It's time for a new Party Board

In his excellent speech on civility of yesterday, David Cameron said this:

"A responsible society is one in which people feel a strong sense of control over their lives.  That is why we are also committed to transferring power from central government to local institutions... When people are directly involved in something, they feel a sense of ownership and responsibility.  They change.  They behave more like adults and less like children... Localisation of decision-making is not just a question of administrative efficiency and democratic accountability although I happen to believe that if decisions are taken closer to the people who are affected by them, they will be better decisions that more accurately reflect the will of the people.  Localisation is a central part of encouraging more civil behaviour."

Yesterday's decisions by the Party Board to (1) protect incumbent MEPs by withdrawing grassroot members' right to delist them and (2) to introduce the Conservative Party's first compulsory women's shortlist were completely at odds with our party leader's fine words.  Members will have less control over MEP selection.  Power is being centralised by the party.  Members will have less ownership of the process.

The decisions were, however, consistent with the Party Board's recent track record.  It was a 2005 Board proposal, remember, that grassroots members should lose their say in the election of party leader.  It's Alice in Wonderland stuff when representatives of the voluntary party are so eager to surrender the rights of the voluntary party.  Some credit must go to Francis Maude, however, who argued against the much less democratic proposals tabled by the National European Forum.

As a response to this track record ConservativeHome is looking to find candidates for next year's Board elections that will always vote to protect members' voting rights.  In private discussions we have already received support from MPs and candidates for this initiative.  ConservativeHome will act as the immediate gathering point for those interested in being or supporting those candidates but we are keen for a new grouping - perhaps formally titled or perhaps not - to organise the actual campaign for a new Party Board.

The aim will be for a very positive campaign.  We will seek candidates with proven commitment to the party and who will command the respect of the narrow electorate - the National Convention - that decides the limited number of places on the Board that are available to grassroots members.  Over the coming months we will develop a platform that does not just protect democracy within the party but that will campaign for a sea change in the way that the party treats its members.  In the internet age we need a system that is much more transparent.  We need a system where members receive regular communication and are actively included in decisions that affect them.  We won't rule out supporting existing or past Board members who are willing to sign up to our aims.

If you are interested in being part of this campaign please email us.  Nothing will get underway until after May's elections.

After those local elections we'll also be working with MEP Watch to examine the records of those MEPs who publicly opposed David Cameron's EPP commitment: Richard Ashworth, Sir Robert Atkins, Christopher Beazley, John Bowis, Philip Bushill-Matthews, Giles Chichester, James Elles, Jonathan Evans, Malcolm Harbour, Caroline Jackson, Edward McMillan Scott, John Purvis and Struan Stevenson.  The select few who will be evaluating the non-retiring MEPs within that group should at least know what rank-and-file members think.

We'll also establish the detail of the commitment MEP candidates will sign on the EPP.  ConservativeHome had understood that candidates would have to say that they would leave the EPP.  New information has reached us that suggests that the pledge may be weaker than that and only involve a commitment to join whatever parliamentary grouping the party leader decides upon.

Comments

[Matt Davis]

Tim are you seriously telling us that Cameron is now going to break his leadership election pledge on us leaving the EPP?

Whilst I have feared that that would be the case ever since he reneged on that departure happening "within weeks and not months" of his gaining the leadership there have been enough CCHQ trolls on CH claiming that there would definitely be a departure to keep the vast majority of the party, who want us out of that quisling federalist stitch up, quiet until now.

If it is true that Cameron is now trying to wriggle out of the one promise that he made us all then that makes him as bad as Blair and totally untrustworthy as leader of our party or our country. I sincerely hope that you are wrong about this and that it is not going to be the case.

[Sean Fear]

*If* your suspicion is correct, Tim, I expect this will give UKIP a shot in the arm in the next round of Euro elections.

[Editor]

I don't think DC will break his EPP pledge Matt but I'd be more reassured if the statement that MEP candidates have to sign was explicit about leaving the EPP.

Three National Convention members have already signed up to our campaign. Thank you. Please keep the emails coming...

[michael mcgough]

Place your money on the Tories still being in the EPP in 2010.

[Sean Fear]

I think that that is more likely than not, Michael.

[Chris]

This new pledge is actually better than the ol pledge. The old pledge simply meant that the MEPs had to leave the EPP, but then they were free to whatever, whether it was to join our new grouping, or the socialists. The new pledge specifies that the MEPs must go to the grouping which Cameron orders them to, and as he has pledged that they will leave the EPP I can't see what the issue is...

[James]

Regarding the MEPs, once their records have been scrutinised the members of the selection committees should be lobbied as well. Is it just constituency chairmen (with extra reps where appropriate) and regional chairmen, or is it going to include people from the area level as well?

Perhaps, Tim, you should also ask how the membership of the NEF is influenced. Or indeed who the members even are.

[Peter Hatchet]

"Tim are you seriously telling us that Cameron is now going to break his leadership election pledge on us leaving the EPP? "

I have been worrying about this for some months too Matt.

It is not even a head-banging thing to suggest. It sits perfectly with Cameron stated intention to reform the EU from within.

The only way to do this is to form a powerful, new eurosceptic grouping within the European Parliament.

Should Cameron renege on this pledge, speaking as a "Cameroon", I would find it very hard to have continued faith in sincerity.

[James]

Oh - and perhaps we should ask for the agenda and minutes of board meetings (except when discussing genuinely confidential topics) to be sent to members.

[Peter Hatchet]

Sorry. "..in (his) sincerity - naturally!"

[Tim Roll-Pickering]

Perhaps rather than just focusing on the members of the party board we should be looking at the whole constitutional structure of the party. The Convention is in no way representative of members' opinions and given the way it's made up it never will be.

With the internet age upon us, maybe we should take a leaf out of the UMP's book and start looking at direct internet internal elections so all members can elect the Board and Convention directly, rather than a tedious ex officio system that breeds distance and contempt in some.

[Richard Hyslop]

Tim,

Good luck with all of the above.

[Editor]

I agree Tim Roll-Pickering. The whole constitutional structure could do with a review. It was designed without the internet in mind.

[Andrew Woodman]

I think I agree about the need for reform of the constitution as well. There seems to be a distinct lack of proper democracy about it.

[Matt Davis]

"start looking at direct internet internal elections so all members can elect the Board and Convention directly"

Now that's genuine modernisation and not the left wing consensus masquerading as modern. Well said Tim Roll-Pickering, let's make it happen!

[Tim Aker]

How ironic that the pro-Europeans are for diluting democracy. Look, why is everyone getting het up about whether we are in or out the EPP. The question should be whether we are in or out the EU.

The desire to drive on the constitution, denying us a referendum and heading to a super-state shows this new European Reform group wont make the slightest difference as the EU will do what it wants and will only reform to pursue its federalist agenda.

The sooner more people support Better Off Out and candidates who want us to leave the EU, the better. Then and only then will there be change as we inch ever closer to the reality of Britain leaving the EU. Why negotiate with a feather when you can take out the smith and wesson and show them you're serious?

[Jonathan]

We'll also establish the detail of the commitment MEP candidates will sign on the EPP. ConservativeHome had understood that candidates would have to say that they would leave the EPP. New information has reached us that suggests that the pledge may be weaker than that and only involve a commitment to join whatever parliamentary grouping the party leader decides upon.

Well I dont want to say I told you so but see my post on the earlier thread. A prophet is not without honour save in his own country. Even the most federastic MEP is going to be able to sign up to that pledge because we know we can rely on Cameron, when the time comes. This pledge is actually aimed at Helmer and Hannan not at the Quislings.

Better off out.

[Simon Chapman]

Tim,

It's worth remembering that when the EPP decision was taken and you interviewed William Hague last July (link below) you were told that:

"All Tory candidates at the next European Election will be required to commit to leaving the EPP and joining the new group."
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/07/interview_with_.html

Let's also remember what David Cameron wrote in the Telegraph at the time:

"...the agreement to form a new group is not an aspiration, it is a guarantee - and it will be delivered...Others believe that we should just stay in the EPP but it would not be right to remain in a group with such fundamentally different views from ours about the institutional and constitutional direction of the EU."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/14/nepp114.xml

I believe that character, credibility and competence will be the key issues at the next general election. I think DC and those around him recognise that too. I hope therefore that that Michael McGough (1525) & Sean Fear (1528) are wrong.

We need to ensure that all our MEP candidates in 2009 are completely committed to helping DC deliver his pledge.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Even silver-tops (oldies) are now becoming at least reasonably computer literate, so the Party machine would be wise to try to incorporate internet contact with the party rank and file on a more regular basis.

Perhaps, now that Mr. Hilton has done part of his job, Mr. Cameron should try to enroll a computer orientated, PR-type, customer relations-type boffin, who would be responsible for increasing the involvment of the rank and file of the party via the internet?!

[Sean Fear]

"This pledge is actually aimed at Helmer and Hannan "

That is my thought as well. Cameron (from his point of view) would have nothing to lose by dropping the EPP pledge (I'm sure a form of words could be found). It's an issue that is only of interest to Conservative members, rather than the public as a whole. In a likely election year (or in the run up to an election) they'd be under pressure to hold their tongues, and he'd gain praise from left-liberal commentators.

[Off Message]

Tim - you're producing paranoid nonsense. Cameron has made it quite clear we'll leave the EPP and is requiring all MEPs to sign up to join whichever grouping he then chooses. You don't have to cheerlead for the leadership but you seem to be going completely the other way with unfounded slurs. It's our opponents we need to be concentrating on (and some of them seem to be your regular posters) not our own side.

I can't help thinking that your ConHome power is going to your head. Now you want to run your own slate using ConHome to give it publicity and support. How's about some humility and sticking to the knitting?

[Simon Chapman]

"he'd gain praise from left-liberal commentators"

I disagree Sean. In any other year but an election year you might be right. In an election year, urged on by Brown, he would be attacked for lack of credibility and incompetence.

[Simon Chapman]

"he'd gain praise from left-liberal commentators"

I disagree Sean. In any other year but an election year you might be right. In an election year, urged on by Brown, he would be attacked for lack of credibility and incompetence.

[Michael McGowan]

Tim has never claimed to be anything other than a candid friend of the Conservative Party. And it certainly needs candid friends. It has more than enough chancers, opportunists, carpet baggers and sycophants in its senior ranks.

[Derek]

Regarding the campaign to find candidates to stand as Board members to represent the voluntary party, it would be helpful to know how our present representatives voted on the current changes. It may be that they [or some of them] did not vote for them, but they were out-voted.

As has been pointed out many of the board members are appointed. Changing the constitution would be very difficult as it can only be done by a two thirds majority of three separate groups, the members of the National Convention, the MPs and the whole lot together.

Thes decisions to change voting systems should only be made in my opinion, after a proper consultation of the membership who should support the changes.

[Frank McGarry]

The Board is totally 'off message' and David Cameron should stamp on them with a firm hand - or a clunking fist - or something.

David is selling decentralisation but the Board is rowing hard in the opposite, anti-democratic direction. Someone should give them all copies of "Built to Last"

[Umbrella man]

I think you'll find Frank that David Cameron was fully behind the Board's decision.

[Edd Adams]

Tim, every member that you backed to stand for the board has not got on the Board :(in the last two years) John Flack and Richard Robinson. You are managing a blog, not a country, and definitely not our party. Stop trying stir things up for the party. You are behaving like a spoilt brat, so pick up your toys and grow up.

[Anthony Broderick]

Spolit, Edd, or principled?

[Frank McGarry]

You may be right, Umbrella man. David's action or inaction in the next day or two will confirm.

[Alan S]

You've got nothing to worry about then, Edd, if us feeble democrats get together to suggest we deserve a say in our party.

[Daniel Hannan]

I emailed the party chairman today to confirm that the commitment would be to leave the EPP, rather than some more jesuitical formula to the effect that we would all do whatever the party decided (in other words, leaving open the option of staying in). He replied:

"Yes - to leave EPP and join whatever grouping the Leader negotiates".

Re-read the pledges by William Hague and David Cameron quoted in Simon Chapman's post. Do they sound like men leaving themselves wriggle-room?

You know, and David knows, that I felt badly let down by his decision to postpone the break. But let's not lose sight of the magnitude of what he has promised to do (see my blog here:
www.blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/danielhannan/apr2007/mutinyeu.htm).

As for the voting system, it is not what I would have chosen from first principles. Those of you with long memories will recall that I wrote one of the first ever ConHome "Your Platform" contributions in favour of open primaries, including for Euro-selections. Still, I think we should give Board Members some credit for throwing out the truly outrageous plan to have Euro-candidates selected by small committees of party bigwigs.

[Michael McGowan]

Yes, Daniel, but what if the Leader negotiates a grouping closely affiliated to the EPP?

[Alan S]

Daniel Hannan benefits a lot from what the Party Board has agreed. I would have expected a more principled objection to this disenfranchisement. I'm very disappointed.

[Dick Wishart]

I did not bother to vote for anyone this year, it seems to me that once these Candidates get elected onto the board they forget all their promises/pledges that they regailed us with whilst trying to get our vote.
Board members seem to be there solely to enjoy the position they are in and do sod all for the voluntary members, a bit like MPs really.
When will these people realise that without the voluntary members there would not be ANY PARTY.

[Andrew Woodman]

Has any of the Party Board explained yet why they reject the principle of one member one vote on every single MEP candidate yet?

[MH]

The issue of democracy - and the lack of it with regards to these proposals - is one point.

On that point, I agree entirely with the need to uphold the democratic principle.

The issue of Europe is a separate issue.

I do not agree that the Conservative Party should leave the EPP, and I regard the "Better Off Out" position as woefully naive.

If we want to show that we are a party again deserving of power we need to approach the issue of Europe as adults.

We have a duty to act in the best interest of Britain.

That means recognising that Europe is important to Britain. Closing your eyes and wishing it were otherwise, will not make it so.

Europe is important to Britain not merely as a unified common market; but also because many of the issues we face can only be dealt with at the European level - including key issues in regards to the Environment, Terrorism and Law & Order.

I know Cameron wants to distance himself from business, but as a traditional Conservative, I do not.

Being anti-European is against Britain’s best interests. This is a fact of which I am certain.

That is why British Business is pragmatic with regards to Europe, and so historically has been the Conservative Party. Indeed, so was Margret Thatcher.

Anyone who believes we are better off out has no grasp of the basic economic and political realities that face us as a country, and has become delusional. That type of delusion is woefully naive and dangerous.

British business uses DG VII to open markets, to secure fair access, to spread the principles of competition. In so doing they act in the best interest of Britain. The approach is pragmatic. Often, it is France, Germany and Spain who are deeply resentful of our successes in this regard. That is part of the reason that France voted against the European Constitution – their public regard the European Union as too heavily influenced by English political principles.

I have heard a lot of clap-trap from anti-Europeans on the Human Rights Act. Clause 6, the one often criticised, deals with a fair trial. It was inserted and drafted by English lawyers and is referred to as the “English clause”. This clause is something of which we should be proud both as Britons and Conservatives as it represents that flowering of English jurisprudence that has won us as a nation universal admiration.

I am tired of the “Witch finder General” mentality of some Euro sceptic Conservatives - being anti-European is not a prerequisite for being a Conservative. If it were, the Conservative Party would have split long ago, and those committed to that position of splendid isolation would have drifted-off the nether regions of irrelevance currently occupied by UKIP.

The Conservative Party is a broad church united by certain common values - anti-Europeanism is not one of those defining principles. As such, when working yourself up into a rabid froth, remember that however much you may criticise the so-called “pro-Europeans” you have more in common with them than you have with the Liberal Democrats or Labour. If you did not then we as the Conservative Party will never be in power again. As such, respond in a measured way when you encounter a Conservative who has pragmatic views on Europe – they may well still do a good job in representing you.

The MEP's you are identifying as having "gone native" are simply doing what mature and responsible politicians are expected to do - they are getting involved in the process and arguing for policies that are in Britain’s best interest. I do not believe that any of them have argued for a European Super-State. Indeed, I do not know anyone who has argued for that particular bogyman – it certainly would be an anathema to both the French and the Germans. If we are talking about undemocratic laws – hey, isn’t this blog a reaction to the Conservative Party Boards arbitrary and undemocratic policy making? Lets be consistent in our criticism.

As a lawyer, I have dealt with Brussels bureaucrats, and as a general rule they are far better educated, more competent and efficient than any I have met at Whitehall, and they make the officers you encounter at County and District level appear as bumptious yokels. As such, Business generally welcomes dealing with Brussels - you get results, things get done, you do not get shuffled from desk to desk or brushed-off.

As such, please cut the grandstanding xenophobia and grow up!

Turning to those hero’s of the Eurosceptic cause, Helmer & Co. are a joke. They have done absolutely nothing to benefit British business; they have done nothing to create jobs. Like Kilroy-Silk all they have done is pander to prejudice and preen their own bloated ego's.

Helmer should go – he had the whip withdrawn because of his failure to adhere to the basic principles of party discipline, he is widely, and rightly so, regarded as a pathetic politician.

Leaving the EPP is not a responsible course of action. It will make us a peripheral party and irrelevant. Have any of you sat representing a minority party in a Council? If so you will know the frustration that comes with being politically impotent.

The proposed alternative is a joke - loonies and extremists one and all. These are not the kind of people that a serious party wants to get in bed with, least of all a party with the proud history and traditions of the Conservative Party.

There are very good reasons why some of us remain pragmatic on Europe. First and foremost we recognise that it is in Britain best interest to be fully engaged in Europe.

It would be easy to roll-over and go with the flow of anti-Europeanism that has driven our party to three consecutive election defeats, but to do so would be to recognise that the Conservative Party will never again be deserving of holding power. I am not prepared to chuck in the towel on our great Party.

The anti-Europeans have much to answer for, they have driven us to the periphery of British politics, and their extremism has cost us three elections. When these folk were given a choice between a serious politician and a joke, they chose the joke. To make it worse, some still can not see the joke.

I am not laughing.

[Neil Carmick]

It would appear that Edd Adams (not his real name I suspect) is clearly very much irked by Tim and Sam's excellent new initiative. I doubt that he is particularly enamoured by the efforts of MEP Watch, Richard Robinson or John Flack either.

The only person acting like a spoilt brat is you, 'Edd'. Tim has, and continues to do excellent work for our party. I can only support his efforts in this respect. You on the other hand clearly have something to lose from Tim's proposals - either that or have a adverse reaction to increasing levels of democratic practice within our party.

[Neil Carmick]

'The MEP's you are identifying as having "gone native" are simply doing what mature and responsible politicians are expected to do - they are getting involved in the process and arguing for policies that are in Britain’s best interest.'

With comments like that Mark Horn, the only one who is 'woefully naive' is you.

[MH]

If you wish to present an argument Neil do so.

Explain to me why these Conservative politicians have "gone native", and no longer represent the best interests of Britain?

With 20 years of representing British interests I do not regard myself as nieve, and no one I have dealt with would regard me as being starry eyed and filled with Euro ethusiasm.

The difference between being a Party ready for power and one revelling in the ideological purity of opposition, is that if you want power you know you need to get your hands dirty.

Next time give a reply that has substance.

[Edd Adams]

Neil you are right my real Name is Edward. For you info I am not an MP, an MEP or a Councillor, not am I a officer of the party e.g. Chairmen etc. I don’t stand to gain anything from casting my say on this site.

Tim, in my opinion thinks that he owns the Conservative Party just because he is not getting his own way. WE the members own the party, he does not seem to have any idea who voted, who did not and how they voted.

So yes I stand by my opinion, free world free speech - but it seems that not in Tim’s world. I think he is such a looser. Everything that he touches turns to a negative. Starting from the very binging just a winger.

[Editor]

Edd Adams: "So yes I stand by my opinion, free world free speech - but it seems that not in Tim’s world. I think he is such a looser. Everything that he touches turns to a negative."

I have to say there's some truth to what Edd writes...

One month after I joined the Bank of England we crashed out of the ERM;

Whilst I was on the Russian desk in the City the country defaulted on its government debt...

I joined IDS' office two months before he lost the leadership...

:-)

[Jonathan Sheppard]

I joined the Post Office and closures ensued. I joined Boots and they restructured yet as soon as I left they became a target for Private equity with hige increases in the value of the company - I suspect we both have the reverse midas tough ;o)

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Touch not tough that should read. Anyway back to the subject - I am currently editing the latest interview with Francis Maude where we speak frankly about the Euro selections amongst other things. It will be online shortly.

[Edd Adams]

So Tim, I hope that your bad luck will not be felt in the Conservative Party.

[Derek]

Those of you who believe the closed list system for electing MEPs is a disgrace and should be replaced with an open list system so that individuals can be voted for and not a list, click here

[Deputy Editor]

MH, I don't agree with you but thanks for taking the time to argue your position so thoughtfully.

[Mastiff]

I have it on good authority that the 3 VPs elected to the Board (Emma Pidding, Jeremy Middleton and Charles Barwell) all voted to KEEP the current system where members vote for the candidates on the final. They were the only ones to vote to keep this.
The Party Chairman and others were leading the way for the move to the system that will be in place. I don't think Charles, Jeremy and Emma deserve the flack they are likely to get on this issue.

[malcolm]

MH aren't you the same MH who resigned from the Conservative party after having been an Assn Chairman in Tunbridge Wells last year? If you are that person why are you still so interested in the internal workings of our party?
The overwhelming number of activists within this party I would think disagree with your views on Europe.
The reason that a few of our MEPs are so disliked on this site has less to do with their Europhilia than the fact that were not honest enough to be open about it when seeking selection. That is why I feel strongly that those who say one thing to become candidates and then something quite different once elected should have to answer to the party members when seeking reselection.
Edd, the fact that Tim Montgomerie is trying to fight for greater democracy within the party is something that I would have thought normal people would applaud.

[Edd Adajms]

Tim, if what "Mastiff" state is correct I think our three VP's deserve an apology from you. Or are just too arrogant to offer an apology.

I really hope you do give up your day job, but please don’t go into investigative journalism you will be terrible at it.