Party Board's decision on MEP selection

"The Board of the Conservative Party has reached a decision in principle on the method for selection of candidates for the European Parliament for the 2009 election. Sitting MEPs who have been re-selected following a procedure similar to that laid down in the Party’s constitution for Westminster MPs will be placed in ranking order by party members in a postal ballot. Members will also be asked to place additional candidates in ranking order.

In the wholly exceptional circumstances that there will be no sitting MEPs who are women seeking re-election, and for this selection process only, the top position in each region below any reselected sitting MEPs will be occupied by the woman candidate who gets the most votes in the postal ballot. Detailed arrangements will be developed in the coming weeks."

Deputy Editor

ConservativeHome will be unveiling its campaign response to this decision tomorrow lunchtime.

Comments

[Anon]

So that's it then, men can forget it.

I remain interested in the conservative Party. It just doesn't seem to be interested in me anymore.

I believe that I shall now have trouble voting for it, let alone campaigning for it.

[Andrew Woodman]

Mad Sad and Bad.

[Another Anon]

In the South West we have Giles Chichester who will no doubt get the number 1 spot.

The other sitting MEP's are retiring so at number 2 we will have woman whether we like it or not.

That does at least number 3 spot for a male candidate, surely?

I expect, therefore, that the SW region will be the only one male candidates bother to apply for.

[Anontory]

They can't say they weren't warned. A clause four moment where the leadership has taken the side of the anti-democrats. Since when did modernisation mean discrimination? As far as I can see that is all it means.

Prepare for war.

[Ted]

What is a "procedure similar to that laid down in the Party’s constitution for Westminster MPs"?

In South West resignations and poor showing against UKIP last time at least means that our list for sitting MEPS will be easy;we will have opporunity to rank Giles Chichester as first, first or first.

Then for the next position the choice depends on how many female candidates there are - will there be a double vote for woman preferred against woman or is it just whichever woman gets the highest ranking position leapfrogs to second on list?

Not happy - not as bad as first information indicated but that was presumably a bartering leak; so when some ground was given we would think at least the Party Board had listened.

[Jaz]

It's not "too bad". Quite frankly, whether it be a women or a man representing you they are very likely to tow the party line regardless.

[Lucky old me]

Good news. I knew having a vagina would come in handy for getting on in politics!

[Jaz]

"Good news. I knew having a vagina would come in handy for getting on in politics!"

This is out of order, even as a man, even I think women are under-represented, and are up against huge odds to become selected instead of a man.

[MH]

This is unacceptable.

The basic principle of one person, one vote is the only selection process that is acceptable in a democracy.

This is a gift to the Labour Party - it will split the Conservatives, and set member against member.

I will not vote for, nor will I campaign for the Conservative Party if this selection process is implemented.

Any candidate who gets selected under this mechanism deserves to be shunned.

[Edward]

I wouldn't implement it, but it's hardly the great casus belli some on here are making out!

[Klamm]

No man in London will bother applying now.

[mike clarke]

I shall certainly be voting UKIP in the Euro elections in 2009 now, and before anyone says that UKIP will not get the EU reformed, I'm not interested in reforming the EU; I want out. Better Off Out!

[Jaz]

"I wouldn't implement it, but it's hardly the great casus belli some on here are making out!"

I totally agree, its not ideal. But I'm not worried about it either. Undemocratic...Maybe

However. the concept that a women conservative MEP would do less well at her job at Brussells/Stassburg than a male conservative MEP is absurd.

I'm beginning to think people are more sexist than they care to admit. Do they rebel because it is undemocratic, or because, perhaps they do not want a woman to become MEP?

[Ash Faulkner]

"I'm beginning to think people are more sexist than they care to admit. Do they rebel because it is undemocratic, or because, perhaps they do not want a woman to become MEP?"

Jaz, just mention the name "Margaret Thatcher" and most people here (myself included) will burst into songs of praise. It's nothing to do with gender. Gender shouldn't come into it.

Conservatives and people with common sense (the two are often the same) realise that this is discrimination against men, it's offensive to women because it says they can't get their on their own (and if any party has proven that thesis wrong, it is surely ours?), and it sends out the wrong message by making gender the issue, rather than ability.

[congaconga]

So bad it is laughable. It's almost weird.
For some reason it reminds me of the scene in Life of Brian involving the "Crack Suicide Squad".

[Mark Fulford]

Applying the new rule for women to our 2004 lists and results, this is how our MEPs would have been affected:

In Scotland we’d have Anne Harper instead of John Purvis.
In W Midlands, Jane Doe instead of Malcolm Harbour
In E Midlands, Pauline Latham instead of Chris Heaton-Harris
In Wales, Felicity Elphick instead of Jonathan Evans
In the North East, Amanda Vigar instead of Martin Callanan
In the South East, Thérèse Coffey instead of Richard Ashworth
In the South West, no change
In Eastern, Claire Strong instead of Bashir Khanbhai
In Yorkshire & The Humber, Jane Doe instead of Edward McMillan-Scott
In the North West, Jacqueline Foster instead of Sir Robert Atkins
In London, no change.

So, out of 27 Conservatives MEP’s we’d now have 11 women, not 2. Now I understand why the men are so put-out!

It’s a shame that the Conservative Party needs to be dragged forward this way, but it’s not acceptable that a modern, representative party should be represented by 12 men to every woman.

[MH]

O give us a break!

I could not give a damn if a women is selected, provided she wins her selection on merit.

Plenty of women deserve to be MP's and MEP's, and those with real drive will make it - this type of gerrymandering demeans those women and their efforts.

This is not about whether a women conservative MEP could do a job better or worse than a man. Neither is it about sexism.

It is about fair play. Fair play for men, and fair play for women. It is as simple as that.

It is not for the Party Board to gerrymander the election process, nor is for them to engage in social engineering.

Labour should have learnt its lesson at Blaenau Gwent - it appears that David Cameron still has to learn his.

The A-List was rejected because it was undemocratic and a bad idea. This bad idea also needs to be firmly rejected.

[Andrew Woodman]

Jaz, you can't accuse people of being sexist because they believe in choice and party democracy. As has been mentioned, Theresa Villiers topped the voting in London when she was an MEP. I'm more interested in how competent and representative of the members views a candidate is rather than their gender. This decision is an utter disgrace and effectively gives an MEP a job for life no matter how out of tune they are with the membership.

How long before we're filling the positions with former Labour members and Lib Dem donors??

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

If you are going to launch a "campaign" tomorrow, how about one for getting Conservative activists out on the streets a week before important polls up-and-down the country?

Just a thought...

[Al Gunn]

What is there to stop the party board decided to try this again next time, apart from their saying that this is a one off move?

[Andrew Woodman]

I would have thought that would be more up to local associations and local campaign teams, rather than in Tim and Sams hands Iain.

[Sebastian D]

Hmmmm.... Therese Coffey instead of Richard Ashworth?? - sounds good to me!!!!

[Anon]

Pauline Latham instead of Chris Heaton-Harris. Sounds very bad to me.

[TFA Tory]

With the exception of Richard Ashworth, all the male MEPs that Fulford mentions would have been reselected for 2004. They were all elected in 1999.

He also shows his ignorance (or should that be sexism). Carolynn Abbot was number 6 in Yorkshire & The Humber.

Fulford is a ignorant and sexist bigot!

[RobD]

Instead of focusing on the headline female issue I wonder if anyone has any idea of what for the reselection "procedure similar to that laid down in the Party’s constitution for Westminster MPs" might be like?

How easy will be be to get the exectutive(s?) to deselect a candidate and if they do will members get to vote on that decision as they do for MPs?

[Matt Davis]

Hmmm......... as ever with this sort of thing the devil is in the details and, since the details are not as yet really clear, it is perhaps too soon to take a hard and fast line on this. At first glance this proposal is at least not as bad as the original NEF nest feathering stitch up.

However even without the full details it is apparent that meritocracy and democracy (normally Conservative traits) have fallen victim to social engineering and discrimination (normally Socialist traits)which is seemingly what is actually meant by modernising as that word is regularly misused by CCHQ.

[Michael Rutherford]

No point in doing the "poor men, we're being discriminated against" argument. The current system is seriously weighted in favour of men and the present proportion of women is quite disgraceful.

This isn't "positive discrimination", it's a system to reduce the current discrimination.

The meritocracy argument is simply bizarre. People are making the incorrect assumption that the system is fine but comes out with these results. As such, it's meritocratic for almost only men to be selected. Rubbish, if the system is flawed, it will skew the results away from meritocracy.

Let's not get in a flap, I know we all love to be anti-PC, but just like the old system of 'rabble-rousing' speeches for MP selection, changes are a must.

Perhaps the party ought to be a bit tougher with incumbant MPs. This could lead to it being near impossible for bright and creative males becoming MEPs if it's not done properly. If the only winners in the next EP elections are incumbants and women, that is a bit dodgy. But the system changes appear fairer.

[Richard]

"It’s a shame that the Conservative Party needs to be dragged forward this way, but it’s not acceptable that a modern, representative party should be represented by 12 men to every woman."

Remember what happened in Wales when Labour tried to pull something like this? The electorate stuck their fingers up at the whole discriminatory farce. The party that had the only female Prime Minister hardly needs lessons in female equality.

[Richard]

"The meritocracy argument is simply bizarre. People are making the incorrect assumption that the system is fine but comes out with these results."

The old system may well have been flawed but this solution is worse than the original problem. Better some meritocracy than no meritocracy. At least the old system was democratic and didn't attempt to socially engineer an outcome. I thought we believed in freedom of choice?

[Daniel VA]

"Fulford is a ignorant and sexist bigot!"

If memory serves correctly, he's actually a committed feminist.

[Scotty]

"No point in doing the "poor men, we're being discriminated against" argument. The current system is seriously weighted in favour of men and the present proportion of women is quite disgraceful.

This isn't "positive discrimination", it's a system to reduce the current discrimination."
Totally agree with your comments Michael Rutherford.

And as for the comment by Lucky old me, it was ignorant and offensive!

[Mark Fulford]

TFA Tory, taking the 2004 candidates' lists, promoting a woman from each list to the top, and then applying the 2004 results, the 2004 election would have delivered the results I gave. In what respect do you think I am substantially wrong?

Please would you also justify your defamation of my character, i.e. that I am an "ignorant and sexist bigot"?

[HF]

The answer would be for the party to have an approved list of candidates male and female and then let the members in each region rank them.

That is called localism.... and responsibility which is what DC said we should have more of in a speech today.

So why are these principles not being applied here.

This is an unnecessary fight that is starting right at the time when the activists should be focused on winning on May 3rd.

[Christina]

Mark Fulford:

"It’s a shame that the Conservative Party needs to be dragged forward this way, but it’s not acceptable that a modern, representative party should be represented by 12 men to every woman."

If applicants are 50/50 then I agree, but does anyone know what the ratio of men/women applicants is?

If it's 12 men to every woman, then the actual candidate figure is indeed fair.

[Andrew Woodman]

"No point in doing the "poor men, we're being discriminated against" argument. The current system is seriously weighted in favour of men and the present proportion of women is quite disgraceful.

This isn't "positive discrimination", it's a system to reduce the current discrimination."

I'm sorry but if the statement 'the top position in each region below any reselected sitting MEPs will be occupied by the woman candidate' isn't positive discrimination then what is?. And how is the current system 'seriously weighted in favour of men'. Have women been barred from applying or something? How did Theresa Villiers achieve a top spot on the list?

All these proposals show is this party only believes in democracy as long as it brings in the results the leadership wants.

[Mark Fulford]

Christina, I don’t know the ratio. However, you have men on this list complaining that men need not apply to the new system, even though there'll still be at least two men selected to every woman. I think it's fair to assume that the previous system (that produced one woman to twelve men) has been deterring women...

[Matt Davis]

This isn't "positive discrimination", it's a system to reduce the current discrimination."

Like hell it is! Micahel Rutherford self deception is usually better left to the left you know, they are so much more practised at it.

[Richard Weatherill]

What a dog's breakfast. It will be interesting to see what guidelines the selection committees are given to ensure that at least one female candidate makes it through to the final ranking stage. This didn't happen in the West Midlands (and, I suspect, in some other regions) last time around.

The main problem last time was that such a small proportion of females applied to be candidates in the first place. (Around 1:16 in the West Mids, if memory serves.) I suppose this exercise in gender-bending might encourage more women to apply. Of course, it will (by definition) mean that we won't necessarily get the most popular candidate by order of ranking but, given the wretched list system, the relative merits of the candidates is perhaps less important - assuming they're all basically competent (and, of course, prepared to wave a fond farewell to the EPP)!

I think I'm doing a fair job in trying to convince myself that I don't loathe this half-baked scheme!

[Christina]

"Christina, I don’t know the ratio. However, you have men on this list complaining that men need not apply to the new system, even though there'll still be at least two men selected to every woman. I think it's fair to assume that the previous system (that produced one woman to twelve men) has been deterring women..."

Mark I can understand where you're coming from and if you were right with your assumption that the previous system has been deterring women, I would agree with you.

I question the assumption though. No one should assume that less women apply (if that is the case) because there is a deterral factor in the process.

The ratio needs to be known.
Enquiries need to be made as to why less women apply (if that is the case)

Applying positive discrimination without the above knowledge would be ignorant in the true sense of the word.

In my experience of life, I have found many more men interested in politics than women. If that is a general truth (found from proper research) then 50/50 is sexual discrimination against men.

No one dares do the research though, because of politically correct views that men and women are the same in their job preferences.

[Bruce Mackie]

This is no doubt another idea dreamt up by those in CCHQ which is destined to have men running for the exit door. Will they never learn that the only criteria should be Merit.That, and nothing else. This is coming from a Party which had the 1st woman Leader and PM. She got it on merit and we should not be seen to be patronising women candidates who have to be the subject of a quota.It is saying that women don't have to get selected on their own ability and that is a nonsense.

[Bruce Mackie]

This is no doubt another idea dreamt up by those in CCHQ which is destined to have men running for the exit door. Will they never learn that the only criteria should be Merit.That, and nothing else. This is coming from a Party which had the 1st woman Leader and PM. She got it on merit and we should not be seen to be patronising women candidates who have to be the subject of a quota.It is saying that women don't have to get selected on their own ability and that is a nonsense.

[Dave Wilson]

I wonder what proportion of applicants to be Tory MEPs last time were women?

[Adam]

At least the sirens are going to get the fight they've been itching for.

[Richard ROBINSON]

The irony is that these rules actually discriminate against women by ensuring that all the top places in the regional lists go to sitting male MEPs.

[Yeah, yeah, yeah]

"Sitting MEPs who have been re-selected following a procedure similar to that laid down in the Party’s constitution for Westminster MPs" - gosh, that's an especially piece of honest Cameroonery, isn't it? As there's *such* a valid point of comparison between selections for single member, first past the post constituencies, and, er, multi-member list seats elected by PR . . . oh, wait.

[Richard Weatherill]

That, Mr Robinson, is an extremely good point.

[Mike]

Mark Fulford: Where you are wrong is putting a woman at the top of every list.

Unless the regional committees rejected any of the incumbents, the highest placest woman on each list (with the exceptions of the three women going for reselection) would have been the place below the lowest placed incumbent.

Therefore the top three in the West Midlands would still have been Philip Bushill-Matthews, Philip Bradbourn and Malcolm Harbour because they were incumbents. There would then have been a female candidate (if one had applied) at number 4 - instead of Andrew Griffiths.

The only region where the MEPs elected would have been different would have been the South East, where James Provan and Roy Perry would have made the top 5 with Therese Coffey at 6 and Richard Ashworth being in 7th place on the list - and therefore not elected.

I'm sure that MEPs will spot the irony that their Chief Whip would not have had any chance of winning his seat if the new system had been in place.

[Rob Largan]

Ok, its not ideal, but its really not that bad, I cannot remotely understand this talk of 'this means war' and 'I'm voting UKIP now'. It seems to me like some people here have been spoiling for something to complain about, or are just UKIP trolls.

This is not the big deal some alarmists are making it out to be. Stop moaning and focus on something more important, like winning the local elections maybe...

[Prentiz]

I guess it's better than promised - but its still rather hard to accept. I could probably accept one of the top 3 slots being women-only if the MEPs were up for re-ranking by the membership at large. As others have pointed out the new system would leave the South West with Giles Chichester, a woman and A.N.Other - not very palatable - particularly as I've never seen Chichester campaigning at all in my county.

As a matter of principle though, one has to ask why sex is the only criteria where CCHQ feels the need to enforce quotas - why not race, sexuality or indeed social background. Equally it is rather obvious that, with 25 people in the Shadow Cabinet, and only 4 of them women, Cameron doesn't practice what he preaches in this respect. He can hardly argue other female Conservative MPs are unsuitable or too inexperienced for the role - because he is rather explicitly ignoring those considerations in MEP selections.

I would have thought that, given that the South-West's record, selecting 33% female MEPs without any guidance at all at the last election, is rather better than the 16% of female cabinet member he's managed to select...

[Mark Fulford]

Unless the regional committees rejected any of the incumbents, the highest placest woman on each list (with the exceptions of the three women going for reselection) would have been the place below the lowest placed incumbent.

Mike, thank you, you are quite right -- in my tiredness I missed a critical "below".

I was happy for a woman to always get the top slot, so I have to admit that I'm slightly disappointed that the changes will only kick in on the back of growth.