Trouble up Mill

Hmm not sure whether to post this or not but here goes. It would be quite ridiculous to ignore there has been some serious turmoil reported on CF Diary on Conservative Home over the last few days. So for fear of being accused of dragging CF's dirty laundry into the public eye I thought about not saying anything but then I couldn't see anything in the news I fancied blogging about so I changed my mind.

Firstly nothing very interesting has really happened. Two main controversies - Greig Baker resigning and Matthew Richardson's monthly report.

Greig Baker resigning in itself is a non-issue. Those trying to make out petty cliquey arguments from it really should give up. The only issue with this resignation is a geeky one. Each year the exec have the option to co-opt three people onto the exec. The purpose of this (well depends on who you talk to but) is to allow the exec either to fill a shortfall in the committee - if there are no students for example - or to replace someone who resigns or just doesn't get involved. However this year Mark has chosen to advertise for three co-option positions. To my knowledge only one had been appointed so far but this does mean, since Greig has resigned Mark only has two co-options left meaning one of those positions will have to fall by the wayside which I find a real shame.

Now Matthew Richardson's report again I see as just plain silly - sorry not the report, the criticism of it. Yes Matthew has made some criticisms - shock horror! It's worrying that people are that disturbed by honesty on the part of an exec member. The CF exec is a very closed group and CF itself is pretty London-centric cliquey so it's nearly impossible for an average member in the middle of nowhere to have any idea what goes on behind closed doors. We need more transparency and clarity - which is why I've always called for the publication of exec minutes. This years exec are doing a brilliant job by nearly all of them having blogs and submitting monthly reports. Matthew in particular has been the most assiduous in his production of monthly reports - I hardly feel it is fair for him to be criticised when he is honest in these reports.

So anyway how are the exec doing? Well I do not know about their internal relationships. No-one can who isn't directly involved. In terms of progress their achievements seem to be building more branches, organising campaign days and a very successful Christmas party. However I fail to see how this makes them the towering giants compared to last year that Craig Cox seems to think they are judging by his latest blog post. This time last year we had some new branches (not as many and not as well placed, I'll admit) , we had had many successful campaign days organised by Jonathan Ash-Edwards and we had had a fantastic Christmas Party with the newly elected David Cameron in attendance in a private bar area - therefore allowing for speeches. This year a lot of people didn't even realise Francis Maude attended.

I have every respect for Mark's administration and I fully believe he will deliver in his promise to set up nine CF branches in target seats. However the exec still have a long way to go before they prove they are any better than any previous exec. Maybe Craig Cox should think more carefully before he blogs in future.

***********EDIT**************

I'm completely wrong about the co-option issue - should stop assuming I know the CF constitution off by heart. Well done Mr Peterkin for spotting clause 6.2.6 of the CF Constitution, which states:

"even if the NME has already co-opted three people, it may co-opt a person to
fill a casual vacancy arising on the NME." . Although it's still not entirely clear if that means a vacancy on the NME or a vacancy of a co-opted member of the NME.