The three candidates for chairman of the National Conservative Convention agree that the grassroots must have more opportunities to participate at Party Conference

The three candidates standing to be chairman of the National Conservative Convention answered a first tranche of questions yesterday on candidate selection issues. Here they reply to the questions ConservativeHome readers put to them about the role of members in the party conference and policy formation, and party democracy in general. A final tranche will follow later today is to be found here.

There appears to be a consensus among all three candidates that the grassroots have been sidelined at party conferences. Simon Mort expresses regret at the "increasing marginalisation" of the voluntary party and Sir Graham Bright says he was disappointed at the lack of opportunity for activists to participate in debates and questioning at the most recent conference; Jeremy Middleton also wants more of a platform for volunteers and more spontaneity - but adds that the conference will inevitably remain "carefully managed".

All three candidates are also receptive to a revival of the old CPC format in some form or other as a way of engaging the voluntary party in policy formation and they offer a variety of answers to the question about how to make the party more democratic.

Here are their answers to those questions in full:

Question: Do you agree that Party Conference has now become a stage-managed US-style political rally organised by the centre rather than a forum for proper debate among party members? What would you do to make it more of an arena for real discussion by the party's foot soldiers?

Sir Graham Bright: I feel very strongly that the Birmingham Party Conference was a great disappointment to the volunteer as other than through fringe meetings, there was not the opportunity for open debate or direct questioning. I come as a new broom, having not been a member of the Party Board that made the decision to run the Conference in that way.  We take £25 from members.  It should not just be for the privilege of delivering leaflets and raising more money.  It should be to participate fully in decisions in policy making and the organisation.

Jeremy Middleton: Yes, I do agree.  I believe the Party conference should be presented much more clearly as ‘one party’ providing a platform for Volunteers as well as parliamentarians.  I would also like to see more spontaneity at conference which would, I believe, drive up interest. However, the party conference will and should continue to be a key tool in our armoury to promote our views to the general public.  As such it will continue to be carefully managed.

Simon Mort: This is where my candidacy came from.   I ended my time on the Board at Gateshead in March 2008.  I did not attend Party Conference 2008 (deliberately; to stay out of the successor’s way).   I watched every moment of it on TV.   I ended up asking “Where on earth is the Voluntary Party?”  Subsequent conversations with senior volunteer colleagues made it clear that this was symptomatic of the increasing marginalisation of the Voluntary Party of which I had seen something since 2004.  I know that during my Conference year I had to fight very hard for Volunteer participation and lay down under several bulldozers.   I have a good track record on lying down under bulldozers.  A good way to reintroduce the Voluntary Party might be by substantial fringe meetings with members of the Shadow Cabinet.   This could be on or off camera as desired.

Question: Do you believe party members should be more involved in the debate and formation of policy? Could we revive the old CPC format?

Sir Graham Bright: There should be much more political debate within the Party.  I would like to think that there was the opportunity for at least a ten minute political discussion at every Branch meeting.  The Conservative Political Forum should be beefed up and proper provision made in every Constituency as well as at Area and Regional levels.  It needs to be formatted in a similar way to the CPC with adequate resources from the centre.  Reports should go to the National Party as well as to the appropriate Front Bench spokesmen with proper feedback not just a paper report but an opportunity for members to meet with leaders for discussions at Regional level as well as at Westminster. 

Jeremy Middleton: Yes they should and I propose a revival of the Policy Forum (effectively to recreate the old CPC format).  We need to return to the original intention of R A Butler which was a ‘great two way interchange of ideas’.  Managed properly this can help explain Brand Cameron to members and give members an opportunity to input into that.  I would specifically propose that we create a National Volunteer officer position for Policy and that we seek to ensure that there is a Policy Forum in every Association. A revived Policy Forum could also hold debates, perhaps before Convention meetings.

Simon Mort: I was a CPC group secretary and chairman and know the value of this format.   I also know that Margaret Thatcher went to enormous and assiduous lengths to read everything.   A couple, at least, of her policies owe their origins to CPC submissions. The CPF does provide something of this now.   I would give it every encouragement (at both ends of the communication).

Question: What specifically would you do to make the Conservative Party more democratic and would you support having an Annual General Meeting of all rank-and-file party members at which the Party Chairman submits a report and the Party Treasurer submits the party's accounts for adoption?

Sir Graham Bright: I certainly like the idea of the Party becoming more democratic by getting the Party Chairman to submit a report as well as the Party Treasurer and these reports should be adopted.  This can be done at the Party Conference or at the half-yearly meeting in conjunction with the Convention which for such an event, could be opened up to the membership.

Jeremy Middleton: I propose to start by giving the National Convention more influence.  The Convention consists of the elected representatives of the Voluntary Party but its role is largely limited to receiving information.  I believe that we should create more opportunities to assess opinion within the Party and to use this to inform National Officers about the wishes of Convention Members.  I specifically propose to establish a survey site to invite views on any topics and to conduct regular quantitative surveys to establish opinions on issues of key concern to the Party. Indeed as President of the Convention I already have such a site. I used an internet survey site to quantify views on the Party Conference and opportunities for improvement after our last conference and believe this can be expanded to cover a much broader remit, for example to identify topics for discussion and debate at National Conventions. Importantly this could be done electronically, at minimal cost.

Simon Mort: There should be more focus on submission of a report by the Chairman of the NCC at Spring NCC;  eg if Chairmen say they are not going to Spring Forum their members should challenge them on this, Deputy Chairmen should be allowed as substitutes.  Your point about the Party Chairman is interesting. However under the present system the Chairman may appear and get a free-and-frank-exchange. Memories of Francis at Bournemouth NCC 2006, which got well into the public domain, come to mind.  Let us not rock the financial boat until after the General Election.

Comments

[Tom]

all three candidates agree that
"Party Conference has now become a stage-managed US-style political rally organised by the centre rather than a forum for proper debate among party members"

Might as well pack up and go home then.

[HF]

There are some nuggets of good ideas with Simon ahead on the aspiration of supporting Volunteers.

Jeremy however has a more viable and achievable idea on using surveys.

Overall I am disappointed at how little they all seem to have thought about what exactly they would do if elected. "Vote for me and on that issue I will do XYZ".

[Super Blue]

The CPF as it now is - and I speak as a chairman thereof - needs to have it's regional structure re-established. Few people actually realise that Powell's controversial 1968 speech was made at a West Midlands CPC meeting.
This is why the last President of "Eastern Area CPC" is in a good position to do just that, as well as restoring free speech at Party Conference. This is why the future is Bright.

[Sally Roberts]

Thank you, Jeremy, for your very full answer to what I know was my question about re-vamping the CPF roughly along the lines of the old CPC. I know that doing this would help activists feel that they are being listened to more and that their concerns are being fed back to the leadership in a meaningful way. I don't have a vote myself in this ballot but wish you well in the contest.

[Rupert Matthews]

Interesting answers. On balance I'm still favouring Jeremy Middleton - largely because he seems to have thought his ideas on these issues through and to have come up with proposals that have a realistic chance of getting adopted.

Just to chuck in a comment about Party Conference. It is not only the lack of opportunity for party members to get involved that has been a problem in recent years. Some of the platform sessions have been astonishingly boring when they need not have been.

And in Birmingham there was a real lack of reasonably priced venues for fringe meetings within walking distance of the conference centre. Pretty much all the venues were expensive and were booked by well-funded pressure groups and lobbying organisations. At least in Blackpool you could get the back room of a pub for fifty quid so that an ordinary member could hold a meeting on a subject of local or limited interest. Or you could book a low-profile event and hope that it did not clash with a hugely popular one somewhere else. At Brum you dare not take the chance as you had to lay out so much cash up front. Sigh!

[Donald Burling]

Was it in 2005 that delegates were given handsets, not just for voting on (among other things) whether we preferred cricket,football or croquet (most chose the latter!) but for texting questions and comments, some of which appeared on screen during the discussions? I used mine quite a few times. Could this not be revived?

[Parvez]

A refreshing set of ideas from Graham Bright which make the lifeblood of the party (the volunteer) more valued.

1. More involvement from grass roots in the form of discussion and debates at different levels in the voluntary party.
2. More opportunity for debate and questioning during party conference. Why should this be consigned to the fringe only?
3. Greater accountability to the grass roots.

[Sally Roberts]

Rupert, I have to say I far preferred Birmingham as a venue! Yes, some of the restaurants and bars were expensive but I managed to get reasonably-priced and comfortable hotel accommodation at the nearby Premier Inn. In Blackpool at previous Conferences I remember various horrors including nylon sheets, dirty bathrooms (one particularly horrible occasion when there was hair in the shower!) and truly revolting food. I remember some years ago being in the Imperial Restaurant and at a nearby table a very senior member of the Party having a whole gravy-boat tipped in his lap by the waiter!

[Tim]

If you have a spare minute please vote in this on-line poll, and spread the word!
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/poll/poll-36517-details/ques-36871-id/Lite+poll%3A+nasty+party/poll.do