Selection of Conservative Parliamentary Candidates (Episode 4)

 

Selection of Conservative Parliamentary Candidates (Episode 4)

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

 Association selection stage

This section is a great improvement on the existing system and is to be commended.   Just a couple of small points, see below:

 25) The fundamental process should continue to be based on Sift Committee, Selection Council and Member Ballot stages. The whole process should not be rushed, enabling Associations to thoroughly assess applicants and involve members (3 months from opening applications to final selection should be the approximate average). 

 26) The Regional Candidate Co-ordinator should provide relevant Association, Area and Regional Chairmen with regular updates throughout the period leading up to and during selections within their respective localities. 

 27) Senior volunteers (Regional Candidate Co-ordinators and current or former Regional Off icers) must be trained and able to oversee selection meetings, so that there are no bottlenecks caused by lack of staff to oversee these meetings. 

 28) In advance of applications formally opening for a constituency, the Association should have the right to put potential applicants forwards for the approval process. 

 29) CCHQ/Leader’s Office/National Convention Officers to develop a short, engaging video setting out the responsibility which lies on the shoulders of those selecting someone for the whole constituency (who can win), the key attributes of successful candidates, illustrated by real examples, vox pops from voters as to what they value, etc, to be played at the start of Sift Committee and Selection Council meetings, and sent or shown to members prior to the Member Ballot. 

Total waste of time and money.   Members are not stupid.   This is patronising.  It is up to the members to decide what type of candidate they want.

 30) The Sift Committee stage should be changed as follows: i. The minimum sift committee size should be increased to 7, and Associations should be able to choose as many as 11 if they wish. Membership of the Sift Committee should not be restricted to members eligible to vote in the constituency – Executive Councils should be free to choose respected Party members in neighbouring constituencies, from the Area team, local PCC/elected Mayor etc if they wish. ii. Sift meetings should take place at a venue of the Association’s choice (within reason – including an online option for some or all participants). iii. Sift meetings should be chaired by the Regional Candidate Co-ordinator (or another senior volunteer appointed by them, e.g. Regional Officer or National Convention Officer), to ensure a balanced discussion. iv. The applicants’ activity records should be shared with the Sift Committee upfront, alongside their CVs. v. Sift Committees should be encouraged to put more applicants through to the Selection Council stage (between 5 and 10, plus 2 reserves), to give more choice and to give more applicants experience of the Selection Council stage. 

The Sift committee should be restricted to members eligible to vote in the constituency.   Others may be invited to attend in a non voting capacity.

 31) All Associations should be encouraged to hold campaign and/or social events, to which all shortlisted applicants be invited (without charge), to meet members before the Selection Council stage. 

 32) The Selection Council stage should be changed as follows: i. The meeting should be chaired by the Regional Candidate Co-ordinator (or another senior volunteer appointed by them, e.g. Regional Officer or National Convention Officer). ii. Selection Councils should be able to put either 3 or 4 candidates through to the Member Ballot (plus a reserve). 

 33) The Member Ballot stage should be changed as follows: i. As soon as feasible after the Selection Council (and no more than 2 weeks before the final Member Meeting) members should be notified by email of which 3-4 candidates they will choose from. ii. Require the candidates to publish a short leaflet (eg 2 sides A4), selfie video (eg 3 minutes) and social media links, emailed to all local members in advance. 5 iii. Give the final candidates a list of local qualifying members (with members given the ability to opt out in advance), and allow them to canvass members prior to the final meeting, to test campaigning ability and ensure members are engaged. (Appropriate safeguards would need to be applied to prohibit any form of “treating”, to enable members to opt out and to protect their data, and ensure as level a playing field as possible between applicants of different financial means. The Executive Council would be able to opt not to follow this but would need to have an explicit alternative plan to enable final candidates to engage with members.) iv. Pilot the use of online voting in some of the early selections (with the Associations’ consent), with the A4 flyer and video being provided to members first, followed by one or more hustings meetings, with the online voting opening thereafter. v. Consider using preference voting for the member ballot (this would be necessary for online ballots anyway, but could also be considered for in person ballots, to avoid having to hold multiple ballots). Post-selection 

 34) The Candidates Committee can permit variations to the process in the following circumstances: i. Upon request by Associations/Federations (e.g. potentially facilitating a modern equivalent to “city seats”, or other models). ii. Where an Association is in supported status, is in breach of any obligations under the Constitution, Board resolution or other regulations, or is otherwise not performing its basic functions. iii. Where the number of applicants and/or the number of members makes the default process unduly cumbersome (or if an Association wishes to opt in to a shorter process). 

 35) Imposition of shortlists for the Member Ballot must only be in exceptional circumstances (eg by-elections or after a General Election has already been called), and must never consist of fewer than three applicants. In such situations the views of the Regional Candidate Co-ordinator, Area Chairman and Association officers should be formally sought prior to the selection of the final shortlist.

Post Selection

36) Similar to the point made earlier relating to candidates pre-selection, candidates post-selection should be mentored – for example by a former MP, to guide and advise. 

 37) The Candidate Playbook must be reviewed to ensure that it contains in one place the core information which selected candidates need to know. This should initially consist of a general resource for all candidates, and then Associations should also be asked to produce one covering local specifics, ready for a candidate to hit the ground running. 

 38) Extend the “teams” arrangement (which was popular with candidates in the 2024 General Election) whereby clusters of neighbouring constituency candidates 6 support each other with mutual aid, ideally with one candidate being in a safe set, another in a target seat and the other 2 or 3 in development seats. This provided valuable experience for the development seat candidates and the reassurance of being part of a team. Phasing of the process 

If a Candidate wishes to devote all his/her time to their own constituency this should be accepted without being penalised.

Phasing of the process

 39) The reopening of applications should occur as soon after the May 2025 elections as possible. 

 40) Setting out the phasing of constituency selections should be a priority of the Candidates Committee once it has been reconstituted, taking into account: i. The views of Associations as to when they wish to proceed, and any specific local factors (involving the Regional Candidate Co-ordinators). ii. The winnability of the seat, with (in general) more winnable seats being selected earlier (taking account of data insights from and views of the CCHQ Campaigning Team). iii. A degree of co-ordination within each region, to avoid clashes (involving the Regional Candidate Co-ordinators). iv. The wider benefits of selecting some “no hope” seats early, to ensure an ongoing local presence in such areas, developing candidates for the future and (for example) reinforcing a positive impact on local election performance. 

 41) Selection cannot begin for an Association if the Association has unfulfilled obligations – for example financial, compliance or others set out in the “Defining an Association” document (or its successor). Post-election 

 42) References on unsuccessful candidates from Association/Area/Regional Chairmen and Regional Candidate Co-ordinator, senior staff , agents and others should be sought and kept on file. Feedback on non target candidates should also be sought from those to whom they gave campaign support. 

 43) A standard process for reviewing the performance of candidates, successful or otherwise, must be developed and implemented after each General Election. 

 44) The mentoring of candidates, previously mentioned, should continue in some form, for those candidates who wish to avail themselves of it. 

 45) The Board, 1992 Committee Executive and Whips should find ways of ensuring that MPs continue to engage positively with their Associations and continue campaigning post-election (reinforced by the Candidate Contract previously mentioned). 

 46) Sitting MPs should be requested to indicate, by mid-2027, whether they intend to stand for re-adoption for the next General Election (and if so readopted, they are required sign the same Candidate Contract as mentioned above). If no such indication is received by mid 2027 the Association is permitted to initiate a standard selection process, as set out above for seats without an incumbent (in which the incumbent would be able to take part). 

There should be no Candidate Contract!

Re-list processes 

 47) Former MPs seeking re-approval should go through the process as follows: i. The approval stage is a Full Assessment in person with the addition of specific focus added on their record of past campaigning (themselves personally, not just their Association), voting in Parliament, Association relationship and other relevant factors during their time as an MP. ii. The selection stage is retained unchanged. 

 48) Applicants on the list at the point of the 2024 General Election should go through the process as follows (with priority in terms of timing given to those who fought a seat): i. The approval stage is a Re-List Assessment, with specific focus added on their record during the 2024 General Election campaign. ii. The selection stage is retained unchanged. 

 49) Any applicant who has passed an emergency (Rapid Assessment) selection process as part of a Mayoral or Parliamentary by-election selection process should reapply through the Full Assessment process to get onto the Approved List for the next General Election.

All in all there are some good points in these recommendations, in particular where they improve democratic accountability, but there is also an increase in bureaucracy, and massive opportunity to manipulate democracy.   The points highlighted should be reviewed.