Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:58:58.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Democracy Within the Conservative Party?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Patrick Seyd
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Study
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , 01 April 1975 , pp. 219 - 239
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am very grateful to Rosalind Seyd and Lewis Minkin for their constructive comments. Many members of the Conservative Party have generously given their time to discuss aspects of this paper with me. I would like to thank, in particular, Mr Sidney Cooke, Secretary of the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations, and his staff for their tolerance and assistance. Obviously neither he nor the others mentioned are responsible for the opinions advanced; these are the sole responsibility of the author. I am pleased to acknowledge the financial assistance of the University of Sheffield Research Fund.

References

1 One thing which united Bow Group, Monday Club and Pressure for Economic and Social Toryism was their demand that constituency associations should devote a great deal more time to the discussion of policies rather than concentrate upon administrative matters.

2 In 1965 8 resolutions on party organization were submitted to the annual party conference; the majority were concerned with improvements in party publicity, but I called for the modernization of the party structure. Conference Handbook, 1965, pp. 86–7. In 1966 24 resolutions were submitted, of which 3 were concerned with party structure. Ibid., 1966, pp. 45–8. In 1967 20 resolutions were submitted, of which 2 were concerned with party structure. Ibid., 1967, pp. 113–5. In 1968 the figures were 14 and 3 respectively. Ibid., 1968, pp. 181–3. to 1969, 20 and 8 respectively. Ibid., 1969, pp. 203–208.

3 Conference Handbook, 1968, p. 181.

4 This national advisory committee is broadly representative of the Young Conservative movement. It has five elected officers, four representatives elected from each of the twelve regions of England, Wales and Scotland, plus four representatives from the Federation of Conservative Students, two from Northern Ireland and some coopted members.

5 Conference Handbook, 1968, p. 181.

6 Wade was Vice‐Chairman of the Greater London Young Conservatives in 1969, became Chairman in 1970. National Vice‐Chairman of the Young Conservatives in 1972, and was Conservative candidate in Putney in the 1974 General Elections.

7 Landa was Vice‐Chairman of the Greater London Young Conservatives in 1969, Chairman in 1972, and National Chairman of the Young Conservatives in 1973 and 1974.

8 Conference Handbook, 1969, p. 207.

9 Ibid.

10 Set the Party Free, p. 20.

11 Ibid., p. 16.

12 Ibid., p. 21.

13 Ibid., p. 10.

14 Ibid., p. 9.

15 Ibid., p. 43.

16 The authors accuse Central Office officials of applying censorship to communications within the National Union, p. 43.

17 In 1969 seven officers were appointed by the party leader. Randolph Churchill was making a similar demand in 1883.

18 Ibid., p. 40.

19 Ibid., p. 32.

20 Ibid., p. 67.

21 Ibid., p. 49. Eric Chalker, himself a national officer of the Young Conservatives, had been rejected when he applied to be placed upon the list.

22 The research group held a press conference to launch the pamphlet. The authors were interviewed on BBC Radio and Thames Television. Both the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mirror published editorials dealing with the pamphlet.

23 Whereas the motions on party reform submitted for consideration at the annual party conference were unlikely to receive attention and debate, due to pressure of time and subject, morions to annual meetings of the Central Council were rare and therefore could hardly be avoided.

24 Anual meeting of the Central Council, 11 October 1969.

25 Lord Chelmer believes that the National Union lacks the competence to make such choices. Interview with the author, July 1974.

26 Conservative trade unionists who opposed the Review Committee’s proposals were to make capital of the fact that the Trade Unionists’ national advisory council had not been invited to give oral evidence.

27 As proposed in Set The Party Free, p. 50.

28 Interim Report of the Review Committee on the Selection and Adoption of Candidates, 1972, Para. 1:9.

29 Interim Report of the Review Committee on the Selection and Adoption of Candidates, 1972, para. 2:10.

30 Ibid., Section 3. This deviates from the prevailing principle that all constituency associations are autonomous, and able to adopt their own rules. The Party Organisation, 1971, p. 9. The rules of the National Union do, however, enable the NUEC to revoke membership of any constituency association at its discretion. Rule 3. Rules and Standing Orders of the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations, 1970.

31 This right certainly assisted Ronald Bell in Beaconsfield, which incorporated part of his previous constituency of South Buckinghamshire, and Ian Lloyd in Havant and Waterlooville, which incorporated part of Portsmouth Langstone.

32 Ibid., para. 2:5.

33 The National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations should become the National Conservative Association. Other changes proposed were: the National Conservative Assembly (previously the Central Council); the National Council (National Union Executive Committee); the National Executive Committee (General Purposes Committee).

34 Area Council (previously Area Executive Council); Area Executive Committee (Area Finance & General Purposes Committee); the Area Political Committee (no direct replacement, but superseding the Area Conservative Political Centre advisory committee); Constituency Council (Constituency Executive Council); Constituency Executive Committee (Constituency Finance & General Purposes Committee); Constituency Political Committee (no direct replacement but superseding the constituency Conservative Political Centre committee).

35 Although not abolished at area or national level.

36 There are 11 areas in England and Wales.

37 Final Report of the Review Committee, Para. 2 (1), p. 3.

38 The existing office of President of the National Union should be abolished. In its place a new President of the National Conservative Association (previously Chairman of the National Union); Deputy President (in place of the Vice‐Chairman of the National Union); Chairman (previously Chairman of the National Union Executive Committee); four Vice‐Chairmen, including a Political Vice‐Chairman.

39 Ibid., Para. 17:3, p. 22.

40 Virtual defeat rather than outright defeat because of poor chairmanship and sharp tactical thinking at the Central Council meeting called to discuss the report. See p. 234.

41 Trade union representation on National Union bodies was: Finance & General Purposes Committee 4; NUEC 13; Central Council 560; Annual Conference 560. Under the Review Committee proposals their representation would: National Executive Committee 1; National Council 9; National Assembly 119; Annual Conference 119.

42 The sub‐committee membership was: Edward du Cann (Chairman of the 1922 Committee), Sir John Taylor (Chairman of the NUEC), Lord Carring‐ton (Chairman of the Party), Sir Richard Webster (Director of organization, Conservative Central Office), Lord Chelmer, and S. A. Cooke (Secretary to the sub‐committee). One member of the Review Committee described, to the author, du Cann’s opposition as ‘vicious’ and stated that du Cann, Taylor, and Hewlett ‘did all in their power to sabotage the report’. Lord Chelmer played no active role in the sub‐committee’s deliberations since he believed that he had already made his point in the Review Committee report.

43 The sub‐committee made ten proposals including a change in party tide to National Conservative and Unionist Association, replacement of the existing National Union officers by an elected President and deputy President, and, at constituency level, two committees (Finance and Management and Political Organization and Activities) immediately below the Executive Council in the party structure. Agenda., Special Meeting of the Central Council, 1973.

44 ‘My own feeling is that I would very much like to have seen you voting for our Report. That we are not to do.’ Lord Chelmer. Minutes of Central Council Meeting, October 1973, p. 18. The sub‐committee proposals ‘do not in any way represent the basic principles which guide the whole of the Chelmer Committee’s thinking. They do not, in fact, even pay us the courtesy of relating the proposals specificially to our suggestions’. Adelaide Doughty, Ibid., p. 8.

45 Voiced by Gilbert Longden, speaking on behalf of the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee. Significantly, another MP, Geoffrey Finsberg, questioned Longden’s right to speak on behalf of Conservative MPs since at no time had the backbenchers been asked for their opinion. Ibid., p. 20.

46 Voiced by Lord Hewlett in the debate.

47 Minutes of Central Council Meeting, October 1973, p. 12.

48 Ibid., p. 26.

49 Lord Chelmer’s claim, in his speech to the Central Council meeting, that ‘the message you (i.e. constituency party activists) gave us all, although you may not be aware of it, was that it was necessary for us to become more and more a political party’ (ibid., p. 18) would seem to be something of an exaggeration.

50 Procedure for the Selection of the Leader of the Conservative Party. Paras. 8/9, p. 2. A similar procedure was recommended for Scotland and the opinion would be communicated to the Executive of the 1922 Committee by the President of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association.

51 Conflicting claims were made by party activists in letters to The Times. See The Times, 7, 8 and 11 February 1975.

52 An editorial in The Times claimed that ‘the party consultations were never properly or adequately conveyed to Members of Parliament’. The Times, 8 February 1975. See also a letter in The Times from Frances Chambers, a member of the committee which produced Set The Party Free, suggesting that since the Chairman of the 1922 Committee was opposed to Edward Heath as party leader he would not communicate opinions favourable to his remaining party leader. The Times, 1 February 1975. The Chairman and Joint Vice‐Chairmen retorted in a letter that ‘all the opinions (and reservations)… were faithfully recorded, faithfully summarized, and as faithfully transmitted to Conservative MPs before the first ballot’. The Times, 10 February 1975. Obviously this was not regarded as a completely satisfactory explanation since in reply the paper stated that ‘… there was no written report, and no report to a full meeting of Conservative backbenchers. They were given the information only if they asked for it’ (ibid.).

53 John Peyton’s reported comment was ‘I thought it was members of Parliament who were running this not Sir John Taylor’. (Chairman of the NUEC) The Times, 11 February 1975.