A first for Tory Rascal – a guest post. Andrew Hammerschmiedt, a potential Conservative candidate for Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council, on disagreeing with the party line…
Last week I was – for the first time ever – required to fill in a form in order to be considered as a Conservative candidate for the forthcoming council elections. In previous years it was good enough that the local association considered me fit and proper to do weeks of unpaid work. I had been able to trick the silly boys so far.
Now that the bureaucratic achievements of the Soviet Union have – in a European Union-shaped pile of sticky goo – enveloped and engulfed this country, however, it is all change.
I am not going to complain or wail about the new procedure; I actually understand the reasoning behind it, since some of the questions had not – and should have been – asked in the past. Stupidity as well as ignorance costs seats. And, at least, the form now provides a framework for interviewers of potential candidates.
However, there was one question which stood out (I hope I am not giving away state secrets here!): “Do you disagree with party policy …” etc.
The thing is, that is a very difficult query to satisfy. Political parties are coalitions. Daniel Hannan, for example, is a prominent member of the “Let’s Leave The EU Right Now” faction of British politics, whereas Kenneth Clarke is convinced the Euro is the way forward. Yet they sit in the same party, cheerfully defying the official line (overtly and covertly respectively), both too powerful to be sacked. Now, if either of them was a contender for a local authority ward (a fanciful notion, agreed) and put his honestly-held views on the European Union on the form, would he be selected by the party? Could Trotsky have thought up a subtler way to weed out dissent?
My point is this: it is not only absurd to ask Tories whether they agree with central authority, it is distinctly wrong. Toeing the official line (especially a few days before the election) is one thing, having independent thought quite another.
News just in: Conservatives do not have one ideology they all follow. Some have none, even. They do not agree with each other all of the time. That is the attraction.
If you are interested, when it came to answering the question on the form I stated the obvious. Do I disagree with CCHQ’s decisions?
No, they are flawless. Always. Without exception.
If you’d like to be considered as a guest poster on Tory Rascal, please drop me an email with your work. Articles must be original, concise and (preferably) no more than 500 words in length. I cannot promise to carry every article I receive.
Filed under: Blogging, Guest posts | Tagged: CCHQ, Conservative candidates, Council elections, Guest posts
I suppose it depends on the nature of the disagreement, and whether or not it’s simply to bring it to the attention of the appropriate people, or as a subtle form of weeding out dissent.
For example, in scenario A you use the form to ensure that the local association doesn’t gaffe by doing a printing run of thousands of leaflets claiming you support a party policy that you’re actually lukewarm about (e.g. Dan Hannan’s name being put to literature advocating reform from within the EU etc.). That seems sensible and a good way of ensuring that you don’t torpedo your campaign through oversight.
On the other end of the scale, there is the risk of Scenario B occurring, where the local association don’t want someone rocking the boat or dissenting from the party line. You might even find campaign resources allocated accordingly. Here it may well operate as a form of weeding out dissent.
Obviously, these are the easy cases. The problems lie at the margin:
Scenario C: the politics of a particular constituency mean that support for, or deviation from, certain “central” policies may affect the electability of Tory candidates. For example it may be that the issue of marriage tax credits is particularly toxic, and any candidate seen supporting it will automatically lose. There the fact of dissent may even work in one’s favour. On the other hand, it might be that the constituency favours a “tough on crime” approach, and your dissent from the party line in favour of fewer prisons (e.g. John Redwood’s) may harm the party’s chances. There the question of your dissent can work either way, and would be an intelligent means of selecting candidates appropriate to the constituency. There everyone can be a winner: the dissenter (depending on your grounds of dissent), the party and the constituency.
Or finally you have Scenario D: the section of the form is overlooked for all but the dissent that brings you outside of the big tent, e.g. support for forced repatriation for ethnic minorities, advocating the execution of homosexuals etc. Although a party must be open, there are still limits.
That gives us at least 4 plausible scenarios (although I admit C might be stretching it). It would be interesting to find out more to see which one (or more) is the case.
@Benjamin Gray
A very erudite reply. But straying off the dog’s buttocks at times.
I tried and failed to make a succinct point. (1) It is not possible to agree with all party policy. (2) It has been two years or so since I was last invited to a policy forum. Really, what we have to do is trust the leader. Which I do.And I am regularly chastised for it. (3) Those who are powerful in the party – and this is the issue – do not have to follow what the leader says.
Your scenarios show that there is a leeway depending on where someone stands (constituency-wise). And that is contrary to the argument that we cannot be united if questioning a specific policy.
Very interesting post and follow up response!
[...] The Party of Dissent Tory Rascal has an interesting post: Let's Agree to Disagree, Shall We? The party is now requiring candidates to fill in a form asking them if they disagree with party [...]