Wendy Morton should seek the endorsement of the whole Tynemouth Association

Over the last few days the folly of CCHQ's decision to reverse the selection process in some Associations - with the executive stage coming after the whole membership stage - has been exposed in a most painful way.  Cllr Wendy Morton was chosen by Tynemouth's Conservative Association Executive - reportedly on a 9 to 7 vote - despite the fact she was not shortlisted by the preceeding vote of the whole Association.  Cllr Morton was called up for the final phase after two of the four shortlisted by the wider Association had dropped out.  Local members are understandably angered by being disenfranchised in this way.  The Newcastle Journal has spotlighted the debates that have taken place on this site (see here and here).  Brian Moore, former Chairman of Newcastle Conservatives, explained the anger in a comment to ConservativeHome:

"The issue here from the point of view of an activist is that with the system used to select the Parliamentary candidate is questionable. As chairman of Newcastle I voted for selecting our leader by one member one vote. Would David Cameron have been able to carry out his positive reforms within the Party if he had been selected by sixteen in an executive? My guess is no.  I would suggest that any Association reading the comments made on this site, and who are considering using a system where the members do not feel they have a say who the final choice is, should please re-consider. I would also suggest, with the greatest of respect, that the Party nationally seriously reconsider a system that effectively could lead to the members fifth choice being selected as the next member of parliament for a seat."

Cllr Morton is the innocent victim of all this.  Few have question marks about her abilities but there are real question marks about whether she enjoys the confidence of local members.  She needs to resolve that issue and fast.  ConservativeHome encourages her to call a vote of confidence of all members in her selection.  In due course she will have to be formally adopted but a quick vote is the one sure way of establishing that she has the confidence of all members and will limit the possibility of the Association limping along, wounded and divided.  Her very decision to act boldly in this way will also increase her chances of winning support within the Association.

CCHQ must also act by abandoning this selection ordering.  Candidates should be chosen by the whole Association - not just a grouping within it.

Comments

[David]

Great idea. That would put this to bed once and for all, and let's see if the members support the decision of the Executive.

One thing to stress, yet again, is that no-one I know of in Tynemouth is blaming Wendy personally, or questioning her abilities. She's a good candidate and someone who actually does deserve to be on the A list. She just happens to have been selected for the wrong seat.

[Anon]

Am I alone in thinking that Candidates need to use a bit of common sense in these circumstances?

If I had been rejected by the membership, I would have declined the subsequent invitation to the final Executive round. The last thing I would wish for in these circumstances would be to win and know that my candidacy did not have the support of the members.

Wendy was unwise to have accepted the invitation to the Executive round. Once rejected at any stage of a selection it is over for you, or it should be.

[James]

I think 'rejected' is a bit harsh - she was first reserve for the final, and then was called up when 2 of them dropped out. And if she'd turned them down, wouldn't we be complaining about how "Dave's A-lister wasn't committed to Tynemouth"?

Having said that, I do think she's in an impossible position. Are the posters on here who are involved in the association at all likely to support her if she called for a vote of confidence? She can't possibly mount a realistic challenge if half the association are aggrieved about this.

[Anon2]

James,
I think you'll find that it is more than ½ the association who are aggrieved (TBH I suspect many who may have supported Wendy may be aggrieved over just how bad the A-list process is). As a previous poster says, there are "Forces of Darkness" within the Association who probably, for whatever their reasons, don't want a Tory MP returned, and for sure don't want McIntyre. Do you know why? Because he does it on the ground, and connects with the local people better than they ever did.

"The-Stop-McIntyre-at-any-cost" brigade would, quite frankly, have voted for Kermit the Frog, ahead of McIntyre. But like the other guy pointed out, there's a lot of Muppets in the Conservative Party.

Spare a thought for poor Wendy, she must feel like she is back in the playground, picking up teams and being the last one chosen.

Unfortunately politics isn't a playground, but a serious business.

[Audrey Wetherby]

It is an excellent idea to put the candidacy of Mrs Morton back to the members - after all, its the members who will have to work for her on the doorstep [especially since she is only planning to visit the constituency once a week till the election]. More importantly, the members now have more information about her, assuming the 'Yorkshire Post' report is true [and it has not been denied].The Labour Party will be delighted at the revelation.
This information has exposed a further flaw in HQ's selection process: if members were given the names of candidates in advance, rather than on the day with personal details removed, they could do some homework and would be better prepared. One presumes the Executive didn't do much homework.

[sjm]

I am aghast at Associations that choose to select via this ridiculous upside-down procedure.

Also, all Association Chairmen used to be able to see CCHQ's files on finalists - I'd be interested to know if that still applies, and would recommend it if it does.

[member]

Question from another member, does anyone know whether the selection can be challenged? Or is it too late for that?

David is right to emphasize that nobody here has anything against Wendy Morton, but go to the Labour MP's comments in the local paper (the Journal). We have selected a candidate who promises to visit the constituency every week until the election, and an incumbent MP who has always lived here.

Talk about an open goal

[Tyke]

We should stop this public bickering immediately.

It is so unfair to Wendy.

It appears to me (as an outsider) that Wendy has been used as a pawn by a small group opposed to the local candidate. This has probably irrepairably damaged her chances in Tynemouth, leaving her in an untenable situation not of her own making. She must be utterly aghast at what she has unwittingly been drawn into;
Candidate in a seat where the membership are clearly unhappy about the method of her selection – if not the actual selection;
The local Labour Party is bound to make capital of the discontent throughout the campaign;
An uphill struggle to overturn a 5000 majority with a demoralised association in a constituency which was previously considered a key marginal.

Damnably unjust.

[Peter]

The biggist problem I've got is that the vote has been published. If its party policy not to publish results(which actually I'm against)
someones head has to go for this?

[Anon2]

I've seen two 'statements' of 'results'. One was "an overwhelming majority" the other "the narrowest possible margin". Clearly the truth is probably somewhere between the two, but on a base of 16 people whose allegiances are known it shouldn't be difficult to work out who voted for who.

Even if it was 16-0 (which I doubt) is it right that 16 people overturn the clear wishes of the earlier panel, and the peoples panel?

If it were slimmer margin than that, it makes it even less right. In an imperfect system, in an imperfect party in an imperfect world, there is little benefit in demanding anybody's head on the block.

Apart from whoever it was that had the lack of foresight to come up with such a crazy system, of course.

[David]

The vote amongst the Executive was 9-7 in favour of Wendy Morton. Not the narrowest possible margin, but pretty close to it.

Amongst the wider membership, I'm not aware of the precise figures, but I do know that Michael McIntyre was top and Wendy Morton came 5th.

Only the top 4 are eligible to proceed to the Executive stage, so Wendy was eliminated. She only made the Executive stage because 2 of the top 4 candidates pulled out.

[Anon3]

Well, hang on a minute, if two candidates pulled out, why was there only one replacement? If it is/was acceptable to put reserves in, and two candidates dropped out, why weren't the fifth AND sixth candidates put in?

One rule for the A-list and another for the rest?

Seems to me like the executive must have been manipulated, either internally or externally to achieve a desired result.

But then again, I'm not convinced the human race has put a man on the moon, either.

Does one assume that if two of the orignal final four dropped out then no-one voted for the third original member of the final four (the one other than McIntyre), who didn't drop out, if the vote was split two ways 9-7? Obviously I wasn't there but the numbers don't add up otherwise.

[David]

Anon3 - there were 3 candidates in the final. Good point as to why 2 reserves weren't called up - I don't know the answer to that.

The ballot at the Executive was exhaustive, so 9-7 was the final vote between McIntyre and Morton.

[Peter]

So from all the above it seems that it is policy of Tynemouth to actually openly declare what the actually result was. Good for them if this is correct? As for what happened again all options open so far by the party are not good enough as said in my last post for selection of PPC but at least the primary is going in the right direction.

[Anon2]

Peter,
I don't think it's policy, rather word has got out what the result was. I imagine either the seven supporters or the nine supporters declared....either way if you know the build up of the executive and those present, it wouldn't be rocket science to work it out.

There were 9 people there who didn't vote for the member's or peoples choice, 7 of whom would have voted for "Anyone but McIntyre" because of their own agenda.

Quite frankly it can only be a "secret ballot" if the sample is big enough to hide in. As an example, if Gordon Brown voted Conservative in his constituency, no-one would ever know. If there was a poll in the Cabinet and the motion was that anyone called Blair should be defenestrated, and there was only one vote against to, say, 20 in favour it would be fairly obvious who voted against the motion.

It's not policy to reveal voting intention - nor should it be, although I have nothing against it - but typically in Tynemouth you can turn up at this sort of thing, see the grouping of would've-been big wigs of yesteryear and figure out there and then how any voting will go.

[Joe Broughton]

Tynemouth has to be won, and so much has been done to turn it around - council elections and the 2005 General Election confirm that very clearly. For goodness sake, get this fixed so the Association can feel happy with the process, and select Michael McIntyre.

[andy]

Agree with you Joe. There are a lot of very upset people and a real danger that the workers and organisers on the ground will work grudgingly, half heartedly or not at all and the chance to win Tynemouth will be thrown away

[Anon2]

Wendy's husband seems a bit of a loose cannon.

http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/display.var.1078280.0.councillors_resign_
following_row_over_swearing_in_chamber.php

Time for a rethink perhaps?

[andy]

Tynemouth Executive gave the Labour MP an early Xmas present when they selected Wendy Morton ahead of the local guy, but the present now has extra shiny gift wrapping on it.

It's obvious the local Labour lot will have a field day with these kind of headlines. Definitely time for a rethink, if we really are serious about winning Tynemouth.

[Anon3]

Full text of the Northern echo story

"Councillors resign following row over swearing in chamber"

TWO councillors embroiled in a row over alleged bullying have resigned.

Conservatives David and Wendy Morton quit their seats on Richmondshire District Council (RDC) yesterday after Mr Morton swore at a political opponent during a meeting on Tuesday.

He apologised the next day, but yesterday said his health had suffered during bitter wrangling within the authority.

Mr Morton said: "We have both enjoyed helping people in our wards in their dealings with council, but feel that at present my health comes first, and the last 18 months have not been kind to us.

"It is clear that if councillors try to challenge or criticise officers at RDC they do so at their peril for the consequences."

Mrs Morton, who represented Bolton Castle ward and will stand for the Conservatives in Tynemouth, North Tyneside, at the next General Election, was one of five councillors accused of bullying two officers amid claims that a new political group, the Independent Coalition for Richmondshire (ICR), was formed illegally.

The Richmondshire Five, as they became known, were found guilty of bullying by an investigation commissioned by the council, but cleared by the Standards Board for England.

The council will cut its staffing budget by £100,850 to cover a possible legal claim by monitoring officer Margaret Barry. The five councillors are understood to be considering an apology to her.

Mr Morton, who represented Leyburn, swore and lunged at ICR councillor Richard Dunn during an argument on Tuesday over whether Mrs Morton had apologised to Mrs Barry.

Chief executive Harry Tabiner would not comment on the resignations, but said that because they came less than six months before local elections, by-elections were unlikely.

Tory councillor John Blackie, the council leader, said: "David and Wendy Morton were two hard-working members who represented well their local communities, and it is a sad loss."

ICR leader Councillor Bill Glover said the resignations of six members from the Conservative group in the past year indicated a poor operation of the council.

Meanwhile, the Unison public services union wants urgent talks with the council over the budget cuts.

Regional official Phil Booth said: "It is absolutely preposterous that the council is suggesting that our members will have to pay the price for the councillors' alleged behaviour which, if proved, is unlawful."

Well, I'm sorry Mr Morton, but if the last eighteen months haven't been kind to you, the next 18-24 months are going to be even worse, travelling up to a strange area once a week, every week, campaigning, leafleting, canvassing, trying to get to know the people and the area. It would be a strain for a local candidate's spouse, let alone one from outside the area.

[Audrey Wetherby]

It is apparent that a significant number of those who have emailed to support Mrs Morton do not come from Tynemouth or possibly even the North East. For their benefit,therefore,I should like to quote from the current edition of the 'News Guardian', the free weekly newspaper delivered throughout the constituency, which is widely read. Their report of the selection is headed "Anger over Tory choice" and begins "Anger has erupted among grassroots Conservative party members after a local high-profile councillor was overlooked for a Parliamentary seat" and it concludes "A Tynemouth Labour Party spokesperson said 'This is a real slap in the face for local Conservatives. In rejecting the only local Tory candidate they have settled for someone who doesn't live here or know the area. Under David Cameron many former Conservative voters increasingly fail to recognise what the Party stands for and now they know they no longer even have a local Tory candidate to vote for' ".
Hardly a great start to the campaign.

[TT]

The fact that the issue over the bullying allegations was either at best unknown to the compilers of the A-list due to lack of research - or, at worst, kept from the Tynemouth Executive - serves only to discredit the A-list even further. If there are issues, which may - repeat may, - have been illegal, but are yet unresolved, ex-Cllr Morton should not have been on the A-list, or any other candidate list until these matters were resolved (hopefully in her favour). Further, knowing that there were still outstanding issues - if this is the case - she should not have put herself forward for selection. Politics is a game of hardball, as many have found out in the past. If there are any undisclosed skeletons in the cupboard, or any currently rattling around, these should be declared at the outset and the adopting Association should decide if they are relevant. If not, for sure the opposition will leap on them and exploit them at every opportunity.
Whilst Mr Morton's actions in lunging at an opposition member (if true) are understandable in perhaps protecting his wife's name or his integrity, they cannot be tolerated in political and public life. We do not want another "Prescott Moment" which might have happened, and could happen if a member of the public were to pass some injudicious comment when they were campaigning in the constituency.

[Fed Up Member Is Now Grumbling]

Heading article states:
" In due course she will have to be formally adopted "

My understanding is that the formal adoption was carried out immediately after the executive selection. This raises the interesting question as to what went through the minds of those that turned up - how many did I don't know - expecting to see one of the original final four being put to the meeting, instead of someone who, as far as they could recall, they had rejected in an earlier round.

It must be even more confusing for those that weren't able to go to the adoption meeting to find out the new PPC was one that the People's Panel and the Membership had put in fifth place, a few short weeks earlier.

[TT]

From 'The Darlington and Stockton Times

"Tempers flare at council meeting
A COUNCILLOR who swore and lunged at another member was restrained and led from the debating chamber as a meeting descended into chaos.

Tempers flared last night as Richmondshire District Council discussed issues connected with allegations of bullying of officers by some members.

Councillor David Morton was defending his wife and fellow councillor, Wendy Morton, who was not present, against accusations from Councillor Richard Dunn that she had not apologised to two senior officers following allegations that six members had bullied chief executive Harry Tabiner and monitoring officer Margaret Barry.

As Coun Dunn pressed the point, Coun Morton shouted: "Report me to Standards, you sod. You put me on antidepressants, you sod, and I am going to f***ing go for you." Coun Morton then lunged across the chamber and was restrained by chairwoman Councillor Jill McMullon, who escorted him from the room.

Coun Dunn immediately withdrew a motion requesting apologies from the six councillors, who were cleared of bullying by the Standards Board for England but found guilty by another independent report of breaching the code of conduct.

The meeting became heated after members voted by 18 to 12 to cut staffing budgets by £100,850 to set aside sufficient cash to cover a possible legal claim from Mrs Barry."

I think the phrase "Unparliamentary Language" might be applied here. Not the sort of behaviour we would expect from an MP's spouse, though my sympathies are with him if he is on anti-depressants.

URL here:
http://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1071204.mostviewed.tempers_flare_at_council_meeting.php

[anon 4]

I am an "outsider" but I follow the fortunes of Tynemouth constituency through friends who live there. Has anyone made the candidate and her husband aware of the particular viciousness of the Labour party in the area? They have a long history of very dirty campaigning indeed,and I imagine Mr. Morton will already be in their sights after this incident. If his health has sufferred already, as it genuinely seems to have done, coming into regular dealings with them during an election campaign they will be desperate to win at any cost could cause him real problems.

[Anon3]

I tried to get this across a couple of posts ago. (see above)

I can only imagine that those who dropped out had been informed what it would be like. We are OK as we have had to deal with the Labour Party for a long time now, and we know, only too well, exactly how devious they are.
Previous Candidates like McIntyre and Callanan are not new to the fight, indeed with their track records against the local Labour Parties are heaviweight bruisers (in temperament, at least) well capable of taking the fight to the Labour Party and not hiding in the corner. Any sign of weakness will be pounced on, because quite frankly, the local Labour Party are bullies (a perhaps unfortunate term)who are suddenly finding that they can't have things their own way, thanks to local Conservative campaigners and councillors.

Which brings us back to choosing a local candidate.

[andy]

Amen to that.

Nice to see when I was out and about at the weekend that despite the kick in the teeth from some of the Tynemouth Executive, Mike McIntyre turned up at an event in the local shopping mall and spent the afternoon chatting to residents and listening to their views on a pretty important planning issue.

Pleased to see he's still involved and hasn't taken his ball home, so to speak.

[Anon3]

I wouldn't have expected anything less from him, quite honestly. It's the mark of the man that he'll take a knee in the groin from his opponents and get up fighting again. Pity that this time the knee belonged to some members of his own party.

Er, was the PPC with him? Ideal opportunity to hit the ground running and meet local people to discuss new issues?

[andy]

Don't think so, mind you I've never met her, but going by photos I've seen there wasn't anyone there who looked like her. I think the other people there were the local councillors, no-one was being introduced as PPC. Shame because there would have been a lot of residents around and I think they were going to be there on the Sunday as well, and it's an issue a lot of people are interested in.

[David]

Wendy's hardly hit the ground running has she? Not a mention yet in the local press (apart from the negative stories surrounding her selection) and according to the Tynemouth Conservatives website, they don't even have a PPC yet!

[andy]

Perhaps they're secretly wishing they could start again and get it right this time??

[anon2]

I don't think "secretly" is correct, most people I have spoken to are furious over this issue.

It's got to the point where friends and neighbours are stopping me in the street asking what is going on. What am I supposed to tell them?

Central Office have done well to keep the ensuing brouhaha out of the press, if you ask me.

[a day wasted]

I sat through the first round of interviews (by members) which took a full day, at the end of which I chose not to vote for ex-Councillor Morton. The reason being that she lived somewhere which could by no stretch of the imagination be portrayed as local, and merely visiting a constituency once a week is not good enough to acquaint oneself with its issues.
The system Mr. Cameron has introduced has wasted my time and that of other members, when the candidate in 5th place is eventually selected by a small group within the Association irrespective of the members choice.

[Editor]

Everyone has had their say now, methinks, and I'm closing this and the previous thread.