Thread by @GeorgePeretzQC

A brief thread on what (as far as I can see) happens to a member of the Conservative Party who advocates voting for another party at any election.

The Party’s rules are here. politicalpartydb.org/wp-content/upl…

Schedule 7 (starting on page 29) seems to have the main relevant provisions.

Paragraph 2 provides that the objects of any constituency party include “to secure the return of Conservative Candidates at elections”.

Paragraph 3.5 then provides that “The Officers of the Association may [1] move before the Executive Council ...

... the suspension or termination of membership of the Association of any member whose declared opinions or conduct shall, in their judgement, be inconsistent with the objects ... of the Association”.

Advocating that people should vote for (or saying that the speaker will vote for) a candidate opposing the Conservative candidate would appear to be a straightforward example of an opinion or conduct contrary to the object of securing the return of Conservative candidates.

It is so straightforward that questions of the officers’ “judgment” scarcely arise.

But note at [1] the verb “may”: it would seem that the constituency officers could just decide to take no action.

Is that an absolute discretion?

Well, rule 41 [page 11] requires each Association to “comply with the objects of Constituency Associations as set out in Paragraph 2 of Schedule 7 of this Constitution [and] present and apply the unified image and common presentational strategy designed for
the Party nationally.”

At least arguably, that requires officers to take action to take action against members whose opinions or conduct are flatly inconsistent with the object of ensuring the return on Conservative candidates

or who are behaving in a way inconsistent with the national party’s unified image or common presentational strategy (which would seem to include urging voters to vote for another party).

What if the officers still refuse to take action?

Well, any member can raise, with the consistency association chairman, a failure by officers to deal with a breach: see rule 60. The chairman must then investigate and take appropriate action to remedy a breach.

“Appropriate action to remedy a breach” would appear to require (in a clear case of breach such as urging a vote against Conservative candidates) suspension or expulsion.

What if the chairman refuses?

Articles 61 and 62 then provide for the complainant to call on first the Area Management Executive and then the national Compliance Officer to take action.

The Compliance Officer’s decision is said by rule 62 to be final and binding and not subject to review of any kind. That provision might well not, however, prevent a judicial review of whether the Officer’s decision was consistent with the rules.

Ouster clauses such as this are hard to enforce.

Especially as the Compliance Officer is charged with ensuring that all members of the Party comply with its constitution: rule 77.1.

A court is likely to assume that the ouster clause was never intended to stop a court from preventing a blank refusal by the Compliance Officer to act in the face of a clear breach of the Party’s objects.

The Board is then required to take such action as it sees fit against the breaching Member: again it is hard to see that “no action” in face of a clear breach (such as urging voters to vote for an imposing candidate) would be legally sustainable given the “ouster clause.

Conclusion: unlike other parties the Conservative Party has no black and white rule against voting for other parties. That means it may have some work to do in suspending/expelling members.

Further, if the officers of its constituency associations don’t want to act, it will take some determined kicking by the centre or by individual members to make expulsions happen. /ends.