Bernard Jenkin, Deputy Tory Chairman for candidates, answers your questions.
Anonymous: "As more men have applied to the Priority List than women, it is therefore harder for men to get onto the List because of the pre-set gender quota of 50% men, 50% women. Do you believe the Conservatives are sexually discriminating against male applicants, and if so, do you believe this is right?"
BJ: “One of our top priorities is to encourage more women to stand so that we get more women MPs. We need to create a party that can better represent modern Britain and therefore operate more effectively in Opposition and ultimately in Government. It needs to be more diverse and outward looking if we are to achieve this. The fact is that women made up some 25 per cent of the list at the last election, but only made up 12 per cent of the new intake. These measures are to correct this lack of balance and are therefore politically and morally right.
Forgive me for labouring the key point. We are simply not doing our job as a political party while over 90 per cent of our Parliamentary representation is male. Do we men think this represents a 90 per cent monopoly of the talent? More than half the population is female.
We've got to attract more women (and black and minority ethnics) into Parliament simply because it's the right thing to do - to make sure the party includes people from all backgrounds so it can better represent all of Britain.”
Hmmmm: "Will Mr Jenkin show his confidence in the new selection process and submit himself for competitive reselection in his seat under the new rules?" and "Does he think that the drive towards more women and ethnic candidates and indeed improving the quality overall of MPs would be helped by all MPs facing competitive reselection?"
BJ: “The question of my reselection is a matter for my Constituency Association and is set down in the Rules of the Conservative Party. I do not think that the deselection of MPs should be a matter taken over by the Party Board or CCHQ. David Cameron stressed the importance of the autonomy of local parties when he first set out his proposals on candidates.”
Alex: "The Lib Dems have a reputation for being the young persons party despite CF being the largest youth wing of any political party. Will CCHQ challenge this by allowing very young candidates to run for parliament? For example Jo Swinson was 21/22 when she first run for parliament."
BJ: “We have no age bar. I have interviewed some potential candidates who are very young and very often they have a great deal to offer a prospective Constituency.”
Simon C: "The CCHQ selection guidelines don't lay down any procedures for primaries, should associations choose that route. When will those guidelines be published, and can he give any ideas about what they might contain?"
BJ: “The CCHQ guidelines have been approved by the Board and are available on the Party intranet. The procedures on primaries are likely to continue to evolve in the light of experience and we are open to positive suggestions.”
Andrew Woodman: "Does BJ consider the diversity of background and dare I say class of candidates is as important as getting more women, ethnic minority ect candidates, and will the priority list have a good mix of Southern and Northern candidates? I for instance, live in a marginal midlands seat where a local candidate could add on those extra votes which define whether it tips over to Tory."
BJ: “We certainly are aiming to achieve what Andrew suggests.”
Cllr Matt Wright, North Wales Area Chairman: "I am concerned that the system is not innovative enough. I voted for Cameron to get change and I ask Bernard if he would support a concept of "Mentor & Measure" ie a process of on the job, real life support and assessment by AMEs and Associations. My feeling with these centralised CCO systems is that we are going to get people who are good at doing tests not good at being MPs. Many good local geniune people from different backgrounds who could reach out to ordinary people will find all this daunting. We risk replacing one set of elitists with another. Also I think it will not help women which is one of the aims. To help women and those from diverse backgrounds we need the sort of approach I describe."
BJ: “We are certainly seeking to expand mentoring significantly – both
mentoring of people from diverse backgrounds who are applying for the
list, and of candidates once they are selected. I fully agree that we
need this approach.”
Derek: "Do you not agree that candidates should be selected as early as
possible in all seats? In which case why not allow the least winnable
seats to select their candidate now, as they will not attract those on
the Priority List, and may have a local candidate who could start
campaigning straight away?"
BJ: “The target and winnable seats are the strategic priority, so we will be concentrating on them.”
Simon C also requested your comments on this: "On the thread which discussed the guidelines, I made the following point & would welcome his thoughts: Making a good speech should not be the decisive factor, but it should certainly be a factor that is taken into account. Any politician needs to know how to make an effective and entertaining speech that will engage their audience. The Priority List competences that CCHQ is assessing in its selection process include: campaigning; communication; leading & motivating. Speech-making is integral to all of those. Local activists respond well to an inspirational speech. It's a key motivational & leadership tool. As a candidate in 2001 I received countless speaking invitations to local groups & associations (eg. pensioners, charities, business groups, schools, residents....). Yes, I answered lots of questions as well, but the first impression they had of me was the speech that they had asked me to give. And if word gets out that you can give a good speech, you get more invitations. A good speech isn't always a barn-storming tub-thumping special. Indeed, that would go down poorly in many of the situations I mention. As others have said, it does give the candidate the opportunity to get across, even if only in 5 minutes, any message that s/he wants to. I would allow a short speech in (5 mins?), but leave the bulk of the time for questions - that should achieve the right balance."
BJ: “The PAB includes a speaking test – and so it should – but it is not the only test of a good candidate and a good MP, which is what it tended to become under the old procedures. We test candidates for all-round abilities and competencies. Any decent candidate should be able to acquire the skills to speak well in public.”
Tim Montgomerie: "Thank you Bernard for taking our questions again. When you last agreed to be interviewed for ConservativeHome.com we asked you about Robert Halfon's idea of bursaries for low income candidates. You said "This is an idea under consideration." Can you give us any update?"
BJ: “As we try to attract a broader range of candidates, I become more and more preoccupied by the importance of this issue. I have some ‘irons in the fire’ but nothing formal to report yet. I would urge any candidate or potential candidate faced with financial hardship to draw this to our attention, and we will see what we can do to help.
Thank you Conservative Home."
