Is CCHQ fit for purpose?

Rumours are rife that David Cameron has over-ruled Francis Maude and ordered a six month postponement of the London Mayoral process if a big-hitter candidate does not come forward before today's 5pm deadline.  It was predictable and predicted that CCHQ's rushed timetable would be unlikely to yield an adequate field of candidates.

Unfortunately it's only the latest example of a failure of CCHQ to deliver the kind of political operation that David Cameron deserves.  There remain central weaknesses in CCHQ:

• We know best attitude.  This was summed up in last year's post-election plans to change the constitution of the party (which had to be abandoned) and anti-democratic plans to abolish grassroots members' right to vote in the leadership election (which failed to win the required level of support). 

• Candidate selection.  The A-list has been beset by a wide range of difficulties.  CCHQ unsuccessfully attempted to keep the names of A-listers secret... many of the 35 seats that CCHQ decided should select candidates first had not been consulted and decided not to select... more non A-listers are being selected than women A-listers... and only this week 'B-listers' haven't even received the courtesy of a letter telling them that they are not on the top-up... ConservativeHome has been highlighting the huge hurdles facing lower income candidates since the start of the year but the drive for a representative party has not begun to address this key issue of social justice.
  

• By-elections.  The campaign in Bromley & Chislehurst fell far short of the Liberal Democrat effort.

• Centralisation.  The party's poor performance in northern England demands a radical response but there are no clear plans for a serious decentralisation of campaigning power to Yorkshire or Lancashire, for example, although the major cities are now twinned with shadow ministers.

• Wastefulness. Anyone who has ever worked at CCHQ knows the level of wastefulness that characterises operations - particularly at election times.  At this year's local elections Conservative councillors all over Britain who had ordered bespoke pledge letters received the wrong material - with all of their letters addressed to residents of one ward in Manchester.  The 'Built to Last' referendum is a waste of party resources given its uncontroversial and motherhood-and-apple-pie content.

• Rush, rush, rush.  Important issues are not developed properly and policy announcements are rushed out.  In the last few days Association officers all across Britain are being invited to consultation meetings about the party's rebranding exercise.  People are being given two weeks' notice in the middle of August to present their views.  I'm reminded of Inigo Wilson's definition of "consultation" in his excellent Lefty Lexicon: "A formal system for ignoring public views while patronising them at the same time".

There are some excellent individuals in CCHQ and a series of recent appointments are designed to address some of the above weaknesses.  There should be no shying away, however, from the continuing failure of CCHQ to be the campaigning force that the party needs.

Comments

[Steve]

Spot on. Ineptitude writ large.

Another example: EVERY year, CCHQ never manages to get local election templates sorted and available early (or even when they say they will be ready).

Snippet of advice for CCHQ: LOCAL ELECTIONS ARE ALWAYS HELD ON THE FIRST THURSDAY IN MAY - TRY PLANNING TO THIS DATE.

AND GET A GRIP!

[Cllr Joe Mooney]

The above is a very good article. I do hope that CCO takes action on the items highlighted in the article.

It is a great mistake not to have allowed more time for the Mayor selection procedure. Why rush this very important task. Come on Mr Cameron knock some heads together in CCO.

[malcolm]

Agree with every word of this thread.Any idea when the rumours surrounding the Mayor will be confirmed or denied?

[Max]

WRT decentralisation I believe that George Bridges has been given a role in helping the party in the North of England and Scotland.

I do agree that we need campaigning units dedicated to certain parts of the country - although this may be met with some reticence from local associations.

And whilst this is an important issue is their any chance of an article that isn't negative about the party anytime soon? Their is a lot going right at the moment and I do think ConHome should reflect this.

[Swanman]

Last year, we had CCHQ's botched efforts to disenfranchise the grassroots with the proposed changes to the constitution. This year CCHQ: (i) almost lost the Bromley & Chislehurst by-election; (ii) has proposed the Built to Last ballot, an altogether unneccessary waste of thousands of Pounds; (iii) is undertaking a re-branding exercise (only two years since we last changed the Party logo), wasting even more money; (iv) has demoralised hundreds of its most hardworking and experienced (white, male) activists through its mishandling of candidate selection; and (v) has plainly made a mess of the London Mayoral selection. Our good results in the local elections were in spite of, not because of, CCHQ's efforts. Francis Maude was lucky to survive last year's attempts to change the constitution. The time has surely come for him to go.

[Former Agent]

For the first time, I won't actually give my name when posting here.

I worked as a constituency agent for several years until recently and agents have been saying all of the above for years.

CCHQ is run by a different clique each year with a lack of consistency about the messages that are sent out to Associations and candidates. Constituency agents are not kept in the loop on forthcoming campaigns, or the training that candidates receive. ACDs/RCDs are in a constant state of insecurity about their jobs which causes stress and strains relationships with constituencies.

One suggestion would be to employ (and if not employ at least consult with) agents in the field who can help to translate some of the great ideas into practical campaigns.

[Dreamer]

Spot on. Yet more reasons to prevent state funding of political parties. Imagine the public at large having to pay for CCHQ! Lord help us.

I'm still bemused by CCHQ's (semi) use of Victoria Street, where they don't even use all the floors they rent. With a perfectly good property lying dormant in Smith Square I wonder where association campaign subscriptions are going (other than of course to fund rather expensive advisors, Hilton et al).

I say move the whole thing up north, then you might see a sudden change in our focus in these areas. I imagine London and the South East can fend for themselves, and the costs would decrease as well. Still I imagine that’s as likely to happen as another Archer mayoral campaign.

[Alison Anne Smith]

The problem as I see it is in their rush to change the Party CCHQ are in danger of throwing out the Tory baby with the bath water. The Party's habit of ignoring the views of anyone old enough to be Cameron's parents is not only foolish but also insulting to many members.

[christina speight]

Max - What, please, IS "going right at the moment"

The whole set-up and attitude is weak-kneed, unfocussed, lacking in precision or hard attitudes [if not YET hard policies} What IS today's Tory party???

[David Banks]

Oh dear this seems to be getting like another Tory self-hatred thread. Well, i suppose finding theres a problem is the first step towards its resolution. How about an economy drive to begin with , using the property your renting etc.
Interested to read about the 'Archer mayoral' bid comment above. This is Daniel Vince Archer is it? What a great mayor he'd make. Alternatly Mr Cleverly would be super.
Anyway returning to the topic , maybe resources could be husbanded ( thats a proper word , i'm not being sexist) better. But if people go off the deep end about CCHQ and want to move it up to ooh York for instance , there may be a bit of a problem getting the movers to cart all of DC's stuff round to No.10 as well. Do we get DC in Downing street first and then fiddle with the party's dusty corners , or is it a case of if we don't get in a flap about CCHQ he'll never get elected?

[Henry Whitmarsh]

It's not their fault that there aren't enough decent candidates for the single largest elected position in Europe after the French Presidency. Surely if people want a job like that they should have to be in charge of starting their own campaign, if they deserve that kind of power they shouldn't need CCHQ to hold their hands.

Besides, in an election being a "big hitter" doesn't mean that they'll connect with the electorate. It would be nice to think that someone like James Cleverly could pull off "a Matt Santos" and get the endorsement.

[Max]

Christina whatever I say you'll disagree and tell me I'm wrong - one of the reasons why many pro-Cameron Tories don't bother posting here.

But anyway - we're ahead in the polls, have made a significant comeback in London and the South-East, we aren't hated anymore (even up here in Scotland), and it seems people are willing to listen to us again. That's a big change from even a year or two ago and I'm not convinced would have happened without David Cameron as leader.

For the first time in a long time I'm actually looking forward to the elections in Scotland in 2007. Especially as we have a leader who trully values Unionism and the Union.

[cherry]

Re the above comment. I think the answer is " the Tory Party is not". Like the Labour Party, the focus appears to be on social engineering, rather than effectively running the country with focus and determination. At present there is not a single government department which functions properly. Therefore there is work to do - a lot. There is little point in voting for a party which offers only the status quo.

[Richard Weatherill]

Much as I hate the "R"-word, CCHQ does of course have a whole set of Regional offices up and down the country. Our local(ish!) one at Coleshill has been very helpful and efficient in getting literature produced for our Association. (Thought I'd just try to balance the CCHQ-bashing negativity a bit.)

Perhaps the impression that the party is run by a ("mincing"??) metropolitan elite might be dispelled if more power were devolved to these offices? Of course, you'd need some capable people to staff them.

[christina speight]

Max - Michael Howard brought back many alienated Tory voters and THAT's why the S East recovered. Almost all those I know who returned will not vote for a party led by Cameron - SEE BROMLEY!

As for the polls Cameron is only 1% ahead of the most despicable prime minister in living memory and the party is a mere 5% ahead of a Labour party in near meltdown!

[Matt Santos]

What an insult Henry Whitmarsh! Don't compare James Cleverly to me. I had won a congressional election before running for President. (Not so) Cleverly came third behind the Liberal Democrats in Lewisham.

[Editor]

Thank you Mr President!

[william]

Cameron will have to start acting as leader, and take control of the situation. He has appointed the wrong people. He needs to change them. This is never an easy task.

If he does make the necessary tough decisions to change the inner team, and get it working better, we should all support him as it will be a tough time for him.

His current silence might be the quiet before the storm. It's like being sick. Horrible before, and during, but much better after.

[Londontory06]

Sometimes I despair of this site. Saying I told you so is the easiest thing in the world. Of course, I agree that mistakes are made by CCHQ but this relentlessly negative campaign against everything they try is too depressing for words. I know that the Editor used to work for the Party so he should know better than most how difficult it is to get a volunteer organisation working effectively.

Sorry Tim but all you are doing is giving ammunition to our political opponents with this constant carping.

[Donal Blaney]

Londontory06: if you want sycophantic and uncritical coverage of the Party, go to www.conservatives.com. Tim is stimulating debate and being constructively critical on this site and he deserves credit for raising issues that would otherwise remain buried and would not be addressed. At least by raising them they might be resolved and a few dozen activists who might otherwise cease to remain volunteers might instead remain involved.

[Annabel Herriott]

Well why does CCHQ have to be faceless? Im sure thats why folk get so antagonised. Why dont they publicise a complete list of all their officers, all their side kicks, hangers on etc, with their positions in CCHQ, and the background that got them those positions in the first place.
Then we could determine who, if any, merit a place in Inigo's lefty lexicon, or our version of labour do not do .com. From the posts, the impression is that a sizable minority of them have been promoted to their level of incompetance.( see The Peter Principle) I would love to be disabused of this impression, and I live in hope. Unlike Mrs Speight, I am, and remain, an optimist for the success of DC's programme.

[D]

Spot on Editor, I'm glad this is at last being brought to the fore.

Someone summed it up exactly right : pay peanuts, expect monkeys. CCHQ is staffed by an introverted London-centric clique of toryboys/girls who have the ambition but not the intelligence to make it in the City, and so choose to work for the party instead.

The way CCHQ has treated our candidates is an absolute disgrace.

And actually Im not convinced that this is Francis Maude's fault - the Professional Party as a whole, and not just CCHQ, is simply a joke. Their conduct is characterised by dirty tricks and knives in backs, and the 'corporate culture' of the proffessional party REWARDS FAILURE. This has to end.

Why can't CCHQ start paying real money, so they might attract people other than those who can afford to be paid nothing. "Normal" people. Real Conservatives who care about the Party.

If they paid real money and outsourced HR, making it properly competitive and fair, we might stand a chance of building the effective campaigning organisation we need.

But at the moment I'm afraid we don't stand a hope in hell.

[LondonTory06]

Donal Blaney... no one is talking about sycophantic and uncritical coverage... I accept that mistakes have been made by CCHQ, though again it is easy to blame them for everything when decisions are often made by people who don't even work there, such as MPs or volunteers.

What just depresses me is the tone and virulence - and unrelentingly negativity - of the analysis. Some balance is what is required.

[Max]

Doanl - I agree that it's better to do something about it when a problem is identified and Tim deserves credit for this. But at the same time it does seem that most articles have been fairly negative of late.

The consequence of this, it appears, is that the site increasingly attracts comments from those with an axe to grind and not those who are happy with DC's leadership. And if you do say something positive you can just about guarantee someone will be along to have a pop at you.

It just doesn't feel like much of a 'home' for a pro-DC Tory at the moment.

[D]

LondonTory06, i don't suppose you work in CCHQ by any chance...

[Kevin Davis]

They want a big hitter?

Was David Cameron a "big hitter" before last Summers leadership race?

[malcolm]

Nor would I accept for one moment that this site is only negative.Most of the threads are very much in support of the Conservative party and there are some very very ardent defenders of the party leadership who blog here almost every day.Admittedly there are some who see DC and his friends as little better than the devil and post everyday too.Isn't every political party the same?
A point I've made many times 'though why can't people blog using their real names? Perhaps using a pseudonym Londontory06 indicates you have an axe to grind too?

[Editor]

I am sensitive to suggestions that this site is becoming too critical and if people have more ideas for good news stories then please email them to me.

I have offered CCHQ a right to reply to today's post following a number of calls of complaint I received from CCHQ staffers earlier today.

What I would say to Londontory06 is that I have got to a point where I'm concluding that raising issues quietly and advisedly - on the Mayoral timetable, for example - appears to have zero impact.

A number of MPs, candidates and party officers have all rung/ emailed me today to agree with this post.

It's not the beginning of a big campaign against CCHQ. I've made my point and am happy to leave it there.

[James Maskell]

Im CPF Officer down here and have heard absolutely nothing about our views being sought on rebranding (which I would imagine would include policy). This Party is a joke with polciies which will hinder rather than help the campaign for next year.

Theres less than 9 months to go to the elections and we have no core strategy or policies settled. I have a personal interest in this as I hope to be the Tory candidate down here, but I only plan on standing once. If I fail to be elected, I wont stand again. If I fail to be elected, I will blame Cameron. Im working my ass off here and CCO isnt helping.

I dont think Cameron really understands the sacrifices those in the voiluntary Party make.

[Max]

Malcom - to be fair it was me who made the 'axe to grind' comment. My real hang up about this is that it does seem there are some (albeit a small minority) who are almost hostile towards those who take a differeing viewpoint.

And of course all parties have a mixture of views but (whether we like it or not!) we're all in this together and the least we can do is show one and other a bit of respect.

[Yet Another Anon]

If the Conservatives wanted a decentralisation programme for Northern England (as I notice was being noted as something not being addressed) then scrapping the Regional Assemblies and among other things perhaps setting up a Yorkshire Parliament, a Northumbrian Parliament, upgrading Lancashire County Council to a devolved parliament and restoring the pre 1974 boundaries and granting other counties a parliament. Then of course perhaps having a Cornish Parliament, Wessex Parliament etc... all with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament; the GLA to become a similar devolved parliament rather than merely a Regional Assembly - surely this might draw back support from the English Democrats and from other people who want devolution to come about but aren't impressed with John Prescott's attempts and who feel that really the whole of the UK needed simultaneous changes to the structure to ensure that what had been a very imbalanced situation became more balanced rather than merely introducing new imbalances; also the issue of devolution inside Scotland and Wales away from the Scottish and Welsh parliaments\Assemblies to properly address concerns in the Highlands and Islands and parts of North Wales for example. Abandoning any requirements for power sharing or for parties to register as Unionist or Nationalist, additionally it might be time to consider integrating Antrim into Scotland and perhaps transferring some border areas that are strongly Nationalist to Eire - the UK Unionist Party is right in that Ulster needs integrating into the rest of the UK, currently it is still run like an Imperial Province.

[malcolm]

So would you rather there was never any criticism Max? If that were the case Conservativehome would I think be dull,without its current readership and also without influence.
Perhaps some of the commentators should at times tone down their hostility.I'm as guilty of that as anyone but it is sometimes difficult to be polite to those who disagree with me as I know they're wrong!!

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Sorry Mr President. I was extremely impressed to see you posting here, especially since you don't actually exist (except in the fevered imagination of US liberals.) However, it would serve these "big hitters" right, whoever they are, if they end up being trumped by the Cleverlys of this (real) world.

As the polecat would say, "On yer bike" bighitter wannabes.

[william]

If you want to know why some people use pseudonyms, Malcolm - talk to the Editor. He knows why some have to use pseudonyms!

There are risks associated to being a political activist. It is not unknown for people to approach you, follow you, offer you incentives to lobby on their behalf etc.

Others may have personal reasons why they cannot use their proper identity. For example they may have a public position which requires them not to be seen to be partisan.

Some may not want their friends or family to know their political position. In general if pseudonyms were not allowed fewer people could talk openly. That would be a loss to the blogosphere.

[Alex]

Editor - this is a vitally important issue for all conservatives and well done for raising it. The perception of incompetence which is created by all this is potentially damaging. Competence used to be the Tories trump card ("you may not like them, but you voted for them because they got things done") until Black Wednesday - it has taken a political generation to recover from that. We have to show that we can manage our own affairs efficiently - otherwise why will the electorate trust us to run the country?

[Andrew Woodman]

Had to laugh when I saw this editorial, as I've been discussing the ineptness of central office this morning. Mainly about the rebranding. We and I'm sure many local associations have spent a fortune on stationary and posters after the last rebrand. We now have 6 months in limbo whilst the current rebranding in being carried out. All this whilst we're struggling to run and manage council elections and by elections. My advice would be forget the branding exercises and other wasteful nonsense, and employ a few people (on decent money not peanuts) in the regions to manage and run the party, have roadshows and canvess. It will win us many more votes than having a tree instead of a torch as our symbol.

[Jon White]

I do see your point William about use of pseudonyms, and everyone is entitled to anonymity - we do live in free society. (Well almost).

But I have to say that I generally have more respect for those that post under their real name. Having the 'balls' to stand by what you say in an open forum, without hiding who you are, is an admirable trait.

[william]

I'm not impresssed by London Tory 06.
'What just depresses me is the tone and virulence - and unrelentingly negativity - of the analysis. Some balance is what is required.'

OK here's a blank page - open 24 hours a day. Let's hear the opposite case. No one's stopping you...............

[Andrew Kennedy]

Stories about CCHQ (and CCO) are legendary.

I remember one occasion when I wanted to buy several thousand centrally produced leaflets.

The number on the order form was unobtainable. I called the CCO switchboard but the receptionist didn't know what I was talking about. I was put through to 3 different departments, none of which could help. Finally, she put me through "to Europe".

The phone in "Europe" rang for five or six minutes before being answered by a sloaney voice. I asked who I was speaking to and she replied, "Ffiona". I asked her if she could assist with my leaflets. "Oh I don't really know, I am only here helping out. I picked up the phone because it kept ringing and it was annoying me."

You couldn't make it up !

[Chris]

Henry W, I fully agree with your Santos analogy, and how it could apply to James Cleverly. Any "big hitter" which CCHQ does manage to find might have a recognisable name, but that name will no doubt be tainted by connections to people viewed in a bad light by the electorate eg. Thatcher. DC has proven that a new fresh face can quite easily win people's support.

People like James have great minds, and great ideas, lack of name recognition at present does not mean that by polling day they won't be well known. After all they will receive a large ammount of publicity thanks to the primary process, which will no doubt receive a large ammount of coverage from mainstream media, much like how DC raised his profile thanks to the large ammount of coverage by the BBC.

[Ted]

I think that this thread could have been more positive - I cringe when I read attacks on tory boys/girls to dim to make it in the city. I could find equally unfair & ill founded stuff to say about our constituency activists and local officials

Perhaps Tim should instead have led on what was needed to improve communications & campaigning, building a professional CCHQ rather than leading on complaints.

Yes CCHQ needs to adopt professional methods of working, it needs to make the most of resources it has both centrally and in the country, it needs to communicate better and work in partnership with constituency parties. It needs to look at its processes and how these can be improved, working with the larger voluntary party.

Constituency parties also need to improve considerably, they need to communicate with local members & supporters (not only ask for donations, sell lottery tickets or collect for leaving pressies). They need to prepare & plan and work with CCHQ people to see what both can contribute.

We need a central office, it has to be in London as that is the centre of government, the media, commerce, it must be run as a tight ship but lets recognise that (except for a very few) it is staffed by people who are not paid very well but accept that because they are conservatives and want to contibute/take part in political life.

Of course if we accepted state funding we could build a professional careerist CCHQ - but I don't think most members would want that.

[william]

Jon White. What if you were banned? Would you just disappear - or reincarnate yourself with a fresh ID?

If only real politicians could do that.....

This is the world of virtual politics. The rules are different.

[Jon White]

No William, I'm certainly not a 'real' politician, just a political anorak who enjoys the debates on this site. If people want to post under not their real name, then good luck to them.

But why would anyone ever ban ME? I'm too nice and cuddly for that to ever happen!

[Jon White]

Oh, and because I'm not a 'real' politician, I know absolutely nothing about Central Office! Consequently, I can add nothing useful to this debate, so I'll just read the entries from now on.

[Vernon Simcox]

Who appointed the Chairman of the Party?

[CJ]

What’s this … have a go at CCHQ day (like every other day) and everyone who works in it? No HQ ever runs completely satisfactorily to those in the field. Talk to any employee in a large business with a central HQ and they’ll tell you the same.

‘Some’ people in CCHQ might not be up to it, but the same can be said of ‘some’ of the party’s volunteers who at times take on roles to bolster their own self importance and little else. Most party staff, be they CCHQ employed or constituency agents do not earn near the salaries that are frequently published in the press – nothing like it! Many can’t afford mortgages, holidays or even to get their car serviced – that is their sacrifice for working for the party so get off their backs and before you all assume I work at CCHQ, no I don’t.

Candidates also sacrifice a lot for the party – time, money and at times careers - as has been noted earlier this week on this website. Many members of the voluntary party also give many valuable hours of time and money. There are a few bad eggs in every barrel but we are supposed to be a team and we all have to work together, so why don’t we just do that rather than making petty snide comments about each other.

And as for Bromley. ‘Hello’ – the reason we almost lost could be because of the lack of mutual aid. How many of you were there? And one person has already paid the price for the poor result ….

So back off and let’s get on with kicking Labour and the Lib Dems rather than ourselves.

[Max]

Malcolm that's not at all what I'm saying. No one minds constructive criticism so long as it's that.

It's just that browsing the comments (if not the articles) it maybe doesn't always come across that way.

[Andrew Woodman]

Cj, there are very few threads attacking the staff of CCO. It's the structure and the people to blame for that, are not people who can't afford mortgages, it's the people at the top. If any company was run like CCO, it would be bankrupt. It's OK saying attack the Lib Dems and Labour on here, but that won't get us any nearer winnign an election. Consructive comments about the problems in CCO and solutions will. No use burying our head in the sands and saying there isn't a problem.

[Patsy Sergeant]

From the various posts on this thread, it seems that many people do not have as much confidence in CCHQ as is needed if the conservative party is ever to get into power again.

How is CCHQ run/organised? Who is it answerable to or is it a dinosaur organisation answerable to no one? Does A current leader of the party have much say or carry much weight in insuring that CCHQ is run and working as efficiently as it needs to be? After all what worked 50yrs ago or 20yrs ago won't work today.

[A Candidate]

I did all in my power to ensure that any leaflet or paper in the General Election camapign last year "did not" come from CCHQ sources. Utterly unreliable and it is not a matter of bad people but not enough decentralisation. We have Coleshill but it is not decentralised. We need regional campaign offices and a seperation of campaigning from policy.

Still the more urgent problem are the 100's of candidates demoralised by the A list fiasco.

I have spent 1,000's of pounds and hours and when I look at it now I frankly feel like packing it in. The only sadness for me is that if I did no one at CCHQ could give a damn!

It is time to close CCHQ and decentralise to regional offices.

[CJ]

Dear Andrew - Yes you and others are right, parts of the structure do not work because, in effect, no one is top dog. Each part of the party looks after its own – the voluntary party don’t want association autonomy to be lost so we have some associations that do as they wish and ignore CCHQ and 21st century campaigning techniques, and at times policy, entirely and speak ‘off message’, we have some members of the parliamentary party who as soon as they don’t get their own way start kicking off – usually in the press – and some staff in CCHQ some of whom have never knocked on a door in their lives and have no idea what hard work it is on the ground in associations with few helpers and, in many cases, little money.

Do you really think posting comments about CCHQ on this blog will change the structure of the party and the running of CCHQ – how naïve …. I wish it were that easy and if it were then the problems would have been sorted out years ago. These are not new views being expressed here.

You think my head is buried. Far from it – I have worked for our party for years - both paid and unpaid - and see the problems of the party on an everyday basis. And yes, if everyone spent just a little less time blogging and moaning and holding 'meetings', got off their bottoms and knocked on a few more doors, spoke to a few more voters and delivered a few more leaflets we might start winning more. That's how you win elections.

[Jim Millar]

You are not alone. The Scottish Central Office lurches from act of ineptitude to the next, with some of them under the impression that they are in an abstract version of "The West Wing", whilst their efforts so far have resulted only in crushing failure. How do we get rid of these clowns?

[malcolm]

What a patronising attitude CJ.Do you really think your last post will really enthuse people about the work done at CCHQ?

[Andrew Woodman]

Of course I don't believe the structure will change because of a few comments on here. I don't see what's wrong with throwing ideas around with each other.

[anon]

As I posted elsehwere, someone once told me the following

There are three great lies in the world

1. I'll still love you in the morning

2. It's not you it's me

3. Hello, I'm from Central Office I'm here to help.

Oh how true that is!

[CJ]

I am sorry if you have misinterpreted what I have written. I did not mean to be patronising to CCHQ staff - far from it but from most of the comments here most people aren't enthused by anything done by anyone at CCHQ already! (example - anon @ 16.40)

Many of the staff are highly committed individuals who are not doing their jobs to 'get a better one later on' or to 'become an MP'. I was certainly not talking about CCHQ staff as a whole. I know that many of them knock doors regularly as they are friends of mine and we regularly knock doors together! I was merely using that as one example of the problems and did cite others with both the voluntary and parliamentary sides of the party.

[Association Chairman]

The real problem seems to be the lack of experience at CCHQ. Too many 20 and 30 somethings with little long term knowledge of what works and what doesn't. The rot set in with William Hague who effectively dumped from the front bench anybody who had been in government (except himself). The clean sweep theory seems to have been followed by DC. Ex candidates and MPs swept from the list and replaced by an A list which, whilst containing many excellent and tested candidates, also contained some who had little political experience and nous. Thes were given preference over candidates who had come close to winning key seats and whose associations wanted to reselect them.

We need a party which welcomes not only new young blood but also older experienced candidates who have the energy, commitment and openess to new ideas.

[Murphy]

Max: "...many pro-Cameron Tories don't bother posting here."

I'm a pro-Cameron Tory, which is why I very much welcome this article and the 'negative' comments.

There are of course some brilliant people at CCHQ and some utterly hopeless ones too. Unfortunately, degree of competence has very little bearing on pay or prospects.

All too often, good people get the sack, while bad people dig in -- or are even promoted.

Man management is a joke, and when a senior CCF staffer tried to do something systematic about it they were first encouraged and then forced out.

Fortunately these good guys usually go on to better things -- so like the Murphy's they're not bitter. Their attitude is one of gratitude for the amazing experience that working at CCHQ represets, but always there's that regret for one might have been had sanity prevailed.

For those of you who think that any big organisation is like that, you'd be right -- except it comes down to matter of degree. And I'm afraid that CCHQ is way up there on the David Brent scale of bad management.

[Vernon Simcox]

Seems to me that the Asda board have at various times in history made two great contributions to the Party chairmanship--the first Archie Norman brilliantly placed by Haigh,the second FM brilliantly placed by Dave.
Time for Tesco methinks!

[Yet Another Anon]

The rot set in with William Hague who effectively dumped from the front bench anybody who had been in government (except himself).
A lot of the people who lost their seats in 1997 who had been ministers never returned to the House of Commons, the frontbenches had already been heavily depleted when John Major got up to the Opposition despatch box (In terms of seats it was the biggest downsizing of the Conservative Parliamentary Party since 1906), then there were people such as Kenneth Clarke and Stephen Doran who simply refused positions (either because they were unhappy with policy, convinced that the frontbench was irrelevant at that time or who felt that it was right that some new faces had to appear on the frontbenches), John Major of course left the Shadow Cabinet when the new leader was chosen.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

As I posted elsehwere, someone once told me the following

There are three great lies in the world

1. I'll still love you in the morning

2. It's not you it's me

3. Hello, I'm from Central Office I'm here to help.

Oh how true that is

Please don't steal Reagan jokes.

[william]

Whatever happened to 'the cheque is in the post'?

As for CCHQ, all organisations are a mix of the brilliant to the capable to the borderline. What makes the difference to the output is the quality of the leadership.

[Matt Davis]

Don't kid yourselves that the Built To Last referendum has no purpose, it has a very serious one to Francis Maude. The inevitable vote of support for this document will then be used for several years to come as a demonstration of mass party support for his and DC's agenda and justification for a whole series of changes, policies etc that can be vaguely extrapolated from it.

Whether this turns out to be a good or bad thing remains to be seen, and will, of course, also depend upon your own view of where we should be going. But think carefully before mindlessly signing up to Built To Last, it is not going to remain as innocuous as it at first appears to be.

[tn1487]

There is too much emphasis on London for the North to really respect what happens at central office-they do seem to be ignored. Having to travel to London for everything is not ideal. For more emphasis-why cant you put some emphasis north of the watford gap, maybe even go so far as Manchester and then you can actually develop the regional centre. But I doubt that would ever happen.

[Michael Clarke,Chairman Northampton South]

In an effort to balance the criticism of CCH, one senior big hitter is working in the background, away from the media glare, and focusing on winning the 140ish Parliamentary seats we need to form a Government.

I have been impressed, as a Constituency Chairman, by the business like manner in which the strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats have been assessed by way of a thorough audit of our overall constituency situation.We will be bidding for scarce resources.We will be held rigourously to account.That is the way it is in running a successful organisation or business.
Allow me to suggest to anyone who has not yet read the incisive analysis of why we lost the 2005 General Election - "Smell the
coffee"- they do so.Note the author.We should be reassured by his presence and position.

[Alison Anne Smith]

3. Hello, I'm from Central Office I'm here to help.

Oh how true that is!

Posted by: anon | August 04, 2006 at 16:40

....Anon, you must be a Party Agent? well said !