John Strafford: Yes, direct election will boost the legitimacy of the Lords. We need representatives we elect.

John Strafford is the author of Our Fight for Democracy – A History of Democracy in the United Kingdom.

One of the key features of democracy is that it is a system of government of the people in which the people exercise power.   This is done directly or indirectly through their representatives and by a process in which the will of the majority is determined.   The House of Lords exercises power and yet the people have no say in its composition, so it is not representative of the people (43% of the members went to just 12 private schools).   This cannot be right and for more than a century prominent Conservatives have recognised this and called for it to be changed.

The Conservative Party has a proud tradition of constitutional reform.   From the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 to Disraeli’s Second Reform Act of 1867; from the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act of 1928 which gave votes to women at the age of 21, to the Life Peerage Act of 1958, Conservatives were in the forefront of reform.   The one reform which has eluded the Party is that of House of Lords reform.

A century ago Winston Churchill said that the Upper Chamber “must be based upon the roots of the whole body of parliamentary electors”.   Its members should be elected by “very large constituencies” to differentiate them from MPs.

John Strafford: What has CCHQ got to fear from pro-AV Tories at Spring Forum?

John Strafford is the author of Our Fight for Democracy – A History of Democracy in the United Kingdom and has held office at virtually every level in the voluntary party, including nine years on the former National Union Executive Committee. He is the Chairman of the Conservative Yes to AV Campaign. Here he calls for members to help reverse CCHQ’s decision to ban Conservative organisations supporting a Yes Vote from the Spring Forum.

Where better we thought to formally launch an organisation titled Conservatives for AV and allow party members to properly debate a subject as significant as changing the voting system, than at our very own spring forum.

We have a number of elected conservatives and peers already signed up and were anticipating a healthy turnout, until being informed in no uncertain terms by Conservative Central Office that our presence was not to be allowed at our own forum.

Whatever happened to “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. In the past the Party happily and all too readily accepted money from pro reform organisations such as the Conservative Action for Electoral Reform, to boast party coffers and allowed them to hold meetings.  What has changed? Are CCHQ are so scared of losing the referendum that they won’t let party members hear the other side of the debate?   Do the party hierarchy not trust us enough to make an informed decision and prefer we receive only one side of the argument? 

John Strafford: Allowing and encouraging meaningful participation is the key to reviving the Tory grassroots

John Strafford runs the Conservative Campaign for Democracy and has held office at virtually every level in the voluntary party, including nine years on the former National Union Executive Committee. He is also the author of Our Fight for Democracy – A History of Democracy in the United Kingdom. Here he responds to Paul Goodman's articles this week (published here and here) on the future of the Tory grassroots.

Last year I wrote an article for ConservativeHome showing the decline in Party membership from 2,800,000 in 1952 to 320,000 by 2003. I set out some of the reasons for the decline. What has happened since then? The decline has continued to the point where the future of the Conservative Party as a party of mass membership has to be questioned. Without action now, within ten years it will have ceased to exist.

After the 1998 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. When David Cameron became Leader in 2005 it was 258,239. Today in 2010 Party membership is 177,000, so we have lost over 80,000 members since he became Leader. The loss of 80,000 members is a net loss after taking into account new members joining the party. Assuming that the party got say 5,000 new members each year, then the loss of old members is over 105,000. On this basis only 153,000 of the 258,239 members at the time of Cameron’s election are still members of the Party. Put another way, approx. 105,000 members have either died or allowed their membership to lapse since David Cameron became Leader. That means that over 40% of members that participated in his election have now left the Party. The average age of a Party member is 68.

In the period just prior to the Labour Party taking office their membership went up from 250,000 in 1994 to 400,000 in 1997.

The decline in membership matters. Of the approx. 177,000 Party members about 10% or approx. 18,000 are activists.  Today those activists consist primarily of 10,000 Councillors, their family and friends.

Because of the dire state of the economy some very tough and very unpopular decisions are being taken. Next year, at the time when we are likely to 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 activists will be catastrophic impacting on membership and campaigning. We can expect to see more demonstrations on the streets like the National Union of Students demonstration.   In these circumstances members loyal to the Party are essential to see us through these difficult times.

Since the General Election Labour Party membership has risen by 40,000, Liberal Democrat membership has risen by 6,000. Why the different results?

John Strafford: The decline and death of Party membership - Why should anyone now be a member of the Conservative Party?

John Strafford runs the Conservative Campaign for Democracy and has held office at virtually every level in the voluntary party, including nine years on the former National Union Executive Committee. In his newly-published book, Our Fight for Democracy – A History of Democracy in the United Kingdom, he analyses the weaknesses of British democracy today and suggests how it could be improved.

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.  

John E Strafford: A short guide to deselecting your MP

John Strafford runs the Conservative Campaign for Democracy and was chairman of the Beaconsfield Conservative Assoication between 1985 and 1990. He explains here how to deselect a sitting Conservative MP, drawing on the experience of deselecting Tim Smith in Beaconsfield in 1997.

Just before the 1997 General Election, Tim Smith MP was readopted as the Conservative Parliamentary candidate for Beaconsfield. Five days later, he resigned. What lessons can be learned?

After the adoption meeting a group of members were unhappy at the decision to readopt Tim Smith due to his admitted involvement in the “Cash for questions affair”. They decided they wanted a new candidate (This was not a light decision and was only taken after serious consideration).

Constituency Association Officers are, quite rightly, instinctively loyal to their Member of Parliament. They are usually friends, so cannot be relied upon to be at the forefront of a reselection campaign. What is critical is that the campaign has to have momentum and be seen to have momentum to the point where reselection appears inevitable. How is this achieved?

John E. Strafford: Time to bring back Association Adoption Meetings for sitting MPs

John Strafford of the Conservative Campaign for Democracy makes the case for stricter reselection procedures for sitting MPs.

At present there are 196 Tory MPs of which 20 are women and 2 ethnic minorities.   To achieve 50% men/women of which 12% are ethnic minorities requires a huge change. If we only rely on new candidates for seats that at the moment we do not hold, or for seats where the sitting male Tory MP retires, it will take several General Elections to achieve our objective of fair representation.  Should we therefore look at changing the procedure for the re-selection of sitting MPs? 

We could ask all sitting MPs to be re-selected by say an open primary election, but:

1. The sitting MPs wouldn't accept the proposal;
2. In most cases members would be reluctant to campaign against their MP and;
3. Experienced MPs are a great asset to the Party.

Nevertheless I believe that the Executive of the 1922 Committee should be approached to take soundings of their members to confirm or otherwise that the proposal would be unacceptable.  There is no doubt that if this was to be accepted it could prove to be the fastest method of bringing about change.

In an age when long-term employment has gone should we be prepared to accept an increased turnover of MPs?  In today’s environment do MPs, once elected, consider themselves to have a job for life? (subject to the electorate).  In many walks of life it is rare for a person to stay in the same occupation for a long period.  Are MPs different?  Should we encourage the re-adoption of MPs for each parliament by the whole Association as is done in Scotland?