Dr John Hayward is Political Deputy Chairman of Tonbridge & Malling Conservative Association and is on the Party's list of approved candidates. His 100 policy idea to channel more overseas aid through civil society organisations was recently approved.
"This time last year, David Cameron was elected leader of our Party on a ticket of change. He constantly tells us that we need to modernise. Others add that when it comes to key marginals, we need to be far more professional. As a candidate who is not on the golden priority list, you might expect me to be numbered among those who say we've gone too far. You might be surprised, then, to learn that I believe we need to go "faster, wider and deeper."
The problem, it seems to me, is not that the present reforms with regards to selection of candidates are unnecessary or unwelcome, but that they only come at the issue from one side. Yes, we clearly needed to do something both to increase the proportion of women on the Conservative benches in Parliament and to reverse the unwelcoming impression that has previously made us unattractive to many accomplished women. However, merely weighting the gender balance of available candidates is unduly harsh on candidates if there is not equal effort placed on making selection committees more professional - particularly given that the problem principally lies with the decisions taken by the committees, not with the candidates themselves. Even at last Saturday's Candidates Conference, there was talk of illegal questions still being asked at selection interviews and associations dysfunctional as a result of their own internal divisions and power struggles.
I have recently had the chance to be involved in two selection processes: one, as an approved local candidate for Parliamentary selection; the other, as a parent governor on the new headteacher selection panel of my son's school. The difference between the two are as night and day, the latter being so much more rigorous and professional.
Like members of association selection committees, members of headteacher selection panels are volunteers who give of their time freely. Yet, the importance of making the correct choice for a school's headteacher - and the implications of possibly making an inappropriate choice - mean nothing is left to chance.
Extensive training is provided. Crucially, the first responsibility of the selection panel is to evaluate what qualities other stakeholders believe the new headteacher should have. From this research and drawing upon a national guidance document listing all the possible qualities that they might want to look for in a headteacher, in a meeting lasting some hours the panel draws up a profile of the kind of person they want to see appointed. Every subsequent stage in the appointment process is then made in reference to this profile - from drawing up the job description and advertisement, through shortlisting and interviews, to the final decision. Selection days last for two whole days and include far more than just an interview. When panel members are asked to give their final impressions, these are evaluated against the objective measurements gained from tasks performed by the candidates during the selection days. If there is no correlation between the panel's impressions and the objective tests or if the panel is not unanimous in its decision, then no appointment is made and the process has to begin again. Of course, this results in a frustrating delay but everyone involved knows that the risks associated with appointing someone who does not meet enough of the agreed criteria are too great. No headteacher selection panel would ever find themselves wondering the following - a genuine quote passed to me from one of our selection committees before a recent open primary: "Three weeks ago we all agreed the type of person we wanted. So, how have we rejected the one candidate who met all of our criteria and ended up with three candidates, none of which meet any of our original criteria?"
In addition, when seeking a new headteacher, there is a requirement that everyone involved in the final selection must have been involved in the panel from the beginning - that way everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet (i.e. making reference to the same person profile) and everyone has seen all the relevant information on all the candidates. Yes, the time commitment means that not everyone can be as involved as perhaps they might like to be, but the full governing body delegates its authority to and trusts the panel for this task.
I suggest that if we truly want to modernise and professionalise our approach to candidate selection, we need to learn from and apply some of these principles to how associations run their selections. If voluntary governing bodies can be encouraged to adopt such a professional approach, then surely so can we? Surely it is the least that our candidates deserve - the least that our members deserve - indeed, the least that our constituents deserve?"
