but also enough to appeal to the middle ground where elections are won and lost. No mention of bringing back hanging or the brandishing of handcuffs at this conference, thank goodness. Again varying views across a whole range of important subjects with contributions by non conservatives.
12.30pm Lunchtime fringe meeting with George Osborne again and sponsored by The Times – Conservatives and the Voters. Conservatives and the non voters would have been more apt. Lively packed meeting. Was lucky to get a place standing. Would have liked to ask a question but because of the crowd failed to catch the chairman’s attention.
Afternoon session. Missed early part of the debate on the environment but arrived to hear speeches from four prospective parliamentary candidates – Wilfred Emmanuel Jones, a black farmer from Devon who is contesting the new seat of Chippenham, another gentleman contesting Wyre Forest, formerly a safe Conservative seat but held at present by an independent doctor on a Save Kidderminster Hospital platform, and two women candidates in Central Derbyshire, another new seat, and Solihull how on earth did we lose here in 2005? Good candidates, but can they succeed where others have failed? Theresa May hosted the first of three "Meet the Candidates" sessions in which six people were invited to put forward a favourite policy to be part of the policy review. Each candidate was cross examined by a panel of four experts including Oliver Letwin. When we voted the winner with 29% was a lady concerned with the environment.
17.45 And so to my one evening fringe meeting, again at the Trouville, to hear Andrew Roberts, author of "Eminent Churchillians" lecture on the subject: "Advice to Dave from great Tory Leaders of the Past". Roberts gave a tour de force of advice previous leaders might give – Peel, Disraeli, Lord Salisbury, Balfour, Bonar Law, Baldwin and so on. All it would appear had in Harold Macmillan’s world: "Little local difficulties". Made an observation in an interesting lecture with relevant questions afterwards. The former Ulster Unionist leader, David Trimble, was present at the meeting.
Tuesday, 3rd October
Arrived in the main hall for the social justice discussion at about 10am. Speakers included the Bishop of Rochester. Social justice is, apparently, the main theme of this year’s conference. General opinion was that much more could and should be done to reduce poverty and inequalities in health and education and that the voluntary sector should be involved to achieve this end. Much more emphasis should be put on the family as a unit of stability in our society, even though it was recognised that for many, maybe the majority, there was no family to fall back on. Policy should be more family friendly.
11am. Debate on role of business in society. General conclusion, not surprisingly, was that more must be done to encourage business by reducing taxes and cutting red tape.
11.30amEconomic discussion opened by Alan Duncan. Shadow Secretary of State for Industry and Trade, who told us about the Tyneside project. Apparently the Trade and Industry team are going to Geordieland to help in and learn about the regeneration of industry in this deprived area of Great Britain. The balance between work and leisure was thoughtfully considered by Will Hutton, formerly editor of The Observer. The challenges posed by the internet and information technology were the subject of a discourse from an American professor, whose name escapes me. Finally, an effective "wind up" speech by George Osborne who confirmed his support of tax cuts in the long run and wanted to reduce the amount of around 43% which the State currently spent to 38% but refused to put economic stability at risk. Generally well received.
12.45pm And so over to the Hermitage Hotel to hear Andrew Tyrie MP and John Strafford argue on how the political parties should be financed. About 50 present. Wide ranging analysis by Andrew Tyrie with John Strafford repeating much of what has been previously written in these pages. Made an observation regarding the financing from organisations such as Aims for Industry and trust funds, both effectively answered by Andrew Tyrie in his closing remarks. Met and John and Caroline Strafford for the first time after corresponding with them for nearly nine years.
17.45pm Very wet so took a taxi over to the Trouville to hear Charles Moore interview Simon Jenkins about his recent book "Thatcher and Sons". Jenkins asserts that there were in fact two Thatcher revolutions – the first being the substantial reduction in income tax rates, the trade union legislation and the privatisation of industries. The second, continued by Major and then by Blair and Brown (the latter having almost total control over domestic policy), resulted in the centralising of power in Number 10 by taking it away from institution such as local authorities and the universities. Interesting comments and questions. But are Blair and Brown truly Thatcherites and have they all, in the 16 years since her fall, been responding to the Thatcherite agenda in much the same way as the Conservatives in the 1950’s and early 1960’s accepted the welfare state, including the NHS, and the corporate solution of the 1945/51 Labour Governments. Only time will tell. Certainly Blair, by tearing up Clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution, carried out one of Margaret Thatcher’s dearest wishes – the demise of unreconstructed state socialism.
Wednesday, 4th October
Decided to go to the conference late and remain in BIC until David Cameron’s speech. Arrived at about 11.15am for part of the debate on globalisation and global poverty. How interesting and informative have been this week’s discussions. Debate wound up by Andrew Mitchell. Memorable quote: "This is not a Labour issue or a Conservative issue: it is a world issue". Then to Meet the Candidates again with Theresa May and selected guests including Ann Widdecombe celebrating her 59th birthday. Winner a young candidate from Leeds who missed out last time by 400 votes.Wanted zero VAT on certain energy saving light bulbs. Finally, the Conference choice debate: "Should Jamie Oliver be regarded as a national treasure?" Panel included Boris Johnson who had made some fatuous remarks about school dinners and had been hounded by the press the previous evening. Boris was his usual, inimitable eccentric self which is why everybody loves him – the human side of the Tory party showing we are not all stuffed shirts. The proposition was eventually carried by 77% to 23%.
14.00 Francis Maude addresses conference profusely apologising for the ‘mess up’
over the conference passes. Commends those from Central Office who have worked night and day to clear the backlog. Stephen Castle, who chaired the conference, was presented with a bell – a tradition going back to 1958, when Lord Hailsham was Chairman and famously rang it at the conference preceding the 1959 general election. He thanked everyone who had made the conference a success – in particular the police, security and fire services. During the week party members from the highest to the lowest had been working on the restoration and reconstruction of the St Mary’s Church, a dilapidated and run down building. The MP for Bournemouth East, Tobias Elwood, in his building overalls reported progress. The keys to the church had to be handed back by 4.30pm that afternoon. The project was dubbed: "The Conservatives and Social Action".
14.30 And so to our leader David Cameron who brings the conference to a close in a wide ranging speech covering all the topics discussed over the last four days. This man certainly has charisma and spoke with ease, compassion and, I hope, sincerity on subjects which, in previous conferences, would not have been considered winners – notably the NHS and the environment. We have to move on – the world is much changed since we were last in government – and has fundamentally changed since 9/11. Of course, he needs to put flesh on what are, at present, the bare bones of policy but there is probably no Clause 4 equivalent for him as the free market argument has been won. I have been following politics, particularly Conservative politics, for over 40 years and every Conservative leader from Harold Macmillan and to Michael Howard has had his or her critics. In December 2005, we, the grass roots members, voted for a change of direction and David Cameron can hardly be blamed for trying to deliver it. Only time will tell whether his strategy has been successful. If it is (and recent opinion polls suggest that even the NHS has been neutralised as a possible vote loser) then there will be plenty of takers for his brand of liberal conservatism.
For the first time since 1992 there is a genuine optimism that we could possibly form the next government. We have to support the current leadership and to misquote St Paul:
"There now abideth three things: Faith, Hope and Dave".

July 30th
FROM THE GRASSROOTS
BY A
CONSERVATIVE

It is just over eight months since David Cameron was elected as our leader – enough time, I think, for an ordinary member of the Party, such as myself, to make an initial appraisal. In a previous article I admitted that I switched from supporting David Davis and backed David Cameron. Although I did not actually hear Cameron’s speech at Blackpool, from the reports I read, it was evident that he was addressing the nation as a whole, not just the Party faithful, and touching upon subjects which might not, in normal circumstances, be associated with our Party. Here was a man who could ‘reach out’ to all sections of society.
At the same time I recognised that Cameron had had no ministerial experience, not even at a junior level, other than as an adviser to ministers in John Major’s Government. In addition, he had been an MP for less than five years. I took a gamble and, although I have been disappointed in some aspects of Cameron’s leadership (and I will return to these later) I believe that last December I put my cross in the right box. The truth is that way back in 1991, we did not fully realise how much Labour, under the ruthless leadership of Blair, Mandelson and Campbell, had re-positioned itself and that Socialism would now be achieved not by nationalisation but by stealth, much higher taxation and Government spending, the gradual erosion of civil liberties, and continual Government interference in the lives of ordinary people. We thought that Labour, as previously, would ‘mess up’ the economy, there would be a sterling crisis and economic chaos. How wrong we were! For the first time since 1906 we have been in opposition for three consecutive Parliaments. We have failed to ‘see off’ the second opposition Party (the Liberal Democrats, previously the Liberals) and have had to learn a very harsh lesson: no Party has a divine right to govern.
I agree with those who say that to simply rely on our ‘core’ vote will not win a General Election (2001 and 2005 proved that) and there must be a broader appeal to encourage former supporters to return and to attract new voters. But I pose this question: what happens if, as happened in the Bromley and Chislehurst by election, your natural supporters stay at home and don’t bother to vote? The by-election result, in my view, was a disaster which could have and should have been prevented. On so many occasions in the past we have seen the Labour vote collapse in suburban seats and the Liberal Democrats are always the beneficiaries. (Look at Richmond, Kingston and Sutton in South West London). Even in 2005 the combined Labour/Liberal Democrat vote was 20,000 in Bromley/Chislehurst against the late Eric Forth’s 24,000. I suspect that many of our members in the constituency are over 65 and that the actual active membership may only be about 50, if that. We can make all sorts of excuses – the holiday period, the fine weather, the World Cup, Wimbledon and so on. But the fact remains. We could not get out the Conservative vote in Bromley/Chislehurst.
And even though I don’t live in the constituency I am bitter. Bitter because of an unnecessary humiliation. A few months ago I was invited to become a ‘Patron’ of the Party, contributing £50 per month to the Party Funds. Apart from the fact that I cannot afford it, I have no intention of giving any more; firstly because I know the money will not be well spent, and, secondly, because I do not receive a copy of the Annual Accounts, showing the income received and expenditure made. In other words, if I contribute let me see how it is spent.
My main reservation about David Cameron is whether he is remaining true to Conservative principles. Or is he a prisoner of the ‘Notting Hill’ set that surrounds his (and I guarantee their life style is miles away from my own) and is pandering to what I call the middle class metropolitan liberal elite? That is those who naturally veer towards the left but who can through either wealth or position escape from the trendy ideas and policies they wish to foist on others; particularly when the going gets tough.
A letter in the Sunday Telegraph recently argued strongly against neglecting the ‘core’ vote and restated principles and ideas which should put clear blue water between ourselves and new Labour; principles which have, incidentally, won us many General Elections in the past and will do so in the future. As a Conservative I dislike ‘big’ Government and the idea that the gentleman in Whitehall does know best. In my experience Governments waste large sums of money on schemes devised by bureaucrats to please their own masters. In my lifetime we have spent billions and billions only to be told 40 years later that perhaps it was foolish to spend such large sums – the building of high rise blocks of flats in places like the East End of London and the desire to build large comprehensive schools (bog standard or not) are but two examples of the state nonchalantly spending taxpayers money. Our taxation system should not be a tool to punish the wealthy; it should be used to encourage wealth creation so that businesses, especially small businesses, may thrive and prosper and thus create jobs. There must be an end to the ever increasing burdensome ‘form filling’ which employers (especially those with a few employees) have to undertake simply to please a wheeze thought up by a Government department. We seem to have ruled out a ‘flat rate’ of Income Tax (which is a pity) and seem ready to accept an Inheritance Tax system which for many means handing over to the State 40% of anything above £285,000, now the average price of a modest house in London or South East England. Our plans should be bold and radical – the Inheritance tax exemption limit raised to £1 million perhaps, or the exempt transfer between husband and wife extended to maybe a third or fourth generation.
On things like Health and Education, ‘Free at the point of use but as much diversity and choice as is possible and practicable’ should be our slogan. We should be prepared to face up the vested interests who will place all sorts of obstacles in our way. In many ways Gordon Brown’s desire to spend the same amount on a child educated by the State as one educated privately is laudable. The difference though is this: the State has no control over the child, and has no idea if the money is being spent wisely or wasted. In the private sector, the parent or whoever is responsible, is likely to have direct access to the school and will soon complain if the money spent is not producing the desired result, i.e. a good education for the child.
Like many Conservatives, I regret voting ‘Yes to Europe’ in the referendum way back in 1975. I believe we were deceived and never thought I would see the day when the laws passed by the European Parliament would override or be superior to those passed by Westminster. It is not, therefore, surprising that UKIP has attracted so many former Conservative voters. Their slogan is simple and easily understood: they cannot be vilified as loonies or nutters for most are patriots who want to see Britain freed from the shackles of bureaucracy and collectivism which characterise so much of the thinking of the European Parliament. A great country which 80 years ago not only had an Empire covering a quarter of the globe but fought two World Wards to preserve the freedom we enjoy today is now reduced to a province on a map of ‘Greater Europe’. What is even sadder is that few people are willing to stand up and say: "I’m proud to be British and to be part of her history and traditions". What a contrast with the United State of America where every day school children acknowledge their inheritance by revering ‘The Stars and Stripes’ coupled in most cases with a (Christian) act of worship.
The election of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly in 1999 completed the process ensuring that Westminster, were it in the unlikely event of superseding Brussels as supreme law maker, would never be the same again. For we now have nearly 100 MPs who have no control over domestic matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. Nationalism, certainly in Scotland, is as strong as ever (it holds four seats at Westminster which would, otherwise, in all probability be Conservative). The system of proportional representation (admirable in many ways) has resulted in Scotland having a Labour Liberal-Democrat coalition in perpetuity and a Labour administration in Cardiff with no overall majority. The UK taxpayers as a whole contribute 20% more to public expenditure in Scotland than in England and, with the ‘West Lothian’ question completely unresolved. Many – probably the majority – of England’s voters are decidedly unhappy. Who can blame them?
The truth is that Labour voting Scotland and Labour voting Wales (the latter often with Conservative Secretaries of State from English seats) wanted to be rid of Conservative voting England and a UK Parliament in which the Conservatives had a majority. And, as with so much other legislation, Labour did not properly think through the consequences of its own proposals. The ‘English Question’ was left unaddressed and the chickens are eventually coming home to roost. Some prominent political commentators are even calling for a completely independent Scotland. It is said that Scotland is pursuing Socialist policies which can only lead to long term decline and impoverishment. Since the Union Scotland has produced many fine doctors, lawyers, inventors – even Prime Ministers. It would be a great shame if, simply for short-term gain, the Union has been fragmented, maybe forever. Ours is a rapidly changing world and a dangerous one in which terror groups, Islamic and others, thrive. 9/11 has failed to shake us out our complacency and we could be subjected to another terrorist attack like that at London a year ago at any time.
By the time the next General Election comes in 2009/2010 Labour will have been in office for 12-13 years with, in all probability, Gordon Brown as Prime Minister. I would like to see David Cameron fight the election based on sound Conservative policies which are realistic and not dogmatic or based upon the flimsy findings of some ‘focus’ group. I want the best candidates fighting the seats we hold and the winnable marginals. I don’t care whether they are black, white, yellow, male, female, gay, straight, professionals or manual workers. The appalling ‘A’ list should be torn up for the simple reason that it is saying that one particular candidate is more worthy of representing us in Parliament than another. Yes, I would like a wider ‘mix’ but not by this method. Labour has over 100 women MPs but 90% are faceless wonders just there to do the whips bidding and cheer on Tony Blair.
Although historically we have had comparatively few MPs who were women, those who have got to Westminster have done so through their ability. Margaret Thatcher is the obvious example and, more recently, Ann Widdecombe. In the 1950’s and 1960’s the redoubtable Dame Irene Ward from Tynemouth was a thorn in the side of both Conservative and Labour ministers. The blue rinsed, Dame Joan Vickers, twice beat Michael Foot in the dockers’ seat of Plymouth Davenport. Dame Pat Hornsby-Smith was a junior minister in Macmillan’s Government and created a Privy Councillor.
In conclusion I believe we should
choose the best candidates;
run a campaign based on sound Conservative principles;
have policies that have a broad appeal, but do not neglect the ‘core’ vote;
not be thrown off course by our opponents campaign tactics;
continue to ram home the message that despite being No 2 in the Labour Government, (for nine) or whatever years, Gordon Brown, whether ‘old’ Labour or ‘new’ Labour, is as much responsible for its failures as was his predecessor.

April 2nd
Telling A Cameron
by
Henry Curteis
It’s very trusting of COPOV to say they agree with Cameron’s proposal to cut the number of
MP’s by 10%.
If a schedule of which MP’s are to be cut is produced, and the method of exclusion explained,
then it might be possible to agree with such a proposal. But giving open-ended consent to a
proposal of unknown detail which could have enormous ramifications, is surely a case of
democrats naively assenting to the dismantling of their own long established democratic state.
I see no evidence that Cameron has any regard for the British Constitution. His talk is of
‘trusting people’, and ‘supporting institutions’. In reality he prefers ‘manipulating people’ by
pushing the European programme for the state funding of political parties without even
mentioning there is such a thing (Maastricht Treaty). He is reducing the influence and the
role of MP’s, centralising Party decisions, disempowering constituencies, and making the
media the primary arena of political influence and ‘debate’.
As for the EPP, I am quite convinced he has absolutely no intention of quitting at any time.
I hope that COPOV stops trying to meet Cameron half way, and strong eurosceptics stop
naively waiting for the moment of delivery. It’s like Ashdown trusting Blair. You’ll waste ten
years trying to find a core of honesty which simply is not there.

FROM THE GRASS ROOTS
BY A CONSERVATIVE
TONY BLAIR - IN OFFICE BUT NOT IN POWER?

The recent death of John Profumo brings back vivid memories of that 1963 summer. I was 16
and preparing to take my ‘O’ levels in a South Wales grammar school (Cowbridge) which had
a 300 year connection with Jesus College, Oxford and a headmaster who had played
international rugby for Wales and in the famous 1935 Wales victory over the New Zealand All
Blacks. Hot June days are never the best time for studying and as I tried to remember the
main features of Castlereagh’s (or was it Canning’s ?) early 19th century foreign policy, the
political scandal of the century provided a welcome distraction. Not only was the Minister in
question found to have slept with a call girl but in addition, he lied about the affair. Of course,
there had been other scandals – five years early the obscure Member for Harrow East, a
junior Minister, had been forced to resign after being found chatting up and in the arms of a
Guardsman. But the ‘Profumo affair’ (as it became known) was something different. As a Privy
Councillor and Minister for War, Profumo had access to intelligence and security could have
been compromised. In addition, Harold Macmillan’s administration seemed tired and lack
lustre after nearly 12 years in office. It had already been engulfed by other difficulties –
economic and social – and in Harold Wilson, Labour had a new dynamic leader breathing the
merits of the "white hot heat of the technological revolution’. Broken by the Profumo affair
and ill health, Macmillan resigned, handing over the leadership and Premiership not to the
favourite, R.A. Butler, but to a Member of the House of Lords, the 14th Earl of Home
(pronounced Hume). With the assassination on November 22 of United Stated President,
John F. Kennedy, 1963 was a memorable year. These then were the events which kindled
my interest in politics. Unfortunately the lessons of 1963 have not been learnt by those who
govern or aspire to govern us today. For John Profumo, stripped of his Privy Councillorship
and his seat in Parliament, there was no coming back – no second chance. Yet in the past nine
years, two Cabinet Ministers have resigned, come back and resigned again. In 1963 when the
Profumo affair was debated in the House, Macmillan was forced to account for his actions
(or lack of them) and 30 Conservative MPs abstained in the final vote when the House divided
and within a year the United States somehow became involved in an unwinnable war in
Vietnam (shades of Iraq?) and (cave Gordon Brown) the favourite sometimes never wins the
ultimate prize, particularly when he is not supported by the outgoing Prime Minister.
The 1963-64 period was exciting in many ways and the fact that, even when led by an
aristocrat, our Party in the 1964 election polled over 12 million votes and (with its Ulster
Unionist allies) had 303 MPs in the House of Commons should remind us of the mountain we
still have to climb in 2009/2010.
As Conservatives it comes as no surprise to us that third term Governments soon hit troubled
waters – we have experienced it twice since World War Two. Even before the Profumo
scandal referred to previously, Macmillan’s Government had hit the rocks. Orpington was lost
to the Liberals in March 1962. Margaret Thatcher’s third term was marred by quarrels over
Europe (the famous 1988 Bruges speech), disagreements with her Chancellor, Nigel Lawson,
who had no love for Sir Alan Walters, Thatcher’s economics adviser and, of course, the
notorious ‘Poll’ tax. Scotland was already out of love with us but this measure, imposed a year
earlier North of the Border, was the straw that finally broke us – and we are, even now, 16
years later, still feeling its effects, as our disastrous performance in the recent Dunfermline
by-election shows.
In 1981, Margaret Thatcher was the most unpopular Prime Minister since the advent of
political polling yet by the start of her third term, July 1987, all her trade union legislation had
been passed, inflation was seemingly under control, many state controlled industries had been
privatised and a war against a military dictatorship been won. Had she retired on the 10th
anniversary of her premiership (May 1989) the chances are that our Party would have been
spared the terrible turmoil on the 1990’s and the self doubt which has (and still does) afflict us.
What will Tony Blair’s legacy be? Having read Simon Jenkin’s article in the Sunday Times
(March 19), it is clear that Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson, Alistair Campbell et alia took over
the Labour Party, and with all the weapons that modern technology could muster and skilled
media presentation, wielded it into a formidable election force with the one object of gaining
power after 18 years in the wilderness, and it worked. The writer also happens to believe that
by 1997 whoever led the Labour Party would have defeated John Major so tarnished, tired
and out of touch had his Government become.
Tony Blair has now been overtaken by what Harold Macmillan called "Events". Probably the
biggest mistake in the first term was to sack Frank Field, his Social Security Minister, for
wanting to think the unthinkable over social security and benefit. The Iraq War, the row with
the BBC and the death of Dr David Kelly dominated the second term. On current form, a
messy compromise on schools together with loans by prominent businessmen in exchange for
favours look set to dominate his third. Nor has he been helped by the brooding presence of his
would be successor, Gordon Brown. Margaret Thatcher was fortunate in that neither of her
Chancellors in her first two terms, Geoffrey Howe and Nigel Lawson, was a likely successor
and that, unlike Blair, she dominated her Cabinet and was a good butcher. She knew her stuff
and heaven help a Minister who was unprepared. Tony Blair, by contrast, has been forced
into messy compromises either because ministers were unwilling to move, or because Gordon
Brown wanted them to stay. Tony Blair, on his own admission, is not of the Labour Party but
came into it via his wife. His roots are not from those of the organised working classes, but
because he had charm and great presentational skills he won over the doubters who could see
he would go down well with the voters in those seats Labour needed to win to form a
Government, i.e. Middle England. Part of his legacy will be to have turned Labour into a social
democratic party (just as Roy Jenkins wanted) and to have made it electable. But at what
cost? Blair came into power promising to be "whiter than white" but the latest scandal proves
what we already knew. The general public as a whole is cynical about all politicians no matter
the party and rightly so. Turnout at General Elections is at a record low. When I read in the
Daily Telegraph one day that the marketing guru who propelled David Cameron into the
leadership of our Party earns £276,000 a year and one of our own MP’s complains of the
sacrifice he has made to serve in Parliament (£200,000? including allowances), I shake my
head in disgust because in the world in which I live and for the people I meet it would take
eight to 10 years to earn such a sum: and what must old age pensioners, faced with ever
increasing bills, and on fixed incomes, think of such largesse? A couple of weeks ago I was
astounded to read that a single mother trying to earn a modest wage would be paying back to
the Government 70% of what she earned. If she increased her earnings from £7,500 to £8,500
she would pay an extra £220 in tax, £110 in National Insurance and lose Social Security
benefits of £370. So much for fairness in Gordon Brown’s Britain for the Chancellor, whilst
substantially increasing the public sector payroll, has not only devised the most complicated
tax and benefits system in history, but is also strangling the private profitable sector with
regulations, red tape and an ever rising tax burden, and some of the salaries on offer, in what
I regard as "Mickey Mouse" jobs, make the mind boggle. Labour is in the process of making
more and more people dependent on this state (is it really true that 44% of the population
rely on the state for more than half their income?), and the tragedy is that most people cannot
or do not realise we are sleep walking to disaster. The number of Labour MPs who have run a
business, with all the form filling and rules as outlined in countless Parliamentary Acts or
European Directives, can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Even though our
manufacturing base continues to shrink, small businesses are still the lifeblood of the
country. If Gordon Brown becomes Prime Minister and were the next election to result in a
"hung Parliament" in which he was forced to enter into a coalition with (say) the Liberal
Democrats, then the West Lothian question, postponed for so long, will have to be answered.
Let me give an example. Prescription charges in England are increasing by 15p per item.
Here, in Wales, because the Assembly has control, they are being reduced to £3 and are
likely to be abolished entirely in 2007/2008. So if you live in Oswestry in Shropshire you still
pay, yet in Welshpool 20 miles away, you will eventually pay nothing. This is Labour’s ‘fair’
United Kingdom which is why I cannot understand why our leader, David Cameron, wants to
be seen as the heir to Blair. Labour’s leaders in the late 50’s and 60’s, Hugh Gaitskell and
Harold Wilson, were social democrats yet we still won in 1959 and in 1970. And for those with
long memories, in 1970 Edward Heath won on a platform of smaller Government, lower taxes,
and control of the Trade Unions – policies which, for a variety of reasons, he was forced to
abandon but ones which Margaret Thatcher implemented. Ten years later, history is not all
bunk. I am all for modernising, but we can also learn from the past. After 1945 the
Conservative Research Department under R A Butler came to terms with the new situation
and 1951 ushered in not only 13 years of Conservative Government but some of the brightest
MPs in the Party’s long history, many of whom became senior ministers. The task, surely, is
to apply Conservative principles in a new and ever changing world. And I am truly astonished
to read in The Spectator that a Conservative MP believe "There is no appetite out there for a
smaller state". And why have we abandoned any idea of a flat rate of income tax? Are we
afraid that our opponents would claim we are only reducing the tax burden for the very rich?
Are head teachers, policemen, nurses, highly skilled workers, now classed as "very rich"
because what is known as "fiscal drag" has brought them into a 40% tax bracket? Is there
no-one in our Party capable of making the case? We have become mesmerised by the
Labour "spin" machine where every failure is classed as a success and, where any opinion
contrary to Labour doctrine, is rubbished.
Electorally, we are still a long way from power. And in the "cash for coronets" scandal we, as
a Party, need to ask ourselves serious questions. "Why", for example, "would Dr Chai Patel,
chief executive of the Priory Group of private hospitals, be willing to lend £1.5million to a
Party historically opposed to private medicine? It can only be to influence the decisions of the
Party in Government. And when Labour supports private medicine it is always for the good of
the public as a whole, unlike the greedy Tories who are only out for private gain. And do we
ever attempt to answer the charge? No, in the main our spokespersons become tongue-tied
and apologetic. And we are not helped by those in our Party who have openly said we are
perceived as "nasty" and "out of touch". At this point in time, there is no-one who is more
"out of touch" both with his Party and the British public than Tony Blair.
"New Labour" is in the twilight of its existence and has served its purpose. When Gordon
Brown takes over he will not be burdened by any Clause 4 Constitution demanding the
wholescale nationalisation of industry. Instead we will have an over bossy Government trying
to meddle in people’s every day lives and promising to give money to the next focus group
that takes its attention. The State will become the universal provider. Even now, through
advertising, we are being invited to contact the Inland Revenue if we think someone is not
paying tax. And we don’t even have to give our name and address. (Shades of 1984?)
Our Party needs to get its act together pretty quickly. David Cameron has appeal because he
is new and, in choosing him, I think our Party has shown that it is prepared to break with its
past. But he has to tread carefully and make sure that for every new supporter won,
traditional support is not eroded. It is a delicate balancing act. I agree that, with no election
until 2009/2010 it would be foolish to make specific proposals at this stage. But we need to
know the direction in which we are heading and how a Conservative Government would differ
from the present one. When we return to Government, the Thatcher and Major years will be
a fond memory for many, just as the Macmillan Government is a fond memory of my youth
and every Government since my youth has ended in failure, whether at the hands of the
electorate or at the hands of Members of Parliament. Tony Blair is just the most recent
casualty, as someone once said "All Governments end in failure".

December 3rd

***Star of the Week*** - Clive Stafford - Smith for his excellent lecture on "British politicians and the lessons they learn from America."   This was the Longford lecture organised by "The Independent" newspaper.    Every politician should read it.

Snouts in the Trough

What do the following have in common:

MPs demand a salary increase to £100,000 per annum on a par with doctors.

Cash for Peerages.

Labour Party now gets 90% of its funding from the Trade Unions.

State funding of political Parties.

MPs call on Serious Fraud Office to drop investigation into Saudi Arabian arms deal to save 50,000 jobs.

£20 billion to be spent on a replacement for a nuclear deterrent which will never be used.

Money and politics.   All these issues turn off the ordinary voter from having any respect for our politicians.    Soon the voter will demand a different kind of politician and a different kind of political party.   Time is running out.   Has the Conservative Party the courage to lead a new kind of political Party that will take these issues off the agenda?   We will find out in the next twelve months.   I hope so, or they will go down the plughole with the Labour Party.

Charity
Did you know that last year the people of the United States gave $212 billion dollars to charity?   The people of the United Kingdom gave $8 billion.   We often criticise the United States government, but the people have hearts of gold.

Tossers

Whoever is the Tosser that came up with the idea of the Conservative "Tossers" broadcast should be fired.   What a Tosser.

Next Week

Report on the "A" List.    Watch this space.

November 26th

***Star of the Week *** David Cameron - for his excellent speech about relative poverty.    It is so refreshing that David Cameron is raising issues which have been ignored for so long by our politicians.   These are issues which the Conservative Party needs to debate in order for us to get the policies right.    What is essential is for the Leader to begin involving the voluntary Party in these debates.   By involving them they will take ownership of and will accept the policies when they are announced in due course.   The alternative is to ignore the voluntary Party with the result that there will be a big ongoing row when the policies are announced and resentment will build.   Its up to you Dave!

Leadership Election Anniversary

At the COPOV meeting last Saturday there was a lively discussion about how David Cameron had done in his first year as Leader.    The audience was split about fifty fifty between those who thought he was doing well and those who thought otherwise.   Many took a neutral view, waiting to see what the policies would be before committing themselves (see above for a solution).    Among the comments were the following:

"The Party logo is a disaster done by a three year old with a box of crayons."

"The Leadership is surrounded by chinless wonders without any political experience"

"The webcam is a disaster"

"The Liberals are beginning to get their policies right."

"If we really want to win we have got to appeal to the public and not just to Conservatives."

"David Cameron is hitting the right spots."

"We must not say one thing and do another."

"We must back the Leader,    There is no other choice."

"Francis Maude is doing a good job."

"The battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton.   We do not want to lose the General Election in the same place."

November 19th

House of Lords Reform

In the Queen's speech once again we have mention of House of Lords reform.   In a democracy this should mean a wholly elected second chamber.   However we do not live in a democracy, so the chances of getting a wholly elected second chamber are remote.   The Conservative Party supports an 80% elected Upper House.   Jack Straw seems to be moving towards a 50% elected Upper House, so it looks as though we might get something in between.    Hopefully the House of Commons on a free vote will take a decision and pass a Bill in support of an elected Upper House.  We have been waiting almost a hundred years since it was first promised.   The problem will then arise with the House of Lords itself.

There are huge vested interests in the House of Lords and the chances of them agreeing to whatever the House of Commons puts forward are virtually nil.   The question will then arise - will the House of Commons force the Bill through?   It will try, for it will be speaking for the people who overwhelmingly support an elected House of Lords.   The Upper House will then start to negotiate and here I begin to start worrying.   We are already hearing words about compensation for those Lords that lose their seats, but hold on. they do not receive a salary so why should they be compensated at all?   It would be the utmost obscenity if Peers that had bought their peerages or who were Tony's cronies or even who had inherited their seats were given any compensation paid by the taxpayer.

Let the people's voice be heard.   We want an elected House of Lords and no compensation paid  when this undemocratic system is scrapped.   What a cheek to even think it!

The Conservative Party

Is it just me or do you get the feeling that all has gone quiet in the Party?   As we approach the anniversary of Big Dave's election how is he doing?   Next Saturday we will be discussing this at the COPOV meeting.   We will let you know how the "grass roots" feel.    Watch this space.

November 12th

The Politics of Fear

This week the head of MI5 - Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller made a speech in which she mentions that there are 200 British based networks currently hatching at least 30 terrorist plots in Britain.   Predictably the media and the politicians jumped on her speech and we were all plunged into a scenario of doom and gloom.   Tony Bliar said it would take a generation to eliminate the terrorist threat.

So what was the purpose of Dame Eliza's speech?    She could not be questioned as to how she arrived at her figures.    We do not know if they are accurate.   Suppose she had said there were 500 plots or a thousand?   Will she escalate the number with each speech?    In fact it is a matter of faith.   You either believe her or you don't.   If she wanted the public to take action why did she not say what action they should take?

Dame Eliza is a civil servant - not a politician, so we are meant to take her words seriously and to take them as the truth, yet the intelligence services are not noted for getting things right.   Was she making the speech on behalf of Tony Bliar?   Perhaps, because nobody believes a word Bliar says any more.   Was she protecting herself from criticism for a future undetected terrorist attack?   Was she making a case for more civil servants to be employed by MI5 thus boosting her empire and her status?   Was she laying the ground for Bliar to propose more legislation restricting our liberties?   We do not know, for politicians and media alike have laid back and just accepted every word she said.

What we do know is that throughout the centuries we have faced similar threats.   This week we remembered "Guy Fawkes and the gunpowder plot".   The Houses of Parliament were to be blown up.    It did not happen.   History should tell us to be cautious.    In the following substitute the Iraq war for the War against France and Bliar for Pitt and you will see what I mean.

War against France was declared in 1793. War meant that Pitt the Younger put aside whatever ideas of liberty he had ever held. Something very like panic seized the rulers of England. During 1793 and 1794 various men were tried for holding democratic opinions which we would now consider very ordinary; people were imprisoned merely for advocating "representative government". Two men, Thomas Muir, a prominent Scottish reformer, and Palmer were sentenced by the Scottish judge Lord Justice Braxfield, to transportation to Botany Bay for holding such opinions in making seditious speeches and circulating The Rights of Man. The presiding judge, Lord Justice Braxfield, was in no doubt that advocacy of parliamentary reform was in itself seditious.

"Government in this country is made up of the landed interest, which alone has a right to be represented; as for the rabble, who have nothing but personal property, what hold has the nation of them? What security for the payment of their taxes? They may pack up all their property on their backs and leave the country in the twinkling of an eye…"

Thomas Muir had received strong support from a huge crowd both in the courtroom and outside, but it did not do him any good. Lord Justice Braxfield sentenced him to transportation to Australia for fourteen years.

In 1794 the Government suspended the Habeas Corpus Act, which meant that any suspected "Jacobins" could be seized and kept in prison without trial. Thus one of the fundamental bases of English liberty was attacked under the stress of panic caused by the French revolution.

After two enormous protest meetings in London in October 1795, the Home Secretary, a barnacled Whig called William Windham, introduced still more repressive legislation: the Seditious Meetings Act made it a criminal offence to take part in any meeting of more than 50 people without prior notice, and gave magistrates the right and duty to disperse any meeting they thought looked dangerous.

The Seditious Meetings Act, together with the Treasonable Practices Bill became known as Pitt’s "gagging Bills". They were a repressive response to discontent. Severe penalties were imposed on anybody who attacked the constitution or gave support to the nation’s enemies. Freedom of speech was effectively curtailed.

During the last years of the eighteenth century Pitt’s view of liberty and freedom changed. He had come to the conclusion that now restrictions were necessary in order to defend traditional liberty. What a change from the days during the passage of the India Bill when he said, "Necessity was the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It was the argument of tyrants. It was the creed of slaves." It was in this changed frame of mind that in April 1799 Pitt introduced:

a new Bill to suppress new radical organisations such as United Scotsmen and United Englishmen. It contained tighter regulations on lecturing and printing; Pitt argued that the liberty of the press was "the most invaluable bulwark of liberty", but that the provisions to enable the tracing of all publications to their publishers were necessary because "we have seen the liberty of the press abused in a way most calculated to pervert and mislead the lower orders".

Habeas Corpus was restored in 1800 but this did not stop repression from continuing.

Who today will defend our liberty?   Not the media, not the politician Who?

November 7th

Sir Hayden Replies

This week the Chairman of COPOV had a reply from Sir Hayden Phillips to the original submission on Party Funding (for the Interim response see Recommendations below).   Sir Hayden said:

"You make it very clear your views on the domestic structure of political parties.   The issue of the state legislating to affect a political party's internal structure and constitution, which is the effect of what you suggest, is within our political tradition one that elicits strong responses, and frequently negative ones.   With regard to the Labour Party, one of the arguments that has been made for not putting a cap on donations is that such a cap would force a change in the constitution of the Labour Party.   The Leader of the House, the Rt. Hon Jack Straw MP, made this argument in a debate two weeks ago (Hansard, 16 October 2006)."

The Chairman of COPOV responded to Sir Hayden as follows:

With regard to the comment you make in your letter about the democratic structures of political parties may I respond as follows:

    Under my proposals the Constitutions of both the Labour and the Conservative Parties would have to change. This would be the price to them for getting further funding from the State.

    Is it right that taxpayer’s money be given in effect to small oligarchies that run our two main political parties?

    It was because the Labour party had an elected Treasurer that the "Cash for Peerages" question came to light.

    Is it right in a democracy that 80% of the candidates in a General Election are chosen by political structures, which are undemocratic? Does this not undermine our democracy?

    I understand that New Zealand has laws relating to democracy within its political parties.

    Finally, the selling points of my proposals are:

They save the taxpayer money.

They enhance our democracy by having democratic political parties.

They put the political parties on a sound financial footing.

They encourage the parties to increase their membership.

They take the perception of financial influence out of our party politics.

 

There is one other point that could have been made regarding a political party having to change its constitution.   The Labour Party has been forced to accept that the people in Northern Ireland are entitled to be members of the Party.   It also looks as though the Labour Party will have to have Party branches in Northern Ireland, so it is not unique for external forces to make a political Party change its constitution.

31st October

Party Funding

Sir Hayden Phillips published his Interim Assessment on Party Funding this week.   We set out below our response.   If our proposals are accepted the taxpayer will save money, the television companies will save money and the political parties finances will be put onto a sound basis.   In addition to which they will become democratic organisations accountable to their membership.   What an opportunity!

The Review of the Funding of Political Parties

An Interim Assessment – Response

Questions for Discussion

Scenario 1

• Do you think the current system (with a few minor changes) needs further time to bed in before thinking of more radical change?

No. The current system is in disrepute. The two main political Parties are in serious financial difficulty and action is urgent to avoid a crisis. Action is required as soon as possible.

Scenario 2

• Do you favour the specific ideas described in scenario 2 for increasing transparency?

No. The increased amount of information about an individual donor is an invasion of privacy. The only criterion for an individual donor is that they should be on the Register of Electors.

Only individual donors should be allowed to make donations in excess of £5,000. Corporations, Unincorporated Associations and Trade Unions should be restricted to a maximum donation of £5,000. The decision to make a political donation should be made by an individual. Unincorporated Associations have been used on occasion to hide the identities of individuals.

• What do you think of the idea of decreasing the amount parties can spend nationally on campaigning?

The amount spent on national campaigning should be reduced to a maximum of £15 million in any one year.

• Do you think that the amount that can be spent on local campaigning should be increased?

The local campaigning limits seem to be about right so should not be increased

Scenario 3

• What do you think of the proposal that donations should be capped?

Donations from individuals should be capped at £25,000. From any other organisation, including Trade Unions, they should be capped at £5,000. At present the Conservative Party has proposed that donations should be capped at £50,000. They have 60-70 individuals that give that amount to the Party. By decreasing the cap to £25,000 it can safely be said that the number of individuals would increase to a point where no one individual could buy influence.

Scenario 4

• Do you support the principle that additional public funds should go to political parties?

In principal political parties should not receive any additional public funds. They should stand or fall on their own endeavours. However they are in such a critical condition at the moment that funding is required to help them put their houses in order and to prevent a collapse in the political system. Any additional funding should be phased out over a period of five years. This would give them time to adjust their operating methods.

• If so, do you support the idea of a general cash subsidy or a more targeted grant or the idea of financial incentives to encourage small donations?

I support the idea of a financial incentive to encourage membership of political parties. To enhance democracy the State should pay a per capita amount (say £25.00) to each political party dependent on the number of audited members of the party paying a minimum subscription of £10.00 and subject to the parties having democratic constitutions. This would encourage them to concentrate on building up their membership.

Members would only be included that had paid a subscription in the previous 15 months.

The Interim Assessment states p62 "If the figures were audited externally to control this, it would remove the current confidentiality over who belongs to a party." Auditors are bound by their professional code of conduct to respect confidentiality. Any breach would therefore be a breach of their code and be subject to discipline by their professional body.

The question of confidentiality should not therefore be an obstacle.

With reference to the Trade Unions and Labour Party membership, the Unions could be regarded as acting as Agents of the Labour party in collecting subscriptions for membership. Once a Trade Union had passed the minimum subscription (£10 per member) to the Labour party those members would have all the rights of a Party member whose subscription had been collected directly by the Party.

Any other payment by a Trade Union would be limited to a maximum of £5,000. This would curb the abuse whereby the government paid £10 million to the Trade Unions Modernisation Fund under the Employment Relations Act of 2004 and the Unions then paid £12 million to the Labour Party in 2005.

General

• Which elements of the above scenarios do you think are most important?

The most important is tying any further funding to membership and phasing the funding out over a period of five years.

• Are there any issues, which you think are important that we have not covered?

The Policy Development Grants should be abolished. They are a crude mechanism for giving more State funding, and are biased in favour of those Parties with Members of Parliament.

I set out below the financial situation of the proposals where it is possible to do so:

                                                                            £

Abolish Policy Development Grants - saving     (2,000,000)

Abolish free post at a General Election saving - (20,000,000)

Subsidy based on membership – extra                15,000,000

Saving to the Taxpayer in year one £                  7,000,000

As the subsidy is diminished each year the saving to the taxpayer increases. Taken as a whole I believe the above proposals would be acceptable to the people and would solve the current problems. For a taxpayer neutral effect the subsidy per member could be increased to £35.00 in year one. I set out below my full recommendations amended from my initial report.

Recommendations:

Both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party should reform themselves to become democratic bodies answerable to their membership so that the members can change the Constitution of their Party on the basis of One Member One Vote.

All political Parties should have elected Chairman and Treasurer answerable to their membership.

All political Parties should have an Annual General Meeting to which their members are invited and entitled to vote at which the Parties accounts are presented and voted upon.

There should be no State Funding to any political Party which does not have basic democratic rules incorporating the above.

To enhance democracy the State should pay a per capita amount (say £25.00) to each political party dependent on the number of audited members of the party paying a minimum subscription of £10.00 and subject to the parties having democratic constitutions. This would encourage them to concentrate on building up their membership. The subsidy would diminish by 20% each year and be completely abolished after five years.

There should be a limit on the amount that a government can spend on political advisers. An equivalent sum to their costs should be given to the opposition Parties. This should replace the "Short" funding. These monies should be properly accounted for.

The "free" post at parliamentary elections should be abolished.

Party Political Broadcasts (PPBs) should be abolished.

Policy Development Grants should be abolished.

The amount of money, which a Member of Parliament or a Member of the European Parliament can give to their party, should be limited to £1,000.00.

Expense allowances given to MPs or European MPs should not be used for Party purposes.

Donations may only be accepted from individuals who are on the Electoral Register. The maximum amount an individual can give is £25,000

The Trade Unions, Companies and Unincorporated Associations should not be allowed to donate more than £5,000 in any one year.

The maximum amount that any Party can spend on national campaigning in any one year is £15 million.

The Trade Unions may act as Agents of a political Party for the purpose of collecting membership subscriptions.

Politics for the People

In Portcullis House there has been a very interesting,or so I am told, exhibition about Charles Fox and William Pitt.    There was just one snag.  If you were an ordinary member of the public you could only go and see it if you were accompanied by a pass holder for Portcullis House.   It did not matter if you went through all the security checks.    No pass holder, no exhibition.   At a time when we should be encouraging the people to take an interest in politics isn't it a bit bizarre that when they show an interest they are barred from entry.   No wonder the turn out at elections is down.

Target Seats

The current rules on the selection of Party Candidates are contained in the document: "Rules and best practise for the selection of Conservative Party Candidates in Target and Conservative Held Seats in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for the UK Parliament".

There is some ambiguity here. Does it mean that Constituencies, which are not "Target" or "Conservative Held", can select their candidates in accordance with the previous rules? There is no definition of "Target" seats. They are determined pragmatically, which we do not object to, but who decides whether or not a seat is a "Target" seat? Do the Constituency Associations have any right of appeal? If so whom do they appeal to?

October 23rd

Rules for Selection

In the recently published "Rules and best practise for the selection of Conservative Party candidates in Target and Conservative held Seats in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for the UK Parliament" where is Target defined?   Is a Target seat decided by % swing needed to win or is it number of votes needed to win?   Have the Boundary changes been taken into account?   Who has decided which seats are Targets and which or not?   Have local views been taken into account?   Has the Party Board issued a list of these seats or is it the Committee on Candidates which has decided?   I think we should be told.   After all, non Target seats do not have to comply with these rules, or do they?

The War in Iraq is Lost

The war in Iraq is lost because Iraq as a nation has ceased to exist.   A Nation consists of people who together regard themselves as belonging to a Nation.   Their overriding loyalty is to the Nation.   The people in the land known as Iraq no longer see this as the case.    What has happened is that Iraq has reverted to a pre democracy primeval age where small groups occupy territory by the use of force.

Small tribes now control the territory once known as Iraq.   These small tribes or groups use force within their territory and to defend the boundaries of their territory.   In using force they are ruthless.   The members of the group or tribe give their allegiance to the Leader of the group in exchange for security within the territory.   The comparison is to the pre "Witan" days in England.   In this scenario all foreigners are enemies to be destroyed and rebuffed.   In time these small groups will start to amalgamate and form alliances knowing that size gives them strength.    It may be that eventually they will form three main groups of Sunni, Shia and Kurds.   At that time the peoples of those groups may begin to take on nationhood, and three new nations will be created.   Who Knows? 

What is certain is that for the United States and the British their war is over.   It is time for them to pull out immediately.   It is too late to turn back the clock.   The small groups will impose their own rule of law.   Only then will we possibly see a move towards democracy, but do not count on it.   The rule of law is a prerequisite for democracy, which is why Tony Bliar and George Bush got it so wrong.    Democracy is a process.   It is not just a ballot.   That is only a part of the process.   The supreme irony is that the great Western Powers planned to bring Iraq into the twenty first century whereas what they have done is to push it back to the nineteenth century.

The Veil

Much has been made about whether it is right that a schoolteacher should be allowed to wear the veil when teaching children.    What if the schoolgirls she taught decided that they would wear the veil?    How would the teacher know who was doing or saying what.   The situation is absurd.

The General

General Dannat made some very important points about the position of British troops in Iraq.   Unfortunately he went into the realm of politics.   This is unacceptable.   He should have resigned, made his speech, and then announced he would stand against Tony Bliar in the next General Election.   He would have had the support of the entire Nation.

October 16th

Selection of Conservative Party Candidates
In September a new issue was made of "Rules and best practise for the selection of Conservative Party candidates in Target and Conservative held Seats in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for the UK Parliament".    Have you noticed anything?   They only apply to Target and Conservative held seats.   Does this mean that the rest can do as before without interference from Central Office?   There is much gobbledook in these new rules any potential candidate could well be put off just reading them.    There is also some good stuff as well in particular the rights of members to have the ultimate decision on a candidate.   This is welcome.

In the Introduction to the rules it says: "Potential candidates have been admitted to the Approved List only after they have demonstrated that they have the potential and the right skill mix to be a Member of Parliament".   Demonstrated to who?   The little oligarchy on the Candidates Committee?   Who are they to determine who has the potential and the right skill mix?   Is this the same setup which has produced Tory MPs 40 % of whom have Oxbridge degrees, 59% went to private school and 20% have practised as a barrister or solicitor.   Cosy isn't it?

The Introduction then goes on to say "A number of the brightest and best candidates have been nominated "priority candidates" and Conservative held and target seats will be expected to select from these priority candidates."   So now we know!   There are currently 747 on the full candidates list of which 149 are on the priority list.    So we have 149 brightest and best and 598 dullest and worst.

Contoversially the Introduction also says "research has shown that our members and particularly our activists are drawn from a relatively small cross-section of society."   What research?    Who by?   What research has shown is that our members are similar to society in all ways except that they are older and in this case they are similar to older members of our society.   The implication of this is that they are not able to choose a parliamentary candidate.   Why else make the comment.    Perhaps we should remind the great and good that it was these same members that elected David Cameron as Leader of the Party with a thumping majority.    What is good for the goose is good for the gander?

We will return to the absurdities of this document at a later date.

Constituency Boundaries
We are amazed to learn that where there has been boundary reorganisation there are no rules and giudlines as to how the constituencies deal with this.   What has happenned to the excellent giudlines used in the past?    Were they all lost when Central Office moved to Victoria Street?    Is there nobody there that can remember them?   So now we start to reinvent the wheel.   What a farce!

October 9th

The "A" List

At the National Convention Don Porter (Chairman of the Convention) announced that there would be a review of the candidate selection process.   Regional Chairmen will contact constituencies for their comments.   It was also announced that John Strafford (Chairman of COPOV), Cllr Derek Tipp and Mike Baker have been asked to review the process.   We have already started, having had a meeting with Shireen Ritchie (Chairman of the Candidates Committee) and also held a fringe meeting at Bournemouth.   We have made it clear that we agree with David Cameron's objectives of getting more women and ethnic minority Conservative MPs.   We also made it clear that we want to see the "A" List abolished for we think that the "A" List is the wrong way to go about achieving these objectives.

The timetable for producing our report is very tight.   It has to be completed by November 11th with a view to it going to the Party Board by 25th November.   We would welcome any views on Candidate Selection, both as to how the Candidates Committee works and how the Constituency selection process works.   Any views submitted will be treated as confidential unless the sender agrees for their views to be public.   We would particularly welcome any ideas on how David Cameron's objectives could be met by a fair democratic process.   Send your views to Candidate Feedback

Party Conference

This was a good conference for the Conservative Party.   There were some excellent speeches in the Conference hall and particularly in the fringe meetings.   Big Dave did all that was expected of him.   He set out the direction we were going and his values.   His strategy is working.   The crunch will come over the next twelve months as policies are announced.   There are two issues that have to be resolved.     The first is the "A" list (see above) and the second regarding policy development will be essential if we are to remain united as a Party.    At the moment the ordinary "grass roots" members are not on board the Cameron project.   They are neutral.   They want to see what will happen on policy.   The way to get the members on board is to involve them in policy development.   So far they have been excluded.   This cannot go on.    It must be changed.   The Conservative Policy Forum has a crucial role to play in this.   It should hold meetings around the country to discuss policy in depth.   The meetings should exclude the media so that full and frank discussion can take place.   Party members should be invited to these meetings.

There were several brilliant innovations at the conference.   It was a great idea to have voting machines.     Properly used these could revolutionise conference, but do not use them for froth.   Have them for real debates on policy.   We must have motions for debate with the ability to amend them.   Allow proper speeches ( 4 minutes) so that a point can be made in depth.   The "dragon's den" sessions were better than expected but do not have so many on the panel judging them and have a policy detail rather than a broad motion.

The set was without doubt the best in recent years.   Congratulations to Central Office.   The pass situation was diabolical.   Someone's head should roll.   It was a great idea to allow text messaging on the big screen but only show them between speeches.   It is very distracting when the speaker is speaking.   You either listen to the speech or read the text.

September 10th

Built to Last or Jerry Built?

In a poll of COPOV members at Saturday's meeting when asked how they were going to vote on the Built to Last document we had the following result:

                                        For                     17%

                                        Against              50%

                                        Abstentions       33%

Those that were against were against because of omissions from the document.   The subjects which caused most concern were Foreign policy.   There is a growing feeling in the grass roots that we should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, that we should spend our money on better equipment for our troops and have more troops rather than on the Trident nuclear submarine.

There was also strong feeling that we wanted lower taxes and that the Party is making a big mistake in thinking that because this did not resonate with the electorate at the last election it will not do so at the next general election.   Strong immigration controls were required and lastly the issue of Europe has to be resolved once and for all.   It is undemocratic and unless this is altered there is a growing feeling that we should pull out.

We do not claim that this is a representative sample of members but it is interesting how many will vote against and how many will abstain regarding what is a fairly innocuous document.   are the grass roots developing a rebellious mood?   If so it is probably because of the way thay have been treated over the selection of parliamentary candidates.

Association of Constituency Chairmen

Many Constituency Association Chairmen are increasingly fed up with the way they are rubber stamped at the National Convention and there are moves to create a new body called the Association of Constituency Chairmen which can represent the views of the Chairmen.   If any Chairmen are interested in this development let me know.   Their interest will be kept strictly confidential and there names will not be disclosed to anybody without their consent.    At present six Chairmen have expressed an interest.

Party Conference

COPOV and the Charter Group are organising a fringe meeting on the selection of parliamentary candidates.   Further details will be announced in due course.

On Tuesday 3rd October at 1pm at the Heritage Hotel, New Politics Network are organising a fringe meeting on Party funding: supporting grassroots activity

Speakers will include Rt. Hon. Francis Maude MP, Andrew Tyrie MP and the Chairman of COPOV John Strafford.   Do come it should be interesting!

September 3rd

Nazisraeli War Crime
It was announced this week by the United Nations that 100,000 cluster bombs had been dropped in Southern Lebanon during the last three days of the fighting.   These cluster bombs should be made illegal as they will kill innocent civilians for years to come unless removed.   There can be no justification for their use and the Nazisraelis should be charged with War crimes accordingly.

Movement for European Reform

The Conservative Party set out this week the mission and functions of the Movement for European Reform.   What a weak document it proved to be.   Only one European politician was mentioned in the document - Mirek Topolanek - who we understand has some personal problems to sort out and that was it.   It has no budget, no Director, no office, nothing.    In fact it looks like one big sop.   Will it last?   I doubt it.

"Any Questions?"

Who in Central Office put up Shireen Ritchie to appear on Any Questions?   She seemed all at sea churning out the responses parrot like as she was no doubt briefed by Central Office.   In answer to one question I counted no less than 24 umms and errs.   Now Shireen is a pleasant woman who can make pleasant conversation but she is not a politician, she has not been elected either as a politician or as Chairman of the Candidates Committee so who put her up?   We have almost 200 MPs.   Could we not find at least one of them, and would it not have been even better if we had put up one of the "A" list women, or would that have been too risky?   Shireen, stick to the back room.   Your job is to promote the candidates, not yourself.

August 27th

Stop Digging Dave

This week Big Dave made another statement about candidate selection.    What a disaster for Party democracy?   What is he trying to do?    Does he not realise how demotivating it is for grass roots members to be told that it was alright for them to vote for him as Leader but not for their local Parliamentary candidate?   When he asked them to vote for him did he say that he was going to eliminate democracy within the Party?   We set out below the changes that are now to be implemented.   This is Dictatorship of the worst kind.   Watch membership plummet, then watch the Tory Party grovel to the Government for State Funding.   What a shame.

announcing further reforms to build on this early progress.

• The Priority List has been expanded as planned. Press reports that the Priority List has been

150, of whom nearly 60 per cent are women.

• For the next round of selections, target seat Associations with fewer than 300 members will

roll in the constituency can vote.

• Larger target and Conservative-held seat Associations will have a choice between adopting

More choice for Associations

detailed scrutiny by local activists in the final round.

There are many Constituency Associations with less than 300 members.   These Associations will now have to have open primaries.   We do not object to this as long as the final vote of endorsement of the candidate is put to the membership, but there has been no promise of this.   If the members do not have a vote they will have been disenfranchised.    The average Conservative membership in a Constituency is 300, so half the Constituencies will be disenfranchised.   What a disgrace?   What about the others?

Those with over 300 members can have an open primary as above.   The members will lose their vote or to be precise their vote will only count as much as any Labour or Liberal Democrat member.

Alternatively they can have an all woman short list.   In which case they have been denied the dignity of choice and denied their democratic rights.

Or finally it can be left up to   the Executive to choose the candidate - an Executive which will have been manipulated beforehand by the Party hierarchy.   The members lose their vote.

All in all this is one of the most vicious attacks on Party democracy in the Party's history.   If successful turn out the lights on the voluntary Conservative Party, and David Cameron will go down in history as the man that killed it.

Labour's Idea of Party Funding

Labour’s increasing reliance on the unions.
The Electoral Commission today published figures for donations to political parties in the second quarter of 2006. These showed that Labour received a total of £3.4 million in donations, of which £2.5 million, or 74 per cent came from the unions. This compares to a total of £5,819,668 in the second quarter of 2005, of which £3,511,411, or 60 per cent, came from the unions (Electoral Commission).
 
Labour rejects reform of union funding
In the NEC consultation on the future of party funding, Labour say that they: ‘….totally reject any assertion by our political opponents that the affiliated link is one of the problems in party funding.’ (NEC consultation: the future of party funding, June 2006, p.41)

The Reality: Unions Controlling Labour
In Government, Labour has granted wide-ranging concessions to the unions:

• Under an agreement reached with the unions in July 2004, the ‘Warwick Agreement’, Labour agreed over 60 concessions, including the watering down of anti-strike legislation and additional Government funding for the unions. In return, the unions agreed to provide funding for Labour’s 2005 General Election campaign.

• Labour introduced the Employment Relations Act 2004 which created a £10 million ‘modernisation fund’ for the unions, with few conditions attached.

• Labour bowed to union pressure and shelved plans to force existing public sector employees to retire at 65.

Labour continue to be funded by the unions:

• During 2005, over half of Labour’s funding came from the unions. Out of a total £21,716,133 donated to Labour in 2005, £11,972,816 came from the unions (Electoral Commission).

• Since the beginning of 2001, around two thirds of Labour’s funding has come from the unions. The Labour Party has received £82 million in donations, of which £52 million has come from the unions (Electoral Commission).

The unions continue to govern the Labour Party:

• They account for one third of the votes for the next leader of the Labour Party.

• They make Labour Party policy through the National Policy Forum.

• They exercise a 50 per cent block vote on policy motions debated at the Labour Party conference.

So now we see that both of the main political Parties are undemocratic.   The people know this so expect a minuscule turnout at the next election.

Did You Know?

From 1998 to 2004 we have had 24,468 new regulations imposed on the British people by this dictatorial government.    Nobody now knows what the law is.   Do you?

August 20th

The "A" List

Will they never learn?   We are told that the "A" List is being expanded to 150 and of this women will comprise 60%.   Is Central Office stupid or just plain thick?   We now have a situation where 90 women are on the list out of the original 110 women candidates and 60 men out of the original 440 candidates so women have an 11 to 9 chance of being on the list whereas men have a 22 to 3 chance of being on the list.   As a result by their own criteria because it is so much more difficult for the men, those that are on the list will be of a higher calibre than the women.   Do not be surprised when the Constituency Associations choose men.   This system is fundamentally flawed.    It should be scrapped forthwith.   It is a blemish on the Cameron leadership which should be removed.

Built to Last

The new Built to last document was published this week.   The original document was vacuous junk and quite rightly it was recognised by the powers that be that it had to be changed.   The new document is not much better but at least we are beginning to see some specific policies spelt out and generally they are pretty good.   Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy - Giving the House of Commons power to vote on Treaties and Wars - Responding to the West Lothian question - a Bill of Rights - abolishing Regional Assemblies.   These are all excellent policies.   I am also delighted that Northern Ireland gets a mention.

Overall the document is now 50% vacuous junk which nobody will take exception to, so I expect a 100% vote in favour of it but do not expect a very high turn out.   Will we be given the total  of those entitled to vote i.e. the total membership as well as those that do vote?   Will the Electoral Reform Society monitor the voting?   Will they put this additional question on the voting paper "Is this a sensible way to spend Party money?"    I wait in anticipation.

Tesco

If anybody thinks that the days of the public meeting are over they have never been to one of the excellent Intelligence squared debates that are held at the 600 seat Royal Geographical Society.   There is usually a good sized audience, but the next debate is already sold out and has been for several weeks.   The subject is "Long Live Tesco".   As a resident of Gerrards Cross which has had a half built Tesco store in the centre which nobody wanted I just wonder how many tickets Tesco have bought up for the debate?

13th August

Terrorist Attack

There are two facts that have emerged in the last few days.    They are:

1) 23 people have been arrested.

2) The police have alleged that there was a terrorist plot.

Everything else is pure speculation.   What has happened to Freedom, Liberty and Justice in the United Kingdom when government Ministers speculate about alleged incidents?   Hours of television coverage, pages of newsprint - all speculation.   The media's behaviour has been disgraceful.   We should remember that as yet nobody has been charged and nobody has been tried. 

At the height of the Second World War in 1943 Winston Churchill said "The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."

Read that again.   Is this what the United Kingdom has come to?   I wonder.

Congratulations Don!

Congratulations are in order to Don Porter first of all for sending out a Board Report and then a Strategy document to all Constituency Chairmen.    There was not much of interest in the Board Report, but at least it is a start in improving communication between Central Office and the Constituencies.    How about a quarterly report on membership numbers Don?

The Strategy Team Update contained more substance and was very helpful in showing what is being done and who by.   Several points arise from it:

a)    There are going to be 3 additional MPs on the Party Board.   They will not have voting rights.   Will they be elected by the Parliamentary Party?   If not how will they be selected and on what basis?   As they will be put in a position of influence who will they be accountable to?   How about three non voting members of the voluntary party on the Board?

b)    We are promised "genuine debate and the opportunity to shape direction with greater membership engagement" at the Party Conference.   Does this mean we will have motions for debate?    Will the motions be capable of amendment?   Will there be votes taken?   Will speakers from the floor have three or four minutes to put their points or will it be the usual frothy one minute please?

c)    Finally Don, you state that you "do not believe it appropriate to report confidential financial information in this format."   In what format would you publish financial information?    The biggest area of mistrust between the Constituencies and Central Office is over how the centre spend money.   This could be remedied by publishing at the beginning of the financial year a budget for the year and then each quarter showing the actuals against budget.   This would help enormously to break down the distrust.    Time after time we hear from Board members that the finances are under strict control and then when the Party's Accounts are published we see we are in another financial crisis.   Nobody ever takes the can for this.   Every new person says what a shambles they have taken over.    This has to stop.    How about it Don?

Short List

There was recently published a list of the 26 new Labour women MPs elected at the 2005 General Election.   Many of them came about as a result of all women short lists.   I did not recognise a single one.   Without looking it up can anybody who is not a Labour Party member name five of them?

August 6th

Nazisraelis

Once again we have seen the shock and awe tactics from the nazisraelis.   How long can this go on?   500 dead, one million refugees in Lebanon.   It could all have been prevented if the United States had said STOP, but they didn't.   The people of the World demand an unconditional immediate cease fire on both sides, but the bullies ignore it.    The Nazisraeli tanks have rolled into Lebanon.   They should withdraw.   Nobody objects to Israel defending itself.   Nobody objects to Israel targeting rocket launchers, but we do object to the wholesale destruction of a country.   We equally condemn Hezbollah for its random attacks on Israel.   Nobody objects to Hezbollah attacking the Nazisraelis when they are occupying Lebanon.   Nobody objects when they target Nazisraeli tanks, but we all object to attacks on innocent civilians.

It is time the Conservative party spoke up.    William Hague was right to condemn the disproportionality of Israel's response.   We hear Liam Fox is unhappy with our role in Afghanistan.    We should withdraw.   Big Dave opposed the Iraq war.   We should withdraw.   British foreign policy is in a mess.   The Conservative Party has a lot of work to do.

London Mayor

Now that the selection process for a candidate for London mayor has been extended the opportunity should be taken to add to the process the requirement that the candidate that wins will have to be endorsed at a meeting of London Party members.   This will give members ownership of the process and motivate them to help.   Without it look forward to a flat campaign.

"A" List

We hear that some of the "A" list are going to be chucked off because they have not applied for any seats.   At the same time 100 have been added to the list.   What a farce this is.    Scrap it now before it does any more harm.   To ask anybody to give up their job, move house and work as a candidate for three to four years without a guarantee of success at the end of it is cloud cuckoo land.   It would mean only the wealthy could do it.   There is increasing evidence that ordinary Party members are becoming more and more resentful at the way they are being treated.    Membership is falling.   Time for action.

Incidentally, if the "A" list is supposed to be more representative of the country how many manual workers are on the list?    Lord Woolton always said that the most important reform which he brought into the Tory Party was the provision that no MP or candidate could give more than £100 to his Association.   It stopped wealthy MPs and candidates buying seats.    It also brought into Parliament the first Conservative Trade Unionist MP - Ray Mawby.   At a time when it is once again becoming very expensive to be a Conservative candidate we should remember Lord Woolton.

Built to Last

We hear that the Party is going to have the vote on this fatuous document done by telephone.   It will use an 08 pay no. so make a profit on the exercise.   Having campaigned for over ten years for the Party to use this system we are delighted that at last it is being taken up.    What a pity its first use is on such an appalling useless exercise.

July 30th

We are all Nazis now

Every nation has the right to defend itself.    Every nation has the right to declare war when another nation attacks it.    Every nation has the right to target terrorists when those terrorists are attacking it, but Israel has gone further.   What would have been said about the United Kingdom if we had bombed Dublin because the IRA had mounted an attack on Belfast from the Irish Republic, as they so often did?

There is no justification for Israel to bomb red cross ambulances.

There is no justification for Israel to kill 500 innocent people in the Lebanon.

There is no justification for Israel to bomb convoys of fleeing refugees.

There is no justification for Israel to create 500,000 refugees

There is no justification for Israel to ethnically cleanse an area of another country.

There is no justification for Israel to hold 800 Arabs without charge or trial.

There is no justification for Israel to bomb Beirut Airport.

There is no justification for Israel to bomb and destroy 55 bridges.

There is no justification to bomb unarmed United Nations personnel.

There is no justification for Israel to drop cluster bombs.

Does this remind you of the tactics employed by a regime in the 1930s?   Yes the Nazis!

The entire world with the exception of the United Kingdom and the United States condemns the actions of Israel as being disproportionate.   So what does the United States do?   The President, Dr. Strangelove send bombs and other weapons to Israel so they can use them against innocent people.   We should not be surprised, after all the Government of the United States is controlled by the major arms manufacturers and the big oil companies.   They have a vested interest in keeping this going.   What about the other Israeli collaborator, the United Kingdom?   Well Dr. Strangelove's poodle gives permission to the United States to use Britain as a staging post for the transport of the bombs  for Israel's use.

I am ashamed of the action of the United Kingdom Government which is acting in the name of the British people.   When you collaborate with those that act in the same way as the Nazis do not be surprised if that is how the rest of the World sees you.   We are all Nazis now.  

Where, oh where is the Conservative voice?

We should be demanding an immediate cease fire.

We should be giving the United Nations 100% support.

We should withdraw our troops from Iraq.

We should withdraw our troops from Afghanistan.

We should apologise to the World for the mess we have caused.

We should demand the recall of Parliament so that we can table a motion of impeachment against the worst, most disastrous Prime Minister this country has ever had.   Will we?   I doubt it.    It is easier to talk about hugging hoodies, "A" list candidates, or fatuous "Built to Last" documents.   If ever the country needed a Leader to get us out of this mess it is now.   We can only pray that one will emerge.   Justice will only be served when eventually Tony Blair is indicted for War crimes.

Built to Last

The Built to Last road show is trundling around the country with ever decreasing audiences.   This meaningless document should have been thrown in the rubbish bin.   We are told that Party members will have a vote on it.   Will the vote be counted by the Electoral Reform Society?   Will they give the number of spoilt ballot papers?   If so, we recommend that every member spoils their ballot paper or abstains to demonstrate their contempt for such a ridiculous vote when there are so many critically important matters that have to be decided, on which they will not even be consulted let alone have a ballot on.

Parliamentary Candidate Selection

Many Constituencies are in the process of choosing their Parliamentary candidate.   There is much confusion going on.

The rules on parliamentary selection are contained within the constitution of the Conservative Party Schedule 7.   However the candidates committee appointed by the Party Board produced a document called "Rules and best practise for the Selection of Conservative Candidates etc." in 1999.    There have been since then a number of further recommendations from this committee.   Any challenge to what they recommend is met by a clause in the Party Constitution which states:
"The Board shall have power to do anything which in its opinion relates to the management and administration of the Party"

The power of the Board is backed up by its ability under the constitution to place a constituency into "Support Status", which effectively means that they take over the Association. The whole process has become very undemocratic.   Prior to the Hague reforms the Constituency Association was all powerful.   Now it is the Party Board.
At the National Convention last October COPOV tried to get the Chairman of the Candidates Committee elected by and accountable to the Convention. This proposal was kicked into the long grass but we will return to it.

One other point which should be made is that as the process has become confused huge power has been put into the hands of the Regional Directors that oversee each selection.   They interpret the rules as they see fit or as they are told to do by Central Office.   Dangerous.

July 23rd

Conservative Party Accounts Analysis

• It looks as though membership is slightly down in spite of the surge in membership when the new Leader was elected.   The per capita levy dropped to £312,000 from £319,000.   Membership is almost certainly below 250,000.   Why doesn't the Conservative Party show membership figures?   The Labour Party does.

• The Party seems to be suffering from a vast increase in bureaucracy with committees by the bucketful and lots of appointed Vice Chairmen.   Who has heard of the "Individuals" Committee?    What do all these people do?   This is a good reason why the Party should have an Annual General Meeting at which the the Board would report and the Accounts of the Party would be presented, just like any other transparent democratic organisation