|
Campaign for Conservative Democracy Newsletter August 2004 |
|
|
Archive 2003
FROM THE GRASS ROOTS BY A CONSERVATIVE REALISM AT LAST At the end of October, 90 Conservative Members of Parliament, realising that under an ineffective leadership our Party was on the road to nowhere, decided to end Iain Duncan Smith’s two year term in office. In doing so, and having risked everything, they gave us new hope and a chance to once again become a serious force on the centre right of politics. The unopposed election of Michael Howard has shown that all sections of the Party will untie around a plausible candidate who has presence and who can be seen as a potential Prime Minister. And to have served in the Cabinet as Environment Secretary, Employment Secretary and Home Secretary under two different Prime Ministers is a great advantage. Some of our Party workers and Members will complain over lack of consultation with the grass roots in the election of Michael Howard. They have a point. But surely they don’t want a repeat of the fiasco of August/September 2001 when both Iain Duncan Smith and Kenneth Clarke went on the ballot paper, both with only one third support from Members of Parliament? And at the time of the September/October crisis it led Iain Duncan Smith to claim he had the support of 320,000 Party members when only 80% of us voted and of those 39% backed Kenneth Clarke. Yes, there is a rule for Party members to play but at the end of the day the Party with most MPs forms the Government and that Government has to have the MPs support to get its legislation through Parliament. Party members will always vote for someone who they think shares their own opinions. Members of Parliament will look at the broader picture, not least to their own prospects of re-election. This surely led them to ‘ditch’ IDS – and the latest opinion polls showing a marked decline in support for the Liberal Democrats means that there is much less likelihood of them losing to the ‘yellow peril’. Our opponents have labelled Michael Howard as an extreme right winger quoting in particular his time as Home Secretary when he made the famous statement: "Prison works". In view of some of David Blunkett’s recent statements, I would say that they make Michael Howard seem like a prissy Liberal. And in 18 years of Government, from 1979 to 1997, out of seven Home Secretaries in the Thatcher/Major administrations, David Waddington is the only other one who could be said to be on the right of the Party. And as far as capital punishment is concerned, Parliament will never vote to restore the death penalty. It is a ‘dead duck’ and we should spend our time on other more important things. (Pace, David Davis!) IDS deserves credit for getting the Party to focus on things such as Health and Education and the policy statements produced in Blackpool are an attempt to offer a different solution to the decades old notion that only the corporate state can provide such services, financed out of general taxation. Just as Margaret Thatcher took on the vested interests in the early 1980’s, so too will the next Conservative Government, whether it is in 2006 or 2011, have to face similar challenges. The Community Charge on ‘Poll Tax’ of the early 1990’s failed because it was a fixed charge and bore no relationship to a person’s ability to pay. Yet the principle that everyone who has use of services provided by the local authority should contribute towards the cost was surely right. We now have the situation where the Government is cutting its grant to shire (and mainly Tory voting) councils who are being forced to raise the Council Tax by anything between 5% and 15%, when inflation is about 2.5%. And if Local Government finances is in a mess what about higher education and the Government’s proposals to charge each student up to £3,000 in tuition fees? For main stream Labour supporters, the answer is simple. Because the universities are funded primarily out of taxation, the Government has the right to determine who goes there and if to get 50% or pupils into higher education it means social engineering and ‘Mickey Mouse’ courses, then so be it. The logic of all this is to stamp out failure by whatever means. We know, for instance, that a degree in nursing is now the requisite for a good job in the profession and so we have the absurd situation where 21 or 22 year olds know everything in theory but lack the practical skills that are necessary, ones which would have been taken for granted 20 or 30 years ago. Similarly, in my own profession – accountancy – none of the bigger firms will take3 you on unless you have a university degree, although not necessarily in accountancy, economics or mathematics. The days of five ‘O’ levels and five years Articles or Clerkship (alternatively two ‘A’ levels are four year Articles) are long gone. And many of those who do become Chartered or Certified Accountants have passed the exams (admittedly difficult) knowing all the theory but having little practical experience other than going out on long and sometimes complex audits of large companies. Yet some of our finest industrialists, such as Sir Nigel Rudd, left school at 16, worked hard and obtained their ‘chartered’ qualification without spending three or four years at university. Some will say it is sour grapes on my part in that I am deriding the achievements of those who go to university simple because I do not have a degree. Looking back 35 years later, I can say that had I gone straight from school into an accountancy practice ( having gained the two '‘'’levels required in the right subjects) I would have been much happier and probably got the Chartered examinations as I would have been ‘examination minded’ all the time. As it was, illness prevented me from going into practice until I was 24 (five years after my ‘A’ levels) and I had lost my examination touch. And I know that even with my limited knowledge, I am much happier preparing accounts than I would have been as a B.A. teaching French or Russian to schoolchildren. What are we to make of the Government’s latest wheeze? It now wants to consult us, the general public, about major policy issues and where we think it may be going wrong. Like much else about this Government, it is a gimmick, just as the ill fated annual reports on Great Britain plc were. If Tony Blair wants to know what’s going on he should spend a bit more time in the chamber of the House of Commons. MPs grievances, voiced in behalf of their constituents, are the answer – not some remote E-mail which will be buried with all the others. But 6 ½ years in office have taken their toll and Blair no longer has that confident, all embracing "I’m a nice guy" look which reaped dividends in May 1997. We know he has a heart murmur and recently suffered stomach pains. He is pale, haggard and obviously ahs too little sleep (hardly surprising with a three year old son to keep you awake). He committed British troops to a seemingly unending war in Iraq, faced an enquiry into the death of a senior civil servant, has had his foundation hospitals scheme scuppered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and faces a revolt of nearly 150 Labour MP’s over university tuition fees. For a Government and a Prime Minister which enjoyed a four year honeymoon with the electorate (the longest in living memory) the last 8 months must have been a nightmare. When once asked what might drive a Government off course, Harold Macmillan replied "Event, dear boy, events." How true this is. It seems to me that our Party’s biggest failure has been to try and mimic Tony Blair in what I call "me tooism". Of course, as time change and attitudes alter we, as a Party, must move with them. But , unlike Blair who had to ditch his Party’s commitment to Clause 4 (nationalisation etc.), our core message remains the same – less Government intervention, greater opportunities for people to provide for themselves and their families, strong defence, a social security system that provides for the truly needy, and total opposition to the idea that a European super state of 30 nations, each with their own difficulties and problems, will bring security and economic stability. And we should be banging the drum for the reform of the taxation system where more and more people on fairly on its own pet projects. Government spending is like a Leviathan – the more you give it, the more it wants. ‘The third way’, ‘Blairism’, ‘new Labour’, - whatever you like to call it, will run its course and have its day. When Blair eventually leaves office he may be remembered more for his foreign affairs exploits (who was the last Prime Minister to lead us into five wars?) than for his domestic policies and the massive increases in public spending. He and his Chancellor have presided over an increase in welfare dependency and have confirmed that when the chips are down, Labour will always conclude that the Government, supposedly acting on behalf of the whole nation, really knows what is best for you. We have a mountain to climb at the next General Election. It would take a ‘swing’ of over 10% to give us an overall majority of one. But many Labour held seats are vulnerably on ‘swings’, much smaller than this. We should also be able to recapture seats lost over two General Elections to the Liberal Democrats. Under Michael Howard’s leadership I am confident that we can make serious in-roads into Labour’s large majority and show, once again, that we can rise like a phoenix from the ashes, and, as I said at the beginning, become a commanding force on the centre right of British politics. December 21st The Honours List The "Sunday Times" is exploding the myths about the Honours list. We now know what a disgraceful process the choosing of people for an honour has become. They have exposed the luvvies of Tony Bliar but in one area they have been silent. That area needs exposing like the others. It is "political honours". Why hasn't the "Sunday Times" listed those that have turned down a political honour? Why haven't they shown the deliberations about political honours? Why haven't they shown the workings on the committee on members of the House of Lords? After all they have gone back quite a few years. Is it that it would be explosive? Do they have the nerve or is it that they just do not know? I think we should be told. The Ashcroft Takeover We hear that Central Office are becoming increasingly concerned about the strings that attach to Lord Ashcroft's donation to help marginal constituencies. Once a donor starts telling you what you can or cannot do with his money where does it end? Is a donation attached to policy acceptable? If there is a difference between Lord Ashcroft and Central Office as to which constituencies should get the money whose view prevails? How do constituencies qualify? I think we should be told precisely how this scheme will operate.December 14th Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh has been appointed as the Chairman of the Conservative Party Foundation, an appointment that we welcome (see above). However before he starts spouting off about Tory finances he really ought to understand them. In a radio interview with Peter Obourne he denigrated State Funding of political Parties in spite of the fact that the Tory Party has received over £12 million from the State in the last three years. Do not bite the hand that feeds you. Of course the Tory hierarchy are afraid of State Funding because sooner or later the Electoral Commission will demand accountability for the funds rather than just handing them over to the oligarchy that controls the party. He then went on to say that State Funding was not that important because the Constituency Associations raise about £40 million a year. He is living in cloud cuckoo land if he believes that. Of the 650 Constituencies about 150 have no organisation at all. That leaves the other 500 to raise the £40 million i.e. £80,000 each. Would it were so. Only a few Constituencies have an average membership fee of over £25.00 but let us imagine that they all did. With 300,000 members (on the high side) that would bring in £7.5 million. The best constituencies raise as much in their fund raising as they raise in membership. In other words another £7.5 million, making a grand total of £15 million. Somewhat short of the £40 million Lord Hesketh boasts about. My granny used to say "Keep your head cool, your feet warm, your bowels open and your mouth shut. Good advice Lord Hesketh until you know what you are talking about. December 7th Prescott prepares for Leadership Challenge The challenge for the Leadership of the Labour Party is developing. It has been dominated recently by Gordon Brown. One name that never gets a mention is that of "Fighting" John Prescott. Some say that this is because he never shows any Leadership qualities. All this is about to change. Tucked away in "Personnel Today" this week is an advertisement from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The ODPM wish to appoint consultants to provide a coach to the Permanent Secretary and the ODPM Board (member John Prescott?). Expressions of interest are sought from potential service providers, with expertise in being coaches and guides to leaders in organisations that are undergoing change, to participate in a six month contract. The successful provider will work with the ODPM Permanent Secretary and Management Board to draw out their leadership abilities!. The date of the Contract award is intended to be 19th December 2003. So now we know. Dear John is expecting a leadership challenge in January and he needs all the coaching he can get if he is to be successful, hence the requirement for a very early appointment - these appointments usually take months to settle - but Johnny boy cannot wait that long. This super loyal servant of Tony Bliar is about to stick the knife in.
Democracy Assassinated Subject: who killed ids and what next? by Henry Curteis Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 The last few weeks of IDS reign as Conservative leader were an assassination, not in
the real sense of a Kennedy, but in that of a Kelly. His character was assassinated
by daily attacks in the media on his probity, his judgement, his speaking ability, his
ability to manage people, his niceness and so on, until there was nothing left. November 30th Rumbling discontent Ever since Michael Howard took over there has been a remarkable transformation in the Conservative Party. It is united. Nevertheless there is still some rumbling discontent over an e mail that was sent out by Theresa May MP and Raymond Monbiot on 30th October. It opened as follows: "Dear Colleague, We are sure you share both our disappointment at the result of yesterday's vote of confidence amongst Conservative MPs in Iain Duncan Smith's leadership of the Party and our admiration for the way in which Iain has conducted himself during what has been a very difficult period for the whole Party but particularly for Iain and his family." Everybody will join in their admiration but many members thought that at that stage of the proceedings neutrality was called for from the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Party. On a positive note COPOV were grateful to Raymond Monbiot for letting them know the intentions of the Party Board. That was good communication and although we disagreed with their action we are sure Raymond fought for the Party members interests against overwhelmimg odds. Big Donors Andrew Pearce of "The Times" seems to have an inside track at Central Office when it comes to financial matters. When he speaks there is usually something in it. There was an interesting paragraph in his article written with Tom Baldwin on 29 November. I quote: "Although the Tories' financial position has improved since Mr. Howard became leader, with donor and membership income rising, they are still desperately short of cash. This is reflected by plans to use nomination rights for a forthcoming list of new peers as a way of rewarding or encouraging some of its biggest benefactors." So can we expect peerages for Stuart Wheeler, Sir Stanley Kalms, George Megan, John Majeski? Any other nominees? When will the Electoral Commission act to prevent big donors buying influence in political parties. Labour does it with Trade Union Leaders and the Conservatives with Businessmen. It is time ther was a limit put on donations. November 23rd Party Membership It was announced this week that since Michael Howard Became the Leader of the Conservative Party 6,000 new members have been recruited. We welcome this, because the future of the Conservative Party is dependant on it being a mass membership organisation. There are those that think that the days of Party membership are over. They are not, and the first Party to recognise this will gather huge electoral benefit. On its own admission the Conservative Party has lost 30,000 members in the last two years. This trend has to be reversed. The figures are probably higher but no one knows precisely because the membership records in many constituencies are in a mess. When Central Office want a figure from the constituency for the purposes of calculating their capitation fee they are given one figure. When it comes to a vote on the Leader of the Party another figure is given. This is ludicrous. A priority for the Party should be National membership records accessible to the Constituency Associations which are updated on line so the records in the Constituency and at Central Office are identical. There is much data on the electorate which is held in the Constituency or in Central Office which is wasted because of the different records. It is time to pull all this together. Our opponents are doing so. Action this day! Agricultural Subsidies: What it costs British consumers to keep the third world poor On 10 September WTO countries met at Cancun in Mexico to further the Doha round of trade talks. Policy Exchange published a scorecard showing the extent and cost of agricultural subsidies in the first-world. Today, the rich world protects its farmers with a costly and counter-productive system of trade restrictions and subsidies. As their scorecard shows:
Worse, farm subsidies devastate the world’s poor. Whereas farming makes up only 2% of the European and American economies, and employs less than 5% of their workforces, it is vital to those of less industrialised countries.
Today’s trade and subsidy regime impoverishes third world peasants and first world shoppers and taxpayers, to the sole benefit of a few rich-country farmers. Cancun is a chance not to be missed. The scorecard can be viewed on their website at www.policyexchange.org.uk. If you have any questions or wish to give feedback, please contact Anna Reid, Research Director at Policy Exchange on 0207 340 2650. November 16th Fiona Bruce selected Prospective Parliamentary Candidate, or was she? We understand that whilst Chairman of the Conservative Party Theresa May wrote to each constituency Association just prior to them selecting their parliamentary candidate setting out the various options they had. (If anybody has a copy of the letter we would be interested to see it). Amongst the options put forward was a Primary style selection. Warrington South have just conducted such a Primary. Any voter regardless of Party could register with the Association and participate in the selection. The list the Association had was reduced in the normal way by interview down to three who were then allowed to campaign without spending any money until the selection meeting. We do not object to genuine Primary elections except that one of the requirements should be that any Conservative candidate can stand. This did not happen in this case. Also in a Primary the voters should have to register as Conservatives. Why should the selection process be distorted by allowing Labour and Lib Dem supporters to participate. You could end up not with a Conservative but a hybrid. After all it is a Conservative government that the electors are voting for not a hybrid. However for this type of primary to take place the constitution of the Conservative Party will have to be changed. The Constitution states quite clearly that in the selection of parliamentary candidates Rule 15.2.4 The Chairman of the Association shall convene a General meeting of the Association which shall select the Prospective Parliamentary candidate. It would appear that in Warrington South this has not happened and with the connivance of the former Party Chairman, so Fiona Bruce may think she is the candidate but until the General Meeting she isn't. Not a very satisfactory state of affairs. It is what happens when Party Chairmen ignore their own constitution. Ashcroft take over?. It is reported that Lord Ashcroft has set up a fund of two million pounds to help the Conservative Party in the marginal seats. The Fund will be run by Stephen Gilbert the former Director of Organisation at Central Office. There is no doubt that money in the constituencies should be spent more wisely than at Central Office because at least in the Constituency Associations there is an elected Treasurer who is accountable to the membership. We do however have some reservations about this scheme. The Constituencies have to bid for the money presumably by putting forward their case. The question that has to be raised is who takes the decision on which Constituencies get the money and how much? If that person is Stephen Gilbert or a committee set up by Lord Ashcroft then we have no reservations, but if it is Lord Ashcroft that takes the decision then we strongly object. It would be a dangerous precedent if a donor of funds to the Party could attach strings as to how those funds are spent except in the most general way. This issue should be clarified. More on the Leadership Only one e mail has been received by COPOV criticising the stance we took. In the interest of fairness we publish it below together with our reply. From: acdeveney@btopenworld.com Mr Strafford As a member of the party I do wonder whether you wish to get behind the leadership, duly elected via the rules of the party, or whether you wish for some form of "coup d'etat"? You cannot describe the rules as being undemocratic when clearly they have been followed. The key issue is to remove this disastrous labour regime before it destroys the fabric of our country and our society - this can only be done by supporting the party, discussing our differences and moving forward - not sniping and griping. On the issue of democracy I also wonder who elected you spokesman on behalf of the membership and what polling of the membership, formal not anecdotal, you have performed before airing your views to the BBC. We need to be together, not fighting each othe. Surely that is clear, it is certainly clear to our elected members all of whom of course will be subject to scrutiny by their constituency parties before standing at the next election. For the sake of the country please desist from this constant back biting Yours sincerely Andrew Deveney Reply Dear Mr. Deveney, 9th November The First Broken Promise Prior to his election as Leader of the Conservative Party Michael Howard said that he wanted the decision to go to the members of the Party for ratification. Raymond Monbiot (Chairman of the National Convention, and Don Porter (President of the National Convention) both publicly said it would go to the members for ratification under the Party's Constitution. This states that "In the event of there being only one valid nomination........ the nominee may if so ordered by the Board be ratified by a ballot of the Party Members.... to be held within one month of the close of nomination." It was reasonable for Party members to believe that this would happen, but it hasn't. Instead it was decided that Central Office would telephone Constituency Chairman and ask for their views after they had consulted with their Branch Chairmen. I wonder what they would say! We are told that the reason for this limited consultation was the cost of contacting the membership.This argument might hold water except for the fact that within the next couple of weeks Michael Howard will be writing to all party members asking them for money. In which case why couldn't a ballot paper be put in the envelope also? In this modern age ballots could be done by telephone or the internet at minimal cost. You could even make a profit on the exercise. So the cost is an excuse, not a reason. Why is the Party afraid of going to the membership? Two years ago in the election of Iain Duncan Smith we saw that Party membership was 330,000. The Party now talks of 300,000 members but I have never heard of any Party spokesman do anything but overestimate the size of the membership, so we can safely assume that membership is about 275,000. In other words we have lost 55,000 members in the last two years, nearly 20% of our membership. It might be worse, but with no ratification we will never know. Of course, the other aspect of this is that we would know how many members voted for Michael Howard. In view of the way they have been treated it is thought that many would abstain. How embarrassing this would be for the new Leader. So to avoid all this what do we do? Scrap the ratification. It is sad that the first action of the Party under its new Leader is to break its promise. Not a word of comfort to the members about improving democracy in the Party. To the contrary it is back to the bad old days. Until the culture of the Party changes we will continue to stumble along. Do we have to wait for another election defeat before we change? As Michael Howard attacks the Labour Party for destroying democracy in our constitution what will he say when it is pointed out that in his own organisation they do not practise democracy? A Democratic Country? Hereditary Peers By-Election Result Lord Biddulph The result was announced by the Clerk of the Parliaments in the House at 3 2nd November The Big Stitch Up It looks increasingly likely that Michael Howard will be the only candidate for the Leadership of the Conservative Party. Although 156,000 members of the Party voted for Ian Duncan Smith 8 members, who happen to be MPs, got rid of him. This makes a mockery of democracy. It is the big stitch up. Under the Party's constitution where there is only one candidate, if so ordered by the Party Board that candidate will be put to the membership for ratification. We have campaigned for this to happen and it looks as if it will. Two members of the Party Board - Raymond Monbiot and Don Porter - have said they will ensure that this happens. Michael Howard is also in favour. This will be the only opportunity for Party members to express their disgust at the goings on. We do not object to only one candidate and would therefore not wish to undermine Michael Howard but we will request an undertaking that he will take steps to make the Party more democratic and in particular alter the Leadership election rules. Should no undertaking be forthcoming we will recommend to the party members that they abstain in the ratification. Candidate Selection There have been concerns raised about the process of selecting parliamentary candidates. We are unable to ascertain whether any of the rumours are true or not. If anyone has recently participated in a Constituency candidate selection we would be grateful if they would answer the following questions. Any replies will be treated in the utmost confidence and no individual constituency will be identified. Questions i) Are associations being sent every applicant's CV or only those whom CCO wishes to
see interviewed? If so are ii) Is CCO submitting constituency profiles? Are these designed to promote some
categories of candidate over others? Are iii) Has a high official of the Party (the Chairman, a Deputy or Vice-Chairman etc)
visited an association? What have they iv) Are members of selection committees being stopped from seeing CVs before they meet
together? Are they being prevented v) How many associations have opted for primaries, postal ballots, non-member involvement etc? What difficulties/advantages have arisen? vi) Are candidates being 'parachuted' into general meetings without going through previous rounds? vii) Is there any firm evidence of a "gold list" of preferred candidates? What are the criteria for inclusion? viii) Is there any other aspect of the selection process that has concerned associations? The United Nations The United Nations has 14 peace keeping operations going on around the world. The nation providing the most troops for these operations is Bangladesh. Makes you think! October 26th Election of Leader - the process There are two major faults in the process for the Leadership election. First of all the MPs decide who to put forward to the membership. They decide on the basis of personal benefit. This should cease. All validly nominated candidates with 15% of the electoral college should go forward to the members for election. When voting the members should put the candidates in their order of preference. The candidate with the lowest vote drops out and their votes are then spread to their second choice. This process continues until such time as a candidate has more than 50% of the votes. He or she is then declared Leader. The second major fault is that the members elect the Leader but the MPs have the right at any time to reject the Leader. This means that once elected the Leader is never again voted on by the members. It means that there is no democratic accountability. Those that elect the Leader should have the ability to reject him or her. One big advantage of this is that the Leader would pay more attention to the members. The solution is as follows: The Leader should be elected for one year as is normal in other positions. The nominating college for an election should consist of the Conservative Members of Parliament, Members of the House of Lords and Members of the European Parliament . If any fifty of this body request an election by August 31st in any year nominations would be invited by September 15th. Any candidate would have to be nominated by 15% of the above body. The Leader would automatically go forward. If there are other candidates then there would be an election involving the whole membership with the closing date being the Saturday prior to the Party Conference. Voting could be done by the internet or telephone. The result would be declared on the Sunday prior to the Conference. Were the above to be adopted we would stop once and for all the year long speculation about the Leadership, It would be more democratic and it would ensure that the Leader was democratically accountable to the membership. Everybody benefits. Election of the Leader At the time of the last Leadership election there was a move to change the rules of election so that any candidate who received 15% of the votes of MPs should go forward to the whole party membership. This change was almost passed by the Party Board, but at the last moment the Chairman of the 1922 Committee said that they could not change the rules once the contest had started. Let them change the rules now before any contest is announced There is considerable support and activity at a high level in the Party for this rule change to be implemented It should be done forthwith. IDS correction IDS keeps saying that 330,000 members of the Party voted for him in the Leadership election. Not so. The total membership of the Party at the time of the election was 329,650. The total number of votes cast in the election was 256,797 and a few of those did go to Ken Clarke didn't they? Electoral Commission at the Party Conference A well attended meeting at the Party Conference was that held by the Electoral Commission on the State Funding of political parties. In attendance was Lord Ashcroft who made a plea for the rules on overseas donations to be revised (most people did not understand what he was talking about although he did make some good points in particular relating to the position in Northern Ireland.) He clashed with the Chairman of COPOV and others when he opposed State Funding in spite of the fact that the Conservative party has received more than £12 million in the last three years from the State. In view of the way in which major donors have intervened in the affairs of the party in the last week the sooner we cap donations at £5,000 the better off the Party will be. Don't anybody say again that big donors do not want influence. They do and some of them have had the guts to show it publicly in the most dramatic way by intervening in the process for the election of the Leader. October 19th Selection of Parliamentary Candidates - The Secret Plan We do not know whether the following paper has been implemented or not, but just in case it has, it is essential reading for prospective parliamentary candidates and Constituency Associations. Forewarned is forearmed. Action Plan for Candidate Selection in Safe Seats Introduction In the run up to the next election intense media attention will focus on the kind of people chosen by the three main parties to be candidates in safe seats. This poses problems for all the parties but it creates a particular difficulty for us. There is now a vast gap between the number of women on the Labour benches in Parliament and the tiny band of Tory women MPs. This feeds into a broader perception – that the Conservative Party is male-dominated and, worse, actively discriminates against women, blacks and gays. This is despite the fact that at the 2001 General Election all three major parties had very few new women or minority candidates elected. There is good reason to assume that both the other parties intend to take radical action to ensure that, at the next election, they will be able to present a highly diverse group of candidates to the voters. To this end the Government has now changed the law in a way that places candidate selection outwith the scope of equal opportunities legislation. For their part, the Liberals have already declared their intention of selecting at least 40% women candidates. This poses a huge challenge to a Conservative Party that selected no women and no non-whites in Tory-held seats at the last election. We are struggling to overcome the perception that the Party is reactionary and bigoted. It will be a public relations disaster if a large majority of our safe seats select white men next time around. Exactly how this can be avoided will be set out below but it is worth examining further the crucial importance of the outcome of the process. Why does it matter so much? Of all the changes that commentators have demanded as evidence of Tory ‘seriousness’ one stands out: the selection of a more diverse group of candidates to fight the next election. This has been raised continuously as an acid test. Partially because it is convenient shorthand for a media that likes to reduce everything to simplistic formulas – and partially because those least sympathetic to the Party are convinced that we will be unable to jump the hurdle they have placed in our path. Until now the majority view inside the Party has been that of course we want more female and ethnic MPs but not if we have to use positive discrimination to get them. This position, whilst philosophically defensible, is now damaging our chances of recovery. Even if we make enormous efforts to get the kind of people we need as candidates we will get absolutely no credit for doing so unless the process delivers the intended outcome. The Party Chairman acknowledged this on On The Record on 3rd February when he said "Judge us on the outcome." So many people, especially the chattering classes, have convinced themselves that the Party dislikes women, blacks and gays that any serious evidence that we have ‘changed our ways’ is likely to be welcomed with open arms – except, of course, by Millbank. Labour strategists would be furious at having their fox shot. Their job is to convince swing voters (and everyone else) that the Conservative Party hasn’t changed, indeed that it is incapable of change. Such vivid evidence to the contrary – on a subject that they themselves have highlighted – would represent a major strategic reverse for Labour. How can the right outcome be delivered? The process of candidate selection this time around must, at every stage, be outcome driven. We should determine, quietly and without public codification, exactly what is required to pass the test. Then we must ensure that it is delivered. What would be an acceptable outcome? We need concern ourselves only with seats currently held by the Conservatives. Nothing else really matters to the media. Before the last election the Party attempted to showcase candidates like Shailesh Vara in Northampton South and Pam Chesters in Bristol West only to be accused by many commentators of placing white men in safe seats whilst leaving the women and blacks to fight marginal seats held by other parties. Getting a woman selected for a Labour-held marginal will avail us nothing – in fact the Party will be accused of treating her as a second-class candidate by placing her in a second-class seat. In any case we have adopted different priorities for marginals. We have chosen sixty ‘battleground’ seats currently held by other parties that we hope to win at the next election. The emphasis in these seats will be on candidates with local experience and credibility including a number who fought the seats last time. The selection procedure in these seats will essentially be the same as the procedure for selection in Conservative held seats. Having decided to focus only on Tory-held seats we can begin to quantify the task. Let us assume that between twenty and thirty Conservative MPs will retire at the next election. As their replacements we should aim to deliver approximately 50% women candidates, 20% ethnic minority candidates and at least one or two openly gay candidates. Some people may fit into more than one category but that doesn’t matter because it is the overall statistic in each category that will count. Gays are a special case in that a single high profile candidacy will satisfy the media that a taboo has been broken – unlike in the other categories where it will be a matter of numbers. Many senior Conservative would be delighted if such an outcome could be achieved. However some of them might doubt the practicalities of bringing it about. Let us deal with this frankly. Most of the talented candidates currently on the list are white and male. Although there has been (and will continue to be) some discrimination with selection committees the principal reason why such people get selected for safe seats is because they tend to be the best on offer. This is not surprising given the preponderance of white men on the candidates list. Given that most people who apply to the Party to become candidates fit into the white male category the law of averages dictates that there will be a similar imbalance at the end of the process. Sadly, there is no reason to imagine that this will change in the foreseeable future. A few women and Asians might get through next time but not many. Political market forces are likely to deliver a crop of candidates in safe Conservative seats very similar to those selected in 2001 – all white, all male. Therefore political market forces cannot be allowed to prevail. There are likely to be two main sources of resistance to any serious restructuring the process: current candidates and local associations. The biggest problem with candidates is that many of them have friends who hold positions of influence in the Party (including MPs) and one can expect a strong element of lobbying and special pleading from such people. Most of the current crop of candidates do not fall within any of the target groups and may perceive (justifiably) that their own chances of success in selections will be diminished under any new dispensation. The associations are more problematic. Whereas the Party has a number of ways of incentivising candidates it ahs little direct leverage over associations, consisting as they do of volunteers who guard their local autonomy jealously and value their ability to choose future MPs. Nevertheless not only can objections, from whatever quarter, be overcome, they must be overcome if the Party is to avoid a profoundly humiliating outcome to the selection processes. At the moment each Conservative association chooses its candidate with the interests of the seat in mind. There is no notion of taking into account the wider interests of the Party. The members of each association pick the best placed person placed in front of them and the best person, in terms of fluency, confidence and ‘feel’ is likely to be a straight white male. Even if this is not the case in reality it may well seem so to the (largely) elderly and traditionalist selectors. In a sense it would be unreasonable to expect them to do anything else. You cannot offer people a choice and then complain when they make it. Therefore it is common sense to offer only choices that are acceptable to the Party. We already do this by having a candidates list but now we need to develop a much more sophisticated and three-dimensional approval process. How can this be achieved? Detail Proposals Given that our objective must be to achieve the desired outcome with the minimum fuss, both locally and nationally, there are several ways that reform of the candidate selection process should not be done. For example, the imposition from the centre of a single candidate would cause enormous resentment. It would send a message to activists that they are not trusted and would make the position of the favoured candidate a potentially awkward one. Nor should all women shortlists be contemplated. Not only is this a simplistic and one-dimensional approach (will we then have to have all-black shortlists too?) it is far too confrontational and risks accusations that the successful candidate would never have won had she been up against a man. The clever approach is to maintain the illusion that a good cross section of approved candidates is being offered whilst ensuring that this consists almost entirely of people who we positively want to get selected for safe seats. This may seem a less than transparent mechanism but it goes with the grain of Tory psychology: don’t rub peoples noses in it and they are much more likely to acquiesce. There is an obvious way forward. Associations must be told that, in order to better match candidates with seats, a new system will be introduced in which they will be given a list of twelve candidates. It will then be up to the association executive to reduce that to three names to be put to a full meeting of the association. The only thing that is being removed from local control is the initial paper sift. Indeed, the proposed system is almost exactly the same as the one the Party currently operates at by-elections. In order to ‘soften up’ associations Central Office should develop a road show that will go to all seats where the sitting Tory MP is retiring. This road show would include a presentation of focus group and polling research about what the public thinks of the Conservative Party. This will demonstrate that the Party is seen as overwhelmingly male, white and snobbish. The road show would also include video footage of members of the public responding to questions about the Conservative Party. The answers would reinforce the message. The video would go on to show several Tory spokesmen, juxtaposed with government representatives. The contrast between the diversity (women, regional accents and occasional dark face) of the Labour side and the almost uniformly plummy white men of the Tory side will deliver the message that we’ve already got enough of this sort of Conservative and in order to regain credibility with the electorate we need more people as MPs who don’t fit the Tory stereotype. At the end of the video the people presenting the road show will answer questions and attempt to allay fears about the imposition of second-rate candidates. Part of the means of delivering the right kind of candidate will be to create an informal ‘gold list’ of candidates who are female, Indian, Pakistani, Chinese, other ethnic minority or gay and lesbian. This list must be informal because some of the while male candidates who do not fall within its remit will speak out against the system unless they believe that they have least a chance of getting onto shortlists in safe seats. If they perceive themselves as being formally discriminated against they are much more likely to be disruptive. As the selection round proceeds the precise shape of the shortlists put forward can be altered to accommodate events. If three women in a row have been selected it may be advisable to put a couple of white men onto the next shortlist to allay suspicions of a feminist agenda – and one can safely assume that the associations given such a choice will snap up the men! If , once there have been twenty selections, not a single ethnic minority candidate has been chosen then it will be necessary to pay particular attention to the next couple of selections. And if a notably talented candidate with local credentials became available to fight a particular seat it will be legitimate to ensure that he or she was clearly the best person on the short list. The beauty of such a system is that it is both flexible and virtually invisible. This makes it much easier to operate and creates less head wind. It will also help the Party to respond to ‘problem’ associations in an intelligent way. When Labour imposed all-women shortlists in 1997 it did so in an authoritarian fashion, giving local activists no say in the matter. This caused great difficulty. Our approach should be different. Office holders in associations in Tory-held seats where an MP’s retirement is announced should be the objects of a sustained charm offensive. The importance of ‘playing ball’ with the new system will be emphasised and the gratitude of the Party to those who respond positively should be made clear. Party agents and other staff will be expected to pay a key role in this. If a particular association proves obstinate and makes difficulties it need not be confronted. Instead it can be allocated some of the better white men. In other words it should be quietly appeased, although this should never be publicly acknowledged. In order to ensure that there is a pool of talent sufficiently large to make up the gold list a parallel process will have to be undertaken to talent-spot, train and service gold candidates. Some of them will already be on the candidates list. Others will have applied but been unsuccessful and yet others will be novices who have been identified as suitable and approached. Obviously there will have to be a proper process of due diligence to ensure that the Party, in its eagerness to recruit people from target groups, does not allow criminals, fantasists or others who might embarrass it onto the list. However, once this has been accomplished, gold candidates should be made to feel special. They should be assisted at every stage because they are the Conservative’s Party best hope for overcoming one of its greatest disabilities – its chronic lack of diversity. It goes without saying that the system outlined above will require a degree of sophistication to operate it. A continual process of evaluation and re-evaluation of candidates, seats, officers as well as background atmospherics will be needed. It will be like sailing a yacht – in that one would have to perform several tasks simultaneously whilst navigating the vessel towards the intended destination. A couple of points on tactics There are several reasons why the Party should not publicly proclaim the new methodology. Most Tories are essentially pragmatic. They loathe political correctness and positive discrimination and they would prefer not to have such things in their Party. At the same time they realise that something must be done to correct the grotesque imbalance that has developed between the parties in terms of minority and female representation. If one tries to be ‘in your face’ about the fact that positive discrimination is taking place activists are much more likely to rebel, so a version of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is called for. It is also important not to succumb to the temptation to try and gain kudos from the media by offering them snippets of the work in progress. The danger is that they will give us little or no credit merely for trying. They will judge us by the eventual outcome. In particular they will ask us how many Tory-held seats have selected candidates who are not white and male. If we try to milk a particular selection (of, say, a black woman) for publicity journalists will suspect that it is deeply atypical and is being used to provide a smokescreen to conceal a wider failure. The word ‘token’ will be used. We cannot prove to the outside world that we would have been genuinely successful until the process is complete -–and we should not try. A third reason to keep quiet is that, like a conjurer, we’ll get more applause if the audience cannot see exactly how the trick is performed. The objective should be to convince the public that it is the Party as a whole that has changed. The more that the profusion of women, black, Asian or gay candidates appears to be the result of spontaneous open-mindedness on the part of grassroots activists the greater will be the accolades. Yet another factor that should persuade us to do our good work by stealth is the fact that, as of today, our opponents don’t believe that we’ve got a cat in hells chance of passing their test. That means that they will continue to use it as a stick with which to beat us. The more they build it up the bigger the pay off for us if we can trump them. As soon as they seriously suspect that we may be able to deliver on candidate diversity they will attempt to move the goal posts. The louder and longer they bang on about it the less credible will be their volt face so it would be counterproductive to tip them off. On a separate note, the handling of white male candidates should be done with sensitivity. They should not be made to feel second-class and must be assured that the Party wants them in Parliament. However such candidates should be told that the only chance the Conservatives have of winning power again is to gain seats at the next election. This means that we need our strongest candidates in our sixty top target marginals. If the Party does reasonably well then they will all become MPs anyway – and if we do as badly next time as we did last time then the game is up for all of us. It should be made clear to all those on the candidates list that an extremely dim view will be taken of anyone who tries to force their way onto a shortlist in which they have not been included. Any attempt to do so, either through local influence or lobbying by grandees, would prejudice their chances of being advanced in the future. Time is too short for those making such difficult and delicate decisions to be second-guessed by ambitious and pushy candidates. Another point worth bearing in mind is that the conventional wisdom that the Party needs to select candidates early does not apply to this process. If, at the next election, we are in the position of having to fight hard to hold seats that we won last time we will be in a terminal position. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that candidates in Tory-held seats need not be selected just yet. This will give us the time required to put in place the mechanisms to ensure desirable outcomes. The more time the better. To this end it would be unhelpful for the Chief Whip to encourage colleagues who are thinking of retiring to make announcements in the near future. On the contrary it would be much better if they held off – at least until the new systems (and new gold list trainees) are ready. Conclusion The Candidates Committee of the Board will, after March, be composed largely of people well disposed to the Action Plan, the key component of which is a reduction of the number of names put forward to associations (ie – the imposition of by-election conditions on safe seats). There is an enormous amount of work to be done, not just to implement the plan but also to identify, attract, train and deploy new talent. None of this will be easy but, taken as a whole, the Action Plan represents the best (and probably the only) way forward. With the active support of the Party leadership we can deliver an outcome to the selection process that will confound our critics and delight our friends. The Leadership A lot of the current problems could have been avoided if the Leader had kept his office in the House of Commons and Central Office was there to serve the whole Conservative Party and not just the parliamentary party. It illustrates why we should have elected Chairman, Vice Chairman and Treasurer accountable to the membership and in day to day control of Central Office. An increasing number of MPs are beginning to think in the same way. Brent East, reasons for failure? No. of leaflets distributed: Liberal Democrats 30 Labour 12 plus a video Conservative 3 The Party Conference, Second Thoughts
12th October Conservative Party Conference - The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. The Good 1) There were two excellent innovations at this years Party conference. The first one was a series of Policy and Ideas discussions organised on the Monday and Tuesday of the conference chaired by Members of Parliament with a report back to a meeting in the main conference hall on the Wednesday morning. The subjects of the working groups were: The Common Agricultural Policy, Northern Ireland, Immigration/Asylum, Local Government and Low taxation/better public services. The Chairman of COPOV attended the session on Northern Ireland which was chaired by John Bercow MP and attended by Quentin Davies MP. It was a very worthwhile exercise. What a pity that nobody knew about these sessions because they were left out of the Conference handbook. the only notice of them was on a flyer which few read, This experiment should be continued next year with the programmes clearly set out in the handbook. This idea could be developed with great benefit to the Party and it was a real opportunity for members to participate. Top marks to CCO for organising it. Zero marks for screwing up the publicity. 2) The second innovation owes its success to Lord Ashcroft for sponsoring the Champagne reception on the Tuesday evening. At £10,00 per head the tickets were within the reach of ordinary members. The atmosphere was like a family gathering come together. It created a marvellous feeling of all working together. The addition of a few entertainers added to the pleasure everyone felt. From the Leader of the Party to the ordinary member everyone enjoyed this occasion. Lord Ashcroft deserves everyone's thanks and congratulations for this. We understand it was Don Porter's idea so lets thank him also. The Bad 1) Why didn't the Leader of the Party or the Chairman of the Party attend the Northern Ireland reception. The members of the Party in Northern Ireland have time and again proved their loyalty to the Party in spite of continuous snubs by the hierarchy. David Trimble continues to be given special treatment in spite of the fact that he is the Leader of another Party, even being invited onto the platform for the feedback session at the Policy and Ideas discussion. It is time that this discrimination ended. Both Scotland and Wales are represented on the Party's Board. Northern Ireland should be represented too. Maybe then they will be given the respect that they deserve. 2) In spite of advertising in the Conference Agenda that speakers from the floor would have two minutes to speak in the debate on Foreign Affairs it was announced at the start of the session that nobody would be called from the floor. By which time a number of speakers had submitted speakers slips. To add insult to injury Bob Stewart was invited to address the audience and announced that he did not belong to a political party. So, we give a platform to non party members but refuse it to party members. Is it any wonder that the attendance at conference is declining. It is a disgrace. At this rate they may as well have the conference in the Outer Hebrides on a Sunday afternoon with party members excluded. I think there is a hotel there that can accommodate twenty people. That will be about the number that will be interested. The Ugly 1) The Conference was effectively ruined by the continuous lobbying regarding the Leadership of the Party. Because there were no morning sessions the representatives and press had nothing to do but gossip. They fed on each other day after day. The parliamentary party have nobody to blame but themselves. The rules for the Leadership election are solely in their hands. It should be taken out of the hands of the 1922 committee and put into the main body of the Party's Constitution. BBC Party To celebrate the end of the conference season I hear that the BBC held a party at a working man's club. Instead of being politically correct I am told the jokes were more in line with Bernard Manning. Blushes all round! October 4th The Agents Ball Party Slogans The slogans for the Party conferences this year are remarkably similar. Can you tell us which is the Labour slogan and which is the Conservative one? "Fairness for all" "Fairness for everyone" Labour Rules It was good to see ordinary members of the Labour Party trying to make that Party more democratic but I am afraid that as ever the Trade unions dominated their agenda. Where was the Conservative voice pointing this out? As ever no where. Sad! November 2nd The Following are a few of the e mails received regarding the vote of confidence in the Leader: From: "Andrew.sibley" <Andrew.sibley@ntlworld.com> Dear John Strafford I am not a Tory member, although I was a supporter of IDS. I am disgusted by But what are the grass roots party doing about this undemocratic coup which If IDS was your man, then why not get together a petition to bring him back? Personally I think the parliamentary party, in electing Michael Howard as If the Tory party lets this coup stand, then they only have themselves to Bring back IDS! Yours sincerely Andrew Sibley From: "Robert E A Harvey" <bobharvey@europe.com> So, they did it. I am extremely annoyed. I am more annoyed at the current speculation that someone will be shoed-in It reeks of nothing less than a return to smoke-filled rooms. This whole For years the party in Parliament, and central office, have ignored the If Mr Smith was such a plank, why did the members put him up two years ago This whole debacle has left me with the conclusion that the members in Robert Harvey From: TnnrB@aol.com I am not familiar with your Organisation and listened to you with both FROM THE GRASSROOTS BY A CONSERVATIVE "THE ROAD TO NOWHERE" (Sent Just before Iain Duncan Smith's resignation.) There is no point in beating about the bush any longer. Our once great party, the natural party of government and the envy of its political opponents, has been reduced to a laughing stock. How and why has this come about? Can anything be done to revive its fortunes or will it, like the Liberal Party of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, wither away but never quite die? On the face of it, there should, in any democracy, be a party of the ‘Centre Right’. Have our opponents moved so far towards us that we are all competing for the same ‘common ground’? Have we lost out because we have won the argument and been proved right in our belief that the state should NOT control the means of production, distribution and exchange? One thing is certain – there are no easy answers and there can be no ‘quick’ fixes. Unfortunately we have been mesmerised by Tony Blair and New Labour. ‘New Labour’ was designed for the purpose of gaining power after 18 years in opposition. It is ephemeral and you only have to read Rob Cook’s memoirs in the Sunday Times where he contrasts Blair’s lack of the ‘Big Idea’ with that of Margaret Thatcher. Although our Party Conference was overshadowed by the continued question mark over the leadership, there were some interesting policy developments, particularly in education, health and pensions. But these need wider discussions with all the parties involved – teachers, lecturers, doctors, nurses, old people and, yes, the trade unions (many of whose members, perhaps surprisingly, still vote for us), and like Ferdinand Mount in the Sunday Times, I wonder if we have not been fecklessly opportunistic in promising to abolish university tuition fees and linking pensions to earnings as opposed to prices. And we have not answered the question as to how we can reduce taxes and maintain decent public services. Although it is patently obvious from Gordon Brown’s spending spree and heavy increases in tax and National Insurance that this will not in itself improve public services. (There has to be a complete change with a ‘consumer’ based approach and a will to enforce such a change,) We are unable convincingly to win the argument and are always thrown back on the defensive. You only have to remember how, at the last General Election, Oliver Letwin disappeared from view after suggestion £8billion of ‘cuts’. Gordon Brown has created a ‘dependence on the state culture’ which will not be easy to shake off. Labour will be in office (though perhaps not in power) for at least another six years by which time public spending will be at least £800 billion. The wealth creating private sector squeezed to the bone and plenty of Labour ‘fat cats’ demanding – like Alistair Campbell - £25,000 for an after dinner speech lasting 30 minutes. Many of them will be owning second and third homes in the countryside far divorced from the squalor of their inner city constituents. They will be the new capitalists, preaching the virtues of socialism from which they themselves have escaped. These are the people who mocked Thatcher’s ‘acquisitive’ society, based on greed, but are its chief beneficiaries. They, like Tony Blair, can preach the advantages of comprehensive education knowing that they can move at any time to a good ‘catchment’ area in either a leafy suburb or in a rural setting. Most people, when voting, do so on the basis of which Party they feel will be the best for them and their families. Although lots of people have deserted Labour, they have not turned to us in any great numbers. We still have not shaken off the legacy of "Black Wednesday" in September 1992 and by many we are seen to be old fashioned and out of date. For a national party, we are underrepresented in large areas of the United Kingdom. In Scotland and Wales we have one Member of Parliament out of 123 and in terms of councillors, none in Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle. In the Metropolitan counties (those large urban areas created by Edward Heath in 1974), we have about 470 councillors, 30 less than the Liberal Democrats. The Brent East by election illustrated the mountain we have to climb. In 1987, just 16 years ago, we polled over 36% of the vote and were only 1,500 votes behind the winner. Our vote in the by election was 16%, 2% lower than in 2001. For Theresa May to say "Well, this is not a Conservative seat or natural Conservative territory" shows how far we have been divorced from reality. Any National party, certainly one aspiring to replace the present Government, needs to poll its maximum potential support in every constituency. This we manifestly failed to do. What kind of message does it give to our party workers – the ones who do the day to day work in the constituencies with fund raising events and so on – many FO whom know that in the 200 or so ‘safe’ Labour seats, a Conservative will never represent them in Parliament>? J Surely you fight with the intention of winning the seat? Our Party organisation is shambolic if the writer’s experience is anything to go by. I have lived in my present constituency for three and a half years, and am a fully paid up member. I was sent a voting paper for listing or preferences for candidates to the National Assembly FO Wales. But as far as the constituency is concerned, I have had no notice of the annual general meeting or of other meetings. I am a ‘persona non grata’. I have the usual appeals for cash issued by Central Office and signed by our Leader’s unreadable hand. These are binned straightaway. I’m not prepared to give financial support in present circumstances. Why should I when we are not behaving like an official opposition, let alone an alternative government? This brings me to the leadership (or lack of it?). The past three weeks have shown up the inadequacies of Iain Duncan Smith and how, with him in charge, we will go done to another disaster in 2005 or 2006. The electorate have already decided he is not Prime Ministerial material and will return Tony Blair because we have failed to provide a sensible alternative. A leader who polled less than 1/3 of our MPs, and only 60% of the membership as a whole was always going to be on a sticky wicket. Duncan Smith was elected only because our membership wanted little to do with Europe and he was the best on offer as anti-Maastricht and ant further European integration. Party members often fail to look at the wider picture – simply preaching Conservative values will not do. You need to make converts and to gain the support of many who would not, under normal circumstances, vote for you (as Tony Blair did in 1991 and in 2001.) You need vision, determination, courage and good oratorical skills. You need to get everyone ‘on side’ and to make the most of everyone’s talents. Three of the most talented – Clarke, Portillo and Hague from John Major’s Cabinet – have been allowed to languish on the back benches where their friends or those close to them, can plot and scheme. From reading press reports, IDS has treated some of his lady staff with disdain and tried to manipulate others. I applaud Vanessa Gearson who stood her ground and refused to compromise. These days, people who stand by their principles often lose support and I am sure if the electors of Cheltenham chose to place their faith in her she would not let them down. Parties and those who support them at the grass roots want to win elections. For us it is even harder. To gain parity with Labour in terms of seats we have to poll 5% more in terms of the national vote. To gain a comfortable working majority we would need an 11% swing. I believe that in 1997, and certainly in 2001, we should have elected Kenneth Clarke. Even then I don’t think we could have won in 2005/2006 but with Clarke in charge we would have been in with a chance of about 80 or 90 extra seats, i.e. 250 or so seats as opposed to 160+. We would have been given hope. In many seats, we would have withstood fairly easily strong Liberal Democrat challenge. With the present leader I cannot be nearly as confident. Although I did not hear IDS’s speech at Blackpool, it was reported that he lashed out at Tony Blair, calling him a liar, and at Charles Kennedy for his drinking habits. Had I been Leader I think I would have said in relation to Blair "Let us wait for the Hutton Report which will reveal all we need to know about the workings of Government under the Prime Minister", and in relation to Kennedy: "We ignore the Liberal Democrats at our peril for they will make every effort to steal the ‘soft’ Tory vote. We must expose their policies for what they are – designed to appeal to Conservative voters in the North and Labour voters in the South – a sure case of you should not be in the circus unless you can ride two horses, pulling in different directions, at once." No, I am afraid with IDS in charge we face catastrophe and this is not being pessimistic, but realistic. I cannot believe that out of 160 Members of Parliament there is not one person who can get us out of this unwholesome mess. When the Government should be on the ropes with its long term disastrous policies, we have once again allowed our own internal divisions regarding the Leadership to become the main talking point. But make no mistake. If we carry on as we are and refuse to grasp the nettle now (and it needs only 25 MPs to clear the air once and for all) we will again be humiliated at the polls and will be in opposition indefinitely on a road that leads to nowhere. FROM THE GRASSROOTS BY A CONSERVATIVE A BAD GOVERNMENT AND A POOR OPPOSITION Forty years ago in the Summer of 1963 the Profumo affair coupled with the Denning enquiry dealt a fatal blow to Harold Macmillan’s government and by October of that year the Prime Minister had resigned. Will the Kelly affair and the Hutton enquiry do the same for Tony Blair? Probably not, but one thing is certain: there can never be a ‘glad, confident morning again’. A Prime Minister whose support from his own party for this venture is lukewarm, who relies on his ‘payroll’ vote and has substantial opposition from his own backbenchers is always going to be in trouble whatever the rights and wrongs of the argument. I do not know nor is it of great interest to me whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which could be deployed within 45 minutes, nor is it of great concern to me whether the dossiers or documents were ‘sexed up’ or who did what when. What is of concern to me is that this Labour government which came in in May 1997 with the promise of a new Jerusalem has shown itself to be no better than any of its predecessors and in many cases a lot worse. My own view is that the Prime Minister realised that he did not have the full consent of the people of the United Kingdom and sought some kind of dramatic gesture to support his case. The affair gives us an insight into the workings of the Downing Street machine, with its coteries of unelected advisers responsible only to the Prime Minister. They ran the whole show and panicked when things did not go according to plan e.g. Andrew Gilligan’s assertion that Alistair Campbell had been involved in including the 45 minutes time limit re the deployment of the weapons. But for many, Iraq is a far away country about which we know nothing and care even less. It should come as no surprise that the BBC has been dragged into this unholy mess – far from being unbiased and willing to explore the arguments of both sides it has deliberately taken an ‘anti government’ stance which is perhaps surprising given the number of people at the top of the authority who support the Labour Party. Another disturbing feature is how marginalised the Houses of Parliament, in particular the House of Common, has become. True we have had reports from the Joint Intelligence Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee but there have been no great debates in Parliament and other than the resignations of Robin Cook and Clare Short and the occasional outburst from the Father of the House, Tom Dalyell, little opposition. This should come as no surprise coming from a government whose Prime Minister is so conceited that he thinks that the position of Lord Chancellor going back over hundreds of centuries, can be abolished at his diktat. And as for our party what is there to be said? We seem to be more irrelevant than ever and I doubt if 20% of the general public know the name of the Shadow Foreign Secretary. We are at least seven years from power; maybe more and apart from Michael Howard and one or two others such as Liam Fox and David Willetts are failing to land any punches on a government whose policies in the long term (and I emphasise long term) will prove disastrous for the country. We are seeing massive boosts in public expenditure, particularly on health and education, which will by 2005/2006 reach £500 billion. Then there is the creation, particularly in the public sector, of all sorts of so called jobs which have grand sounding titles and which mean absolutely nothing but nonetheless pay very well. All this is financed by a mish mash of direct taxes, indirect taxes, stealth taxes, tax credits, National Insurance and so on. It is in all honesty, a bureaucratic nightmare all too typical of a bossy, interfering government who despite its protestations, is as envious and as jealous of the successful wealth creators as any of its Labour predecessors. I have no objection to a welfare state provided it caters for the truly needy and those, who through no fault of their own, live on the margins of society but when the Attlee government created it immediately after the Second World War it surely could not have realised it would become a tool in the hands of the feckless and of those who intended to live indeterminately on state benefits and state handouts. As a result we have a true ‘underclass’ many of whom do not seek help because of the numerous forms they have to fill in to gain the bare necessities and who, in some cases, can neither read nor write. And despite 35 years of Conservative government since 1945 our taxation and benefits systems are such that for many it is less rewarding to work because the wage or salary earned is less than the benefits provided by the state. My own case illustrates the absurdity all too clearly. As a self employed accountant, only part qualified, my income is not great and I am dependent on sub contract work. From April to September I have plenty of work on as many of my clients’ year ends are either 31st March or 5th April, coinciding with the tax year end. My income is halved from October to the following March. I pay my Income Tax and National Insurance in the normal way on 31st July and the 31st January of the following year but then I am able to recover it all through the working man’s tax credit. This current year I will receive back in tax credits £500 more than I have paid in income tax and national insurance. The whole system is crazy and if you do not complete the necessary forms correctly you will lose out. I think no-one earning under £10,000 should pay income tax and that national insurance should be levied only when your net profit or gross income is above £5,000 and that this should be on a sliding scale as at present. Does anybody realise that the annual TUC conference was held last week? More to the point, does anybody care? Well, if you are a frustrated commuter on a dirty train which runs late for all manners of strange reasons – points jammed, leaves on the line and so on – you probably will. Or if, like me, you are Secretary of an Association which has to send out within the next week or so 250 letters, you will obviously be concerned at the prospect of a postal strike. I read an article in the Daily Telegraph by Graham Turner about the current TUC leadership. The present Labour Government has bowed down to virtually all their demands – the minimum wage, paternity leave, shorter working hours in accordance with EEC directives, recognition of trades unions in the work place even though a large minority to dot want it and so on. What an ungrateful lot they seem to be. Public spending which to them is a sacred cow has gone through the roof and all they did was complain that their government was privatising the Health Service when in fact all it was doing was to introduce a limited number of foundation hospitals able to set their own terms and conditions of employment and have control in a limited way over their own budgets - plans which, incidentally, have been restricted by Gordon Brown at the Treasury. So any radical plans Tony Blair had – thinking the unthinkable and so on – have already been shipwrecked. Of course, the Health Service is not all bad and in many instances has much to commend it but what is so frustrating is that a 1940’s state controlled model, financed mainly through taxation, is regarded as a shining example of how to proceed in the 21st Century based as it is on the assumption that everyone receives equal treatment no matter who they are or where they live. Anyone who questions this is thought to be a non-caring privatiser or more simply just plain '‘loopy". "Education, education, education" was one of Tony Blair’s familiar slogans when he took over in Number 10. The recent Advanced level results in which 13% of our school children gained an ‘A’ grade in their subject has reopened the debate as to whether these exams are challenging enough for our brighter students. The answer is probably ‘No’ for this simple reason. The government with its obsession for targets has decreed that 50% of those leaving school at 18 or 19 should go into higher education – either at university or college. When it is discovered that on present form and under the current marking system only 40% were likely to make the grade it shifted the goal posts and made the pass mark much easier. And of course those universities who have few private investments or endowments will dance to the government’s tune as they need the financial assistance which only the government through general taxation can provide. And this is what makes it difficult for us as Conservatives – we want to set people free enabling them to make decisions for themselves and their families and to reduce the role of the state – yet we are constantly reminded as to how much control the state has over us and how powerless we are to do anything about it. In recent week I have been watching a TV programme entitled "That’ll teach ‘em!" It placed current 16 year olds who have just sat their GCSE’s in a 1950’s situation – a mixed state grammar school with a boarding element. It reminded me of my schooldays in the late 50s’/early 60s’ although mine was a single sex school with the number of boarders restricted to 50. In my day very few scholars got three grade ‘A’s at Advanced Level – if you did you were Oxbridge material and were encouraged to go for the best. And even they would probably get a grade ‘B’ in one of their three subjects and perhaps a distinction in a special ‘S’ paper. At Ordinary level, no one, not even the brightest (and we had some very able scholars) got eight or more Grade ‘A’s. If you excelled in the arts or humanities you were probably not quite as good in science or mathematics and vice versa. Yet these days it is not uncommon to read of pupils getting ‘A’s in all their GCSE subjects. I can only assume that it must be a totally different kind of exam from the one I sat 40 years ago if only for this reason. In 1958, 20% of were ‘creamed off’ for a grammar school education and of that 20% there were an awful lot of ‘O’ level failures particularly from the ‘B’ stream. The abilities of those pupils in the Comprehensive Schools, particularly where there is no streaming, must vary widely and it follows that the examination cannot be as challenging if it is to be taken by those less academically minded and who enjoy more practical things such as woodwork, art, metalwork and so on. What I did find strange was how little regard the present generation has for its predecessors. The discovery that many English words have Latin as their root and that sentences are constructed in a particular way (prepositions, nouns, verbs, adjectives and so on) was of little interest to them. In mathematics some could not do even simple multiplication and division. Long division, fractions and decimals were completely unknown. It was hardly surprising then that 50% plus failed to answer correctly the arithmetic questions from an 11+ examination. History for me was not just learning the dates of the Wars of the Roses or being able to recite in the correct orders the names of the Kings and Queens. It was much more than that. For instance we had to compare and contrast the foreign policies of Castlereagh and Canning or give reasons for the loss of the American Colonies or outline the major acts of Parliament passed during Disraeli’s premiership of 1874 – 1880. Our politicians do a grave disservice to the present generation of scholars. Instead of trying to pretend that there are more geniuses about than 40 years ago (when clearly there are not) "We should be applauding their successes not trying to denigrate it" is the usual cliché, they should be honest enough to say that for various reasons the standard has had to be lowered so that it can accommodate everyone, including those who are less academically minded. I have just been reading the Sunday Times supplement about our universities and in some the "drop out" after the first year is very high, in part due to the fact that many have just scraped in with Grade E’s and now find the work too taxing or not to their liking. Finally a comment on the local election results which took place last May (how long ago that now seems). The thinking currently in fashion is that because we picked up 600 seats Iain Duncan Smith was spared a challenge to his leadership. But in some of our so-called heartlands we have serious problems. We lost a lot of seats in places like Bournemouth and Windsor/Maidenhead to the Liberal Democrats who with a mixture of guile and popularist policies continue to reek havoc. In Torbay we lost control with no less than 21 councillors being given their marching orders. We failed to regain either Eastbourne or Worthing. In former times, seaside towns with their private hotels and landladies were Conservative strongholds. Nowadays the hotels are either owned by big consortiums or are let out to DHSS recipients. Cheap package holidays within a three or four hour flight of the Untied Kingdom are a great attraction leaving the poor seaside landlady to cope as best she can in a shrinking market which is also beset by more rules and regulations such as the Health and Safety Acts. And the relentless rise in Council Tax is an added burden. In the northern cities we have no representation in Manchester, Liverpool or Newcastle and just one seat in Sheffield. Leeds, Bradford and Birmingham are a little better but apart from Bradford where we are level pegging with Labour we cannot hope to take control for many many years. The sign of how far we have fallen can be measured when we congratulate ourselves on regaining control of Guildford. (Will we regain the parliamentary seat, which should never have been lost, I wonder?). If we are to have any chance in 2010/2011 we need to pick up a lot of seats in 2005/2006. On present voting intentions we will struggle to reach 200. We will be trying to fight off the Liberal Democrats in seats we hold at present and only then can we challenge them in seats that they have taken from us but where we are clearly the main challengers. The other problem is that we are now in a presidential as opposed to a parliamentary situation. Blair is the incumbent and despite Iain Duncan Smith’s qualities, he does not strike me as a potential Prime Minister. I know that many said the same about Clem Atlee and even he in a limerick acknowledged the unlikelihood of his achievements but Attlee sat in Churchill’s wartime Cabinet for five years and was Deputy Prime Minister. While I hope Duncan Smith will put up a good fight I think the electorate will stick with Blair on the "better the devil you know rather than the one you don’t". We will then have another election and hopefully the fiasco that happened last time can be averted and we chose someone who will reflect not just the prejudices of our own party members but can carry much wider support among the electorate at large. My final point is this. A number of big wigs in the party thought it wrong of our Party Chairman, Teresa May, to say at the last Party Conference that we were seen as nasty and out of touch. Why then do we have, as one of our chief supporters and fundraisers, the comedian Jim Davidson appealing for funds? His jokes are lewd and on his own admission he has evaded paying his taxes. If we continue with the likes of him and continue to dance to the tune of the Jeffrey Archers’ this world then we will be treated with contempt and rightly so. Office will be decades away and it might be the final nail in the coffin of a once great party which commanded and received support form all sorts and conditions of men. This cannot be allowed to happen but who is there to lead us out of the mire? September 28th "Strategic Error" Iain Duncan Smith thinks that it was a "strategic error" for the Liberal Democrats to win Brent East. Has he taken leave of his senses. What is the point of fighting a by-election unless you want to win it. Would he have called it a "strategic error" if the Conservatives had won and the Liberal Democrats had lost? This is the politics of the mad house. In the same speech on Friday 19th September he accused the Liberal Democrats of wanting to get rid of the monarchy because the issue was being debated at the Liberal Democrat party conference. Perhaps he does not understand that until an issue has been debated you do not know the views of those taking part. Is this fundamental flaw in his knowledge the reason we do not have any motions at the Conservative Party Conference?. That explains everything. Could somebody please tell Iain where he is going wrong. Just for the record when the Liberal Democrats debated the Monarchy they came out in favour of it! Agents Ball So the Agents Ball has been cancelled at the party conference. We are told that the cost of security is the reason, but is this true? The numbers attending conference are diminishing. Anybody wanting a room at the Imperial can have one. They used to be like gold dust, only for the high and mighty. Last year MPs wives and the wives of members of the House of Lords were recruited to sell ball tickets. They didn't find it easy. One more tradition bites the dust. Sad for the agents whose numbers are also diminishing. What will happen to the deficit on their pension fund? The Whips Is it true that the Conservative Whips office took over the campaign in Brent East? Didn't do a very good job did they? Was this because there were not enough volunteers on the ground or was it interference by the parliamentary party? I think we should be told. The Conservative and the Labour parties relied extensively on telephone canvassing. The Liberal Democrats put people on the ground. No wonder the Lib-Dems did well. Somebody should have told the main parties that only 30% of Brent residents have |