Wednesday is A-list day

Many would-be Tory MPs will be anxiously waiting for their post to arrive over the next couple of days.  ConservativeHome understands that applicants for the party's Priority List should receive their letters from CCHQ on Wednesday.

At least 100 names will be on the list - and as ConservativeHome has already reported, over half will be women and a tenth will be from ethnic minorities.

There will be no formal publication of the list (in line with the current list of approved candidates) and those candidates who are successful in getting on to the list will be asked not to talk to the media (except through CCHQ) to alert CCHQ to any media contact (strikethru and red text amendment made at 6.05pm on sound advice).  A number of target parliamentary seats will start selecting immediately although these will not be publicly identified.

The Priority List will be topped up in July and in December.  The hope of being part of these top-ups will, CCHQ must hope, mollify candidates who are unsuccessful this week.

If you are a candidate and would like to report something to ConservativeHome please email tim@conservativehome.com.  Your email will be treated in strictest confidence and your identity revealed to noone.

'Staff is policy' is one of the truest of dictums and David Cameron's greatest legacy to the party might be the candidates he promotes and local associations then choose.  If Mr Cameron becomes Britain's next Prime Minister (and the Tories are now favourites to win the next election) he will bring 130 and more new Tory MPs into Parliament.  Over five to ten years of leadership he will be responsible for 50% or more of the make-up of the parliamentary party.  Unlike George W Bush who has used his de facto leadership of the American Republicans to encourage the adoption of socially conservative, tax-cutting and hawkish candidates in congressional and gubernatorial races, Mr Cameron is not pursuing an obviously ideological approach to selection.  His objective is the simple one of increasing the number of women and ethnic Tory MPs.

Will this have implications for the ideological and political balance of the party?

Mary Ann Sieghart thinks 'yes'.  Reacting last year to Theresa May's early advocacy of 50/50 lists The Times' columnist noted how the Labour Party’s increased number of women MPs agitated “for the party to pay more attention to the issues that female voters really cared about: public services, childcare, work-life balance”.  There may or may not be ideological implications of more female Tory MPs but there must be a strong likelihood of more interest in the issues identified by Ms Sieghart.

Comments

[Sean Fear]

Don't women care about things like the economy, immigration, or Iraq?

I'd have to say that the performance of New Labour in government is hardly the strongest argument in favour of reverse discrimination in candidate selection.

[Annabel Herriott]

Sean! Of course they do. But we multi task. We also think of things like welfare, womens rights, children, environment....... Its the and theory.

[Michael McGowan]

What a patronising comment (typical of the smug Sieghart) to assume that men are not interested in issues such as public services, children and the environment.

Sean, while it was good to see Labour getting a bloody nose last week, you are right that Cameron's candidate cloning exercise is unlikely to have much positive impact. Last Thursday, the Tories didn't do much better than in 2004 against an obviously exhausted and fractious Labour Government. Moreover, they made minimal inroads in cities north of Watford Gap where, as David Davis understands better than Cameron, people are not interested in the image politics of those who live on the set of Love Actually.

[William Norton]

I find this subject rather boring and haven't been following the detail and perhaps I've missed something. But one point struck me as odd.

If the Priority List contains the candidates whom constituencies are asked to select in priority to others, then how do the constituencies know who the Priority List candidates are if the Priority List isn't published?

[Victoria Street]

This may make you sit up and consider the value of women candidates...
In Wandsworth, out of 20 3-member wards, we won 16 outright. There were no women standing in three wards. Of the 13 wards where women stood, they topped the vote in 10, ahead of their male rivals.
Interestingly, in the two wards where Labour won all three seats, their men beat their women candidates.
In one split ward, the Conservative woman topped the poll ahead of two Labour men.

[Cameron cutie]

The Times' columnist noted how the Labour Party’s increased number of women MPs agitated “for the party to pay more attention to the issues that female voters really cared about: public services, childcare, work-life balance”. There may or may not be ideological implications of more female Tory MPs but there must be a strong likelihood of more interest in the issues identified by Ms Sieghart.

I presume this is why there have been so useless in doing what MPs are supposed to dao and holding the executive to account? God save us from the Tory benches being packed with compliant Cameron cuties just seeking a leg up for favours rather than merit. After all isn't that the lesson they'll learn from how they entered Parliment - it's not what you do but who you know.

[malcolm]

Good point William.Or are in certain constituencies the local associations forced to choose candidates ONLY from the priority list?

[Chad]

over half will be women

Fantastic. But what happens if the number of best candidates who are women then goes on to naturally grow to, say 95%? Will Cameron have to start 'negatively discriminating' against women?

What if a disabled MP dies? Will Cameron have to field an all-disabled candidate list to avoid a backlash from a disabled lobby for reducing the proportion of disabled elected representatives?

SSSgggk. FFlgflg. Hhkhkhkhk. Golobobob. Spit.

Apologies. Positive discrimination leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

How will they be topped up I wonder. Will those not in the initial hundred be told that they were ranked say 120th?

[Simon C]

William & Malcolm,

The way that the system will work is apparently much the same as already happens. When a constituency selects its candidate, all those on the candidates list receive an e-mail from CCHQ inviting them to apply. It's then up to individuals to decide whether to apply or not.

So far as I gather, the same will work now, except that it will only be those on the priority list who receive an invitation to apply to the seats that will be selecting candidates over the next few months.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"So far as I gather, the same will work now, except that it will only be those on the priority list who receive an invitation to apply to the seats that will be selecting candidates over the next few months."

But that's a direct contradiction of assurances given by Bernard Jenkin (the Grand High Poobah of candidate selection) to Conservative Home earlier this year.

[Editor]

This what DC has just said at what will be a series of regular 'Leader of the Opposition' press conferences:

"Over the past few months we have been interviewing those people who want to get on to our Priority List. Conservative-held constituencies and target seats will be expected to select from this list. I’ve said many times that we need to have more women candidates and more candidates from black and minority ethnic communities. Our aim is that the list will be representative of Britain. On the current list, just over half are women, and just over 10% are from black and ethnic minority backgrounds. It is my aspiration to keep it that way. The process of selecting the candidates who will be on the first tranche of the Priority List is now complete. Tomorrow, we will send out letters notifying those who are on it. By the end of July, about 50 constituencies – some safe seats, others marginal – will have selected their candidates for the next General Election. The priority list will be topped up as people are selected for those seats. So it is an ongoing process. But as I have said, we will stop, look and review the situation after the first tranche. If we have not made enough progress, further steps will be taken."

[Chad]

How will they be topped up I wonder. Will those not in the initial hundred be told that they were ranked say 120th?

Be positive Jonathan! Think like a winner. :-)

Perhaps they will give an original position then the positive-action adjustment level. Now that would cause fireworks.

[Anon]

Thats interesting. therefore if associations still choose men - more men can get on the A list - but "further action" will be taken - as the party doesnt want more men to be chosen. If Associations choose more women - the A list will be topped up by women - and exclude any further men from getting on.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

I refer you to the following comments attributed to Bernard Jenkin in December (not quite 'earlier this year', but I was close enough):

"The autonomy of constituency associations to select their preferred candidate remains a fundamental principle..."

"It remains my job to ensure that every Conservative Association is content with the choice of prospective candidates I offer them..."

and perhaps the clincher:

"Moreover, Constituencies will always be encouraged to interview a strong local candidate, whether or not he or she is on the Priority List."

[Jonathan Sheppard]

After the result we got in Bassetlaw Im feeling very much a winner Chad.

Unfortunately I will be in Paris on Wednesday - a late birthday treat - so I will have to wait until my return Thursday.

[Newly ex-party member]

I resigned from the party today. I had previously withdrawn from going forward to a candidates' selection weekend.

The constant message I was receiving from all sides was that my case for being a candidate/on the priority list would not be considered fairly. I suffer from being white, male, and oxbridge educated.

If in the past people of my description had received favourable treatment then surely the people to penalise is those people, not people like me who had received no advantage from any such bias.

On this basis surely the most appropriate route forwards is for Ainsworth, Cameron, Duncan, Grayling, Hague, Hammond, Heald, Letwin, Liddington, Maude, Mitchelln Osborne and Willets (and if simply being white and Oxbridge is a crime, then add in May and Villiers) to resign in apology for unfairly being promoted.

I and friends believe in a level playing field and that is all we ask for. A friend who happens to be female and asian is not going forwards because she wants to be considered on her merits.

[Chad]

Cameron stated:
Our aim is that the list will be representative of Britain.

Cool. So there will be a good proportion of candidates who support EU withdrawal, tax on aviation fuel,grammar schools etc etc.

Oh, I see, only representative in terms of how they look not how they think.

[Lambo]

I've spoken to 4 people who applied for the A list interviews, all of whom regarded the interview as a joke from which it would be impossible to tell whether they were A list potential or not..

Party members and local branches should ignore this unmeritocratic and centrally dictated list and select on their own far more sensible criteria.

[Simon C]

Daniel,

I should have mentioned local candidates - apparently local candidates will be able to apply as well. I am not sure what definition is given to "local". People will presumably know when their own association is selecting, but they might not know about other nearby seats. It's also possible that people might have a strong local profile in the place where they work, not where they live.

Perhaps Bernard Jenkin might give some more detail on this if he agrees to answer another batch of questions. Over to you Editor.

[Newly ex-party member]

My last post lost its end -

"I cannot be a member of a party which does not believe in a level playing field and neither can she".

Sorry.

[Michael McGowan]

Newly ex-party member's post is a timely reminder that this whole pantomime consists of "establishment" insiders (including my MP) shoring up their own vested interests while giving a two-fingered salute to those who cannot fit into a politically-correct straitjacket. Does anyone with an ounce of self-esteem and belief in meritocracy want to be an MP in such a party?

How ironic that this is all happening on the day when Peter Vain has apologised to the electors of Blaenau Gwent for Labour's crude imposition on them last year of an all-women shortlist.

[Newly ex-party member]

Michael,

You've got it in one.

I felt very guilty about resigning. My local Agent went into meltdown when I rang to tell her.

What is worse is that I still believe in what I consider to be broadly Conservative principles. I still support my local MP and Association. I will still be voting Conservative.

However I cannot be a member of a party that appears to hate me because I am similar to those at the top.

[johnC]

So according to Simon C, the only advantage for 'A' list candidates is that they are notified when a constituency is preparing to elect a candidate. Does this mean that the constituency party is unaware that they are on the 'A' list and thus have been approved by CCHQ ? If so, it doesn't sound much of an advantage. Anyone who misses the 'A' list would still have a perfectly good chance of being selected as long as they can find out which Associations are selecting. Is there an easy way for them to find this out ? Is this something CH could help with ?

[Chad]

I suffer from being white, male, and oxbridge educated.
You'd still be in with a shout if you have a limp.

[Newly ex-party member]

No limp, heterosexual, public school educated, work in city, all faculties and limbs.

I'm doomed!

[Andrew M]

I think there is far too much of a fuss going on here. The same practice, positive discrimination also occurs in major companies in the UK across all sectors. It does not seem to have resulted in many of these firms going backwards and falling by the wayside.

Those who are talented enough will still reach the top, all this does is remove middle ranking male candidates who are not quite good enough. It should also not be forgotten that studies have shown that female candidates do better than male candidates in terms of winning votes. So if we wish to get back in power to implement a Tory agenda then we should seek to maximise our chances in whatever way we can and if selecting female candidates gives us a greater opportunity to win over swing voters then I am all for it.

Conservatism is not about rabid ideology but pragmatism and pragmatism dictates that we are in opposition and need to do as much as we can to maximise our prospects of winning because in our system you can do nothing without power.

Finally let us bear in mind that those who miss out are not being denied the opportunity to serve the party. Indeed many might find more power and status through serving as councillors and becoming leader of the council than as a backbench MP. We are only denying people an opportunity to pursue one aspect of an interest in politics not a career as such.

[anon]

If this happened in a company you could sue them for blatant discimination actually Andrew.

[Newly ex-party member]

I have worked in several very large companies and have NEVER seen positive discrimination.

They have all acted "background blind" and promoted the best people regardless. That is how they generated double digit increases in profits year on year.

Positive discrimination doesn't always result in positive results - see Wales!

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"The same practice, positive discrimination also occurs in major companies in the UK across all sectors."

If that is the case, then it isn't overt positive discrimination (unlike the Priority List) as that is strictly illegal, with the exception of political parties.

[Chad]

positive discrimination also occurs in major companies in the UK across all sectors

Well they are breaking the law if that is the case. Do you have any information about these companies to back this up?

In our place, CV's are delivered without any identifying info about name, sex etc before shortlists are creates.

Positive Discrimination will backfire.

Perhaps I am a little bit biased, but obivously my advice would be to resign and stand for Imagine, as I will not tolerate any form of positive discrimination.

Peter Law showed how even a 19,000 majority can be wiped out when a community gets annoyed at certain type of candidate (rather than just the best one) before forced upon them.

[Derek]

See the Campaign for Conservative Democracy website for more on candidate selection, including a report from a candidate who has been dropped in spite of achieving a good result at the last general election. Where is the sense of fairness?

[Simon C]

JohnC,

When people on the candidates/priority candidates list receive the e-mail notification from CCHQ and then decide to apply to a particular seat, they then send their CV (in fact an application form) applying for that seat to CCHHQ. CCHQ then passes the applicants' CVs to the Association in question.

The Association would know which candidates were on the priority list, because it would receive their applications via CCHQ. If it received an application direct from a candidate, that candidate would not be on the priority list.

***

In case there's any doubt, I am a simple member of the candidates' list trying to explain how the system will operate so far as I understand it. I am not an apologist for the priority list. If you want some more detailed comments, it may be that someone from the Candidates's Dept, or Bernard Jenkin, can help.

[Andrew M]

Sorry I was not talking about what happened once people got into a company but merely the interview process. My point was that positive discrimination does take place in determining who is invited to interview to a degree and to a lesser degree who is offered a job.

[anon]

Again Andrew - where? As its illegal.

[Newly ex-party member]

Whenever I have applied for a job the message has always been "the best will get it".

This is not the message that is spread by leading spokesmen on a daily basis.

Today for example Osborne is quoted as saying "I want people of different backgrounds into the party; I want more women in Parliament."

And then from Cameron's briefing above he says "Our aim is that the list will be representative of Britain". My points would be (a) the average IQ of the British population is 100 - do we want MPs with an average IQ of 100? and (b) this is not an appeal to recruit the best - simply a mix - if anything eschewing the best.

[Chad]

Sorry I was not talking about what happened once people got into a company but merely the interview process

No, I was addressing exactly that. Potential employees are shortlisted without knowledge of their race, sex etc.

I agree, as far as I understand the action you mention is illegal. Which company?

[kingbongo]

I think the party is in a bot of a bind with this whole selection thing. I wish we had more open primaries as part of the selection process. I also think the idea that the priority list will stay 'secret' is fantastic (in the sense of being a fantasy).

Quite what the solution is I'm not sure because the party certianly needs a broader range of lifestyles and backgrounds to be represented in the parliamentary party.

[RobC]

Tim

You've fallen for the usual mis-conception. Cameron is installing a PLAY-list to an A-list. On Wednesday, CCHQ will be sending out a list of songs that candidates should have on their i-pods. The Play-List will contain all of Dave's favourite trendy tunes, plus a few Tory classics. The list will be over 50% female artists and over 10% 'ethnic' music. The music will be updated twice a year (June and December) to ensure it remains up to date and cutting edge.

[johnC]

Simon C,

Thanks for explaining this.

I still think it would be very helpful if CH could post details of constituencies which are preparing to select candidates. There will be many able people out there who miss the priority list, and they should have every chance of competing. CCHQ cannot force any constituency association to select anyone.

[Chad]

Quite what the solution is I'm not sure because the party certianly needs a broader range of lifestyles and backgrounds to be represented in the parliamentary party

No the party needs to simply do what it has promised in Built To Last:
"social justice and equal opportunity are achieved by empowering people and communities – instead of thinking that only the state can guarantee fairness.
"

Give the communities (or at the very least the party members in that constituency) a democratic choice of candidates to pick from.

Sure, let CCHQ add a couple of their a-list favourites into the list of potential candidates, but then let the people themselves choose the right person to fight their seat. This should include sitting MP's too to prevent the hatstand in a blue rosette situation etc.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"On Wednesday, CCHQ will be sending out a list of songs that candidates should have on their i-pods."

Sisters Are Doing It For Themselves by Aretha Franklin and Annie Lennox?

[Serf]

Sisters Are Doing It For Themselves by Aretha Franklin and Annie Lennox?

Well we know that "Its Raining Men" is unlikely to be featured.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Or Abba's Gimme Gimme Gimme A Man On Election Night for that matter...

[Sean Fear]

I'm not aware of any study which demonstrates that women candidates to better on average, Andrew, than men candidates.

In this case, at least 60% of women who have applied for the A List will receive a place, and at least 80% of men who have applied will be denied a place. I would have thought the implications, in terms of candidate quality, would be obvious.

Imagine if we awarded university degrees on such a basis.

[Michael McGowan]

Andrew M's post leaves me bemused. I am not championing the cause of mediocre middle class men (hence my less-than-flattering comments about many Tory MPs). However, I don't regard mediocre middle class women (or anybody else for that matter) as an acceptable substitute. There is nothing positive about positive discrimination. It is discrimination pure and simple. The obvious fair solution is open primaries. It also seems to be effective in generating support. Cameron and Maude don't really want these because, like Blair, they want greater control from the centre.

I also fail to understand Andrew M's reference to "rabid ideology". There is nothing rabidly ideological about supporting meritocracy. It is a simple question of justice. As for the Conservative Party's much-vaunted "pragmatism", the fact that it is a content-free zone has a lot to do with why it has provided such feeble opposition for over a decade.

One strange argument which has enjoyed an airing in these columns is that because the Tory Party has discriminated against women in the past, then it must discriminate against men in the future. This really is an argument born of desperation. Applying this logic, the "solution" to 5 years of Nazi occupation of Poland was to replace it with Stalinism.

[can't say my name for fear of retribution]

During my interview i was asked if I had voted for David Cameron in the leadership election. Surley this was inappropriate?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Imagine if we awarded university degrees on such a basis."

Or driving licences! ;-)

[giffin lorimer]

What worries me about this is the presumption that people will vote for a candidate because they have a blue rosette.

I think the rise of the Lib-Dems shows the limits of this approach. They field "local candidates for local people" and accuse their opponents of being ideologically-pure strangers who know nothing of local issues and care less. And it works; look what happened in Blaenau Gwent and Dunfermline.

This policy should be good for target marginals where the candidate could have several years to become known to the electorate, but in some 'safe' seats the incumbent can be more popular than the party and there must be a risk to adopting 'strangers'. On current poll predictions we would have only a small majority and I feel we can't afford to take chances with the seats we already have.

[me too]

......."During my interview i was asked if I had voted for David Cameron in the leadership election. Surley this was inappropriate?"...........

I was asked the same question - I said I had supported DD and was then told that they were surprised I was applying for the A list if I didn't support Cameron!! I felt like a purge on non-bel;eivers was being carried out - except in this case it's a purge of beleivers ... in conservatism - you know - low tax, grammer schools, economic growth, jobs not trees, etc