Cheers for the invite...
TB couldn't help but chuckle that the CF Area Chairman are holding their very own special
conference party
.It's understood there will be rousing speeches about holding strong and fighting for survival...
UPDATE: News is reaching TB today that some sort of petition is in motion.
The Great Reform Act isn't going through without a fight.
Posts
2 comments:
Why hasn't this been published TB?
Pretty "rousing"?
Dear Michael Rock,
Firstly I would like to thank you for sending your email on Thursday the 4th of September to all area chairmen to inform us of your plans for changing the structure of our organisation and I would also like to thank you for creating a valuable forum for discussion among the area chairmen in the process. However you could have decided to inform the area chairmen of these plans at any time, not just a week before the NME meeting where these matters will be voted on. In fact I notice that the day you decided to send your email to us is the same day your proposals received much negative publicity on the Tory bear blog, I therefore wonder if you would have emailed us at all if your plans had not received this publicity and criticism.
In your email you sent to Area Chairmen on Sunday the 7th of September you said “I do not feel comfortable forwarding any more details purely because nothing is yet agreed amongst the NME”. This line (that your planned reforms have not yet been discussed by the NME and therefore there is nothing to talk about) has been consistently used by yourself and Christian May to shut down debate and to avoid answering members questions and concerns about your plans until after the NME vote. It is also untrue. You admitted that this matter has been discussed at the last NME meeting, in fact as a result of these discussions you gained a feeling for NME members initial reaction to your plans (which will be critical when the vote comes) when you said that “I feel both of their responses (Patrick and Adele’s) grossly misrepresent the discussions we have had so far and, indeed, their declared positions at the last NME meeting” in the same email. We also know that these discussions took place from Patrick and Adele’s emails. Therefore I feel you (and Christian May) have attempted to intentionally mislead me and all the other area chairmen you addressed your email to.
You also say in the same email that 100% of NME members who have publicly spoken about your plans (Christian on Tory bear, Patrick and Adele in emails) have misunderstood them and have misrepresented them. This is also untrue. The reality is that you and Christian May have been forced to change your plans after they were leaked, publicised and criticised. One example of these changes you have made in an attempt to pacify Area Chairmen is that Area Chairmen have gone from being completely abolished to “optional” (Adele let the cat out of the bag on that one - directly quoting you). So you have attempted to intentionally mislead me and all the other area chairmen you addressed your email to for a second time. It is with regret that as a result of this I unfortunately feel unable to trust you now when you speak about the issue of your proposed reforms.
I also feel it is very unprofessional and inappropriate of you as National Chairman to criticise NME members in an email to Area Chairmen. Patrick and Adele are entitled to disagree with your reforms and have done so in a dignified manor for genuine reasons and have genuine concerns. They have not said a word to publicly attack either Christian May or yourself. It is a shame you were not able to also do this and felt it necessary to play the man rather than the ball by suggesting that they had deliberately “grossly misrepresented” your plans for their own personal gain.
To address the substance of the proposals I would like to make it clear that I am against the abolition of the NME. The NME are the national executive body who currently decide matters by simple majority voting. The proposed reforms, by abolishing the NME, would centralise this decision making power solely in the hands of the National Chairman and remove a vital check and balance on the actions of the National Chairman. I am unsure why you (the current National Chairman) and Christian May (Deputy Chairman and some say the next National Chairman) are pushing for this massive increase in the National Chairman’s power.
I also oppose these plans as they would drastically reduce every member’s democratic influence. At the last CF elections CF members were able to vote for 7 national people (the National Chairman and 6 NME members) and 1 local person (the area chairman). Your plans would take away members voting ability as they could only vote for 1 national person (the National Chairman) and 1 regional person (the regional co-ordinator).
Michael , I would like to take this opportunity to ask you to drop these planed reforms. Surrey Area Chairman Alexandra Swann has already pointed out on her blog (https://www.alexandraswann.co.uk/) that the is already provision in the existing CF structure (and constitution) for you to appoint regional officers to assist the work of area chairmen, however you haven’t done so. The NME are pretty evenly split on this matter and the vote will most likely be decided by one persons vote. Area Chairmen are also split on this and feelings on both sides are running high with talk of mass resignations. All this is unnecessary and avoidable, we should not be fighting among ourselves over the future internal structures of the parties youth organisation but supporting our PPC’s and MP’s. Please reconsider the need for these reforms.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Alex Agius.
Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire Conservative Future Area Chairman.
arrogant prick:
Alex,
This is precisely why I was so irritated by the leaking of Adele's email: I have to spend more time correcting false assertions than actually addressing the issues that CF face nationally. Much of the content in your email is based on half-truths and therefore is fundamentally flawed. I am not trying not to make this personal but as you have summarised so adeptly the mis-information that has been put out, it provides a great basis for a final clarification.
"Firstly I would like to thank .....would have emailed us at all if your plans had not received this publicity and criticism".
As I stated in the aforementioned email, the "NME are meeting with senior Party members on September 13th and we hope to have a finalised package at that meeting". I'll reiterate the intention of my email: to clarify that most of the hot air being produced on certain blogs were not based on facts but on hyperbole. It has never been a secret that I think CF should place far more emphasis on regional levels and indeed won an election with that as a backbone of my campaign.
" "I do not feel comfortable forwarding any more details purely because nothing is yet agreed amongst the NME". This line (that your planned reforms have not yet been discussed by the NME and therefore there is nothing to talk about) has been consistently used by yourself and Christian May to shut down debate and to avoid answering members questions and concerns about your plans until after the NME vote. It is also untrue."
I don't appreciate being called a liar, particularly when you quote my words "agreed amongst the NME". I have never said the reforms have not been discussed. The main issue here is that as the NME have not agreed anything, so what precisely would you expect to be provided to a broader audience?
"You also say in the same email that 100% of NME members who have publicly spoken about your plans (Christian on Tory bear, Patrick and Adele in emails) have misunderstood them and have misrepresented them. This is also untrue. The reality is that you and Christian May have been forced to change your plans after they were leaked, publicised and criticised."
One again, factually incorrect. You weren't at the NME meeting so you don't know what Adele and Patrick agreed to as a basis for further discussion. As there are still no definite plans, neither Christian nor myself nor any of the NME can be accused of changing plans: we are still in a process. Members are welcome to send in their comments, as has been stressed, and these will be considered at the meeting. However, my Executive and I are merely proposing to enact my manifesto.
"One example of these changes you have made in an attempt to pacify Area Chairmen is that Area Chairmen have gone from being completely abolished to "optional" (Adele let the cat out of the bag on that one - directly quoting you). So you have attempted to intentionally mislead me and all the other area chairmen you addressed your email to for a second time. It is with regret that as a result of this I unfortunately feel unable to trust you now when you speak about the issue of your proposed reforms."
Can you ping me the Adele quote where I changed to optional? Adele said "Michael, I know we have discussed this before, and you said that AC's would be "optional" with regards to how the individual branches wish to organise themselves. This is fine, the more autonomy people have to run their branches the more successful they have proven to be." My position is, was and always will be that Regional variances need to be accounted for. If there are only a handful of branches in a region then why would half a dozen AC's be necessary? It is patently obvious that increased autonomy, closer to the members is a wholly attractive structure and would enable a stronger, louder voice for members all across the country.
I" also feel it is very unprofessional and inappropriate of you as National Chairman to criticise NME members in an email to Area Chairmen. ... had deliberately "grossly misrepresented" your plans for their own personal gain. "
Questioning my professionalism is an interesting step considering you have opted to cc a blogger on your thread. I have dealt with the issue internally, I will leave Patrick and Adele to respond further should they deem it necessary. I am more than happy for my style to be questioned but you have obviously taken sides on the issues that you do not fully understand or have knowledge of. I cannot specifically see how I am going to personally gain anything from these reforms: I dedicate an enormous amount of time to the Conservative cause in the hope that we can form the next Government.
As I have over six month's experience s National Chairman, I can assure you that these reforms will massively improve how the national team functions. Whilst I appreciate the efforts of all volunteers of the Party, I think it is asking an enormous amount for the NME to spread themselves so thinly: doubling the number of representatives at a nation level will massively improve the communication, impact and relevance of our organisation.
"...would centralise this decision making power solely in the hands of the National Chairman and remove a vital check and balance on the actions of the National Chairman. I am unsure why you (the current National Chairman) and Christian May (Deputy Chairman and some say the next National Chairman) are pushing for this massive increase in the National Chairman's power. "
Doubling the national representation is neither centralisation nor a power grab. Think about it.
"I also oppose these plans as they would drastically reduce every member's democratic influence.....ll this is unnecessary and avoidable, we should not be fighting among ourselves over the future internal structures of the parties youth organisation but supporting our PPC's and MP's."
I completely agree that we should be focussing on the positives of CF, this is all peripheral noise that is merely distracting us all. But let me finish with a few point: who is the NME accountable to? Having a local, national representative would bring the senior level of CF far closer to the membership, which is exactly what I said I would do all the way through my election campaign.
Moving to Regional Chairman is so obviously a move in the right direction to re-engage the broader membership and extend our appeal. The day to day running of your branch or area will not be affected. Campaign days will continue. Socials will remain. The only difference is that you will be better connected with the national level, in a structure that is flexible and better equipped to help deliver a Conservative government.
Best,
Michael