John Strafford is Chairman of the Campaign for Conservative Democracy.
The latest leadership election has demonstrated once again that the process is fundamentally flawed and needs to be changed. Conservative MPs should elect the leader, and no longer should the voluntary party have a vote.
This means that Party members will be giving up the only democratic right that they have within the Party at a national level – and for that there is a price to pay.
That price is this: members must have the right to elect the Party Chairman, control the Party Conference (including motions for debate), and elect or deselect their Member of Parliament without interference from CCHQ.
In 1998 the Conservative Party introduced a Constitution for the Party in which for the first time Party members were given a vote in the election of the leader.
However, the process chosen was fatally flawed. It was a huge mistake for the voluntary Party to agree to it.
At that time the organisations campaigning for democracy in the Conservative Party, including the Campaign for Conservative Democracy, wanted a Party Chairman elected by all the members of the Party on the basis of One Member One Vote, and for the Party Board to have a majority of voluntary Party members.
CCHQ refused to agree to this because they wanted central control of the Party, so they gave the members a sop by saying they could have a vote in the Leader’s election; the member’s mistake was to accept this sop.
The fatal flaws in the process agreed with the members were as follows.
First, the Parliamentary Party decides two candidates were put to the members for election.
There is a fundamental problem with this. A prime minister has to have a majority in the House of Commons in order to govern, and the Leader of the Party has to have a majority of their own MPs in support otherwise his/her position is unsustainable (as we saw with Iain Duncan Smith, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and Liz Truss). Therefore if the party members favour a different candidate to the Parliamentary Party, there is bound to be trouble.
But why should the Party members favour a different candidate to the MPs? Primarily because thethey take a different view on the policies being pursued by the Party in Parliament.
Why should such a gulf exist between activists and the MPs? Because, since 1998, local Constituency Associations have not been able to select or deselect their MPs or even their candidates; CCHQ has taken complete control over them.
Second, the detailed rules for the election of the Leader are decided by the 1922 Committee. It has the power to change them after consultation with the Party Board and the threat of change can therefore be used against a Prime Minister or Leader who has lost the confidence of a majority of MPs.
Finally, the Party Chairman can, through the Party Board, ignore the Constitution if the Board thinks it is acting in the best interests of the Party. (This is why the Party Chairman should be accountable to the membership.)
After the 1998 Constitution, CCHQ began to demolish lines of communication between the members and the Parliamentary Party. All the checks and balances which existed prior to 1998 were abolished.
Pre-1998, conference was organised and run by the National Union (the voluntary party). It invited the leader and other ministers to speak at the Conference. There were motions for debate tabled at the conference and published in a handbook. Votes were taken on the motions. When CCHQ took over, 1999 was the last Conference at which we had motions for debate.
What else happened after 1998? Well, the following organs of the Party were simply abolished outright:
- The Central Council of voluntary members met twice a year, and the Party Chairman and other ministers used to attend. It consisted of several thousand members including representatives of the Women’s Organisation, Young Conservatives, and others; motions for debate were tabled at its meetings.
- The National Union Executive Committee which was regularly addressed by the leader and had representatives elected by the membership.
- Regional meetings for Party members used to be held four times a year, which had officers elected by the members, motions for debate etc.
- Regional meetings of the Conservative Political Centre had officers elected by the members and which discussed policy issues.
- The National Committee of the Conservative Political Centre had members elected by the membership of the Party and had meetings with the leader. (A new Conservative Political Forum was set up under Oliver Letwin, and for years did nothing.)
- The Annual Conference of the Conservative Political Centre which any member could attend, and was addressed by ministers.
In other words, all the lines of communication between the Parliamentary Party and the ordinary membership of the Party were eliminated. CCHQ wanted control so that they could control the MPs.
Prior to the 1998 Constitution, the Constituency Associations had effective control of their candidates in a general election. This issue came to a head during the 1997 campaign when CCHQ sent Robin Hodgson (Chairman of the National Union) to Tatton to ask the Constituency Association to drop Neil Hamilton as their candidate. They refused, and Hamilton was defeated by Martin Bell.
Consider the situation today: tThe Chairman and Treasurer of the Party are appointed by the leader so are unaccountable to the membership; there is no annual general meeting of members so there is no formal forum for members to raise questions about the Party’s organisation, and the annual accounts are not tabled for approval at an AGM.
Selection of parliamentary candidates is controlled centrally, and the Party Board can take control of any Constituency Association which does not toe the line – and has done so. Basically, the Conservative Party is now a self-perpetuating oligarchy.
The National Convention, which consists of primarily constituency chairmen and area and regional officers, was set up in the 1998 reforms and is the senior body of the voluntary party. It was created to be the voice of the members. It has become a rubber stamp for the party hierarchy. It should be abolished.
Key to all these changes is the Party Board, for they can determine the amount of political discussion tolerated in the party, the process for the selection of candidates, and control of CCHQ.
If we had the right MPs in Parliament (i.e. as freely selected by the constituency associations) we would have less cause to worry about deep divisions between the parliamentary party and the party in the country.
We could do far worse than simply adopting the arrangements that work perfectly well in local government. At constituency level, the members elect the chairman and select their local council candidates, but it is the Conservative group on the council that elects the group leader. The same should apply at national level.
These are the essential reforms we need if the membership is to be stripped of its vote on the leadership:
- The National Convention should be replaced by an AGM to which all Party members are invited;
- The Chairman of the Party Board, Treasurer, and Chairman of the Candidates Committee should be elected by and accountable to Party members;
- Constituency associations should have the right to elect or deselect their MP or parliamentary candidate, without interference from CCH;
- The voluntary party should run the Conference;
- The Party Constitution should be capable of being changed at a general meeting of the party, by party members, on the basis of One Member One Vote;
In exchange, the leader of the party should return to being elected by the Parliamentary Party alone. Voting should be on a preferential basis with the first candidate getting over 50 per cent of the votes being elected. Each candidate must have be nominated by at least 15 per cent of the parliamentary party to stand.
John Strafford is Chairman of the Campaign for Conservative Democracy.
The latest leadership election has demonstrated once again that the process is fundamentally flawed and needs to be changed. Conservative MPs should elect the leader, and no longer should the voluntary party have a vote.
This means that Party members will be giving up the only democratic right that they have within the Party at a national level – and for that there is a price to pay.
That price is this: members must have the right to elect the Party Chairman, control the Party Conference (including motions for debate), and elect or deselect their Member of Parliament without interference from CCHQ.
In 1998 the Conservative Party introduced a Constitution for the Party in which for the first time Party members were given a vote in the election of the leader.
However, the process chosen was fatally flawed. It was a huge mistake for the voluntary Party to agree to it.
At that time the organisations campaigning for democracy in the Conservative Party, including the Campaign for Conservative Democracy, wanted a Party Chairman elected by all the members of the Party on the basis of One Member One Vote, and for the Party Board to have a majority of voluntary Party members.
CCHQ refused to agree to this because they wanted central control of the Party, so they gave the members a sop by saying they could have a vote in the Leader’s election; the member’s mistake was to accept this sop.
The fatal flaws in the process agreed with the members were as follows.
First, the Parliamentary Party decides two candidates were put to the members for election.
There is a fundamental problem with this. A prime minister has to have a majority in the House of Commons in order to govern, and the Leader of the Party has to have a majority of their own MPs in support otherwise his/her position is unsustainable (as we saw with Iain Duncan Smith, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and Liz Truss). Therefore if the party members favour a different candidate to the Parliamentary Party, there is bound to be trouble.
But why should the Party members favour a different candidate to the MPs? Primarily because thethey take a different view on the policies being pursued by the Party in Parliament.
Why should such a gulf exist between activists and the MPs? Because, since 1998, local Constituency Associations have not been able to select or deselect their MPs or even their candidates; CCHQ has taken complete control over them.
Second, the detailed rules for the election of the Leader are decided by the 1922 Committee. It has the power to change them after consultation with the Party Board and the threat of change can therefore be used against a Prime Minister or Leader who has lost the confidence of a majority of MPs.
Finally, the Party Chairman can, through the Party Board, ignore the Constitution if the Board thinks it is acting in the best interests of the Party. (This is why the Party Chairman should be accountable to the membership.)
After the 1998 Constitution, CCHQ began to demolish lines of communication between the members and the Parliamentary Party. All the checks and balances which existed prior to 1998 were abolished.
Pre-1998, conference was organised and run by the National Union (the voluntary party). It invited the leader and other ministers to speak at the Conference. There were motions for debate tabled at the conference and published in a handbook. Votes were taken on the motions. When CCHQ took over, 1999 was the last Conference at which we had motions for debate.
What else happened after 1998? Well, the following organs of the Party were simply abolished outright:
In other words, all the lines of communication between the Parliamentary Party and the ordinary membership of the Party were eliminated. CCHQ wanted control so that they could control the MPs.
Prior to the 1998 Constitution, the Constituency Associations had effective control of their candidates in a general election. This issue came to a head during the 1997 campaign when CCHQ sent Robin Hodgson (Chairman of the National Union) to Tatton to ask the Constituency Association to drop Neil Hamilton as their candidate. They refused, and Hamilton was defeated by Martin Bell.
Consider the situation today: tThe Chairman and Treasurer of the Party are appointed by the leader so are unaccountable to the membership; there is no annual general meeting of members so there is no formal forum for members to raise questions about the Party’s organisation, and the annual accounts are not tabled for approval at an AGM.
Selection of parliamentary candidates is controlled centrally, and the Party Board can take control of any Constituency Association which does not toe the line – and has done so. Basically, the Conservative Party is now a self-perpetuating oligarchy.
The National Convention, which consists of primarily constituency chairmen and area and regional officers, was set up in the 1998 reforms and is the senior body of the voluntary party. It was created to be the voice of the members. It has become a rubber stamp for the party hierarchy. It should be abolished.
Key to all these changes is the Party Board, for they can determine the amount of political discussion tolerated in the party, the process for the selection of candidates, and control of CCHQ.
If we had the right MPs in Parliament (i.e. as freely selected by the constituency associations) we would have less cause to worry about deep divisions between the parliamentary party and the party in the country.
We could do far worse than simply adopting the arrangements that work perfectly well in local government. At constituency level, the members elect the chairman and select their local council candidates, but it is the Conservative group on the council that elects the group leader. The same should apply at national level.
These are the essential reforms we need if the membership is to be stripped of its vote on the leadership:
In exchange, the leader of the party should return to being elected by the Parliamentary Party alone. Voting should be on a preferential basis with the first candidate getting over 50 per cent of the votes being elected. Each candidate must have be nominated by at least 15 per cent of the parliamentary party to stand.