Our Fight For Democracy
John Strafford is a political commentator, writer and historian; author of Our Fight for Democracy. John has a long political history of activism (leading the Conservative campaign for Yes to AV) and has been an active member of the political community through out the decades - with regular Newsnight,Today,and World at One appearances.
Pages
- Home
- "Our Fight for Democracy"
- Index of book
- Preface of "Our Fight for Democracy"
- Book - Order Form
- Introduction - The Meaning of Democracy
- Roman Britain to Magna Carta - 1215
- Parliament to the Divine Right of Kings 1216 to 1603
- Monarchy to a Republic and back 1603-1685
- Bill of Rights to the American War of Independence - 1685 to 1780
- Pitt the Younger to Catholic Emancipation - 1780 to 1830
- The Great Reform Act and its aftermath - 1830 to 1860
- The Second Reform Act to the end of the Century 1860 to 1900
- The Twentieth Century - Votes for women at last - 1900 to 1928

Monday, April 16, 2018
Tory Party Democracy - Episode 8 - The fall of Iain Duncan Smith
First the rise, now the fall of Iain Duncan Smith in this Episode. See the ding dong with my good friend Peter Oborne, a slim Eric Pickles, and Tory Chairman Theresa May.
Thursday, April 5, 2018
Tory Party Democracy - Episode 7 - Leadership Election of Iain Duncan Smith
See why Michael Portillo and Ann Widdecombe didn't even get to the start line so Party members never had a chance to vote for them!
Monday, March 26, 2018
Tory Party Democracy - Episode 6 - Party Funding under William Hague
There were differences of opinion with regards to Party Funding. Should there be a cap on it? What about democratic accountability. How was it resolved?
Thursday, March 15, 2018
Tory Party Democracy - Episode 5 - The selection and re-selection of Candidates
See how Michael Heseltine gets annoyed. The decline & fall of Jeffrey Archer, and how we got secret ballots.
Wednesday, March 7, 2018
Tory Party Democracy - Episode 4 - The Birth of the Conservative Party Constitution
This video shows how the Conservative Party came about. Before this the Conservative Party as a whole had no legal existence!
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
Democracy in the Tory Party - Episode 3 - The Leadership Election of William Hague
Shows how Party members got One member One Vote in the Tory Party Leadership elections
Monday, February 19, 2018
Democracy in the Tory Party - Episode 2 - "The Major Years"
At a time when Party funding became a crisis. How did Party members re-act? See "The Major Years" to find out.
Friday, February 2, 2018
Democracy in the Tory Party - Episode 1 Part 2 Northern Ireland after the vote.
What happened in Northern Ireland after the vote at the Party Conference to allow the people of Northern Ireland to be members of the Conservative Party
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
The Decline and Fall of Democracy in the Conservative Party
This is the first in a series of films about the decline of democracy in the Tory Party. This is an issue which should concern everyone. If our political parties are undemocratic organisations, what legitimacy does a government have which has been created out of these undemocratic organisations?
This first film which was created several years ago tells how the people of Northern Ireland were allowed to become members of the Tory Party. Your views on this are welcome.
This first film which was created several years ago tells how the people of Northern Ireland were allowed to become members of the Tory Party. Your views on this are welcome.
Monday, January 8, 2018
The Twentieth Century - Votes for women at last.
Go to The Twentieth Century - Votes for women at last - 1918 "The Representation of the People Act"- Votes for women at last. (Updated 23rd April 2018)
Thursday, December 21, 2017
There is more to democracy than just a cross on a ballot paper
There is more to democracy than just a cross on a ballot paper. Rule of Law is essential before you can have democracy. Another essential is the security of the State. In World War II my father gave his life fighting against the tyranny of the Nazi regime. The following film on Youtube is a personal
account in his memory: The Battle of Monte Natale.
account in his memory: The Battle of Monte Natale.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017
How others see us?
Looking at the convoluted negotiations taking place
with the European Union I am reminded of what Leo Tolstoy said in “War and
Peace”:
Germans are self confident on the basis of an
abstract notion – science, that is, the
supposed knowledge of absolute truth.
A Frenchman is self assured because he regards
himself personally both in mind and body as irresistibly attractive to men and
women.
An Englishman is self assured as being a citizen of
the best organised state in the world, and therefore, as an Englishman, always
knows what he should do and knows that all he does as an Englishman is
undoubtedly correct.
An Italian is self assured because he is excitable
and easily forgets himself and other people.
A Russian is self assured just because he knows
nothing and does not want to know anything, since he does not believe anything
can be known.
The German’s self-assurance is the worst of all,
stronger and more repulsive than any other, because he imagines that he knows
the truth – science- which he himself has invented but which for him is the
absolute truth.
If
only?
Monday, October 30, 2017
Which side of the fence do you sit on?
If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a good
test!
If a Conservative supporter doesn't like guns, they
don't buy one.
If a Labour supporter doesn't like guns, they want
all guns outlawed.
If a Conservative is a vegetarian, they don't eat
meat.
If a Labour is a vegetarian, they want all meat
products banned for everyone.
If a Conservative is gay, they quietly lead their
life.
If a Labour is gay, they demand legislated respect.
If a Conservative is down-and-out, they think about
how to better their situation.
If a Labour is down and out they wonder who is
going to take care of them.
If a Conservative doesn't like a talk show, they
switch channels.
If a Labour doesn’t like a talk show they demand
that those they don't like should be banned.
If a Conservative is a non-believer, they don't go
to church.
If a Labour is a non-believer they want any mention
of God and religion silenced
If a Conservative reads this, they'll forward it so
their friends can have a good laugh.
If a Labour reads this they will delete it because
they're "offended."
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
Devolution
The most widely
discussed dilemma posed by devolution is the West Lothian question, named as
such by Enoch Powell after the then constituency of Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP
who argued against the 1970s devolution proposals. This is about the anomaly created if a wide
range of social and home affairs issues are devolved to a Scottish Parliament,
but remain with the Westminster Parliament in England. Consequently, Scottish MPs could vote in the
Commons on such issues affecting England but not when it affects their own
constituents north of the border.
The Government has tried to
overcome this problem by having English Votes for English Laws. What they have created is a bureaucratic
nightmare with little if any accountability.
In order to overcome the West Lothian question England should have its
own Parliament. The total number of
parliamentarians in England, Wales, Scotland Northern Ireland and Westminster
(United Kingdom) should not exceed 600 including the devolved Parliaments.
A
Federal structure for the United Kingdom should be created with each country
within the Kingdom having its own Parliament.
The Government
White Paper on Scotland’s Parliament,
published by the Scottish Office in July 1997, stated explicitly that “The UK Parliament is and will remain
sovereign”. The Scotland Act 1998 repeated the phrase.
The Scottish
Parliament has legislative competence over matters that once were the
responsibility of the Scottish Office, such as health, education, local government
and law and order. It also has tax-varying powers. It can add up to 3p on the basic rate of
income tax.
Having
established a Federal structure each national parliament can then decide which
powers are devolved and to what level.
There is a never-ending
conflict between central government and local government. Both claim to have a democratic mandate and
both claim to know what is best for the people. Local government wants to provide the
relevant services for their locality and to prioritise them. Central government wants to retain financial
control and to ensure that national standards are met so how can this conflict
be resolved? Let the people decide!
The parliaments
of each nation would set out enabling legislation showing what powers could be
devolved to a local level. A local
constitutional convention could then be held to consider the constitution of
the proposed authority and the particular powers to be transferred to it. The convention would produce a proposal
which would be subject to a referendum in all the local authority areas covered
by the proposal. The result of the
referendum would be final.
Local government
should be self-financing, itself raising the money that it spends. In such a scenario there is a strong case
for as much power as possible to be transferred from central government to
local government and in order most closely to meet the wishes of the people
that power should be devolved to the lowest level of local government as
possible. Democratic accountability
would then ensure that those responsible for raising the moneys locally were
also accountable for the way those monies were spent By these measures the aims and objectives of
both local and national government could be reconciled and their aims and
objects clearly delineated.
All the
expenditure of local government should be financed out of taxes raised by local
government subject to an adjustment for special needs financed by central
government.
Devolving power
carries with it a greater responsibility on the citizen to participate, so when
power is devolved:
Local citizens should be left in no doubt that their
system of government is going to change.
The change will involve them taking greater responsibility for their
environment and services. They must be
left with no excuses if they refuse to participate. Localism tends to involve, most immediately
and controversially, variations in local taxes. Such variations concentrate the democratic
mind. That is the franchise
biting. That is what drives people to
vote. “Big
Bang Localism by Simon Jenkins
The methods
chosen for elections at local level vary considerably, but in England they are
based on the First Past the Post system of election. This produces much distorted results. In the 2006 local elections in the London
Borough of Newham, Labour with 41.8% of the vote got 90% of the seats. At a National level, in the 2002 local
elections the Conservative Party got 72.2% of the seats with only 43.9% of the
votes. It is one of the scandals of
local politics and no doubt contributes to the reason why turnout in local
elections is so low.
This is clearly wrong and produces wholly
unrepresentative local government. In
future:
Local government elections
should be conducted under the Single Transferable Vote system of proportional
representation with three members in each ward.
One final point,
democracy in Northern Ireland is distorted by entrenching the rights of
minorities and entrenching the sharing of power. The Belfast Peace Agreement can however
claim one major success – after many years of terrorism it brought some
stability to Northern Ireland and drastically reduced the number of terrorist
acts. This was critical. However the democratic fault lines are now
becoming apparent. Because of power sharing there is no way for
the will of the people to be fully exercised.
Minorities have to be protected, but that protection has to be with the
consent of the majority and there has to be some mechanism by which ultimately
the majority can exercise their will. By giving a minority effective control in
particular areas, at some point, the majority will rise against what is being
done.
Over a period of time the blocking mechanisms in the
Northern Ireland Assembly should be reduced, eventually to zero, to bring
Northern Ireland into line with normal democracy.
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
The Tectonic Plates are Shifting!
Sign the Parliamentary Petition to Make Votes Matter!
A parliamentary petition calling for Proportional Representation (PR) in the House of Commons already has over 97,000 signatures. If it gets over 100,000 we can demand a full Parliamentary debate - in which a growing number of MPs from all parties will be able to make the case for changing our outdated electoral system once and for all.
The petition can help us put PR right at the centre of the UK's political debate and ensure that the call for fair votes from the vast majority of the population cannot be ignored.
Monday, February 27, 2017
Vortigern's Mistake
For those students of history one area which does not get a great deal of coverage is the time between when the Romans left Britain and the Anglo-Saxon invasions. My cousin Lynda Whiteley has just brought out a short book covering this period. It is well worth reading. Click on "Vortigern's Mistake" to go to her web site.
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
The Second Reform Act to the end of the Century 1860 to 1900
Go to The Second Reform Act to see the latest update "The end of the 19th century - where is democracy now?" Updated 27th December 2017
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Why BREXIT won!
The following article was posted on the unlockdemocracy web site on 27th October 2016
Take Back Control: The EU and Democracy
by John Strafford
In the referendum held on 23rd June to decide whether the United Kingdom should stay in, or leave the European Union 49% of those who voted to leave gave their main reason for doing so was to “take back control of our country.” This was the number one reason for leaving. Put another way – in spite of all the faults in our democracy - at a General Election you can vote for the person you wish to represent you in our legislature and by so doing determine who shall form our government. You cannot do this in the European Union. Fundamentally the European Union is totally undemocratic and shows no indication of changing.
The Council of Ministers – part of the legislative process – meets in secret; the only legislative body in the world that meets behind closed doors, other than North Korea, and they are beginning to change.
The European Commission, which brings forward legislation is unelected by and unaccountable to the people.
The European Parliament, which is supposedly the democratic element of the European Union, has a number of serious flaws;
Each vote is not of equal value – a vote in Luxembourg is fifteen times the value of a vote in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom with an electorate of 44.5 million elects 73 MEPs. Luxembourg with an electorate 240,000 elects 6 MEPs.
The United Kingdom uses primarily the Closed List system of voting for the European Parliament. As a result, you cannot vote for the individual you wish to represent you in the parliament or indeed vote for someone to get rid of the individual who at present represents you. Under the Closed List system you can only vote for a political party and it is the party which determines the order of the list.
Each country in the European Union can decide what electoral system to use to elect their MEPs. The United Kingdom in the same election for the same parliament uses two systems – the Closed List in England, Scotland and Wales and in Northern Ireland the Single Transferable Vote. No other parliament in the world has this kind of arrangement.
The age at which an elector can vote in elections to the European Parliament varies dependent upon the National Parliament’s criteria for voting.
The European wide turnout in the 2014 European Parliament Election was 42.54%. This was an all time low. The people of Europe are losing faith in the institution of its parliament. Without radical reform to make it a democratic organisation the electorates of other members of the Union will want to leave. The lack of democracy is a fatal flaw in the institution.
This lack of democracy in the European Union was the main reason the people of the United Kingdom voted to “take back control of our country”.
Now that we are on track to tackle one of the democratic fault lines in our democracy we can concentrate our efforts on remedying the other fault lines – an unelected, ever expanding House of Lords, the First Past the Post electoral system, party finance and other issues. Let us get on with them so we can create a true and fair democracy in the United Kingdom. Perhaps the most important of these issues is a change in our electoral system to proportional representation, so what are the chances of this being achieved?
Having just won a General Election and having a substantial lead in the polls the Conservative Party are unlikely to support any change in the electoral system so any change to First Past The Post will require the support of a substantial number of Labour MPs. At present it looks unlikely that the Labour Party can win the next General Election in 2020. If this present condition persists in 2019 there could be a move to replace Jeremy Corbyn as Leader of the Party. It is possible that he remains Leader but a new position of Leader of the Parliamentary Party is created who would lead the Party into the General Election..
If the Scottish National Party maintain their stranglehold in Scotland and UKIP get their act together and attack Labour seats in the North of England we can envisage a situation where it looks impossible for the Labour Party to win a General Election with an overall majority. In such circumstances proportional representation may be their only opportunity to participate in government. It could then form part of their 2020 General Election manifesto.
All this is of course academic if the Conservative Party win an overall majority in the General Election, but can one be certain of this? Between now and 2020 the BREXIT negotiations have to be completed. This will cause bitter arguments within the Party. The economy might be facing turbulence. The Labour Party could have a million members and thus be capable of fighting a ground campaign across the board. The Conservative Party with 150,000 members would not be able to fight such a ground campaign. With an insurgent UKIP, targeting marginal seats would not be possible for the Tories because of the difficulty of deciding which seats are marginal. With these disadvantages the Conservatives could end up being the largest Party in parliament but not get an overall majority. The only way the Conservatives could mitigate this position would be to make the Party more democratic in order to attract new members. They show no sign of doing this.
If the Conservative Party does not get an overall majority in the General Election and the opposition parties combine together to push forward with Proportional Representation they could succeed in changing the electoral system.
This post represents the views of the author and not those of Unlock Democracy
Take Back Control: The EU and Democracy
by John Strafford
In the referendum held on 23rd June to decide whether the United Kingdom should stay in, or leave the European Union 49% of those who voted to leave gave their main reason for doing so was to “take back control of our country.” This was the number one reason for leaving. Put another way – in spite of all the faults in our democracy - at a General Election you can vote for the person you wish to represent you in our legislature and by so doing determine who shall form our government. You cannot do this in the European Union. Fundamentally the European Union is totally undemocratic and shows no indication of changing.
The Council of Ministers – part of the legislative process – meets in secret; the only legislative body in the world that meets behind closed doors, other than North Korea, and they are beginning to change.
The European Commission, which brings forward legislation is unelected by and unaccountable to the people.
The European Parliament, which is supposedly the democratic element of the European Union, has a number of serious flaws;
Each vote is not of equal value – a vote in Luxembourg is fifteen times the value of a vote in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom with an electorate of 44.5 million elects 73 MEPs. Luxembourg with an electorate 240,000 elects 6 MEPs.
The United Kingdom uses primarily the Closed List system of voting for the European Parliament. As a result, you cannot vote for the individual you wish to represent you in the parliament or indeed vote for someone to get rid of the individual who at present represents you. Under the Closed List system you can only vote for a political party and it is the party which determines the order of the list.
Each country in the European Union can decide what electoral system to use to elect their MEPs. The United Kingdom in the same election for the same parliament uses two systems – the Closed List in England, Scotland and Wales and in Northern Ireland the Single Transferable Vote. No other parliament in the world has this kind of arrangement.
The age at which an elector can vote in elections to the European Parliament varies dependent upon the National Parliament’s criteria for voting.
The European wide turnout in the 2014 European Parliament Election was 42.54%. This was an all time low. The people of Europe are losing faith in the institution of its parliament. Without radical reform to make it a democratic organisation the electorates of other members of the Union will want to leave. The lack of democracy is a fatal flaw in the institution.
This lack of democracy in the European Union was the main reason the people of the United Kingdom voted to “take back control of our country”.
Now that we are on track to tackle one of the democratic fault lines in our democracy we can concentrate our efforts on remedying the other fault lines – an unelected, ever expanding House of Lords, the First Past the Post electoral system, party finance and other issues. Let us get on with them so we can create a true and fair democracy in the United Kingdom. Perhaps the most important of these issues is a change in our electoral system to proportional representation, so what are the chances of this being achieved?
Having just won a General Election and having a substantial lead in the polls the Conservative Party are unlikely to support any change in the electoral system so any change to First Past The Post will require the support of a substantial number of Labour MPs. At present it looks unlikely that the Labour Party can win the next General Election in 2020. If this present condition persists in 2019 there could be a move to replace Jeremy Corbyn as Leader of the Party. It is possible that he remains Leader but a new position of Leader of the Parliamentary Party is created who would lead the Party into the General Election..
If the Scottish National Party maintain their stranglehold in Scotland and UKIP get their act together and attack Labour seats in the North of England we can envisage a situation where it looks impossible for the Labour Party to win a General Election with an overall majority. In such circumstances proportional representation may be their only opportunity to participate in government. It could then form part of their 2020 General Election manifesto.
All this is of course academic if the Conservative Party win an overall majority in the General Election, but can one be certain of this? Between now and 2020 the BREXIT negotiations have to be completed. This will cause bitter arguments within the Party. The economy might be facing turbulence. The Labour Party could have a million members and thus be capable of fighting a ground campaign across the board. The Conservative Party with 150,000 members would not be able to fight such a ground campaign. With an insurgent UKIP, targeting marginal seats would not be possible for the Tories because of the difficulty of deciding which seats are marginal. With these disadvantages the Conservatives could end up being the largest Party in parliament but not get an overall majority. The only way the Conservatives could mitigate this position would be to make the Party more democratic in order to attract new members. They show no sign of doing this.
If the Conservative Party does not get an overall majority in the General Election and the opposition parties combine together to push forward with Proportional Representation they could succeed in changing the electoral system.
This post represents the views of the author and not those of Unlock Democracy
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Demo for Democracy 7th May 2016
Speaking in favour of a fair democracy. Watch Here.
Monday, May 9, 2016
The Great Reform Act and its aftermath - 1830 - 1860
Go to The Great Reform Act to see the latest update "Where were we on the road to democracy by 1865?" (updated weekly - last updated 6th February 2017)
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Why do we need Proportional Representation?
Watch this video for why we need proportional representation.
Monday, March 7, 2016
The case for Proportional Representation.
Getting together. Watch: The case for Proportional Representation gathers pace.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Alliance Buildng Conference 8th February 2016
Seven political parties came together to campaign for electoral reform by promoting proportional representation. See this great video on which I am the speaker.
Friday, February 12, 2016
Proportional Representation
The following is a speech I made at the PR Alliance Building Conference on 8th February:
Proportional
Representation
Ladies
and gentlemen today, we took a giant step along the road to creating a fair
democracy in the United Kingdom.
I am privileged to stand alongside all our
political parties as we step down that road together.
Why,
as a Conservative am I so sure we will reach our destination?
Ask
your local Tory MP or candidate why they do not support a proportional
representation and I imagine this is what they will say:
I
am in politics to get things done. In
order to get things done I have to be in government. To be in government I have to be in the
Party that has a majority of MPs in the House of Commons. So look at it like this, under First past
the Post the Tories got 52% of the seats with only 37% of the votes. Labour is in disarray. We have a big lead in
the opinion polls. We are implementing the Boundaries Commission proposals
which will give us an extra 20 seats in the General Election. We are passing
legislation which will harm the Labour Party through its funding by the Trade
Unions. We are cutting the “Short”
money to all the opposition parties. We
are increasing the amount the Government spends on Special Advisers. We are going to be in Government for at
least ten years. Now, tell me why we should change the electoral system?
Arrogant
– yes. Goes with the territory!. Complacent – Yes!.
Why
complacent?
The
Conservative Party is the only party which has not increased its membership
since the General Election. Membership
is about 135,000. Compare this with the
Scottish National Party which has a membership of 110,000 and only fights 59
seats in the Westminster parliament. To
fight a ground campaign at a General Election on a National basis the
Conservative Party would need 1,000,000 members.
Both
Labour and Conservative parties have similar but for different reasons, major
problems
In the EU referendum, whichever way the electorate
vote there will be a substantial minority perhaps as many as 10 million who will
be bitterly disappointed and who may have voted against their Party for the
first time. They will be deciding which
political party to support in the future.
Which party will the disappointed
turn to after the European referendum – one of the major parties or another party?
The kaleidoscope of party politics is being shaken.
Out of the turmoil there will be a great demand for
change. Either the two big parties
recognize this and change or other parties will take their place.
This will provide us here today with a once in a
life time opportunity. Out of that
opportunity comes hope. Out of hope
comes action. Out of action comes
success.
That is why I say, by working together we now have
that opportunity to shape all our futures.
Arm in arm let us walk together down that road to create that fair
democracy that this country so desperately needs.
Monday, November 16, 2015
William Pitt to Catholic Emancipation - 1780 to 1830
Updated weekly - latest update: http://ourfightfordemocracy.blogspot.co.uk/p/pitt.html 2nd May : "Democracy in 1830?."
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Political Parties and Democracy
The following was printed as a pamphlet by the Reform Foundation:
Political
Parties and Democracy.
By
John
E. Strafford
Political parties play a major role in our
democracy. At a General Election they
issue a manifesto showing their policies and use it to persuade the electorate
to vote for them. The parties choose
the candidates who will stand for election.
From those candidates Members of Parliament will be decided by the
electorate. Members of Parliament from
the Party capable of obtaining a majority in Parliament then form the
Government, sometimes in conjunction with other parties - which have been
through the same process - as happened
in 2010, or sometimes alone.
The political parties choose their Leaders and one of
them will become the Prime Minister.
This is all very well if our political parties are democratic
organisations open to all, but what if they are undemocratic organisations? Who exercises power in our political
parties? Does it matter if they are oligarchies of
the political elite? In such a case a
small group of people will determine who governs our country and hence the
policies by which we are governed.
Political parties are part of the democratic process in
the United Kingdom. Their role is
recognised by Parliament. In the
current financial year nearly £7 million of public money, known as “Short”
money, will be paid to the opposition political parties. During the period that the Conservative
Party was in opposition, 1997-2010, it received over £40 million of public
funding. In Government the gravy train
does not stop. £8.4 million was paid
last year to the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats for 103 political special
advisers. All this money is supposed to
be given to enhance our democracy: it does no such thing. All it does is perpetuate the power of the
oligarchs who run our parties. Whilst
ever the parties are able to rely on the State and/or big donors like
businessmen or trade unions they can ignore their party members.
Both of our main political parties – Labour and
Conservative, are undemocratic organisations run and controlled by oligarchies. Who are these oligarchs? They start with the Party Leaders, who are
elected by the Party memberships but then effectively cease to be accountable
to the members. The Leader appoints the
Cabinet and other Ministers when in Government. He or she exercises a great deal of
patronage by creating Peers and giving out Honours. The oligarchs include businessmen who advise
the Conservatives, and Trade Unionists who advise Labour. All are totally unaccountable to Party
members. The net is spread wide. If the Parties had been successful in
retaining the trust of the people, perhaps one could understand their desire to
maintain the status quo, but the
reality is that they are failed organisations whose membership has suffered long
term catastrophic decline, and public confidence is in free fall. Soon, as membership organisations they will
cease to exist. The recent increase in
the Labour Party’s membership since the General Election is due to the
Leadership contest on which they are embarking. Leadership contests always bring an increase
in membership because it is the one time when members know that their vote
counts.
William Hague said that the Conservative Party “was like an absolute monarchy moderated by
regicide. The Nation abolished absolute
monarchy and regicide 350 years ago. It
is time for all parties to follow suit and examine the powers exercised by their
Party Leaders. For too long our Party
Leaders have behaved like absolute monarchs.
Membership
A major factor in the reduction in turnout at
General Elections is the long term decline in the membership of our traditional
three main political parties. Correlated
with the lesser satisfaction which the people have with the political process,
we have a toxic mix. Party activists
represent approximately 10% of members.
With the decline in membership there has been a decline in
activists. It is the activists who work
to get the electorate out to vote.
Critically it is feet on the ground that gets that last marginal voter
to the polling station.
At the end of World War II the membership of the
Conservative Party was about 250,000.
As a result of the efforts of Lord Woolton membership had risen by 1952
to 2.8 million. Since then the decline
has been continuous. By 1979 membership
had fallen to 1,350,000 and during the 1980s and 1990s it declined further to
400,000 by 1997. When David Cameron became
Leader of the Conservative Party in 2005 there were 258,239 members of the
Party. By the beginning of 2010
membership had fallen to 177,000 and in the three years to the end of 2012
membership fell a further 43,000 to 134,000.
So we can see from this that in 1950 when turnout at the
General Election was 83.9% there were approximately 280,000 party members
working to get out the Conservative vote.
By the 2015 General Election when turnout was 66%, there were 13,400
members trying to do the same. The
activist members of the Conservative Party are now primarily local Councillors
and their families. After the elections
of 2014 there were 8,296 Conservative Councillors in the United Kingdom
Individual Labour Party membership in 1951 was about 1
million. At the time of the 2015
General Election it was less than 200,000, so activists have declined from
100,000 in 1951 to 20,000 today. The
Labour Party gets significant help from Trade Unionists but we have seen a
decline in the membership of Trade Unions also from some 12 million to 6.5
million. Some 70% of Labour MPs are
linked with the Trade Unions.
Liberal Party membership was some 300,000 at the end of
World War II. At the time of the 2015
General Election it had fallen to less than 50,000 under the Liberal Democrats.
So from a party activist base for the main parties of
over 400,000 in 1950 it has declined to 38,400 today. In view of these figures it is surprising
that turnout has not collapsed further!
Why has this happened?
What effect will it have and can anything be done to change this
disastrous trend?
The number of people not correctly registered to vote has
risen substantially from 3.9 million in 2000 to 7.5 million in 2012 per the
Electoral Commission. A major factor
that affects voter registration is the decline in membership of the political
parties. The origin of political
parties was as registration societies which were set up in the 1830s after the
passing of the 1832 Reform Act. Their
function was to ensure that all those entitled to vote were registered and did
vote. Today this function has almost
ceased, except in some marginal constituencies, because there are no longer the
activists to do the work.
Let me
expand on this point from my own experience.
I was Chairman of the Gerrards Cross branch of the Beaconsfield
Constituency Association from 1977 to 1980. Gerrards Cross was the largest
Conservative branch in the country with a membership of over 2,000. It was one of some twenty branches in the
Beaconsfield Association. The
Beaconsfield Association today, in total, has about half the number of members
of the Gerrards Cross branch in 1980, and yet today it is one of the largest
Constituency Associations in the country.
In 1980 the Gerrards Cross branch had a committee of 38
people for which elections were held annually.
It was a requirement of standing for the committee that you had to take on a road in the town in which
you would do the canvassing and membership subscription collecting. The membership was approximately 40% of the
electorate. Each year when the
Electoral Register was published one of the prime functions of the branch was to check that all members
were on the Register and also that all Conservative supporters were on the
Register. A list of errors was sent to
the Electoral Registration Officer so that the Register could be altered before
the Register was finalised.
The result of all this work was that few people were left
off the Register and the final Register was accurate. Branches of political parties throughout the
country were doing the same as
Gerrards Cross.
So what are the costs to society of low voter
registration and turnout? Potentially
the costs will be significant. There
will come a point when the legitimacy of the elected government is questioned
because of the low turnout. Democracy
is a process by which you determine the will of the majority. If the gap between the views of the majority
and those elected becomes too great the people may say “What can we do to
change this?” The only solutions will
be major electoral reform, reform of the political parties, or revolution. Time is running out.
Research on party membership,
done in the 1990s and published in the book “True Blues” showed two main
reasons why people join political parties.
The first reason was for social purposes. People like to be with others of a like
mind. They feel more comfortable. There is a tribal instinct. Party members
like to be led, but they also like to know that the Leader has listened to them
before he or she takes a decision.
The second reason is participation. This has to be meaningful participation i.e.
they either vote on decisions to be taken or vote for the people taking the
decisions. It is this latter reason
which has not been met by the two main political parties. Effectively large numbers of people join
these parties each year wanting to participate. When they find that they have no voice they
leave, usually after a couple of years.
Only by adopting a radical approach will we break this cycle of
decline. I set out below the measures
that need to be taken. It is a check
list to which all parties should adhere:
- Party constitutions should be capable of being amended or changed by the members of the Party at a General Meeting of the Party on the basis of one member, one vote provided there is a majority in favour of amendment or change and not less than 50% of the members have voted. Proxy voting shall be allowed.
- There should be an Annual General Meeting of the Party to which all members are invited. (Note: this meeting should not always be held in the same location so as to prevent it being skewed in favour of members from a particular Region.)
- The Chairman of the Party should be responsible for the Party Organisation.
- The Chairman and Treasurer of the Party should be elected by the members of the Party.
- The Chairman of the Party should present an Annual Report on the Party organisation at the Annual General Meeting of the Party for adoption by the members.
- The Treasurer of the Party should present the Annual Accounts of the Party to the Annual General Meeting for adoption by the members.
- The Chairman of the Committee on Candidates should be elected by the members of the Party and should present a report on candidate selection at the Annual General Meeting of the Party.
- The Chairman of any policy groups should be elected by the members of the Party and should present a report on their workings at the Annual General Meeting of the Party.
- Motions for debate on policy should be allowed at the Party’s Conference and voted upon. If due to time constraints all motions submitted cannot be debated the members at the Conference should be able to choose at least three motions for debate. All motions duly proposed and seconded should be put on the Party’s web site.
- Regional/Area/Constituency officers should be directly elected by the members of the Party.The most important of these provisions is the ability to change the Party’s constitution on the basis of One Member One Vote.If we believe in democracy the fundamental requirement for political parties is:
“No
political Party should be registered with the Electoral Commission unless it
has a democratic constitution which can be changed at a General Meeting by a clear
majority of its members on the basis of one member one vote.”
By adopting the above, participation
would be guaranteed for party members.
Some parties already have some of the above provisions in their constitutions. The Conservative Party has none of
them. The Labour Party is still
dominated by the Trade Unions although the Labour Party constitution has been
changed so that their Leader is elected on the basis of One Member One Vote
including registered supporters. At
present the Labour Party conference has Trade Union delegates attending. These affiliated delegates should be full members
of the Party and in such a case would have full voting rights. Both Conservative and Labour operate electoral
colleges which distort democracy by breaching the principle of One Person, One
Vote of equal value. The Liberal
Democrat constitution is more democratic.
For years our two main political parties have protested
that the decline in membership is because membership is a redundant
concept. People have other things to
do. They are too busy. They join single issue pressure groups. Rather than give any power to members the
oligarchies would rather retain all power in a diminishing Party. The Scottish National Party has demonstrated
just how wrong they are. In September
2014 at the time of the Scottish Referendum their membership stood at approximately
25,000. By the time of the General
Election in May 2015 they had increased it to over 110,000 so how does the
Scottish National Party compare with the Conservative Party?
The Scottish National Party:
- Has quarterly newsletters to members.
- Policy is determined at their annual Conference.
- Their Officers are all elected by their members including their Leader and Deputy Leader who are elected annually.
- They can change their Constitution on the basis of One Member One Vote with a two thirds majority.
They are a democratic party!
What a comparison with the Conservative Party where the
Chairman and Treasurer of the Party are appointed by the Leader, and are thus unaccountable
to the membership. There is no Annual
General Meeting of members, so there is no formal forum for members to raise
questions about the Party’s organisation or policies. The Annual Accounts of the Party are not
tabled for approval at an AGM. The
selection of parliamentary candidates of the Party is controlled
centrally. The Party Board can and does
take control of any Constituency Association, which does not toe the line. The infamous clause 17 of their constitution
states: “The Board shall have power to do
anything which in its opinion relates to the management and administration of
the Party”, and this makes the rest of the constitution meaningless.
What does a member get from membership of the
Conservative Party? Prior to the Party
reforms of 1998 there were a number of reasons to be a member. There were meetings at area and national
level where you could raise issues of policy or organisation. Social gatherings emphasised the tribal
feeling and sense of belonging. The
Party Conference was run by the voluntary party and it had motions for
debate. Votes were taken at the end of
the debates and although they were not binding, they reflected the views of the
members. Constituency Associations were
for all intents and purposes autonomous.
The Party had three distinct sections - the parliamentary party, the
voluntary party and the professional organisation. There were checks and balances in the
distribution of power. All of these
were swept away in 1998 with disastrous result.
The Labour Party has seen similar changes in recent
times. Its conferences used to be
dominated by motions from constituencies and Trade Unions. Vast amounts of time were spent on creating
“composite motions”. This was scrapped
and now there is little place for such debates. Instead delegates are invited to vote on
long policy papers on a take-it-or leave it basis. The old system was far from perfect, but the
new one means that delegates become rubber stamps.
Policies
Who determines policy?
Of the two main political parties, policy in the Conservative Party is
decided by the Leader and is constructed by a small coterie of people around
him or her. In the 2014 European
Parliament election the Leader of the Conservative MEPs only discovered what
was in the manifesto on the day it was published! The Conservative Party no longer goes
through the charade of pretending that the members of the Party have any
say. There are no motions for debate at
the Conservative Party Conference. The
Conservative Policy Forum has little, if any, influence on policy. The Labour Party has the National Policy
Forum and policy discussion papers. Its
conference sets the “framework” of policy, but the days when it was the conference
which decided policy are over. The
National Policy Forum has severe limitations.
Few members know who sits on it or what it talks about. There is very little reporting back to
members or consultation with members before issues are debated.
With the development of the internet Party members could
and should be much more involved in policy making. The priority of policies has to be left to
the Party Leaders but in determining those priorities they should be aware of
the strength of feelings of the membership.
Policy in the Liberal Democrat Party is determined by
their Party conference and it was their Conference which had the final say on
the Coalition Agreement. Ironically, as
soon as they got into government they changed their rules so that their MPs had
the final say on a Coalition Agreement.
Power corrupts!
Contrast the approach of the three main parties with the
three political parties whose membership is increasing. In the Scottish National Party, UKIP and the
Green Party, policy is decided at their National Conferences. Perhaps when people have a say in policy
they take ownership of the policy and are better able to propagate it? By allowing members to participate, you
increase membership.
Clearly, although the parties should determine policy, it
is the Leader of the Party who determines priorities and ultimately can alter
or abandon policies if conditions change.
The Leader should be accountable to the Party for his or her actions.
Candidates
Why cannot any registered member of the Labour or
Conservative Parties be a candidate, subject only to vetting to ensure that
they have no criminal convictions and comply with electoral law? It should be up to the members of the
Parties to determine who shall be their candidate. This is a fundamental principle. If the members do not decide, who does and
how are they accountable to the members?
The selections of parliamentary candidates of our
political Parties are controlled centrally.
They do this by controlling the Approved List of candidates in the case
of the Conservative Party or by setting various criteria for selection
determined by the Organisation Sub-committee of the National Executive
Committee in the case of the Labour Party.
We have heard a lot recently about how the range of
candidates should be widened and the Conservative Party have made much of Open
Primaries. The model for Open Primaries
is the United States so how do Conservative Open Primaries compare?
In the United States anyone can stand. In the Conservative Party the candidates are
centrally sifted and three or four candidates put forward. In many States electors have to register
support for the Party in order to vote.
With the Conservatives anyone on the Electoral Roll can vote in an Open Postal
Primary or an Open Meeting Primary, even if they are members of another Party.
The candidates in the United States raise their own funds
for campaigning in the Primary. The
problem with this is that candidates who win primaries are often those with
most money to spend. “Pork Barrel”
politics still has a big role to play in United States politics. The Conservative Party pays for a postal
primary. The costs in Totnes amounted
to £38,000. There are only half a dozen
constituencies in the country that could afford this, so unless the Party at national
level pays, or State Funding is given, postal Primaries will be few and far
between.
Campaigns in the United States are usually prolonged,
giving plenty of time to investigate the candidates. The campaigns run by the Conservatives are
strictly limited in time.
Caucus meetings of registered voters are held in the
United States at which the merits of the different candidates are debated and
then voted upon. These are banned by
the Conservative Party.
A distinction should be drawn between Open Primaries
where there is a postal ballot as in Totnes and Open Meeting Primaries. The most common, because of costs are the
Open Meeting Primaries. The
Conservative Party imposes a number of restrictions on Open Meeting Primaries:
The meetings are advertised in the local paper so there
is no guarantee that every elector is
aware that the selection is taking place.
At the meeting no debate is allowed between the
candidates – they are not even allowed
to be on the platform together.
The elector must be present for the entire meeting and
cannot leave the room for any reason. Contrast this with a postal primary where
the elector doesn’t have to hear any
candidate before voting.
Limits are imposed by Central Office on the amount of
money candidates can spend on
their campaigns.
The vote on the final adoption of the selected candidate
is by Conservative Party members.
It can be seen from the above that there are major
differences between what the Conservatives call Open Primaries and what in
practice most people understand as Open Primaries. The Conservative Open Primaries are a
gimmick. The people and the media have
been hoodwinked into believing that the process is open. It is not.
The process is controlled in detail by the Party hierarchy. There is also the danger that the selection
can be manipulated by the members of other parties, who can vote for the
weakest candidate. The Conservative
Party does not care, because it has decided on who the candidates will be.
Some Constituency Associations now run Open primaries for
local government elections. In these
cases, the sift of candidates is done by people accountable to the members of
the particular Association, so the fundamental objections do not apply.
One of the objections to allowing the members to
determine who their candidate shall be is that in many constituencies there are
very few members and they may be unrepresentative of the voters. In the Conservative Party it is estimated
that about 130+ constituency Associations have virtually ceased to exist. In such circumstances it is reasonable for
there to be a minimum number of members taking part in the selection process
and where that minimum is not reached Party Headquarters has to take over the
process.
Recently both Labour and Conservative Parties have
allowed Registered Supporters to participate in selections. Attractive though this might be in involving
more people in the electoral process it has its dangers. During the course of the current Leadership
election in the Labour Party, Registered Supporters who paid a fee of three
pounds were then given a vote in the contest.
“The Daily Telegraph” proceeded to give a step by step guide on how to
register with the admonition to vote for a particular candidate. The Trade Union “Unite” boasted that it
would sign up 70,000 affiliated members.
It is estimated that between the date of the General Election and the
date of the Selection no less than 140,000 affiliated members and registered
supporters will have joined the Party.
Already charges of entryism from both the “left” and the “right” are
being made, throwing considerable doubt on the legitimacy of the
selection. Registered supporters could
totally distort the election. It is the
members of the party which should take these decisions.
In Hong Kong in 2014 the people took to the streets in
protest at the Chinese Communist Party imposing a short list of four candidates
for the people to choose from. Yet this
is the very same process that is used by the Labour and Conservative Parties in
the United Kingdom.
Whenever Approved lists are used or procedures are
implemented for the selection of candidates those taking the decisions should
be democratically accountable to the ordinary Party members. Other than the Conservative and Labour
Parties all the other main political Parties operate with approved lists for
parliamentary candidates and there is democratic accountability of those who
decide who can be candidates.
Funding
There is no doubt that the public’s perception of
politics is influenced by the way in which the political parties are funded. Big donors or Trade Union Leaders have more
access to the Party hierarchies so more opportunity to influence. “Cash for honours” is continuously
levelled at the Conservative party. “Controlled by and funded by the Trade Unions”
is levelled at the Labour Party. People
believe that money buys influence in politics.
There needs to be a complete overhaul of party funding with a cap on
donations of £5,000. There may have to
be a transitional period for this to be brought in as suggested by the recent
all party report on Party Funding.
It is estimated that 50% of the Conservative Party’s
income is from financial institutions i.e. Bankers and Hedge Fund Managers and
80% of the Labour Party’s income is from the Trade Unions.
It is quite clear that the way in which the Conservative
and Labour parties are funded distorts our politics, but any changes would
involve them in a considerable loss of income.
The way out of this is State funding of the parties. This should be done by a payment per head
for audited membership of all political parties. Such a scheme would be a big incentive to
the parties to increase their membership.
Over a period of say five to ten years it could be phased out. The costs of such a scheme could be met in
several ways:
- Abolition of the “Short” and “Cranborne” money saving over £8 million with a substantial cut in the number of political advisers employed by the government.
- Abolition of the freepost at the European and General elections saving some £68 million.
- Sending out all election addresses for each constituency together, in booklet form, as was done for the London Mayoral election would save £47 million.
Social
Media
The development of social media has been a lifeline to
our main political parties. Twitter,
Facebook, email, have all improved the Parties ability to communicate at little
cost. A daily email requesting a £10
donation to several hundred thousand supporters brings in a substantial amount
of cash particularly when those supporters have been targeted for their views.
For the 2015 General Election the appointment of Jim
Messina (former social media guru to President Obama) as an adviser was an
indication that the Conservative Party believe that the way forward is to
organise our campaigns as in the United States by gathering up supporters
rather than relying on members. The
Labour Party made a similar appointment.
What of course is forgotten is that the Presidential Election in the
United States costs approximately $6 billion.
Support is bought. Canvassers
are paid. “Pork Barrel” politics still
has a major role to play in the politics of the United States. Because of the financial restrictions on
campaign spending we quite rightly cannot do this, but there are clearly ways
in which social media can be exploited.
For example registered supporters could be signed up for a nominal sum, or
even no sum at all, and with regular communication and involvement encourage
them to become members of the Party.
Only members of the Party should be able to vote on decisions of the
Party or vote for those who take the decisions.
Conclusions
With the rise of UKIP, the Green Party, and the Scottish
Nationalist Party, not forgetting the Democratic Unionist party we are now in
an era of multi party politics. Who now
knows which seats are marginal?
By one of those moments of irony future General Elections
will be fought on Electoral Registers drawn up by individual registration
rather than household registration. The
main reason for this was to reduce fraud.
The origins of modern political parties were as Registration Societies
as a result of the 1832 Reform Act.
Their main function was to ensure that their supporters were all
registered to vote. This job will now
be resurrected, except that there will not be the Party activists to carry it
out.
The most important factor in the General Election will be
“feet on the ground” At the margin it is the canvassing and the
knocking up that will count most. For
that you need volunteers and the most committed volunteers are members. The political Parties will ignore this at
their peril and unless our two main Parties reform themselves into democratic
organisations their decline will continue until they cease to exist.
The Scottish National Party with 110,000 members fought 59
seats in the General election. It was
the only Party that mounted a “feet on the ground” campaign in all
the seats it contested. It won 56 of
them. The other parties that fought 650
seats would have needed a million members each to fight a similar
campaign. This makes you think! It ought to make the parties think too! The result was seen in the 2015 General
Election. Turnout in Scotland was
71%. For the UK as a whole it was 66%.
What is becoming increasingly clear is that our two main
political parties face extinction unless their whole culture is changed. They must embrace democracy, member
involvement and participation and without this, like the dinosaurs, extinction
will be their destination. The Labour
Party must break the link with the Trade Unions other than as an affiliated
organisation. Voting rights should be
reserved solely for the members of the Party.
The great danger is that within the next five years the Party could
implode. Due to its low membership it
can no longer fight a ground campaign in every constituency, leaving it
vulnerable to attack from the new parties which will target their seats. What happened at the General Election in
Scotland could easily be repeated in England and Wales.
The Conservative Party must break the link between itself
and big donors who wield influence by being members of organisations such as
the £50,000 club. There is a danger of
complacency in the Conservative Party which having just won a General Election,
has a belief that their Road Trip 2015 - where they attracted hundreds of
supporters into a constituency on a particular day - is a new way of
campaigning. Lots of information was
gathered, but unless you can get hundreds of supporters into every seat on
election day, there is nobody to get the vote out and the information becomes
useless. It was probably the fear in
the electorate’s mind of a coalition between the Labour Party and the Scottish
Nationalist Party that swung the election rather than superior campaigning.
The Conservative Party has the advantage of patronage as
it is in government and by pushing through parliament the Boundaries Commission
proposals altering constituency boundaries it will get some further advantage,
but like the Labour Party it can no longer fight a general election campaign on
the ground. With a new Leader before
the 2020 General Election and a possible split during the European Referendum
the Conservative Party is also vulnerable to attack and could implode.
One final point, in 2017 there will be a referendum on
whether the United Kingdom will remain a member of the European Union. Whichever way the electorate vote there will
be a substantial minority perhaps as many as 10 million who will be
disappointed. They will be deciding
which political party to support in the future. After the Scottish referendum the Scottish
National Party attracted huge support in spite of losing the referendum. Which party will the disappointed turn to
after the European referendum – one of the major parties or one of the new parties. What is for sure is that we are moving to a
major shake-up in British politics and it will be those parties which are
democratic which are likely to be the beneficiaries.
About
the Author
JOHN E. STRAFFORD
John Strafford is the author of “Our
Fight for Democracy” – a history of democracy in the United Kingdom.
John Strafford joined the Conservative Party in 1964, and was a
Councillor for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea from 1968 to
1974. He has served at nearly all
levels of the Conservative Party including as a member of the Party’s National
Union Executive Committee for nine years and three years on the Conservative
Board of Finance. Within the
Conservative Party his political achievements include:
- As Treasurer and then Chairman of Beaconsfield Conservative Association from 1980 to 1990 increased the Constituency’s income per annum from £30,000 to £100,000.
- Successfully campaigned for the Conservative Party to be recognized in Northern Ireland and in recognition of this was made the Hon. President of South Belfast Conservative Association, Hon Vice President of the North Down Conservative Association and Hon. Vice President of the Northern Ireland Conservatives.
- In 1990 published a Paper on the Reorganization of the Conservative Party proposing a Board of Management. This was introduced in 1993.
- As Treasurer of Wessex Area in 1991 raised over £250,000 from the Constituency Associations for the Conservative Party. This still is the highest amount ever raised in one year from an Area.
- In 1995 wrote a Paper for the Bow Group – “The Conservative Party for the 21st Century” proposing a Party Constitution. This was introduced in 1998.
- Member of the Management Committee of the National Conservative Draws Society since its formation in 1994. Since its formation the Draw Society has raised over £15 million for the Conservative Party.In 2011 John was Chairman of the Conservative Yes Campaign in the referendum on the Alternative Vote.27th July 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)