MEP selection timetable - no automatic top slot for women?

The exact process for selecting MEP candidates has been announced today:

• Seat advertisements will be sent out on Monday once sitting MEPs advise CCHQ of their intentions, with the deadline for returning CVs on Friday 4th January
• People can apply for two different regions, but only go through to the postal ballot of one of them.
• The bizarre rule that campaigning or soliciting of votes is prohibited, is reiterated.
• The first meeting of the Regional Selection Colleges will approve the reselection of sitting MEPs by a secret ballot, and decide on how many other applicants to see.
• Three women have to be seen for interviews, and in total no less than the twice the number of people than vacant slots.
• The second meeting will choose which new applicants and MEPs who weren't automatically approved should be ranked by the postal ballot, the two highest ranked women definitely will.
• Earlier this year it was said that "the highest ranked woman, after incumbent candidates, will take the next most winnable position", but while that does apply to the slots of retiring MEPs there is no mention of this here. If this means that women are going to be helped into getting to the members' ballot but aren't going to get compulsory top slots than that is very welcome and avoids a lot of resentment.

4.30pm update: John Strafford isn't impressed:

"This is control freakery gone mad. It must be the most undemocratic election ever held by the Conservative Party. Party members are being treated with the utmost contempt. Is it any wonder that membership continues to plummet? Soon there will not be any members left, and the control freaks will no longer have to go through the charade of democracy within the Conservative Party."

Comments

[Brian Wood]

John Stafford is not the only one that is unimpressed. From what I am given to understand we, the ordinary members of the Party, will not even have the opportunity to hear these candidates at hustings meetings before the final lists and orders are settled - hardly democracy!

[Paul Oakley]

Rather disappointing to see that the only hustings will be before the RSC. How are party members to make their decisions on the rankings if they've not seen the candidates hold their corner or at least been able to read about their performance? This may well count against the talented but obscure.

Teresa Villiers for one fell into this category years ago until her barnstorming hustings speech sent her to Brussels.

[Prentiz]

How can we claim to support trusting people and giving power back, when we refuse to give our own members the right to choose their elected representatives? It is a disgrace.

[Mr Angry]

Not good enough, and even worse this affront to democracy is all in the cause of preserving the seats of Europhile MEPs who act against the best interests of both the party and the country.

I for one will not work or camapign for a europhile MEP in my constituency and will probably not vote for one either. If others feel the same way then we are actually endangering Conservative held seats solely for the personal benefit of representatives who do not represent their constituents views or those of their party's membership.

[prentiz]

Right,

Having had a think about it, I've sent the following to my constituency chairman:

Dear Chairman,

Have been meaning to drop you a line on the subject of MEP selection. I am, to say the least, very worried indeed about the idea that anyone should have an automatic place at the top of the list – as is currently suggested for any sitting MEP seeking reselection. In the first place, this is inherently undemocratic. The list system makes this particularly so. Effectively, I will have no option, if I wish to vote Conservative, but to vote for the top ranked candidate on the list – certainly I will have no opportunity to affect their position. It also treats our party membership with a certain degree of contempt – implicitly asserting that we aren’t capable of making this sort of important decision. Finally, I think it sends quite the wrong message to the candidates themselves. To the sitting MEP it says, don’t worry about campaigning or about working for the benefit of all your area, we will guarantee you a job for life. To the other candidates it says, no matter how hard you work, we will always favour the incumbent. I think it also implicitly condones the actions of MEPs in other regions who have refused to follow the party line on a variety of issues – such as EPP withdrawal.

In the South West the situation is particularly acute. With only one MEP up for reselection, Giles Chichester will be guaranteed the top position on the list – despite only being ranked third last time, despite incumbency then.

In the past South West Conservatives have exercised their responsibility in ranking MEP candidates very effectively. For example, at the last election, as I’m sure you recall, Alexander Stockton was pushed down the list when Members didn’t believe he represented their views, and felt he hadn’t done enough work. This didn’t result in cataclysmic party splits.

Whilst I think you would have a tough time persuading CCHQ that they should change their mind here, you do have the opportunity to make a real difference as an association chairman. At the Regional Selection Meeting, you can take a principled stance against automatically reapproving any sitting MEP. This would mean Chichester could go forward, without any stain on his character, if the rationale were explained, to be ranked by the party membership along with every other selected candidate. Not only would this be a powerful endorsement of Conservative support for democracy in the Southwest, but it would also allow the head of the Conservative list to claim a powerful democratic support for their position there – rather than appearing to have merely been selected on buggins turn.

I would appreciate your thoughts on the subject.

Prentiz

If enough people send the same sort of emails, and enough constituency chairpeople listen, we can have the free vote here that members deserve.

[Dick Wishart]

Dont you realise it yet "LOCALISM" applies to everything EXCEPT the Conservative Party
The 21st Century document lives on, its just being implemented in a gradual slippage/creeping way hoping that none of us will notice.
Our esteemed leaders are continually berating the Government about being control freaks, perhaps they should look in a mirror.

[Dick Wishart]

"The first meeting of the Regional Selection Colleges will approve the reselection of sitting MEPs by a secret ballot, and decide on how many other applicants to see."
If they are merely going to approve the sitting MEPs why even bother to hold a ballot? or is it me?

[Praguetory]

" Three women have to be seen for interviews, and in total no less than the twice the number of people than vacant slots. " Can you run that one by me again?

[Rene Kinzett]

As a Member of the Wales RSC, I have received my papers asking me to attend and the rules for the selection process. At one point there was going to be two RSC Meetings. I find the whole process bizarre and complicated. Am I just being totally stupid and naive by asking if the Party has ever considered one member one vote for these selections?

[James Maskell]

The Tories cant just do this the easy way. It just HAS to balls it up...

No campaigning? So how else are the members going to know who they should vote for, that if if they are allowed a vote?

Regarding the bit about women, my thinking is that if there are three seats, then 6 women must be interviewed? What happens if less than twice the number of seats apply...say only 3 care to apply? Is there special provision in that all too likely scenario?

Im actually quite confused with this process. I dont understand where that places the party member. Are they even allowed a say...they arent exactly mentioned as being at the core of the process....are they?

[Anthony Broderick]

You're supposed to be confused James, Candidates aren't known for clarity. The Eds have done their best to interpret the rules but i'm sure Candidates have given themselves enough leeway to interpret them in a way that suits them further down the line.

[Jonathan Gray]

Dick Wishart @ 18:56
If the RSC fails to reselect a sitting MEP, then they automatically move from one ballot paper ranking sitting MEP's to another ballot paper ranking the other candidates (there are two separate ballot papers). They receieve no special treatment on that list.
It is therefore possible for an MEP to be ranked so low as to be unlikely to be returned to Brussels.

[Richard Weatherill]

How can we claim to support trusting people and giving power back, when we refuse to give our own members the right to choose their elected representatives? It is a disgrace. (Prentiz; 6/12 17:24))

As you know, Tim, I allowed my membership to lapse earlier this year for exactly this reason. It's a complete shambles which certainly adds weight to Peter Oborne's theory about the triumph of the Political Class.

[Christina Speight]

This is an outrage and on a par with the defunct Soviet Union. Who on earth produced such a travesty of democracy? Why is the Conservative Party utterly determined to spit in the faces of the majority of the membership who want to see Tory MEPs reflect the views of Tory members and voters?

The EU will rejoice at this capitulation to a Federal Europe as so many sitting Tory MEPs seem to want.

I didn't want to vote UKIP but with this there's no alternative

[Mike Wood]

Rene,

We've had one member one vote for the previous two European selections. Unfortunately the Party has adopted a system which is as opaque as it is undemocratic.

It would clearly be politically embarrassing if we had no female Conservative MEPs after the next European elections. The line earlier this year seemed to be that this could only be done by making sure that women replaced retiring MEPs for this election only but that this could only be done if iuncumbents were allowed to the top of the list. I didn't agree at the time but at least it was a logical position.

Instead, we seem to have lost even the desirable aspect of the old proposal but maintained the rules that virtually guarantee reselection for incumbents. It is now even more likely that we will have an all-male team of MEPs after 2009 as, in some regions, it will be almost impossible for anyone other than the incumbents to be selected at the top of their list.

I know a number of our MEPs well and know that they do a good job. Having previously worked for an MEP who wasn't reselected, I know that there tends to be a deeper problem than just euroscepticism / pro-European differences when incumbents don't finish at the top of their regional lists as they really do enjoy every conceivable advantage already. If there was a transparent vote of all members to select their candidates then I would probably vote to reselect my current MEPs. However, if I was able to vote in the first regional selection meeting then I would be tempted to vote "no" to all the incumbents just so that all members could have a free choice on the postal vote.

This system is a mistake and can only add further to the lack of connection between MEPs / European candidates and Party members.

[Richard ROBINSON]

The Board’s rules for selecting European candidates seem clear on this point at least: “the woman who receives the most support in the ballot for the new applicants will be allocated the top slot after the ranked MEPs”.

[David Parker]

The records of many incumbent Conservative MEPs show that the europhiles outnumber the eurosceptics, whereas amongst the members and supporters of the Conservative party as a whole the reverse is true.
The current selection process is not merely undemocratic but also dishonest in that it is deliberately designed to deter the general membership from taking an active interest in our representation in the European Parliament.

[Treacle]

Doesn't this open up a woderful opportunity for the volunteers who will be on the intial selection meeting to reject ALL the MEPs, thus forcing them onto the second stage involving the wider electorate.

Now, that would screw CCHQ's little game.....

[Richard Weatherill]

Christina, I too will consider voting UKIP (for the first time) at the European elections. Whilst there will no doubt be at least one Conservative candidate with whom I'd be happy, I can't see myself voting for the whole 'slate' - as one has to do - knowing how it will have been gerrymandered.

It's a shame that there wasn't more fuss when the original version of these rules was agreed by the Party Board back in the Spring. Of course, at the time, our standing in the polls was lower and there was no doubt some reluctance to make "noises off". (The phrase used by Don Porter in his astonishingly patronising remarks at the time.)

Mind you, I don't know how UKIP select their candidates ...

[??]

The Party are requiring women to be given the top spot on our lists after sitting MEPS regardless of how they poll in the ballot