Another incumbent-favouring factor in MEP selection

I understand that re-standing MEPs and candidates for the list will again be banned from attending party or constituency events in their respective regions during the crucial few months of the reselection - from January 4th 2008 to the close of postal ballots on March 25th.

There hardly seems to be much point in members having a say in the ranking of candidates if there are restrictions on meeting said candidates. Other than favouring incumbent MEPs who naturally have a high profile, what are the benefits of this so-called purdah? It's rather out of step with the healthy, democratic spirit of open primaries being used for London and many parliamentary selections.

Deputy Editor

Comments

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

How very oddd.

[Andrew Woodman]

Ridiculous. The lengths they are going to!!

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Can I just say that I don't particularly think this helps the incumbents? Some people who are not MEPs already have a high profile...

[Lee Rotherham]

Interesting. Does that also mean a ban on 'e-newsletters' and print literature over that period?

[Deputy Editor]

Hmmm, that may be true in some cases Justin but I think few people will have the same profile across the region as the MEPs do.

Lee, I think purdah pretty much restricts all kinds of campaigning but it does seem daft especially if that includes emails and websites.

[DavisFan]

I do hope that ROGER HELMER MEP will be ignoring this RIDICULOUS edict which is being imposed on MEPs.

I would very much wish to hear his enlightened views again. He is quite the raconteur - he told a story about how he came to love Balzac.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

I assum that they can do casework for members?

[Alex Swanson]

"It's rather out of step with the healthy, democratic spirit of open primaries"

No, it's entirely in step - it's another way of sidelining ordinary members and activists.

[Graham Smith]

Someone should ask Caroline Spelman why CCHQ have imposed this ruling. I would have thought there would have to be a very good reason indeed for her to have agreed to it.

Er, she has agreed to it, hasn't she?

[Henry Rogers]

If canvassing by candidates and contact with members are off-limits, there is still nothing to stop our Editor posting brief biographies of all the would-be MEPs in these pages, region by region. Might be quite interesting. In some cases, possibly, it might be embarrassing too which would make it fun as well as useful.

[Annabel Herriott]

If we had CCHQ approved hustings to make an informed selection of our party leader, Why is the same principal not being applied to PPC selections. What good does a small print CV handed round on the night, and a brief glance during the interviews by a small number of exec members? We need to pick the very best candidates for our particular constituencies dont we? Or is CCHQ going to do all the selecting themselves without knowing the inns and outs of an area.
In our case, I am darned sure I made a better assessment of all our candidates, by being outside making the coffee and chatting to them when they were off guard as it were. The same principle would apply if being able to meet them at events before any selections took place would it not?

[Chris Palmer]

Annabel, you don't seem to understand. If party members were actually allowed to meet their local Conservative MEP and discovered that they were a rabid europhile (as most of them are) then members would never vote them back in again!

That's also why incumbents have been given such an easy route through. The party doesn't want more Daniel Hannan's and Roger Helmer's going around and telling the truth about the EU.

[Mastiff]

What I don't like is that CCHQ is restricting people to apply to 2 regions only, with no good reason. You aren't restricted applying for Westminster seats so why Europe - especially, as European selection can be such a lottery.

MEPs have already done their lobbying - there will be no problem for any of the sitting MEPs in being reselected and re-elected.

[Sally Roberts]

Chris Palmer, I think your comment to Annabel is a little patronising to say the least as she is someone with a great deal of experience and common sense who has done a great deal of work for the Party over the years which is more than can be said for some of the people who post comments here!

[Chris Palmer]

Sally, my comment to Annabel was tongue-in-cheek - not patronising. I agreed with what she said!

[Sally Roberts]

Apologies then Chris!!! I think I was feeling a little tetchy and didn't read your post properly!

I'm not going to comment on the thread - you all know my views anyway and regard me as a "Rabid Europhile" which as I have said on previous occasions is not the greatest insult I have ever faced.... and clearly I am in the distinguished company of several Incumbent MEPs by the reckoning of some people here!!

[Annabel Herriott]

Thanks for the support Sally. I was commenting on CCHQ's handling of Parliamentary candidates rather than Europe, but the same principle applied I felt. One does rather like to know what is what. After all, as President Reagan said - "You can tell a lot about a fellow's character by his way of eating jellybeans"
Easier to pick that up in person, rather than in print.

[Sally Roberts]

I take your point, Annabel and entirely agree with you concerning CCHQ's handling of Parliamentary Candidates.
On the second point, perhaps Jellybeans should be offered as refreshment at all selection meetings along with the coffee and biscuits?!

[Peter]

Sam is their any chance of you letting members like me know more about getting our names put forward as possible candidates as can't get any reply from Central office at moment?