Louise Bagshawe started a lively debate on this topic earlier and ConservativeHome warmly welcomes tonight's decision. It was right that the Carlton Club freely decided that it wanted to make the change but it made the right choice. An organisation so closely associated with the Conservative Party should not be excluding women from full membership. Congratulations, in particular, to Chris Gent and Stanley Kalms for leading the 'yes campaign'.
Bob Spink, MP for the safe seat of Castle Point, has surprisingly resigned the Conservative Whip. He chose to announce his decision in a point of order during the House of Commons Budget debate this afternoon.
He cited the Party's failure to deal with unspecified "serious criminal and other irregularities" in his constituency, although the BBC is quoting a Party spokesman saying the Whip was withdrawn from him...
5pm update: Spink's statement confirms his resignation is related to deselection attempts from his Association...
"The Party has failed to deal with local breaches of its rules and electoral irregularities, and with criminal activities over a long period and there are now corruption and other investigations, surrounding certain senior members of my local Association. It is with great sadness that I therefore felt compelled to resign the Party whip. I hope my action in resigning will bring the necessary changes and therefore be in both the public and the Party’s best interests."
He had written this in his local paper two weeks ago:
"It is for Castle Point residents to decide who will be their MP, not a small number of self-selected individuals with their private agendas. I have made very serious enemies. So it is not surprising that some senior members of the Conservative Association executive have been working, yet again, to deselect me."
6pm: We've added the italics to the title: '...after Tory machine declines to save him from deselection'. It appears - according to our CCHQ sources - that Mr Spink asked for the Tory machine to intervene to save him from a deselection meeting scheduled for next Tuesday. He threatened to resign the whip if he didn't get that help. The Tory leadership decided to take the whip away from him in response to that "blackmail". There is some dispute as to whether he resigned first or was sacked first. CCHQ say the whip was withdrawn before his Commons intervention.
9pm: Other blogosphere reaction: Guido has an email from Bob Spink. Nadine Dorries expects Bob to defect to UKIP. The FT's Jim Pickard has some of the background.
You can get it if you really want is the theme of a £500,000 upbeat advertising campaign that the Conservatives are launching on Facebook, on billboards across Britain and in tomorrow's national press. Versions of the two ads that you see below will be appearing in seven national newspapers and many regional newspapers:
There are ten themes to the Tory campaign: the NHS, policing, borrowing and the economy, inheritance tax, stamp duty, pensions, benefits reform, a tougher approach to immigration, green energy and classroom discipline. No mention of Europe - that's deliberate with the explanation that the Tories are currently working with the cross-party IWantAReferendum campaign.
The party is also introducing a new form of recruitment: Friends of the Conservatives. People will be able to register as friends of the party for a minimum of £1 and in return they'll receive a weekly online newsletter and suggestions of how they can get involved in their communities.
A few reactions to all of this:
That is what the Derby Telegraph is reporting:
"Tories in Derby claim 300 Labour members in the city are to defect to their party tonight. They are confident the mass defection will take place and are bringing party chairman Caroline Spellman MP to the city to welcome them. It follows frustrations within the Asian community about the de-selection of popular Sinfin councillor Hardial Dhamrait. Asian community leaders also say they are disillusioned with Labour policies and are no longer prepared to offer the party the unquestioning support it has traditionally received from their fathers and grandfathers."
ConservativeHome has spoken to Cllr Richard Smalley of Derby Conservatives and he has confirmed that the broad outline of the story is true. He told ConservativeHome that there were serious tensions within Derby Labour - partly because of the establishment's "dictatorial" manner. He dismissed the idea that there was something unbelievable or suspicious about mass defections of this kind. He said that there had been extensive discussions between Derby Conservatives and a large number of the individuals that were defecting. The defectors could have chosen the Liberal Democrats but had made a very considered decision to join the Tories.
This is a developing story. ConservativeHome has contacted CCHQ for their view and we will be asking if our party needs to enact similar procedures as Labour enacted some years ago to combat entryism - whereby large numbers of individuals are signed up to join local parties but are not necessarily fully committed to the Conservative Party.
Hat-tip: WestBrom blog.
4.20pm: A Tory spokesman has supplied this statement to ConservativeHome: "Under David Cameron's leadership more and more people who previously may not have felt inclined to support our party are now coming to help us make the changes our country needs. Attracting new or lapsed supporters is vital in helping us win the next election. Responsibility initially rests with the local association to consider each membership application and in most cases they do so very effectively. However if the party had concerns about a particular aspect of an association, including membership, it can get involved from the centre."
25th February: Derby Telegraph report offers conflicting reports on numbers of defectors. One suggestion is that the number of defectors may be as low as 25, another closer to 200.
24 hours after the Derek Conway report was published David Cameron took decisive action against the disgraced MP and he has kept up the momentum over the last week with welcome requirements for greater openness from his frontbenchers with regard to their taxpayer-funded expenses.
It's also fair to say that Mr Cameron, with considerable support from Ken Clarke and Andrew Tyrie, has been working on many other proposals that aim to restore the public standing of politicians. At the start of last month he signalled the abolition of the new (and abused) communications allowance, the closure of the parliamentary pension scheme to new MPs and tougher investigation of breaches of the ministerial code.
Much greater boldness is still needed, however.
We've argued before that the Conservative Party should fashion itself as an anti-establishment party: standing up for the little guy - not big government, not big business, not big charities and certainly not big political elites. Finding ways of delivering more power to people is the fourth theme of our 'Agenda 2008'...
We recommend that the Conservative Party stands for the following pro-democracy principles at the next General Election:
No more taxpayer funding of political parties. This would require David Cameron to change position somewhat but voters don't mind politicians who change their minds after listening to the public. Mr Cameron could quite reasonably say that there is currently such an anti-politician mood that further state funding of politics would be wrong (at least until politicians put their wider house in order). He could make a pledge not to increase state funding of incumbent politicians for the whole of the next parliament. We would prefer a principled rather than a pragmatic opposition to state funding of politics - based on the idea that politicians should have to raise funds by appealing to free citizens, not compelled taxpayers - but a temporary pragmatism would be a very acceptable stop-gap.
Continue reading "David Cameron cannot be bold enough in increasing accountability of politicians" »
Lots of advice for the Conservative Party in today's media. Both David Davis and Fraser Nelson wisely warn against any triumphalism. The polls are good but we've already underestimated Gordon Brown once; we'd be prudent not to do so again. His political reputation has been badly damaged - particularly, and significantly, among opinion-formers - but we shouldn't assume that the Great Clunking Fist won't/ can't fight back.
Throughout this week ConservativeHome will be running one of our occasional 'What David Cameron Should Do Next' specials. Some of the ideas will build on what Donal Blaney proposed last Sunday. Our first is an endorsement of something very important highlighted earlier today by Ben Brogan, over at the Daily Mail: It's time to make it harder to unseat a sitting Conservative leader.
Ever since the parliamentary party ousted Margaret Thatcher a poison has coursed through the bloodstream of the party. If our MPs could oust our most successful peacetime Prime Minister - who had rescued Britain's economy and delivered three amazing election victories - they could oust anyone. Every time the Tory Party has hit choppy waters since 1990 the party's 'Messiah complex' has kicked in. Rather than addressing the party's structural and strategic challenges we've looked for the quick fix of a change of leader.
A leader needs to know that once they're elected they are secure - at least until after a General Election. It was very unhelpful in the summer for leadership speculation to arise when just a handful of MPs - perhaps only two - had anonymously submitted no-confidence letters.
We need a review of procedures. The MPs signing letters to the Chairman of the 1922 Committee should, perhaps, have to declare publicly that they are submitting a letter. Letters should probably expire ten weeks after they are submitted. The number of MPs necessary to effect a leadership contest might also need to be increased.
As Ben Brogan writes: now, when David Cameron's position is strong, is the time to change procedures. ConservativeHome will strongly support the initiation of any review.
The self-described "oldest, most elite, and most important of all Conservative clubs" will retain its membership rules after modernisers didn't get enough votes to reform them.
Led by current Chairman Lord Cope of Berkeley, who is also the Conservatives' Chief Whip in the Lords, most votes were in favour of the change but they didn't quite reach the two-thirds majority needed to effect it.
The result will frustrate David Cameron's team who have been pushing for more female representation throughout the party, but they were smart enough not to back the failed motion as publicly as Hague did in 2000. Cameron does of course frequent Whites club just down the road which completely excludes women.
The Carlton Club hasn't always been "men only", the woman who many of you believe to be the greatest living Briton began the erosion of its tradition by earning membership ex officio of her job.
Deputy Editor
Continue reading this post to read an email from Don Porter, Chairman of the National Convention, to Regional Chairmen about the Party Board's decision on the MEP selection process. The details are as we have already reported, although on a personal note he says that David Cameron is fully behind the decisions made and of Don's efforts to "quieten down unhelpful noises from the sidelines" in the run-up to the local elections.
Continue reading "Don Porter's summary of the Board meeting" »
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.
"The Board of the Conservative Party has reached a decision in principle on the method for selection of candidates for the European Parliament for the 2009 election. Sitting MEPs who have been re-selected following a procedure similar to that laid down in the Party’s constitution for Westminster MPs will be placed in ranking order by party members in a postal ballot. Members will also be asked to place additional candidates in ranking order.
In the wholly exceptional circumstances that there will be no sitting MEPs who are women seeking re-election, and for this selection process only, the top position in each region below any reselected sitting MEPs will be occupied by the woman candidate who gets the most votes in the postal ballot. Detailed arrangements will be developed in the coming weeks."
Deputy Editor
ConservativeHome will be unveiling its campaign response to this decision tomorrow lunchtime.
Last night a high level Conservative source contacted ConservativeHome with a 'clarification' of the procedures via which the next slate of regional list MEPs will be selected (if agreed by the Party Board this coming Monday). These are the crucial facts:
* If, for example, a region has four Tory MEPs and one is retiring, the college will decide if the three existing MEPs should continue to occupy the top three places on the list. If all three are allowed to continue all members will then decide the number 1, 2 or 3 ranking of each candidate. A woman must then be selected for slot four. All members will decide which candidates - of any gender - fill slots five and below.
**Our source has contacted us with a slight correction - the regional college won't be able to stop them standing as non-priority candidates.
The lobbying effort against the plan to protect incumbent MEPs is beginning to bear some fruit. Jeremy Middleton has assured one ConservativeHome correspondent that he will be voting to protect members' rights with regard to the selection of all MEPs. Thank you Jeremy. He will be one party board member that won't be vulnerable to a challenge in next year's Board elections. Emma Pidding has an out of office message on her email system and it warns that she won't be in the office until after Monday's crucial vote. Hmmm. No comment has yet been received from Charles Barwell.
MPs Francis Maude, Richard Ottaway, Michael Spicer, Graham Stuart and John Whittingdale all have seats on the Board and some readers might like to lobby them.
This effort to protect incumbent MEPs is, of course, only the latest example of the party leadership's attempt to dilute party democracy. There was the attempt to strip members of the vote in the election of party leader and the aborted plan from the Party Board to substantially restrict the autonomy of local Associations. The A-list process has been characterised by restrictions on local candidates, half-women shortlists and, in some constituencies, the exclusion of all members from the decisive final stage of selections. In unguarded comments to ToryRadio, John Maples gave the 'we-know-best' game away a few weeks ago when he said that he - if he was selection 'dictator' - he could pick better candidates than local members. Earlier this week we had the Dyke debacle and the behind-closed-doors attempt to impose a non-Tory candidate on London Conservatives.
The scheme to protect incumbent MEPs and the proposed introduction of the Conservative Party's first all-women shortlist fits neatly into a two year pattern of the party leadership distrusting people if those people are Conservative members. If we do not continue to fight the centralising instincts of the party leadership we will cease to be a fully democratic party and the party's claim to want localism for the nation at large will look pretty thin.
Links to excellent letters from MEP Watch and CF Chairman Mark Clarke are pasted below.
Continue reading "Campaign to protect members' rights yields first results" »
How well does this semi-parodic catchphrase used by some CCHQers match up when it comes to Party democracy? Charles Moore in this week's Spectator:
"Meanwhile, the Conservative party continues its devotion to openness, localism and modernised democracy in everything except its own organisation. The party has a little-known body called the National European Forum which has come up with a plan to deny party members the right to choose their candidates for the European Parliament. It wants ‘regional selection colleges’ (dominated, naturally, by Europhiles) to vet existing MEPs before they can stay on the list of candidates for the next elections. All new candidates would be nominated by the central party organisation. The current system of regional hustings would be abolished, and so ‘one member, one vote’, a quite widely known democratic concept, but one which has had only a brief and fragile life in the Conservative party, would be no more."
According to our polling 78% of Party members are against a system discriminating in favour of incumbent MEPs, instead believing that:
"They should face a vote in which all Tory members in their European Parliamentary regions can participate."
Aside from the party democracy issue, underlying this debate is a battle for the soul of the Conservative delegation in Brussels - the closer the MEPs are to Party members, the more eurosceptic they will be.
A number of MEPs gave their opinions to ConservativeHome on this important internal issue back in January (to the great displeasure of certain people). Also worth reading are the thoughts of Francis Maude and Chris Heaton-Harris MEP on which there are many comments, and Tim Montgomerie's recent (and as yet unreplied to) open letter to David Cameron urging intervention.
Deputy Editor
5pm update - The press office have acknowledged the open letter:
"At the moment we have nothing to announce in this area but we will certainly make sure that you are included in any briefing when we have something to report."
"Dear David,
You will know that ConservativeHome successfully helped to lead opposition to Michael Howard's attempts to scrap party members' right to elect his successor. Given how members voted in the last leadership election I'm sure you will agree that members are wiser than many of their critics suggest!
I am writing to ask you to protect members' democratic rights in the selection of our next slate of European Parliamentary candidates. I understand that the Party Board is about to consider a paper from the National European Forum. The NEF has, I am told, recommended that a college of Association Chairmen, Area officers and other selected high-ups form new regional electoral colleges. These colleges will then assess whether sitting MEPs have done enough to retain their top-of-the-list rankings. These electoral colleges may even have the power to re-order MEPs - overturning the democratic ranking that all party members gave to MEP candidates before the last European elections.
I do not know if members will have any say in choosing and ranking candidates who are not incumbents but I hope that you will publicly intervene in defence of the principle of party democracy. 78% of party members want to keep their say in ranking MEP candidates. As a candidate in the last leadership election you understandably felt it improper to state a position on the nature of the process although I was grateful that some of your key lieutenants - including Michael Gove and Ed Vaizey - felt able to support party democracy. I would encourage you to publicly recommend to the Party Board that there is no dilution of party democracy in the selection of European candidates. It may be right that some changes are made to the process but the franchise should not be restricted.
On a practical level, although there might be political difficulties if certain unpopular candidates react badly to being ranked less highly there may be greater dangers, in this internet age, if Conservative candidates at the next European Parliamentary Elections are out-of-touch with the grassroots' Euroscepticism.
With very best wishes,
Tim
Tim Montgomerie
Editor of ConservativeHome.com"
Related link: Francis Maude wants your views on European candidate selection
Oliver Letwin was on GMTV this morning, saying that the Party still had a lot of work to do in being open to women and ethnic minorities. Responding to grassroots unrest in Mercer's constituency, Letwin asserted that the Conservative Party was comprised of its voters as well as its members, and that they should be in sync with eachother.
Whilst admitting that Patrick Mercer's comments weren't racist, he still cited them as showing that more needed to be done to "change" the Party:
"I think we recognise that change isn't something that happens overnight, that it takes a lot of work. We're certainly not complacent about it. There's been much change, not just in the sense of sounding different, but when we've had decisions to make we've made them very often differently. We haven't engaged in a certain kind of politics that there's been a temptation to engage in. We've tried to ensure that every time we talk about something, we talk about it in a certain tone of voice and with a view to the long-term, which is a different kind of opposition. There's much change going on but I accept, yes, there's more work to do."
As far as the above can be understood, it seems the straw man of the "nasty wing of the Conservative Party" is rearing its head again - so it is no wonder that commentators like Andrew Rawnsley analyse the Mercer sacking thus:
"David Cameron sent a tough and clear message about his ability to act and his abhorrence of racism when he sacked Patrick Mercer. His harder and wider struggle is to convince watching voters that his modernising message is not merely a smiling mask on a Tory party that continues to harbour a lot of nastiness."
Continue reading "Letwin says the party still needs to change" »
The nominations for the National Convention's elected positions have been finalised. Successful nominees also sit on the Party Board ex officio.
Current Chairman Don Porter CBE, a Deputy Chairman of the Party and former President of the Convention, has for the second time been the only person to apply for the Chairmanship and has therefore been reselected by default.
The Presidency of the Convention was again uncontested, this time with Simon Mort - a Vice President this year - being automatically selected. There are four nominees for the three Vice Presidential positions: Charles Barwell, Jeremy Middleton, Emma Pidding and Richard Robinson, a regular contributor to ConservativeHome. Ballots will be sent out this week and there will be a hustings at the Convention's AGM held at Spring Forum. The only other time the Convention meets is at the main Party conference.
I'm not sure how often Bruce Anderson gets up from the lunch tables of London's finest restaurants and actually meets grassroots Conservatives but my guess is not very often. Trying to explain David Cameron's modest opinion poll lead he decides to blame Conservative Party members for the party's troubles in his Monday column for The Independent. He compares activists to "perverts" who hold fantasies within a "locked room" in their brains. 90% of Tories apparently believe in the following:
"In their dreams, Britain is no longer in the EU. The coloured population of these islands is less than a tenth of its present total. Instead of being allowed into government, the leaders of the IRA were shot. Every town has a grammar school: every schoolmaster a cane. The death penalty has been restored and crime is under firm control. The state is only spending a quarter of the nation's income. Margaret Thatcher is still Prime Minister. If you were to make a speech advocating all that to 100 Tory activists, 10 would disagree. Thirty would cheer. Another 30 would agree but keep quiet. They want to be councillors and there might be a spy reporting to Central Office. The final 30 would also have agreed, after one more drink. But Mr Cameron would be firmly among the 10."
Such a description of the average Conservative activist is incredibly unfair. There are some Conservative members who object to multiracial Britain but a diminishing few. When I go to Tory gatherings I find people much, much more likely to talk about schools'n'hospitals than hanging'n'flogging. Conservative activists are selecting more diverse candidates and they are actively involved in community action. It is true that most Conservative activists want a smaller state, a tough approach to terrorism and strong discipline in schools but the Tory cause is not helped by painting the party workers as extremists. It just isn't true. I'm think of using the next ConservativeHome survey to survey Tory views on global development, human rights and care of the elderly. Any suggestions for questions would be welcome...
The Conservative Party is changing the way it is organised so that the Northern regions have more autonomy to set budgets and organise campaigns - albeit "within the Party’s overall national strategy". The regions (North West, the North East, Yorkshire and the Humber) will have volunteer Project Directors working alongside each Regional Chairman and Director.
Encouragingly, Northerners will also have more of a voice in the Party with the creation of a Northern Board, similar to the Party Board, and a Deputy Chairman position with responsibility for the North. This is important as there is a common, and somewhat justified, perception of the Party being led by "metropolitan elites". The appointed positions announced tomorrow will be:
Chairman of the Northern Board: William Hague
Vice-Chairman of the Board: Sir David Trippier (former MP for Rossendale & Darwen)
Deputy Chairman of the Party (North), and North East Project Director: Michael Bates (former MP for Langbaurgh)
North West Project Director: Richard Topham (Chairman of a luxury house-building company)
Yorkshire and the Humber Project Director: Graham Stuart MP (who is also on the Party Board)
These developments have been some time in the making, but come just after the Party's "Northern problem" was highlighted by a poll in Yorkshire.
Chairman of the Party Francis Maude will write about the initiative for ConservativeHome later today.
Deputy Editor
The results of the question posed in December's ConservativeHome survey are as follows (Party members' answers only):
How should sitting MEPs who wish to be reselected, be ranked for the next European Parliamentary Elections?
Option 1: 78%
They should face a vote in which all Tory members in their European Parliamentary regions can participate.
Option 2: 16%
A potentially divisive vote of all members should be avoided and the decision should be passed to the regional officers of the Conservative Party.
Option 3: 6%
Other
We framed this question with Francis Maude's open response to ConservativeHome in mind, in which he asked how a "divisive and acrimonious" selection process could be avoided (you may want to read over the multitude of comments on that thread again).
As Conservative MEPs went back to their offices yesterday, ConservativeHome asked them for their thoughts on how we should select/ re-select candidates for the next European Parliamentary elections, bearing in mind the above results.
Chris Heaton-Harris, who was Chief Whip during the last round of selections, has set out the debate on today's YourPlatform.
Jonathan Evans' response has been published in the Seats and Candidates section as it raises an important related issue. We will then publish a pdf file aggregating all of the responses. A few MEPs are still on holiday so couldn't share their opinion in time, and John Bowis is ill - we wish him a speedy recovery!
Click continue to see how the others responded...
Deputy Editor
Conservatives Abroad have officially launched their smooth new website today, which is hoped will help to engage with the ex-pat community around the world.
200,000 people are leaving Blighty for places like Australia and Spain every year, and the IPPR estimates that ex-pats now account for 10% of all British citizens. They are a huge consituency to tap into.
Few Conservative organisations need to utilise the internet as much as CA, so it's great to see the website has both a members' forum and a blog.
Deputy Editor
I guess there must be shock all around the Commons' tea-room this morning. Witham Tories did what, reportedly, a number of Conservative MPs thought very unlikely... they didn't choose a middle-aged, white male but a young, Asian female - Priti Patel. Ali Miraj did himself no favours by recently adding to the tired media slur on the Tory grassroots. It is, of course, true that there is unacceptable prejudice within some Conservative Associations but that is increasingly exceptional.
Again and again Tory members defy the pigeon-holing by all too many MPs and journalists. Three of the safer Tory seats in the country have all chosen ethnic minority candidates in recent years. Windsor chose Adam Afriyie, Cambridgeshire NW chose Shailesh Vara and now Witham has chosen the highly able (and decidely Eurosceptic) Priti Patel. Before the last election the heartland seat of Arundel and South Downs chose the openly gay Nick Herbert. In the current selection process we have seen the openly gay David Golds adopted. Alan Duncan has not been ostracised for 'coming out'... his constituency has been very supportive and he is, of course, now in the shadow cabinet.
Criticism of the Tory membership is understandable when it comes from the media but is unacceptable when it comes from Conservative candidates and MPs. The dismissive attitude reached its peak (trough?) when Michael Howard led an attempt to disenfranchise grassroots members in the choice of party leader. Fortunately that attempt was defeated and members voted for the apparently modernising, rather than the more traditionalist candidate.
Unfortunately the we-know-better attitude lives on in CCHQ. The attempts to restrict the freedoms of local association to choose Westminster and European candidates goes on. We can only hope that the party leadership that champions localism for the rest of the country will soon champion it for its own members, too.
Related link: Tory members deserve a little more respect from Tory MPs
This is good news for the right of the party who had hoped to see Whittingdale elected. It is also some confirmation for Richard Ottaway's hopes to succeed Sir Michael Spicer as Chairman of the 1922 Committee. Christopher Chope's failure to win a seat is a similarly significant knock to his 1922 ambitions.
For background see this Guardian story.
I debated with John Bercow on this morning's Radio 4 Week in Westminster programme. The debate was about tax and you can listen again by clicking here at any time over the next seven days.
I admire John in many ways - not least for the role he has played in encouraging our party to champion the world's poorest and most neglected people (especially Darfur) - but his attitude to the rank-and-file Tory membership is disappointing and all too typical of many Conservative MPs. We grassroots members shouldn't quickly forget that two-thirds of Tory MPs voted to stop us - the members who selected them - from having any direct say in the election of party leader. In the WiW interview Mr Bercow conceded that he was not preoccupied with the views of Tory members - who accounted for a "tiny" proportion of the electorate. What matters he said was not what Tory members thought but the people who weren't voting Conservative. He went on to say that it was vital that Tories did not appear "like a bunch of fire-breathing dragons preaching the mantra - the moral case for low taxation". That's a classic case of demonising your opponents without really engaging with their argument.
I have some questions for Mr Bercow about his attitude to Tory members:
Are there any polls that suggest that Tory members have very different views from the voters at large? Didn't a recent ICM/ Sunday Telegraph poll actually suggest that, if anything, Tory supporters were more inclined to support economic stability over tax cuts than all voters? I don't seek to increase tensions between members and parliamentarians - most of our MPs are excellent representatives of the Conservative cause - but a little more respect for members would be welcome.
Research of political party memberships conducted by the liberal Unlock Democracy campaign shows how uneven Conservative Party membership is across the country.
Approximately 20% of Conservative Associations have less than 100 members, with many northern Associations having less than 50 members, whilst 97% of constituencies have more than 100 Labour Party members.
Quite encouragingly however, the Conservatives are better off when it comes to money - the percentages of party associations with less than £5000 (just 7p per elector) were: 34% Conservative, 50% Labour, 73% Liberal Democrat.
Some efforts have been made to revive the Party structurally in the North - Liverpool and Manchester have voted to amalgamate their respective city associations and Shadow Cabinet members have been assigned to oversee mostly northern cities.
The lack of northern candidates on the A list is undoubtedly a problem, although David Cameron has denied that candidates aren't applying in the North. The proportion may be equal to how many there are on the candidates list but if we have to have a list that prioritises certain candidates then being local or at least regional is a far more important quality in the eyes of the electorate than skin colour or gender.
In terms of national party workers and active members, the Party is still overwhelmingly southern English. If this should be changed somehow, how?
Deputy Editor
Recent Comments