Should selected Tory candidates be subject to compulsory re-adoption in the event of a by-election?

Both Iain Dale (indecent haste to call a by-election) and Guido (Labour using a condolence book for Gwyneth Dunwoody to harvest email addresses) have both been examining Gordon Brown's effort to keep hold of the seat of Crewe and Nantwich when the by-election is fought on 22nd May.

Also on the case is UK Polling Report's Anthony Wells.  Anthony writes that the Tories should be able to win the seat if current opinion polls are accurate.

Within his UKPR piece he notes that the LibDem candidate has had to resign.  This, apparently, is their normal practice for by-elections.  The theory is that a person deemed right to fight a seat the party is unlikely to win in a General Election might be a different person from who the party would want to represent it when the seat is being fought as a by-election with all of the associated national publicity.

What do you think of the Conservatives adopting the same rule?

By all accounts our already selected candidate - Edward Timpson - is performing well (including, as the photo suggests, campaigning on the hot issue of post office closures).  He lives in the area, although just outside of the constituency, and has been campaigning effectively since being selected.  But is there a case in future (not for this contest) for local party members to be invited to reconsider their decision in the event of a by-election.  We emphasise the need for "local party members" to keep the final say.  What do readers think?

Comments

[In the know]

I thought that his name is Edward Timpson - as in the shoe repair firm - not Simpson. Sloppy!

This by-election will be a test of the popularity of Cameronism. If the Tories cannot win it, they will struggle to pick up key marginals in a general election.

[John Craig]

If the candidate is good enough to be selected then they should fight the by-election. The added advantage is the period of very high profile they will receive, which will help, even if the by-election is not won.

What concerns me more is how associations can change their poorly performing candidates in advance of the next general election and get a candidate in who will fight the seat seriously.

[Editor]

Corrected intheknow. Sorry.

[Northernhousewife]

Yes. It should there should be some mechanism. At least as an option. But to be used only in exceptional circumstances.

It says sometning about your party that its candidate will not stand up to scrutiny.
If the LibDems bring someone 'bigger' in and Labour get someone like Mrs Dunwoody's daughter, we will be the only party fielding a geuinely normal straight forward, not-trying-to-rig-the-deck candidate.
It will say something if we win, despite the politicing efforts of others.

[Adam-]

No. The local constituency association should pick the right candidate for their constituency regardless. A "by-selection" would be difficult to organize in the time availiable, would be a magnet for carpetbaggers, and could be exploited by a less benovelent CCHQ to shoe-in cronies.

[Richard Weatherill]

I don't think this is a good idea at all, although I suppose it might provide a constituency with the chance to ditch a PPC who has turned out to be useless!

It would be unfair on the great majority of PPCs who put a great deal of time, effort and money into cultivating a constituency over the long-haul. It would be very demotivating to be constantly checking on the health of the incumbent MP in case he/she 'popped their clogs', when you find that you are unceremoniously dumped as the candidate at short notice.

People might say that a good quality, hard working PPC would be at no risk of deselection. However, I can easily imagine a local association, in the glare of media coverage and under pressure from CCHQ, deciding to replace their existing candidate (however competent) with some high-profile 'celebrity' figure or defector from another party.

[John Leonard]

I agree with John Craig. I think the bye-election question is a red herring.

As he says, the question should be how a poorly performing candidate can be replaced?

[SDW]

Isn't his name Timpson? I think he is a member of the shoe-shop family!

I think its a perfectly reasonable idea for the Local party to have a separate vote on their candidate in a seat where a bylection occurs.

Often byelections are very different to General elections in terms of effort required, length of campaign, media pressure etc, and more winnable sometimes for whichever party.

It seems like a reasonable proposition and other parties like the Lib Dems do this automatically when a bylection occurs.

[Robert McIlveen]

The Lib Dems do that because they have a history of spectacular by-election wins in seats which would otherwise be pretty hopeless. On the contrary, we as a party have a terrible record at winning by-elections, so it's not really comparable. I think a candidate in place in a winnable seat should be left in place to take advantage of their campaigning to date.

[Tony Makara]

A local candidate builds up a knowledge of the constituency's problems and needs going back years. Such knowledge is invaluable not only when it comes to fighting other candidates on local issues but also when it comes to representing the constituency once elected. All those advantages are lost when a big-name is parachuted in to fight a seat. If there is no local candidate up to standard then of course it pays to bring in someone with political nous, but ideally the candidate should be local or have a good knowledge of the area.

[James]

What a kick in the teeth for a hard working PPC, who may have made considerable sacrifices - may even have moved house/job as many do - to be effectively deselected because of a by-election.

And what a waste of all that time and effort spent campaigning and building up voter recognition by getting the candidate's face and name in the local papers and through people's doors on leaflets. Wasted, if the candidate is dumped for a new face.

If the incumbent PPC isn't a suitable candidate to be a Conservative MP, they should never have been selected in the first place. If they are, then let them get on with the fight.

The Lib Dem approach seems crazy. As soon as a by-election is called they should hit the ground campaigning, not dump the existing candidate and start an inward looking process of reconsidering the candidate.

[sjm]

No, can't see the point of it myself. Taking C&N as an example, the PCC has been in place for some time, presumably getting himself known (I'm at the other end of England, don't know about Cheshire politics) and learning about the constituency. Why jettison all that, and what a gift to the other parties as far as making pointed comments is concerned!

If a PCC is useless, s/he should have been fired anyway.

[Andrew Woodman]

Terrible idea imo. It be a kick in the teeth for a local PPC who's been campaigning for months only to be replaced by a carpetbagger.

[Paul Oakley]

Categorically not. We as a party expect loyalty from our troops and should extend it to them as well. The Tories are quite rightly emphasising the importance of hard-working PPCs. The shallow example of the lib dems suggests that they view a pretty face as being more important than graft on the ground. In fact, we should emphasise that in the forthcoming campaign. . .

[Paul D]

I agree with the majority on here - if a constituency has selected then clearly that's the person they want to fight the sear at the next election, and the PPC should be raising their profile within the seat. It makes no sense to deselect them and have them apply again, rather than putting all the association's efforts into the campaign

[Alex Swanson]

I'm with all those who reject parachuting anyone in. If the existing PPC isn't good enough they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

[Edwardthe2nddoordown]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN

[Mr Angry]

A PPC is a person selected and deemed suitable to fight a particular parliamentary seat at an election. Whether that is a general election or a by election is irrelevent. Either they are good enough to fight for the seat or they aren't, that is the only issue.

Sorry Tim but this is a very very stupid idea that serves no purpose whatsoever.

[Nigel Syson]

A terrible idea. Look at the disaster in Romsey and Tony Litt ( Photo with Tony Blair in middle of campaign) in Ealing . Trust local people to select somebody suitable for the seat - neither London lawyers or celebrity A listers !

[Margaret on the Guillotine]

Now why should it be up to the local unrepresentative membership? So they can deselect a candidate and replace them with a Bob Neill? Good MP - useless candidate for the special circs of a by-election, slaughtered by Lib Dems because of it.

If you had any sense CCHQ would take total control (and not just the CF types from the Southall fiasco). They would already be laying into the Liberals for "getting rid of their hard working campaigner in favour of a Staffordshire outsider", and if Labour select Tamsin Dunwoody then "Gordon Brown's candidate, who was rejected in Pembroke" should be the call.

But you lot just can't do by-elections, do you? So Lab hold Crewe, and I do feel sorry for poor Mr Timpson.

[Paul Oakley]

Nigel - if only it were true that London lawyers were given priority treatment in the same way as "A"-listers.

[Joe Cookson]

Do we know who the LD candidate is going to be? Maybe if he loses the Mayoral contest one Mr Brian Paddick may fancy it...

[Philip J Milton]

Wholly wrong - politics and integrity? Integrity decides to work with the candidate selected. No point in winning the battle if you lose the war. Support the selected candidate and help him win.

[Passing Leftie]

There is something in this, although I agree that it is not a perfect policy. By-elections are very different, unique, creatures of the uk electoral system. By their very nature, they can put a lot of media pressure on candidates who, in somecases from all parties, are fine in unwinnable seats when the media camera is elsewhere, but who would be an embarrasment under the glare of the 24hr news machine.

By checking that the PPC is good enough for the by-election conditions, this mechanism could be very useful. Tony Litt should never happen again!

[bluepatriot]

We should definitely follow the Lib Dems on this occasion. A by-election puts the candidate in the full glare of national publicity and local Tories should have the opportunity to revisit their choice. A candidate who has done well since being selected will have nothing to fear.

[Ian McKellar]

surely the sensible point is for Constituency Associations, when selecting their candidate for the General Election, ask themselves the question, "if there is a by-election in the Constituency, will this be a good candidiate"

Rememeber a by-election is only a heartbeat away, anywhere.

[Simon Chapman]

Absolutley not. The selected candidate will already have an established profile and following. It would cause disunity in the local party and confusion amongst the electorate, and open us to the charge of carpet-bagging. It would be a poisoned chalice for any replacement candidate.

[Skunkman]

Oh dear, what is the Editor on? I'm somewhat insulted by the notion that we should become more like the Lib Dems.

When an Association adopts a PPC it is because they think that person is right for them, full stop. A lot of effort, time and money is ploughed in by both sides. If the match is right then the team spirit developed should be tested come what may, and on whichever timetable rules, be it a normal GE or a surprise by-election.

The inherent flaw in the Editor's intro is the 'local party' aspect. We are all grown ups, know that the world is not a fair place and we know full well that CCHQ are the ones who will step in and force a PPC out - look at the ultimatum given to Mr 'whathisname' Bell in Westmorland & Lonsdale, resign now and possibly live to fight another day or go down all guns blazing and be erased from the Party database. Poor chap was well and truly shafted.

Sorry Tim, but I think you are barking up the wrong tree on this one.

[Nostradamus]

Passing Leftie @ 01:37 - FYI Tony Litt rides again. Word is that he is the shoe-in for Rochester & Strood. He is selling himself as 'local' and I'm told is networking furiously in north Kent. Add to that the discreet support he will be getting from Maples, Spelman and the black arts from that viper Maude...well, if you thought the CCHQ North Kent stitch-up had finished with Chishti and Grant...think again.