http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA

Who will speak for England?

Referendums

Whenever referendums are proposed as a means of empowering the people, opposition often quote the mess which California have got themselves into as a result of the referendums which they have held.

California provides stark lessons in how direct democracy can be abused.    For instance there are no proper limits on pre-election expenditure which means that referendums in California, cost millions of dollars and are beyond the reach of the people the system was designed to serve.   As a result, referendums have become just another avenue for vested interest groups.   Indeed a specialised industry has grown up around the process, with companies providing expensive services such as signature gathering and campaigning.   The situation is compounded in California by laws requiring two thirds of both houses of the legislature to approve budgets and tax increases.   The effect of this is that minority parties have veto power at budget time, and there is often a stalemate.   Direct Democracy is hugely popular in California, but there is general recognition that the system needs reform. - Zac Goldsmith "The Constant Economy".

December 27th

Holiday TV viewing and radio

Is it just me or is our television viewing and radio getting worse?   Over the holiday period there was so little that I wanted to view or listen to that it came as a great surprise when on Saturday morning I tuned in to Radio 4 and heard one of the best programmes for a long time.   Michael Crick did a half hour on Gladstone.   It was brilliant.   First of all he spoke to Gladstone's great grandson and then there was a studio discussion between Lord David Steel, Lord Adonis and David Willetts.   How refreshing it was to hear two historians (Adonis and Willetts) putting current events into a historical context with the help of a former Leader of the Liberal Party.   I do hope that Michael Crick will do more programmes of a similar style.   Well done.

An English Parliament

When will our politicians stop treating England like a colony?   It is ironic that England was one of the first nations to invent parliamentary democracy but will be one of the last to benefit from it.   You do not have to be English or a Nationalist to recognise the need for an English Parliament.    All you need to be is a democrat.   Just one small example.    When Parliament voted on the decision as to whether to have a third runway at Heathrow Airport a majority of 19 English MPs voted against it, but the approval went through because 67 Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland MPs voted in favour. 

The compliments of the Season to everyone and let us hope that in 2010 we will make progress on the road to democracy.

December 20th

Petition to 10 Downing St.

At last 10 Downing St. have agreed the following petition.   Do please sign it by clicking on the link below.   How can we live in a democracy if the political parties which choose the candidates for parliament are undemocratic?

 http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/partiesdemocracy/

     The petition reads:

     We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to introduce
     legislation so that the Electoral Commission cannot register a
     political party unless the party has a democratic constitution
     which can be changed by a majority of its members on the basis
     of one member one vote.

     Political parties are part of the democratic process in the
     United Kingdom.   Their role is recognised by parliament.   In
     the current financial year nearly £7 million of public money –
     known as “Short” money – has been paid to political parties. 
     It is wholly unacceptable that public money should be paid to
     undemocratic parties.   This money is supposed to enhance our
     democracy – it does no such thing.   In some cases, all it is
     doing is perpetuating the power of oligarchies. It is also
     wrong that undemocratic organisations are determining who shall
     be our parliamentary candidates and in so doing who shall sit
     in the House of Commons and form the government of this
     country. The Electoral Commission is already involved with
     political parties by setting the rules for donations to the
     parties and enforcing the rules on donations.   They should be
     involved in ensuring that the parties are democratic. Once we
     had rotten boroughs, now we have a rotten parliament.   This
     proposal will change that.

From the Taxpayer's Alliance

Executive Summary

Ending the Green Rip-Off reveals the growing, excessive price that British families are

paying for climate change policy:

  The burden of green taxes and regulations, net of road spending, in 2008-09 was

£26.4 billion.1

That is up £1.7 billion from £24.7 billion in 2007-08. The rise is driven by an

the cost of the Renewables Obligation, both of which increase electricity prices.

There are a number of different estimates of the “social cost” of a tonne of

estimate under the IPCC social cost was £4.6 billion. There was little change

tonne.

Green taxes were therefore excessive by between £10.2 billion and £23.6 billion in

2008-09, the estimate under the IPCC social cost was £21.8 billion. Excessive green

taxes and regulations therefore cost between £408 and £944 per household, the estimate

under the IPCC social cost was £872 per household. Again, the extent to which the

billion in 2007-08, and £20.1 billion under the IPCC social cost.

Estimates for all UK local authority areas are provided. Those estimates show

that the burden varies significantly, with rural areas like Maldon paying as much as £622

per person in excess green taxes and regulations in 2008/09 under the IPCC estimate of

the social cost of carbon, and urban areas like Camden paying less, at £136 per person.

excessive burden on ordinary families:

Increases in energy prices are regressive, hitting the poor and elderly

hardest, increasing poverty and benefit dependency. The poorest income decile

Over 75s spend twice as much on electricity as the under 30s.

The undemocratic European Parliament

Did you know that the German Constitutional Court does not see the European Parliament as a body that can bestow sufficient democratic legitimacy on the EU, partly because there is no "European people" and partly because it is not elected on the basis of the one-man-one-vote principle (the larger member-states, such as Germany, have many fewer MEPs - relative to the size of their populations - than the smaller ones).

December 13th

The Electoral Administration Act 2006

In a little publicised statement issued this week it was disclosed that inadvertently during the passage of the above Act citizens of the Irish Republic and Commonwealth citizens were excluded from the House of Lords.   This effected The Archbishop of York, Baroness Trixie Gardner (Australian), Baroness O'Cathain (Irish) and others.   Isn't it extraordinary that citizens that have no allegiance to the United Kingdom should be in our legislature passing laws that effect the United Kingdom?   It would appear that these people should not have been in the House of Lords since the 2006 Act was passed.   Did they effect any votes taken?    Did they speak on any controversial issues and effect the votes taken?    I think we should be told.   No doubt this will all be brushed under the carpet and an enabling Bill passed to rectify the matter.   No wonder our democracy is in a mess.

UK Taxpayers

David Cameron has today stated that the Conservatives will pass legislation to ensure that only UK taxpayers are members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons.   He is quite right to do this, but why does he not go further and say that only UK citizens can be members of parliament, indeed go further still and say that only UK citizens can vote in our parliamentary elections.    There are about 400,000 citizens of the Irish Republic resident in the United Kingdom who vote in our parliamentary elections.   They can clearly effect the results because they tend to be concentrated in a few areas such as Glasgow, Liverpool and Kilburn in London.   It is clearly wrong that Irish citizens whose loyalty is to a foreign power are determining the composition of our legislature.   They have no loyalty to the Queen or the country.   As far as the Commonwealth citizens are concerned they may, but not all, have loyalty to the Queen but no loyalty to the country.   Last week Rwanda joined the Commonwealth.   Overnight potentially large numbers of people have become eligible if they are in the UK to vote in our elections.   This cannot be right and should be changed.

The Big Rip-off

Britain's richest man gets £1 billion from ETS carbon permits. Lakshmi Mittal, Britain 's richest man, stands to benefit from a £1 billion windfall from the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme. His steel business ArcelorMittal, where he is Chairman and Chief Executive, will make the gain on 'carbon credits'. The scheme allocates permits to emit CO2 up to a specified cap, and beyond this businesses must buy extra permits. However, ArcelorMittal have been allocated more than it needs, allowing it to sell the surplus for a profit. (Sunday Times, 6 December)

Civil Liberties

Listen to the debate on civil liberties organised by the Hansard Society

http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/recent_events/archive/2009/12/09/2275.aspx

December 6th

Support Power2010

The following motion passed by COPOV was submitted to power2010 and accepted.    Please give it your support by visiting the power2010 web site.

"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". 

No. 10 Downing St. rejected the motion on the basis that it was party political.   How is it party political?   It would apply to all parties, after all we have regulations about the finances of political parties.    I have asked No. 10 to explain.   No answer has been forthcoming.   

http://www.power2010.org.uk/blog/entry/ideas-parties-must-be-democratic/

Open Primaries?

The following article was published this week on the openupnow website:

http://blog.openupnow.org/2009/12/3/%e2%80%9conce-we-had-rotten-boroughs-now-we-have-a-rotten-parliament%e2%80%9d/

“Once we had rotten boroughs, now we have a rotten Parliament”

By

John Strafford

In July 2009, as the open primary in Totnes was taking place, the Board of the Conservative Party was meeting to determine the rules for the future selection of parliamentary candidates.    It was a stormy meeting – the last stand in the battle to defend the rights of ordinary Party members – a battle that was lost.   The decisions taken will affect democracy in the United Kingdom for a generation.   So what happened?

Under the new rules 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 including its Chairman and two Deputy Chairmen.   The Party Chairman will have a veto on the six names to go forward to the next stage of Open Primary or Special General Meeting.

As from the 1^st January 2010 the Party Chairman will give an Association the names of three parliamentary candidates from which to choose their candidate.

The real impact of this is that the Party Chairman will determine Conservative candidates and consequently the Conservative Party composition in the House of Commons.   The Labour Party looks as though it is going down a similar route.   Many of the current members of the Cabinet were parachuted into their seats by the Labour Party hierarchy.   Peerage promises are seductive.   So a tiny number of people from our two main parties 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?

So how are Open Primaries affected by these changes?   The model for Open Primaries is normally the United States.   How do Conservative Open Primaries compare?

In the United States anyone can stand.   As we have seen above, under the Conservatives, the Party Chairman decides who the candidates will be.   You can virtually guarantee that the only candidates allowed to stand are safe Conservatives.    After all they have to fight a General Election on the Conservative Party manifesto, which they have to sign up to, even though they will have no say in its composition.

In many States electors have to register support for a Party in order to vote.   With the Conservatives anyone on the Electoral Roll can vote in an Open Postal Primary or an Open Meeting Primary, even if they are members of another Party.

The candidates in the United States raise their own funds for campaigning in the primary.    The Conservative Party pays for a postal primary.   The costs in Totnes amounted to £38,000.   There are only half a dozen constituencies in the country that could afford this, so unless the Party at National level funds a postal primary it will not happen.

Campaigns in the United States are usually prolonged, giving everyone plenty of time to investigate the candidates.   The campaigns run by the Conservatives are strictly limited in time

Caucus meetings of registered voters are held in the United States at which the merits of the different candidates are debated and then voted upon.   These are banned by the Conservative Party.

A distinction should be drawn between Open Primaries where there is a postal ballot as in Totnes and Open Meeting Primaries, which are often lumped together and called Open Primaries.

The most common, because of costs, are the Open Meeting Primaries.   The Conservative Party imposes a number of restrictions on Open Meeting Primaries:

The meetings are advertised in the local paper so there is no guarantee that every elector is aware that the selection is taking place.

At the meeting no debate is allowed between the candidates – they are not even allowed to be on the platform together.

CVs of the candidates are only made available at the start of the meeting.

The elector must be present for the entire meeting and cannot leave for any reason.   Contrast this with a postal primary where the elector doesn’t have to hear any candidate before voting.

Limits are imposed by Central Office on the amount of money candidates can spend on their campaigns.

The vote on the final adoption of the selected candidate by Conservative Party members is done by a show of hands, rather than by a secret ballot, which can be intimidating, and which the Conservative government made illegal in the Trade Unions in the 1980s.

It can be seen from the above that there are major differences between what the Conservatives call Open Primaries and what in practice most people understand as Open Primaries.   The Conservative Open Primaries are a gimmick.   The media and the people have been hoodwinked by the Conservatives into believing that the process is totally open. It is not.   The process is controlled in detail by the Party hierarchy.    There is also the danger that the selection can be manipulated by the members of other parties, who can vote for the weakest candidate.   The Conservative Party does not care because it has vetted all the candidates.

There is much talk about electoral reform but when will the people “wake up and smell the coffee?”   Whatever the system of election, be it First Past The Post or Proportional Representation it becomes meaningless if the candidates are chosen by a few individuals.    Our two main political parties are wholly undemocratic organisations controlled by small oligarchies. In a democracy it is essential that the political parties are themselves democratic.   It is in a dictatorship that candidates are imposed.   “Once we had rotten boroughs, now we have a rotten parliament”.   Democracy R.I.P.

A Modern Conservative Party

The following article was published on the conservativehome web site

Tony Devenish: The party is modernising, but some continuity - and respect for a plurality of views - is as important as change

November 29th

Today's Universities

From a letter by Chris Payne to The Independent 25 November

The motivation of the modern university, with precious few exceptions, has moved from scholarly excellence to the mass production of the end-product, a unversity degree.   Lip-service is paid to quality, but no one believes anything other than that standards are going inexorably down and have been for years.

In this mad scramble for market share, demand is systematically managed - "If you haven't got a degree, you won't get a job" - while academic staff, many of whom entered the profession out of a sense of scholarly vocation, find themselves demoralised by low salaries, poor promotion prospects and falling status.   Promotions are never given for academic success or teaching effectiveness.   Rather they are awarded to the bureaucrats, the report writers, the committee attenders and above all to those who recruit the most students.

So expeditions are sent out all over the world to try to con students to pay through the nose to sign up for the exciting new degree course in Rock Music Studies.   It is little wonder that many universities have become little more than remedial A-level establishments.   It is little wonder that drop-out rates are high.

Open Europe

From www.openeurope.org.uk

As EU Foreign Minister Cathy Ashton will be in charge of what current EU foreign policy spokesman Javier Solana has described as the "biggest diplomatic service in the world" - a new External Action Service created by the Lisbon Treaty.  According to reports the service will start with 5,000 staff based in delegations in 130 countries, and is expected to grow rapidly.  During a speech in Paris Javier Solana said the new service will cost taxpayers a staggering £45 billion between now and 2013.  By contrast, the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office has an annual budget of £2 billion -- which the Treasury hopes to cut by 20% over the next two years. (Sunday Times Sunday Express 22 November) 

Howard Flight: It is time we talked about Labour's damage to Britain

The following article was published this week on www.conservativehome.com    It is a superb summary of the views of many grass roots conservatives.    What a shame that Howard Flight was kicked out of his parliamentary seat by Michael Howard.

Homer Simpson and Global Warming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrodOi72Huo

November 22nd

Moment of the Week

At the Conservative Women's Conference this week Eric Pickles was interviewed by Iain Dale.   Inevitably, the issue of All Women Short Lists was raised.    Whereupon Iain Dale said "Lets take a vote.   All those in favour of All Women Short Lists".   A couple of dozen hands went up.    "Those against?"   A sea of hands.

Eric the Dictator

Click on the link below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8363403.stm

Selection of Parliamentary Candidates

There are an increasing number of complaints about the way in which Constituency Associations are being treated during the selection of candidates.   Orpington, Beckenham, Dudley North, Macclesfield, Penrith, Esher.   The list goes on.    What the Party does not realise is that  the activists in the Conservative Party now consist mainly of local Councillors and their families.    By preventing local candidates even being interviewed, these are the very people the Party is insulting.   They will walk away.   As sure as eggs are eggs, one day soon, the Party will want the local activists to help.    The way we are going, when that day comes they will not be there.    What is frightening is how few members many Constituency Associations now have.   Not surprising when the question is asked: What is the point of being a member of the Conservative Party?   The Labour Party is going the same way.

Downing St Petition.

I submitted the following petition to the No. 10 Downing Street web site:

"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".    No. 10 rejected it on the basis that it was party political.   How is it party political?   It would apply to all parties, after all we have regulations about the finances of political parties.    I have asked No. 10 to explain.   No answer has been forthcoming.    That says it all.

November 15th

"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.

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:

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

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 MP’s 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 Party’s 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 taxpayer’s 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

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            5^th 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, 6^th 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

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.