ConservativeHome's Seats & Candidates blog

Bernard Jenkin MP responds to your objections to an 'A-List' for parliamentary candidates

Only 35% of the ConservativeHome.com Members' Panel supported the idea of an 'A-List' when it was surveyed at the beginning of December.  When the issue was discussed on the ToryDiary there was a generally negative reaction.  Bernard Jenkin MP, the new Party Deputy Chairman for Candidates, agreed to respond to ten of your biggest concerns...

1. David Cameron has said that he has a mandate for the A-list but it was hardly discussed during the leadership campaign and a rigid 50/50 split was never proposed.  Shouldn’t members have been consulted on this change?

BJ: "Throughout his campaign, David Cameron consistently stated that the Conservative Party would need to change in order to win: “Change to win” was his campaign slogan.  David laid great emphasis on modernising the Conservative Party, and set out his desire to increase the representation of women, people with disabilities, and people from black and minority ethnic communities on numerous occasions. 

For example, in a key interview on Radio Four’s Woman’s Hour, David Cameron said that he was not in favour of all-women shortlists, but would consider everything short of that measure.  He added that the idea of drawing up a so-called “A-list” was “a good idea worth looking at”.  When challenged if that should consist of half men and half women David said, “Fifty-fifty would be good”.  As one of a small number of media-organised, head-to-head broadcasts, the interview and his comments were widely reported in the press."

2. Localism is one of the Conservative Party’s biggest new ideas with our commitment to give parents and patients more choice.  The only area where there is going to be less choice is in the Conservative Party where local associations will choose from a narrower slate of candidates.  Isn’t this wrong?

BJ: "The autonomy of constituency associations to select their preferred candidate remains a fundamental principle but Conservative Associations have also long accepted the principle of restricted choice by means of a centrally-controlled Candidates’ List.  We are not prescribing which candidate they should select.

The new Priority List reflects the political imperative of the Conservative Party to become more representative, but it remains my job to ensure that every Conservative Association is content with the choice of prospective candidates I offer them."

3. David Cameron appears to be emphasising the need for more women candidates and candidates with ethnic backgrounds or with disabilities.  Very little emphasis is being placed on candidates who have spent their life in the voluntary sector or in the public services, for example.  Getting more women and black faces on the Tory benches is only limited progress if they are barristers and financiers like many existing Conservative MPs.  Do you agree?

BJ: "We do have people from the public services and the voluntary sector on the list already but this question makes a good point, which David Cameron has also asked me to address.  I am in discussions with Iain Duncan Smith of the Centre for Social Justice about how we can recruit and mentor potential candidates from the voluntary sector and the public services.

“Broadening our representation” means more than just increasing the representation of women or people from black and minority ethnic communities." 

4. Isn’t it unfair that you are going to bring in people with no previous connection with the Conservative Party and give them a better chance of being a Tory MP than those who have loyally served the Conservative Party – as candidates, councillors or leafletters - for many years?

BJ: "All candidates have to demonstrate their commitment to the Conservative Party as part of the existing Parliamentary Assessment Board selection process.  This will also apply to the selection process for the Priority List but long service to the Conservative Party cannot be the only criterion for selection.  We must also consider their merit, ability and potential. 

In some cases, people may not have been able to serve as a councillor or in other capacities within the Party prior to applying."

5. What alternative career progression within the party may/will be offered to those who are told they cannot be considered for a target seat?

BJ: "All candidates on the approved list will continue to receive central support from Conservative Campaign Headquarters.  Being on the Priority List will be neither a guarantee of success nor the only means of becoming a Conservative Member of Parliament.  Candidates who wish to be promoted to the Priority List will have every incentive to continue serving the Party in whatever capacity, most particularly as Parliamentary candidates in non-target seats."

6. What plans are in place to train external people about what it really means to be a candidate?

BJ: "Under the reforms announced by David Cameron, in addition to drawing up a Priority List, we will implement a programme of headhunting for new women, black and minority ethnic candidates, and mentoring programmes to support them. 

We are currently drawing up a new guide to becoming a Conservative MP which explains some of the rigours of the process of selection and the role and responsibilities of a candidate once he or she has been selected."

7. Isn’t there an insider-outsider problem here?  All the white men on the existing candidates’ list are going to have their chances of being an MP greatly reduced but all the white male MPs on the Tory benches are as safe as houses with no form of regular assessment?

BJ: "The reselection of existing Conservative MPs is a matter for their constituency associations.  The aim of the Priority List is not merely to increase the representation of women, people with disabilities and people from black and minority ethnic communities within the new intake of Conservative MPs after the next general election.  By broadening the pool from which talent is drawn, selection will inevitably become more competitive because, overall, the quality of potential candidates will rise."

8. “How can we argue against quotas for police officers in the Commons if we are ensuring we have x number of gay people and y number of women as candidates at all time?”

BJ: "There are no quotas for the number the number of women or minority ethnic Conservative MPs, which will depend on how many gains we make and which seats we gain.   This is not about quotas, but about the Conservative Party’s collective ability to represent our society effectively.  This reflects our support for the principle of sexual and racial equality legislation in Parliament.   

How can anyone justify the present imbalance that currently exists in the Parliamentary Conservative Party in which 9 out of 10 Conservative MPs are male and white?  Women make up just 9 per cent of the Conservative Parliamentary Party.  In the Labour Party it is 28 per cent.  We have just 2 black and minority ethnic MPs. Unless we broaden our representation in Parliament to reflect better the country we aspire to govern we will continue to be electorally disadvantaged.  White men do not have a 90 per cent monopoly on the qualities required to become a Conservative MP!  We are missing out on a great deal of talent from women and others."

9. Do you support financial bursaries for lower income candidates?
(As proposed on this site by Robert H Halfon).

BJ: "This is an idea under consideration."

10. Would you support the idea of a candidates’ development programme/ academy whereby the youngest and best members of the party received specialist help in developing their skills and knowledge so that they can be excellent candidates at future elections?
(As proposed on this site by Andrew Woodman).

BJ: "David Cameron has set out his objectives for mentoring the brightest and best candidates from all backgrounds and all walks of life. Training those with talent is extremely important but we must make sure that we do not create a restricted political class from which the Party draws candidates in the future. The opportunity must exist for all with talent who share our Conservative values to be candidates, even if they join the Party at a relatively late stage in their life (e.g. for work reasons)."

***

10.32am update: See eighth comment below for Bernard Jenkin's commitment to welcome candidates from outside of London...

Robert H Halfon: Action is needed to help candidates meet the costs of standing for parliament

David Cameron gave a speech yesterday in which he set out radical plans to discriminate in favour of women, people from ethnic minorities and people with disabilities.  35% of the ConservativeHome.com Members' Panel have expressed support for this sort of A-list of preferred candidates.  A larger proportion - 44% - support some sort of financial support for lower income candidates.  This idea did not feature in Mr Cameron's speech.  Robert H Halfon - the readopted candidate for Harlow - argues that a modern, compassionate Conservative Party should offer  financial bursaries for charity workers, social entrepreneurs, teachers and others.

It is a privilege being a Parliamentary Candidate and having the chance to serve a Constituency as an MP. But, whatever the kudos, it is not much fun being financially stretched in the process.

If the Conservative Party is really intent on attracting Candidates from a wide variety of backgrounds (and the reforms announced by David Cameron are a giant leap forward), then it has to consider a bursary scheme for Candidates on lower incomes.

The real barrier to good, diverse Candidates coming forward is not always discrimination. Indeed many members and local Associations are forward looking. The problem is the financial burden.

To be a Parliamentary Candidate outside of your immediate locality costs a small fortune. Setting up home in the constituency, the travel to and from, the many Tory functions, the buying of raffle tickets and such like, can mount up to thousands of pounds. The result being that only the well off or modestly well off can afford to be a Candidate. No wonder women and aspirant individuals are discouraged from putting themselves forward.

To take my own personal example. Fighting two elections in Harlow (and now gearing up for a third) has cost well over £30,000) and depleted any savings I once had. At one stage I got into serious debt (now repaid!). I am not complaining. I chose to be a Candidate in a Marginal Seat.

But why should Candidates have to face these financial burdens? I once asked this question to a Party Treasurer and an MP and the response was that Candidates were lucky to be there and if anything should be giving the party money! This has some truth but also displays no real understanding of the daily struggle that many people have to face - merely to maintain a modest way of life. It is the wrong attitude for a modern compassionate Conservative Party.

What is needed is a special Bursary scheme for Parliamentary Candidates established with a special fund set up by Conservative Campaign HQ. Candidates should be invited to apply for busaries setting out their business plan and expected financial needs. Bursary awards should be given based on a Candidates financial circumstances.Regional funds could be established to reflect different local costs.

A bursary scheme would ensure that those who were discouraged from being a candidate because of the financial burden, would no longer face that obstacle.

More importantly it would make certain that the Conservative Party attracted Candidates from all backgrounnds regardless of income. It would show the public that Tory Candidates have been selected because of aspiration and merit, not because of privilege and patronage. The Conservative Parliamentary Party would benefit too as it would have a range of MPs who would be much more diverse than present. How much better to discuss social reform, if we have a significant range of MPs who have had to really fight hard to be there.

Of course we need the successful small businesmen, lawyers and City financiers.But just imagine if this expertise was complemented by charity workers, social entrepreneurs, teachers and nurses.

David Cameron has said that Social Justice is one of the key Conserative challenges. What better symbol of this could be to implement a bursary scheme to encourage Parliamentary Candidates of lower incomes to apply?

If we are to develop policies on social justice for the country, we must ensure that the Party reflects the same values.

Christina Dykes and Jo Silvester: To promote or not to promote - that is the question

Jo Silvester PhD is a Professor of Organisational Psychology and Christina Dykes MA (pictured) is Political Advisor to Dominic Grieve MP and was Head of Candidates at Conservative Central Office.

The new Leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron is absolutely right to focus on promoting women candidates. Not only is it fair, it makes complete sense for the Party’s future success. Why would any organisation, political or otherwise, rule out 50% of its potential talent pool? Women bring votes: they also bring competence and new ideas. Interestingly, it was only once Nike  promoted the first woman to its Board of Directors that training shoes for women were taken seriously as a business proposition. What new thinking might women bring to the Conservative Party?

In reality, the Conservative Party is well placed to meet the challenge of promoting women. It is the only political party to have implemented a professional, rigorous and objective assessment process for prospective Parliamentary candidates. It therefore leads the field in terms of recognising and developing the potential of political candidates – male and female. The Conservative Party also has provided the first scientific evidence that women and men are equivalent in terms of political competence (Silvester & Dykes, in press). We also know that there was no difference in performance between male and female candidates in the 2005 general election. This puts pay to the myth that women lack the skills or resilience required for political life. However, it does refocus attention on the question of: ‘why - if women are as competent as men - aren’t they making it to the green benches?’

The challenge that David Cameron now faces is how to ensure more women are chosen to fight winnable seats. We know the objective: we must now consider the mechanisms by which this can be achieved.

Methods range along a spectrum of positive discrimination and centralised control. At one end of this are all women shortlists. Although these were used with great success by the Labour Party in the 1997 general election, they can be unpopular among associations (who feel, perhaps correctly, that their right to choose has been removed), among male candidates (who see a reduction in their own field of opportunities), and among women candidates (who feel that all-women lists might perpetuate the belief that women are less competent and need help to succeed). Thus using all-women shortlists risks short-term unpopularity for long-term gains in representation. Undoubtedly a risk that some consider worth taking.

But what are the alternatives? One, of course, is to leave things as they are – to let nature take its course and allow the electorate to vote for women (or not). There are two problems with this. First, it ignores the fact that women are much less likely to be selected as Parliamentary candidates, and that the electorate therefore has less opportunity to vote for women. Second, leaving things as they are would mean, in one estimation, that it would be another 400 years before women achieve equal representation.

A popular alternative is ‘fast-tracking’: that is creating an ‘A-list’ of candidates (50% of whom would be women), from which some of the safest Conservative seats would be obliged to choose. Fast-tracking is not unusual in other organisational contexts: it is used to identify individuals with the skills and qualities required to make them future organisational leaders. This approach has a number of advantages. In a political environment, it means that the Party takes strategic responsibility for identifying the qualities associated with excellent Conservative candidates and MPs. By sharing these with Associations – selection decisions based on ‘does this person fit our constituency needs’ can be complemented by ones that consider ‘does this person fit with what the Conservative Party needs to succeed in the next election?’ Conservative Headquarters should not make decisions for associations, but it is of utmost importance that Party’s vision is communicated to create a shared understanding of wider issues.

Another advantage to this approach is that it focuses attention on what skills a political candidate needs to be successful. The issue of political competence has been sorely neglected. Indeed, it is generally assumed that ‘anyone can be an MP’. Not only does this undermine the credibility of the role, it makes it very difficult to celebrate excellence. What is missing is recognition of the expertise required to be an effective politician. An A-List can therefore be an excellent means of re-building the credibility of politicians and therefore the willingness of the public to trust them.

We wish David Cameron every success in his efforts to increase the number of Conservative women in Westminster. However, we will end on a note of caution. While the idea of an A-List has much to offer, the way in which it is created requires considerable thought. How will men and women be selected for it, and how can the Party ensure that these decisions are valid, fair and reliable? Will decisions be transparent? Fortunately, analysis of candidate performance in the 2005 General Election provides some of the information needed to guide these decisions: but a degree of reflection would be worthwhile at this point. After all, handpicking a slate of the best candidates will not necessarily ensure higher standards. Selection is only one step towards being elected. The next is to ensure that all candidates are encouraged to develop the skills needed for future political success.

Andrew Woodman: My concerns with an 'A' list

In this article (submitted to ConservativeHome on 25th November) Andrew Woodman discusses the idea of an 'A' list of Tory candidates.  News stories today confirm that David Cameron will detail the nature of that list in a speech tomorrow.  Andrew Woodman is Deputy Chairman of South Derbyshire Conservative Future.

It is generally recognised, that the Conservatives need more female MPs. A paltry 17 out of 198 is not acceptable. Where there is disagreement, is in the way the party achieves higher female representation. There are those who believe all female shortlists are the answer. I myself do not believe in this. A constituency must be able to select from the widest possible base. Local parties may feel a local candidate would be most suitable for a constituency. What if there were no local female candidates? We would surely be doing ourselves a disservice going down the route of being forced to select someone with no links to the constituency just because of their sex.

In the quest for being more representative in one respect, we would become less representative in another and the electorate would surely see through this.

There is a proposal for an A list of 100 candidates for the top 100 target seats, with the party headhunting candidates to go on the list. I have two issues with this

Firstly, local parties may again wish to select a local candidate, as well as having candidates who performed well at the last election. In this situation, the existing candidate would have the advantage of being already known in the constituency.

Secondly, we shouldn't need to headhunt candidates. Potential candidates should headhunt us. If people haven't got the political passion to join the Conservative party and get involved, then would they have the passion to fight for the party at elections and in parliament? Perhaps the way to attract more high profile female candidates is nothing to do with candidate selection, but requires us to adopt female friendly policies.

If we want to headhunt, then why don't we do it in our own ranks. Firstly, we have many highly talented individuals who fought un-winnable northern seats at the last election. In my own area of the East Midlands for instance, we have ConservativeHome.com contributor Jonathan Sheppard who fought a highly professional campaign with limited resources and even less foot-soldiers, yet still managed 12,000 plus votes; Priti Patel, an extremely talented candidate who fought an inner city Nottingham seat in May, Nicola Le Page who achieved a fantastic result in North West Leicestershire against a popular local candidate and Andrew Griffith who, as a local candidate, is ebbing away at the Labour majority in Corby and so nearly won last time. Would we want to replace any of these great candidates with some form of centrally imposed candidate?

Secondly, we have the biggest political youth movement in Europe. What are we doing to harness the political talent from within our own ranks? I know of the frustrations encountered by potential candidates who are not part of the London loop.  Associations do not want to spend money (if they have it) on campaigning. They are saving it for that rainy day. Young candidates can be mistrusted. What do these whippersnappers know about campaigning and why aren't they doing it the way we've always done it? The party has many networking events, but these are almost always in London, and not too convenient for those young professionals who may be based elsewhere.

I believe it is time we set up an academy style approach to recruit and test the talent within Conservative Future. We firstly need a dedicated website to act as an accessible registration point. No more of the discretion of a local party approach to recruit candidates out of London. Secondly, when we have a list of interested potential candidates, they must be tested and trained with a roving academy. One idea might be a series of weekend courses taking place in the South, Midlands and North. Here, potential candidates can be tested and trained by present and ex members of parliament, as well as specialist media and communications coaches. Indeed there must be many of our current PPCs who actually work in Communications who may be able to help in this area. By taking it around the country, we will widen our base of potential candidates and in making it a more lengthy procedure, we can rigorously test them, so only those who are truly competent, and will be an asset to our party will get to graduate.

I strongly believe we do not have to headhunt outside our party to solve our balance of MPs problem. We already have quality candidates for our top 100 target seats. By taking an academy approach to recruiting the next generation of candidates, we can ensure that we have passionate conservatives from the widest possible base in place to fight the elections
of the future.

What is this site all about?

Today's Telegraph reports that Francis Maude is considering drawing up an 'A-list' of Tory candidates for the party's most winnable seats.  The 'A-list' - an idea originally proposed in 2001 by Andrew Lansley and Theresa May (both in David Cameron's new shadow cabinet) - will be half men and half women.

ConservativeHome.com is concerned that this idea could represent a significant transfer of power from members to CCHQ.  ConservativeHome helped to lead the campaign against Michael Howard's unsuccessful attempt to disenfranchise party members in the recent leadership election and we will fight to ensure that members do not lose freedoms to choose excellent local candidates, for example, with the imposition of any 'A' or 'Gold' list of Tory candidates.

This GoldList blog was due to be launched next Monday but I've brought it forward because of today's Francis Maude statement.

It will have two main features:

GUEST OPINIONS

Guest articles by anyone with an opinion on candidate selection issues and on campaigning.  The first article is by the new Shadow Leader of the House and former Tory Party Chairman, Theresa May.

This guest slot will explore issues of local candidates, the encouragement of a greater number of women on to the Tories' candidates list and how we can best win the party's top target seats.

NOMINATIONS FOR A MEMBERS' GOLDLIST

The second regular feature will be a search for the best members for any GoldList.  If, as now seems very likely, there is to be a GoldList, should CCHQ decide its membership or should we help suggest some ideal members?  I launch a search for the best goldlist candidates with the suggestion of Zac Goldsmith.  He seems a very pertinent person to be nominated today.  He has just become a member of the party's general candidates' list and David Cameron is today announcing that Mr Goldsmith will be a member of the Party's new Policy Group on quality of life and environmental issues.

Mr Goldsmith is obviously a very high profile first nomination.  This blog will be hoping to nominate much less well known people in the near future - including hard-working local candidates who have been committed to their own communities over many years.

YOUR VIEWS

On Sunday or Monday we will be revealing what YOU think of what the party is proposing on candidates.  The ConservativeHome Members' Panel (which accurately predicted the leadership election result) is currently asking whether members support:

1. A ‘Gold List’ of candidates for the party’s top target seats - that would include more women, more people from minorities and more people from non-traditional Tory backgrounds;
2. Financial help for people on low or average incomes to become Tory candidates;
3. More local candidates for fighting the most marginal seats.

You can join the Panel by clicking HERE.

Theresa May MP: We need women to win

Theresa May - a champion for party members during the recent fight to retain members' voting rights in leadership election - submitted this article to ConservativeHome five days ago.  She became Shadow Leader of the House in David Cameron's first shadow cabinet - announced yesterday.

If anyone thinks that the Conservative Party doesn’t need to do something to increase its number of women MPs, then I suggest they take a long hard look at the facts.  Our Parliamentary Party is 91% male, and 90% white male.  At the last election, despite gaining 33 seats, we increased the women on our benches by only 1%, and for the first time we lag behind Labour and the Lib Dems for female representation.

In an increasingly diverse Britain, with women playing an ever greater role in the workplace, it is hard to deny that our party doesn’t look or sound like modern Britain.  Is it any wonder therefore, that modern Britain doesn’t believe we understand their values or the way they live their lives, and so don’t trust us with their vote?

The real concern is that it clearly dictates the results at the ballot box. In every election that the Conservative Party has won since the war, we have also won the women’s vote.  At the 1992 General Election, the Conservative Party held a 10% lead over Labour among women voters, but in 1997, Labour led the Conservatives among women by 12%.

According to both Mori and NOP, in 2005, not only did the Conservative share of the vote amongst women actually fall by 1%, our vote went down among women in almost every category. If only women had voted, Labour’s majority would be nearly 90.

Particularly worrying is our very low appeal to young women. Among women aged 18-34, Labour is now ahead by 20 points and the Lib Dems by around five points.  What is clear is that if we are to win power, we must win back the women’s vote, and that choosing more women MPs will help us to do that.

Two weeks ago, a number of MPs and supporters launched a new organisation called Women2Win, a campaigning group with one aim – to elect more Conservative women MPs.  As part of that we are campaigning for changes to the way the Party selects candidates, but that is only part of it.  We also want to give women more support and training.

Not all of those involved believe that the answer is all women shortlists.  Not all believe that an ‘A’ list or a gold list is the best solution.  But what we all agree is that waiting and hoping for more women to be elected is never going to deliver the results we need. The time has come for us to take positive and radical action.

Perhaps most importantly, this view is now shared just as much by men in our party as it is by women.  You will remember that just a few weeks ago, 6 male MPs were brave enough to put their heads above the parapet and say that it was time we took positive and radical action to guarantee more women candidates. Since then, a number of others have joined us.  This is no longer an all girls club, the men have gate crashed the party.  Our Women2Win declaration, calling for positive action up to but not including compulsory all women shortlists has gained the support of 12 members of the Shadow cabinet, and an increasing number of MPs and Peers.

Women 2 Win is the signal that the Conservative party is determined to win back the women’s vote and to win back power. Over the coming months and years, we will work to ensure that more women re selected.  We will raise the profile of Conservative women in the Party and in the media. We want to raise the money to provide training and support.

As many of you will already know, I firmly believe the Conservative Party needs an A-List – a list of say the top 100 candidates it has identified as best able to fight and win the top 100 most winnable seats and that 50 of them should be men and 50 should be women. And there should be a clear commitment to diversity among the list including of ethnicity.

I know that, some people don’t like these kinds of gender-specific targets. Either they believe it patronises women who would reach the top without a helping hand, or they think it threatens to dilute the quality of candidates we offer by shoehorning in women who are not up to the job.

I think there is nothing patronising about making the professional judgement that we will win more seats, attract more support, take better decisions, and ultimately form a better government if we have a more even split of male and female faces representing and running our party.

To those who say we would risk diluting the quality of our candidates and MPs by introducing a fairness guarantee to our selection procedure, I simply say “What planet are you on?   Do you seriously believe that the Conservative Party cannot find 50 females of the highest quality to stand as candidates at the next election?

In not doing so, not only are we continuing to look detached from modern Britain, we are missing out on a huge pool of talent. As an organisation that is drawn from a small group with similar life experiences, we will continue to make less good decisions than ones with a wide and diverse pool of people.

It’s time for the Conservative Party to stop talking about the difficulties of getting more women in politics, and get on with the job of doing it.  In short, it is time to recognise that the Conservative party really does need women to win!

GoldList candidate: ZAC GOLDSMITH

Later today Mr Goldsmith will join the membership of David Cameron's new environment and quality of life policy group.  The image on the right comes from last Saturday's Guardian.

This profile has been helped by the fact that Mr Goldsmith was profiled in two national newspapers last weekend - last Saturday in The Guardian and then by Jasper Gerard in The Sunday Times.

Stuart Jeffries of The Guardian described him as the best-looking Tory he'd ever interviewed.  Born in 1975 and educated at Eton, he is the heir to Jimmy Goldsmith's £300m fortune and an enthusiastic poker player.  He lives in Devon with his wife and three children.  But what do we know of Mr Goldsmith's political views?

Like his father, James Goldsmith of The Referendum Party, Zac is a Eurosceptic.  He sits on the board of Bill Cash's European Foundation with David Davis.

The Guardian: "He is hostile to big government and transnational corporate interests, and friendly towards local free-market systems favoured by rightwing American outfits such as the Cato Institute. It's a philosophy that led him to fund groups taking on GM crops, industrial agriculture and nuclear power, to tilt at the EU and to eulogise Switzerland, where true democracy, he argues, was shown to work last weekend when an anti-GM referendum was passed."

Opposition to nuclear power is certainly one of his strongest beliefs.  He opposes nuclear energy on health and security grounds.  He suggests that cancer rates around Sellafield are eleven times greater than the national average.  Noting that Greenpeace broke into Sizewell B two years ago, he talks about the "huge security risk" of nuclear energy.

He advocates a levy on airline fuel.

Although an environmentalist he is hostile to the Green Party:

"It's not really a serious party. I don't understand them - all this stuff about revolving leaders, some of whom are very talented and others who aren't... I hate that kind of green politics that suggests people ought to live like monks. There is a problem with the green movement berating people it needs to have on side. If you live in a system of rampant consumerism, it's pointless to be continually blamed when you can't really do otherwise."

In a General Election editorial for The Ecologist magazine he explained his support for the Conservatives.  This is how The Guardian noted that support: "In a leader in the Ecologist before this year's general election, he wrote: "Which of the main parties has an answer to climate change, antibiotic-resistant superbugs, the rural crisis, collapsing fish stocks?" A vote for the Labour party was a vote for the status quo, he said, while the Lib Dems were "an authoritarian party with a big-government, legislative answer to every problem". Which left the Tories, who, Goldsmith contended, had made useful suggestions, such as referendums on local planning issues.

12.35pm, 14th December 2005: VOTING FOR ZAC GOLDSMITH HAS NOW ENDED AND HE BECOMES OUR FIRST NOMINEE FOR THE GOLDLIST... BUT ONLY JUST.  HE RECEIVED 130 POSITIVE VOTES (50%) AND 122 NEGATIVE VOTES (47%).

***

If you would like to nominate someone for the GoldList please email [email protected].