David Cameron promises to investigate why data on turnout and spoilt ballot papers isn't being published

ConservativeHome is just back from David Cameron's monthly press conference.  We asked about the MEP selection process and whether David Cameron would investigate CCHQ's decision not to publish turnout and spoilt ballots data.

Mr Cameron replied that he had read ConservativeHome's account of the process and would talk to Caroline Spelman about the issue of data publication and report back later today.

He defended two aspects of the selection process.  He said that it was right that MEPs became more like MPs and enjoyed a little more benefit from their incumbency than they had in the past and he also said that he wanted more women MEPs and the changes justified the long-term benefit.

Comments

[Deborah]

"right that MEPs became more like MPs and enjoyed a little more benefit from their incumbency"

That is disappointing.
A good incumbent MP/MEP who can point to their work and achievements to date already has an advantage and should have little to fear from an open selection process.
The selection process should not be skewed to give additional help those who have little to show for their years in office.

[RobD]

Thanks for that update - any chance you'll be reporting on the rest of the press conference when presumably David spoke about issues that are actually relevant to the 99.99999% of the population who are not political geeks like us?

[Editor]

This should keep you happy Rob!.

[ACT]

In late-breaking news, M. Joseph Stalin today pledged to 'find out where the Kulaks have gone'. Because of course, Dave knew nothing. Why it's all that power-mad ogre Spelman's fault! Can Dave at this late stage find the strength to challenge her fanatical grip on the Party? Puke, puke, puke.

[Sceptic]

Mr Cameron's inquiry should also cover the campaigning restrictions that were placed on candidates and John Maples' censoring of their leaflets. Maples must be sacked if members are to have any confidence in future candidate selections.

[RobD]

Thanks Tim!

[Richard Weatherill]

Who's he "reporting back to"?

I am not holding my breath.

[Londoner]

Well done, Tim. I found it quite encouraging that David Cameron had read your account of the process (and, by all accounts, did not totally dismiss the concerns). I hope he has also scanned the comments. Is he a regular visitor to ConservativeHome? Let's hope he has the good sense to be one, even if he might not always want to let on how closely he reads it, even to his staff.

Hi, David, hope you are reading this! We look forward to your response. One of the worst aspects was the lack of any hustings. You know how important they were for you getting yourself known by the party when you were standing for the leadership. These candidates have not been given the same chance.

Is it true that Mr Maples did not support you in the lobbies on the Lisbon Treaty referendum? Why not?

[Malcolm Dunn]

Has he reported back as he promised yet?

[Editor]

Not yet Malcolm but I have chased!

[Londoner]

I hope he isn't going to take as long as the Zimbabwean election commission...

But maybe it is taking a little time to agree the exchange of letters on the resignation of Mr Maples?

[Dave B]

"He said that it was right that MEPs became more like MPs and enjoyed a little more benefit from their incumbency "

As Deborah said, that's very disappointing to hear. It seems the talk of Conservatives wanting to give more power to the electorate was just so much hot air. :-(

[Malcolm Dunn]

Thank you Tim. This really doesn't look very good at all. If David Cameron says he will do something he should do so.
I think you're wise to suspend the campaign until after the elections but I do hope you have all the answers you seek long before then.

[David Graves-Moore]

I remain disgusted that the Conservative Party continues to ignore the basic principles of democracy & insists on giving preference to candidates who may not be the best available. Certainly the Party is putting forward candidates who did not satisfy the Party members. The number of women candidates is irrelevant. We should always aim to pick the best person.
Because of this totally undemocratic procedure my wife and I did not exercise our right to vote in the selection process for our candidates for the European Parliament.
The least that the Part should do now that it has gerrymandered the selections is to publish the full figures on the successful and unsuccesful applicants.

[Richard Carey]

David Graves-Moore: The least that the Party should do now that it has gerrymandered the selections is to publish the full figures on the successful and unsuccesful applicants.

While I object to your use of the phrase "gerrymandered" (I'm sure you're going to love seeing that one on oppo literature!!) as the rules were clearly stated on the ballot, CCHQ have already published the figures for each candidate here.

I'm sure you'll agree that now we have a full slate in each region who are already campaigning on the ground, we should be concentrating on getting the maximum number of Conservatives elected in 2009.

[David Graves-Moore]

Yes, Richard. I think you know me well enough to know that I will always work hard for Conservative candidates. However, the fact that the undemocratic rules were explained to the electorate does not make them any more democratic.