Campaign for Conservative
Democracy
Stop Press
Our
Fight for Democracy
Our Fight for Democracy explores the history of
our democracy and uses it to inform an assessment of the present. John Strafford charts the history of
democracy from the 6th century to the 21st century. He analyses the weaknesses
of our democracy today and suggests ways in which it can be improved. At a
time when our political system faces moral bankruptcy this book is a much needed
contribution to the debate on what can be done to restore the people's trust. For more information
look at the web site: www.historyofdemocracy.org.uk
"The tension between continuity and change which characterises so much
history is alive in these pages". Nick Hillman "Crossbow"
magazine.
"A Very British Revolution"
by Martin Bell
To a politician, a luxury is a plasma TV; an emergency is a falling-out with the
constituency association; and a fallen comrade is an MP of the same party who, having been
exposed as a flipper and swindler, has finally been forced into retirement.
To a soldier, a luxury is a bucket of water; an emergency is an all-arms Taliban
assault on a forward operating base; and a fallen comrade is a friend who has fought
alongside him and saved his life, and whose remains he is trying to extract from the wreck
of a blown-up armoured patrol vehicle.
Choose the
President of the European Council
|
The 27 Heads of State and
Government of the European Union will appoint the President of the European Council for
the first time on 19th November.
Given the interest raised by this appointment we are providing you with the
opportunity to choose between the personalities whose names are being put forward for this
position, since we are convinced that your opinion will count. Click on
the image below:

|
South West Norfolk
Tomorrow,16th November,the South West Norfolk Conservative Constituency
Association is holding a Special General Meeting to decide whether to endorse Liz Truss as
their Parliamentary Candidate. The importance of this meeting is that the
members are asserting their democratic rights. Whatever the outcome of the
meeting this is a landmark case and should be followed by other constituency associations
where Central Office has interfered. It is particularly unfortunate that David
Cameron has interfered in the process and must be regretted. It would have
been unthinkable for any previous Leader to have interfered in this way. Many
other Constituencies are finding the interference by Central Office intolerable.
They should join the Campaign for Conservative Democracy and join the fight
for a democratic Conservative Party.
Eastern Daily Press:
New twist in Truss scandal
Last updated: 12/11/2009 11:21:00
The threat of deselection to Tory candidate Elizabeth Truss in South-West Norfolk, and
of a big rebuff to David Cameron, has been revived.
Amid signs of a backlash after the U-turn performed by local Conservative chairman David
Hills, Sir Jeremy Bagge, the former high sheriff of Norfolk, is to propose that Ms Truss
be dropped at a showdown meeting of members on Monday.
The importance to Mr Cameron of the outcome of the meeting was underlined when Sir Jeremy
revealed that he had a telephone conversation with him in which the Tory leader spelt out
why he and his lieutenants were fighting hard to save Ms Truss.
He said that if we really stirred things up in SW Norfolk, it could have a ripple
effect across the country, said Sir Jeremy.
Mr Cameron is acutely aware that several other Tory associations are deeply unhappy about
candidate selection rules that seem to favour his A-list candidates, and that
they are keeping a very close eye on the battle in SW Norfolk. He also knows that disputes
could escalate in the new year when he will impose by-election rules for the
selection of candidates that will involve the imposition of women-only shortlists in some
seats that the Tories are expected to win in the general election.
Rebellion is already spreading from SW Norfolk into Suffolk. Some Tories in the
constituency of Central Suffolk and North Ipswich are livid after being presented with a
candidate shortlist of six people that doesn't include anyone from the county. There are
accusations there that Mr Cameron is trying to ease one of his favourites into the
safe seat (where retiring MP Sir Michael Lord had a majority of almost 8,000
in the last general election).
An East Anglian Tory MP said last night that he felt it was too close to call
in SW Norfolk, and that this could go either way.
Undaunted by his discussion with Mr Cameron - which took place on the initiative of the
Conservative leader - Sir Jeremy told the EDP: I am sure Ms Truss is a very able
woman. But at the Monday meeting I shall be moving, on a point of principle, that we do
not endorse her. I do not know how much support I will get, because people can be weak in
this sort of situation. But I am not standing for it.
Sir Jeremy - 7th baronet, friend of the Royal Family and owner of the 1,200-acre Stradsett
Estate, near Downham Market - said that he regretted that local Tory association chairman
David Hills had been cornered into calling for support for Ms Truss this week
after making it clear to members of the executive at an earlier stage of the political
drama that he felt let down by her and wanted her deselected. His earlier statements -
following revelations about her affair with a Tory MP - were sent by email from a cruise
ship off Hong Kong.
Sir Jeremy's end of the conversation with Mr Cameron took place, bizarrely, from a
vandalised public telephone box in Stradsett village after his mobile phone had broken. It
was on the evening of November 5, and they spoke against a background of firework noises
that could not compete with the potentially explosive subject of their discussion. By the
time it had finished, Sir Jeremy had put £8 in the box.
Mr Cameron sought to speak to him after Sir Jeremy had publicly stated that I feel
totally betrayed by Conservative Central Office and that the kindest thing
would be to allow her [Ms Truss] to move on.
In a further indication of how much is at stake for Mr Cameron in SW Norfolk, the EDP has
also been informed that he was overheard almost screaming in a telephone
conversation with Baroness Shephard. She has welcomed Mr Hills' statement of backing for
Ms Truss.
A leading figure in the Turnip Taliban opposition to Ms Truss said yesterday
that its resistance was holding up despite Mr Hills' U-turn. The people I am talking
to are still holding solid, he said.
Mr Hills has failed to respond to an EDP request to elaborate on his official statement of
support for Ms Truss and to explain his volte-face.
Ms Truss's future will be determined by a secret ballot after she has spoken at Monday's
meeting. Just under 100 people attended her original selection meeting on October 24.
November 8th
European Union
This week David Cameron abandoned his promise to hold a
referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. He promised that any future transfer of
powers will be subjected to a referendum. (Why should we believe him this time?).
He specifically ruled out a referendum on any treaty for the accession of a
new member state, but in this situation power is transferred to the European Union.
It stands to reason that if now you have 1/27th, when a new state joins you
have 1/28th. If a vote is taken on population as under Lisbon our proportion
inevitably goes down. The other thing that Cameron has forgotten is that
within the Lisbon Treaty there is a self amending clause which means that the Treaty can
be altered without having to be ratified by all the
member countries so
a new Treaty is not required. In other words, Cameron's promise is not worth
the paper it is written on. Democracy has taken another battering.
They have got away with it.
Even if the Kelly proposals are implemented in full (and
already there are attempts to water them down) the reality is that not a single MP has
been expelled from the House of Commons, not a single MP has been prosecuted for fraud,
wives can still be employed for another five years, mortgage interest can still be claimed
for another five years, those retiring at the next General Election will still pick up
£65,000 pay off and in the mean time they are all carrying on picking up their salaries
and expenses. The reality is that they have got away with it. Just
to make matters worse, a member of the establishment has been put in charge of the so
called Independent Review Body in charge of expenses and he has stated that he might alter
the rules in favour of MPs. Professor Ian Kennedy is clearly not fit for
purpose and should resign. Let us have someone genuinely independent who will
take a tough line. Once again parliament has demonstrated that it is rotten to
the core. The only solution now is to kick the lot out and have a new
constitution which is fair and democratic. If only?
Letter to the Government.
Secretary of State.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London
SW1P 3JR
16 July 2009
Dear Secretary of State,
My friend, who is in farming at the moment, recently received a cheque for £3,000 from
the Rural Payments Agency for
not rearing pigs.. I would now like to join the "not rearing pigs" business.
In your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to rear pigs on, and which is the best
breed of pigs not to rear? I
want to be sure I approach this endeavour in keeping with all government policies, as
dictated by the EU under the
Common Agricultural Policy.
I would prefer not to rear bacon pigs, but if this is not the type you want not rearing, I
will just as gladly not rear
porkers. Are there any advantages in not rearing rare breeds such as Saddlebacks or
Gloucester Old Spots, or are there
too many people already not rearing these?
As I see it, the hardest part of this programme will be keeping an accurate record of how
many pigs I haven't reared.
Are there any Government or Local Authority courses on this?
My friend is very satisfied with this business. He has been rearing pigs for forty years
or so, and the best he ever
made on them was £1,422 in 1968. That is - until this year, when he received a cheque for
not rearing any.
If I get £3,000 for not rearing 50 pigs, will I get £6,000 for not rearing 100? I
plan to operate on a small scale at
first, holding myself down to about 4,000 pigs not raised, which will mean about £240,000
for the first year. As I
become more expert in not rearing pigs, I plan to be more ambitious, perhaps increasing
to, say, 40,000 pigs not reared
in my second year, for which I should expect about £2.4 million from your department.
Incidentally, I wonder if I would
be eligible to receive tradable carbon credits for all these pigs not producing harmful
and polluting methane gases?
Another point: These pigs that I plan not to rear will not eat 2,000 tonnes of cereals. I
understand that you also pay
farmers for not growing crops. Will I qualify for payments for not growing cereals to not
feed the pigs I don't rear?
I am also considering the "not milking cows" business, so please send any
information you have on that too. Please
could you also include the current DEFRA advice on set aside fields? Can this be done on
an e-commerce basis with
virtual fields (of which I seem to have several thousand hectares)?
In view of the above you will realise that I will be totally unemployed, and will
therefore qualify for unemployment
benefits. I shall of course be voting for your party at the next general election.
Yours faithfully,
Nigel Johnson-Hill
The English Penny
EU Directive No. 456179
In order to meet the conditions for joining
the Single European currency, all citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland must be made aware that the phrase 'Spending a Penny' is not to be used
after 31st December 2009 .
From this date, the correct terminology will
be: 'Euronating'.
Bully Boy tactics
The Eastern Daily press reports:
The SW
Norfolk Tories have been threatened with having a parliamentary candidate imposed on them
if they deselect Elizabeth Truss and then carry on defying David Cameron.
But the warning seems to have stiffened the resolve of the rebels. And
further protests against the process that led to Ms Truss's selection, and interference by
the party's national leadership, were led yesterday by Sir Jeremy Bagge, a former high
sheriff of Norfolk.
"I feel totally betrayed by Conservative Central Office," he
said. And he expressed outrage that the local association had been told that its candidate
selection could be taken completely out of its hands if it throws out Ms Truss and then
refuses to choose a candidate wanted by Mr Cameron.
"If they suspend the association, we can dissociate from the Conservative Party and
choose an independent," he said.
"We will not be dictated to."
Sir Jeremy is a member of the association's executive, which was warned at a meeting on
Tuesday that if Ms Truss were deselected, the local party would be made to choose from a
shortlist of three candidates selected by Conservative HQ, and that it was probable all of
them would be women.
If they then refused to select one of these, a candidate would be forced on them, they
were also told.
The warning came from Sir Graham Bright, who retired on Saturday as the chairman of the
eastern region Conservatives. And his message was delivered to the executive after he had
spoken to Mr Cameron earlier that day.
Despite Sir Graham's words, the executive voted by 19-14 to refer Ms Truss's candidature
back to a special general meeting to be held on November 16. The executive meeting had
been speedily convened after the association had been rocked by a media disclosure, only a
few hours after choosing her, that Ms Truss had had an affair with the Conservative MP
Mark Field.
The warning delivered by Sir Graham infuriated Sir Jeremy, who voted for Ms Truss at
the selection meeting on October 24, but now feels "the kindest thing would be to
allow her to move on" and seek selection in another seat.
1st November
Selection of parliamentary Candidates
We know that 87% of conservative Party members oppose
All Women Short Lists. In a public opinion poll this week it showed that 58%
of the public oppose them with only 23% in favour. Why oh Why does Cameron
keep pursuing this unpopular agenda? You can see the latest spat on this by
clicking on http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/newsnight for Tuesday 27th October. The item is 24 minutes in.
South Norfolk Selection
At a Special General Meeting of the South Norfolk
Constituency Association held last week Elizabeth Truss was chosen as the Conservative
Parliamentary candidate. After the meeting a number of members of the
Association discovered that several years ago she had an affair with a married
Conservative MP. They were unhappy about this and asked for a meeting of the
Association's Executive Committee. The Executive decided that there should be
a full meeting of the Association to reconsider their decision to select Elizabeth as the
candidate. Contrary to what some bloggers might feel there is nothing wrong
with that. It is no good saying that you are in favour of democracy and
allowing Constituency Associations to choose their parliamentary candidates and then
complain about the decisons that are reached. It is also no good calling the
members of the Association "Neanderthal" as Iain Dale has done.
This problem would probably have been avoided if the
Constituency had been allowed to select its parliamentary candidate in the normal way
instead of being forced by Central Office to do it under the new rules. Under
these rules only six members of the Association including the Chairman and the two Deputy
Chairmen are involved in the sift of candidates with the Party Chairman having a veto on
any candidate and being able to effectively impose candidates. The Executive's
only role is to determine how many candidates go forward to a General Meeting.
Prior to the new rules many more people would have been involved in the
selection process over a longer period giving more time for facts about the candidates to
be disclosed. It is virtually certain that in these circumstances Elizabeth
Truss's affair would have been known by all those attending the General Meeting.
It is because the selection process has been changed that we have ended up in
this sorry mess. This is not the fault of the South Norfolk Constituency
Association but it is the fault of the Politburo now running the Conservative Party.
Once you start distorting democracy you destroy it.
There is a growing number of constituencies that are
starting to rebel at the control of Central Office. This does not augur
well for the future of the Conservative Party. If this
control freakery is not stopped David Cameron will find that he is leading a Party with no
members. Then what will he do?
English
The European Commission has just
announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the European Union
rather than the other possibility, German.
As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that English
spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5-year phase-in plan that would
become known as 'Euro-English'.
In the first year, 's' will
replace the soft 'c'. Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard
'c' will be dropped in favour of 'k'. This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan
have one less letter. There
will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome 'ph' will be
replaced with 'f'. This will make words like fotograf 20% shorter.
In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage
where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkourage the removal
of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre
that the horibl mes of the silent 'e' in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away.
By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to
steps such as replasing 'th' with 'z' and
'w' with 'v'.
During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary 'o' kan
be dropd from vords kontaining
'ou' and after ziz fifz yer, vevil hav a reil sensibl riten
styl.
Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil
find it ezi tu understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali
kum tru.
Und
efter ze fifz yer,ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted
in ze forstplas.
If zis mad you smil, pleas pas on to oza pepl.
October 25th
All Women Short Lists
This week David Cameron made a serious mistake.
In spite of 87% of Tory members being opposed to All Women Short lists
Cameron is about to impose them on Constituency Associations. No wonder the
constituencies are fighting back. There is now a suggestion that the old
National Union of Conservative Associations should be revived. The name still
exists so it would not be too difficult to resurrect it. For too long the
voluntary party has been treated with contempt by the leadership. I understand
that a fighting fund of £15,000 is being created to help constituencies oppose this
diktat from Central Office. The Party talks about being in favour of localism
and devolving power to the lowest level, yet when comes to the Conservative Party the
exact opposite is done. Can you trust the hierarchy when it practises such
hypocrisy?
Where are the representatives of the voluntary
party on the Party Board? We haven't heard a squeak from them.
They should either speak up or hang their heads in shame. Maybe the smell of
ermine is preventing them from speaking up for the members that put them there in the
first place!
Membership is falling, the ordinary members are
demoralised and soon we will have an election to fight. Dave should not be so
sure that we will win that he can ignore the views of the members. The
Conservative Party is the membership. Destroy that and all you have is a cosy
little oligarchy seeking power. Sooner or later the electorate will rumble
them.
On Saturday 31st October COPOV has a forum
meeting (for details see Notice Board) at which the Selection of
Parliamentary Candidates is on the agenda. Do come and join in the debate as
to what we, the ordinary members should do now.
BBC PM programme
To listen click on http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00n7ml8/b00n7mkf/PM_20_10_2009/
the interview is 46 minutes into the programme.
The Times 21 October
"John Strafford, of the grassroots group Campaign for Conservative Democracy,
said that Tory members were fed up with interference from the centre and warned that
further moves to control candidate selection marked the death of democracy".
The Daily Mail 21 October
"John Strafford, of the Campaign for Conservative Democracy, called Mr
Cameron's announcement ' disgraceful'. He predicted it would lead to an exodus of
activists.
Tory commentator Iain Dale, a candidate at the last election described the move as '
fundamentally unconservative'. He asked: 'where it will all lead? All-black
shortlists? All-gay shortlists? All-disabled shortlists? All-Muslim shortlists? Not in my
name."
The Independent 21 October
"David Cameron provoked a furious
row with Tory backbenchers and grassroots members yesterday after reversing his party's
opposition to all-women shortlists in a bid to boost the number of female Conservative
MPs.
Only Labour has opted for all-women
shortlists at previous elections, with past Conservative leaders opposing them as
undemocratic. Mr Cameron's U-turn will see all-women shortlists imposed on some
constituencies selecting their candidates in the New Year. Aides to Mr Cameron have said
he has done all he can to promote women MPs on to the frontbench but privately admit that
he is hampered by the fact that the party only has 19 sitting female MPs. That number
would rise to 60 should the party win a majority at the next election, still only one
fifth of its seats.
To the frustration of Conservative
Central Office (CCO), local party associations have resisted rules forcing them to give
half of the places on their shortlists to women. The system has failed to deliver more
female Tory candidates, with men appearing in the last six major selection contests.
Announcing the change in policy at the
Speaker's Committee, Mr Cameron said: "It's my intention, if we continue as we are,
that some of those shortlists will be all-women shortlists to help us boost the number of
Conservative women MPs," he said. "There are many very, very good women on our
priority list of candidates who haven't yet been selected and I want to give them the
chance to serve in parliament."
The announcement immediately saw a
backlash from Tory backbenchers and grassroots members of the party. Anne Widdecombe, a
staunch critic of the all-women shortlists, said that it would make some female MPs feel
like second-class citizens.
"Women, no matter what their
circumstances, must get to Westminster on their own merits and be able to know that when
they're sitting in the House of Commons," she said.
John Strafford, chairman of the
Campaign for Conservative Democracy, said that party members were "spitting
blood" about the decision. "Many constituencies are just beginning to understand
what controls central office is imposing on them," he said.
Tim Montgomerie and Jonathan Isaby,
editors of the influential Tory members' website ConservativeHome, also issued a statement
opposing the move. "We feared this would happen," they stated. "All women
shortlists are fundamentally unConservative and they have no place in a party pledged to
meritocracy and localism."
October 18th
Ministerial Expansion
Prior to 1997 there were 110 salaried Government
Ministers. Today there are 123 Ministers plus 75 Ministers in Wales, Scotland
and Northern Ireland. You would have thought that with legislation being
devolved there would be fewer Ministers at Westminster. Does it matter?
The extra number of Ministers at Westminster are unpaid. Unfortunately it does
not stop there. Each Minister gets three secretaries, a press officer, a
chauffeur driven car and costs the taxpayer half a million pounds per annum.
Time for a few cuts I say!
Discrimination
The Equal Rights Commission took the BNP to court on the grounds that their
constitution was racially biased. They succeeded in getting the BNP to agree
to change its constitution. The Equal Rights Commission were correct to press
for this change, but why do they not kick up a fuss about the sexual prejudice in the
Labour and the Conservative Parties. The Labour Party has women only short
lists when choosing its parliamentary candidates. The Conservative Party
insists on 50% women on its short lists, in spite of the fact that women comprise only one
third of the total candidates. Of course the political parties have been
exempted from the sex discrimination clauses in the legislation, so positive
discrimination is alright in our political correct society. Isn't it time we
insisted on political parties having democratic constitutions?
Democratic Parties
At a packed out fringe meeting organised by the Conservative Action for
Electoral Reform I put the following proposal to the meeting:
"No
political Party should be registered with the Electoral Commission unless it has a
democratic constitution which can be changed by a majority of its members on the basis of
one member one vote.
I said:
"Both
of our main political parties are undemocratic organisations run by small oligarchies. Although the Conservative Party now has a
constitution, that constitution cannot be changed without the agreement of an Electoral
College consisting of members of Parliament on the one hand and the National Convention,
which consists mainly of Constituency Chairmen, on the other. In this Electoral College the MPs vote
is worth five times that of a Constituency Chairman.
The
Chairman and Treasurer of the Party are appointed by the Leader so are unaccountable to
the membership.
There
is no Annual General Meeting of members so there is no formal forum for members to raise
questions about the Partys organisation or policies.
The Annual Accounts of the Party are not tabled for
approval at an AGM. The
Parliamentary candidates of the Party are controlled centrally. The Party Board can and does take control of
any Constituency Association, which does not toe the line.
The infamous clause 17 of the constitution states: The Board shall have power to do anything which in its
opinion relates to the management and administration of the Party and that makes
the rest of the constitution meaningless.
And
yet, large sums of taxpayers money have been given to the oligarchy running the
Conservative Party. Over the last ten
years some £40 million has been given to the Conservative Party and after the next
General Election an equally large sum of money will be given to the oligarchy running the
Labour Party. This money is supposed to
be given to enhance our democracy it does no such thing. All it does is perpetuate the power of the
oligarchies.
Secondly
In
both the two main parties a small number of people determine who shall be a parliamentary
candidate and in so doing who shall sit in the House of Commons and form the government of
this country. In the case of the
Conservative Party this is effectively the Party Chairman.
Is this the way in which dictatorships are created without the need
for bloody revolution?
Once
we had rotten boroughs, now we have a rotten parliament.
This
must be changed and my proposal will do just that".
To my surprise and delight the meeting overwhelmingly supported
the proposal. I could see only one dissenting voice - Eleanor Laing MP.
October 11th
Give Us Our Conference Back
Of all the people attending the Conservative Conference only 25% were party
members. The other 75% were lobbyists, businessmen, media, exhibition
organisers etc. This was the first conference I have been to where on
purchasing a cup of coffee you are asked whether you want a receipt. Not
surprising when 75% are attending on expenses. Not surprising, that everything
is so expensive. The end result is that fewer and fewer party members are
going. Even the fringe has been taken over. Lobbyists attend the
fringe meeting to push their causes, thus distorting the meetings. At a
meeting on Europe a hostile question to an MEP was put by an employee of the European
Commission.
So when I received an email asking me to attend a special meeting with the Party
Chairman to discuss the future of Conservative Conferences I immediately cancelled going
to a particularly good fringe meeting with Dominic Grieve, in order to attend.
We were given Lancashire hotpot by the Commercial Director of Central Office
and then told that Eric Pickles could not attend the meeting. There would be
no discussion, no debate, but would we put any suggestions on post it notes and stick them
on the wall. I knew where I wanted to stick them. Is it any wonder
that Party membership and attendance at Conference is in decline when members are treated
with such utter contempt by the hierarchy. To rub salt into the wound I was
later told that the reason for Eric Pickles non attendance was because he had to take
Samantha Cameron shopping. You couldn't make it up if you tried!
Fringe Meeting
COPOV held a very successful
fringe meeting at the Party Conference. We put out the following press
release.
PRESS RELEASE
5th October 09
DEATH OF DEMOCRACY
Party Chairman chooses candidates!
Once
we had rotten boroughs, now we have rotten parliaments.
This controversial view will be expressed by John Strafford,
Chairman of the Campaign for Conservative Democracy, and author of the recently published
book Our Fight for Democracy at a
fringe meeting at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester on Tuesday, 6th
October.
Speaking about the Death of Democracy, one
of the issues raised by John Strafford was the selection of parliamentary candidates. He reveals that under the new rules brought
in by the Party Board in July 2009 the selection of Conservative Party candidates has been
changed. Now the Party Chairman
will decide whether a local Association should select its candidate by a Special General
Meeting or by an Open Primary. For each
constituency a sifting meeting will be held at a place designated by the Party Chairman at
which the Approved List of candidates will be reduced to six names, 50% of whom will be
women. At this meeting there will be six
representatives of the local association. The
Party Chairman will have a veto on the six names to go forward to the next stage.
The
real impact of this is that the Party Chairman will determine the Conservatives candidates
and consequently the Conservative Party composition in the House of Commons for a
generation. The Labour Party looks as
though it is going down a similar route. Over
half the current members of the Cabinet were parachuted into their seats by the Labour
Party hierarchy. So a tiny number of
people will determine who sits in the House of Commons and effectively form the government
of this country. Is this the way
dictatorships are created without the need for bloody revolution?
John Strafford concluded by saying There
is much talk about electoral reform but when will the people wake up and smell the
coffee? If our two main political
parties are wholly undemocratic organisations, electoral reform is meaningless. Once we had rotten boroughs, now we have rotten parliaments.
CONTACT
DETAILS: JOHN STRAFFORD Mobile 07956 352022
October 4th
Bureaucracy Builds
EU plans new £280m building for EU President and Foreign Minister. The EU is
planning a new building to house the offices of the new EU President, EU Foreign Minister
and European diplomatic service, which will be created if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified.
It is set to cost EU taxpayers £280 million.
September 27th
Events at the Party Conference
Do come to the following events;
Sunday 4th October 3.15pm
Vote for Change - Speakers: Dan Hannan MEP, John Strafford, Chairman-Martin Bell
Friends Meeting House, Mount St. Manchester, M2 5NS
Tuesday 6th October 4.30pm
COPOV meeting - "Death of Democracy",
John Strafford, Freedom Zone, Bridgewater Hall, Manchester
Tuesday 6th October 5.45pm
"Our Fight for Democracy "
book signing John Strafford, Freedom Zone, Bridgwater
Hall, Manchester
Wednesday 7th October 12.30pm
Democracy Dragons Den Michael
White, Jonathan Isaby, Eleanor Laing MP, John Strafford. Main Conference Centre, Exchange
Room 2. Conservative Action for Electoral Reform..
National Convention
In a desperate attempt to involve the Party members the
National Convention is to have three motions for debate. They are:
1) Convention believes that membership
recruitment and retention is the responsibility of local associations, this convention
calls on areas, regions and CCHQ to support associations to get more people involved in
our party.
2) Convention believes we need a new Training initiative to
help volunteers be even more effective.
3) Convention believes that the Policy Forum needs
revitalising and has an important role to play.
This is pathetic. This is not debate.
This is froth, pure and simple - an opportunity for the hierarchy to spout
meaningless phrases. Will they never learn?
To add insult to injury we are informed that "We
will take up to five contributions of 2 minutes for each motion", and then asks
anybody who wishes to contribute to email CCHQ. So each motion will have ten
minutes of froth and even those contributing to the froth will be determined by the
hierarchy. Is it any wonder that party membership is declining. In
a recent article Vernon Bogdanor estimated it at 145,000.
The best thing that could happen to the National Convention
is to put it out of its misery and shoot it!
Our Fight for Democracy - The United Kingdom and the
European Union
The Bruges Group have published the above pamphlet by John
Strafford. To view it click on Bruges Group
This paper charts how
Britain became entangled in the anti-democratic European Union. And outlines the damage
this has caused to our own self-government; including how the European Union dominates
legislation in the United Kingdom. On the most conservative estimate over 65% of new
legislation emanates from the EU.
This study also looks at how the European elites are in danger of creating a profound
moral and institutional crisis in Europe a crisis of democracy. Those in the
Brussels elite who have power have not been elected, and those who have been elected have
no power.
- The European project was designed to take over the governance of the nation states and
to create an unaccountable self-perpetuating oligarchy to rule without the inconvenience
of democracy. It gave itself a façade of legitimacy by creating the European Parliament,
but this Parliament is a sham.
The European arena continues to be largely the domain of self-selecting political and
commercial elites.
The fundamental democratic flaws in the European Union are now so deep, and history shows
that the Union exhibits no sign of wanting to change them. Perhaps the only solution if we
wish to live in a democracy is for the United Kingdom to withdraw from this wholly
undemocratic body.
It is time for the people to decide.
Wycombe Update
I gather the President of Wycombe Conservative Association has now been banned
from the selection process (see below). You couldn't make it up!
September 20th
Open Europe - Irish Referendum
Extracts from the Open Europe web site:
British Labour
MP Gisela Stuart, who was a member of the European Convention which drew up the Treaty,
said that a basic test for democracy should be whether citizens can get rid of
politicians, adding that "Lisbon does not give you, as a citizen, the means to
control the executive or the politicians who decide on your behalf, and that's the hurdle
it falls on in my view."
Gisela
warned that "under Lisbon, there will be no more treaties, no more referendums
anywhere" on EU integration, and noted that one of the big dangers of Lisbon is the
bullying of the smaller countries by the big ones. She said: "The nature of
democracy is truly at stake." Asked what would happen if Ireland votes 'No', she
said: "We are dealing with an organisation which is very good at making rules but
which is completely un-bound by rules itself".
Dr Jochen
Bittner, Europe Correspondent for German newspaper Die Zeit, said that, with the
Treaty, "sovereignty would be shifted from the people to the next higher level - the
governments" and that "this is a major step, and one should discuss the wisdom
of this step".
He said
that proponents of the Treaty claim it will make the EU both more democratic and
efficient, but said the two are not compatible, adding "You simply cannot argue that
the Lisbon Treaty makes the EU both efficient and democratic." Noting that China is
"very quick at decision-making...because it is a dictatorship", he added that
"politicians should be so honest to say that we have a choice between more efficiency
or old-fashioned democracy as we are used to. I think that would be the right question to
ask."
Wycombe Selection
On Wednesday 16th September the following appeared on the
Wycombe Conservative association web site:
"Yesterday (Tuesday 15th September 2009) Eric
Pickles MP, Chairman of the Conservative Party, suspended the selection of Candidates in
the Wycombe Constituency because of an alleged irregularity. Of course the biggest
irregularity was his imposition on Wycombe Conservative Association of Rules handed down
by CCHQ which do not appear to have been properly ratified properly and which are contrary
to that part of the Constitution of Wycombe Conservative Association that was imposed on
it by CCHQ in the first place. The whole selection process appears to have been
ultra vires thanks to Mr Pickles. The website has yet to find a single member of WCA
that supports CCHQ. At least we will have a chance now to rerun the selection with a
fair procedure.
Wycombe Conservative Association note the Conservative
policy of eradicating top down government. Regrettably Pickles does not understand
that policy. He also does not understand that he has no authority whatsoever to
suspend a committee of the Executive Council of Wycombe Conservative
Association".
This statement is not an official statement released on behalf of the association,
but rather has been posted as a freelance operation by someone within the local party with
access to the website. It was then changed on the website to read as follows:
"Yesterday (Tuesday 15th September 2009) Eric Pickles MP, Chairman of the
Conservative Party, suspended procedure for the selection of Candidates in the Wycombe
Constituency because of an alleged irregularity. The selection procedure was
being conducted by a Selection Committee of the Executive Council of Wycombe Conservative
Association, but it appears that this action was taken without any direct
communication with any of the officers of the Association. It is also unclear
until the Executive Council meet what the effect of the purported suspension is."
Thursday 16th September
Mr Moore, the associations web manager, told the Free Press: I
embarrassed Wycombe Conservative Association and the appropriate thing for me to do was to
resign from the committee.
The Wycombe selection has been a bit of a mess. Everybody
wanted a finger in the pie. We are told Central Office had a preferred
candidate. The President of the Association - Sir William McAlpine invited ten
of the candidates for drinks at his home, then kept two of them on for dinner.
The local Muslims were organising their own candidates - the four main tribal
elders had a meeting to decide on their candidate. Of course all this
was supposed to be under the new rules. What a mess!
Bedford Mayor Selection
Great play has been made of the success of
getting a Conservative Muslim candidate for the Mayor of Bedford. It was an
open primary selection or more precise a open caucus selection. Anybody could
attend the meeting. The meeting was due to start at 7.30pm but eventually
started at 8.50pm. We are told that this was because so many wanted to get in.
The attendance was about 400. However I am told that the real
reason was that the local Iman had said that Ramadan should finish at 7.34pm., so many of
the Muslims attending brought their dinner with them and proceeded to start eating it.
I am also told that about 90% of the audience were Muslim and had been bussed
to the meeting. Nothing wrong with that, except that there is a danger,
particularly at an open meeting that the candidate will be chosen on purely ethnic
grounds. Has this open primary system opened up a whole new can of worms?
We shall see.
September 13th
Party Constitution
Have you recently tried to obtain a copy of the Conservative
Party Constitution? You used to be able to see one on the Party's web site.
It would seem no more. At a time when many constituencies are
selecting candidates and many members want to check what the Constitution has to say about
this it is essential that a member has easy access to the Constitution. So,
come on Central Office put it back on the web site so anyone can see it. After
all, what is there to hide?
Party Conference
If you are going to the Tory Party Conference put the
following events in your diary. I hope to see you there.
Sunday 4th October 3.15pm
Vote for Change - Speakers: Dan Hannan MEP, John Strafford, Chairman - Martin
Bell
Friends Meeting House, Mount St. Manchester, M2 5NS
Tuesday 6th October 4.30pm
COPOV meeting - "Death of Democracy"
John Strafford, Freedom Zone, Bridgewater Hall, Manchester
Tuesday 6th October 5.45pm
"Our Fight for
Democracy " book signing John Strafford,
Freedom Zone, Bridgwater Hall, Manchester
Wednesday 7th October 12.30pm
Dragons Den Michael White, John Strafford, Main Conference Centre.
A Level Playing Field?
In the Irish referendum on the Lisbon
Treaty supporters of the Treaty are set to out-spend the No side by 10 to 1. An estimate
of the budgets for the Yes side indicates it will spend at least 2.4m, compared with
the No campaign's 270,000. (Sunday Times, 23 August)
September 6th
Bankers Bonuses
If the Finance Ministers could agree, there are
two simple ways in which the bankers could be brought to heal. The total
remuneration of the highest paid person in a bank should not receive more than twenty
times the remuneration of the lowest paid person in the bank. All the banks
are limited liability companies. The state allowed them limited liability.
What the state gives it can take away. Make the Directors of the
banks personally liable for all the banks debts. I bet you would see a wholly
different approach to the risky dealing which is now associated with the banks and which
the taxpayer will be paying for during the next decade.
Toryism - Nothing changes.
"Toryism is not only a Party spirit but a way of life, not only a
political attitude of mind but a regenerative social and moral force, but Toryism could
only be such a force if it grapples with issues such as pensions, health, and welfare
provision which are examples, taken almost at random, of the sort of questions as to which
the Tory Party should be thoroughly well informed".
Sir Arnold Wilson - October 1935
From www.conservativehome.com
The Independent on Sunday today publishes an analysis of Conservative
Party membership figures, based on information provided in accounts from 229 local
Associations to the Electoral Commission over the last four years (The report also
features an unflattering photo of a "less-than-riveted party member" asleep at
last year's conference who bears more than a passing resemblance to Tony Baldry MP...).
Its conclusion is that membership has fallen by almost a quarter during the period
which David Cameron has led the party:
"Although the Tories have enjoyed
a huge opinion-poll lead for several months, they have not been able to translate the
surge in popularity into an increase in membership on the scale experienced by Labour
during Tony Blair's early years in charge.
"The total membership in more
than 200 constituency associations barely a third of the overall number who
provided relevant figures to the elections watchdog fell from 185,000 to 145,000 between
December 2005 and December 2008. The constituencies experiencing falls include
"safe" seats, the bases of shadow Cabinet members and target seats that must be
taken if the Tories are to win the next general election."
Am I surprised about this? Well, not really.
Last month Tim asked What
is the point of being a Tory member? and cited a series of members' rights which have
been taken away over recent years - mostly surrounding the power to select and deselect
elected representatives.
And John Strafford covered similar ground just a couple of weeks ago in his Platform
piece, The
decline and death of Party membership - Why should anyone now be a member of the
Conservative Party?
I should say in all fairness, however,
that not only has there been a longstanding downward trend in membership over a period of
years and indeed decades, but that this trend is equally apparent in parties across
the political spectrum.
Jonathan Isaby
August 30th
MP's Expenses
The Conservative Party Scrutiny Panel has examined
the expenses of Conservative MPs. To some of them it has written:
"The Scrutiny Panel examined your detailed
ACA claims and I can confirm that we do not require you to answer any queries about them
and there is no requirement for any repayments to be made."
In the interests of all those Conservative MPs who
have a clean bill of health on the expenses issue why don't the Conservatives list all
their MPs who have received a similar letter?
War Room Briefing
This week the Party Chairman praised the success of the Open primary at Totnes.
He said that 16,000 people have voted and they now have ownership in the new
candidate. Isn't he forgetting that Sarah Wollaston got 7,914 votes.
8,583 votes were cast for the other candidates. Does that mean a
majority of the people have decided that they do not want ownership of Sarah?
TaxPayers' Alliance Bulletin - 28 August 2009
Quangos banned from party conferences
Good news: we have a notable victory to report! You may recall that a few days before
New Year we produced a report revealing that the Regional
Development Agencies spent £285,000 at the three main party conferences last autumn. At
the time, we advised that quangos should be banned from using taxpayers' money to lobby
politicians for even more money. Not only is it a perversion of the public policy process,
but it is also in practice a taxpayer-funded subsidy for the political parties themselves.
This week it has emerged that only days after our report came out, Cabinet Secretary
Sir Gus O'Donnell (pictured, right) issued an order banning quangos from attending
the conferences. This is a great policy change that will save taxpayers millions of pounds
and demonstrates the influence of the TPA's research, media profile and campaigning.
Carbon Trust - another victory on the way?
The campaign against quangos took another step forward earlier this week with a new TPA
assault on the unaccountable Carbon Trust. We revealed - along with the US think tank the
Competitive Enterprise Institute - that the Trust, which is so far outside taxpayer
control that it is even outside the reach of the Freedom of Information Act, is using
British taxpayers' money to expand its lobbying operations into America and China.
The TPA has long campaigned against the Carbon Trust, which gets £93.4 million of
taxpayers' money every year and whose 145 staff enjoy an average salary of
£75,000, so it was great to see the news of their disgraceful global expansion plans
covered prominently in the Daily Mail.
August 23rd
Party Membership
The following article was published on www.conservativehome.com
this week. It received over 80 responses. To see them click on
below:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2009/08/john-strafford-the-decline-and-death-of-party-membership-why-should-anyone-now-be-a-member-of-the-co.html
Nearly all the responses concentrated on the decline in Party membership and what
could or should be done about it. The much wider and possibly more important
issue for our democracy, regarding the fact that about a dozen people will determine the
composition of the House of Commons for a generation has been overlooked. We
can talk about electoral reform until the cows come home but if our two main political
parties are undemocratic organisations and a tiny number of people in them determine their
parliamentary candidates, electoral reform will change nothing. The
oligarchies in control will always win. One other point in connection with
this, is that the Conservative Party has received some £40 million in State Funding over
the last twelve years. Is it right that taxpayers money should be spent
supporting an oligarchy? Why hasn't the Electoral Commission stepped in and
demanded that the price of taxpayer funding is the organisation receiving it should have a
democratic constitution - that means one member one vote when it comes to altering the
Party's constitution?
The decline and death of Party membership
By
John Strafford
The end of World
War II was a political watershed with the Conservative Party suffering its greatest
electoral defeat. The desire for
equality and change brought the Labour Party to power.
The Conservative Party responded to the challenge by bringing in Lord
Woolton as Party Chairman. Woolton
was to serve nine years as Party Chairman and was the most successful Chairman in the
history of the Conservative Party. With
party membership at about 250,000 in 1945, Woolton realised that he had to build up
membership in order to once again create a mass membership Party. He believed that one of the reasons for the
defeat in the General Election had been that the Party had forgotten the little people.
A membership campaign was launched in 1947 and by the summer of 1948, overall
membership had increased by one million to two and a quarter million. Woolton
took on over 150 paid missioners who
worked mainly in the marginals at Central Offices expense, and visited over a
million homes. The official
membership campaign ended at the Party Conference in October 1948. By 1952, party membership had risen to a
staggering 2.8 million.
In 1949, in
Winston Churchills own constituency of Woodford there were 12,898 members including
1,172 Young Conservatives. City areas
were not neglected, with 60,000 members in Birmingham, two thirds of them women. The young were not forgotten. In the summer of 1945 there were only 50
Young Conservative branches in the country. By
1946 this had increased to 1,546 nationally and by 1948 to 2,129 branches with no less
than 150,000 members.
Participation was the key to this success. Swinton College was opened in 1947. Its role was to educate activists, train
agents and volunteers and arrange lectures. The
Conservative Political Centre encouraged local discussion groups and by 1947 there were
557 of them, meeting regularly in a members house and all putting forward ideas and
views on policy. Their views were taken
seriously by Central Office.
The strength of Party membership was not to last. By 1979 it had fallen to 1,350,000. It continued to fall and went down to 400,000
by 1997. A million members simply
evaporated. The most serious losses were
of suburban and county activists for whom executive power on local councils was a quid pro
quo for loyalty at national elections.
The Conservative
Party suffered another great electoral defeat in the General Election of 1997. William Hague became Leader and immediately
set in train a reorganisation of the Party. Initially
he set out a vision of a democratic Party but by the time his proposals were finalised his
vision had been watered down by the vested interests in the Party. Primarily the Parliamentary Party were
determined to retain their power and if possible increase it. The Party got a constitution, but in
accepting the required changes the voluntary Party paid a heavy price.
After the
reorganisation of the Party, membership picked up a little, but by nowhere near as much as
the Tories hoped. The total had fallen
to 320,000 by 2003. Today in 2009
membership of the Conservative Party is less than 200,000.
Although the
Party now has a constitution, that constitution cannot be changed without the agreement of
an Electoral College consisting of members of Parliament on the one hand and the National
Convention, which consists mainly of Constituency Chairmen, on the other. In this Electoral College the MPs vote
is worth five times that of a Constituency Chairman.
The real power resides with the Parliamentary Party. The Chairman and Treasurer of the Party are
appointed by the Leader so are unaccountable to the membership. There is no Annual General Meeting of members
so there is no formal forum for members to raise questions about the Partys
organisation or policies. The
Annual Accounts of the Party are not tabled for approval at an AGM. The Parliamentary candidates of the
Party are controlled centrally. The
Party Board can and does take control of any Constituency Association, which does not toe
the line. The infamous clause 17 of the
constitution: The Board shall have power to do
anything which in its opinion relates to the management and administration of the Party,
makes the rest of the constitution meaningless.
Does the decline in membership matter? There
are two major reasons why it does. Of
the 200,000 Party members about 10% or 20,000 are activists.
Today those activists consist primarily of 10,000 Councillors, their
family and friends.
Within a year
there will be a General Election at which it is almost certain that the Conservative Party
will form a government. Because of the
dire state of the economy some very tough and very unpopular decisions will have to be
taken. At the time when we will be most
unpopular there will be local elections and many of our Councillors will lose their seats,
not because they have performed badly, but because of the national position. The effect on Party membership will be
catastrophic.
Why should
anyone be a member of the Conservative Party? Prior
to the Party reforms of 1998 there were a number of reasons to be a member of the
Conservative Party. There were meetings
at Area and National level where you could raise issues of policy or organisation. The Party conference was run by the voluntary
Party. It had motions for debate. Constituency Associations were for all
intents and purposes autonomous. The
Party had three distinct sections, the Parliamentary Party, the voluntary party and the
professional organisation. There were
checks and balances in the distribution of power.
All of these were swept away in 1998, but the members held onto one
last right that of selecting their parliamentary candidate.
This has now
gone. At the Party Board meeting in July
2009 new rules were brought in for the selection of Conservative Party candidates. Now, the Party Chairman will decide whether
an Association should select its candidate by a Special General Meeting or by an Open
Primary.
For each
constituency a meeting will be held at a place designated by the Party Chairman at which
the Approved List of candidates will be reduced to six names, 50% of whom will be women. At this meeting there will be six
representatives of the local Association. The
Party Chairman will have a veto on the six names to go forward to the next stage.
The real impact
of this is that the Party Chairman will determine the Conservative candidates and
consequently the Conservative Party composition in the House of Commons for a generation. The Labour Party looks as though it will go
down a similar route. A tiny number of
people will determine who sits in the House of Commons and effectively form the government
of this country. Is this the way
dictatorships are created without the need for bloody revolution?
There is much
talk about electoral reform but when will the media and people wake up and smell the coffee? If our two main political parties are wholly
undemocratic organisations, electoral reform is meaningless.
Democracy R.I.P.
August
16th
Conservative Party Accounts 2008
Nothing too controversial this year.
Disappointingly, membership is almost the same level as last year. At this
point in the electoral cycle it should be going up. One odd point, income from
fund raising activities was £849,000. Cost of fund raising activities
£1,111,000. So, scrap the fund raising department and save £262,000 almost
doubling the surplus for the year!
World at One - Martha Kearney's Newsletter
Some Conservative MPs do agree with Alan Duncan. The veteran Tory MP Sir Patrick
Cormack told us that although Mr Duncan's comments were "unwise" he agreed
restrictions on MPs' pay and perks could put people off entering Parliament because it was
an "extremely expensive business". Sir Patrick told us on Thursday's
programme: "What we do not want in this country is a Parliament of political
anoraks and extremely rich people." He continued: "The fact is that being a
Member of Parliament is an extremely expensive business. One is expected to give liberally
to all manner of charities, one is expected to attend all manner of events, one is
expected constantly to be putting one's hand into one's pocket. One has to recognise
that it is expensive being a Member of Parliament. It is a public service, it is a
vocation and you don't go in it for the money."
Those remarks infuriated John Strafford, who chairs the Campaign for Conservative
Democracy -- a grass roots pressure group. He described them as "barmy", as
there were 4000 people who wanted to become Conservative MPs.
He also told me that his members felt very let down by Mr Duncan's comments:
"He's now got a record for coming out with rather silly remarks.
This is the third time it's happened and people feel very very strong about it. I mean the
tragedy is he's a witty, charming, amusing, very intelligent man but he does have this
streak of arrogance that occasionally comes through and he's got to learn to keep it
private."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ly5cw/World_at_One_13_08_2009
The case against boosting MPs' pay
Another new research note, released today, seeks to put paid to suggestions of a
pay rise for Members of Parliament by revealing the true scale of their pay packets, and
comparing them to Parliamentarians abroad. As you will have seen, some MPs have had the
gall to try to use the recent expenses crisis as justification for a hefty pay rise. They
claim that the reason that so many of their colleagues dipped their hands into the till is
that they are underpaid! This new research demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that
they are extremely well paid - even when compared to other politicians internationally.
- An MPs basic
salary - £64,766 places them in the top 3% of the British population by earnings.
By comparison, last year the median gross annual earnings for UK adults in work was
£25,100.
- On a comparison of basic
salaries, British MPs are the fourth best paid in Europe, with only their counterparts in
Italy, Austria and Ireland earning more.
- Once the heavy taxpayer
subsidy for MPs pensions worth £17,468 a year is taken into account,
an ordinary backbencher actually earns £82,252 a year.
- 131 MPs receive salary
top-ups called Additional Payments for their Parliamentary work over and above
the basic backbenchers salary. This total consists of the Prime Minister, 60
Government ministers and Under Secretaries, 26 select committee chairmen, 37 standing
committee chairmen and 7 other MPs. In total, these MPs received £3.5 million in extra
payments in 2007-08.
August 9th
Selection of Parliamentary Candidates
Open Primaries
Click on the link below to hear Frank Field MP discuss
open primaries with John Strafford
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8183919.stm
The Times 5th August 09: "Heather Burwin, the constituency chairman,
admitted that she was initially nervous about the decision to open voting to all, but said
she was delighted with the outcome. Chillingly for a party that has just spent £40,000,
she suggested that Dr Wollaston would have won anyway".
So why did we have to spend £40,000 to find out?
- Daily Mail 5th August: "But John Strafford, chairman of the Campaign
for Conservative-Democracy group, warned the poll was another 'nail in the coffin for
party membership and party democracy'.
'It's a gimmick, frankly, because at a cost of £40,000 I can't even think of half a
dozen constituencies in the country that could possibly afford that kind of money,' he
said".
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204242/Family-doctor-MP-elected-postal-ballot.html#ixzz0NK2lrxRs
- The
Independent 5th August 09: But John Strafford,
the chairman of the Campaign for Conservative Democracy, denounced the exercise as another
"nail in the coffin for party membership and party democracy.
He told the BBC: "It is a gimmick, frankly, because at a cost of £40,000 I
can't think of half a dozen constituencies in the country that could possibly afford that
sort of money"
Can We Learn?
A maverick mayor elected after promising
to slash council spending, clear the streets of yobs and ditch politically correct
services is the torchbearer for how towns should be run.
On his first morning as Mayor of Doncaster in South Yorkshire, Peter Davies
cut his salary from £73,000 to £30,000 then closed the councils newspaper for
"peddling politics on the rates". Now three weeks into his job, Mr Davies is
pressing ahead with plans he hopes will see the number of town councillors cut from 63 to
just 21, saving taxpayers £800,000.
Mr Davies said: "If 100 senators can run the United States of America, I cant
see how 63 councillors are needed to run Doncaster".
He has withdrawn Doncaster from the Local Government Association and the Local Government
Information Unit, saving another £200,000. Mr Davies said, "They are just talking
shops". Doncaster is in for some serious untwinning. We are twinned with
probably nine other cities around the world and they are just for people to fly off and
have a binge at the councils expense".
The mayors chauffeur-driven car has also been axed by Mr Davies and the driver given
another job. Mr Davies, born and bred in Doncaster, swept to power in the May election
with 24,244 votes as a candidate for the English Democrats, a party that wants tight
immigration curbs, an English Parliament and a law forcing every public building to fly
the flag of St. George.
He has promised to end council funding for Doncasters International Womens
Day, Black History Month and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month.
He said, "Politicians have got completely out of touch with what people want.
We need to cut costs. I want to pass on some savings I make in reduced taxes and use
the rest for things we really need, like improved childrens services".
August 2nd
Interference from Central Office
Once again Central Office have decided to interfere in the selection
process for Parliamentary Candidates. After a disputed Board meeting on July
20th the following extracts reprinted from www.conservativehome.com
- The remaining selections (of which the most significant are the, so far, twelve taking
place in seats where sitting Conservative MPs are retiring) will see a sift of all
applications by the Association officers along with Eric Pickles, a representative of the Candidates' Committee, most likely its
chairman, Shireen Ritchie, and, in attendance, Gareth Fox of the Candidates'
Department;
- That sift will pick just six candidates, all of whom the party ideally wants to go to
the Special General Meeting or Open Primary;
- The Association Executive will be able to meet as an intermediate stage where anyone
"completely unsuitable" (Eric Pickles's words) could be removed and a reserve
brought in and in "exceptional" circumstances (again, the chairman's word) that
meeting could reduce the final field to four;
- This procedure will apply to seats selecting in the autumn through until the end of the
year (although I gather seats where the sitting MP announced their retirement
pre-Expensesgate, i.e. Woking and Skipton & Ripon, may be able to use the traditional
procedure);
- For any seats where the sitting MP announces his or her retirement after January 1st
2010, "by-election rules" will kick in, whereby associations will simply be
presented with a list of three candidates by the party from which to choose.
This is all incredibly disheartening news since it gives more and more power to the
party at the centre, ironically enough at a time when the party is talking in national
policy terms about localism and decentralisation
The usual more open selection procedures could have been
followed in the time available: First of all, there are a large number of new
applicants being put through the parliamentary assessment boards over the summer, but once
they are complete (assuming there is not an autumn election), why could those seats not
proceed with selections in the usual manner between October and December? Additionally,
the deadline of the end of the year seems premature for the seriously anti-democratic
rules to come into play. If the General Election is to take place on the same day as the
local elections at the beginning of May (with a campaign starting early April), it is
surely feasible that the deadline could be put back by a month or even two.
Why are Associations only getting the option of choosing
between six candidates? Assuming that the safe seats seeking a new candidate
(and most likely MP) attract - literally - hundreds of applicants, it is massively
restrictive to allow only six names through the sift. These associations effectively get
to choose their representative once in a generation and it is surely right that they
should get to select from the widest manageable field. It is inevitable in these
circumstances that members will feel that undue influence is being asserted by CCHQ.
CCHQ proposed even more undemocratic options for
selection: These rule changes were passed through the Board, although there were a
range of even more anti-democratic options that were under consideration, but which were
jettisoned, not least because of opposition from the members of the voluntary party on the
Board and Sir Michael Spicer.
Party members lose more rights to the centre: We
appear to be stuck with procedures which marginalise the role of rank and file members in
the selection process and allow for local Associations to remain "in control of the
process" only really insofar as a handful of officers are involved in the crucial
sifting process. Many party members will ask themselves why they remain members at
all when in selection of MEPs and their Westminster candidate they have fewer rights than
at any time in recent party history.
Selection freedoms will be even more restricted in 2010:
Perhaps the most crucial point to emphasise at this juncture is that Conservative MPs
should feel duty bound to make their intentions clear about whether they intend standing
again as soon as possible, since any announcements of retirements coming in the New Year
will result in their associations losing any remaining semblance of control of the
selection process.
Totnes
We now know that pressure was put on Totnes Constituency by
Central Office to have an Open Primary with a postal ballot to every elector.
The Liberal Democrats are campaigning for who they see as the weakest candidate - Nick Bye
the Mayor of Totnes. We shall see who wins.
Dudley North
On Saturday 18th July, 12 candidates had been due to be interviewed in Dudley
North, but they all received an email on the evening of Thursday 16th from the association
chairman, Martin Duffield, explaining that "following a meeting today with Gareth Fox
(Candidates Department) and John Maples (Party Vice-Chairman) we have been informed that
we cannot proceed with the interview process".
The reason was that the Dudley North Association had opted to interview nine men
and three women, in contravention of the rule stating that there should be a 50:50
male:female ratio throughout the process.
The association had taken the view that since only eight of the 44 applicants were
women, to interview six of them seemed somewhat excessive and discriminatory towards the
36 men who had applied. Instead, they sought to interview the best twelve applicants, who
happened to be nine men and three women.
But CCHQ refused to allow the process to continue although, according to the
Association Chairman, it did not intervene to stop the process until five days after it
had been sent the list of names, meaning that the candidates for interview had very
limited notice of the change of plan.
Final confirmation of the abandonment of the process came in an email from Gareth
Fox on July 21st, in which he simply said that "unfortunately the Dudley North
Parliamentary selection will not now go ahead in this tranche and will be re-advertised at
a later date".
Reprinted from www.conservativehome.com
In a poll conducted by www.conservativehome.com
91% of Conservative Party members oppose 50/50 short lists for candidates.
Does the Party belong to the members or is it just a cosy little oligarchy
which treats the members with contempt?
St. Albans
Ann Main, the MP for St Albans faces a meeting of her
Association called to deselect her. The St Albans Association receives
financial help from Beaconsfield. There are rumours that the financial help
will cease if Ann Main is deselected. I hope this is untrue. It
would be completely wrong for a Constituency to interfere in the internal affairs of
another Constituency Association.
European Parliament
UKIP MEP Marta Andreasen, the
EU's former Chief Accountant who publicly claimed that there was a £172 million
discrepancy between two sets of Brussels accounts, has been blocked from becoming
Vice-Chairman of the European Parliament's Budgetary Committee by an unprecedented 'secret
ballot' of MEPs. The centre-right European People's Party and the Socialists broke
parliamentary convention on the allocation of committee posts by demanding a vote by
secret ballot to block Mrs Andreasen's candidature. Chris Davies, a Liberal Democrat,
attacked the "shameful decision", saying that: "The message it sends to the
public is that anyone who speaks out against malpractice in Europe risks being excluded
from office."
Reprinted from www.openeurope.org.uk