Plymouth Sutton Tories ignore primary vote

In my post on Westmorland & Lonsdale I looked at CCHQ's decision to stop an Association appearing to underperform from failing altogether.  Another candidate for CCHQ intervention is the apparently dysfunctional Plymouth Sutton and Devonport Association (where the projected Labour majority is 4,305).

Last week Plymouth Sutton Conservatives declined to ratify Cllr Patrick Nicholson after he had been selected in an open primary election of local people.  It is the Association's proper right to choose not to ratify the primary's candidate but the Association should not have shortlisted Cllr Nicholson for the primary election if he was not an acceptable candidate.  Apparently some Association members dislike his 'feisty' style and believe he packed the primary meeting with his own supporters.  The Association's decision has caused terrible publicity in Devon media and insulted the primary voters who took part.  Under the headline 'Public vote ignored by the Tories', this is how Plymouth's Herald reported the decision:

"Plymouth residents are outraged after being invited to select a Tory candidate for the next General Election - and then ignored.  Members of the public voted for Conservative city councillor Patrick Nicholson to contest the new Plymouth Sutton and Devonport seat.  But after expressly inviting the public to have their say, party members decided not to ratify the selection following a private ballot.  It is the first time that members have overruled the public in a Tory 'open primary meeting' anywhere in the UK."

Neighbouring MP Gary Streeter would be the obvious candidate to oversee a renewal of Plymouth Sutton should CCHQ choose to intervene.

Comments

[James]

What I find particularly odd is that he is a Plymouth councillor - he is one of the local bigwigs so it's not as though he's unknown to everyone in the Association. How unfortunate.

[Crighton]

A fine example of support for 'localism' it seems.

[Geoffrey G Brooking]

I had the pleasure of being a Member of the Plymouth Sutton Conservative Party between 1993 and 1996.

Patrick would make a superb candiadte ans is also a former Leader of Plymouth City Council.

What more do they want I ask?

[prentiz]

The real shame is that antics like this will only a) aid our opponents and b) reinforce the (in my opinion inaccurate)view held by some in our party that grass roots members are a bunch of pillocks who can't be trusted with anything.

[HF]

Is there a common system for assessing the strength/weakness of an Association?

The new £5 charge gives CCHQ more cash to dole out to Associations so it must have some system to allocate it?

Were these Associations told they were underperforming?

[Paul Kennedy]

Grim and not the sort of publicity we need.

[Chris Williams]

More evidence that "open primary" procedures are a nonsense. All across the country ConHome's reports are of derisory turnouts from members of the public, which makes it very easy to pack the meeting. It was a matter of time before allegations of this kind surfaced, as has happened here.

Telling party members that we want their money and their footslogging, but that they are not fit to select candidates from an approved list, is offensive nonsense. They are the people who are expected to do the work, and they are the people with the local knowledge.

They also have an incentive to get it right, because if they get the wrong candidate and lose, they are the ones who will, quite literally, have to live with the consequences.

What has happened in PD was an accident waiting to happen.

The party should scrap this nonsense of "primaries" immediately.

[Alison Anne Smith]

Perhaps CCHQ didn't want him really, let him stand as they didn't think he'd win and it has backfired spectacularly.

[Simon Chapman]

"Apparently some Association members dislike his 'feisty' style and believe he packed the primary meeting with his own supporters."

Sounds like he ran a demonstrably successful Get Out The Vote operation.

It's interesting to see the dynamics working here. As Tim says, associations clearly need to ensure that every candidate in the final round is capable of uniting & leading the association (assuming the association is capable of unity). It's too late to use the adoption vote after the primary as a chance to exercise a veto. As here, local people involved in the primary will feel justifiably aggrieved.

[Klamm]

Why is it that some Associations don't want to win the next election because their personal ego's are more important?

So many are so out of touch with the late 20th century let alone the 21st.

[Ted]

Sorry but why is there a rule that an Association to overturn a procedure they have agreed to? As Tim says candidates for an open primary are shortlisted on basis they are acceptable.

[Peter Berrow]

I think Geoffrey the view of the membership was that Oliver has been a brillant candidate for the association for over six years so why have someone new.
As someone who has inputted quiet a lot of canvas returns into Blue chip I know for a fact he was a great help in us winning Drake ward(as i'm Drake ward chairman)this year as we could pinpoint protential voters so that is more than anyone can ask.

[Deborah]

There are problems in my local association.
In the wilderness years, with little competition around, some party members have got used to running things for their own convenience. Now that interest in the party is re-awakening they perceive a threat and the resulting battles are not pretty and certainly not professional.

[Peter]

Prentiz, have you never heard of the word "Democratic" as that what we got in Plymouth Sutton, it must be different in your association where their have nodding dogs turning up for votes all the time which is a shame.

[Old Hack]

It does seem funny that Sutton and Devonport refused to ratify a candidate the Executive had put forward, but just how many people applied for the seat?

Very few, I bet you. Thanks to our wonderful 'A' list system.

One wonders what role, if any, Oliver Colvile played in all of this. Did he reapply and fail in the primary?

[Prentiz]

Peter@11.34 - I would have thought that people interested in politics would have had the sense to do the politically sensible thing - either have the skill to pack the primary properly or accept its decision. The volte face at the last minute will be exploited by the opposition no end. But from the tone of your response I suspect that winning elections may not be as important to you as procedural correctness, which is a shame.

[Lord 'Elpus]

In reply to Old Hack at 1454:-

Oliver Colville did indeed reapply and was defeated at the Primary. My undertanding is that he was the local association's favoured candidate hence the current debacle.

Why they did not fast track his reselection and be done with it I don't know.

[Jeffh]

As a former (now moved away) Plymouth activist their ability to fight themselves comes as no surprise. Presumably if the Association had been bigger/stronger there would have been no primary. So one candidate got lots of supporters to turn up and vote for him.......the problem is? Far too many Associations are happy to stay small and not welcome or involve anyone new. Until they actively seek new workers some seats will struggle to secure the vistories they need

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Simply unbelievable!

[Dick Wishart]

Are not the Plymouth Tories split in two and never the twain shall meet, I seem to recall something from the last election about this, ergo is the Councillor is from the "wrong side"

[Graeme Archer]

Spent last weekend in the constituency, visiting the soon-to-be-in-laws, complete target Tory voter types, I can tell you the local news is full of this story and so are the electorate. We're ***ked in P Sutton now, thanks to the great local association, a seat with a putative labour maj of 4000 or so.

We hear an awful lot on this site about the supposed sacrosanct status of the self-selected, unrepresentative cabals who call themselves conservative associations, and an awful lot about the temerity of our successful leadership in imposing its will on these bodies, as though associations enjoy some sort of democratic status. Even large ones do not, and small ones, as others have pointed out, are quite often more happy managing decline than expanding their business.

Open primaries are one of the best ways yet configured of selecting good Tory candidates with appeal wider than the often bizarre mindset of the local cabal and I can only hope that CCHQ steps in and sacks the lot of this set in Plymouth.

[Roslyn Freeman]

The future for the Conservatives in Plymouth generally is very bleak because of the shenanigans, and Streeter must be worried too for his future.The local papers are full of detail of the machinations and speculation of what has happened ensuring the conservatives hope of any success in the City is confined to the dustbin.
Why do CCHQ NOT LEARN.
Last year the Ashley Crossley saga in the middle of Cornwall ensured for a generation that conservatism would be dead in the County.
A Candidate like Crossley at odds with the local Association,interfered too by local evil cliques,causing sackings walkouts,declines in membership and breakdowns in any will to win is certain death.
With all this adverse publicity the party is dead in its tracks in the area.

[Alison Anne Smith]

"the supposed sacrosanct status of the self-selected, unrepresentative cabals who call themselves conservative associations, and an awful lot about the temerity of our successful leadership in imposing its will on these bodies"
Graeme, self-selected assocations ? Who do you want to select them other than the association members. I don't get your point, its not as if people are falling over themselves to joi the Party. If members don't have the ultimate say in what happens in their association, whats the point of joining ?

[Peter]

Firstly Prentiz I support the US primary system not this one. Get central office to change it to that and I would personally back it.
Secondly please no more cheap shots about trying to win elections.
Secondly Jeffh how do you know that one candidate got lots of supporters out as the result was not told?
Thirdly Dick its not because of any split but due to the fact that a lot of people think that Oliver has worked bloody hard in the area over the last 6+ years. Also the answers given by the four candidates on the war and other policies(executive) probably was also a factor.
Fourthly Graeme are you on another planet or are you one of these people who vote for Donald Duck if he had a blue rosset on.
Finally I would like to say this I'm not a anti Patrick person but as said before on two questions said on policy I just thought Oliver was better, with that don't think anyone can complain about what happened.

[Peter]

For a city that is meant to be in outrage over what happened in the primary I haven't seen or heard of anything in the last week about it. I think that says it all about what happened in terms of what the public think?

[Peter Berrow]

A update on Plymouth Conservative being killed off is that we actually took control of Plymouth again after four years. Yet another reason why people shouldn't listen to people like Graeme and Roslyn who probably still are in their strange world of thinking the primary result was for weeks in the headlines within the city.

[Puck]

Re: Peter Berrow July 13

Excellent news from Plymouth - blistering barnacles, will you now put your bowls down, get off the Hoe and get on and reselect the eminent and very capable Oliver Colvile in time to meet the Labour Armada of Count Gordo the Red?

[Peter]

Well again after last week local elections in Plymouth we won a further two seats in Sutton and Devonport and four(including myself)in Moorview. again Graeme and his like must be eating a lot of humble pie at this moment.