Why I published Our Fight for Democracy!

 

How the book "Our Fight for Democracy" was published!

 How the book "Our Fight for Democracy" was published! Speech at the New Culture Forum Literary Festival; on 24 May 2025

Thank you to our viewers

 Thank you to all the viewers of this site.   We have now passed 600,000.   Any comments welcome!

Our Electoral Franchise is a mess!

Excellent article by Lord David Frost 9th May 2025.   The Conservative Party should adopt his solutions as policy!

Our Electoral Franchise is a mess

By

 Lord David Frost

Our electoral franchise is a mess. You might think you have to be a British citizen to vote in British elections.

Not a bit of it. Millions can do so. Aussies and Canadians. Nearly half of Africa. All Indians and Pakistanis. In fact, getting on for a third of the entire world’s population can vote here if they can get here.

Most of this is a legacy of British Empire and our sentimentality about the Commonwealth. Any citizen of a Commonwealth country can vote if they are living, working, or studying here. That’s 2.7 billion people. The reverse is very rarely true. Indians coming here to work under our new free trade deal with India get to vote straight away. Brits going to India certainly do not.

Some of it also stems from the British establishment’s chip on its collective shoulder about Ireland, and indeed the Irish establishment’s determination to hang on to some of the benefits of being part of the UK – including letting us defend Irish waters and airspace – despite being an independent country for over a hundred years.

Irish citizens not only get to vote in all British elections. Irish citizens can come here without restriction, work here, live here, and be educated here, including paying UK-level fees at universities.

Brits get similar benefits in Ireland but there are more Irish people in Britain than the way round. It’s Irish citizens who get the benefits of Brexit and those of being in the EU too: truly the best of both worlds.

Even other EU citizens get a pretty good deal. The 6 million Europeans here before the end of 2020, if they stayed, all get to vote in local elections. The Scots and Welsh have gone even further and say that any resident foreigner, whatever nationality and whenever they arrive, can vote in not just the locals but elections to the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments.

What effect does this have? Estimates suggest there were around 2 million Commonwealth citizens in the UK in 2021, most without a British passport. Since then we have had another 2.5 million people net coming to the country, many from Commonwealth Nations. Yes, some will be children or won’t register, but it is plausible to think 2-3 million Commonwealth citizens are, or could be, on the electoral roll. There are also getting on for half a million non-dual citizen Irish. And millions of Europeans could be on the register for everything but national elections. The local election register is 2.4 million bigger than the parliamentary one, which suggests many already are.

Numbers on this scale could easily start to distort electoral outcomes – especially since foreign voters will certainly be concentrated in certain areas.

We already see Labour MPs taking up the Gaza issue, and we now have some Tories arguing India’s case in the brewing conflict with Pakistan. i But how many of those whose votes they are trying to attract are British citizens at all?

Similarly, EU citizens would get the vote in a future Scottish independence referendum or Northern Irish border poll. It’s entirely plausible to think they might not just take a different view to Brits but also affect the outcome.

Add to this the persistent, if scattered, evidence of fraud in postal voting. Add the low level of evidence required to prove your identity at a polling booth. And finally, add to that the voting age issue – 16 for locals in Scotland and Wales but 18 in England. Labour want to solve this by cutting it to 16 for everything – though they may yet have a rethink if they decide it might backfire on them.

It’s all a mess. It is time it was tightened up to bring our elections into line with what most people think and want, with a very simple four point plan.

First, only British citizens should get to vote and stand in British elections – and, by the way, we should be much stricter about who we give citizenship to as well.

Second, you should have to prove your status to get on the electoral register.

Third, you should be required to identify yourself with proper ID at the polling station – and so we should restrict postal voting further too. 

Fourth, all voting rules for all elections should be set nationally. The powers of devolved “governments” to set their own franchise should be revoked.

Of course Labour won’t do this, but opposition parties should commit to it. British democracy shouldn’t be open to people who wander into the country for a couple of years.

It is for people who are born to this country or have chosen to commit themselves to it. It is not just a right but a privilege. Most people think that already. Time to make it like that in real life.

 

A Reminder for those who voted Labour at the General Election

 

LABOUR - What have they done?   They would never have been elected if voters had been told the truth.

▪Highest tax in 70 years 

▪highest electricity costs in the world

▪fake £22 billion black hole

▪ 22.3% pay rise for doctors

▪15% pay rise for train drivers 

▪attempts to join EU by stealth

▪ closed the migrant barge

▪4 more years of hotels for illegals

▪NI tax rises for businesses 

▪£3.4 BILLION on consultants

▪Two tier policing at protests & riots

▪crackdown on free speech

▪No deportations for foreign criminals

▪let prisoners out early 

▪net zero madness spending

▪carbon capture experiment

▪solar factories on green belt 

▪ flawed Non Dom policy

▪VAT on private schools backfired

▪Softer sentences, prisons are full

▪Free clothes for Labour MPs

▪Free tickets for Labour MPs

▪free Pass for Ali for Downing Street

▪Ended British steel production 

▪Stopped oil and gas licenses

▪ refused to use huge new gas field 

▪Spaffed £8.3b on British energy

▪Energy bills went up TWICE

▪Palestine marches out of control 

▪Ended free speech in universities 

▪Starmer fired his chief of staff

▪Starmer fired his energy minister

▪Gave £50 million to Syrian militants

▪stopped the Rwanda deterrent on imigration

▪largest number of illegal migrants ever

▪Didn’t change his ‘special’ pension 

▪Gave away the Chagos Islands

▪lost Rosie Duffield MP

▪revoked land wind farm ban

▪announced Pylons near houses

▪Banned Elon Musk from ‘Investment Summit’

▪ investigated by Electoral Commission 

▪ Lord Ali under investigation

▪Lied to WASPI women

▪Attempting to bring in blasphemy laws

▪highest government borrowing in 34 yrs

▪Banning parents from seeing curriculum 

▪Reviewing blasphemy laws

▪stabbings up

▪No Grooming gang enquiry 

Complete chaos in under 9 months. Imagine the state of the UK after 5 more years.

BBC Impartiality!

Net Zero 

At the Freedom Festival organised by the Margaret Thatcher Centre the question was raised about the way in which the BBC guidelines had stopped debate over the last few years by stating the they would not broadcast criticism of Government action on Net Zero because the science was settled and all the parliamentary parties were in agreement!   Now that Kemi Badenoch has raised the question of the costs of government action in pursuing Net Zero I asked if the BBC would stop pushing out their propaganda and return to a position of impartiality?

Click here to see the response

The Right Kind of Candidate!

  A great weekend at The Freedom Festival at the University of Buckingham organised by the Margaret Thatcher Centre. I raised this question with Mike Rouse of GBPAC. Click to see it

Does the Reform Party need Reform?

 

Does the Reform Party need Reform?

By

John E. Strafford

 

The Reform Party was a limited company (the Reform UK Party Limited) with a share capital of fifteen shares. Nigel Farage owned 9 shares in the company, giving him a controlling majority of 60% The other shareholders were RichardTice, who held a third, 5 shares, and Party Treasurer Mehrtash A'Zami who held 2 shares.

On 10^th February 2025 it was announced that a new company had been formed to take control of The Reform Party.   The new company called Reform 2025 Ltd is a company limited by guarantee.   It has two Guarantors, Nigel Farage and Muhammad Yusuf.

The Reform Party currently has five MPs in the House of Commons.  The party also holds representation at the local government level, with most of its local councillors (approx. two thirds) having defected from the  Conservative Party to Reform UK. Following Farage's resumption of the leadership just before the General Election of 2024 there was a sharp increase in support for the party. Following the election, it was the third largest party by popular vote, with 4,117,610 votes achieving 14.3 per cent of the vote in total. Since then it has gone from strength to strength.   It’s membership is now over 200,000, more than double the Conservative Party membership.

Reform UK’s conference in September 2024 voted to give members more control over the party’s policies and leadership.   The question is “was this achieved”?

A resolution to approve Reform UK’s new constitution was passed by a show of hands at the party’s conference in Birmingham. Members voted to adopt the new constitution, which sets out party rules and the responsibilities of the leadership.

“We have come of age and we are a properly constituted party,” Nigel Farage said, with him claiming he is "giving ownership of the party and the big decisions over to the members".

Not quite, see below:

The party’s chairman Zia Yusuf (Muhammad) said the party would become a not-for-profit organisation governed by the party’s new rulebook, with no shareholders.

Under the new constitution, the party's board and the leader are responsible for setting policy, with input from members at conferences.

Members will be able to remove Farage - or any other party leader - in a no-confidence vote.

A vote can be triggered if 50% of all Party members write to the Chairman requesting a motion of no confidence.

Not credible.   If a no confidence motion was tabled and looked as though it might pass Reform 2025 Ltd could threaten to disband the Part or actually disband it whilst retaining all the data in the Party!

Reform MPs can also force a vote of no confidence if 50 of them, or 50% of them, write to the chairman requesting one. But this only applies if there are more than 100 Reform MPs in Parliament - a high bar.

The Reality

The Reform Party was owned by Reform Party UK Ltd, the controlling shareholder of which is Nigel Farage, so at any time Nigel Farage had the power if he so wished to dissolve the political Party.   The Reform Party was in effect controlled by a Dictator.   At any time Nigel Farage could sell his shares and another Dictator could take over. The shareholders could not take a profit on their shares because in the Articles of Association of the company it states:

Not For Profit

The Company is not established or conducted for private gain and shall not pay any dividend to any member: any surplus or assets remaining when the Company is dissolved or wound-up shall be donated to such charity or not for profit organisation as the Board shall determine.

Of course the shareholders can always change the Articles of Association!

This situation changed when Reform 2025 Ltd was formed and the Reform Party was in effect transferred to it, but the Party’s Constitution has not been changed so where do we stand now.   In effect, the Reform Party is now owned by Reform 2025 Ltd which has two Directors and two shareholders who are limited by guarantee, so we have moved from a Dictatorship to an oligarchy of two people!

So if  the Reform Party wish to be a democratic organisation how should it’s constitution be changed?   I set out below the changes required for the Reform Party to become a democratic organisation.

This is a draft proposal and comments or proposed alterations are welcome.

                          Reform Party Constitution

1                                      INTERPRETATION

Delete 1.4 “Rules” means Rules made by the Board under this Constitution.

Insert  1.4 “Rules” means Rules under this Constitution.

2                  NAME AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PARTY

Name

Delete 2.3 The Party exists as a Limited Liability Company registered with Companies House (Registration Number xxxxxxxxx) in accordance with the Companies Act 2006.

3                                  ACTIVITIES OF THE PARTY

Delete 3.4.8 undertake any or all lawful activities under the Companies Acts.

4                                              PARTY MEMBERSHIP

Delete 4.1 “by the Board”

Insert 4.1 after made “by the Party in General Meeting”     

Delete 4.3 after vote in “ such”  and after “ballots” delete  “as  the Board shall in their absolute discretion decide.”

5          PARTY ORGANISATION AND PARTY CONFERENCE

Delete “5.1 The Board may from time to time make rules concerning the organisation of such Party structures which are not provided for in this Constitution.”

Conference

Insert 5.5 “Motions to change the Party Constitution shall be implemented if passed by 60% of those present and voting.”

EGM

Delete 5.5 “fifty per cent (50%)”

Insert 5.5 after at least “five per cent (5%)

6                            THE PARTY BOARD (BOARD)

Delete 6.1 after of the Party “in particular for the purposes of company law.”

Powers of the Board

Delete 6.2.7.

Composition of the Board

Delete 6.3 “normally”

Delete 6.3.1 “and on the List elected in a party wide ballot

Insert 6.3.1 after Good Standing  elected at an Annual General Meeting of the Party to which all members of the Party are invited.

Delete 6.3.1 “Board may”

Insert 6.3.1 after are invited “The members of the Party in General Meeting shall”

Insert 6.3.4 after Chairman; “two Deputy Chairmen, Chairman of the Candidates Committee, all of whom shall be elected by the Party members in General Meeting.

Insert 6.4 after appoint “two”

Delete 6.5 “Party Chairman”

Elections and term of office

Delete 6.15 “2 years” and “at the discretion of the Party Leader”

Insert 6.15 after term of “3 years”

Suspension/expulsion from Board

Insert 6.23 after expel a “appointed”

No confidence motions

Delete 6.28.2 “50%”

Insert 6.28.2  after by “5%”

Delete 6.31 “Board”

Insert 6.31 after by the “Party in General Meeting”.

7                                      THE PARTY LEADER

Status

Delete: 7.3.2 “shall, subject to the approval…………an EGM of the party.”

Election

Delete: 7.5 “Upon the passing…………..of its passage, (the initial Leadership Term)”

Delete 7.6.3 “The Board may make Rules concerning eligibility, nomination and election of candidates for Party Leader.”

Delete 7.7 “ The Board may………….post of Party Leader”

Insert 7.9.1 “If only one nomination is received then a ballot of Party members will be conducted to confirm the appointment of Leader.   If confirmation does not receive over 50 % of those voting, the process for electing a Leader shall be started again.”

8                                  THE PARTY CHAIRMAN

Status and duties

Delete: “8.1 The Chairman appointed…………….. a full time employee of the Party.”

Insert: “8.1 The Party Chairman shall be elected by the members of the Party at an Annual General Meeting of the Party to which all members are invited.”

Insert: 8.1.1 The Party Chairman shall make a report on the state of the party organisation at the Annual General Meeting of the Party.

12                                              CANDIDATES

Selection of candidates

Delete: “12.10 The Board……………organisation of candidates.”

13                THE CONSTITUTION; APPROVAL AND AMENDMENT

Delete: 13.4.2 “50%”

Insert: 13.4.2 after request of “5%”

14                                              PARTY RULE BOOK

Delete 14.1 “may, in the absolute discretion of the Board”

Insert 14.1 after Rulebook “will”

Delete: “14.2 Notwithstanding……………of this Constitution.”

 

 

Reform's shift to a non-profit, member-owned structure would limit its ability to distribute profits, requiring all funds to support its political objectives, such as campaigning and member engagement, potentially driving a focus on grassroots mobilization and efficient resource allocation.

At present as a non-profit Company limited by guarantee, Reform 2025 Ltd must comply with strict financial transparency and governance rules, influencing its strategy to prioritize accountability and public trust to maintain credibility ahead of elections.

 

A LOOK AT THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY BOARD

 

A LOOK AT THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY BOARD

By

Joanna Reeves

The Party Board is the ‘supreme decision-making body in matters of Party organisation and management’, according to the Conservative Party constitution. Furthermore, ‘the Board shall have power to do anything which in its opinion relates to the management and administration of the party’.

I recently wrote about the structure of the Conservative Party to cast some light on an area that is not immediately clear, even to members. The Parliamentary Party, the Voluntary Party and CCHQ are the three main elements of the Party; the Party Board ties them together and overrides all else.

According to John Strafford, an expert on the Conservative Party Constitution, the Board of the Conservative Party ‘under clause 17 can do anything they want, and do. They are all-powerful and completely unaccountable to ordinary Party members.’

And yet the Board is barely heard of and certainly not understood. As ever, I say to anyone who wants to know how the Party works, start by reading the Constitution. For the purposes of understanding the board, turn to Part IV: The Board of the Conservative Party, to be found on page 3.

The Party Constitution sets out Board composition and purpose (see clause 12). The first aspect to note is that the Party Leader is not a Board member, although the Leader has the power to nominate Board members (12.10), has the authority to approve certain other members and is invited to attend all meetings of the Board. 12.1 states that the Party Chair is the Chair of the Board and Chairs in the Leader’s absence. This implies that the Leader chairs Board meetings if he or she is present, despite not being a member of the Board. This does seem unnatural and is certainly unexpected. To note also, the constitution provides for the Party Chair (singular) to be a Board member, although 12.10 provides for the Leader to nominate a Board member, which presumably allows for the current situation of two Co-Chairs of the Party serving on the Board.

Other points to note are that ‘the Chairman of the Scottish and Unionist Party’ (12.6) and ‘the elected Chairman of the Welsh Conservative Party’(12.7) are included on the Board. That the Welsh Chair is elected and the Scottish Chair is not required to be is an interesting anomaly. According to the Scottish Party Constitution, the Scottish Party Leader is elected by members on a one-member-one-vote basis, with the Chairman appointed by the Scottish Leader after consultation with the UK Party Leader. Meanwhile, Schedule 8 of the Conservative Party Constitution declares that the Chairman of the Welsh Conservative Party shall be nominated for election and elected by members of the Area Councils in Wales (and may not hold the post for more than three consecutive years).

There is no representation for Northern Ireland or England on the Board, which seems to be a further anomaly. It has been speculated in conversation that it is only the nations with devolved government which have Board representation, but I have found no text supporting this. Northern Ireland Conservatives do not appear anywhere as a separate body so I understand that to explain why there is no representation for them on the Party Board. In the case of both Scotland and Wales, the representative is effectively the Regional Chair, but no other Regional Chairs have seats on the Board.

The role and responsibilities of the Party Board is set out in Clause 17 (see page 4, Constitution) To me, Clause 17 seems to suggest that the intention of the constitution is that the Board should support and guide the Leader. The clause provides a comprehensive list of responsibilities, which cover (amongst other things) all of the management and administration of the party, oversight of the approved candidates list and the governance of membership. It is well worth taking a look.

In conclusion, the Constitution of the Conservative Party makes clear that the Party Board is the seat of the power of the Party. Anyone wishing to understand how the Party functions should make themselves familiar with who is on the Board, and why. With great power lies great responsibility so scrutiny of the Board is not only reasonable; it is imperative.

With the Party Review underway, and with Kemi Badenoch elected Leader on a platform of seeking ‘renewal’, now seems to be the time to consider the composition and remit of the Board in order to move forwards in the best way possible. Understanding the status quo is the place to start. Given the magnitude of the failure that culminated in the emphatic general election defeat of 2024, and having replaced the Leader, it is vital to scrutinise how the Party functions. The apex of the structure of the Party – that is to say, the Party Board – is the point from which all else flows. Maybe no change is necessary, but on the other hand, maybe it is. Let’s make that a conscious decision and put unflinching scrutiny at the heart of our renewal.

© Joanna Reeves 2025, all rights reserved.

 

Critical Questions for Nigel Farage and the Conservative Party Chairman

 Critical Questions for Nigel Farage and the Conservative Party Chairman

British political parties are traditionally formed as unincorporated associations composed of a membership, rather than established as corporate entities.

Rules are usually set out in a written constitution, while party affairs are handled by a committee chosen by members - like that of Labour or the Conservatives.   However this is not the case with the Reform Party.

The Reform Party is owned by Reform UK Party Ltd, so who controls the Reform Party?

The Reform Party is a limited company (the Reform UK Party Limited) with a share capital of fifteen shares. Nigel Farage owns 9 shares in the company, giving him a controlling majority of 60% The other shareholders are RichardTice, who holds a third, 5 shares, and Party Treasurer Mehrtash A'Zami who holds 2 shares.

What does this mean?   Mr Farage is able to remove Mr Tice as director, and take the decision to unilaterally dissolve the organisation, making him the party’s ultimate decision-maker.

It also means that Nigel Farage could sell his shares and whoever bought them would take control of the Reform Party.

Mr Farage claimed Reform UK would “democratise over time” after he was accused of running a “one-man dictatorship”.

The reality is that at present the Reform Party is a one man dictatorship and that is unacceptable in a democracy.   So the question is “Nigel Farage, will you commit to a date by which the Reform Party becomes a democratic organisation in which ultimate authority rests with the membership on the basis of one member one vote?”.

The other question which needs a reply is addressed to the Conservative Party Chairman.

“Why does the Conservative Party not attack the Reform Party for being a dictatorship?”.   Is it perhaps that the Conservative Party is also a dictatorship run by an elite oligarchy that has taken all the democratic rights that the Party members had prior to the introduction of the new Constitution of the Party in 1998 e.g. Selection of Candidates, Motions at the Party Conference etc?.   So Party Chairman, when will the Conservative Party bring in a new democratic Constitution in which the ultimate authority rests with the membership on the basis of one member one vote?.

Should preferential treatment be given to farmers re Inheritance tax?

 My answer to the article in Conservativehome today about inheritance tax:

There is a good case for reducing Inheritance tax but is it fair that preferential rights should be given to a particular set of people. Taxation should treat all people equally. Perhaps if you asked the question "Are you prepared to pay more tax so that farmers and owners of small businesses paid less tax?" you might get a different answer to your survey questions!

See the article https://api.vuukle.com/stats/External?source=comments_share_link&url=https://conservativehome.com/2025/01/31/john-oconnell-stopping-labour-hitting-farmers-with-inheritence-tax-is-good-but-why-not-get-rid-of-it-altogether/#commentID-133566593

“Seriousness” may not be enough to maintain Conservative Party unity

Conservativehome article on 30th January 2025

 My Response to the following article:

Unless the Conservative Party scrap the Net Zero policy and withdraw from ECHR it is toast! Announce these policy changes now and the Party might be saved. Don't, then watch Reform take over as the main opposition Party!

See the article:

https://api.vuukle.com/stats/External?source=comments_share_link&url=https://conservativehome.com/2025/01/30/seriousness-may-not-be-enough-to-maintain-conservative-party-unity/#commentID-133555472

A Question to Former President Jimmy Carter and his reply!

 

Former President Jimmy Carter was a great humanitarian and the World mourns his death.   Here is a question put to him at a meeting in the Festival Hall in 2011 by Guy Strafford and his reply!

Mrs Badenoch's intervention - a step too far?

 

The Twitter post by Conservative Party Leader, Kemi Badenoch, about the membership of the Reform Party and her assertions about the membership of the Conservative Party prompted strong reactions among which was the following:

Camilla Turner writes in the Sunday Telegraph, 29 December 2024:

Ukraine What now?

 

The Following article was written by Graham Thomas in December 2021   If only the Establishment had listened then!   It has certainly stood the test of time.

UKRAINE..   

The policy of the “West” to confront Russia over the situation in Ukraine is wrong. Borders in Eastern Europe have been fluid for centuries. UK policy should be to support the will of the peoples in the region. It should not be based on borders where the musical chairs stopped after WW2 and the USSR breakup. Although EU national borders are now fixed, Ukraine is different. The peoples of the Ukrainian regions should decide (One Person, One Vote).

 Crimea: Crimea is historically part of Mother Russia. A majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia. The Russian “invasion” was necessary due to Ukrainian intransigence over the Khrushchev error of placing Crimea in the Ukraine Soviet for administrative reasons. In Crimea, 95.5% voted to join Russia, in an disputed 2014 referendum but an Ukrainian poll in 2004 found that 97% of Crimeans speak Russian in the home. It is clear that at least 52% voted to join Russia. As with Northern Ireland, Scotland, the Falklands, Gibraltar, … UK policy should be to recognise the right of the people of Crimea, and of other Ukrainian regions, to determine their future. This is in stark contrast to EU policy which is typified by the suppression of Catalonia and glossing over the marginalisation of the minority (country-wide) Russian-speaking Ukrainians. 

Other regions: Russia feels an obligation to protect the Russia-leaning minority from being unwillingly subsumed by the “West”. But the Russian bluster, heavy-handed actions, proprietorial attitude, unacceptable demands towards the US and NATO, and destructive interference elsewhere (e.g. in the Balkans) serves to obscure a kernel of justification. Eastern Ukraine, especially Luhansk and Donetsk, is more Russian than Ukrainian; by recent history, by geography, by culture, and by resisting Ukrainian repression (for example, their language is suppressed in schools). UK should encourage engagement with Ukraine and Russia to address the legitimate substance of the issue. Crimea is now part of Russia; this will not change. Other Ukrainian regions should be given transparent referenda, One Person One Vote: Remain or Leave Ukraine. The Leavers would form an independent state, which later could seek to join Russia; it could be their democratic choice. UK should be advocating negotiations with Ukraine (and Russia and the EU) to secure country-wide referenda, with thirdparty oversight and “guarantees” that all will respect. The partition of Ireland, and of India to create Pakistan (and ultimately Bangladesh) are precedents for Ukraine. Such partitions had evils, but probably less than the evils otherwise. Czechoslovakia separated peacefully.

 The principle is the democratic right to self-determination for the people of a well-defined region. I hope you find merit in this approach, sufficient to raise it in the corridors of power. Ukraine is not a cause for confrontation with Russia. Instead, democratically-based concessions to Russian concerns in Ukraine should be linked to renewed agreements on borders elsewhere (viz. the Baltic states).

Battle for Monte Natale - book

 

Battle for Monte Natale

For those wishing to buy the "Battle for Monte Natale" at a pre order discount please go to:

https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/John-Ernest-Strafford/a/5971

The book is a hard back and contains over 100 photos and maps.

We Will Remember Them

We will remember them!

With my father at the Commonwealth War Graves Cemetery in Minturno, Italy. He was killed on the 22nd January 1944 in the Battle for Monte Natale. Next week Pen & Sword will be publishing my book "Battle for Monte Natale" Details later!

er

History of the Selection of Conservative Party Leaders

 

History of the Selection of Conservative Party Leaders

 

The following is an edited version of a speech given by John Strafford at a packed meeting of the Vote Leave Group on 22nd October 2024

Election of the Leader of the Conservative Party

 It is generally recognised that the Tory Party was formed under Sir Robert Peel in 1834.   From the party's formation until 1922, the leader of the Conservative Party was not a formal position; instead, there was a party leader in each chamber of Parliament and they were considered equal unless one took precedence over the other, such as when one was serving as Prime Minister. The party leader was appointed by high-ranking members of the Party.

Since 1922, the leader of the Conservative Party has been formally elected, even when the party is in opposition at a “Party Meeting" Attended by peers and MPs who receive the Conservative whip, ... prospective candidates who have been adopted by constituency associations, and ... members of the executive committee of the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations from England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland."   This is the theory and is still to some extent the case.

 The Party Meeting.   In the 1980s there was a court case between the Inland Revenue and Conservative Central Office about whether CCO was an unincorporated association or not. The decision determined whether CCO paid Corporation tax or income tax on its investment income.   The case went to appeal and the High court said:

The Conservative Party does not exist.   It consists of three separate bodies:

The Parliamentary Party

The National Union of Conservative Associations and

Conservative Central Office.

The only time they come together as the Conservative Party is at the Party meeting to confirm a new Leader, but no one knows who can call this meeting or who is entitled to attend the meeting.

During the 1990s I went to three Party meetings.  1990, 1995 and 1997.

In 1997 the meeting was held in the QE2 centre and was packed out.   From memory the Chairman was Cecil Parkinson.   He stood up and introduced himself.   At that point Eric Chalker a great fighter for Party democracy stood up and said he had a point of order.   Groan from the audience. He asked who called the meeting, who was entitled to attend and what authority did it have/ Bigger groan from the audience.   The Chairman stated that he was following the usual procedure so he would continue with the meeting.   Applause from the meeting.   End of Point of order!

The Party Meeting doers not appear anywhere in the Conservative Party Constitution.   Today would the judges take the same view as they did in the 1980s?

When there was a request for a judicial review because Conservative Party members were in effect electing a Prime Minister the judges made the point that the Prime Minister is not elected by the Party members.  It is the monarch who invites an individual to form a government by getting a majority in the House of Commons and if successful becomes the Prime Minister.

1940 Churchill became Leader of the Parliamentary Party, but Chamberlain remained as the Leader of the Party until his death later in the year.   There was no Party meeting!

1963 When Harold Macmillan’s decision to resign was announced during the Tory party conference, there was no formal procedure for selecting a new leader, only vague ‘customary processes’. Among the leadership contenders, the 2nd Viscount Hailsham (Quintin Hogg) was ready from the outset and disclaimed his peerage by means of the recent reform won by Anthony Wedgwood Benn,

Home’s eventual emergence as leader fuelled the suspicion that Macmillan had been determined all along to thwart Rab Butler.   Enoch Powell and Ian McLeod refused to serve under Home and the furore meant that rules were drawn up for Leadership contests.

1965 Home resigned after the Conservative defeat in 1964 and the new rules were brought in for the Leadership election.  The rules required the victor to have both an absolute majority (which Heath narrowly achieved) and, in the first ballot, at least a 15% lead of votes actually cast (not counting abstaining members - this would be changed in the mid-1970s review of the rules). As Heath had not achieved the latter hurdle, the election could therefore have gone to further rounds. However, Maudling conceded defeat and Heath was duly declared leader.

The 1975 Conservative Party leadership election was held in February 1975. The party's sitting MPs voted Margaret Thatcher as Party Leader on the second ballot. Incumbent leader Edward Heath stood aside after the first ballot, in which he unexpectedly finished behind Thatcher.   The rules also allowed  new candidates to come forward in a second ballot if the first ballot was not decisive.

The voting in the second ballot was by the alternative vote and Margaret Thatcher got over 50% and the other candidates withdrew.
A review was conducted under the auspices of Heath's predecessor Sir Alec Douglas Home.   Two recommendations were made, the leader would henceforth be elected annually, whether the party was in opposition or government, in the period following a Queens speech though in most years this would prove a formality. Also on the first round the requirement for a victorious candidate to have a lead of 15% over their nearest rival was modified so that this would now be 15% of the total number of MPs, not just those voting for candidates.

1989 Margaret Thatcher easily beat Sir Anthony Meyer but Meyor got 33 votes and there were 30 odd abstentions.   Up to this point a candidate only needed a proposer and seconder.

1990 John Major won in 1990 on the second ballot. Michael Heseltine had challenged Margaret Thatcher on the first ballot. Thatcher had won but was four votes short of the required 15% threshold and withdrew.  Major was two votes short of receiving over 50% on the second ballot, however the other two candidates withdrew.

1997 Leadership election won by William Hague after 3 ballots.

1997 Party conference Jeffrey Archer proposed that the Leader should be elected with the MPs having 50% of the vote and the Party members having 50% of the vote.   I spoke and demanded the full monty of Party democracy 100% of the vote.   This was accepted but then the MPs introduced a rule that they would only put two candidates to the Party membership for election.

In 1998 Hague was elected by the MPs and had a confirmatory vote on his Leadership which he easily won and at the same time brought in a Party Constitution which made the 1922 Committee responsible for the rules for a Leadership election in consultation with the Party Board.   The new Constitution included a clause which said that if only one Candidate came forward for election by Party members there could be a confirmatory vote of the membership.   This did not happen when Michael Howard, Theresa May and Rishi Sunak became Leaders.

2005 Michael Howard tried to change the rules so that members reduced the number of candidates to two and the MPs then elected the Leader.   His motion was defeated as it did not get the required majority.

  Current position and why it must be changed

Under the Party's rules, a member can vote in a leadership election even if they are not a British Citizen, do not reside in the UK, and do not have the right to vote in British Elections.   It cannot be right that a citizen of Russia, China, India, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, etc. can vote in a Conservative Party Leadership Election as there is clearly a conflict of interest.   Are they loyal to the UK or to their home country?    This must be changed

The Leadership election is an election in which ultimately the members decide who the Leader should be and yet every election the rules are changed by the 1922 Committee without any reference to the members. No consultation, no vote nothing.   The members have no say about the process.

The rules for the election of the Leader should be part of the main Party Constitution and which could only be changed by a meeting of Party members to which all members are invited.

How is the current process undemocratic?

1)    Under the original rules to be a candidate all you needed was a proposer and seconder. This changed to 10 nominations, 8 nominations, back to 10 nominations and in the last election 100 nominations.  This time it is back to 10. We should stick to having ten nominations.

2)    The length of the contest.   Last time for the Rishi Sunak election it was to be done in 8 days.  Graham Brady thinks it should be 3 weeks.   This contest is being spread over 14 weeks.   It is absurd to spread it over the length of this election, 3 weeks is sufficient.

3)    There should be 4 candidates go to the members to vote upon and voting should be done by preferential vote for both the MPs vote and the members vote. Balloting round by round as the MPs do leads to manipulation as the MPs vote on the basis of what’s in it for me. Margaret Thatcher was elected using the preferential vote, we should do the same.

4)    The expenses that MPs can spend on campaigning should be limited and the size of donations they can accept should be limited to £10,000 from any one individual.  Corporate and other donations should not be allowed. The current limit for expenditure is £400,000 and I am afraid that in the current election in raising this amount of money hedge funds offshore have been prominent.

5)    The four candidates who went to the Party conference had each to pay CCHQ £50,000.   The last two candidates had to pay a further £150,000 to CCHQ.   This is totally unacceptable. It restricts the candidates to the wealthy, or those with wealthy friends or they have to mortgage their home.   This is not democracy and these payments to CCHQ should be abolished.

6)    If there is only one candidate then that candidate has to have a confirmatory vote from the members of the Party.   This is in the Party Constitution but only William Hague has done it.

7)    Voting should be secret and counted after the ballot has closed.     

Graham Brady was given the voting figures every two days!

 

Meet the Leadership Candidates James Cleverly MP on Defence!

 

25 September 2024

 Caroline Strafford asked James Cleverly MP a question about defence at a meeting organised by the Beaconsfield Constituency Conservative Association.