Party board election: Constituency mergers

Throughout today - every ninety minutes - ConservativeHome will be posting the answers that the five candidates for the Party Board gave to six questions posed by New Forest Councillor, Derek Tipp.  I'm very grateful to Derek for taking this initiative and for suggesting that ConservativeHome publish the answers he received.

Derek is an ex-teacher and company director.  He first joined the New Forest East constituency in 1998, became a district councillor in 1999, gaining the seat from the Lib Dems. He became a Branch chairman in 2000, and then an Association Officer. He has been Association chairman since 2003, and is now doing his fourth and final year.

The first of Derek's question refer to constituency autonomy:

Would you support the compulsory merging of constituencies into larger groupings under any circumstances, if so what are they?

[The candidates' answers are listed in alphabetical order - except those given by Emma Pidding.  Emma's answers to some of the questions are particularly detailed and it seemed unfair to Toby Vintcent for his answers to always come after hers.]

JOHN FLACK: Yes. Where Constituency Associations are clearly failing but for some reason local activists are unwilling or unable to deal with the problem it must make sense for them to be merged into larger, more effective campaigning units.

JEREMY MIDDLETON: As a general rule I would hope we would only have mergers where all Associations agree.  As we have approaching 60 merger proposals currently with the Board and other ones may emerge, I think we have our hands full trying to turn these into a reality.  I would not rule out compulsory mergers under any circumstances.  However, the only time I would consider reasonable is where an Association is both small and has over a consistently long period failed to effectively serve its members or the wider Conservative electorate.  I have no particular examples in mind but if there were cases where there were very small cliques running an inactive Association and yet there is a clear opportunity to develop the Party further by merging it with a much stronger Association that was both interested and capable of revitalizing the original Constituency then I don’t think we should rule it out.

SIMON MORT: No.  I do not favour compulsory groupings.   I favour groupings and have considerable experience of them.   I may be given some role in this area from Manchester.   I can not think of any circumstances in which I would favour compulsory groupings.   There are other opinions in the senior levels of the party.

TOBY VINTCENT: Compulsory merging?  No.  Voluntary co-operation as pioneered, say, in Hertfordshire in the build up to the last election was hugely successful – we won an extra 3 seats.  This, though, was voluntary.

EMMA PIDDING: I wholeheartedly support the concept of groupings. They should be encouraged where ever appropriate. The benefits that result are immense, in terms of money, equipment, and the deployment of professional personnel. However, I believe that the success of any grouping is dependant on the willingness of each individual Association involved. Groupings cannot be made compulsory.  I can speak from personal experience on this issue. Six years ago, in my home Association of Chesham & Amersham (C&ACA) I was instrumental in the initiation of a grouping with the neighbouring Beaconsfield Association (BCCA). Due to poor management of the C&ACA over a number of years prior to my Chairmanship, I inherited an Association that was in very poor financial health – it was almost bankrupt. I, along with my fellow officers, had to take the very difficult decision of making the incumbent Agent redundant. I spent the next six months covering the role of the Agent. It was clear that this situation could not be sustained, and an alternative answer had to be sought. The obvious solution was to seek a partnership with a neighbouring Association. We were fortunate to find a willing and enthusiastic partner in BCCA. Since the establishment of this grouping both Associations have continued to grow in strength. Six years down the line the C&ACA has annually been able to make a significant contribution to CCHQ, culminating in a payment of £10,000 being made in 2005.The relationship between the two Associations continues to be a very happy one. I believe this success is due to the firm foundations that were laid from the outset, and that all ‘parties’ were fully on board with the concept of the grouping.  If my input was required to look at future groupings elsewhere, my priority would be to seek to agreement of ALL parties involved.

Comments

[Mr Helpful]

So that's:
FLACK: Yes as a last resort
MIDDLETON: Yes as a last resort
MORT: No
VINTCENT: No
PIDDING: Neither yes nor no

[Graeme Archer]

What is the point of the board if it's not prepared to take tough action to deal with failing organisations? We need transparent rules setting out the definition of "failed" so that no-one complains when CCHQ steps in and takes over Constituency X and forces compulsory merger with Y. This is the minimal type of tactical oversight I would expect from the board.

[Louise]

I'm with John Flack and Graeme Archer on this one. If Associations are failing the Board must have the nerve to step in and take the necessary action. And this doesn't just apply to seats with low membership or little campaigning activity but also those very well off seats with large majorities where the actions of members, councillors and officers damages the Party as a whole.

Voluntary co-operation is theoretically a good idea, but the Hertfordshire model is over-quoted and the reality in no way resembles the myth. Each of the three seats gained in Hertfordshire ran their own, local campaigns independent of each other and (while friendly) didn't particularly co-operate in any way. The staff of the three Associations who shared the "Hertfordshire Campaign Centre" worked well together but this was not replicated in Association or campaigning work.

I'd like to see our Board members being prepared to question the claims of staff and members on the reality of situations on the ground rather than just take good news at face value.

[Dick Wishart]

Compulsion never. As for so called failing associations who can judge?, there are a lot of associations in the country with a small membership who work extremely hard for the party knowing full well that they will most likely never get a conservative MP,are they failing?I dont think so.
We really do need to look at these ideas away from the leafy lanes of the home counties and a one size fits all mind set. In my part of wales for example, constituencies can be 50-60 miles across made up of active pockets with very little housing in between (its what makes north wales so beautiful, quick advert),merged constituencies such as these would not operate with any effectiveness because the officers would be so divorced from the huge area they would have to cover, (Julie Kirkbride on a recent visit could not believe that after nearly 2 hours driving we were still in the same constituency).
By forcing these types of associations to merge would almost certainly lose the LOCAL association benifits that have been built up over the years to handle an area with such a large land area.
Where it is agreeable and makes sense then by all means merge, but NO COMPULSION.

[Annabel Herriott]

If you merge Constituencies, I think that first you should consider the following.
1 Do the proposed mergees "gel" with one another.
2 Are they of a type. Rural, or urban.
3 Are they all prepared and WILLING to pay
their corner every month, so the joint
Agent can receive her salary, and the
place be heated etc.
4 Will the elected trustees guarantee to
meet regularly, and sort out problems
pronto.
5 Are the mergees happy about the division
of the agents time, and not make a fuss
if their batch of leaflets is not done
ASAP, even if its not their turn to have
her.
There are probably more problems that did
not come to my ears, but you can gather that I speak from experience of a failed merger. Its a difficult one. Im pretty sure if we tried again with a neighbouring rural constituency like our own, it would have worked like a dream. It may well come to that. Whatever is finalised, I shall of course support.

[Louise]

Annabel, you raise a really important point concerning the employment of agents and how it works (or more often doesn't work) when more than one constituency is involved.

I am supportive of merging constituencies were necessary, but if the agent is employed by some ridiculous Joint Management Committee there will always be the pressures you so rightly describe.

The whole employment of agents has to be sorted out before there are none left.

[Louise]

Annabel, you raise a really important point concerning the employment of agents and how it works (or more often doesn't work) when more than one constituency is involved.

I am supportive of merging constituencies were necessary, but if the agent is employed by some ridiculous Joint Management Committee there will always be the pressures you so rightly describe.

The whole employment of agents has to be sorted out before there are none left.

[Louise]

Oops, sorry for idiot double comment. It's late and I'm stil writing leaflets due at the printer on Monday.

[Old Hack]

It might be more feasible to create groupings if there were actually sufficient Agents to staff them. Sadly it seems we'd rather employ one Steve Hilton than 10 to 15 agents in marginal seats. Guess who'd make the most difference to the result of the General Election??