The costs of being a candidate

As featured in this morning's Telegraph, Financial Times and Scotsman.  Guardian Online, the Daily Mail and the BBC have also since posted reports.

In aiming for a more representative Conservative Party David Cameron has consistently emphasised the need for more women and people from Britain’s ethnic minority communities.  The fact that more than 50% of A-listers are women - and that 10% are from ethnic minorities - was about the only thing that CCHQ wanted journalists to know about the ‘Priority List’ when it was launched.

ConservativeHome has always believed that ‘candidate diversity’ should have other dimensions.  We believe that older candidates have something special to give to the parliamentary party and Iain Dale made a strong case for candidates with good life experiences in a special post in January.  A bigger theme for ConservativeHome, however, has been the value of recruiting candidates with backgrounds in the public and voluntary sectors – or other people who, perhaps because they have been homemakers or carers, have limited incomes.  Robert H Halfon and Katie Perrior have both written for ConservativeHome about the financial pressures on candidates.

A few weeks ago ConservativeHome invited existing candidates to submit their own experiences of the financial costs of seeking to become a Conservative MP.  I am very grateful to the 17 A-listers and 20 other candidates who took the trouble to email me with their experiences.  I hope, as they read my all-too-short analysis, that they will think I have done some justice to their experiences.

It is absolutely clear that being a Conservative candidate is very expensive and I have categorised the expenses under four broad headings:

1. The basic costs of becoming and staying a candidate
2. The costs of finding a seat
3. The costs of fighting a seat
4. Lost income from the whole process.

By way of summary, however, eight people who had won their election bids and eight who failed to do so calculated the total costs for their candidacies:

• The total cost for the winning candidates was £41,550 when lost income was included.  It was significantly less - £27,235 – for losing candidates (partly reflecting the fact that some candidates were unlikely to win their seats and consequently spent and sacrificed less).  Average cost of fighting a seat (with lost income included): £34,392.
• When considering direct costs only the cost was £22,020 for winning candidates and £16,070 for losing candidates.  Average costs (only including fees, housing, travel and other direct costs): £19,045.

(1) THE BASIC COSTS OF BECOMING AND STAYING A CANDIDATE

• Attending a Parliamentary Assessment Board
• Annual fee for compulsory membership of the Candidates’ Association
• Training days
• Attending conferences and helping in by-elections

The first main expense is the fee for attending a Parliamentary Assessment Board - £250.  This is an all day affair and may also incur travel costs and overnight accommodation.  A successful PAB gets you on to the candidates’ list.  Another interview is required to become an A-lister (but there’s no charge for that interview).

There’s an annual £80 fee for joining the Candidates’ Association and membership isn’t optional.

Candidates are then encouraged to attend training days.  These days are generally accepted as very useful and new candidates, in particular, can find themselves at a disadvantage if they do not take advantage of the skills they help to build.  They each cost £100.

Once a candidate you become what one person called the ‘CCHQ slave’.  Whenever there is a by-election you are expected to travel across the country to campaign there.  Candidates get email warnings that any failure to campaign will be noted on their files.  Attendance at party conferences and other events is certainly not compulsory but candidates who do attend are better connected and get connected to informal networks that feed them with better intelligence.

One PAB, one annual fee and one training day - plus travel costs - will set a candidate back by approximately £500 and that’s before the hunt for individual seats has begun. 

£500 is a lot of money for anyone but it’s a small fortune for a teacher with a young family, for example.

(2) THE COSTS OF FINDING A SEAT

• The costs of researching a prospective seat
• The cost of travelling to each round of a constituency selection meeting
• The optional costs of buying specialist help in order to get elected

To have a good chance of winning a seat some advance research into the constituency is a must.  The best kind of advance research involves a visit.  That involves travel expenses and overnight accommodation.  One candidate got through to at least the first round in more than a dozen seats during the last parliament and got to the final three on four occasions.  She estimates that her advances researches cost at least £150 on average – approximately £2,000 in total.  Another candidate estimated each seat costs £350 if you reach beyond stage one.  One A-lister who reached three round ones during June and July – but not beyond - spent £337 doing so.

A very few Associations use the selection process to boost their own coffers by expecting candidates to pay for background briefing documents although there has not been one example of this during the latest round of selections.

People with means can choose to access other training providers.  Many do.  Training in public speaking and specialist advice on handling Q&A at a selection meeting generally costs about £500 a day and many candidates take advantage of such expertise.  There are also a very few, very specialist consultants who charge hundreds of pounds for just one hour’s coaching.  Conservatives believe in a free market and it would be wrong and fruitless to try and stop people accessing this kind of help but money clearly buys a leg up in the selection process.

(3) THE COSTS OF FIGHTING A SEAT

• Accommodation costs
• Travel expenses
• Attending Association events and buying endless raffle tickets
• Phone bills
• Other sundry expenses

The most expensive cost of being a candidate is housing.  If you are not already a ‘local’ candidate most Conservative Associations understandably expect you to ‘become local’ by moving into the constituency.  This is immediately prohibitive for anyone on modest means.  One person saw her mortgage payments double and the size of her house halve when she moved to fight a seat in London’s commuter belt.  One candidate spent £20,000 renting a home in his new constituency.  There are many advantages in early selection but the costs can be enormous if a candidate chooses to (or has to) maintain two homes – one in the target constituency as well as their existing home.

Travel costs are the second biggest burden.  Even if you move your home into a seat you may still have to travel to your place of work.  One candidate spent £300 every month on fuel, commuting from his new home to his workplace.  One candidate spent £66 on a return rail ticket to accompany a shadow cabinet on a trip around her constituency - only to find the shadow cabinet minister cancel when she was on the train to the rendezvous point.  Even if you live in a seat there can still be lots of travel costs – particularly if your seat is rural or made up a number of smaller towns and villages.

Attending Conservative Association events is the third biggest expense and undoubtedly the most resented.  One candidate said they spent £20 every week for eighteen months on raffle tickets and drinks.  Another spent £700 in one year.  Another had to stop taking her husband to events because the basic cost always doubled and one year’s childcare bills hit £650.  One candidate rang me with this story:

“My car was in the garage for servicing but my constituency chairman told me that the ward event was a ‘must-attend’. So my wife and I travelled from London to the constituency on a Friday night.  The train and taxi fares cost us £80.  Babysitting cost £20.  The tickets for the ward event cost £10 each.  I donated a £20 bottle of House of Commons whisky to the raffle.  I spent £25 on rounds of drinks and £5 on raffle tickets.  There were only 25 Tories at this ‘must-attend’ event.  Few of them ever did anything for the party.  There were no floating voters there.  We got into bed that night at 1am.  I was woken at 8am with a call from my Association Chairmen.  There had been complaints from two members that my wife hadn’t bought any raffle tickets.”

Rivalling Conservative Association events as an expense is phone bills.  Most candidates saw their mobile bills double or treble in size.  The least anyone said they spent was £300.  One candidate saw her bills mushroom by £1,000 in a year. 

Then there are all the other items: stationery, postage stamps, photocopying, photographs, extra dry cleaning, hotel bills for visiting MPs or speakers, donations to local charities, websites, buying lunch for local journalists, new suits or new dresses… The list is long.

(4) LOST INCOME FROM THE PROCESS

Listed above are all the direct costs of being a candidate but there are also the hidden costs of opportunities and income forgone.

One person lost the chance of promotion because they weren’t spending enough time in the office.  One lost her bonus for the year.  One lost her job altogether because the role was incompatible with being a Tory candidate.  One candidate estimates that the profits of the company he started halved from lack of his attention – profits were more than £50,000 before becoming a candidate and only £25,000 when he was on the campaign trail.

It would be unreasonable to expect the Conservative Party to compensate wealthy people for lost profits or missed promotions although the costs are significant and will prevent some talented individuals from applying to be candidates.  The above costs – however real to the individuals and families affected - are not the costs I had in mind when I started this exercise.  My concern is the basic costs – the costs of attending a PAB… the square one costs of travelling across the country seeking a seat… the costs of attending constituency functions once selected…

WHAT NEXT?  WHAT TO DO?

This post has given a brief snapshot of the costs of being a candidate.  The current process demands a heavy financial investment with no guarantees of any return.  The cost on family life can be considerable, too, of course.  Hundreds of people know all of this, of course, and still want to be MPs.  They are willing to spend thousands of pounds pursuing their ambition to get to Westminster but they are not necessarily all what David Cameron has in mind when he talks of a party that is representative of 21st century Britain.

On 21st April Bernard Jenkin told ConservativeHome that he was “preoccupied by the importance of this issue.”  He urged any candidate or potential candidate faced with financial hardship to draw the issue to his attention and he promised to try and help.  I know that Bernard is genuine about this issue and I also know that Women2Win, under the stewardship of Bernard’s wife Anne, are hoping to offer limited help to female candidates who might be struggling to meet the basic costs of being candidates.

Here are three ideas for how a more socially inclusive candidates process might emerge…

• A reduction in the cost of attending a PAB.

• An emergency access fund run by a small committee – including an MP and candidate - that can release money to a struggling candidate in particularly pressed circumstances.  One candidate who replied to the ConservativeHome survey literally ran out of money ten days before the 2001 polling day.  They maxed out their credit card and were afraid to ask local Conservative officials for help.  The Conservatives introduced an access fund system at the same time as they introduced student loans in the early 1990s.

• The appointment of a ‘candidates’ protector’ in every Association.  The protector would be jointly appointed by the candidate and Association Executive and would be, for example, responsible for prioritising the Conservative functions that the candidate attended so that he/ she had more time for campaigning.  Just having such a role should improve activists’ understanding of the costs of being a candidate.  CCHQ or the Candidates’ Association might like to consider preparing a briefing paper for Conservative Association executives to alert them to the cost pressures facing candidates.

…I’m sure you will have many more ideas...

***
[I have changed some incidental details slightly in certain examples to be sure to protect the identity of my sources.  A ‘he’ is sometimes a ‘she’, for example].

Comments

[Duncan Crow]

And that is just the financial cost. Still, there do seem to be plenty of people who would like to do it.

[James Burdett]

Very good article! Not sure what the solution is but a solution must be found as otherwise we are missing out on a huge talent pool. Lack of funds should not mean lack of opportunity. As to requiring candidates to move to an area immediately on selection, whilst politically advantageous is bound to be difficult for certain candidates. I can think of certain people of my acquaintance who would be unable to run 2 homes as the salary they are on barely stretches to running one. Should they feel disbarred from seeking selection?

[Phil Taylor]

I am not sure that any of this is surprising. Anyone who has been an officer or a coach in a sports club, a church, an association such as a residents' association or a charity will have found themselves volunteering many hours of their time, being expected to put their hands in their pockets at social events, diverting effort from work and hence missing income and promotion opportunities. For these people there is no prize at the end of the process except perhaps the satisfaction of furthering the objectives of your voluntary body and your name on a brass plaque. At least a parliamentary candidate can look forward to the chance of a new and exciting career, a large salary with further chances of promotion, a long working life and a massive inflation linked pension.

Tories often talk about volunteering. This article maybe shows a lack of understanding of what that means.

I always tell potential candidates for captain at my rowing club that they should do the job because they enjoy it not because they feel obliged as it will take up the equivalent of 3 working days a week, ie pretty much all your free time all year round, plus inroads into your work time.

There may be a case for some kind of hardship fund for candidates but if you are not brave enough to stand up to your association chairman, if you cannot think of some way of raising extra cash and if you cannot fight your own corner you will never be much of an MP I suspect. Boo, hoo, hoo.

[Simon Chapman]

Tim,

Congratulations. This is an excellent piece, and my experience as a candidate in 2001 & being on the seat-hunting trail would bear much of this out.

When I was selected, though, to stand for High Peak, the Association was very clear that neither my wife nor I should pay for any ticket to an association fundraising event if they were held in a private house. If they were held in a hotel or restaurant, where there was a commercial cost per head, my wife would sometimes have to pay if she came, but I would not. It's akin to the idea that a speaker at an event doesn't need to pay because he sings for his supper in other ways.

I would certainly suggest a clear rule that candidates & spouses/partners should not have to pay for a ticket to go to an asociation fundraising event. And where a candidate has young children, there should be a starting presumption that the candidate's spouse or partner will be at home doing childcare rather than adding to the overall costs burden.

If the candidate doesn't have a spouse or partner & lives on the patch or close by, Associations could offer providing a member to do the childcare - my church sometimes does this for its volunteers who run evening Alpha courses and such like.

Another good practice example: when I got through to the second round in Somerton & Frome before 2001, the Association held a "meet the candidates" evening over a buffet supper, where the entire executive came to put us through our paces. We were all offered a bed for the night afterwards.

This needs leadership from the centre though - and a briefing paper from CCHQ to be sent to all constituency chairmen would be a start, both describing the problem and giving some suggested solutions.

I don't know how experience in other parties compares - I believe that Labour would-be candidates have to pay a registration fee of £20 to any association they wish to apply to. This will not be a uniquely Conservative problem, but will impact on all parties.

Clearly the costs will be less for candidates who already live in or close to the constituency for which they have been selected.

[Louise]

Well done Tim. This article helps to articulate clearly one of the aspect of candidate life that deters many good people from applying to the candidates list.

I think the idea of a "candidate protector" with some work is an excellent one. Too many candidates are expected not only to put their hands in their pockets constantly but also to spend all of their time in the constituency. Some events are always worthwhile going to, and the candidate is the cheerleader-in-chief of the association, but it cannot be right to expect candidates to attend every branch event. A Strawberry Tea with 30 dedicated old ladies is not a good use of a candidate's Sunday when they have spent 18 hours a day for the past six days working in their jobs and the constituency.

I think as a Party we expect too much of our candidates and this contributes both to a narrowing of the pool of people willing to apply and the early burn-out of good people who are candidates.

"I would certainly suggest a clear rule that candidates & spouses/partners should not have to pay for a ticket to go to an asociation fundraising event. And where a candidate has young children, there should be a starting presumption that the candidate's spouse or partner will be at home doing childcare rather than adding to the overall costs burden."

Yes - Simon Chapman - I completely agree with you on this.

[Andrea]

Very good piece. Thanks

[James Burdett]

Phil, how on earth is a candidate to raise extra money between working a full time job. Putting hours into a constituency and then being active in bye-elections etc. We need to attract the best, not just the best funded candidates.

Clearly a candidate can not be expected to turn up at everything, no matter how nice it would be for every group to have their candidate at a function. I certainly think an association minder wouldn't be a bad idea, although a good Association Chairman should be able to advise a candidate what is 'really' a must attend event.

The biggest costs though are clearly, travelling round getting selected, and then running 2 homes whilst you are fighting the seat. In the case of no-hope seats this must be particularly depressing for a candidate. I think it is this more than anything which would cause a person to think twice about becoming a candidate. I think it is in this area that we need to be imaginative, particularly if we want to go for early selection in large numbers of seats.

[Paul Kennedy]

An excellent and thought provoking article.

Interestingly after the 2005 GE when I stood as an Independent, I wrote to the tax office and asked if I could claim tax relief on my expenses, the answer was NO.

I have no doubt that some candidates with their own busineses will put some of their costs through their business accounts, and indeed some employees for example with fully expensed cars might well have their travel costs covered.

Alas the reality of these costs will largely determine the backgrounds of the candidates, irrespective of their sex, ethnic background, sexual orientation or age.

[Denis Cooper]

My simplified take on this is that an association can choose a local candidate, somebody who they already know very well and who they're prepared to support up to the hilt including help with necessary expenses, or they can choose a wealthy candidate. Roughly correct?

That doesn't sound very good to me!

Of course the problem comes in a constituency where the association is weak and there really isn't any suitable and willing candidate within their ranks. Then they have no choice but to find somebody from outside the constituency.

[David Surtees]

Noone has ever made a secret of the fact that it costs money to be a Candidate. Any Candidate who applies to join the list without considering this should do so long and hard. I have not seen anyone quantify it in the way the Editor has done and this should be, and is, helpful. I agree that Associations should do all they can to ensure that at least the Candidate goes free to events. As an Agent I asked branches to budget for this when they planned an event. MPs and Candidates always bought more raffle tickets than most as a result.

Expectations in respect of living arrangements are higher now than they were. Candidates able to buy houses or flats usually consider it an investment in their future but running costs are an important consideration.

Becoming an MP is a cherished ambition for many people at every income level. It is possible and that is the important thing to remember. We have to help and encourage. We will continue to do so.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

The PAB fee (which presumably you have to pay whether successful or not!) and Candidates Association fee should be scrapped. Is it any wonder that we have to ship unsuitable candidates into solid Labour seats up north to "earn their spurs" when good local potential candidates are expected to pay up to £500 just for the privilege of being on the list?

[Tory Solicitor]

Just one thought on the "Attending conferences and helping in by-elections" sub-heading: People are expected to do this (and incur the cost) before they will even be given a chance to attend a PAB.

More generally, I would agree that there is a strong case to subsidise those candidates in less well remunerated jobs(and these aren't just teachers and nurses!) but you have to remember that the flipside of a better paid job is that the employee is likely to have less holiday and evening time to devote to the party.

[Denis Cooper]

It cuts little ice with the electorate if an outside candidate buys or rents a flat or house in a constituency. He's still an outsider, and if the local opposition are on the ball they'll take care to keep pointing out that most of the time his place is unoccupied, because of course he really lives somewhere else and this is only his second home, and he's lucky to be able to afford one, and what's more that under-used house is not available for a hard-working local family etc.

In a safe seat that's unlikely to affect the result, but in a marginal it can.

At the end of the day all the candidates have to originate from somewhere, and there's no reason to suppose that constituency X with a strong association will produce a better candidate for constituency Y with a strong association than Y can produce for itself. So I can only suppose that the idea of shuffling potential candidates around the country as the norm is intended to serve some other purpose, probably related to central control of the process of selection.

[matthew]

oh dear! To get a lucrative career with 6 figure expenses, decent salary, and gold-plated pensions the likes of which would cost millions of pounds in the free market costs money.

Shock horror!

Next you will be telling me that to become a barrister will involve years of training and high expenses to enter that professional.

Oh wait, it does?

What's the news?

There should be no hand-outs. MPs get ridiculous allowances, money to buy houses which at the end of the day are extremely valuable assets, etc., and within a year of getting the seat a less wealthy candidate (who struggled with the cost of getting elected) will have more than paid off the bill, while a wealthy candidate by definition has the cash floating about to fund this kind of thing.

A career in politics is one that involves sacrifices, as does any other, and one that very many people would like to have, so there is no need to subsidise potential entrants.

We do not need to give handouts to whiners: politicians' snouts are deep enough in the trough as it is, without further enrichment of this kind.

[James Burdett]

Matthew, no-one is suggesting giving handouts to whiners! What is being suggested is that in order to get the best candidates regardless of background you may need to provide assistance with the costs, or seek to remove any unnecessary costs from the process! Otherwise the message goes out that only the moderately well funded need apply, not a good advert! Yes if successful a candidate of more moderate means will have a higher income, if that is he or she gets that far and hasn't been bankrupted by the whole process!

[deborah]

Oh dear, Matthew seems to have missed the point.

"To get a lucrative career with 6 figure expenses, decent salary, and gold-plated pensions the likes of which would cost millions of pounds in the free market costs money."

Do we want to attract wealthy candidates who can afford the investment in a lucrative career; or do we want to attract good candidates from a representative cross-section of society who have a passion for the job?

Many people would like to be MPs but not all can afford the up-front costs.

[Editor]

Another thing that Matthew misses is that there are no guarantees that the investment in being a Tory MP will pay off. I quote a figure of £27,235 for losing candidates. Many wealthier people might think that such an expense is a worthwhile punt. For others it makes being a Tory candidate a huge risk.

If anything I have probably understated the cost of being a Tory MP. The costs increase the longer people are candidates. The wholly sensible drive to increase early selection is only likely to increase candidates' total costs although average monthly costs may fall if less intensive campaigning becomes possible.

[Richard T]

What's the equivalent cost to other parties' candidates ?

How is the 'lost income' figure derived?

Is it by definition A Bad Thing that significant personal commitment of time & treasure is involved?

[Matthew Hewitt]

I think part of the problem with this is the historic attitude of constituencies to their prospective candidates; I also think it is in part a regional issue.

To deal with the latter first, if you live in London, you have a much larger pool of constituencies you can potentially stand for, including the whole range of seats you can cut your teeth on and seats where you might actually win. Although the "living in the constiuency" card has been played in London seats, it is normally sufficient to say that you will move their when you are elected. Being selected for a London seat therefore cuts out most of the travel and accomodation cost - it also means that in a vast majority of cases, the issue of costs for people coming to say overnight do not arise, as most MP's, etc, have London homes which they would stay in.

If you are a candidate for a seat outside London (particularly non-metropolitan), or live outside London, you are far more likely to live a long distance from the constituency and incur significant travel costs. Those seats also tend to be those where being able to say you have a home in the constituency is more important, even if only to local party activists. In my experience, those who are of more limited means who get selected in those constituencies are those who already live there. There is usually a local member who would be willing to put the candidate up when they are in the constituency - this could also serve as their address, as they will be there often enough! For a non-safe seat, being expected to have a house in the constituency if, frankly, ridiculous.

In terms of the attitude of associations, this partly depends on the type of constituency. If it is a relatively poor one, the candidate will always end up contributing more, because they want their campaign to be a success and don't want to be seen penny-pinching. If it is one which in living memory had a Tory MP, in many cases the local activists simply get used to the MP always dipping their hands in their pockets (buying raffle tickets seems to be an expected part of the deal with being an MP) and expect a candidate to do it also. Again, candidates do not want to be seen to look mean. It is also difficult for local associations who struggle to raise money, because they see the candidate as a focal point whose presence helps fundraising.

Part of the solution, as ever, is getting a more level playing field, with poor associations being subsidised so that they don't feel the need to ask as much from the candidate. Associations also need to be more grateful for their candidates and not place such heavy demands on them.

The central pary also needs to look at how they treat candidates who are asked to run round the country campaigining. Perhaps paying a contribution towards mileage or travel costs of all on the candidates list would be a start; then at least people couldn't complain as much about being told they 'have' to turn up. Equally, local activists should be willing to put people up, if possible, if they travel to campaign locally.

These are just a few random thoughts - I feel instinctively uncomfortable with the idea of 'paying' people to be candidates, since many people give just as much time for the party on a voluntary basis (eg local council candidates), but some form of understanding and payment of expenses does seem to be called for if we are going to get a wider range of people to put themselves forward. I could not afford to be a candidate, even if I was minded to, and I would be taking a pay cut to be an MP! It is simplistic to look at 'payback periods' and accuse everyone who seeks political office as having their snouts in the trough, which is why paying expenses is instinctively a better way to go than a lump sum bursary.

[Tory Solicitor]

Perhaps the answer is to give loans in very deserving cases (eg a teacher in london who is fighting a seat in the midlands) which are repayable in full in a short timeframe if the candidate becomes an MP but only repayable in part (and over a longer period) if the candidate fails to become an MP

[Richard Bailey]

You shouldn't write things like this, Ed. I've embarked on several such journies (joining the Army, standing for election, starting my own business and renovating a Victorian villa) in blissful ignorance of the cost in time and money they would ultimately incur. Had I known at the start what I knew half way through, I wouldn't have bothered.
What matters is the ispiration that gets you going and the motivation required to get to the end successfully. The moment I realised how much it was costing, I redoubled my efforts to make sure I was successful. It all rather focusses the mind, you see.
There are plenty of ways for the intuitive candidate to reduce costs if he or she really wants it enough. Any candidate without the wit to get their Association team working for them without incurring unecessary cost, or to move as close to the heart of their constituency and become part of the scene, probably doesn't have the wit to win either.

And that is the point - Money may not be perfect, but we need something that ensures that those who enter this competition, REALLY WANT IT. After all, we are the people they expect to represent and I for one want to see what he or she is made of. I'd rather not find out half way through a Parliament, that they couldn't be arsed or weren't up to it.

If we remove the financial constraints then we should pile on the pressure in every other way.

[Jonathan D. Knight]

This is an interesting piece, but nobody gets elected 'on the cheap' unless they are exceptionally well known and liked in their local constituency. It is essential to maintain contact with the voters - especially if you want to be re-elected. Too many candidates once elected become complacent, which leads to voter resentment and apathy. It is essential to keep a high profile and to be seen to be working for those whose interests you represent.

Speaking of a high profile. It is time for the candidate for Mayor of London to be selected. The buffoon currently holding that position becomes more extreme every day. He does not look after the interests of the people of London. A credible candidate needs to be selected now in order that he can begin the fight to regain London for the people of that once great city.

[B-lister]

Good article. I started keeping track of my expenses during the last parliamentary term, but it lapsed when I was too busy campaigning!

I do know that even during the Bromley & Chislehurst by-election my mobile phone bill went through the roof and I am still working to stop a couple of clients leaving me from neglect (I can just about put things on hold for the local elections, but the by-election doubled that period of professional purdah) and have incurred a couple of late filing penalties (I am a one-man-band).

It's all very well to say that there is a well paid job at the end of it, and so the expenditure is actually an investment - but there is NOT necessarily a well paid job at the end. Of the 1000+ on the list last time, how many made it / will make it to the green benches?

I like the idea of a "protector" - a point man/woman to support the candidate. I'm not too sure about the help should a candidate hit dire straits - many wouldn't want to let things to get that bad before throwing in the towel - many of us have families to think of.

[Andrew Kennedy]

A well written article, but a somewhat one- sided presentation of the facts.

Over the years I have chaired a number of Parliamentary Selection Committees and worked closely with many candidates as either Agent or Campaign Director.

I agree, there are many costs involved, but I suspect your figures show "worst case" scenarios, and I doubt many candidates would face such high costs in each area.

Housing, for example. I know of one candidate who fulfilled his selection pledge to move to the constituency. However, unlike many candidates who simply find "a base", this candidate made the new area his home. As a result, he was able to let his London property and use the rental income to cover his mortgage payments. After the election (which he did not win) he subsequently resold his constituency home and made a small capital gain in the process.

I accept this is not always possible (especially if a candidate has a family settled into their community) but the picture is not always as bleak as the one painted.

Training. I wish I could organise quality training for £100 per day. Most hotels charge a "day delegate" rate of £80+ without the cost of the trainer.

Telephone bills of £1,000 pa? They should get a fixed rate tariff - we pay BT £25 per month and can make as many calls as we wish.

I could go through each sub-section and offer another interpretation of the costs, but the overriding point is that people offer themselves for candidature. No-one makes them do it!

Throughout the country thousands of activists make enormous personal and financial sacrifices for the Conservative Party.

In my own case, despite moving home to a safe seat in Surrey, I remain active in my old marginal constituency in Kent where I think my activism and campaigning skills are better utilised. In the year of the 2005 GE I made at least 60 return visits (at 100 miles per time). The cost of petrol alone is must have been near £1,500.

Add to that my annual membership subscription, donations to fighting fund appeals, 200 Club etc = another £200.

Raffle tickets (usually to win back a bottle of wine far inferior to the one I donated), tickets for garden parties, hot pot suppers; quiz nights, guest speaker dinners = probably another £500 pa.

Candidates are not the only people who lose their professional incomes. I took 3 weeks off (unpaid) for the general election and I always take at least a week for County Council and District Council campaigns.

I have never fully calculated the cost of my membership, but I guess (including lost income) it is probably between £3,000 - £4,000 pa. And unlike a PPC I don't have the carrot of a glittering career in Parliament dangling in front of me. No - all the activists have is the promise of doorstep abuse, backache, bitten legs and the warm glow that you have done something positive to help advance a cause in which you passionately believe.

[Owen]

excellent article. well researched.

not sure much can be done, some of the costs in the figure you would expect with any job application (which at the end of the day this is, just a very long one).

Im currently applying to be a candidate and cannot afford anywhere near the average cost. But I guess a good fundraiser, who can find support and network well can raise the money. I have certainly had promises of cash once i am selected.

I agrre with the last comment made, at the end of the day you get a well paid job out of it all. We are all involved in the Conservative Party for the gain of the Party. As an area chairman, local CF chairman and local Association officer, I often have to put my hand in my pocket to fund postage, printing, raffles, dinners etc and not cheaply.

Other things on this list such a mobile bills. Every May my phone bills trebles so I can understand the point made. But buying an appropriate tariff should cut the costs. And don't forget the volunteers who carry out the bulk of the work for a PPC have this cost too, plus petrol, lost income from not working etc.

The 2005 election cost me (as a volunteer assistant to the PPC) approx £2,000 taking account of the costs mentioned.

A good headline figure, but I'm sure much of this expense can be occured in daily life in any other job

[Denis Cooper]

This strikes me as an unnecessarily extravagant way to go about things. I hope nobody is going to suggest that the taxpayer should pay for any of it.

[Steve]

The fact is that being a candidate can be an expensive business. Surely associations should be encouraged to consider this when requesting candidates to attend this and that event etc. This is only common sense and it's for candidates to stress to their associations any financial constraints from the outset so both sides are clear.

That said, being involved in politics does involve some personal sacrifice, as with other voluntary activity noted above.

I must have spent thousands over the years on this party, both as an activist and candidate and quite often struggled to do so.

But it was my choice to be involved and I knew the financial pressures.

Whilst of course we want to encourage applicants from a range of backgrounds, I don't really feel subsidies are either warranted or helpful.

Unfortunately, some people may not be able to afford to get involved, but that's life.

[David Brackenbury]

I have read the comments on this thread with great interest and as an unsucessful Candidate in 2005 understand some of the financial pressures very well. I do feel that there should be some sort of independant "hardship committee" to assist good PPC's in deserving cases.

However, I do feel that this article is only highlighting the financial pressures. Like many PPCs, I was in my Constituency every single weekend from selection and two or three times during the week as well. I could not have done so without the support of my family and also my employers at the time.

Yes there is a very big cost of being a Candidate and it shouldn't be made too easy, but the financial side of things are only one side of the story. If the Party wishes to be truly representative, it should consider the sacrifices that need to be made by Candidates and those that are made by families and friends.

[webcameronator]

I think the article on ConservativeHome is excellent. It describes quite a different selection procedure to the one I believed was in operation!

Can a constituency Conservative Association not select any member they like to stand for Parliament? (Assuming the member is eligible).

Your article and it's comments over on ConservativeHome contain some astonishing non-financial revelations too; for example suggesting the actions of a candidate's "spouse/partner" are still relevant to selection. This is something I thought belonged to a previous era.

As well as the problems relating to excluding groups of people from standing; Selection on a national basis is in my view at odds to the geographical constituency based electoral system which we currently have in the UK.

If the Conservatives want a national list of candidates - or some candidates anointed at a national level, then I think it should be proposing a radical change to the electoral system such that some MPs are no-longer constituency MPs. eg. Elect some MPs to parliament via a party list system akin to that used in the Welsh Assembly elections.