"Target seat funding will follow the degree to which Associations follow the Party’s strategy, for example with regard to grouping and selecting the right candidate."

Iain Dale has a report from today’s Take Your Seat conference put on by Michael Ashcroft at the Millbrook Centre near Milton Keynes. Iain is very positive about the professionalism of the event. ConservativeHome understands that the best part of 1,000 people attended. A listers, MPs, constituency chairman and agents from target seats were among the audience. They heard presentations from David Cameron, Francis Maude, Michael Ashcroft himself, his Chief of Staff Stephen Gilbert who gave a detailed (warts-and-all) summary of the Party’s private polling, Gavin Barwell, Don Porter, Patrick McLoughlin. It seems that constituency associations were told to shape up or ship out. If they didn’t fall into line with the Centre’s plans for groupings, or they failed to support their candidates, they could not expect to receive any support from the centre – financial or otherwise.

The quote in the title of this post is from Gavin Barwell, part of Lord Ashcroft's team.

Comments

[James Maskell]

So Cameron is blackmailing Associations... Well, this Party is definitely going in a "New Direction'. Did Cameron mention this during his election campaign?

Even Labour hasnt stopped to these lows. This is a shocking political move and I hope Associations will not back down to this. This is blackmail, plain and simple.

[Andrew Woodman]

"and selecting the right candidate."

What's that supposed to mean? Id it directed at associations choosing local candidates instead of A listers?

[Drew SW London]

Scandalous.

The owner of a hugely valuable franchise exerting some sort of quality control over the franchisees?

This is not the kind of party my Association Chairman fought for in the Boer War...

[NigelC]

There are some consituencies where elected Conservative councillors might reflect on whether their policies are helpful to the PPC. If lack of funding focuses the mind I am for it

[Scotty]

"So Cameron is blackmailing Associations... Well, this Party is definitely going in a "New Direction'."
James, I have had a look at Iain Dale and Mark Clarke's blogs. They both seem very impressed and positive about what they saw and heard today. David Cameron and CCHQ are NOT trying to blackmail anyone, but what they do seem to want is an organised, dedicated election fighting machine which is fit to really take on the REAL opposition at the next GE.
You seem to want to extrapolate any hint of negativity and turn into some sort of them and us battle. It is Labour and the Libdems which we need to be fighting in the constituencies not each other. This is a party preparing the groundwork to fight a GE not some playground joust.

[James Maskell]

The more I think about this, the worse it sounds. The candidate bit was just an example. He must include policy along with the relationship between CCO and Associations, changes to internal rules.

The most disturbing part of this is the implied threat that if we do not support the New Conservative Party, the Conservatives will literally abandon us and leave us to our own resources, knowing that we cant cope without outside help. The Conservative Party is threatening to abandon its own local Parties, the very people that helped this Party get to where it is today.

If Cameron want a fight over the future of this Party, he can have one. But he should never underestimate the Associations.

[Modern Conservative]

James, I think thats a bit strong. The big doners give money centrally and in effect are giving it because they are buying into the strategy of CCHQ.

Lord Ashcroft himself has spent a lot of his own money and wants to see that his and other doners money is well spent. Why should they expect anything less?

[Scotty]

James, to late your off and running and you have turned it into war based on what??? Certainly not what you have read on the two blogs of people who actually attended.
The most disturbing part of this is the implied threat that if we do not support the New Conservative Party, the Conservatives will literally abandon us and leave us to our own resources. Um, would that be the party led by David Cameron with which you have been totally fulsome in your support? Not!

[hf]

No problem with what is proposed in theory.

But what "central support" have they provided in the past?

Putting 3 weak constituencies together could make the combined 3 even weaker. Ever looked at merger success?

Most of the required activity is at the Branch level and a new "super centre" could make things worse.

The real problem is that the big rich constituencies that have safe seats just hoard resources. No change there then.....

[James Maskell]

Damn straight we should be fighting the Lib Dems and Labour and that I have been doing since I got interested in politics. I cant wait for the election proper next year. I love nothing more than looking at a speech or a press release by Labour or the Lib Dems and tearing the whole thing apart.

The simple fact is, Cameron is threatening to remove support from Associations which dont go along with his strategy. Thats blackmail.

[Paul Kennedy]

It was an excellent event and Lord Ashcroft and his team are to be congratulated.

With regards to, "shape up or ship out" I think it is more accurate to say that what was being proposed was that Associations can either professionalise their organisation, for which considerable help and support is available, or shun what is on offer, get left behind and "wither on the vine".

[James Maskell]

"Um, would that be the party led by David Cameron with which you have been totally fulsome in your support? Not!"

I support the Party and what it truly stands for. I do not stand for the leadership or the new policies and other changes they have brought in. Ive been a member for 3 years and have campaigned in three elections. My loyalty to the Party isnt in question.

[Iain Dale]

James Maskell, you are so, so wrong. Mark and I were there. You weren't. It's got nothing to do with blackmail. It has everything to do with being professional.

[James Maskell]

So if Associations wont "professionalise", they wont get CCO support, financial or otherwise...how is it not blackmail. Its forcing change with a threat.

[Mark Clarke]

I also have a report on the conference on my CF focused blog:

http://markclarke.blogspot.com/

[John Moss]

I said I would report back after the Chingford Dinner and my question to Mr Cameron on opening some winnable seats to the full list of Approved Parliamentary Candidates.

His response was that once a sufficient number fo those candidates who were felt to be under-represented were selected, future selections would be opened out to everybody.

On the point of this thread, it is wrong to say the Labour Party wouldn't stoop this low, they've been doing it for years.

It is about time the "voluntary" side of the party organised itself to deliver across a far wider area and stopped being focused on its own 1,000+ ward majority here and then losing by tens of votes just down the road.

I for one would be very happy if the centre would add some pressure on behalf of those of us who want to see a more streamlined and organised operation, rather than the rag-bag of grotty offices above shops and wheezy risographs we have to deal with right now.

[Anon]

"I support the Party and what it truly stands for. I do not stand for the leadership or the new policies and other changes they have brought in."
And there is the problem, you can't successfully do one without the other, it just does not work. And if you have not learnt that over the last 15 years then you must have missed the huge electoral disaster of not just producing policies which did not attract enough voter's but also the huge damage that infighting has done the party. I would say that the disunity within the party has been the biggest single negative which has stopped us being to get above 200 seats in Westminster.

[Paul Kennedy]

James 22:04

Quite frankly if they won't they aren't much use to the Party.

Emotions aside, look at successful business models, supermarkets for example, a local store manager has certain freedoms in the running of their store, however they are expected to work within the overall business strategy, if they don't they, not unreasonably, get "short shift".

I must confess that when I became actively involved with the Party, and coming from a business background, I couldn't believe in general how amateurish it all was, albeit that the people involved were all well meaning and genuinely trying their best, but they simply need help.

What is being proposed is a breathe of fresh air, bring it on that is what I say, as in the end we and our country will be the winners!!!

[Matt Wright]

This is just about professionalism, plain and simple. Its not anything to do with blackmail. There is at last common sense emanating from the centre of the Party. This will actually give more autonomy to candidates and associations so long as they work hard, but thats right, none of us want to be carrying people,

Matt

[Scotty]

Paul, Mark or Iain, you all seem very impressed and positive about the event today. Would not ask you for any further detail, but wonder if your own impressions seemed to be shared by other's who attended the event?

[Cllr Nicholas Bennett]

I wasn't able to attend the meeting but we do have to become far more professional in the way we operate as local associations.

Wandswoth's three association's calculated that £10,000 a year of their members subs went straight to the local council in business rates. They formed a Borough Group about 3-4 years ago, centralised their operations in one constituency office and can now employ 1.4 professional agents but secretarial assistance plus decent printing equipment etc. The Associations continue in being and two have leased their headquarters out and raise funds. The three associations now have an extra £70k a year and a much more professional approach. The Borough Grouping Chairman is always from a different constituency to that of the Deputy.

As a constituency chairman in Bromley I would welcome a similar approach in our borough. At present we have three constituencies - one agent, three HQs plus part time secretaries and a variety of printing machines. Shortly we will have a fourth constituency with an interest when Lewisham West adds three Bromley wards and becomes Lewisham West & Penge. They, too have an HQ but cannot afford any staff.

As it becomes more and more difficult to get active volunteers who will deliver leaflets and as they way in which organisations communicate changes to greater use of websites, texting etc so we need to ensure we can afford the professional staff trained to do this.

[Michael Rutherford]

It all seems quite reasonable to me, if an association can't stick behind its candidate and are refusing to listen to memos about the organisation of the constituency and campaigning, why should they get additional funds?

These are, after all, attempts for additional resources as opposed to basic ones. It surely goes without saying that the additional cash should go to the best associations who should put up a good fight to get their candidate elected.

[Mark Clarke]

"Paul, Mark or Iain, you all seem very impressed and positive about the event today. Would not ask you for any further detail, but wonder if your own impressions seemed to be shared by other's who attended the event?"

My deputy Chairman, Claire Palmer, has posted a review on her blog and she also had a positive experience.

http://claire.clairepalmer.net/blog

[Sandbagger]

Can someone give me a straight answer?
If a Constituency does not choose a candidate who fits in the profile of the Candidates Board 'A'list then they will lose funding even if the person they choose can lead to a Tory victory.Is that what they are saying?? Give a straight answer to a straight question?
Is this another case of making up it up as they go along. Methinks I wouldn't let them run a sweetie shop if this is what they are about. If we don't win the next election and it's by no means certain then this lot will have destroyed what is left or the Real Tory Party and it will never recover, I am willing to listen to anyone who may disagree but it had better be good.I hear from Tories all over the Country who think that the leadership have lost their marbles. Hug a Hoodie! Try to understand teenage thugs as it really isn't their fault. Whoever believes this rubbish should join the Lib Dems. They have a lot of similar ideas. Leave the Tory Party to real Tories.

[Andrew Kennedy]

I am far from being a fully fledged Cameroon, and I have posted here many times about the autonomy of local Associations and the A List. However, with regard to this particular issue I do not think we can be too critical.

Basically what CCHQ are saying is, "if you want us to pay your bills you spend the money the way we tell you to."

The Associations objecting have a choice - raise your own funds and become self-sufficient.

If the marginal seats, my own included, are happy to accept central funding then we cannot object when the paymaster demands some control over how that money is spent.

As for "groupings" I fully endorse Nicholas Bennett's comments above. Providing CCHQ are not going to force "federation agreements" upon unwilling Associations I cannot see a problem. Pooling bricks and mortar and establishment costs will maximise efficiency and release resources for campaigning.

If it wasn't for such an arrangement my own marginal seat would have ceased to function many years ago. By sharing an office and "buying in" Agent and administrative services from the neighbouring safe seat our small team are able to focus our efforts on campaigning rather than fund-raising.

[Modern Conservative]

Sandbagger - It really irritates me when people who apparently are Conservatives misrepresent what other Conservatives have said. DC to my knowledge didn't use the phrase "Hug A Hoodie", the phrase originated when Labour wanted to attack the speech. So why would you want to repeat it?

And speaking as someone who was mugged earlier in the year I wholeheartedly agree with what DC did say which was: "people want their politicians to ask the question: 'What is it that brought that young person to commit that crime at that time? What's the background to it, what are the long-term causes of crime?"

[Cllr Joe Mooney]

Calm down James the proposals are not blackmail. The Leadership are only trying to make sure that members and officers of local Associations are well trained on how to win and retain seats.

I am convinced we can win more seats in all elections by working smarter and by following the advise that we receive from our central election teams. James I do not see any secret agenda here.

[Are you thinking what we're thinking?]

'The Conservative Party is threatening to abandon its own local Parties, the very people that helped this Party get to where it is today'

There is another competitor in the market place so if the Tory Toffs don't want them there is another home for these people.
U*** know who.........

[Anon]

"There is another competitor in the market place U*** know who........."
This will be the bunch that think its okay to use the tragic disaster in Darfur in a supposedly "satirical" spoof. No thanks.

[Off Message]

Great event yesterday. Professional and purposeful.

The "right candidate" reference was about picking someone who will work hard - nothing more.

In fact it was made quite clear that the local campaign will have less central direction than ever before. "We will trust the Candidate", was a central message. Candidates can expect less prescription from the centre but more resource. The only quid pro quo was that Associations and Candidates are expected to show and support total professionalism. So - more freedom but also more accountability.

[Paul Kennedy]

I think Off Message 08:29 is very much "On Message" and accurately summarises the discussions as I recall them yesterday.

[Alison Anne Smith]

"we should be fighting the Lib Dems and Labour and that I have been doing since I got interested in politics. I cant wait for the election proper next year."

I totally agree James. Beating Labour in Brighton is the reason I still belong to the Party. CCHQ's obsession with "proffesionalism" is laughable. Volunteers are just that not "proffesional" politions. Just leave associations to get on with canvassing etc and getting voters out on the day.

[rallies]

Odd isnt it Cameron is proposing localism, with local councils taking control of financial matters and policy, yet he is taking this away from our own associations?

It is not for CCHQ to decide who to help, it is there responsibility to help all candidates win elections, not just people they want. If it goes the way they want we are worse than Labour, and have an effective dictatorship within the party. Communism the Conservative way.

[Klamm]

There is a clear need to professionalise some local parties and wield the stick to some.

Many Associations are excellent with committed people running right through it. A significant number of others in target areas are basket cases infested with people running them for years who are utterly incompetent, with councillors who don't care if the PPC wins because their only concern is their own ward. These basket cases tho' won't accept they are a problem which makes things worse.

Of course, those in good seats take umbrage about the 'stick' but they don't need it and won't get it.

Ed- can we start a competition on the worst Association covering a target seat?

[Mike Christie]

As someone else who attended the event I left with a real buzz. As an officer in a association that fits too many of the stereotypes of the failing association that were presented, I feel excited at the possibility that we could break out of the vicious circle of not having enough active members to fulfill our objectives.

There is a lot of resistance within the party to structural change. One of my pet hates is the phrase 'we've always done it like that'. It isn't an answer to anything, its an excuse.

As to not funding associations who refues to change. If I was a big party donor, giving tens or hundreds of thousands to the party, I'd be absolutely furious if it was given to an association that was still insisting on trying to do things the way they'd done them since the 50s.

[Annabel Herriott]

Drew. SW London,4/11 21.39.
On the mark, subtle, very funny. It takes a beat after reading your post to realise that you have a dinosaur in your midst, and points up the challenge that CCHQ have. But CCHQ must be careful to retain the baby, when throwing out the bath water.

[Alison Anne Smith]

"with councillors who don't care if the PPC wins because their only concern is their own ward."

Klamm, you very seldom find a PPC win a seat where we don't have the ward councillors. So we need the Clls to conscentrate on winning their seats however much MPs look down their noses at local politions.

[toryabc]

Hooray, the harsh facts of life have now been spelt out to the party.

[Klamm]

Very true Alison Anne Smith (11.47).

Whilst many MP's and some PPC's look down their noses which is obviously wrong, there are many councillors who do not understand or care about the importance of forming the next government.

I remember in 2005 we never saw some councillors and when we knocked on one door in the campaign a week before polling, we realised it was a county councillors' house. He wife said he was out playing golf. He hadn't done a thing since the PPC was selected.

It is not every councillor of course, but Association's should get the message that this should not be tolerated.

[Anon]

John @22:08 I for one would be very happy if the centre would add some pressure on behalf of those of us who want to see a more streamlined and organised operation, rather than the rag-bag of grotty offices above shops and wheezy risographs we have to deal with right now.

Couldn't agree with you more. Having been involved with the Party in a voluntary and paid capacity for over 30 years I have not felt as much optimism from one of these conferences for years. Michael Ashcroft is firm in his resolve and good on him.

Being involved with 'safe' and 'target' seats, the contrast could not be more different. Lots of the volunteers in our targets want to win; they know what they have to do, they just need some help, either money or bodies. Some of our safe seats frankly couldn't give a damn and can't be bothered to do any campaigning whatsoever 'we always do well so we don't need to spend money on leaflets' (or in some cases fundraising either) and as others have said, sit on property and huge bank accounts, racking up huge majorities.

It's about time that someone put the record straight - some of us have been saying the same for years and are very pleased it has now been said.

Groupings can work as well as fail. With the few agents we now have it means that resources can be pooled, good admin staff employed to deal with things like membership renewal, draw reminders etc and agents can do what they are paid to do which is manage and run election campaigns rather than act as glorified administrators in some cases. Before anyone comments, I am not dissing agents here, just know that some are frustrated with what their officers think the role of an agent is!

rallies @ 10:51: It is not for CCHQ to decide who to help, it is there responsibility to help all candidates win elections.

Of course CCHQ has a responsibility for all but targeting is not targeting if you give it to everyone! It was clearly expressed who will get help, the list is organic (I hate that phrase) and is a moveable feast. There are seats that have a much better of chance of being a CON GAIN that others, and those must be helped and Associations have to help too and that is what Michael Ashcroft was saying. Some may call it blackmail, I call it moving into the 21st century.

Alison @ 10:42 – I ask the question, why can’t volunteers for the Conservative Party be ‘professional’. You are treated professionally by a volunteer in a charity shop. What’s the difference? It’s still voluntary activity whether for a recognised charity or a political party. Training is available if anyone wants it.

And sadly we can’t ‘just leave associations to get on with canvassing etc and getting voters out on the day.’ I’d be happy if associations did just that. They don’t, hence the strategy now in place.

(Sorry for the length but I am so annoyed with some of the comments here. It makes me wonder if everyone does actually want to win.)

[James Maskell]

How does the term "strategy" end up meaning professionalisation? I think some people are missing the wording of the quote here. No one has a problem with being professional. Why would anyone object to it? Associations object to being controlled by CCO so much. Thats the real problem.

A theoretical question here, if target seats have their funding and other support withdrawn, will they still have to cough up affiliation fees and other payments to CCO?

[Off Message]

Target seats don't have any funding so "their" funding can't be withdrawn. If you mean the money which some people are putting up to help those who want to work hard to win then, yes, that may not be given but changes nothing else about relationships between Associations and the centre.

I really do need a new name as I seem to be about the most On Message person on here. I'll have to start a thread on the things I don't agree with (apart from James Maskell's constant and, in this case, totally unjustified whinging).

[James Maskell]

The most on message person is Jack Stone. You are close, but not quite there.

Just realising the theoretical question was complete bollox. I take it back. Ive been suffering the past few days from a nasty cold and I havent been shooting on all cylinders...woke up this morning looking like something out of Michael Jackson's Thriller.

[Alison Anne Smith]

My gripe with the word proffesional is it was used against my association by the last PPC, who then went on to lose and blame her own inadequacies on the Associations alledged lack of it. It seems ro give PPCs an easy excuse for not having done better.

[Anon]

Alison - if that is the case it may be wrong but I do not know the PPC or Association involved so cannot comment on your own situation. However in PPCs' defence I do know of cases where hardworking PPCs have not had the backup they need or should expect from the Association. Note Gavin Barwell's comment yesterday about money being kept for a 'rainy day'.

My gripe is with volunteers who use the fact they are volunteers to act in a totally unprofessional manner to the public and staff in Association offices. Not having professional staff employed by volunteers might be a step in the right direction but think that subject may need a thread all of its own!

[Alison Anne Smith]

"Anon" are you an Agent by any chance ?!

[Derek]

I was very impressed by what I saw and heard yesterday. Michael Ashcroft is very professional, and he is just the man for the job. This does not mean we have to swallow every message coming out of CCHQ, but we must work together if we are to win. The help is there for those associations that need it, but it is still possible to be independent, provided you can manage the finances and carry out a political campaign.

[Anon]

Alison - No I'm not, just sticking up for the little people. Not sure I have the patience to deal with the bad employee working conditions, grotty offices, low pay, unpaid overtime and no thanks but blame when it doesn't all go right. I do know some and the stories I've heard are shocking. Association staff, org secs, agents and admin staff are on the front line. A fact that everyone seems to forget and no one seems to cares about.

But this is off the point. Back to yesterday ....

[tapestry]

James Maskell. If the Constituencies could raise their own funds they could do their own thing. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

[James Maskell]

If Association staff are being badly treated its clearly wrong and that should be condemned.

Professionalisation of Associations is a valid issue in this thread I think. But the implication is that if target seats do not follow the strategy, whatever that might be though candidate selection and the A List are clearly involved, that support will be withdrawn, I have serious worries about this. Would Cameron seriously sacrifice target seats in order to prove a point about towing the Party line?

[Matt Wright]

The event was excellent. It was the opposite of centralisation and is giving candidates the backing and letting them get on with it so long as they work hard. There was a lot of talk about local campaigns and local candidates not just a-listers. There is a clear move in the right direction,

Matt

[Old Hack]

This is the third post general election target seat briefing I've been to since 1997 and all I can say is 'plus ce change'. More high tech perhaps, interesting venue but content? Hah!

Yet more posturing and promises from CCHQ, mostly carrot and stick stuff designed to frighten the recalcitrants and entice the naive. Sorry chaps, but you simply have got to look out as much for what isn't said, ignore the smoke and mirrors (by way the seats were rock hard, it was very cramped and poorly ventilated) and listen carefully for the throwaway comments - they are often as relevant as the speakers main message.

Case in point - Merlin is being rolled out first in London seats where there are no elections next year - so does that mean we'll be running BlueChip until at least June '07? Nice if they'd just out and say so.

Back to my main point - I fully accept that there are crap associations out there who need their arses kicked but at the event it was pretty clear that Associations are being tarred by the same brush - simply to push grouping.

There is no longer any such thing as a role model conservative association in the eyes of the party hierarchy because they want 100 grouped campaign centres instead. Nothing any Association does by itself holds any merit for the centre. Think about it - we the grassroots are dinosaurs - an embarrassing relic and our structures are outmoded, not fit for purpose. Great way to enthuse your activists.

The risk in all of this is that in pursuing the organisational objective of grouping (of which the likes of Maude and Browning seem obsessive) the far more important goal of delivering an MP to Parliament is in danger of being overlooked. That should come first -pragmatism rules in my book.

The same old one size fits all solution mentality at CCHQ which has caused so much damage in the past is still rampant and being fuelled by the 'change' agenda.

There is some limited anecdotal evidence of some groupings delivering electoral success (one actually - the Forest of Dean), but quite frankly there is just as much, if not more, evidence that a well run Association can produce an excellent electoral result. But you'd wait a long time for these MPs running the Party to admit it.

I always wonder if I actually gain anything by being at these events - I suppose it gives one an insight to just what the brains in the centre are thinking. But just what to do to win next time? Nada, nothing, zilch.

[Richard Carey]

Case in point - Merlin is being rolled out first in London seats where there are no elections next year - so does that mean we'll be running BlueChip until at least June '07? Nice if they'd just out and say so.

On this one point - my understanding is that MERLIN was rolled out first in some London seats purely on the basis that the CCHQ IT team could get there easily if support was needed or bugs were found. Would you put your beta testers at the opposite end of the country to your developers and support staff? I'm obviously not kept up to date with progress, but my undersanding was that the remainder of the rollout was to take place in this quarter.

There is so much in this thread that I would like to respond to, but don't have the energy at this hour!! The points about the need for increased professionalism (including learning how to spell it) in local associations are very well made.

But I'll save my views on that for a more civilised hour!

[Gareth]

On the whole, I thought the event was helpful and informative. I'm not convinced it was senseible to kick the whole thing off though, with what was a pretty blatant attempt to bully associations into selling their offices.

We've been here before, of course, when a certain former supermarket executive tried to re-organise the voluntary party as if it were another supermarket chain rather than a voluntary organisation. That attempt was quietly ditched in the face of massive opposition from associations and I suspect this one will go the same way.

It's strange that the party is for 'localism' in all except the running of the party - where central dictat reigns supreme.

[Alison Anne Smith]

"Would Cameron seriously sacrifice target seats in order to prove a point about towing the Party line?"

James, I hope not but some CCHQ pedants sadly might.

[elrafa]

Come on Alison, name names!!

I'll add to your list!!

[Richard Weatherill]

"It's strange that the party is for 'localism' in all except the running of the party - where central dictat reigns supreme."

Good point, Gareth.

It's pretty easy to say that you're in favour of "localism" when you're in opposition. (Especially when NuLab is perceived as being particularly centralising and paternalistic.) However, the cynic in me worries that this 'localist' agenda might well be torn up pretty quickly were the Conservatives ever to achieve power. CCHQ's attitude towards the Associations doesn't bode well in this respect. (Though I wasn't at the Milton Keynes event, so my view isn't based on what happened there.)

I'm afraid that all governments, of whatever persuasion, have a tendency to cling on to (or, more often, extend) central control. 'Localist' promises should therefore be treated in the same way as promises to cur back on bureaucratic red tape - I'll believe it when I see it!

[Alison Anne Smith]

lol

[MH]

Ok, the base line is that the Party is uber short of money - in a worse state than could have been anticipated. The electoral commission changes and the furore of peerage sales is discouraging big donations to all parties, but the Conservatives do not have trade unions as any partial substitute.

This means that associations are now being seen as the only possible source of short term funds. Now, I have some symapthy with CCHQ. When I was an Association Chairman in 2002-2005, our branches had £38k in the bank that was doing not a great deal. However, if the tactics are pure bullying as these seem to be, it will mean the collapse of associations through grouping (the smaller and weaker leech off the stronger and do not just raise the average) and the membership will walk away. Either way, it's a recipe for a continuation of the protracted death od the Conservative Party.

[Mike Christie]

MH, I have to disagree. Our association is one that could be classed as weak. We have some cash in the bank, but little income and small number of active members.

I'm very enthusiastic about grouping, not so we can leech off another association, but because at the moment we are in a position where we are below the 'critical mass' where we can get things going properly.

We have too few activists with too little free time to do the canvassing and other activities that would help us grow.

Teamwork between associations can only benefit the party as a whole.

It is crazy having associations in safe seats sitting on huge bank balances and putting in lots of work to increase a 12,000 majority to 15,000 where nearby we have marginal seats struggling with a lack of resources failing to win by a few hundred votes.

[James Maskell]

I dont think smaller Associations have a problem with asking for help from neighbouring Associations which are in a position to help. The problem here is that the threat isnt over smaller Associations not working with larger Asociations or in teamwork, but in following the Party strategy, including with candidate selection. Its not about the relationship between Associations, its about the Conservative groups in target seats towing the Party line.

[Mike Christie]

James, I'm afraid I just don't see the problem in telling associations that if they want to benefit from the funding and resources being developed by Lord Ashcroft, they have to move into the 21st century and do things in a more efficient way.

The party has an overriding aim and ambition. That is to form the next government. Everyone has their part to play, and it should be in all our minds when we are carrying out any party-related activity.

Our resources are shrinking in terms of personnel. Party membership has declined massively, and isn't likely to go back to the levels of the 1950s. The party structure and methods of work need to change to reflect that.

I've been told my branch used to have ward meetings with 50 people in attendance, now we're lucky to get into double figures for a meeting of the branch.

To cling to the old structures because 'we've always done it this way' is to seriously hamper ourselves in the battles ahead.

We are Conservatives. If someone suggested subsidising a business that refused to modernise and streamline itself, we'd be the first to say they should get themselves in order before wasting money.

When it comes to our associations, why should it be any different? Advances in technology affect us no differently to any business. Just as much as the Social Action Programmes let us 'show not tell' when it comes to our involvment in the party, surely we should take the same 'show not tell' attitude when it comes to running things efficiently.

[Mike Christie]

That should read :

"Just as much as the Social Action Programmes let us 'show not tell' when it comes to our involvment in the community"

[James Maskell]

Bernard Jenkins said he would die in a ditch in order to defend the independence of Associations in terms of selecting candidates. This was in the debate with Anne Widdecombe and Laura Sandys for 18DS.

This isnt about professionalism. The word professionalism never appeared, Its about following the strategy, including candidate selection. Its about target seat campaigners towing the Party lines. If it was about professionalism it wouldnt be so hush hush.

[Mike Christie]

James, were you at the event? Or are you extrapolating everything from the quote in the headline of this thread?

There were around three hours of presentations by around ten different speakers.

The whole thrust of the day was around using resources efficiently and effectively and presenting what resources were available and about to become available.

[Anon]

Why is everyone getting so hung up about strategy v. professionalism. Part of the strategy is to be more professional. And what is wrong with party campaigners towing the Party line. I call that discipline and that's in the strategy too.

[James Maskell]

No, I didnt attend. But it doesnt mean I cant comment on what has emerged from it. The Party doesnt want any info to come out for whatever reason, so what do you expect me to comment on?

[Richard Weatherill]

Just to be pedantic - can we please "toe" the party line (if that's what we want to do)rather than "towing it"? All this is making my tows curl!

[James Maskell]

Im sure we get the jist... Fair enough Richard.

[Mike Christie]

James, I'm not saying you can't comment, however you seem to be determined to blow this up into a huge issue, when the people who were there seemed to be enthused and excited by what they heard. Not everything is some dark and devious plot to undermine life as we know it.

This was the launch of our target seats campaign, one of the most crucial planks of our strategy for winning the next election. Its hardly the sort of thing you'd expect us to splash all over the press.

The main thing to note is that the party is deadly serious about winning the next election. It is preparing the ways and means to deliver victory. It will be a team effort to ensure the team wins, not a host of solo performances.

[Anon]

Sorry. I should no better

[Gareth]

Their ambition of reducing by 3/4 the number of local offices is insane. Conservative offices should be/are at the heart of a community. They are the lifeblood of most associations: raising money and allowing councillors to be as close to their electorates as possible. It is madness to 'manage decline' by closing them rather than being ambitious and keeping them open and aspiring for more.

[Anon]

Conservative offices at the heart of the community - I wish. And as for councillors being close to their electorate. I can name many councillors who never set foot in their associations offices.

Where did you get the 3/4 figure from? What Ashcroft and others are saying is that the offices need to be 'fit for purpose'. Modern offices with good IT equipment, printers, copiers. No one is saying that local fundraising would cease and there is no reason why it should.

For many associations their premises are not the life blood, but more the pulsating open wound in which scarce funds are used as sticking plaster, in paying business rates, electricity bills and the like.

[Matt Wright]

Oh Dear. There seems to be 1 or 2 (who as in James's case didn't even attend the event) who invent a position and then exaggerate it more and more in each succesive post. The event covered a whole range of issues and many good ideas for modernising the party. Yes I don't think "modernising" is a swear word and I do think that many associations are still in the dark ages with significant numbers of members and activists who haven't a clue what a modern campaign is about and what a PPC does. Worse still some don't seem to want to know and revel in being negative and obstructive. Has something got to be done about this? You bet! It seems to me that CCHQ are actually being quite tolerant given the fact that we could win the next election and voters are turning to us again. We really need more officers/associations to wake up and start asking what they can positively do and stop whingeing,

Matt

[More to the Point]

It really is very disturbing the extent to which Ashcroft calls the tune in the Party. Imagine *just one* Labour donor had this *clear* power over them. We'd never shut up about it, and rightly so.

[Gareth]

'Anon' - the 3/4 figure comes from Angela Browning's presentation right at the start of the event! They made no bones about this being their ambition.

Having recently moved from an association with a high street office to one without any premises at all, I know only too acutely the huge disadvantages that come from being without a 'window on the community'(or one thing, my spare room could be freed from boxes of leaflets and old account books).

As I said in my earlier post their 'ambition' is, in fact, managing decline rather than arresting and reversing it. But it's pie in the sky anyway, they have no power to make assocs. sell offices and none in their right mind would do so.

[Mike Christie]

Gareth, the era of mass party membership is over. We have to face it. People have so many other things to do, more opportunities, more demands on their time. It is not about managing decline, it is about waking up to the reality of life in our time.

The ambition is to win the next election, everything about the party needs to be structured towards that.

[Tory Loyalist]

The same old story.

We do all the donkey work and raise money for the love of it.

They swan along in the rarified atmosphere of their self-important and well-paid careers and think they can bully us around like a bunch of skivvies.

These days local associations retain so little autonomy they might as well pack up altogether.

[James Maskell]

"There seems to be 1 or 2 (who as in James's case didn't even attend the event) who invent a position and then exaggerate it more and more in each succesive post"

I wasnt invited, nor did I know about this until I saw the article here. I couldnt have attended it anyway as Im completely skint. If Im so wrong give more detail about what was said...

[Tory Loyalist]

Nor was I, but that's hardly surprising

ConservativeHome understands that the best part of 1,000 people attended. A listers, MPs, constituency chairman and agents from target seats were among the audience

Says it all really.

We work...and give.

They take.

[Mike Christie]

Tory Loyalist, James, it is hardly some great conspiracy that more people weren't invited.

Who would you expect to be at the launch of our target seats strategy? Anyone and everyone?

I'm a volunteer like you, I got up at 6am, drove for 4 hours to attend the event and I find your inference that everyone who attended is somehow on the make vaguely insulting. The majority of attendees were constituency officers.

[Tory Loyalist]

The majority of attendees were constituency officers

____________________________________________

Well Mike I've had years of dealing with constituency officers, and as I was once one myself I agree they're not all on the make, particularly since the MBEs stopped coming.

But, paradoxically, they are frequently among the least experienced and most easily influenced people in an association.

And it was "constituency officers" who failed to protect association autonomy, one of the "crown jewels" of Toryism.

Sorry to hear you had to get up at 6am. Strangely enough I do that every day.

[Mike Christie]

Tory Loyalist, you're missing the point.

I was objecting to your holier-than-thou patronising and inaccurate attitude that 'you' work, and 'I' as one of the attendees at this event, take.

Seriously, you could have chosen the attendees for the event, who would you have invited if not candidates, agents and senior association, area and regional officers?

[Gareth]

Mike,

I don't think any of us doubt what the ambition is and should be. The question is whether selling 3/4 of our local offices ought to be part of that plan. Simply asserting that it is 'modern' to do so is lame. As lame as Blair saying that ID cards are 'modern' as if somehow that's the end of the debate.

[Mike Christie]

Gareth, you're right that we should be very wary of doing anything because it is 'modern'. Just because something is an established way of doing things doesn't mean it is wrong.

However, the number of people, myself included, who were jokingly suggesting that CCHQ had been to their constituency office to get ideas for the image of a failing office makes me think they have a point.

In an ideal world, every association would have loads of members, pots of money and a well-staffed, efficient office.

Too many associations have a dwindling and aging membership, decaying office, shrinking bank balance and a rapidly-diminishing ability to run solid campaigns.

We can bury our heads in the sand, or we can adapt to the realities of modern life.

If you are fortunate enough to live in a constituency with a vibrant, useful office why not contact some less-fortunate associations in your area and talk to them about becoming a campaign center for them.

[Gareth]

I recognise your description of a failing association but fail to see how selling its only asset would help matters.

[Mike Christie]

Because the asset isn't an asset, its a drain on a limited income.

If the office isn't being put to good use, it is just a building getting musty and damp. Money is wasted on bills.

We have seriously considered selling our office. It has been debated by association officers on more than one occassion. It is maybe only caution that it holding us back.

We shouldn't be the party that sentimentally holds on to old ways of doing things when they cease to be effective.

[Anon]

To repeat my earlier comment:

For many associations their premises are not the life blood, but more the pulsating open wound in which scarce funds are used as sticking plaster, in paying business rates, electricity bills and the like.