The costs of being a candidate (a continuing series)

After yesterday's news of Mark Bigley's decision to resign as a candidate, Torbay's Marcus Wood notes the strains and stresses of being a Conservative candidate on his blog:

"My Colleague Mark Bigley, the PPC for Southport, has stood down this week, he says for personal and family reasons.

Mark was, along with myself and about 22 others, a member of the small group of parliamentary candidates 'fast-tracked' immediately after the 2005 election in a programme designed to maintain the momentum built up in our seats.

He is the second 'fast track' PPC to resign recently; my good friend Paul Offer packed it in at the end of last year after complaining about dark deeds by some members of his association; but also I suspect because he had concerns about the diverting impact of being a PPC on his career.

The fact is being a candidate and nursing a seat is a huge commitment not just for oneself but also for the family. It is a massive financial commitment, I estimate that the cost to me personally of fighting the 2005 election measured in loss of earnings leading up to the election and then restoring my momentum afterwards, relocation, donations and supporting costs to be well over £150,000. And it is a constant demand on ones time and energy, David Camerons recent two visits to the bay involved me taking three days off work, the election a fourth, all in one month. How lucky I am to have a forgiving boss!"

£150,000.  Wow.  I don't know Marcus Wood and he is lucky to be able to absorb that kind of cost. ConservativeHome remains very disappointed that the party has done so little to help lower income people become and stay Conservative candidates despite our best efforts to highlight some ways forward in this area.

Comments

[swuz]

Speaking to many PPC's has revealed the large cost to individuals on both a personal level as well as the financial impact.

Surely if CCHQ wants to keep hold of these people they need to realise that trying to hold down a job/family and asking them to campaign at the same time is going to get harder as the election approaches and should understand that these people don't have unlimited financial resources.

[Rather not say]

As a candidate myself in a target seat I can say that I totally agree with this article about the costly nature of a candidacy.

The expense it has cost me thus far is reaching the point of it almost being prohibitive for me to continue. This will only get worse if the election does not come until 2010.

I don't wish to complain but unless you are a banker or like the sacrificies needed are such that if I knew what I knew now I would probably not have gone for the candidates list. I don't have a fantastic private sector job and nor do I have a seat I definately know I will win so the question remains is the risk really worth it when you consider that promotion at work is now unlikely due to political commitments of fighting this seat. The system is stacked in favour of very wealthy candidates I am afrad to say. If only I were one of them

Anon

[A Candidate Observer]

The nature of associations doesn't help with this. I've seen my candidate have to finance campaign materials himself because the treasuer considers the maintaining of an office as more important. He'll then expect the candidate to buy masses of raffle tickets ect. Don't know what can be done about this but it's an example of the problem.

[C List and Proud]

Why doesn't this seem to be a problem for Labour and Lib-Dem candidates?

They can't all have cushy jobs with unions and the Sith, can they?

Is there something one of our recent defectors could tell us about how they organise themselves so candidates can have a life as well as fight full-on campaigns?

Maybe all candiates should be paid as agents by a CCHQ fund? Most of them do that job anyway.

[congacong]

Frankly, the party shouldn't have to pay for its candidates, it is ridiculous. If you are not willing to put the effort in, don't bother. Where is the cost ? Petrol. Where else? Hotels? Frankly that comes with standing in a far away seat and you are lucky to have taken the candidacy away from a local.

I was at a Kensington, Chelsea and Fulham event the other day and we (the KCF constituents) are going to give away large amounts of donated money to "support" K and C residents standing at the next general election (because the "cost of fighting a seat is high"). This is not about candidates living on the breadline, "cost" is seen as an issue for some reason particularly by some of us metropolitan elite. What a waste of my donations. Shaun Bailey, the Hammersmith candidate who comes from a council estate and works for a charity isn't whingeing about this, so why should anybody else.

Sorry, I have no sympathy on this issue. Whingeing about this diverts badly needed funds from campaigning, and gives it to wastful candidate "support" (freebies).

[matt wright]

Yep this is an issue and it is possibly becoming more so when we are pushing for younger candidates who sometimes don't have other sources of income or have big mortgages etc. The issue extends to Assembly and Scots parliament candidates as well no doubt. Not sure what can be done but I do know that running a proper campaign is horrendously expensive in lost earnings etc.

Matt

[Paul Kennedy]

But the crux of the matter is, that in a realistically winnable seat considerable time has to be spent by the candidate in "working the patch", and this time is not just the few weeks in the run up to an election. Coupled to this is the fact that many of those "winnable seats" often have little infrastructure and even worse finances, so again much work and cost has to be shouldered by the candidate in order to put together a reasonably professional campaign that meets the demands of the party. Now it might well be that given modern working patterns, candidates can put the required time into their political role and their paid employment, but I sense it is very difficult for many candidates, and maybe the selection process should take that more into account. Local Associations are in effect an employer, and maybe they should consider the responsibilities towards their employee, the candidate, of being an employer.

It is also worth making the point, well I think so anyway, that CCHQ and regional staff are themselves, by and large paid employees, most of whom do not put their hands in their own pocket but rather suggest and encourage that volunteers or those working in some form of unpaid capacity, and in some cases highly skilled and time consuming capacity, do. ;)

And the end of the day of course, candidates, and other volunteers, have chosen to do what they do through their free choice.....thank God they do, but the Party, in particular the paid staff and well paid MPs etc would do well to remember that from time to time.

With regards to candidates from other parties, I don't know but maybe somebody should do an analysis of their employment, bet you state/social sector employment in one form or the legal fraternity looms large. Interestingly I once heard a comment by a Labour Councillor who is also a solicitor, when asked would he like to enter national politics, said he would love to but couldn't afford to!

[Another nony mouse]

Congacong unfortunately if you are in a financially poor association then it is is the ppc and a select few that ends up paying for everything that is needed in an association in terms of campaigning.

Plus, trying to do all of the campaigning around holding down a job and a family means that something has to give

[swuz]

To: C List and Proud

There is no possible way that an effective ppc can be a properly trained professional agent and run a decent campaign at the same time.

I would think it highly unusual if there are any PPC's doing both or indeed would be capable. Plus, if there are any PPC's that are doing an agents job then they must not need the money because it is appalling wages for the many hours that a proper agent puts in.

[trafalgar_matelot]

From many of my PPC colleagues I have heard that those that are in high profile jobs such as the media, have lost most of their regular work for radio/tv because they are now seen as too political.

Surely central office can in some way aid those that are in this position!!!

[Rachel Joyce]

swuz is wrong. Our local candidate in our target seat of Stevenage is the agent for North East Herts. Stevenage (like many other target seats)hasn't got enough resources for a paid agent and so Stephen's time and skills are a real asset. He is able to run an effective campaign (considered I understand by CCHQ as one of the best) as he has the skill and opportunity. I am honoured to be learning from one of the best.
The fact is that this boils down to the fact that the best resourced seats tend to be the ones that don't really need the resources. The candidates in target seats have to work their arses off with no guarantee of success. Congacong wouldn't experience this first hand in the safest seat in the country (says from KCF). This commitmet eats into work and home time and the former can have serious effects on salary and career prospects (if not elected, that is).
The party needs to look at how it supports target seats and target candidates more (not so much in the safe seats or the no chance seats).

[Living on the Parish]

congacong - you are not living in the real world. The costs to candidates are as follows -

1. Setting up a new home in the constituency whilst often having to maintain a home were your job actually is.

2. Paying for literature and much of the campaign if the association is broke - see most northern target seats.

3. Running around all over your nepatch to either attend party meetings, residents groups, parish councils or campaign groups.

4. Loss of job or reduction in your position as it is not always possible to fight a seat and continue to work full time. Does the party want part-time candidates or does it want to win?

5. Been looked over for promotion due to political role you now have.

6. Plus a whole host of more marginal costs such as raffels, paying for lunches for helpers, attending more social events, been expecd to pay a big membership contribution, petrol etc etc .

So not unsubstatial costs and for those of us who work in a public sector profession, those are not costs borne easilly!!! SO get with it would you congacon.

[Marcus Wood]

Congacong no-one is 'whingeing', least of all me.

What we are saying is that if the Party wants to encourage candidates from a broad background than in the past then this question has to be looked at.

And make no mistake, we do need candidates from a broader background, not for political correctness sake but because if we want to successfully tune in to public opinion then we as a party must be drawn from that same public and not from an elite of city bankers and London lawyers.

Of course from the comfort of safe-as-houses K&C I don't expect you to be an expert in winning all the seats we lost in 1997 back from Labour and especially the Lib Dems but here on the front line things look rather different.

I don't think paying PPC's is the answer but I do feel that it is important that Association activists recognise the impact of being a PPC over such an extended period has.

If we don't we risk a) losing more PPC's and throwing away the value of their momentum and b)losing potential PPC's who will be put off nursing a seat for so long.

All the statistics from 2005 and 2001 prove that long installed or second-try PPC's do significantly better than newcomers; it would be a shame if too much notice was taken of people like you and not enough attention given to those who are fighting to win control of Westminster by winning seats.

Lastly, why on earth you imagine that helping PPC's in marginal seats is a 'waste of funds' is beyond me.

What would you rather have, an even bigger majority in K&C and 199 MP's in permanent opposition or a smaller margin in your constituency and David Cameron in No 10?

No, don't answer. In your case think I can guess.

[Mark Clarke]

congacon - your post is highly inaccurate.

Kensington, Chelsea and Fulham are fundraising to assist with the campaign expenses (e.g. leaflets) for former Association members fighting in marginal seats. They are not fundraising to support candidates personal expenses.

Shaun Bailey who represents a seat which is twinned with Kensington, Chelsea and Fulham is also being assisted.

So please do not try to create some sort of divisiveness here where there is none.

Personally, I thank the Association members for this. It is very refreshing that one of our wealthier Associations is going out of its way to help generously fund not merely the seat they are twinned with but half a dozen other seats around the country - my seat included.

[Kippaxed]

A bit of whingeing here. If PPC's make a commitment to relocate and/or devote funds to getting elected, you shouldn't complain too much at having to follow it through. After all in our target seats there are loads of candidates - some of whom have failed to get selected precisely becasue they failed to make these promises at interview stage knowing exactly the sacrifices involved

[Anon]

Interesting little thread this but can we dispense with some myths please like the one about CCHQ and regional staff and agents being paid vasts sums of party money.

They are not.

Quite a few earn less than most public sector workers and don't have the added buffer of good pensions, flexi time and core working hours etc etc etc. Many have to work 'investment banker hours' most evenings and weekends, driving over vast areas of the country to do their job and when they do have time off the only thing they want to think about is sleep and doing all the normal things in life like going to the supermarket!

It is part of their job spec to encourage volunteers. If that volunteer resents taking on a role or sometimes putting their hand in their pocket, then maybe the problems rests with them, not the party employee.

Also being a candidate and indeed holding any voluntary position in the party either in an association or at regional level does cost, both monetary and in terms of career prospects possibly. And because of that some good people who should be on the candidates' list (and selected) are not.

I don't agree that local Associations are in effect an employer to their candidate. They aren't, shouldn't be and shouldn't expect to be. However many associations do have responsibilities to their employees and should think about that more.

And no. before you ask, I don't work at CCHQ. Just been involved in the party a long time, know a lot of people and their personal situations.

[tynemouthtory]

Whilst I can sympathise with some of the aspects of expenses it seems that if maintaining two homes is one of the issues then this must be something any candidate is aware of before applying for a seat. It is also a very good argument for selecting local candidates!

[Paul Kennedy]

15:22

Must admit I haven't seen the phrase:

"CCHQ and regional staff and agents being paid vasts (sic) sums of party money."

used in any of the posts.....a Freudian slip perhaps ;)

You also, I think, misunderstood the point I was making about the Candidate/Association relationship.

[NONE]

Ah but tynemouth not EVERY association has a local candidate to pick from whilst others have 'local' candidates you would not wish to ever select.

Your theory is most unconservative in that it would prevent people of talent from getting a seat unless it was right next door! I thought we believed in merit.

Clearly you have not got over your recent 'difficulties'. Move one ...

[Anon A Lister]

Some interesting comments here but the simple fact of the matter is that a PPC is effectively saying to his or her employer 'I am actively seeking employment elswhere'.

Ask yourself what your employer would say if you said that to them! And there is no way round this as far as I can see? Finanical assistance is irrelevant to this surely?

Personally, I have no intention of saying it to my employer unless I am in a seat I know I can win. Otherwise it is simply not worth the effect on my career. If that means I go into the next election without a seat then so be it. I certainly don't intend to trash my career by getting lumbered nursing a hopeless seat for 3 years! It just doesn't add up.

Been there, done that, got the t shirt!

[Blue Rinse]

Congacong,

Where is the cost? Petrol? Perhaps, when one is in a constituency where one ward needs several Ordinance Survey maps to cover it whereas a ward in K&C will fit neatly onto a sheet of A4. And as for suggesting that local candidates should be elected above an outsider who needs a second home in the constituency, just remember - you can make a talented person local, you can't make a local mediocre candidate talented.

[Matt Wright]

Putting aside the issue of a candidate not being up to the job (in which case they shouldn't be on the list) I have to say that in significant parts of the the UK where we need to make inroads a local candidate is more likely to do well than an excellent outsider. This issue is probably less the case in Southern England but is often the case in the North, Wales and Scotland.

[Automated Robot]

Some of these comments remind me of canvassing with a London banker on an estate where the income was below the national average. He was a family man, and said "The major difficulty for me in becoming a candidate is the salary of an MP, how can anyone survive on it?"

Surely being a candidate and MP is a privilege? A deliberate choice to serve the interests of others? As if life should be risk free - or something worth having should not cost!

If the risk/reward balance deters those too busy measuring the downside to their choices, the threat to their careers or their lost opportunities and earnings, then so be it.

Let's help those for whom cost is a barrier to service - not compensate those more preoccupied with what they might lose.

[Rather not say]

Dear congacong,

I am not sure what role, if any, you hold in your (very wealthy) Conservative Association but clearly the new fresh approach to candidate selection has not reached you.
Gone are the days when candidates were selected from a small clique of wealthy people who did not need to work due to substantial reserves in the bank.
I hold down a demanding and not badly paid job. I also have some personal investments. But I am not 'rich'.
I live locally to my target seat but because I know the importance of having a home inside the constituency have bought a home there. I am, therefore, paying 2 mortgages.
My association is desperately short of manpower and funds. I, therefore, fund a whole series of things for the campaign ranging from hire of rooms for public meetings and surgeries to rail fares for visiting speakers are fundraising events. As a candidate I donate raffle prizes, buy raffle tickets and always pay the going rate for each event. Last week alone I spent over 100 quid on supporting fundraising events for my own seat.
Then there is petrol, as you so rightly pointed out. Not just for getting around the constituency, but racing back to work to put in a solid contribution to the people who allow me flexibility but also pay my two mortgages - as well as the second set of utility bills, council tax, etc.
On top of all this, as has been stated already, a candidate needs to work the patch well before the election. i have joined a dozen local organisations, residents groups and pressure groups. An average of a fiver a time with plenty more for me to join in due course.
Then there are the pub visits after every canvassing and delivery session with the first round on the candidate for everyone who helped.
Are you getting the picture?
In short, if you feel giving your cash to help target seats is being wasted let me tell you, I don't want your money. I know what I signed up for and took a gamble that it will pay off. But the fact is many cannot afford the gamble.
If you really want to help, come and canvass in one of my target wards and bring some of your rich chums to one of my fundraisers.
Get your hands dirty rather than making sweeping generalisations and grand assumptions.

[Anon A Lister]

Automated Robot (who seems to be living in cloud cuckoo land) would be well advised to read this contribution from Rather Not Say (10:17)!

[Matt Wright]

Automated Robot seems to have missed the point. We need ordinary working lads and lasses (especially in the North) who can understand the issues on the council estate but may struggle to afford what amounts to almost full time campaigning for 2 or 3 years trying to win the seat. Many candidates excel at juggling all this and making a good go of it but the issue needs to be looked at from a variety of angles. I think that in some seats there is a double or triple whammy at play (as some posts here suggest) because some Associations have no money and some regions have very few professional staff. The candidate therefore has little or no back-up which can make the difference between doing well by almost winning and getting in with a majority. At the very least we certainly need more professional staff if we are going to win the next election,

Matt

[Automated Robot]

Apologies for multiple quotes...

"Let's help those for whom cost is a barrier to service - not compensate those more preoccupied with what they might lose."
- Automated Robot (01:10)

"In short, if you feel giving your cash to help target seats is being wasted let me tell you, I don't want your money. I know what I signed up for and took a gamble that it will pay off. But the fact is many cannot afford the gamble."
- Rather Not Say (10:17), emphasis mine.

"Automated Robot... seems to be living in cloud cuckoo land"
- Anon A Lister (11:03)

"We need ordinary working lads and lasses... who can understand the issues... but may struggle to afford what amounts to almost full time campaigning... trying to win the seat"
- Matt Wright (11:21), emphasis mine.

Anon, the light must be better up here in Cloud Cuckoo Land - I suggest you reread my post. Likewise, Matt Wright.

Rather Not Say has counted the cost, acknowledges the priviledge, made the choice and is living with the risks. Well done that (wo)man. I agree with every word they write and hope their efforts are rewarded.

If we accept the principle of financial support for candidates, I believe it should go to those focused on the privilege of service (and whose main concern is "I cannot because of the cost"), not to those who seek a smooth and upward path into representational politics (and whose concern is "I will not because of the risks").

The contrast in underlying attitudes is subtle but informative.

[Anon A Lister]

Automated Robot is still missing the point.

For most (including me) it is not that 'I will not because of the risks'; It is 'I CANNOT because of the risks'.

The difference is sublte AND informative.

[Londoner]

I believe one element of the extra cost, non-locals buying or renting a second home in the constituency, is fairly unnecessary but candidates are often pressurised into committing to do it. If the seat is too far away for day trips then it might possibly be more economic than a B & B but, to be pressurised to do it just to look "local" when you're not, is rather silly. Surely it should be considered enough to commit to do it if you actually win the seat?

I heard that one time fairly recently when Battersea was interviewing they actually demanded that candidates living in other parts of London commit to moving to the constituency (not even just if elected I believe). With children in day schools too far to travel from Battersea, he very sensibly declined to take the application further.

Also, a small point I know, but shouldn't HQ tell Assocations that candidates (and their spouses) are not expected (or allowed) to buy raffle tickets?

[Would love to stand]

I've been told for years I'd make a good MP and should get myself selected. The reason I haven't is simple. Lack of money.

So the party does without me and others like me as MPs and all the barristers and management consultants get elected instead.

If David Cameron really does want a cross section of society representing the Conservative Party in the House of Commons a solution has to be found to this problem.

As for me, I've had to sacrifice the dream of being an MP unless I get another job, earning more, with a sympathetic employer.

[Automated Robot]

"...I CANNOT because of the risks"."
- Anon A Lister (13:34)

"I've been told for years I'd make a good MP and should get myself selected. The reason I haven't is simple. Lack of money."
- Would love to stand (15:05)

Please do not think me unsympathetic, however, while Would love to stand cannot pay the cost, Anon (apparently) chooses not to take the risk.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[Colin Wade]

Mark Clarek seems to be able to comment everywhere except his own blog!

[Another anon]

I think some people are mis-representing what is written on here. No-one is saying that being a candidate does not involve sacrifices. All that we are saying is that the sacrifices for some are most prohibitve meaning that the chances of attracting nurses, teachers etc is much lower than barristers, bankers and those who own their own businesses.

Nurses and teachers do not enjoy the same flexibility as bankers and lawyers perhaps do. That doesn't mean that ALL candidates don't make sacrifices it just means that some find the sacrifices easier to take than others.

So to return to the original thread, maybe CCHQ needs to think about how it supports candidates on a case by case basis, takinginto account all the circumstances surrounding a candidate. Surley that is reasonable and fair. A hand up not a hand out perhaps?

[Matt Wright]

I tell you what would actually be informative "Automated Robot" and that is if you had the guts to use your name and not hide in the shadows. I have no time for the spineless wonders who post on this site in the various threads using anonymous names. Either people what to stand up for what they beleive in, whether as candidates or activists, or they do not. The famous quote, "we have work to do..." comes to mind,

Matt Wright

[midland activist]

I absolutely fail to see why there such cost involved.

A second home is unnecessary. A candidate should be prepared to move to the constituency and if that involves moving jobs then so be it. If an association is going to spend and raise tens of thousands of pounds (maybe hundreds of thousands for a long campaign) and thousands of man hours campaigning they are entitled to expect certain things from a candidate.

I slog my guts out as a volunteer for this party with no intention of standing for election - I delivered 1500 leaflets a day in the run up to the last elections. Many other activists do the same for no reward. If activists are going out evenings and weekends then the candidate should be prepared to do the same (and more!). Being an association officer has a high time cost and a financial cost with no reward expected.
If as a candidate you think it is irrelevant whether you have a local address or a London address then personally I don't think you should even be on the candidates list - It demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge / experience of fighting elections.

[Paul Oakley]

Can we dispel this myth about barristers being wealthy enough to bear the cost with ease? Not everyone earns Cherie Booth rates. In fact, those who practice at the cutting edge of legally-aided family and crime have seen their incomes fall drastically. After expenses, many would be better off managing a branch of McDonalds.

Those who do private work incur liability for tax and NI (at top rate, natch) as soon as a bill is issued rather than when payment is received (if ever - barristers cannot sue for their fees).

And of course, being self-employed there are no paid holidays. A day off work means a day not earning.

I await a barrage of lawyer jokes. :-)

[Edward]

Re: does the party want part-time candidates?

Whilst I recognise the pressures of combining a candidature with a successful career I would certainly suggest that we do *not* want professional candidates.

[Edward]

Well said, Paul Oakley. You're quite right. And, time spent off means a direct likely hit in future work, since they're self-employed, particularly if you have to decline briefs due to political commitments.

[Paul Oakley]

Also true Edward. Well said sir.

[Lancs Tory]

It's not just Parliamentary Candidates that find it difficult combining time in the constituency with work and family commitments.

I know of several former Councillors that have stood down due to the same. I'm sure everyone reading this does too.

I know former PPCs who have never been elected (ie stood in non winnable or marginal seats) and regret having stood in the first place due to missing their children growing up and the financial cost of standing.

It is an age old problem. Professional politicians get criticised and everyone else finds it difficult to find the money to stand, get time off work, and combine bringing up a family with time campaigning and all the usual tasks that go with being a candidate.

I for one have a young family and a small business, so have had to consistently say no to requests to stand, despite a strong desire to do so. I cannot take time away from the business and cannot afford the cost.

That said, we appear to have no shortage of candidates. However, why can't Associations help assist their candidates with expenses - particularly if they pick a candidate who lives hundreds of miles away!

[Londoner]

"If as a candidate you think it is irrelevant whether you have a local address or a London address then personally I don't think you should even be on the candidates list - It demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge / experience of fighting elections." etc from Midlands activist.

I have lived in five constituencies in London and I do not think any of the MPs (3 Conservative and 2 Labour) have ever lived in the constituency. I am a consumer, not a producer, and was therefore posting about what is important to me in a candidate/MP, not what I would want to offer.

Midlands activist no doubt knows the anti-London feelings around his way but it should be possible to help a candidate rent a room in an activist's house as the election nears so that she or he has a local address. But standing in a different region is one thing - if a candidate lives in London and is standing in, say, Hampshire or Essex, should it really be necessary to live in Hampshire or Essex? It's just a fashion that people feel they have to pander to because it could be the deciding factor in a close selection, but it's not rational.

To suggest that someone with a serious career outside politics, and a family life probably involving their spouse working and often children at school, should sell up and move, such that he has to get a new job (changing your commuting pattern is different) for 2 or 3 years whilst fighting a seat (even assuming they could - many careers are geographically restricted in terms of realistic opportunities) is ridiculous. Presumably if they don't win and get selected somewhere better for the following election they are expected to change job again? What it means is that either you get candidates who are already local (fine, if you don't mind restricting the choice) or are rich enough to buy and run a second property (fine if you don't mind excluding those who are not rich) or who have no major commitment to an outside career or family life (fine if you want professional politicians who don't have family commitments).

To me this is just another contributory reason why the general quality of MPs is so poor and, in particular, why very few people start on that road in middle life when they would have a lot more to contribute than new MPs in their early 30s.

[Automated Robot]

"What would... be informative... is if you had the guts to use your name and not hide in the shadows. I have no time for the spineless wonders who post on this site in the various threads using anonymous names."
- Matt Wright (22:03)

Two thirds of the posters on this thread are either invertebrates or think their identity is irrelevant to an informed debate.

Civility is not. It's a good thread and I am interested in your views. Let's get back to it.

[alex]

I commented on this thread previously but it seems to have been moderated out.

1) It is not reasonable to expect candidates to uproot their family and move to a constituency where they may have little chance of winning. Commitment to the constituency is one thing, career and family suicide is another. Yes there are people who are prepared to do it. Would you want that person as your MP?

2) It is not reasonable for a Londoner to say effectively "you have to live in the constituency...or London" The fact is that the majority of MPs and their families are in London. Many do not have a home in their constituency. This does not make them bad constituency MPs. Equally a candidate can live in Oxford and be a candidate for a West Midlands Seat just as effectively as if they lived in London

3) A good local candidate is the best candidate, but I would choose a good candidate over a local candidate any day

4) We should not be supporting specific candidates. We should have regional structures in place to support all candidates, and we should be doing our utmost to reduce the cost of candidacy.

5)The main requirement for a good candidate is time energy and commitment, not a big wallet

[Anon]

Matt

Far from being spineless, lots of us hide behind an alias because we'd like to keep our jobs. Not too difficult to understand is it? Automated Robot is right, your identity doesn't matter. Everyone has a view, and here's where you can express it, anonymously if you wish

[anon]

Regarding the expense of buying/renting a second property to attempt to convince the electorate that a PPC really is "local" (which I don't suppose anyone falls for) that is something the candidate should accept without complaint, especially if they choose to stand against a good local candidate who would have been the members choice. If the party actually allowed the members a choice, that is.

[Multisitio]

Given the disgraceful noses-in-the-trough attitudes of so many MPs in whacking up their expenses, regardless of party I am a little surprised that cash is in such short supply with regard to the Tories making the breakthroughs they need to in urban constituencies north of Watford Gap.

Will they ever learn? So the cash is there. It just has to be spent properly. Sadly, I believe the party is not really all that interested in what one correspondent on this site called the "no chance seats."

Of course the A list system, often leading to unsuitable candidates, means the chance of success is even smaller.

Look at it in football terms: There's not much point posting 5-0 winning margins at home and losing away, even if only by 1-0.

It's not just the marginals which need the attention, it goes deeper than that. Trust me - I'm only too au fait with how the average northerner sees the party. High blue tide is needed - nothing less. That costs money!