Selection of Conservative Parliamentary Candidates (Episode 3)

 

Selection of Conservative Parliamentary Candidates (Episode 3)

By

John E. Strafford

The Party Review has set out 49 recommendations to improve the Selection of Parliamentary Candidates process.   Some are worthy of support, others need to be changed. The following are my comments: 

Making the Parliamentary Candidate selection fit for the future: draft recommendations from the Party Review

11) Reduce the size of the Approved List by: i. Using an initial desk based triage to determine which applicants proceed to the full process, enabling our limited assessment resources to scrutinise fewer applicants more rigorously at the later stages. ii. Establish a dedicated development programme for those who fail the triage or Stage 1 on the basis of lack of experience (and hence are unlikely to meet the threshold for being selected for the next General Election). In that development programme they can focus on gaining experience and skills, with a route to joining the Approved List subsequently.

This is total bureaucracy.   It should be scrapped and save the money.   The Committee on Candidates role is to do due diligence, otherwise leave it to Party members to decide who they want.

18) Extend the question on Political Conviction in the Stage 1 interview to include Political Commitment (probing campaigning activity/experience within the Party), and introduce a specific assessment of Political Conviction and Commitment at Stage 2, involving an in person, dedicated interview (including discussion/debate/challenge of the applicant’s views on topical issues), using experienced assessors. This interview would also probe the candidate’s  Conservative values to establish that they have a fully rounded and well developed philosophy of what it means to be a principled Conservative. 

 19) Review the effectiveness of the “pass” system (Comprehensive, Key and Development, and the regional restrictions), with a view to clarifying and simplifying. (This should include whether to have separate Parliamentary, Mayoral, PCC etc passes.) 

20) Review the existing assessor pool at the outset of the process, and invite new applicants to join it subsequently. Assessors should be formally approved by the Candidates’ Committee and reviewed at the start of each Parliament, and a member of the Candidates Committee should be given responsibility for overseeing assessors.

More Bureaucracy scrap it all.   As for Conservative values what are they? Nowhere are they defined in the Party Constitution although every member has supposed to have agreed to them in order to be a member!

Management of candidates on the Approved List 

21) Fundamentally review the activity logging system – considering either investing in it (improving robustness/usability, and introducing random audits using input from local Association/Area/Regional o icers and Regional Candidate Coordinators), or scrapping it and replacing it with (for example) requiring applicants to record their activities on their Facebook page, which could then be used to assess activity. 

 22) Review the demands made by the CCHQ Campaign Team of on those on the List, with logic applied as to whether blanket requirements to attend (for example) a by election in one part of the country are the best use of time for those in opposite ends of the country. Ensure that other valuable activities, eg member recruitment, writing articles promoting the Party, fundraising and donor outreach and development, and promotion of CPF etc are recognised as part of the activity log as well as local campaigning activities. 

 23) Establish a mentoring system for those on the List, using mentors with suitable experience (potentially in conjunction with the Conservative Alumni – including senior volunteers, former MPs, Peers, former staff ), in order to provide suitable guidance and support for those on the List. 

 24) Provide for routine reviews of those on the List, and potential removal from the List for non-performance (or any actions of concern, noting that being on the List is a privilege, not a right).

More and more bureaucracy. No wonder CCHQ is short of money!   Who comes up with such junk.   Oh yes the power mad people who are assessors and wannabe members of the Candidates Committee, people who almost certainly have never been an MP!

Further comments to follow