I once asked the local Tory party chairman what input members had into shaping policy. He was horrified at the thought of ordinary members having any influence on such things. The role of the common member is to raise funds, and have some say in electing people to represent the party at Westminster, but policy, no. This is of course much easier to control than having lengthy meetings of the membership, and trying to reconcile differing views, something that the Labour party has been trying to do for many years. The Tory model is rather nearer to the authoritarian one seen in the Soviet Union, yet somehow a party that is trying a much truer form of democracy has a
reds under the beds label attached to it. Very odd if you wish to think about it, but quite logical if you don't.