Francis Maude launches final plans for the London mayoral selection

"Avid Conservativehome participants will know that we’re planning to open up the selection process for our candidate to run for Mayor of London in 2008. Everyone on the electoral register in London will be able to have a say over who will be the Conservative candidate to challenge Ken Livingstone for the capital’s top job.  And every Londoner who supports the Conservative Party has the chance to be our candidate.

We already have the loyal support of our membership, which is essential for any political party, and was absolutely key to our recent local election success. But now we need to reach out to the wider electorate and get new people involved in politics.

This is the very first time in British politics that such an important post has been chosen like this.  By doing things differently, Conservatives will get people talking about politics again and encourage them to get involved. We need to tackle the disillusionment and mistrust that the public has in politics, and doing something truly innovative like this is the best way of getting people engaged again.

The Mayor’s decisions have a huge impact on the lives of everyone who lives in the city, so it makes sense to give everybody the opportunity to have a say in choosing who they think is best suited to the task.  

The process will be complete by early December, giving our candidate eighteen months to campaign for the job.  And having been chosen by Londoners at large, that candidate will start with a huge advantage.

We’ve thought very carefully about the details of the process.  We’re inviting applications over the rest of the summer, with a panel – not just Conservatives - interviewing to draw up a shortlist by Party Conference time.  The shortlisted candidates will then campaign through London over the next two months, with a number of hustings meetings spread around the metropolis and suburbs.

If you think you have the skills for London's top job, please do consider applying.  You can find the details here."

These are radical plans, with an emphasis on involving the London electorate as a whole. The initial proposals to have an open primary for London's mayoral election were revealed to Watlington at the start of April, it is very welcome that the Conservative blogosphere has been engaged with in this way again.

The Editor of ConservativeHome wrote an open letter to Francis welcoming the initial proposals, but also giving ten reasons for why he believed the process should be extended by six months. The ballot has now been put back to November/December, rather than rushing it through before party conference.

There is likely to be a great deal of interest in the 2008 candidacy, with the Conservatives becoming the biggest party in London after the May 4th local elections. Steve Norris, the Conservative candidate two times in a row, said he would consider re-re-running if he didn't rate the other candidates. Candidates will have to be party members, and have broad support as there will be a cap on individual donations. The extent to which they will have to fund their own election campaign against Red Ken - who wants to hang on until the Olympics - is not clear, one of Watlington's early concerns was that this would restrict candidacy to the wealthy.

Political opposition is often a catalyst for innovation. The Party plans to make much use of the internet in the selection process and voters will be able to cast their votes by phone and by text message.

Open primaries were successfully used at the last General Election in the Warrington South and Reading East constituencies, if the London selection goes well there will be more interest in the concept next time around. We know of at least one seat in the first tranche of 35 that is planning to use an open primary. They can be expensive (the cost of the London one is expected to come close to £500,000) but are very effective at raising the profile of a candidate and giving them popular appeal.

Deputy Editor

Comments

[What everyone is thinking]

I hope no one is actually going to be taken in by this?

What happens once you have applied? [From the CCO website]

Your application will be assessed. We will then write to you to let you know whether you have made it through to the next round – a series of interviews held in London in August and September.

So, you can have any you opinions you like, as long as they're ones Maude and his 'assessors' agree with.

I for one I am sure that this 'assessment' will be at least as honest, open, fair, transparent and non-factional as, say, the interviews for the List.

We have our one chance (end of a long period of Labour rule nationally) to win a London wide-poll (London is historically a Labour city, and will almost certainly revert to being so, as and when we get back to power at Westminster). By hand-picking one of his duds, which Maude will, he is going to balls this up. Wait and see.

[Deputy Editor]

The Campaign Bulletin says: A selection panel, with a broad range of experience and interests, will assess all applications. A broad list will be drawn up for interviews. Candidates will be vetted to ensure their suitability and integrity to hold such an important public post. The panel will decide the final shortlist; we anticipate potentially up to half a dozen people.

Well, we can only wait and see but I have no reason to believe that Francis Maude will have a final say. Even if he did, the panel is not going to select six clones to go before the public. I'm sure the hustings phase, like the party leadership process, will be an exciting time and provide plenty of scrutiny. "Maude" should be commended for this progressive, democratic intiative.

Comment in the wrong section:

"I believe that Boris Johnson should stand. (Even if he doesn't I would like to nominate him for a parallel Conservative Home poll.)

My reasons are that, although he is hugely popular with the public, he has demonstrated on too many occasions his unsuitability for high ranking (shadow) ministerial office e.g. failing to prepare for speeches, too many other money earning commitments, sexual shenanigans etc. However, he is loveable, a showman, a brilliant mind, would run rings round Ken Livingstone and would be an absolute shoo-in for the Tories."

Posted by: A personal view | June 12, 2006 at 10:50

[Worried]

Mr Maude does not trust the party members, to make the right choice. That is a kick in the teeth considering the excellent results in the London local elections.

Where does the party constitution say that non-members can participate in the selection process? In my copy, it does not.

It is proposed that a TEAM of headhunters will be used to find new candidates. This is not a job, it is a vocation that requires a committed and experienced politician.

How much will all this cost? Quite a considerable amount but Maude says that candidates will have to fund their campaign. CCHQ funds the selection but not the candidate's campaign

THIS IS A DISGRACE!!

[comstock]

(nearly chokes on his words.... but....)

I have to (very grudgingly) admit this is an excellent idea.

You have raised the bar here. Is Ken planning to stand again? -If not Labour would be well advised to follow!!

[A personal view]

Ken is definitely standing again. He has already announced that he would like to be mayor at the time of the Olympics in 2012.

[Garry K Hickton]

At least it is a step in the right direction.
It is of course a very high profile position and the candidate chosen has to be without a shadow of a doubt the very best Man/Woman for the job.Maybe some of the safe Labour seats in the North could also be advertised in this way,we have nothing to loose by trying.

[Jimbob]

Brilliant move. An innovative way to raise the profile not just of the candidate but of the party as a whole - it could create a buzz around whoever wins the selection contest that could help carry us on to win.

'What everyone is thinking' - I am not thinking anything like what is in your post. Do you really think there should be no filtering of the applicants at all? You think there should be dozens of people all taking part in the contest? Of course not. It is in no one's interest for Maude to select 'duds' and I'm sure he will not do so.

It's important to question the decisions the leadership make, but when posters such as 'Worried' start overreacting and denounce as a 'disgrace' every step that moves us out of our comfort zone that has kept us below 33% of the vote for 13 years, it only makes us seem disunited and provides an easy target for Labour and the Lib Dems.

[AntiCon]

"Everyone on the electoral register in London will be able to have a say over who will be the Conservative candidate..."

"The Party plans to make much use of the internet in the selection process and voters will be able to cast their votes by phone and by text message."

Great ideas. Now, what number do I set my auto-dialler to vote for Michael Portillo?

[Serf]

Surely whoever wins the contest will be able to raise enough money.

OK so some could do so more quickly, but when you bear in mind the stakes, £1.000.000 is not that much.

Think of it as an investment to get rid of Ken.

[James Maskell]

No, no, no, no, no...this wont do. I have a natural dislike for involving any non-Conservatives in the process and that view has not changed at all. We cannot allow non-Conservatives any opportunity to skew the result. Others say I am wrong because they will have a small role and cannot muster the influence necessary. But they can and the press release says they can. They will be allowed to be on the panel for heavens sake, which gives them a lot of influence.

The Conservative candidate must be a Tory member. It cannot just be a mere supporter...it needs to be someone who is an active member of the party, who has done things for the Party.

The candidate must represent the Tories first and foremost. The electorate decides later whether our candfidate is good enough to be Mayor. Its a waste of time and resources to open the system out so early when they get to choose later anyway. Maude has yet again made a mistake. Sorry Maude, you must do better. By all means open it up to the entire membership of London and let them vote on who it should be, but non-Conservative party members MUST be excluded from it. Its not worth the risk.

[torylady]

I suspect "What everyone is thinking" and "Worried" are actually the same person posting as two.

Anyone who has been reading this blog will know we've been in actively supporting open primaries for ages.

Criticising Maude for doing what the wider London membership has been asking for for ages makes no sense.

[Anon]

"A small group of head-hunters will seek to encourage a broad range of candidates to apply"

Does anyone know who these headhunters are??

[TimC]

This is a bold step, implementing Primaries for the election of the mayor and shows a new outlook once again.

With the introduction of primaries and previous support for an elected second chamber, we are showing our belief in the individual and democracy rather than Tony's nanny state.

[Zhukov]

This is brilliant news, an innovative idea that will give us weeks of publicity and the eventual winner of the primary a very high profile.

The few examples of the Party trying this in the past have been extremely succesful - perhaps we could get a report on this site about them?

[Jamie]

Whats to stop Labour or the Limp Dems organising a campaign for their supporters to distort the vote - ie go for the candidate they want most as she/he is least likely to win in the final vote ?

[South East Blogger]

I have no doubt that this news is the first step to winning London...

Opposition 'moles' on this site trying to undermine this idea should be treated with the contempt they deserve. Labour will be very worried indeed.

Open Primaries are the future and the way to re-connect the public with politics.

[Mike Christie]

My only concern with this is what steps are taking to guard against foul play. Following the local elections there were plenty of examples of irregularities such as over 20 voters being registered at a single address and obvious examples of postal votes being fradulently redirected.

What steps will the party take to ensure that our opponents do not wage a concerted campaign to select the candidate they prefer?

[Bruce]

I beleive strongly in "Open Primaries". But a necessary part of an "open primary" is an open system by which candidates can get on the ballot. A truly open system would allow anybody to be on the ballot who had fulfilled certain minimal qualifications(such as posting a deposit). A truly open system would not have a party committee vetting which candidates are suitable, but rather list all candidates on the ballot and let the voters make the choice.

[comstock]

A truly open system would not have a party committee vetting which candidates are suitable, but rather list all candidates on the ballot and let the voters make the choice

The ballot paper would be God knows how long!

[Old Hack]

Presumably there will be a shortlisting role for members who will have a say before the 'open' primary.

It would also be advantageous to handle this primary over the net.

An interesting approach and one which could have a good outcome.

[comstock]

Presumably there will be a shortlisting role for members who will have a say before the 'open' primary

I would suggest a committee to get it down to a sensible number (9 or 10 say), followed by a ballot of membership to provide a final three or four for the open primary.

It's such a invovative idea for this type of election I'm almost tempted to wish you luck with this....almost!

[ToryLoyal]

Thanks to Francis Maude, Ken Livingston now has the same say in Conservative Mayor candidate selection that I do, after 22 years of Conservative Party membership.

This is totally insane.

What is the point of being a member of the Conservative Party if this is the case.

We can look forward to Norris receiving shedloads of votes from Toryhaters, on the basis that if he was going to beat Ken, he would have done it by now.

Some time ago, Blair laid out his guiding goal in politics, to destroy "the forces of Conservatism".

Why should he bother, when Maude is doing the job for him.

Until Cameron sacks this idiot, we can kiss goodbye to any real electability at a General Election.

[Serf]

Could we not charge non conservatives £5 to be able to vote, thus stopping our opponents from trying to rig the vote.

[comstock]

We can look forward to Norris receiving shedloads of votes from Toryhaters, on the basis that if he was going to beat Ken, he would have done it by now.

Livingstone isn't well liked by many on the Labour side, so I shouldn't worry.

I'm more interested in how you plan to stop multiple SMS voting- this isn't an election for Big Brother, it needs to be fraudproof.

[johnC]

'Everyone on the electoral register in London will be able to have a say over who will be the Conservative candidate to challenge Ken Livingstone for the capital’s top job.'

This is the looniest idea I have ever heard. Both Labour and Lib Dem voters (who together form a majority) will obviously vote for the candidate with the least chance of winning. What a gift to the opposition parties. Have I missed something ?

[ToryLoyal]

"Livingstone isn't well liked by many on the Labour side, so I shouldn't worry".

I didn't say Labour. I said Toryhater. There is a major difference. These are people who do not care who wins so long as we do not.

[James Maskell]

JohnC, youve not missed a thing. Its slightly funny that the non-Conservatives will have more of a role in the candidate selection than they do in the Built to Last! Shouldnt it be the other way round?

[Deputy Editor]

Re: fraud...

We will use the same electoral system as for the London Mayor elections. Anti-fraud and identification measures will be put in place by Electoral Reform Services to identify and authenticate the voter, and to prevent multiple voting.

Re: cost...

There are Prodi-esque(4 million Italians declared they were supporters of the centre-left, paid one euro, and popped the ballot paper into the box - to vote him as their Prime Ministerial candidate) ways of doing it, as Serf alluded to.

I imagine the party will charge something like a pound to text/phone a vote in - easily done and will probably deter a few non-Conservatives on principle.

[ToryLoyal]

"Your application will be assessed. We will then write to you to let you know whether you have made it through to the next round".

Good-bye Nikki Page, in that case.

[Daniel Hannan]

A brilliant initiative. Selecting our candidates through open primaries will give us a headstart in terms of media coverage, ensure a genuinely representative candidate, create a corpus of Londoners with a stake in the success of "their" candidate and - best of all - show that the Conservative Party is serious about devolving powers outwards and downwards. There is a mound of empirical evidence that open primaries lead to higher swings (see my article on this site from last October - there's a link on the left hand margin of this page). Well done, Francis.

[Deputy Editor]

Daniel Hannan MEP Oct 05: A case for a decentralised Conservative Party and open primaries.

[Ted]

Welcome news - it will give, as Daniel pointed out a while ago, a much enhanced image to the Conservative Candidate (forget Winning Here! saying London Chose Me is very effective).

Perhaps in 2012 PM Dave can cycle to the Golden Jubilee or Olympics alongside a Tory Mayor...(so I think that'd rule Steve Norris out - can't see him on a bike)

[Adrian Owens]

This is a good move. Unlike a Parliamentary seat, an election for Mayor revolves around personalities.

This is a gamble, and as a member I am concerned about my rights, but well done to CCHQ for trying something new. It should engage the public and give our eventual candidate a flying start.

[london cyclist]

"so I think that'd rule Steve Norris out - can't see him on a bike"

Actually, you're wrong. Not only is Steve a cyclist but as a minister, he authored the original National Cycling Strategy for England, and was invited by the current Labour government to found and lead the National Cycling Strategy Board. Steve is also a Patron of Sustrans, the cycling charity. He was a Tory who cycled before it was fashionable.

[comstock]

This is the looniest idea I have ever heard. Both Labour and Lib Dem voters (who together form a majority) will obviously vote for the candidate with the least chance of winning. What a gift to the opposition parties. Have I missed something ?

Yes, you have. A lot of Labour voters don't like Ken, and a fair number of Liberal Democrat voters might vote Tory on second preference.
"Livingstone isn't well liked by many on the Labour side, so I shouldn't worry".

I didn't say Labour. I said Toryhater. There is a major difference. These are people who do not care who wins so long as we do not.

I refer the honourable member to the answer I gave some moments ago ;)

I'd certainly normally class myself as a 'toryhater' but I think Ken Livingstone is a smarmy champagne socialist. Luckily I don't live in London, or I'd have a very difficult choice to make. These people might not vote for you (a few might though), but I'd be surprised if they try to scupper this.

[Derek]

I agree that the open primary would give a candidate good publicity, but I share the concerns of others about the influence of non-members. Some payment of at least £5 should be made to keep them out. I understand that the selection panel is to include non-conservatives. That seems wrong to me.

We want to increase our support base and allowing Conservatives to have a say for a small payment is good.

[Mark Fulford]

Labour and Lib-Dem supporters are not monomaniacs who would deliberately skew the results of our Primary. Our opposition are somewhat misguided but, nevertheless, intelligent and caring. They will realise that orchestrated attempts to pick the worst candidate would incense the wider electorate and could well result in an own-goal… their last choice being elected as Mayor. We wouldn’t skew a Labour Primary for the same reasons, and it’s unnecessarily contemptuous towards our opponents to suggest that they would act less intelligently.

[buxtehude]

This is great news. We need to break open the whole process. I don't think for a moment that Francis Maude and the committee will serve up only clones, because it would be so obviously fatal. I think they really do intend to do something new and interesting.

Of course there are many issues about the voting, but charge people at least £1 through texting (or even as someone suggested above £5) and that would sort that out. I don't believe there would be enough anti-Conservative activists to skew the vote to what they consider the 'worst option', and if some do, let them pay for the privilege!

Three cheers, then. I hope the process itself will have lots of voting rounds, not just one, so that we get some real excitement building up.

[Les]

I couldn't believe this idea of looking at non-Conservative candidates - Seems that we may end-up with somebody like that Bishop who doesn't believe in God.

Perhaps Ken Livingstone could be selected as Conservative candidate and double his chances.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Whats to stop Labour or the Limp Dems organising a campaign for their supporters to distort the vote - ie go for the candidate they want most as she/he is least likely to win in the final vote ?"

As Mark alluded to above, it is likely that such a campaign would be met with a negative reaction from the public.

And in this internet age, it is even more likely that any attempt to keep such a campaign secret would soon be exposed by the likes of Paul Staines or Iain Dale.

In any case, I would recommend implementing a small charge to participate in the primary (£5 seems sensible), which would deter mischief-makers as well as serving as a useful fundraising mechanism.

[James Maskell]

You pay 15 quid a year for membership, and yet you arent allowed a right to vote without coughing up more? Paying for votes...nice!

[Kris Fogarty]

I have just heard that the Conservative party is thinking of a new logo to replace the torch. Why not debate what the regulars on Conservative home think should replace it, if indeed they think it should be replaced? How about a Blue Lion Rampant, but perhaps thats a little too traditionalist and a bit off message for the changing tories to adopt?

[Jack Stone]

Personally I am totally against this.Members pay there membership fee each year so they can have a say in the running of the party and who its candidates are. I don`t see why someone who pay`s nothing into the party is going to have the same say on who`s going to be the party`s mayoral candidate then someone who does.
Also what is to stop supporters of other party`s coming together and voting for the candiate who they see as the person there party could most easily beat.
I am afriad this is total nonsense, unfair and I suspect unworkable.

[James Maskell]

The Blue Lion would be nice (in fact it provided inspiration for my email address), but with this "softly softly" bunch of Tories, arent we lying to the public about attributes the lions have? The only lions I see are the activists. It doesnt include the leadership, who are just pansies.

[Mark Fulford]

Six (say) good Tory candidates, but which one has the broadest appeal? A very good way to find out is to ask outside the party as well as inside. This "I pay for my vote" mentality is rather childish.

[James Maskell]

The decision is to choose between the various parties candidates, not choose candidates before the election proper.

As for the paying, I think its out of order. Its not childish to make a point about it. Making party members pay just to choose a candidate is unfair. Activists spend a lot of their own money doing work for the party. Why should they be asked to pay out again because the Party cant be arsed to cough up the money itself...they came up with the idea, not the membership.

[Andrew Woodman]

Jack has an opinion different to that of the leadership!!! Remember the date everyone.

I'm personally in favour of the scheme. Sometimes our members aren't the representative of the public at large, and so choose people we may like, but don't have broad appeal. With this, the old argument that all Tories look the same is diminished as everyone is invited to vote for the candidate. There is also a feeling of community involvment.

Labour and the Lib Dems may try to organise people to vote, but the candidates are being vetted, so you won't be getting a Hartlepool Monkey standing. If it was proved they were trying to distort the vote, how pathetic would it look.

[Chris]

Well, I welcome the idea of an open primary, and I believe that it will bring a tremendous amount of good publicity to the party, and the eventual candidate for Mayor of London.

I think charging £5 would greatly decrease the number of people who would vote in such a primary, with voter apathy as it is I doubt you could persuade many people to cough up £5 to elect someone to be on a ballot paper. A fee of around 50p - £1 would be best, and multiple votes can easily be stopped by logging the phone numbers of people voting.

The most important thing though, is that Conservative memebers should have a vote for free, after all what is the Conservative party without its members?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Personally I am totally against this." - Jack Stone

That's swung it for me!

Seriously though, I wonder how much consultation there was with London Conservative groups about this move - perhaps Sean Fear or the campaigning director for the north east London area and ConservativeHome resident satirist could enlighten us?

Although I broadly support this move, it seems to me like it has been rushed through without proper consultation, which would have allowed ideas like a small participation fee for non-members to be put forward for consideration and possible implementation.

[comstock]

In any case, I would recommend implementing a small charge to participate in the primary (£5 seems sensible)

Five quid is far too much. People would consider that equivilant to setting fire to a five pound note.