Cambridgeshire North East: The vital statistics

We won't do Independent-style graphics often but here are a few stats re Saturday's selection of Steve Barclay for one of the Conservative Party's safest seats (you can click on the graphic to increase its size):

These numbers raise all sorts of questions about the health of Conservative Associations in supposedly deep blue constituencies and the degree to which selection meetings, including open primaries, are vulnerable to entryism.

Comments

[HF]

340 Members for a solid Conservative seat (21 years) is an abysmal position for the Association.

The sitting MP may have been winning elections but he is clearly not handing over a strong party base.

CCHQ need to be asking some searching questions of the Regional Officers for the Area.

[Graham Checker]

Open primaries are still the most democratic way of selecting candidates.

And Steve Barclay got over 50%+ on the 2nd ballot.

This should have been advertised more widely.

This is much more democratic than the usual CCO manipulation behind the scenes..

[Chris]

Wow! I would have thought knowing that whoever is selected is nigh on guaranteed to become the next MP would have boosted turnout.

[bluepatriot]

My hunch is that these fascinating figures point to an underlying membership slide in the Conservative Party (and all political parties).

[Matt]

Wow,

To think I could have invested £1,600 in buying 64 of my friends membership of the local Association!

I would now be the PPC for a very safe tory seat - and it makes the Return on Investment (£60K/year for as long as I want) incredible!

[J Hind]

We moved to Ely- East Cambridgeshire- some 5 years ago. We have yet to see any councillor or party representative with the obvious conclusion likely same situation applies here

[Eastern Tory]

I agree with HF. It would be interesting to know how many members the association had after the last general election. Bluepatriot is right. Many associations, including mine, have lost a lot of members since Cameron became leader.

Who were the other finalists in the NE Cambs? Was James Brokenshire MP, frontbencher, one of them?

[Deputy Editor]

HF, safe seat associations aren't kept sharp by having an opposition to fight against so often aren't as vibrant as more marginally safe seats.

Eastern Tory, yes he was - shortlist.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Similar numbers to my seat but I think we had a few more to the selection meeting. I think Primaries in theory are a good idea but in practice Constituency Associations have missed a trick. I wounder if NE Cambs publicised this meeting through the local press,radio etc and explained to readers/listeners that they didn't need to be members of the party to vote in the selection of the candidate.
I know there are several potential problems with this( local Labour and Lib Dems turning up to see who looks the most unelectable) and Associations might be keen to maintain control of the selection but overall I think the benefits of a well attended primary outweigh the pitfalls

[Eastern Tory]

Thanks Dep Ed. Am I correct in thinking that all six shortlisted candidates participated in the open primary?

[Teck Khong]

Was the statistical revelation launched as an intelligence gathering exercise, to gauge the opinion of bloggers and to uncover jealousy traits?

I believe in any selection, whether in politics or in other fields, there is an unavoidable element of arbitrariness given the high quality of candidates and some unforeseen 'variables' on the actual day of the interview.

There seems to be an inverse relationship between the amount of unpleasant remarks and the desirability of seats. Helen Grant seemed to have been dealt with unfairly and harshly, while candidates for Labour majority seats seem to elicit congratulations and words of encouragement.

So, let there be no personality sniping and leave the decision on the choice of candidates to the selectors whoever and wherever they are. All candidates deserve our support - the first step towards unity.

[Richard]

I'm Chairman of an opposition held seat with a 10,000 majority, have over 700 members and had nearly 200 members attend our parliamentary selection. I'm still not satisfied with this but I look at the organisation in some safe seats and think just how well we are doing in comparison.

There is some truth that opposition seats are kept busy with campaigning and so are better organised that rock solid safe seats.

That doesn't alter the fact that safe seats should be better organised and those in charge in safe seats with only a handful of members, negligible political activity and paltry fundraising are letting the side down badly. They should be farming help out week after week into nearby marginals.

[KUH]

This figure is still much higher than the Labour Party membership in the safe East Hull Constituency which is also selecting a cnadidate at the moment - there the membership is about 250.

I was told by a Labour colleague of mine that the Labour Party has some of their weakest membership numbers in their safest seats, for all sorts of reasons. Perhaps the same is true of us.

I certainly know a lot of marginal Conservative seats with much bigger membership numbers.

[Voice from the South West]

Only 340 members for this Association? That is shockingly bad, even Lancaster probably has more members than that, and in Torridge and West Devon we have nearly three times as many members than NE Cambridgeshire.

Probably explains why Malcolm Moss' last couple of election results were somewhat unspectacular despite being a safe Conservative seat.

[CCHQ Spy]

340 members is shockingly bad but Steve Barclay is the man to start putting things right!

[Eastern Tory]

I remember a candidates training weekend where NE Cambs was given as an glowing example of how to win back a Lib Dem seat. Geoff Harper, the former agent and top CCO executive, told how he was headhunted to run Malcolm Moss's campaign against Clement Freud in 1987.

NE Cambs is not alone. There are too many Conservative seats where the association membership is pathetically low. Safe seats with decent majorities should have at least a thousand members. They should be raising money and providing mutual aid to support target seats in their region. NE Cambs should be supporting former Tory seats such as Cambridge where we are now in third place.

[HF]

I disagree with the Dep Editor and agree with Eastern Tory.

Safe = >1,000
Challenging = >700.

Under 500 = usually a seat that is a long way behind.

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

I believe this is a problem for several of the Conservative Associations in the Home Counties.

[Observer]

This is not surprising for a "safe seat". At the South Staffs delayed parliamentary election, it was helpers from Wolverhampton and elsewhere who did much of the work.

The complacent attitude in "safe seats" as in "safe wards" is often 'we will win it anyway.' In 1997, this attitude led to the loss of seats that should never have been lost.

A lesson to be learnt clearly!

[deborah]

In safe seats, the MP doesn't have to try. He can sit back and enjoy the position and there's no incentive for him to sort out a poor Association run by a few individuals for their own purposes.

I've seen it.

[deborah]

"The complacent attitude in "safe seats" as in "safe wards" is often 'we will win it anyway." -Observer.

It's more than just complacency. Associations in these safe seats don't just neglect to attract new members - they seem to work hard to exclude them from their fiefdom.

[Conserv-a-tory]

The fact that there is little or no active opposition to us in Fenland is, I suggest significant. All bar one of the councillors on Fenland District Council are Conservative - the other an Independent. I also believe all the County Councillors from Fenland are Conservative and that all of Wisbech Town Council and March Town Council are Conservative. The are some Lib Dems members of Chatteris Town Council.

Being a marginal doesn't always equate to a vibrant membership - or at least didn't. In the 1987 General Election I helded out in a marginal seat, with people involed than in my own constituency - which was a safe seat.

[Henry Edward-Bancroft]

Could there be anothe, wider issue of younger (i.e sub 50) members of the public not largely joining membership organisations as a whole and all poltitical parties are suffering.

Mmebers are not the only people who will dleiver literature - which ought to be apinciple aim. One succesful Olnodn Cllr. told me recently that of the 60 deliverers in his ward only 20 were party members- he simply made sure that whenever a voter said they were a supporter he asked them to dleiver thier street 3 times a year, as a favour to him.

Perhaps we shouldn't be looking at membership as a ssign of strength/weakness but "deliverers" a much more telling indicator!

[Matt Wright]

Its been said before many times that people nowadays are less keen to "join" formal organisations.

[OrgSec]

As Organising Secretary for the Association I feel obliged to respond to the comments posted on this website.

Despite the fact that N E Cambs is seen as a 'safe seat' we have NEVER been complacent, nor will we ever be. Each election has been fought and won through sheer hard work. Opposition apathy is their problem, not ours. With regard to membership, I believe we are in a strong position compared to many associations. In a low income area, we are fortunate to have hundreds of supporters who give time, effort (and food etc for social events!) free of charge and that is just as valuable as a membership subscription. In addition, we are fortunate to have over two thousand associate members through our subscribing Clubs. The Open Primary gave each and every one of these people the option, which was advertised, to have their vote. Democracy gave them the option to attend or forfeit their vote. We look forward to supporting Malcolm to the end of his term and to growing with Steve, who will be an asset to the Association and to the Conservative Party.

[GT]

Membership recruitment is about how you ask people. In Windsor we have moved membership from c 600 to over 900 in the last two years. A lot of the gain has been simply by asking supporters to join. We have done this again and again until they do. When we ask people to join, we also offer that they do not have to do a lot, merely show their support with their membership. Once joined, passive members may get more involved.

Increased recruitment mailings and deliveries were one of the elements of the run up to our successful council election campaign last year.

It is not true that people do not join things. The National Trust and RSPB have memberships of over a million each. Both are joined by supporters who are not activists, but show support and use some of their services. The Party nationally can learn from the approach of other mass membership organisations.

It is however definitely easier to get new members when the polls are in our favour.

I hope Cambridgeshire gets to work on it recruitment now. A fresh candidate provides the enthusiasm to get a campaign going. However, recruitment should never stop.

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

The challenge is how to get "safe" Conservative voters to actually join the Party. There are obviously enough people who vote Conservative in our safe seats.

It seems like the Tory Party have a solid core of about 30%. These are the people that didn't leave the Party during the late 90s, regardless of how incompetent and sleazy the Tories were portrayed by the media.

The question is how we can get more of these voters (who will vote Conservative no matter what) to actually join the Tory Party.

[Eastern Tory]

What a load of self-serving tosh from "OrgSec"! Malcolm Moss polled nearly 25,000 votes at the last election yet we are told that 99.5% are too poor ("low income area" LOL) to cough up £20 to £30 to join the local party. It is time to change the association officers and get recruitment going in NE Cambs!

[Adam]

My feeling when reading those figures is that some associations in safe seats are making the process of choosing a candidate too drawn out and intensive for the candidates. I understand that there is a feeling that we should create elaborate tests for them and several weeks of semi-campaigning locally to ensure that the association choses the right person, but this makes it harder for normal, working people with careers and families to put themselves up. If someone has to go through a number of these selections, it is hard to see how they could maintain a demanding job, let alone balance that with family or other commitments. The result may favour those who are wealthy and can afford not to work full-time, those working for the party or in other flexible political jobs, or those who aren't in the kinds of demanding jobs that presumably we want well-qualified MPs to be drawn from.

[David]

Safe Lab seat in North London. Membership 340. Send out some application forms!

[HF]

OrgSec, you need to convert Associate members into full members. Your full membership is way below what other Associations achieve.

With such a small pool of voting members you are at risk of having too few people to choose officers from and some of your Branches must be in mothballs.

[Comstock]

Just wanted to quickly respond to "These numbers raise all sorts of questions about.....the degree to which selection meetings, including open primaries, are vulnerable to entryism."

Well first up if something is an *open* primary, you can't have entryism, because that is when people join a party for disruptive purposes, but I know what you are getting at.

I now live in a very safe Tory seat-Derbyshire Dales. If dear old Paddy decided to call it a day, something like this would be the only way I could really have a vote in the general election. Would I go to one? I don't know, but I'd like to have the option.

It's a shame this idea hasn't proved as popular as I hoped, because I'd have liked to have seen all parties adopt it, at least in safe seats.

One final point, I do wonder whether job-for-life safe seats are a good thing or not-perhaps the subject of a future debate on here.....

[Conserv-a-tory]

Regarding Eastern Tory's comments, I don't whether the figure of 95% being too poor to cough up £20 or £30 to join up is correct or not but there are people to whom this would apply - both in NE Cambs and other neighbouring seats.

Certainly there are wealthy residents in the Fens but there are those who are on low wages, who have a whole list of things they have to / prefer to, spend £20/£30 on, rather than join us.

Whilst I agree with Eastern Tory that their looks like there might be recruitment work to do in NE Cambs, there is no point in making life harder for ourselves by appearing to LOL at the financial hardships of potential new members.

[Modern Conservative]

I used to live in the constituency and I knew about the Primary through Conservative Home. I was actively seeking out the details because I wanted to encourage my parents to go.

I think it was poorly advertised - although the date was fixed before Christmas there was no publicity that i could find until it appeared in the Fenland Citizen a week before. I get the impression that it wasn't really used as a tool to get people to engage with the party as Open Primaries were intended to do.

The other point I would make is that it was held in Whittlesay which is tucked away in the south eastern corner of constituency, and started at i think 10am in the morning. How many people did the expect to get up to drive all the way across the constituency for a 10am start on a Saturday?

I think this was an opportuity missed.