A million words, probably too many words, have
already been written about the Conservative campaign, the manifesto, the Party
Leader and what went wrong. There is nothing new I can add, so I will not try.
My analysis will therefore be confined to the one subject I can speak about
with authority and knowledge: the voluntary party and the increasing need for
reform.
Over two years ago, in the warm glow of June 2015,
I wrote
“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 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.”
How prescient those words were, and how real my
fears that we would prevaricate and dither. The consequences of this were plain
to see on Thursday 8th June when it has been widely acknowledged
that our ground campaign was woefully inadequate. We were no match for Labour
and Momentum. Our troops, what few we had, were in the wrong place at the wrong
time. A lack of local political experience resulted in candidates signing up to
a national print package with barely any local content and which, too often,
arrived too late. The news agenda moved faster than the messaging and we were
constantly responding to events rather than leading them. And perhaps, most
noticeably of all, without the infrastructure provided by Team 2015, we simply
had no way of directing resources to where they were needed most, nor the local
knowledge to pick up when target seats had become lost causes – so we carried
on campaigning in seats where Labour produced five-figure majorities.
Every single one of the above failures could
have been avoided if more groupings had been formed in the two years we have
been talking about it. Since the West Kent Group was launched I have spoken to
hundreds of Associations about the benefits of joint-working; Suffolk,
Cheshire, Cambridgeshire, East and West Sussex, Berkshire, Birmingham, and
dozens more individual Associations. Every one, without exception, has agreed
it is the way forward – but nothing has happened. The good intentions of the
progressives are always overcome by the negativity of the backwoodsmen, who
will fight to the bitter end over the ownership of the Risograph to stop the
change we need happening, whilst all the while our Associations wither and our campaign
ability atrophies.
We have fiddled while Rome burned around us and
the ruins of our procrastination are evidenced by our Parliamentary majority. Let there be no doubt that if we had had an
effective and focussed ground operation in 2017 the outcome in those 19 seats which
we lost by fewer than 1000 votes would almost certainly have been different,
and Theresa May would have had her majority.
How could nationwide groupings have made a
difference?
1.
With
qualified and professional leadership, each group of candidates could have
produced their own local literature, with local content tailored to the priorities
and needs of their local communities. We did this successfully in West Kent,
producing, I believe, better quality literature, all of which was delivered
on-time, and with within budget.
2.
By
pooling resources and providing strong and clear leadership we will increase
our ability to provide campaign support to target seats exponentially. For
example, every day of the campaign West Kent provided between 10 and 20 helpers
to target seats. This increased to 30-50 at weekends and, on Tuesday 6th
June, over 120 West Kent activists were campaigning in target seats outside
Kent. This is the equivalent of two coacheloads. Imagine if that could be
replicated 20 times across the country – we would have a peripatetic army of
2,500 campaigners fighting on the doorsteps where they are needed most. All
that is needed is vision, organisation and leadership.
3.
Perhaps
most importantly of all, by selling off buildings which are never occupied,
cancelling leases on equipment which is never used and using our combined buying-power
to negotiate best value in what we purchase, we will have the resources needed
to employ professional staff with the skills to fight elections and build our
voluntary party, rather than paying dozens of part-time secretaries, too many
of whom just print event tickets and type-up minutes of internal meetings.
In light of what happened last week I think we
must be much bolder in our approach. MCAs are too little, too late. Putting
together 6 failing Associations will not make a successful group. And whilst I
have a lot of time and respect for our young generation of Campaign Managers
(indeed many have become friends) expecting a 25 year-old to bang heads together
and to resist the competing demands of MPs, Council Leaders and “Very Important”
activists simply isn’t fair or realistic. A grouping of this nature needs a
hardened “grey beard”, unafraid to make unpopular decisions as he or she is
sufficiently competent and experienced to do so.
So here are my revised proposals to build the
voluntary party we need for the next General Election.
1.
Groupings
of 15-20 constituencies, which will provide the pool of manpower and money necessary
to sustain the operation. If this means crossing County boundaries, so be it.
2.
The
Associations within each group to retain their own autonomy, with their own
officers, finances, internal structures and the right to select candidates.
3.
A
new Group Headquarters in “fit-for-purpose” modern office accommodation, with
sufficient technology to run a modern business, and space for the staff.
Current freeholds to be sold (with the money to be retained by the original Associatons)
and leases terminated on rented properties.
4.
Present
staff re-employed and re-assigned by the group only if they have the skills
needed. If not, redundancies arranged under the best possible terms.
5.
Each
group to be headed-up by an experienced County Director, with as many campaign
assistants working for him/her as circumstances demand (approximately 2 or 3
per county). Each group to also have an administration manager, a part-time
book-keeper, part-time graphic designer and secretarial support as needed.
6.
Annual
KPI assessments to judge each group’s performance, with a national assessment
team to supply additional support and training where needed.
7.
Groups
to be financed by each member Association pro-rata to their membership and
ability.
For example. Let us imagine a fictitious group
in Barchester County, of 17 constituencies. My proposed structure would give
Barchester a County Director, 3 Campaign Assistants, an Admin-Manager, a
part-time book-keeper, graphic designer and secretarial support, plus rent on a
modern office for around £225,000 pa, or an average of £13,000 per Association.
In reality, this would probably mean the financially weaker Associations paying
£8,000 pa, and the stronger ones paying £18,000. This is much less than most
pay now, for a part-time secretary and an office that seldom functions.
For four years now, I have banged on about
groupings. Along with others, I contributed to the Feldman Review, and have
spent countless evenings and weekends up and down the country evangelising
their benefits. My fortnightly columns on Con Home have highlighted best
practice. I have met no-one able to make the case for the status quo.
Our inaction, both locally and nationally,
contributed greatly to the disappointing results we achieved last Thursday. We
got away with it (just) in 2017 – unless we take action now, we won’t get away
with it again.
This is the last article I will write on
grouping. West Kent have shown it can work, and it is now for others (with the
authority to bring about change) to have the courage needed to make it happen.
