Archive 2000
15th February From David Futcher1st January 2001"What is the significance of this date?" you might ask. It is the 200th birthday of the United Kingdom. Although the bicentenary of the 1801 Act of Union takes place in less than a year, there is to be no official recognition of the fact. In response to a written parliamentary question asking what celebrations were planned, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, the junior Foreign Office minister replied "None". Lord Laird, who asked the question said: "A country which forgets its history is doomed." Lord Laird said that he did not expect lavish celebrations, but some recognition of an important date. "I suppose this is another example of Cool Britannia. Look at the events the Americans and the French organised for their bicentenaries." Downing Street said that any celebration was a a matter for the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office has refused to expand on Lady Scotland's answer. It is perhaps puzzling that the decision not to celebrate the United Kingdom's 200th birthday has been made by the Foreign Office. Could there be anything less "foreign" than the UK celebrating its own bicentenary? And one final question. Where does the Conservative and Unionist Party stand in all this? February Should Lord Archer be expelled from membership of the Conservative Party? Jeffrey Archer should never have been allowed to stand as the Conservative candidate
for Mayor of London. There were too many questions that were unanswered. Anybody who has read
Michael Crick's biography of Archer could list at least ten serious questions. Were the Party hierarchy
mesmerised by the famous "Krug and Shepherd's Pie" parties that he held? Were they terrified at losing
the substantial sums of money he raised for the Party? Why didn't the Chairman of the Party stop his
candidature going forward? Why didn't the Advisor on Candidates stop him? Perhaps we will never know.
After all both the Chairman of the Party and the Advisor on Candidates are appointed positions unanswerable
to the members of the Party. Party members would like answers to these questions. In the mean time
many members think that in view of Archer's work for the Party and no intention on his behalf to harm the
Party, to expel him for five years looks like an act of vindictiveness enhanced bya guilty conscience on behalf
of those who could have and should have stopped him from being a candidate in the first place.
January 23rd An Analysis of Conservative Party Income At first glance the Accounts of the Party make dismal reading.(see below) Further analysis shows that
contrary to the spin put on them by the Party Chairman the situation is not far short of disastrous.The Income
is shown in the table below:
| INCOME | 1999 |
1998 |
£'000s |
£'000s |
|
| Donations | 6,425 |
9,754 |
| Constituency quota income | 476 |
630 |
| Sundry income | 2,916 |
2,801 |
| TOTAL | 9,817 |
13,185 |
You can see from the above that
Constituency Quota income has dropped by 24%. The Conference handbooks
show that the Top 10 constituencies paid £166,716 in 1998 and £216,789 in 1999;
primarily because
Aylesbury increased its donation from £29,632 in 1998 to £79,114 in 1999. If
you exclude the Top 10
constituencies the Quota income raised from all other constituencies in the United Kingdom
fell from £463,000
in 1998 to £259,000 in 1999, a drop of 44%. Was this because the
Constituencies have no faith in Central
Office or was it because they are suffering financially themselves? To put
this in context, as recently as 1993
the Constituencies paid over £1,000,0000 in quota.
due to the fact that "Short" money (Government funding) went up from £986,000 in 1998 to £1,113,000 in 1999. Were it not
for this Sundry Income would have been down. The most disastrous area relates to donations. It is well known that Michael Ashcroft has made substantial donations to the
Party, but the other Treasurers or related parties have also done so. In 1998 the Treasurers contributed £1,374,000 to the
Party. This increased to £3,137,500 in 1999. If these figures are excluded from the total for donations, then donations fell
from £8,379,700 in 1998 to £3,287,500 in 1999. This is a decline of over £5,000,000 or 61%. Over £2,000,000 was spent in raising the income in 1999. We wonder how this was spent. It does not seem to
be a very good return in fund raising terms. Until the Conservative Party becomes more democratic and the officers of the Party become accountable to the members this
sad and sorry state of affairs will continue. Within the electoral cycle we will see an increase in
income in 2000 and we will get the same platitudes as in the past about how we have turned the corner, but the
reality is that the voluntary part of the Conservative Party is in terminal decline and those who could do
something about it put their hands over their eyes like the monkey and hope that by the time it hits the fan they
will have moved on to greater things.
27th February Conservative Network One of the mysteries of the new structure of the Conservative Party is Conservative Network. What is this
body? In it's own words it is "a nation-wide initiative to encourage busy people to take an interest in the Conservative Party
by offering a flexible programme of events" Very laudable, except that it is wholly undemocratic. It does not appear in the
Party's constitution. You can join it without paying any fee or subscription. It is not a requirement that you are even a member
of the Party. Yet, it offers "political and media training", "access to briefing and brainstorming sessions at Conservative
Central Office" and "opportunities to join the major Conservative think tanks" It operates an unofficial age limit of 45. It is
financed by Central Office. "The Conservative Network is a new style of political participation. It has been established as a means of
transforming the culture and perception of the Conservative Party" Who is it accountable to? A Vice
Chairman appointed by the Leader. Some see this body as a group within a group. Others see it as rather
sinister. Is it not time it was properly integrated into the Party's structure or scrapped? It is now spawning undemocratic off shoots. "Working under the umbrella of Conservative Network.
Conservative Insight was set up after the last election to promote a clearer understanding of the Party's new
direction. through events and literature". One of the documents produced by this group is "An Introduction to
the Conservative Party" We show below The Party Structure as shown in the document. If anybody can
understand it do let us know.
One thing however clear. It does not show where Conservative Network or Conservative Insight fit into this
structure. I think we should be told.
As a comparison we show below the structure as it really is with thanks to Jack Clayton
for drawing it up.
By Jack Clayton
INTRODUCTION
In considering how we can make the Party more democratic and at the same
time - defend democracy within the UK, it seems right to begin by setting
out some important assumptions and associated personal beliefs.
For the good of the nation we need to get successive Conservative
Governments elected to office. This means avoiding winning one General
Election narrowly with a divided party: a recipe for a single-term
government.
Labour in office has carefully avoided frittering away the country's
wealth
and will be in a good position for the Chancellor to announce a give-away
budget before the next Election. Equally - so far - they have kept their
radicals and the "loony-left" under wraps, and seem to have convinced the
electorate that they are moderate, fair and competent. They have also
displayed an enviable facility for putting a gloss on their activities.
When an electorate becomes disenchanted with the Government of the day,
it
looks for an attractive and viable alternative. If it doesn't find one, it
will "soldier on" for the time being - with the "present lot".
The Liberal Democrats seem to have peaked and to be destined for a
gentle
decline under Charles Kennedy. So the Conservative Party remains for the
time-being at any rate the only other major political party within the
UK.
Therefore, though we must fight hard and convincingly at the coming
General
Election, logic suggests the Conservative Party must pace itself for a
second term in opposition.
By 2006 or perhaps earlier if the Labour Government loses its way the
Conservative Party must be united, dynamic and attractive to all voters,
particularly the young and people of working age. By then the single
European currency will be a dead issue (either it will have failed or we
will have joined). One crucial matter will be the continued loss of
sovereignty to Europe under the Labour Government. (Once we have joined the
Euro, can any Government of any complexion prevent further transfers of
power to Brussels?) Another important subject will be the break-up of the
United Kingdom a threat if not yet a reality
IDEAS FOR THE FUTURE
So how should the Conservative Party prepare itself so that the
electorate
chooses it resoundingly after two terms of Labour?
The first hurdle is to decide if there is a future for us outside the
EU.
(By "us" I suspect I mean England. Since, given a choice, Scotland, Wales
and Northern Ireland could opt to stay in the EU as individual member
states.) If the answer is "yes", very quickly there must be a vigorous and
well-orchestrated campaign to put flesh on the bones of the hypothesis and
to start to "educate" the electorate.
If, as I believe, the answer is "no", then we must have a
clear philosophy
about our membership of the EU. This must be formulated pragmatically. We
must study what other member states want long-term from the association; we
must put Britain's (our people's) interests to the forefront (ensuring they
can live without the threat of war, with high standards of living, first
class education and health services, yet not over-governed); we must
distinguish between jingoism which we must reject - and wanting to
perpetuate standards and ways of life which represent "the best of
British". In other words we must seek a way ahead within the EU which is
positive, distinct and attractive to voters. We must treat the electorate
as rational intelligent people who are capable of assessing and accepting
clear and sensible policy statements. We must avoid superficial campaigns
like "Save Sterling". Joining the EMU would not be a major political issue
if it didn't herald further losses of sovereignty.
If, then, we have a national campaign to devise and publish attractive
Conservative policies for many years ahead, and if we miss no opportunity
to point out the weaknesses and iniquities of a Labour Government, shall we
win future elections? I don't believe we shall - without far-reaching
reforms of the party organisation and the "voluntary sector".
The party organisation can only be described as "a dog's
breakfast". I
applaud the efforts of John Strafford and the Campaign for Conservative
Democracy to have an elected Treasurer. I hope quite soon to discuss with
John and others how in the interests of clarity, fairness and
effectiveness - we might identify how to rationalise the present
organisation and make it serve a truly democratic Party. (We members need
more than an occasional opportunity to elect the Party Leader, we need to
be sure that the word democracy is to be found all through the organisation
like Blackpool through a stick of rock.) But this article is
chiefly
about re-building and re-energising the voluntary sector.
PROBLEMS OF CONSTITUENCY ASSOCIATION AND BRANCH STRUCTURE
Not all intending Conservative voters will ever be willing to join the
Party, but there should be a direct correlation between branch membership
and the size of the Conservative vote. The actions of our senior
politicians and Central Office staff may persuade voters to think of voting
Tory at the next opportunity, but we need more than promises tacit or
otherwise.
There must first be sustained growth in membership numbers to show the
trend to the world, to raise much-needed funds, and to provide armies of
activists to fight the coming elections. But few if any - potential
members join because of exhortations and the like from the centre. They
join because of local recruiting actions (campaigns with canvassing and
relevant literature), political meetings and social activities. So, if the
Party is ever to get back into power, it is vital that we first have
dynamic and committed members running branches and Constituency
Associations.
Though many constituency associations are currently holding their own in
membership terms and financially this will not be the case six or seven
years from now. Why? Because we are not attracting people of working age:
voters who are between the ages of 18 to 60. I recently attended a
political event which was attended by about 70 people. Only the speaker
and the Agent were under 60 (possibly even 65)!
Locally my branch a very active one regularly loses members because of
anno Domini (death or moves to sheltered housing or nursing homes) and
recruits only newcomers (mostly retirees). We cannot get young people to
join. Why?
Certainly we haven't shaken off the reputation of being a party riddled
by
sleaze, but this will be of less importance as new public figures replace
the "old brigade". Other factors are:
The name "Conservative" is inextricably bound to the same word
with a small
"c". A word that is used pejoratively to label ideas and people as
stick-in-the-mud, old-hat and generally belonging in the past. Labour and
to some extent - the Liberal Democrats have projected images that are
attractive to the young and the not-so-old.
I don't believe we can compete until we change our name.
Designating political parties as being of the "left" or
"right" has little
meaning today and the main difference between Labour and ourselves one we
must stress continually is that the Labour Government is for more
intervention generally, assuming that it knows what is best for business
and for the people. We are for less interference in people's lives, for
letting taxpayers keep more of their income and to decide how to dispose of
it. So the new title must stress these essential differences, perhaps by
including in it the word "Freedom".
Over the last 40 or so years I've been active in three Constituency
Associations. All could be described as ossified and conservative (small
"c"). The key decision-makers (not always holding any office) seemed more
concerned to maintain the status quo and to restrict power to their own
kind than they were to attract new activists. This still seems to be the
case today.
(As an example: when, as a result of boundary changes, my area became
part
of a new constituency, I was involved in setting up the new constituency
association. I wanted the interim management committee to conduct an audit
of members so that we could identify all people of enthusiasm, ability and
talent. The object was to encourage such people to be active and to take
on responsibilities so that we the current people in power - would have a
ready supply of experienced and dynamic successors. I explained my
proposal at a meeting of officers but it was summarily rejected by the
Chairman and not even discussed.)
MY PROPOSALS TO REJUVENATE CONSTITUENCY ASSOCIATIONS AND BRANCHES
Significant changes such as the ones outlined below - will not be
initiated locally or occur at the behest of Central Office. So the Party
Leader must give a lead and lend his authority to the campaign to
democratise the voluntary wing of the party. My proposals are:
NO CONSTITUENCY ASSOCIATION TO HAVE A FULL-TIME AGENT.
Much of the time a qualified Agent is employed on routine work and is used
by the Officers as a dogsbody. If Agents were each professionally
responsible for a number of Constituency Associations, their work would
more fulfilling and much more cost-effective. This change would save money
but, more importantly, the officers would be put on their mettle and made
to face up to their responsibilities. Whilst there would be some paid
secretarial/clerical help in each Constituency Association office, the
officers would be obliged to give up the "employer's" role, become managers
and "get their hands dirty".
CONSTITUENCY CHAIRMEN TO BE CAPABLE MANAGERS.
Chairmen must take all their duties seriously and be able and willing to
use the skills and talents available to them. Too often Chairmen regard
the role as an ego trip and carry out only those duties which attract them.
Other responsibilities are either ignored or delegated to the Agent. This
change must result in more care in the selection of officers and/or the
introduction of some kind of training regime.
ASSOCIATIONS MUST BE RUN BY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES
A committee of elected officers must formally manage each Constituency
Association. These officers will each have an area of personal
responsibility as well as sharing the overall responsibility. "Passengers"
(unelected people selected by the Chairman or otherwise co-opted) must not
be allowed to participate in discussions or to vote.
OFFICERS MUST STAND DOWN AFTER SERVING 3 YEARS.
So long as office-holders are allowed to extend their terms in office or to
move immediately to another management post, there is no real incentive to
prepare new people for office. The limits should be 3 years in one post, 6
years in office, and then a break of 3 years at least before resuming any
management position.
WHENEVER POSSIBLE, NEW OFFICER APPOINTMENTS MUST BE PHASED.
With strictly limited periods in office, it will be important to arrange
for newcomers to have the support of experienced officers. One way to
achieve this would be by ensuring that one third of the officers retire
each year.
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR ALL OFFICERS MUST INCLUDE SUCCESSION PLANNING.
If all officers know that they will be judged on the readiness of other
qualified members to take over their duties, then they will devote time and
effort in identifying and training people of potential.
ELECTIONS MUST BE FAIR AND INVOLVE ALL MEMBERS.
A standardised OMOV system, conducted through postal voting, should be
introduced. Whilst there is no need to involve professional scrutineers,
the authorised system should ensure that when election details are sent
out,they must include reports - in table form which set out the voting
records of existing officers; a statement which identifies the existing
officers who are entitled to stand again and shows, against each name,
the intended office; genuinely warm invitations to members to offer their
services.
Subsequently: the voting papers should give each candidate space to
explain briefly
their strengths and past contributions; the results including voting
details - to be formally announced; re-counts to be allowed according
to published rules.
BIGGER QUOTAS MUST BE ACCEPTED AND HONOURED.
If the party is to be financially independent, it must be mainly funded by
the voluntary sector. This means big increases in the amounts raised
locally and passed to the Central Office. This prospect will not be readily
accepted by many members and officers - without a good deal of
explanation and exhortation.
IMPLEMENTING THESE CHANGES
If these changes were accepted tomorrow, it would be some years before
the
benefits could be seen. Firstly the existing officers would have to be
convinced of the need for change. Secondly they would have to be persuaded
that the proposed changes are (reasonably) certain to produce the desired
results. Thirdly they must agree to subordinate their personal needs,
accept the new ideas and work wholeheartedly to implement them. Only then
would commence the process of re-juvenating the voluntary wing.
But how to begin the process? I don't believe I could persuade my
own
Conservative Association to adopt and promote these notions for change.
Neither can I pretend they will be welcomed by any Constituency Chairmen,
officers and other local grandees. Could they be imposed successfully from
the centre? I think not. So is there any point in expressing these ideas?
I believe there is: without the changes I advocate, the voluntary wing
will die of ossification and old age. And without a sturdy, enthusiastic
voluntary wing, the Party will go into terminal decline.
The only chance we have is to start a debate which will persuade the
people
in power including the Leader - of the consequences of inaction and of
the need to seize the initiative ASAP.
IN CONCLUSION
I thank my readers for reading through my article and ask for reactions.
Am I on the right lines? Have I failed to deal with any other significant
element? Have I failed to make myself clear? What are the next
steps? I
would dearly like to know.
Jack Clayton, Brook House, Swefling, Suffolk IP17 2BN
Tel: 01728 663747 E-mail: Jack Clayton
9th January
A continuing source of friction between Conservatives is that between members of an Association and the localCouncillors. Too often, after a Councillor has been selected by Conservative members the Councillor does
his/her own thing without reference back to the members. One way to bring the Association and Councillors
closer would be if the Conservative Group Leader on the Council was elected on a One Member One Vote basis
by the Association members. After all, if the Leader of the Party can be elected in this way , how much more
appropriate for the Leader of the Conservative Group. Of course the members of the Conservative Group would
choose say three candidates to put forward to the membership. The members would then decide by a postal
ballot after a hustings meeting. Which Council will have the courage to be the first to use this process and thus
narrow the gap between Conservative Councillors and their local Association?