Campaign for Conservative Democracy

Stop Press

COPOV Forum 12th December - Gerrards Cross - see Notice Board

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.

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.

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

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 association’s 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

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  

Party membership has fallen by "almost a quarter" under David Cameron's leadership

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?

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 Office’s 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 Churchill’s 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 member’s 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 MP’s 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 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: “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

• An MP’s 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 backbencher’s 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