Money and Politics Public support for reform!

 38 degrees has published the following on their web site.   It should raise concerns with anyone who believes in democracy.   Time for Action!

38degrees.org.uk 

Money and Politics

The scale of the problem

In recent years, British political parties have become increasingly reliant on a very small number of extremely wealthy donors. These donations are legal, but their size and concentration raise serious questions about influence, access and fairness.

[i] In late 2025, Reform UK received a record £9 million donation from Christopher Harborne, a multi‑millionaire crypto investor who has lived in Thailand for around 20 years.

[ii] This single donation was larger than the total donations received by the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party combined in 2025. Harborne has now provided almost two‑thirds of all the money Reform UK has ever raised. In total, more than 75% of Reform's funding has come from just three men.

[iii] This pattern is not confined to one party. Big money is rapidly reshaping the base of all political parties. Labour In the year leading up to the 2024 general election, Labour received £13 million from companies — more than it received from all trade unions combined. This was the first time in British history that corporate donations to Labour exceeded funding from the trade union movement. The largest single donation in Labour’s history was made during this period: £4 million from Quadrature Capital, a hedge fund whose parent company is based in the Cayman Islands.

Conservatives In the same pre‑election year, just three donors provided more than half of the Conservatives’ £52 million campaign funds. The largest donor was The Phoenix Partnership, a company that supplies software to the NHS, which gave £15 million in a single year. Across all major parties, election campaigning is increasingly funded by a handful of individuals and corporations with extraordinary financial resources. This is no longer a party-political issue but a systemic feature of how British politics is now funded.

Why this matters

When political parties depend on a small number of very wealthy donors, several risks arise: Disproportionate influence – A few individuals can gain far greater access and influence than ordinary voters.

Policy distortion – Parties may become more responsive to donors’ interests than to public priorities.

Public trust – Large donations undermine confidence that politics is fair and not for sale. At a time when trust in political institutions is fragile, the perception that money buys access is profoundly damaging to Parliament’s legitimacy.

These risks are intensified in an international context where billionaire‑owned tech platforms and cross‑border wealth increasingly shape political debate. Under current law, there is no meaningful upper limit on how much a single individual can give to a political party. This leaves the UK unusually exposed to financial capture. For example, if Elon Musk were to carry through with his promise to donate $100 million to a UK party, this would represent around 0.014% of his personal wealth — the equivalent of £5.60 for someone earning £40,000 a year — but could radically reshape British politics. The growing use of cryptocurrency in political donations introduces an additional risk: funds that are harder to trace, easier to move across borders, and more difficult for regulators and the public to scrutinise.

Public support for reform 

Public concern about big money in politics is strong and consistent. A Survation poll for 38 Degrees found that 57% of adults support a legal cap on political donations, while only 7% oppose it. Nearly one‑third (31%) say they strongly support a cap. 

A separate YouGov poll found that just 13% of people think individuals should be allowed to donate unlimited sums to political parties. Public mobilisation is already under way: So far, 84,267 people have signed a 38 Degrees and Democracy for Sale petition calling for a cap on political donations. 

These figures show a clear public mandate for reform. Action in the Elections Bill to address this issue would respond directly to a widely held public concern and demonstrate that Parliament is serious about tackling the role of big money in politics.

Meeting with Claire Coutinho MP - a great Conservative

 A Selfie with Claire Coutinho MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Energy at lunch organised by the Taxpayer's Alliance. She was magnificent, a true Conservative.   I am sure she will be a Star of the future!   Thank you to John O'Connell  and Clare Rusbridge for organising the lunch which was splendid.   The Taxpayer's Alliance is a great pressure group.   It does a terrific amount of essential research on all government expenditure and well worthy of support.

Rational Optimism - Can Government expenditure be cut? with Matt Ridley

 Rational Optimism - Mark Littlewood speaks to Matt Ridley:

Can Government Expenditure be cut?

Click on :  Mark Littlewood speaks to Matt Ridley

The Challenges Of Democracy by Jonathan Sumption

 

The following article comprises edited extracts from the book “The Challenges of Democracy and the Rule of Law” by the former Supreme Court Judge:

Jonathan Sumption,

The Challenges Of Democracy

 Democracy is a way of entrusting decision making to people acceptable to the majority, whose power is defined and limited, and whose mandate is revocable.

Democracy can only work in a legal and social culture where there is freedom of thought, speech and association, uncontrolled access to reliable information and a large tolerance of political dissent.

The opposite of democracy is some form of authoritarian government.

It is of course possible for democracies to confer considerable coercive power on the state without losing their democratic character.   It has happened in wartime and it happened during the Covid-19 pandemic.   But there is a point beyond which the systematic application of coercion is no longer consistent with any notion of collective self government.   The fact that it is hard to define where that point lies does not mean that there isn’t one.   A degree of respect for individual autonomy seems to be a necessary feature of anything which deserves to be called a democracy.

The chief enemies of democracy are economic insecurity, intolerance and fear.   Economic insecurity heightens concern about inequality, yet inequality is an inevitable consequence of liberty.   It reflects the diversity, energy, ambition and enthusiasm of disparate human beings in any society in which these qualities are not artificially suppressed.   In particular, it is a natural consequence of innovation, which is a necessary condition of economic growth but inevitably disrupts the existing distribution of wealth.

What is clear is that when growth falters, people become more interested in the distribution of income and wealth.   This can poison democratic politics, whether it is justified or not.   Extremes of inequality can be socially disruptive, promoting resentments that undermine the sense of shared identity that is the foundation of any democracy.

Fear is another enemy of democracy.   People who are frightened will submit to an authoritarian regime that offers them security against some real or imagined threat.   Historically the threat has usually been war, but the real threat to democracies survival is not major disasters like war.   It is comparatively minor perils, that in the nature of things occur more frequently.   We crave protection from many risks that are inherent in life itself: financial loss, economic insecurity, crime, sexual violence and abuse, accidental injury.   Even the Covid-19 Pandemic, serious as it was, was well within the broad range of mortal diseases with which human beings have always had to live.   People call upon the state to save us from these things.

The problem of intolerance or when it reaches a sufficient scale, polarisation, in  many ways is the biggest threat to democracy.   It is not oppression by the state, but the intolerance of our fellow citizens.   John Stuart Mill foresaw that the main threat to democracy’s survival would be the conformity imposed by public opinion.

Demonstrations such as those organised by Extinction rebellion are based on the notion that the campaigners point of view is the only legitimate one.   It is therefore perfectly legitimate to bully people and disrupt their lives until they submit, instead of resorting to ordinary democratic procedures.   This is the mentality of terrorists, but without the violence.   Democracy can only survive if our differences are transcended by our common acceptance of the legitimacy of the decision making process, even when we disagree profoundly with the outcome.   This implicit bargain breaks down if people feel more strongly about the issues than they do about the democratic procedures for settling them.

Direct action assesses the value of democratic institutions by one criteria only, namely the degree to which the activists  programme has prevailed.   The contempt for politics expressed by so many activists is potentially a mortal threat to our democracy.

Aristotle put his finger on the reason why many people reject democracy. They feel alienated from the political class that democracies inevitably generate.   They do not regard politicians as representative of themselves, even if they have voted for them.

Citizens assemblies are currently the favourite proposals for circumventing professional politics, but they are not chosen by the electorate and are not answerable to anyone.   They therefore have no democratic legitimacy.   Citizens assemblies by definition lack the experience that enables professional politicians to assess what they are being told.   They are heavily dependent on the expert advisors who endeavour to analyse the options and their consequences.   The system is too vulnerable to manipulation and facile solutions.

Whatever one thinks of our politicians it is an inescapable truth that we cannot have democracy without politics or politics without politicians!   Democracy is an efficient way of getting rid of unsatisfactory governments without violence.

There are three reasons why people ought to believe in democracy.   It is the best protection we have for liberty.   The creation of a political class may well be the chief merit of democracy.   Democracies are usually more efficient.

Democracy requires a common loyalty to the decision making process, which is strong enough to transcend people’s disagreements about particular issues.  That depends on a common sense of identity and a large measure of solidarity.   This sense of solidarity exists only at the level of the nation state.

The transition  from democracy to dictatorship is generally smooth and unnoticed.   It is easy to sleepwalk into it.  The outward forms and the language of politics are unchanged.   Democracy is not formally abolished but quietly redefined.   It ceases to be a method of government but becomes a set of political values like communism or human rights which are said to represent the peoples true wishes without regard to anything the people may have chosen for themselves.  

The United Kingdom is slowly but surely going down this path towards an authoritarian state.   Will the people wake up in time to stop it?

 

 

Morality and Politics

Do Moral Principles affect our politics and if so what are they?

 

In his book The Righteous Mind the author Jonathan Haidt sets out six moral principles.   They are:

·   Care/harm evolved in response to the challenge of caring for vulnerable children.   It makes us sensitive to signs of suffering and need, it makes us despise cruelty and want to care for those who are suffering.

·    Liberty/oppression shows concerns about political equality and are related to a dislike of oppression and a concern for victims, and no desire for reciprocity.

· Fairness/cheating evolved in response to the challenge of reaping the rewards of cooperation without getting exploited by free riders   It makes us sensitive to indications that another person is likely to be a good (or bad partner) for collaboration and reciprocal altruism.   It makes us want to shun or punish cheaters.   It is primarily about proportionality.   When a few members of a group contribute far more than the others most adults do not want to see the benefits distributed equally.   

L Loyalty/betrayal evolved in response to the challenge of forming and maintaining coalitions.   It makes us sensitive to signs that another person is (or is not) a team player.   It makes us reward the team player and it makes us want to hurt, ostracize those who betray us or our group.

·  Authority/subversion evolved  in response to the challenge of forging relationships that will benefit us within social hierarchies.   It make us sensitive to signs of rank or status and to signs that other people are (or are not) behaving properly, given their position.

·   Sanctity/degradation evolved initially in response to the dilemma, and then the broader challenge of living in a world of parasites.   It makes us wary of a diverse array of symbolic objects and threats.   It makes it possible for people to invest objects with irrational and extreme values- both positive and negative – which are important for binding groups together.

 It appears that people rely upon these principles in different ways or to different degrees.   Socialists rely primarily on the Care and Liberty principles. Whereas those on the right of politics use all six.   If so, does that give Conservative politicians a broader variety of ways to connect with voters?

The political left tend to rest most strongly on the Care/harm and Liberty/oppression principles.   These support ideals of social justice, which emphasize compassion for the poor and a struggle for equality among the groups that comprise society.   Social justice groups emphasize solidarity – they call for people to come together to fight the oppression of bullying domineering elites.

Everyone cares about Care/harm but the political left turn out to be more disturbed by signs of violence and suffering compared to Conservatives.

Everyone care about Liberty/oppression but the left are most concerned about the rights of certain vulnerable groups ( e.g. racial minorities, children, animals) and they look to government to defend the weak against oppression by the strong.   Conservatives, in contrast, hold more traditional ideas of liberty as the right to be left alone and they resent programmes that use government to infringe on their liberties in order to protect the groups that the left most care about.   For example, small business owners support Conservatives because they resent government telling them how to run their businesses under its banner of protecting workers, minorities, consumers and the environment.

The Fairness/cheating principal is about proportionality.   It is about making sure that people get what they deserve.   Everyone cares about proportionality, everyone gets angry when people take more than they deserve, but Conservatives care more. Employees who work the hardest should be paid the most.   The left are ambivalent but Conservatives in contrast endorse this enthusiastically.

Conservatives think it is self evident that responses to crimes should be based on proportionality, as shown in the slogan “Three strikes and you’re out”   Yet the political left are uncomfortable with retribution.   After all retribution causes ham and harm activates the Care/harm principle.

The remaining three moral principles show the biggest and most consistent partisan differences.   The political left are ambivalent about these principles at best, whereas Conservatives embrace them.

The political left embrace the three moral principles of Care/harm, Liberty/oppression and Fairness/cheating but are often willing to trade away fairness when it conflicts with compassion or with their fight against oppression.   Conservatives believe in all six moral principles although they are more willing to sacrifice Care and let some people get hurt in order to achieve their many other moral principles.

Moral psychology can help to explain why the Labour Party has had so much difficulty connecting with voters, whilst Conservatives speak more directly to the voters because they have a better grasp of the theory of moral principles because they trigger every single principle.

One of the great puzzles about democracy at the moment is why rural and working class voters choose to vote Conservative when it is Labour that wants to redistribute money more evenly?   Labour often say that Conservatives have duped  these people into voting against their economic self interest, but from the perspective of Moral Principles, rural and working class voters were in fact voting for their moral interests.   They don’t want to eat at expensive restaurant, they don’t want their nation to devote itself primarily to the care of victims and the pursuit of social justice.

For 130 years the Conservative Party understood these Moral Principles  and targeted the voters accordingly, which is why it dominated UK politics during this period.   Unfortunately it lost sight of them in the last 25 years and has suffered accordingly.   The question is can it recover and get them back?

The Conservatives have one further problem.   They have allowed their membership to decline to an insignificant level.   This is fatal.   People love groups, we develop our virtues in groups, even though these groups necessarily exclude non-members.   If you destroy your group you dissolve all internal structure, you destroy your moral capital.

Real Conservatives understand this point.   The subdivisions add up to the greater whole.   Edmund Burke said it in 1790:

To be attached to the subdivision (e.g. Christian Conservatives, Conservative Friends of Israel etc.)  to love the little platoons we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections.   It is the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country, and to mankind.

Mark Littlewood of Popcon talks with Jonathan Gullis of Reform

 Mark Littlewood of Popcon talks with Jonathan Gullis.   Click on the heading below:

 Jonathan Gullis talk with Mark Littlewood

So That Was 2025

                                                     So That was 2025

A Tale of Two Cities

by Charles Dickens

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, 

it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, 

it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity,

it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of Hope, 

it was the winter of despair.

How Democracies Die

See the following video:

(3) Video | Facebook

John Strafford addresses the Campaign for Conservative Democracy meeting held on 13th December

 "How Democracies Die"

by

Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt  

In their book "How Democracies Die" the authors say:

"Blatant dictatorship- in the form of fascism, communism, or military rule - has disappeared across much of the world.   Military coups and other violent seizures of power are rare.   Most countries hold regular elections.   Democracies still die, but by different means.   Since the Cold War, most democratic breakdowns have been caused not by generals and soldiers but by elected governments themselves.   Elected leaders have subverted democratic institutions in Georgia, Hungary, Nicaragua, Peru, the Philippines, Russia, Sri Lanka and Turkey.   Democratic backsliding today begins at the ballot box."

At the meeting of the Campaign for Conservative Democracy held on December 13 2025 I put to the audience the four criteria set out by Levitsky and Ziblatt which they say are the warning signs that a country is moving towards dictatorship, and asked the audience whether they thought that the United Kingdom met this criteria?   The audience agreed that the United Kingdom met all the criteria.   What a worry!  The four warning signs are as follow:

1.    Rejection of (or weak commitment to) democratic rules of the game.

       Example; Do they suggest a need for antidemocratic measures, such as cancelling elections,                     violating or suspending the constitution, banning certain organisations or restricting basic civil or             political rights?

2.    Denial of the legitimacy of political opponents.

       Example: Do they baselessly suggest that their rivals are foreign agents, in that they are secretly             working in alliance with (or the employ of) a foreign government - usually an enemy one?

3.   Toleration or encouragement of violence.

      Example: Have they tacitly endorsed violence by their supporters by refusing to unambiguously                 condemn it and punish it?

4.   Readiness to curtail civil liberties of opponents, including media.

     Example: Have they supported laws or policies that restrict civil liberties, such as expanded libel or           defamation laws, or laws restricting protest, criticism of the government, or certain civic or                     political organisations? 

Lord Frost "Our Electoral franchise is a mess"

 https://fb.watch/E8_qrAU83W/ 

Copy the link above to see John Strafford addressing the COPOV Forum on 13 December 2025 About Lord Frost's paper 

"Our Electoral franchise is a mess".

Will the Reform Party become a Democratic Party?

 

                    Chatting with Danny Kruger MP at the Taxpayers Alliance Christmas Reception.

Last week Caroline and I were delighted to be invited by the Taxpayers Alliance to their Christmas reception at a magnificent house in Chelsea.   The guest speaker was Danny Kruger MP.   As I have know Danny for twenty years I took the opportunity to ask him whether the Reform Party would move towards becoming a democratic Party controlled by it's members rather than the dual Dictatorship which it was at present?  He told me that he thought that Reform would move in that direction but it would take time.              

    Their biggest organisation problem at present was in conducting due diligence on all the Parliamentary Candidates and Council Candidates which they are working hard to get in place and this is their priority!

Discussion and Debate at a Conservative Party Conference!

 The day Conservative Party members elected the Party Chairman!

Net Zero and a Constitutional Crisis

 

Net Zero and a Constitutional crisis!

 At the Gerrards Cross Conservatives dinner on 27 November 2025, John Strafford asked Dr. David Starkey whether, now that The President of the United States and the Reform Party oppose the policy of Net Zero and the Conservative Party is moving in that direction, can King Charles II continue to advocate a policy of Net Zero, thus interfering in the political process, unlike his mother Queen Elizabeth II, who always stayed neutral, and the King is therefore creating a constitutional crisis.?   David Starkey's answer was "Yes, it will create a Constitutional crisis and the Prime Minister will have to have privately, a firm word with him!".

Net Zero and Vested Interests! Question to Nigel Farage MP and his reply!

 

Film October 2023 by Aleksandra Turner

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/14PN3Zqtkmt/

Reform are gearing up to fight the General Election

 

Reform are gearing themselves up to fighting a National ground campaign in the General Election.   They recognise that members are an essential element in this and motivating them is critical.   In marginal seats members are essential and in todays scenario every seat is a marginal seat.   Reform are even targeting traditionally strong Conservative seats like Beaconsfield.   Unfortunately the Conservative Party continues to treat its members with contempt.   Unless the Conservative Party embraces democracy within the Party, it will rue the day when it decided to take away all members rights.   I show below recent emails I have received from Reform:

Dear John,  It's been a busy month for our Beaconsfield constituency REFORM branch, and we are delighted to announce that we have some key events and dates for your diary between now and Christmas. Many more events are planned for 2026, and I can't wait to be able to share these with you.   We are a young branch that needs to be general election ready.  We need to build strong teams of volunteers in each area for canvassing, leafleting, fundraising, campaigning and event organisation. If you have a little time to spare, please email me.   TRAINING GIVEN  We are holding a one-hour volunteer training session on Sunday 2nd November 1-2pm in Bourne End. Your branch truly needs YOU! We need to ensure our constituency turns turquoise! Contact me if you would like to attend.  Here are some key dates for your diary and opportunities to get involved.   Reform UK Action Day – 25th October 2025 - volunteers needed  On this day, REFORM UK HQ wants every branch, that's more than 450 nationwide, out in full force! We rely on volunteers to help us engage with the public, recruit new members, and collect donations. CAN YOU HELP US ON THIS DAY? If so, please contact me with times of the day you are available. Let's make this the biggest one-day membership surge in British political history. WE NEED YOUR HELP TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.   It's our mission to be visible and accessible to all our wards within our constituency. Please note the following event dates. Further information will be sent out soon: -  •⁠ ⁠Wednesday 26th November, 7.30-9pm - 'Meet & Greet' in Beaconsfield Town Centre. Come and meet your branch team. Further plans tbc.  •⁠ ⁠Sunday 2ndNovember1-2pm - Canvassing training in Bourne End. Followed by canvassing as a group between 2-4pm for those who can continue.  Gathering voting intention data is key to our success in any upcoming election. Can you spare some time to help us? Join our friendly volunteers to further our work.   •⁠ ⁠Thursday 11th December 7.30pm - Branch Christmas celebration. Details coming soon.   In addition to our regular branch meetings and events we plan on hosting smaller and informal socials across pubs, cafe's and restaurants in all of our constituency wards. Do you know of a suitable, ideally REFORM friendly venue near you? Please let us know.   If you are not yet a member and would like to be, or you can donate to help us buy necessary leaflets and materials, please click here.  Wishing you all a wonderful week. Kind regards Chair Beaconsfield Constituency    A few days later I received the following:

 Dear John,

 TODAY is our BIG Reform UK 2025 Action Day.

 Today marks the biggest coordinated campaign day in our party’s history.

We need every member, supporter, and volunteer out on the ground helping to grow Britain’s fastest-growing political movement.

 If you know someone - a friend, family member, or neighbour - who shares our values, forward them this email or send them this link xxxxxxx so they can join Reform UK today. Together, we can make history.

What’s Happening Today

✅ An incredible 450 Reform UK branches across the UK will be setting up stalls, tables, and street presence.  The aim of the day is to sign up as many new members as we possibly can.

 📱 Supporters will be encouraged to sign up at the stalls, but can also join or donate via the Reform Go app and the Reform UK website throughout the day.

                                            

  Live National Broadcast & £5,000 Branch Prize

To celebrate our Action Day, I will be hosting a live two-hour broadcast from our London HQ. I’m also delighted to confirm that Jeremy Kyle will be joining us as co-host from a Reform UK Bus on the South Coast and the fabulous Darren Grimes will be co-hosting from Durham. What could possibly go wrong?

 We will have reporters around the country, our fantastic MPs and activists and elected representatives all joining the broadcast.

We need to unleash your competitive spirit

💰 To add competition to the day, we are offering a £5,000 CASH PRIZE for the branch that signs up the most new members in a single day. It’s all to play for!

 📊 A live leader board will track the top-performing branches in real time during the broadcast.

How You Can Take Part

Whether you’re a long-time supporter or new to our party, we want you involved today:

Join your local branch at their street stall or community event.
Bring a friend, a neighbour, or a family member and get them signed up.
Share photos, videos, and updates throughout the day using #ReformActionDay.

 Today, let's show just how widespread support is for Reform UK across the country. We want this day to be as successful as we can make it, so please get involved in any way you can and let's have a great day!

 Best,

 Dr David Bull

 Chairman

 Reform UK

 

COVID Freedoms Lost!

 COVID Freedoms Lost

Speech by John Strafford and response by Joy Morrissey MP

Conservative Party Conference 2021

Donald Trump and USA democracy!

 At a meeting of the Farnham Conservatives, where the guest speaker was Kevin Richardson, a former Mayor from Chicago.   I told him I supported most of what Donald Trump is doing but I often didn't like the way he express himself!   Thanks to David Moore for organising!

Rt Hon Kemi Badenock MP What a Surprise!

 What a lovely surprise to receive the following yesterday on my birthday!

 Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP

Leader of the Conservative Party

Dear John,

On behalf of the entire Conservative family, I would like to wish you a very Happy Birthday.

I also want to take this moment to thank you for continuing to support our party. Members like you play a critical role and even more so as we renew our party to take us from Opposition back into Government.

But for today John I hope you enjoy your special day.

The Way We Were! Conservative Party Conferences!

 Do you remember what Conservative Party Conferences were like?                                                                      A Trip down Memory Lane.

Reform Party Rule Changes. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly!

 REFORM PARTY ISSUES NEW RULES

Last year the Reform Party introduced a Constitution which was passed by the members of the Party in General Meeting.   The Constitution was 17 pages in length.   Since then the Party Board, on which a majority of the members are appointed by Nigel Farage issued the Rules for the election of Party Board members (just three of them, so they do not form a majority) and the Rules for Branches/Constituency Associations, (22 pages long) without going back to the members for their approval!   Thus the Dictatorship of Nigel Farage and Zia Yusuk who control the Party continues.   This is not the way a democratic political Party works!   Members have no say on policy and organisation is effectively controlled by the Leader who has a majority of his appointments on the Party Board.   Eventually the members will realise this and start to walk away from the Party.   In May 2025 the Party claimed to have over 230,000 members.  According to the Rules for the election of the Party Board this is now 227,000.

The Reform Party are repeating the error which the Conservative Party has made, (the Original Conservative Constitution was 55 pages long, today it is over 150 pages long) creating a vast bureaucratic organisation controlled by the elite.

Not all is bad in the changes which have been introduced by Reform:

Rules for the election of the Party Board

First of all congratulations, the three members of the Party Board are to be elected directly by the ordinary Party members in a nationwide ballot.   This is in stark contrast to the Conservative Party which has no members directly elected to their Party Board by ordinary Party members.

The bad news is that under the rules each candidate must

 1.1.3.  pay a £100 non-refundable application fee and,

 1.1.4. like anyone standing for election for the Party, pass the vetting process.

The vetting process at the moment is very extensive including, we are told, psychiatric testing, so much so that it is said that it will be simplified!

The question is: Who judges the results of the process and are they accountable to the members?

Branch/Constituency Rules

Here the position is mixed.   There are some very good detailed rules which the Conservative Party should look at and incorporate within its own Constitution.   However there are also some rules which strengthen the dictatorial control of the Party by the Party Board and ultimately Nigel Farage and Zia Yusuk!

Rules:

4.13 Branch Officers must sign an NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement) and will complete Party-approved GDPR training prior to their confirmation and prior to gaining access to any Party systems.

The wording of the NDA is not given but generally Non Disclosure Agreements are used by very powerful people to stop not so powerful people speaking out.   For transparency the wording of an NDA should be shown so members can judge whether it is reasonable.

4.15 A National or Regional Director may at their sole discretion, replace and/or remove any interim Branch Officer for any reason they consider pertinent.

Nowhere in the Party’s Constitution does it mention National or Regional Director so presumably these have been created  and appointed by the Party Board without reference to the membership so who are they accountable to?

5.7 is a strange requirement and indicates that the Party hierarchy do not trust the members!

National/Regional Directors are not elected, they are appointed, At any time they can come in to a branch and take the position of chair to control meetings.  This is control freakery at its worst!

6.18 If branches call emergency meetings to discuss a problem the National or Regional Director can cancel these meetings at any time.   Once again we see a complete lack of democracy and distrust of ordinary members.

 

ALL SPEAKERS MUST BE APPROVED. Reform don't trust their branches organising speakers, they must be approved now by HQ.   This is extraordinary.   Once again the lack of trust by the hierarchy is highlighted by this clause!

15 Waiver

15.1    The Party Chairman, Vice Chairman, National Directors, and their duly authorised appointees, may at their absolute discretion, revoke, suspend or waive any Branch Rule at any time with or without notice.

This says it all   For the avoidance of any doubt we the Party hierarchy can do what ever we please and the ordinary Party member has no recourse.   This is called dictatorship.   It isn’t democracy!