Goldlist candidate: James Cleverly

NAME... James Cleverly

 

WELL KNOWN FOR... Fighting Lewisham East at the 2005 General Election and being the Conservative candidate for directly elected Mayor of Lewisham. Also for looking like Hugo Chavez and being a regular on this site (see here and here).

CONSERVATIVE PARTY HISTORY... Local government candidate in Lewisham in 2002, and 2004. Kept the Lib Dems in third place in Lewisham East with a 4.1% swing and an increased share of the vote. James spoke at the 2002 party conference on the role of the family in preventing crime and drug addiction, and the natural synergy between ethnic communities and the Conservative party.

 

During the 2005 election campaign James was called upon to defend the Conservative immigration policies, this included the Editor’s Forum at The Voice (Black newspaper), Sky News and a number of debates against opponents such as Simon Hughes MP, Dianne Abbott MP and Paul Beoteng.

 

SPECIALIST AREAS... Defence, community cohesion, family, the countryside.

 

DID YOU KNOW...? James has been an officer in the Territorial Army for over 15 years. Despite being from Lewisham James spent a year working in the highlands of Scotland as a hill walking guide and assisting in vermin control (shooting pigeons, rabbits and roe deer).

 

MAIN STRENGTHS... Strong public speaker and campaigner, diversity of experience.

IDEAL CONSTITUENCY... A London marginal.

MORE INFORMATION... Campaign webpage, Personal blog.

VOTING IN THIS SURVEY HAS NOW CLOSED.  135 VOTES WERE RECEIVED. 79% WERE IN FAVOUR OF JAMES CLEVERLY JOINING THE GOLDLIST. 19% WERE AGAINST. 3% DIDN'T KNOW.

Comments

[Rob D]

TA Officer, family man-willing to take on the left in their strongholds. With his speaking there will be no unfortunate "DD moments". What's not to like?

[Gregor Hopkins]

Rob D: Here here.

[Martin Smith]

If he really was defending the party's immigration policy I'd like to know whether it was out of belief in the policy or simple loyalty to the party and the leader of the time. If it's the latter, then that's OK.

[Chris Palmer]

He seems to be a hardworking, enthusiatic individual willing and able to produce results for the Conservative party.

He produced a positive swing to the Conservatives in Lewisham East during the 2005 General Election campaign, and I think that he should be given every chance to produce a similar result in perhaps a more marginal constituency which could very well result in a win. He would certainly be on my A-List.

[Richard]

"If he really was defending the party's immigration policy I'd like to know whether it was out of belief in the policy or simple loyalty to the party and the leader of the time. If it's the latter, then that's OK."

What's wrong with it being the former? the policy was very popular!

Certainly seems like an excellent candidate. Only 6% have voted against. I recall someone on another thread poined out that there seems to be a hardcore 15% who always vote no. If that figure is reached again I would appreciate it if the "no" voters explained why.

[Chad]

I agree with Richard.

James does not just look good on paper, but has shown he can win support from the electorate, so deserves every chance to compete for a marginal seat.

Good luck to him, he is my favourite candidate to date.

[Cameron Watt]

A couple of years back, James kindly gave me and a CCO colleague a lift back from Michael Howard's anti-BNP speech in Burnley.

James is bright, charismatic, likeable and understands how the party needs to change without abandoning core conservative principles.

He'd certainly be on my A List.

[Antony Little]

James is clearly going to be a big star in the Conservative Parliamentary Party. Good luck to him!

[Peter Franklin]

It's not a case of whether James Cleverly is good enough for the A-list, but whether the A-list is good enough for James Cleverly. If he is not in a winnable seat by the next election then the A-list will have failed.

Of course, it's a bit unfair to judge the A-list on the basis of one individual -- as it's always possible that exceptional factors may arise which the candidate selection process cannot be expected to deal with. So how about a 'Platinum List' of, say, ten individuals, against which the A-list can be judged? Mr Cleverly should certainly be seen as platinum candidate as should Philippa Stroud and Fiona Bruce.

Of course we also need edgier, less conventional candidates like Ray Lewis and Zac Goldsmith. But if the A-list can't even come through for sure-fire winners like Cleverly, Stroud and Bruce then that would be a sure sign that the system is failing.

[Editor]

The ten people who receive the highest number of votes could, perhaps, be our 'Platinum List', Peter... or is that too democratic?

[Nadim]

Platinum List??!!

On the highest number of votes, or the highest percentage in favour?

Is it better to have 82% of 189 voters (over two days), or 73% of 328 (in one day)?

There are too many variables on this voting system to make a platinum list fair! And I still think if Rickitt had been given three days, like Lewis, he would have been approved. One day of voting robbed him.

[Editor]

You make a reasonable point about voting over a number of days, Nadim, and we're now restricting voting to one weekday (excluding Friday) of voting. I don't think Adam Rickitt would have been approved, however, with an extra day of voting. The pattern of every vote we've held so far has been pretty clear after an hour and hasn't shifted much afterwards. My estimate is that more votes would only have confirmed - more or less - the first day's pattern of voting.

[Richard]

Oh look, 15% against. What a surprise! Can we please hear some arguments from these people?

[Andrew Kennedy]

Last week I posted...

"I am more interested in what appears to be a "hard core" of 15% of users who vote against every candidate. Is this a group who are against the theory of the Gold List and vote 'no' to everyone on principle, or are they a mixed bag of people with their own reasons and prejudices that change by the day but always seem to amount to 15% ?"

Earlier today (11.46am) Richard wrote...

Only 6% have voted against. I recall someone on another thread pointed out that there seems to be a hardcore 15% who always vote no. If that figure is reached again I would appreciate it if the "no" voters explained why.

It's now 20.18pm and guess what, the NO votes have once again reached 15%, yet not one negative post explaining why.

Who are these 15% ?? Speak up.

[Sam Coates]

It's reasonable to assume that people who are very fond of/linked to one Goldlist candidate will vote against all other candidates. This is inevitable, but the more people we can get engaged in the process, the less this becomes a factor. It is also balanced out to differing degrees by candidates lobbying their friends and colleagues to vote and comment.
The candidates approved so far have all done well, with the exception of Zac Goldsmith. Debi Jones started off very strongly but confusion about whether the Goldlist means she should be parachuted into a different seat or not cost her almost 20%. Adrian Hilton had some of the most negative comments but also two or three times the number of total votes, interestingly.

[Anthony]

I take it you can only register your vote once?

Only because I have just mis-cast my vote - I voted NO when I meant to click YES. A warning not to click too quick!

[Nadim]

"It's reasonable to assume that people who are very fond of/linked to one Goldlist candidate will vote against all other candidates. This is inevitable..."

And sad. So Fiona Bruce and all her mates are avidly voting against every other candidate so that her 82% is not topped?

But Sam's entry also challenges the Editor's previous assertion:

"The pattern of every vote we've held so far has been pretty clear after an hour and hasn't shifted much afterwards."

Clearly, that wasn't the case with Debi Jones, who I seem to recall after one day of voting was on around 68%, and closed her second day on 59%.

Possibly an argument for compulsory registration of voters?!

[Frank Young]

I would like to add to the comments in praise of James.

He is fab and will make an equally fab MP

[Editor]

Anthony: "I take it you can only register your vote once?"

From the same computer you should only be able to vote once in any 24 hour period.

"But Sam's entry also challenges the Editor's previous assertion:

"The pattern of every vote we've held so far has been pretty clear after an hour and hasn't shifted much afterwards."

Clearly, that wasn't the case with Debi Jones, who I seem to recall after one day of voting was on around 68%, and closed her second day on 59%.

Possibly an argument for compulsory registration of voters?!"

The 'Jones shift' was probably the biggest we've seen, Nadim. It would have taken something much bigger to have turned Adam Rickitt from 'rejected' to 'approved'.

If we could register voters that would be ideal but I don't know of a cheap system that does. We could, I suppose, experiment with people emailing in their votes but that would not be so transparent? Any opinions?

[James Cleverly]

I have just read through the comments and I would like to say thank you for your support. Sometimes it can feel a little lonely campaigning here in Lewisham and it is nice see that the work has not gone unnoticed.

Every campaign is a team effort and we have good team here, the result that I got in 2005 is down to them as much as me so I will pass on the positive feedback.

I would also echo the request for the “no” voters to explain why, negative feedback is important and if there is something that we should all be doing and are not it would be good to know.

Thanks again

James

[Ian Sider]

"Adrian Hilton had some of the most negative comments but also two or three times the number of total votes, interestingly."

Very interesting indeed.

[Nadim]

"Very interesting indeed."

Not really. I'm in Slough, and just about the whole association still supports him, he was very popular. He also bothered to speak up for us when we were all put in 'support status' and nationally humiliated, as Dan Hannan observed. That takes guts. That is principle. By the looks of some of the comments, the Beaconsfield Tories were also engaged and voting, and he had a huge number of positive comments.

What this shows is that Adrian Hilton is the only candidate so far capable of inspiring anything wider than the regular 150 or so to vote on this site. Isn't that a hugely positive achievement, and doesn't it speak for itself?