The
following article was published on the ConservativeHome web site on 2 February
2026:
Here
is my response and the reply by Julian Ellacott (Chairman of the National
Convention).
John,
Julian, Clare
Some interesting points worth of debate but the most important
point you make is " How should we balance member voice with the
practical reality that many wards have very small memberships?" The Party
is doing nothing about this. For 25 years the members have been treated with
contempt by CCHQ and now the situation is getting desperate, prospective
Candidates are hard to find in many constituencies and yet feet on the ground
are essential. Tory Party membership has sunk to approx.100,000 and is sinking.
The last National membership drive was the Bulldog campaign in 1988. Reform has
understood the necessity of membership having built up their membership to
280,000 in just over a year. In my own constituency of Beaconsfield Reform have
had three training meetings this week! No wonder they now have more members
than the Conservatives. Unless the Party gives more rights to members and more
incentives to join the Party I am afraid the Party is heading for disaster.
Processes for selecting Council Candidates are important but if you do not have
any applicants they become meaningless!
Julian Ellacott
John - that is indeed an important question, to which colleagues
are rightly giving much thought, but it is outside the scope of this exercise,
which is about how we undertake the selections fairly.
John Cope: Reforming local
government candidate selection. Fairer, simpler, and fit for the future
Cllr John Cope is Chairman of the Conservative
Councillors’ Association. Julian Ellacott is Chairman of the National
Convention. Clare Hambro is Chairman of the Candidates
Committee
Selecting the right candidates
fairly is one of the most important things the Conservative Party does in local
government. Councillors are our frontline representatives. They shape local
services, set council tax (…much lower than any other party), make difficult
decisions under pressure, hold other parties to account and embody Conservative
values in their communities every day.
Done wrong, poor selections can
cost us winnable wards, or drive good people away.
That is precisely why we are
reviewing and consulting on the Party’s local government candidate selection
rules. This exercise is not about change for its own sake. It is about ensuring
our processes are fit for the realities of modern local government and modern
campaigning, and fully involving Associations and councillors, not dreaming up
new rules within CCHQ and handing them down without any local input.
Our consultation document is
available here, and you can submit your views here.
Over time, well-intentioned
rules have accumulated. In some places, that has left us with a system that can
feel slow, complex, and overly administrative. Too often, valuable volunteer
time is absorbed by process, paperwork, and far too many appeals, rather than
campaigning, recruiting members, and winning elections. In some cases, the
rules also prevent frank conversations with and about candidates who do not
pull their weight.
Our aim is therefore threefold.
First, to continue to select high-quality candidates who are committed to
Conservative values, their communities, and the Party. Second, to modernise and
streamline the process where we can, without weakening fairness or safeguards.
Third, to speed up selections in appropriate circumstances, freeing
Associations to focus on what really matters: campaigning and winning.
That is the context for the
draft rules now out for consultation. They are designed to simplify the
architecture, clarify responsibilities, reduce unnecessary duplication, and
lower the risk of dispute, while keeping member involvement at the heart of the
process.
We have already received a
substantial volume of thoughtful and constructive feedback, both in writing and
through online consultation discussions. The overall message is encouraging.
Many respondents support simplification and clearer governance, but there are
also clear pressure points where views differ and where further work is needed.
One of the first questions is
scope. Should these rules apply only to principal authorities, such as county,
unitary, district, and borough councils, or also to town and parish councils?
Some argue strongly that parish and town councils should not be burdened with a
heavy process, particularly where recruitment is already difficult. Others make
the case for consistency, noting that parish or town councils are really
significant bodies in many places, and often a pipeline into higher office. We
are keen to explore whether a two-track approach, with mandatory rules for
principal authorities and lighter-touch guidance for parish and town councils,
could strike the right balance.
Another area of debate is how we
handle applicants who are subject to Code of Conduct complaints. Some favour
exclusion until matters are resolved. Others point out that complaints can be
vexatious, slow-moving, or even weaponised. Feedback suggests there is appetite
for a clearer, more transparent decision framework that weighs severity,
status, timing, and relevance, rather than relying on ad hoc local judgement.
Conflicts of interest are a
recurring theme. There is broad agreement that conflicts must be managed
properly, but frustration with vague rules that leave too much to discretion
and invite appeals. Several respondents have suggested clearer recusal triggers
and a simple conflict register, with an escalation route for borderline cases.
We think this is an area where clarity could strengthen trust without adding
unnecessary bureaucracy.
We have also heard strong
support for consolidating the application and re-approval forms into a single
document, with tailored sections for new candidates and incumbents. The message
has been clear: reduce duplication, but retain the ability to assess councillor
performance and contribution properly.
The most debated issue,
unsurprisingly, is the final selection stage. How should we balance member
voice with the practical reality that many wards have very small memberships?
Feedback shows no single perfect model, but there may be workable compromises.
For example, binding member decisions where ward membership is above a clear
threshold, and joint member and Executive meetings where it is not. Online
ballots could also play a role. What many respondents agree on is the need to
avoid systems that feel like the Executive can routinely override members’
views.
There is, however, strong
consensus on proportionality. Many welcome simplified and emergency procedures
for less winnable seats and late selections, provided there are objective
criteria and transparency to prevent abuse. This reflects a wider theme running
through the consultation: processes must be rigorous, but also realistic about
volunteer capacity and where effort is best focused.
Finally, appeals. Moving
approvals to the Area or council level (a strong recommendation in the current
rules, but proposed to be mandatory) requires moving appeals from Area to
Region. This has attracted broad support as a way to reduce local conflicts of
interest, though respondents rightly stress the importance of clear timelines
and a focus on genuine procedural breaches, not re-running properly taken
decisions. There is also concern about the work this shifts onto Area teams,
which will need to be addressed. A final backstop body to resolve procedural
disputes will also speed up difficult cases.
We encourage all those involved
in local government, whether councillors, officers, activists, or Association
chairs, to engage with the consultation and share their views. The final rules
will be stronger for it.
This consultation is not about
centralising power, nor about defending the status quo. It is about designing a
system that is credible, workable, and trusted by members, volunteers, and
candidates alike.
And critically, it should help
us win.
No comments:
Post a Comment