Campaign for Conservative Democracy

Newsletter July 2004

[ Up ]

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

Archive 1999

Contents

Westminster Parliamentary Candidate Selection

What is happening in the Westminster Parliamentary candidate selection?   Did Westminster ever affiliate to the Conservative Party?   Nobody seems to know.   If it did then it has to stick to the  guidelines and procedures for
the selection of parliamentary candidates, but if it did not then it can conduct itself according to it's own rules.   
It would be interesting if Central Office could publish a list of those constituencies which have not affiliated.  
Pressure was brought on constituencies to affiliate by telling them they could not have representation at the Party conference if they did not affiliate.   We understand that in Westminster's case they in turn said to Central Office
that if that was the case they would not pay any money to the Party.   Collapse of Central Office.   Update.   At
the Annual General Meeting of the Westminster Association held in June 1999 in response to a question about affiliation the meeting was told "there are some rules that we do not agree with"   We can take it from that
answer that Westminster is still not affiliated to the Conservative Party.

It is said that two years ago a group of former FCS(Dissolved by Norman Tebbitt) members set up an
organisation called "The Movement" to take over  the Westminster Constituency Association.    The intention
was to keep it for Michael Portillo.    He, having got Kensington and Chelsea they switched their allegiance.  
Was their candidate successful? 

December 1st

MICHAEL ASHCROFT

by

In an article in "The Independent" (25th November) Michael Ashcroft asks "Why am I the victim of all these vicious smears?  
  I do not seek anything for myself beyond the return of a Conservative government." Has it not occurred to Mr. Ashcroft that many people find it incredible that a person who is the Ambassador to the United Nations for a foreign county (Belize), who has voluntarily opted to spend at least 275 days per annum outside the United Kingdom for tax reasons is donating £1million to the Conservative Party for nothing other than the return of a Conservative government. Did it never cross his mind that every previous holder of the post ended up with a peerage, that the position gives direct access to the Party Leader with
the opportunity whether taken or not to influence him, that as a donor of 10% of the income of the Party he is in a position as Treasurer to veto any expenditure of the Party he does not approve - a situation the Party used to avoid by having a Chinese wall between fund raising and expenditure.

In 1945 the Conservative Party suffered a massive defeat in the General Election. Party membership was only 250,000, a little less than today. It was an ageing membership - the young had gone to war. By 1951 the Party had 2.8million members and the Party Chairman, Lord Woolton, had raised £10,000,000 at today's values, mainly in small subscriptions and donations. He changed the nature of the Party by stopping candidates and MP's buying their positions by limiting to £100 per annum theamount they could donate to their Association (something we have recently forgotten). He did all this by concentrating the effort into developing mass membership. No donation or subscription was too small.

After 1951 Conservative Party membership declined. At the time of the Houghton Report on Party Funding in 1975 it was estimated at 1.5million. However the critical decline took place in the 1980's. Lord McAlpine as Party Treasurer raised every larger sums of money from fewer and fewer individuals. It was easier to do this than build up the membership. The ordinary member was ignored. By 1990 when I was a member of the Conservative Board of Finance, almost the entire Central
Income of the Party was being raised from less than 200 individuals. It was clear that a recession or severe unpopularity would decimate the Party. We got both, so that by 1993 there was an accumulated deficit of £19,000,000.

The Selection of the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London.

In the 1945 General Election 85 of the Conservative MPs elected were Old Etonians.  
Many bought their selection as candidates by promising substantial sums of money to their local Association.   When Lord Woolton became Chairman of the Party he was determined to make the Conservative Party more representative of the people.   He was also determined to prevent wealthy people "buying" the Conservative Party.   In the Maxwell-Fyfe reforms of 1948 a rule was brought in that limited the amount that a candidate could donate to his Association to £50.   This rule was enforced throughout the Party for over 40 Years.   Lord Woolton said in his Memoirs that "The change was revolutionary,
and in my view did more than any other single factor to save the Conservative Party"

In the early 1990s as the financial situation of the Party deteriorated and many Associations faced financial difficulty the expense allowances of Members of Parliament were substantially increased.   MPs came under pressure to provide financial help to their constituencies out of their expense allowance.    Questions were asked at candidate selection meetings as to how much the candidate would contribute.   As Constituency Associations became more dependant on their MP financially the MPs found that they had more power over their Constituency Association.   The threat of withdrawing finance worked wonders for the MPs to get their own way.   Once again MPs were buying their selection although this time they were using taxpayers money to do so.   Conservative Central Office first of all turned a blind eye to what was happening, then unofficially encouraged it.    Now we understand that the sum that an MP can donate is limited to £5,000 per annum as a contribution to "parliamentary" costs.

In the selection of the candidate for Mayor of London a limit of £80,000 was allowed to each candidate to spend on fighting for their selection.    There are very few candidates that can afford to spend that amount of money.    Once again only the wealthy can participate.   The Conservative Party has reverted back over 50 years.   It is time the Party brought into being detailed rules for internal elections.

London has 38,000 members of the Conservative Party.   If similar rules applied to the selection process as to a candidate fighting a General Election each candidate would be allowed approx. 15p per elector plus a free mailing.    In the case of the selection of Mayoral candidate this would mean that each candidate would have been limited to £5,700 - a much more reasonable amount than the £80,000 that they could have spent.   One can only speculate as to whether the present candidate for London's Mayor would be there if there ad been such a limit.

If the Conservative Party is to be "saved" again it must not allow itself to become the plaything of the wealthy.   Where is Lord Woolton today?   We hope he is not turning in his grave. 

November 21st

Ethics and Integrity

The downfall of Jeffrey Archer was utterly predictable.   Many party members knew he would never get to the Mayoral election.   Below we show the major flaw in the Conservative Party selection process.   This apart, what else could or should have been done?

Under the Party's Constitution it states:

80         "No Member of Parliament, Prospective Member of Parliament, Member of the European Parliament or          Prospective Member of the European Parliament, Councillor or Candidate, Party Member, Party Officer, Party
employee or applicant for membership shall engage in conduct bringing or likely to bring the Party into disrepute.

81         If  the conduct of any of those mentioned in Article 80 above is such that the Leader or the Board, in his or its absolute discretion, has grounds for thinking, is or may be conduct bringing or likely to bring the Party into disrepute,
the Leader or the Board shall refer the matter to a Committee, the Ethics and Integrity Committee, appointed by the
Board and consisting of the Chairman of the National Convention and the Chairman of the 1922 Committee and which
shall be chaired by a Queen's Counsel in private practise"

In view of the above why didn't the Ethics and Integrity Committee thoroughly check out Jeffrey Archer?   Was it
because the Party at the top still operates like a cosy little club and members of that club rather enjoyed champagne
and
shepherds pie at Jeffrey's expense, either at the party conference or at his various homes?   The truth is that the
Committee should have given a grilling to the candidate for Mayor of London, because it is such a high profile
position.   He should have been questioned at length.   So who should take responsibility for the debacle that ensued because of the failure of the Committee to act.   It would be unreasonable to put the blame on the Leader.   
Organisation comes under the responsibility of the Party Board and its Chairman.   Here is where the failure lies, but
what can Party members do about it?   The Party Chairman is appointed by the leader.   He is not elected by the members.   Until this happens there is no democratic accountability within the Conservative Party.   Brace yourself for further cases like Jeffrey Archer to
arise in the future.

Incidentally:

83     The Ethics and Integrity committee shall :

83.4 meet at least twice a year to consider issues of integrity and personal conduct in general, and if it judges
necessary, or on the request of the Leader, shall report as appropriate.

    When has it met and what has it reported?   After all:

85     "The determination of the Ethics and Integrity Committee shall be published by the Board as soon as reasonably practicable after receipt by it".

What really happened at the National Convention.

The  Conservative Party has lost none of its skills at stage management.   This was vividly illustrated at  the National Convention on 4th October in Blackpool.   The Establishment were so terrified that the motion to elect a Registered Treasurer might receive substantial support that  a concerted effort was made to contact Constituency Chairmen prior to the Convention to tell them to vote against the motion.   Even the Conference Chairman - Brian Hanson - was given his list of Chairmen to contact!

See Update below for Brian Hanson's response. 17.10.99

The meeting started in the usual way  with the Chairman's (Robin Hodgson) opening remarks and then went on to confirm the Minutes of the Last Meeting held at Reading on 14th March 1999.  
Included in the Minutes was an item moved by John Strafford "to include a requirement for there to be time to question Candidates standing for office"i.e. The Party Board.   The Minutes correctly record that this amendment to Standing Orders was approved by the meeting.

Under Matters Arising the Chairman (Robin Hodgson) stated that the officers of the Convention had considered the above amendment and had decided that it was not appropriate to bring it in at this time, so they had decided to defer it.    He then asked the meeting for their agreement and moved to next business.    Not a single voice was raised in protest at this high handed action.    The officers have no right to overturn a motion passed by the Convention.    If this is how business is to be conducted in the future what is the point of having a Convention?   Is this not the way the old Soviet Politburo used to act?    How supine is the Convention?   It needs drastic reform.    This was one more nail in the coffin of Party democracy.   At this rate Robin Hodgson may go down in history as the man who destroyed the Voluntary part of the Conservative Party; but there was more to come!

There then followed a session on Parliamentary Selection Procedures, the whole of which could have been put in a written paper.   A short period was given for questions.

After coffee there was a session on Funding of the Voluntary Party which was useful and interesting but highlighted the low priority that the Party gives to membership by the few people employed at Central Office to deal with membership (one).

The last session before the debate on the elected Treasurer was on Considering Changes to the Party's Constitution.   A long speech was made by John Taylor virtually all of which was already in writing before the members of the Convention.   There was a short time for questions.

  The proposals on the Re-selection of MPs went through.    Nobody raised the question as to why if the MP decides to have a ballot of all Party members only the MP can send out any literature giving reasons for his/her selection even though at this stage he /she has lost the support of their Executive Council.

At approx. 12:30 the Party Chairman arrived in the Hall.    He waited until immediately before the debate on the Treasurer was due to start before taking his place on the platform to the usual applause.

John Strafford then moved the following motion: "That Part IV, Clause 12.9 of the Constitution of the Conservative Party be altered as follows":

Delete the words "The Treasurer of the Party, who shall be appointed by the Leader"

Insert the words "The Registered Treasurer of the Party, who shall be elected by the National Conservative Convention"

He said

"Last week at the Labour Party Conference the delegates rejected a motion on Economic Policy proposed by the platform.
So what did the Chairman of the Conference do - He said to the delegates "You are confused. We'll take the vote again
tomorrow morning" and the next day the woman who had opposed the resolution took the rostrum and said "I'm sorry
delegates, I'm sorry if I embarrassed the Party. I didn't mean to" and they took the vote again and it was passed.

 I beg to move"

After John Strafford had spoken Robin Hodgson then made a speech of approx. 15 minutes opposing the motion.  
He said the motion was all about Michael Ashcroft ( Although as you can see above John Strafford never
mentions Michael Ashcroft) and that this was the issue that the press would concentrate on.   He spoke at length about the negotiations with John Strafford to withdraw the motion, and got the sympathy of the audience by
saying that one of the conditions of John Strafford's withdrawal was that he would be a member of the working
party to be set up to examine the Bill on Party Funding.   This was not correct.   In the first telephone
conversation John Strafford had with Robin Hodgson Robin offered a place on the working party to John
Strafford.   A week later when further discussions were taking place and when Robin Hodgson was under great pressure (from Whom?) he said that he could not guarantee a place on the working party. (Robin Hodgson is the senior Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party and Chairman of the National Convention)

After the meeting Robin Hodgson issued a press release which stated: "The meeting confirmed its support for Michael Ashcroft's great efforts in raising money for the party (As you can see above Michael Ashcroft is
not mentioned in the motion so we do not know how you can arrive at this statement) and clearly
felt that John Strafford's proposal was above all inappropriately timed and likely to be used by members of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties for their own ends.   John Strafford has undoubted energy and passion; it is
a pity he does not turn this on our opponents.   He is an experienced volunteer and one can only conclude that his proposal was either naive or mischief making."

After The Meeting

John Strafford being interviewed by Laura Trevelyan of the BBC.   Hold it.   Who is this interrupting the interview?

Why, it is Robin Hodgson, Chairman of the National Convention.

We unreservedly apologise for the error in our report and withdraw the allegation that Brian Hanson was given a list.