Since 2003 Eric Chalker has had no political affiliation, but was an active member of the Conservative Party from 1957 to 1970 and from 1979 to 2003, holding various offices.Â
Before 1998 the Conservative Party had no legal form.
Its constituency associations were combined in a body called The National Union, which theoretically ran its own affairs but in practice was kept in check by Conservative Central Office. Central Office also had a questionable legal existence, but it was under the control of the Party Chairman. His appointment and the appointment of other party ‘officers’ was by the sole choice of the Party Leader chosen by Conservative MPs. All power over internal party affairs thus resided with the Party Leader. It was a form of monarchy.
It still is.
There were two major campaigns to change this: the Charter Movement and the Party Reform Steering Committee. Both campaigned to make the party, outside Parliament, democratic. Their proposals differed, but were not in conflict. Either would have given elected party members authority over the party organisation. Both came close to achieving that objective, but were bypassed by the party constitution imposed on constituency associations by William Hague and Cecil Parkinson.
That constitution, published in 1998 without a vote by or on behalf of party members, is still extant. It embraces the constituency associations but leaves them and party members firmly under the control of the Party Leader, directly and indirectly.
So the Conservative Party is still the creature of whoever happens to be the Party Leader. He or she chooses the chairman, vice chairmen, and treasurer(s) without any form of accountability for the choice or the performance. Those chosen exercise complete authority and power over the party organisation and, through it, condition the way constituencies and their members operate.
Some (but not the Charter Movement or Party Reform Steering Committee) thought the way to make the party democratic was for ordinary members to elect the Party Leader. Â It should have been obvious to all, however, that it would not and could not do this. It is inconceivable that a party leader in Parliament could be made answerable to the party membership in any meaningful way for the actions of party officers and the operations of the central organisation.
Nevertheless, perhaps to stave off those campaigning for fundamental reform, the constitution gave party members a vote on the final two candidates to emerge from the MPs’ election process for Party Leader. Conservative MPs still have the ability to influence the outcome by their choice of the last two (sometimes just the one) while the treatment of Liz Truss shows that Conservative MPs will not accept as their leader someone who does not command sufficient support among them.
The Conservative Party is now engaged in a repeat of the same electoral process. Whatever the outcome, it cannot meet all the needs of a party so damaged by the recent general election.
The parliamentary party must govern itself, but there is no evidence that officers and others appointed by a Party Leader can successfully meet the needs of the party organisation outside Parliament, even if they have some previous experience of such matters. The skills and knowledge required to manage and lead a party organisation outside Parliament, heavily dependent on volunteers, are very different from what is required to oversee and direct a government department.
Most importantly of all, this constant disregard and disrespect of ordinary party members is profoundly contrary to the party’s long term interests and it cannot be surprising that party membership has progressively diminished.
One might consider what waste there has been of ordinary party members’ enthusiasm, their abilities, and their commitment (often involving personal sacrifice), by not giving them, through elected representatives and officers wholly accountable to them, full responsibility for all aspects of the party organisation outside parliament.
It is the monarchical nature of the Conservative Party that so often causes the party in Parliament to drift away from its supporters outside. Many examples could be given, but here are two.
- Policy positions can be taken by a small group close to the Party Leader which do not reflect the views, opinions, and even beliefs of ordinary party members, yet all are expected to fall unquestioningly into line. Thus laws can be passed which party members do not want.
- Criteria for selecting parliamentary candidates can be set to reflect the desires of the current Party Leader, rather than the opinions of party members themselves. Thus the party’s character can be changed over time, without party members’ consent.
Successive Party Leaders’ determination to control the party organisation, as well as their MPs, in the belief that this is necessary for electoral success, has had mixed outcomes. More importantly, it is contrary to the party’s long term interests. The lack of alternative voices and accompanying debate lead to mistakes that would otherwise be avoided. Just as too much regulation stifles enterprise, authoritarian discipline discourages enthusiasm.
A far better arrangement for the long-term success of the Conservative Party would be a party organisation governed by officers chosen by and accountable to its members. Such an organisation would strengthen members’ belief in its future and encourage more of its voters to become and stay members. It would also ensure that the long term needs of the organisation are not overlooked and that it has the means to communicate intelligently with those it sends to Parliament, over a parliament’s lifetime as well as in between parliaments.
Discussion and debate are, or should be, the essence of democratic politics and not just among MPs and those chosen by the Party Leader. Ambition and a desire to lead are natural political ingredients always found within any parliamentary party, but MPs should not cut themselves off from other influences, especially not from ordinary party members outside Parliament. Arrangements to facilitate internal communication should be balanced and functional, enabling constructive dialogue in a measured way. Party members need officers acting on their behalf to achieve this.
Viewed from the outside, the Conservative Party has lost its way. There appears to be no centre of gravity. What are its fundamental beliefs? Why does it want to be the government? How is it to be structured to achieve its objectives? How will it ensure consistency of purpose? How will it be organised outside Parliament?
Once upon a time, the Conservative Party’s great strength was its membership, but this was not evident on July 4 2024 nor, some might think, during many of the preceding years. In 1998 the party had an opportunity to make a new start, but it preserved much of what was wrong with the previous organisation while eliminating the only body that was truly representative of the membership, the National Union.
It is now paying the price for taking the wrong direction. The underlying fault is the historic and continuing determination of the parliamentary party to resist sharing responsibility for the party’s future with its membership.
To ensure that these deficiencies are remedied, it is necessary for the Conservative Party’s present membership to demand that all candidates in the current election agree to relinquish the power to appoint the Party Chairman and other party officers. Responsibility for making these appointments and holding those appointed to account must be transferred to a properly representative body of constituency association members.
Belief that accountability for the long term future of the Conservative Party and the party organisation can ever be achieved simply by voting for a Party Leader is a chimera, even if the choice were to be opened wider. It simply cannot not work.
The next two months provide an opportunity to remedy the serious deficiencies of the 1998 Party Constitution. This should be seized by all those who have the future of the Conservative Party at heart. There may not be another such opportunity.
