Steve Walley is a former association chair and approved parliamentary candidate.
When you’re on a winning streak, it’s easy to ride the wave without questioning the undercurrents, but it’s when the losses start to accumulate that you are forced to do a deep dive to find out exactly what, and how, things went wrong.
From self-inflicted wounds like Brexit (and the way it was handled), to the unpredictable challenges of the pandemic, the Ukraine war and the cost of living crisis, the Conservative Party have had to face real challenges.
However, beyond bad luck or external pressures, our downfall came because of our failure to address pressing issues such as declining living standards, the NHS, immigration and the rise of divisive identity politics – failures that actively drove our own voters away.
But the question remains: why did we fail to deliver despite such a prolonged period of power, and more importantly, how do we make sure we don’t repeat those mistakes?
The answers lie within our constitution.
People at every level of our party, from grassroots members to MPs and association officers, are openly expressing frustration with the way that the party is run, and this goes all the way to the top.
Leadership candidates openly talk about change and returning power to the membership – and whilst we don’t deny their good intentions – at best, they don’t understand exactly what needs to be done and at worst, they are just playing to the crowd.
Giving back power to the membership doesn’t automatically fix anything, and actually has the potential to create more problems, so any redistribution of responsibility needs to have a clear purpose and offer a strategic benefit.
One thing that most of us can agree on is that change is required, and after the bruising encounters of the past two years there has never been a stronger appetite to reform the party, and there’ll probably never be a better opportunity.
Enter the Staffordshire Plan.
The plan has been developed by a group of party members and volunteers from Staffordshire, from business, public and legal backgrounds. The aims are to consolidate a range of reforms that will be presented to all leadership candidates during this election period.
By committing to these necessary changes, we can strengthen the party’s governance and prepare ourselves for a meaningful spell in opposition followed by a swift return to effective government.
It is a seven point plan designed to realign the party with core values and forward-looking policies. To re-balance power within the party, and implement changes to revitalise our volunteer base. It’s designed to actually give people compelling reasons to not only join the party, but to get actively involved – and help us to beat Labour.
As someone who tackles business problems daily, reviewing our party’s constitution was like navigating a minefield—dangers lurk at every turn, some obvious, others less so.
Let’s start at the beginning.
Values should act as foundational principles that guide policy and political direction, but nobody can say exactly what Conservative values are.
As a result, our policies lack purpose and are even in danger of drifting towards populism, not a place where the Conservative Party should ever be. That’s why the Staffordshire plan proposes that Conservative values are articulated, and stamped in bold letters on the first page of our constitution, and then communicated broadly so that members, the general public, the media…. everyone…. knows exactly what Conservatives stand for.
What about how the party sets policy?
The constitution stipulates that the leader sets the political direction of the party.This sounds reasonable until you consider the chaos of having three leaders within 6 months.
Contrast this to how large corporations manage—leaders are tasked with executing the strategy, not crafting it single-handedly. This model allows businesses to withstand huge market shocks and even leadership changes and still maintain a focus on delivering the strategy.
Imagine if David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak had operated under a central strategy defined by the board and the CPF? Amidst all the chaos of the past eight years, we might still have pointed towards a record of delivery at the last election.
Any leadership candidates reading this are probably aghast at the thought of a loosened grip on the party’s political direction, but this isn’t about seizing power away from the party leader; no, it’s a pragmatic and logical redistribution of responsibilities based on common sense and a determination to make the party stronger and more effective.
This reform is about ensuring that when we next govern – and the way Labour are going that can be in five years’ time – we are better prepared to tackle the nation’s challenges.
The role of the Conservative Party chairman has been a hot topic in this leadership campaign. The role currently appears to be ineffectual, mainly because the chairman is appointed by the party leader, which removes any semblance of independence.
The position of the chair should be pivotal, representing the board and ensuring the leader is held accountable on delivering the political strategy. Some leadership candidates are now even promising members an elected chair. Giving members a vote on the chair is a move in the right direction, but as long as the chairman remains an MP, their dependency on the leader for potential future promotions compromises their independence.
The Staffordshire Plan offers a bold reform: that the chairman should not even be an MP.
This opens the door to potentially transformative figures who could elevate the party’s stature and enforce accountability. Consider the impact of having an influential entrepreneur like Karren Brady or a respected centre-right intellectual like Douglas Murray as Conservative Party Chair?
Adding that star dust and respectability would enhance the party’s public profile, broaden our appeal, shore up membership and probably improve our chances of winning elections. Most importantly, the chairman can hold the leader to account without the constraints that come from political career considerations.
Then we get onto the circus that is “Letters of No Confidence”.
The current system of no-confidence letters creates unnecessary turmoil, with the chair of the 1922 committee orchestrating the chaos. This internal mechanism, intended for accountability, only serves to destabilize leadership without any transparency.
Isn’t the leader’s job hard enough already, without giving ammunition to our opponents?
Some within the party argue for abolishing the Letters of No Confidence (LONC) system entirely – pointing out that leaders who lose the confidence of the party don’t remain in power for long anyway – the Staffordshire Plan suggests a more measured reform.
To introduce accountability and transparency into the process, we suggest that any MP wishing to submit a LONC should first present their case to their Executive Council and secure their approval. This proposed change adds a layer of accountability to actions that have the potential to destabilize the party leader and also enhances the role of our most important volunteers.
A continual frustration for local associations is candidate selection. Balancing local preferences with those of CCHQ is a delicate matter, but thoughtful reforms can alleviate a major source of contention. CCHQ’s concerns about associations favouring overly local candidates are understandable, yet it’s also true that geographical restrictions on candidates limit the choices available to associations.
Removing these geographical restrictions would open up the field, eliminating the problematic accusation of CCHQ “parachuting candidates in.” Allowing any qualified candidate to apply for any seat would broaden the options for associations, enabling them to select the best person from a wider pool of talent. This approach trusts that associations will prioritise capability and suitability over local familiarity.
This reform also stipulates that when CCHQ intervenes in candidate selection—which will sometimes be necessary—the approval of the area chair is required. After all, an area chair has intimate knowledge of their own patch, so bringing them into the process is more likely to result in an amicable outcome while re-enforcing the area chairs authority up and down the chain of command.
To read the Staffordshire Plan in full, please read our complete proposal. Pledge your support to the Staffordshire plan and sign up to our mailing list.
