Cookie Notice

WE LOVE THE NATIONS OF EUROPE
However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Monday, 20 August 2018

Modifying the powers of the 1922 Committee

Apologies for a techy Conservative Party post, but I suspect this will be of interest to all other new or rejoining members. The Party Constitution is a fairly simple document for anyone used to dealing with commercial or construction contracts. In relation to election of a Leader, s.3 of Schedule 2 requires;
Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board.
In other words, as suggested below, the 1922 Committee could currently conspire to withhold from the Party membership as a whole the most popular candidates.

Christopher Hope reports in the Telegraph about efforts by a fellow Party member, John Strafford, to amend the rule to allow any MP with more than 20 nominations from fellow MPs to go on the ballot paper to the membership.  

I am sure all MPs and members of the party who, as I am, are committed to openness, transparency and full democracy will support these fair, equitable and sensible rule changes, which will benefit the image and electability of our Party and of our candidates.

10 comments:

right-writes said...

If it looks like such a change to the constitution at the hands of members is likely to produce an anti-establishment candidate. Those rules will either change, or be ignored...

...Has the reversal of every single promise by its current leader not given any indication of the direction that this fetid organisation travels in?

rapscallion said...

Surely then the 1922 Committee could withold from the Party Membership any candidate it chooses. In that case why don't the trigger a leadership election and withold any Remain candidates/ Seems bloody obvious to me!

Tony Harrison said...

"..the 1922 Committee could currently conspire to withhold from the Party membership as a whole the most popular candidates"
RW, are you still sure rejoining was a good thing? Seems to me you've just highlighted one of the many ways in which the PCP treats the grass-roots membership with disregard bordering on contempt; and it underscores what I said on that other thread, about the Tory membership's powerlessness. They really, really don't want any input from the plebs - but good luck with it anyway...

Anonymous said...

I too was considering joining the Tory party under the present circumstances. So I found an email address for the local agent and sent him an email:

Sir,

Given the state that this country is descending into, I feel that I can no longer leave politics to others who enjoy it on my behalf. Instead I must get stuck in to make a difference.

As I live in the Buckingham constituency, if I were to join the Conservatives it would be the Buckingham Association that I would join. To help me decide if my political home is the Buckingham Conservatives, I wonder if you could let me have the answers to a few questions.

1. In 2009 the local association "stood behind" John Bercow.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2009/09/buckingham-conservative-association-executive-committee-stands
-behind-bercow/
Is that still the view of Buckingham Conservatives? Please give the reasoning behind your answer.

2. Does the local association have any view on the manner in which John Bercow, a former Conservative MP for Buckingham, expressed his views on Brexit? See:
https://order-order.com/2018/03/13/bercow-says-bollocks-brexit/
https://order-order.com/2018/03/13/bercow-says-bollocks-to-brexit-clone/
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/bercows-bollocks-to-brexit-sticker-is-a-disgrace/
https://order-order.com/2018/05/31/new-bercow-anti-brexit-car-sticker-dont-blame-voted-remain/

3. What is the Association's view on Brexit vs Remain?

4. If John Bercow stands again as Mr Speaker at the next General Election, will the Buckingham Conservatives field a candidate who will represent the electors?

Thank you for your time,


That was a month or so ago. Needless to say I have no reply not even an acknowledgement. I have concluded that (re)joining the Tories is a seriously wasted effort.

Budgie said...

In the 1970s it was widely recognised that unions were corrupt socialist political power centres ready for the revolutionary takeover of the nation. They had considerable establishment support. The debate was: join and reform from within; or fight from without. Margaret Thatcher settled that - she recognised reform from within was not possible.

Back to the present. Theresa May set in motion two "Brexit" White Papers - one by DExEU, and one by her Olly Robbins headed EU Unit some months ago. Only no one in the cabinet (well, possibly a few Remains) knew about it. Certainly Davis, Baker, and Johnson didn't until the Chequers cabinet meeting on 6th July 2018.

A few days ago there were lurid headlines about British spies supposedly stealing the wholesome transparent EU's reaction to the Robbins WP. On the 5th July. So whilst (almost) everyone was looking at the British spying squirrels, no-one has pointed out (that I know of) this date anomaly. It confirms that Mrs May gave the Robbins WP to the EU well before she let the cabinet even know of its existence.

So Mrs May has lied to the country, her party and her own Ministers about the existence of the Robbins WP, the contents of the WP, and the fact she gave it to the EU before even letting her own cabinet see it. The depth of her duplicity is breathtaking. There is something extraordinarily ruthless about this.

Where does her power come from? Partly from the Tory party, but mostly from the Remain establishment. You have to ask yourself why there hasn't been a mere 48 MP letters to the 1922 chairman already. It is because there is no Tory party internal solution to the May impasse that is quick enough to avert the looming Remain disaster. Tory party members are powerless, divided and no match for the establishment. Only external pressure will work, as Mrs Thatcher foresaw with the rotten unions.

Tony Harrison said...

Re the post from Anon at 10.58, I too have tried emailing the Totnes constituency Conservatives - sometimes CC-ing them my occasional messages to our MP Dr Sarah Wollaston, arch-Remainer and seriously bossy health fascist. I have made it clear that I would always consider rejoining the Conservatives were they to reassert/remember conservative values, even though they dumped those in the 1990s at the latest... But I too have failed to receive a reply or even an acknowledgement from them. Wollaston herself replies quite promptly, a good correspondent though not so good as her predecessor Anthony Steen - for all his faults a prompt, efficient, friendly correspondent whom I met several times. Wollaston's replies are often form letters: I suspect she receives many complaints about her social-democrat stance from the very conservative folk around here.
An indifference to correspondence from constituents and potential Con Party members is not just rude, it indicates an arrogant, indolent disdain. Another reason I have almost no time for the Conservatives...

Bill Quango MP said...

Allowing a selection with just twenty nominations is the manhole cover over the sewer that the Korbyn Kommunists crawled through to seize control of the Labour party.
I would not recommend allowing such a thing. Who knows what will gain entry.
Fascists?
Fundamentalists?

or worse.

More of these dripping wet, social democrats.

Ravenscar. said...

"More of these dripping wet, social democrats" are nanny state totalitarians = Fascists by another pathway.

John Brown said...

It is because the Conservative Party is so deeply remain that Mr. Johnson knew there was no way he could win the leadership after Mr. Cameron’s resignation following the leave referendum result.

This is what he meant by “That having consulted colleagues and in view of the circumstances in Parliament I have concluded that person [leader of the Conservative Party] cannot be me”.

It is also why the 1922 Committee has not received the necessary 48 letters to trigger a leadership contest as Mrs. May would simply win again as Mr. Major did in 1995.

The only way the Conservative Party will have a leave supporting leader is if the current crop of remain MPs are either deselected or lose their seats in a GE.

This is why it is absolutely imperative for all leave voters to not vote for remain supporting candidates at any and all possible voting opportunities.

Dioclese said...

I am working on what I call the 'Momentum principle' which is why I have rejoined the Conservative Party.

The Labour party is working on flooding the party with hard left members to take over local constituency parties and deselect and bully non-Corbyn lefties.

I think we could play the same trick on cunts like Soubry and Grieve. Flood the party with Brexit supporters and cull the Remoaners.

Well, it's a plan anyway.

Let's see what happens next when Sir Nigel returns to the front line. I'd love to see Labour and Tory MPs break away and form a new party that actually believes in this country and respects the will of the people.

As Lennon once said : "You may call me a dreamer..."