It is now
almost 18 months since I first wrote about the Feldman Review and the need for Voluntary
Party Reform. In that article, published on this site in August 2015, I said,
“We must ensure that any
changes are bedded-in before our next major electoral challenge. Perhaps the
basis for the future should be county-wide Associations or federations,
stripping away layers of bureaucracy and introspection. Whatever we do, we
should not allow a small number of recalcitrant Associations to use
self-interest to block essential reforms which in our hearts we all know must
come.
The Party is in a unique position of strength.
We have won an election that most people didn’t expect us to win. Our opponents
are in disarray. We are ahead in the polls and our finances are strong. The
temptation is to do nothing – or simply to “tinker”. To do so would be a
dreadful missed opportunity. It could be decades before the moons are in such
favourable alignment again. Having helped to win the war, I really hope Lord
Feldman and his group have the courage win the peace and bequeath a voluntary
party fit for the future.”
The published
Feldman Review was much more radical in scope and bold in aspiration than many
of us imagined. Unfortunately, as with any bold reform, we have allowed vested
interest to, at best, dilute the package or at worst allow sufficient caveats to
ensure those Associations who are most in need of reform to opt-out without any
sanction or control.
In a few months
time it will be two years since our 2015 GE victory. This year we have
elections for county councils and city mayors. We have a major boundary review
- the most significant in living memory - the fallout from which will occupy
minds and attention for years to come. We will then have all-out district elections
and a year later another parliamentary campaign, if it does not come sooner. All
of this will be played-out against the mood music of Brexit and the
uncertainties that will bring. Those who seek reasons to block reform or “put
it off until another day” have all the excuses they need.
I believe that
the Party Board and Sir Patrick McLoughlin are committed to reform and will
endeavour to implement change. I wish them well. My fear is they have allowed too
much time to pass and too much fiddling at the edges – and now the urgency has
gone. The post-referendum surge has contributed to this, too – providing a
false sense of security that all is well.
In July last
year I published detailed research into the attitudes and motivations of our
new members, based on 250 responses from the 500 new members who enrolled
locally; a statistically significant sample. Of these, 76% said the opportunity
to vote in the leadership election was a major factor in their decision to
join, and over 25% said that they would not have joined had they known that
they would not have had a vote. It is therefore highly likely that a least 25%
(probably significantly more) will not renew this year. My view is the fall-out
rate could be over 50%. There is also some evidence (in Kent at least) that a
small but not insignificant number of committed Europeans will quietly let
their membership lapse and similarly, a number of those who were attracted by
the Cameron project may also fall away.
These
three factors, taken with the sad effects of an ageing core membership and the
inability of many Associations to collect subscriptions efficiently, might well
result in us ending 2017 in a similar or even weaker position than we were pre-election
in 2015. I hope to be proved wrong.
Just before
Christmas I was invited to CCHQ to meet with Sir Patrick who was keen to hear
at first-hand just what we had achieved in West Kent. After my well-rehearsed
speech about the benefits of joint working and the efficiency of grouping, he
threw me a “curved ball”. “Excluding
internal efficiencies and improvements to administration, what have been the
tangible benefits to the party? What have you achieved in the last three years
which would not have been achieved had you not formed a group?”
Having spent
years speaking to Association, County and Regional Meetings about the cost-savings
and benefits of grouping, just what had we achieved? If our efforts were just
improvements to administration, have we really achieved anything at all?
Fortunately the glowering presence of a former coal miner and Chief Whip, menacingly
clutching his “Coffee Mug that works for everyone” did wonders to focus the
mind.
·
2015
GE results better than the county, regional and national averages
·
Two
of the top five LG by-election results in the UK in 2016
·
£20,000
of direct financial support re-directed to our weakest Association
·
£5,000
donated to the London Mayoral campaign
·
Amount
spent on office/establishment costs reduced from £55,000 to £20,000 pa
·
£850,000
of property sold and the cash invested to provide long-term income
·
£10,000
worth of printing support to 40:40 seats outside West Kent
·
£6,000
worth of cost-price printing for nearby Associations with LG by-elections
·
Over
2,000 “man-hours” of Campaign Support to Thanet, Lewes, Eastbourne, Rochester
& Strood, Clacton many other target seats
·
10,000+
phone calls made from our phone bank to 40:40 seats
There is
probably much more that I have forgotten. And we have done this whilst meeting
our campaigning, fundraising and administrative obligations to our own five
member Associations – at a lower average cost than they were paying previously.
And what’s more, for the third year running, we have reduced our running costs
(rent, rates, utilities, equipment etc) as we use our numerical strength and
buying power to drive down costs from suppliers.
What I was
unable to tell Sir Patrick (as it was still in negotiation) is our group of
five is soon to become six, with a seventh Association in discussions too.
Nothing succeeds like success, and I am delighted that we have not only managed
to avoid the internal rancour which has broken-up many similar groups, but that
others are knocking at the door to share in what we have achieved.
Wherever I go
to speak about grouping I am warmly welcomed and enthusiastically received. I genuinely
believe that the overwhelming majority of members, particularly those who are
most politically active, can see the advantages of sharing resources whilst maintaining
the independence of their local organisation, but the obstacles and objections
thrown up by the vested interests and backwoodsmen halt progress before it can
happen. I also suspect that the Party nationally does not have the
constitutional authority to impose change on failing Associations. So stalemate
ensues and little changes.
Time really is
running out; change won’t happen unless those who want it to happen are in a
place to drive it forward. With your Association AGMs on the horizon it is time
to stop moaning from the side-lines and instead put yourself in a position to
effect the change you want to see.
