David McIvor: Analysis or Paralysis?

David is Chairman of Crosby Conservative Association

Is David Cameron’s laudable intention to reform the candidate list having the opposite effect?  Will the temporary suspension of candidate selection leave the party vulnerable later in the year?

Following his election as leader, Cameron put all new candidate selections on hold.  He instigated an analysis of the selection process.  A new chairman of the selection committee has been appointed.  Reviews are now taking place to include more women and ethnic minorities among the candidates.

However, there is not yet a new list of target seats for the next general election.  Constituencies can not start the selection process.  The new “A” list of candidates has not been finalised; indeed the parameters for putting candidates onto the list are still being discussed.

Amazingly there are thought to be over 400 constituencies without a Conservative candidate in place for the next general election.  This is a really scary number. Maybe it would not matter too much if the next election is in 2009, as many expect.  But what if it comes sooner?  What if it’s later this year?   

Cameron himself has said in the last few days: “"Gordon Brown is running out of money. He's running out of ideas. And he's running out of time. Don't assume we have three years or more until the next election. We must be prepared for Gordon Brown to cut and run. So we must not only show that the changes we're making are built to last. We must make those changes fast. Don't tell me I'm going too quickly. Press me and the Conservative team to work harder, to move faster, to make the changes we need."

If there were to be an autumn election, could those 400 constituencies select their candidates in time?  Or would we lose a potentially golden electoral opportunity?  The party also acknowledges it does not have enough agents.  But the training of new agents is not going ahead fast enough to meet the expected demand ahead of the next election.

Another factor slowing things down is the party flirting with using US-style primary selections.  These were introduced selectively in a handful of constituencies before the 2005 election.  There has however been no detailed review of those selections; information available about the outcomes is anecdotal.  Chairmen of Constituency Associations are presently being asked to consider using this method for the next candidate selection, but have virtually no information to base their decisions on.  No doubt this can all be resolved over time... but do we have time?

These are not “sexy” topics; unlike policy and presentation issues; but we have to get our logistics right if we are to be successful at the ballot box.  So candidate selection needs to get back on track, and quickly.  The party can not afford to be caught with its trousers down in the event of a snap election. And we certainly can’t let analysis become paralysis.

Comments

[Gareth Carver]

Why is it scary that 400 seats haven't selected? We are potentially 4 years away from a General election. Nobody seriously thinks Labour will cut and run. Surely it is better to get the process right, and more importantly get the right candidates. Fighting a seat is a very long, hard slog. A delay of a month or two is a something we can all live with if it means we get top quality candidates in place.

[Frank Young]

We need to be very careful about when an election might be called Brown could go either way.

He might decide to hold out as long as possible into 2010 to prove himself or he might decide as a new PM he needs his own mandate and call an immediate election (2007?) either is quite plausible.

We need to have our candidates in place quickly.

[Robl]

Do we honestly believe that Gordon Brown, days after achieving his ultimate ambition of becoming PM would risk throwing it all away by calling an election? If he lost that election he would go down in history as the shortest serving PM in history. He has shown no appetite for risk taking so far in his political career. On the candidate selection point. Isn't it better that we get it right rather than rush it and get it wrong.

[Andrew Woodman]

I do wish this could be speeded up a bit. We need to get out candidates in target seats known and active. We've got a by election coming up which would be a great chance to introduce our next PPC but it looks like we're going to have to wait months.

[Derek]

David McIvor makes a very good point. It has been shown that early selection can make a big difference, provided that the candidate is willing to give the time to make themselves known.

I agree with Gareth Carver that a few months delay will not matter, and of course we need to select the best candidate. However some seats may not select for a year or more and that can make a significant difference. Some seats did not select until a few months before the last election.

In seats where we are very unlikely to win, I believe the sensible thing to do is, if possible to find a good local candidate and select early. Doing this will not affect the selection in the marginals, though here too we need to get on with it. I fear we have become too obsessed by trying to select more women and minorities. Getting candidates selected early would be much more worthwhile.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Surely one of the aims of the A list is to get really good candidates for the winnable seats and get them in place first. The "grim reality" is that it is the unwinnable seats who usually get selected later on.

[malcolm]

Has anyone any idea when the 'Alist' is going to be annouced?

[Donal Blaney]

I am a firm believer in local party democracy. I consider that associations should decide for themselves when they want to have a candidate selected. Some seats may be involved in "all out" council campaigns in 2006 or 2007 and selections for the parliamentary seat are at the back of their minds.

[Louise]

I'm slightly wary about candidate selection taking place extremely early. I completely accept that there needs to be an extended campaign, time for the candidate to get known, get to know the issues and develop a base. However, we must remember (as many members don't) that our candidates are human and that an exceptionally extended campaign ie 3+ years will lead to exhaustion and disillusionment among candidates. Our candidates are expected to work more than full time on their campaigns, weekends are no longer their own, days and evenings are taken up with campaigning. Not a healthy situation (physically or mentally).

I don't think anyone seriously expects an election this year. There is time for the candidate selection procedure to be examined and the right people to be in place before the election. And don't forget, Associations can get on with campaigning without a candidate. It isn't impossible.

As for agent training, this is an area where there has to be a root and branch review of how the Party and Associations treat their employees. There is a huge turnover of agents, with both experienced and new agents leaving the Party. Is there much point training agents, then treating them badly so that they either leave or lose their jobs immediately after a General Election?

We have a bit of time to review some fundamentals, let's take that time to get things right.

[Sam Coates]

I think the decision should be devolved somewhat, some constituencies will already have a strong idea of who they want to stand - particularly if they have a strong, local incumbent candidate.

I don't think there is any harm in starting early either - The Big Swingers analysis showed that candidates selected 50 months in advance gained 1.65 points on their swing at the last election compared with those arriving 20 months or less before the vote. Candidates who stayed on after losing in 2001 to fight in 2005 were “rewarded for their tenacity” by enhanced swings of up to 2.1 points

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Early selection does matter - and that's official! Candidates who were selected 2/3 years before the last GE, on average, polled about 3% more votes (does anyone have the actual figures to prove my point?). 'Majority' opposition seats - like Tottenham - were not allowed to select candidates until about 7 months before the election, despite wanting their candidates much earlier! Indeed, some northern seats selected their candidates just weeks before the election was called.And most of them slipped in to 3rd place behind the Dim Lebs. The main reason that we did so badly in the Brent East parliamentary by-election was down to late selection. The Labour MP had been on his 'death bed' soon after the 2001 GE, but we didn't select/name our candidate until he was BURIED – a year or two later! In contrast, the LibDems had selected Sarah Teather, set up a base and campaigned from the very start. Look what happened...

[Mark Fulford]

David makes fair points about feedback and analysis from electoral tests. What's the point in experimenting if you don't report the results?

However, I'm glad not concerned that there are so many constituencies without candidates in place. In fact I'm glad. Over the next four years the pool of candidates will grow and change: we'll see some great new candidates emerging and some existing candidates going off the boil. The party needs to be free to react to these changes. By all means have standby positions, but let’s not lock ourselves in too early. Tactically, now is not the best moment to be selecting candidates.

[malcolm]

I usually agree with you on most things Mark but think on this you are wrong.We have seen time and again the Lib Dems making early decisions in target seats and reaping the rewards as their candidates have had time to build local recognition and ours have not.Once these seats are lost they are often extremely difficult to win back.
I also don't buy your argument at all Louise.If someone is fortunate enough to be chosen for a marginal seat they should be prepared to make a considerable effort to win it.If they don't want to do that there are plenty of people who will!

[matt wright]

I have sympathy with this paper. We keep making the mistake of leaving selections too late. Remember that its not just target seats, there are many marginals that are only just below target seat status - seats that could be won with someone in place early. In some ways they are more important than easy to win seats given that we would like a working majority.

Matt

[Huntarian]

Whatever else Brown is he is a realist. He will call the next election when he thinks he has the best chance of winning and he is unlikely to do a Major and stretch it out till 2010. He will only do that if the economy is in poor shape when he takes over and there is a prospect of an upturn if he leaves it until the last minute.
As a cut and run theorist myself I took some satisfaction in my friends telling me that DC must agree with me as he raised the prospect of an early election when he addressed Perth on Friday last.
I think DC is right to sound an early warning, better to be ready and have our troops getting restless than to get caught with only half the game plan devised. Labour start planning their next election strategy a month after the have finished their last one, we must learn to do the same.
We must be battle ready as soon as possible; we cannot afford the luxury of spending the next year or two contemplating our navel. Brown is a pack animal and will move in for the kill if he perceives any weakness in his prey. That much abused Lib/ dem manual titled how to be all things to all me has as its second chapter the mantra of, if at first you don’t succeed try, try and try again—it eventually works. We would do well to follow that advice. Where we had a good candidate in 2005 he/she should be reselected immediately after a GE and continue to work the patch. There is no substitute for knowing your patch and being known on your patch.

[Cutting taxes wins elections]

Please calm down

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>But what if it comes sooner? What if it’s later this year?<<<<
I see no reason why there would be a General Election later this year, Tony Blair still has a fair amount he wants to see go through before he stands down as Prime Minister and he is pledged not to fight another General Election, not only this but the Government is unlikely to hold an election that would be likely to see a Hung Parliament as the outcome which I am sure an election held at any point this year would see especially as people would see no reason for it's being held and would be reluctant to turnout for Labour, I'm sure that Conservative Associations would have candidates in place in time just as when Labour was quite late in sorting out candidates in the run up to the 1997 General Election they were convinced they would have candidates even if there was an early General Election, but unless Tony Blair stands down early (and I rather imagine he wants to stay on slightly longer than Mrs Thatcher did, probably until New Year 2009) and Gordon Brown believes that there is a prospect of increasing or at least maintaining Labour's majority in such an early election, or there is some kind of mass walkout from Labour by some of it's MP's and the Government collapses then there simply won't be a General Election until Spring 2009 at the earliest.

[James Cleverly]

We need to get our team in place early because Gordon could call an early election. Whether he is likely to is immaterial, we should be ready if he does.

Early selection does put pressure on the candidates but that is what we are here for. Many, many local campaigners put in time effort and money without asking to become MPs at the end of the process. It is only fair to them that the candidate puts in a sustained effort over a number of years if necessary.

Trust me, as a candidate, not knowing where I might stand, whether I will need to move home, move schools, move job etc is just as stressful as actually fighting the seat.

If the A list works and we get a nice, photogenic, energetic, effective and diverse set of candidates it will send out a signal as positive as any policy announcement. The earlier we can get this message out the longer it will have to sink into the public consciousness.

I can see no real downside to selecting early.

[AlexJ]

Who honestly believes that 90% white, male MPs fits with the country's skill set. If the constituency associations did their job properly and picked the best candidates rather than just white, right wing males there would be no need for the A list.

[TT]

"If the A list works and we get a nice, photogenic, energetic, effective and diverse set of candidates..."

That says it all, really.

Nice - inept, non-descript, vacuous, believes nothing in particular, stands for nothing in particular, no offence to anyone

Photogenic - superficial, pseudo-celeb, froth, looks good, no matter about the IQ

Energetic - fit, attractive, good physique, hyperactive facade, little achievement

Effective - that I can agree with, but manifestly not dependent on any of the preceding

Diverse - here we go again - code for black, asian, gay, disabled.

An A-list of candidates (who conform to all of James' superficial criteria and get a helping hand) implies a B-list of candidates who truly get there on merit.

Give me a B-list local candidate any day.

[Richard Carey]

Nice - inept, non-descript, vacuous, believes nothing in particular, stands for nothing in particular, no offence to anyone

Strange, because I always vote for people if they go out of their way to offend me...

Photogenic - superficial, pseudo-celeb, froth, looks good, no matter about the IQ

I think I'd relax the standard from that a bit (who knows, I may have ambitions myself one day!) - as long as they look like a regular human being, that will do me. More importantly is how we capture candidates on film - action shots and digging in on local activity work so much better than just another politician in a suit shaking hands.

Energetic - fit, attractive, good physique, hyperactive facade, little achievement

Well, I think most Associations would see through a facade pretty easily. Eneergetic is good, fit and active is good - campaigning hard over a sustained period is physically as well as mentally taxing.

Effective - that I can agree with, but manifestly not dependent on any of the preceding

Agreed - I particularly liked the suggestion on a previous thread that Associations should invite members of the list to come along on a day's campaigning to give selectors some insight.

Diverse - here we go again - code for black, asian, gay, disabled.

Sooner or later, we'll have had this argument anough times. To me, the demographics of our parliamentary party are not an end in themselves, they are a warning to us that we're not drawing on a wide enough pool of talent. If we don't reflect the country at large, then there are talented people in sections of society who would make good candidates that we are not reaching.

And let's widen the argument away from ethnicity and so on, to an aim of attracting a genuine diversity of candidates from a multitude of backgrounds, professions, life experiences and so on.

[James Cleverly]

TT,

You attribute the most negative interpretation on the things that I wrote, what would you prefer? Let me give go through the list that I put together (which was hardly exhaustive BTW)

Nice. Dominic Grieve is a nice guy and has defeated two government bills and has been a leading part of the team which has claimed two ministerial scalps.

Photogenic. Both Blair and Cameron are photogenic as was JFK, Kinnock was not! The sad reality is that people who are not able to project themselves in the media have a huge disadvantage in winning elections. This is not about being pretty or ugly but about being presentable, looking normal and in touch.

Energetic. How you link this with under-achievement is beyond me. What would you prefer, lazy?

Effective. Is closely linked with all of the above.

Diverse. What is wrong with having candidates who are “black, asian, gay, disabled”? We live in a diverse nation, some people live in cities, some are black, some are Asian, some are disabled and many are women. Do you really believe that any true British meritocracy would generate a group of people that is 90% male and 99% white?

Local candidates are not the answer to all our woes. A good candidate who is local can make a huge difference, but there were plenty of local candidates who got a stuffing at the last general election. If the local candidate is good enough they should be able to get onto the priority list.

Also spare a thought for the committed Conservative candidates not lucky enough to live, work or be born in a seat that has any chance of turning blue. What should we do with them?

[matt wright]

I have to say that I find AlexJs comments really quite offensive even though I too would like to see more women selected. Alex seems to be saying that 90% of our candidates our unfit. Also this "white" label, said almost as if being white is wrong, is also becoming offensive.

[michael]

"The "grim reality" is that it is the unwinnable seats who usually get selected later on."

This is true Jonathan. Associations of safe Labour and Lib Dem seats need to be able to select local candidates (from local lists) early!

The Lib Dems are effective at picking a local candidate who stand in two or three consecutive general elections, campaigning all year round to gradually build support and win seats.

Conservatives need to do the same.

[matt wright]

I think a key issue is to understand the wider implications of selections in seats that are not dead certs or narrow marginals. Other than the fact that there are quite a lot of semi-marginals that we must take seriously there is also the implications of not making a proper go of the harder to win seats. The outdated view (that still seems to prevail) is that these seats don't really matter cos they can't be won. However the impact of not doing well in these seats can be serious eg we need to build up our local govt base for the future but if we are falling from 2nd to 3rd in seats we are losing out in a major way. Also it can be the case that the Lib-dems are chipping away in such seats and again by not selecting properly and by going in late with non-local candidates we are losing out to structured Lib-dem type campaigns that undermine us. Finally where we are falling further and further behind in some seats it impacts on neighbouring seats in the same UA. Such neighbouring seats may have had more potential but could be damaged. This is why the blinkered and outdated view on selections is so damaging,

Matt

[Jonathan Mackie]

As someone who has fought the previous two general elections and remains a member of the Candidates' List, I can honestly say no-one has ever said to me that the reason they don't vote conservative is because of the gender mix of our candidates.

My concern with the Priority List is the implication that those not on the List are somehow inferior candidates. This is an open goal for Labour and Liberal Candidates facing our so called "B" list candidates. In my view it will simply lead to further decline in support for our Party in certain areas. Not much one nation in that.

There are many people touted as members of the "A" list who are greatly inferior candidates to those who won't be on the list.

Its creation will lead to mayhem in the Party and potentially do great damage.

David Cameron has boxed himself into a corner here and he needs a way out. My suggestion is that following all Priority List interviews he announces that all candidates on the Westminster list are to be appointed to the "A" list.