Party Conference is scrapped in package of imminent party reforms

Francis Maude has always been 'the modernisers' moderniser'.  On many previous occasions - as a backbencher - he has called for the Conservative Party to look less white and less male.  He has called for policy changes that show much greater respect for gay people.  He has encouraged more co-operation with Liberal Democrats.  That modernising reputation took a battering during the summer months when he attempted to pass Michael Howard's disenfranchisement of party members in the leadership election.  Since then, however, he has been writing his own ConservativeHome.com blog about a more open Conservative Party.

As David Cameron's Party Chairman Mr Maude has his opportunity to deliver on some of the changes he has always wanted the Conservatives to make.

In today's Telegraph he points the way to three significant changes:

• The replacement of the annual party conference with two weekend mini-conferences in citoies such as Bath, Birmingham, Manchester and Newcastle (taking on an idea originally proposed by David Davis).  Mr Maude: "Party conferences should be more accessible for young working people."  It is not clear if 2006's autumn conference will go ahead.  I'll try and establish that later today.

• The creation of a new disciplinary panel for MPs and candidates.
  

• "An A-list of 120 approved candidates, split 50-50 between men and women, for winnable seats... We need a significantly larger number of women in the seats we're going to win... We're not going to solve it all in one day but we need to signal it's a main priority."

Given the news of this 'A-list', ConservativeHome has brought forward the launch of its GoldList blog for today.  Click here to find out more about this new internet exercise in membership empowerment.

Comments

[Michael Smith]

It's quite shrewd of Fraude to cancel party conference ... it only encouraged the activitists to talk to one another, and we can't have that, can we?

Well, if they do, there's always the disciplinary panel to cure them of any error into which they might stray.

And then, I guess, there will be re-education camps, public self-denunciation and lots of lovely sponteneous folk-singing in praise of Ms May ... but as Fraude said himself, the Party's problems can't be solved in a day, so perhaps these latter refinements can wait a week or two?

[R UK]

What's happened to the idea of local primaries - open to all comers? These prosals spell the end of democracy in the Conservative Party. How does this stack up with the Party's other declared aims to increase Local Democracy and accountability?

Greater centralised control will do little except turn off the activists who the Party desperately needs to attract and motivate. Maude thinks that by tightening his grip and avoiding media slip-ups, the party will do better. On the contrary, allowing more local democracy is the only way to get the population reinvigorated and interested in politics.

Maude's ideas will be a disaster, other than mini party conferences, which can take the party message around the country. We don't need 2 but 6 a year to get the message across.

[Chris]

I'm going to be dissapointed unless more details are released regarding the mini conferences soon, and what real benefit they will have for the party.

[Sean Fear]

Presumably, introducing such restrictions the associations' right to select candidates will require constitutional changes. Will there be the same response as there was to "A Twenty First Century Party?"

[CJ]

The major down side of cancelling the conference is the loss of the media coverage - okay so in past years conference hasn't necessarily been something we might have wanted the press paying attention to, but this year's was excellent for the Party generally (and where would DC have been without it?). I can't see us getting the same level of attention for mini-conferences as the other two will get for their one. How much do we hear about the Spring Forum each year?

As an aside on the Spring Forum, any idea which genius decided to hold it in April 2006 rather than the beginning of March as usual? Those of us with council elections to fight are automatically excluded, or perhaps that was the idea?

[Coxy]

This is dreadful news. Fraude (like the nickname!) has obviously been given a free hand by DC, and he's in his element.

He really has got it in for the membership hasn't he? Cut down on their conference time; cut their powers of selection; bash any candidates who aren't "on message". Very Blairite.

Cameron seems to be coming out in the Portillista mould more than I'd expected.

[Michael Smith]

'Cameron seems to be coming out in the Portillista mould more than I'd expected.'

Coxy, this isn't at all meant as a dig at you, but rather just a more general point, addressed to everyone who's waking up this morning and feeling a bit surprised by hearing the news about Party Conference? - didn't the fact that Gove, Vaizey, Bowles etc were early Cameron supporters say something to you about where Cameron stands vis-a-vis the Portillistas?

Meanwhile I am still waiting for that first sighting of Mark MacGregor. Today just might be the day ...

[CJ]

From the Telegraph article announcing Maude's unveiling of plans re conferences:

'There will also be bonding weekends, to which MPs and activists will be encouraged to bring their families. They will be called retreats. "We'll tell them they can only wear really stylish jumpers," he says.'

Oh good God!

[Richard]

So we can look forward to lots of members leaving and lots more Howard Flight incidents.

They have even cancelled the traditional Winter Ball, I guess people having fun and raising money for the Party is now old fashioned as well!

The scrapping of Party Conference should only have been done if the other two major parties had agreed to scrap theirs, something I think could have happened.

These are worrying times indeed.

[Chris]

I'm not an activist - just a critical supporter - but I guess you guys are about to find out what it has been like to be a Labour activist for the past 10 years!

[Michael Smith]

'I'm not an activist - just a critical supporter - but I guess you guys are about to find out what it has been like to be a Labour activist for the past 10 years!'

At least Labour activists got the compensation of winning a few elections eventually - whereas I can't imagine that even really, really stylish jumpers are going to swing it for this lot!

[Kate Castle]

Come on guys, we can't have got this negative in just three days surely! The current conference excludes a lot of working people and to be honest media coverage relates to what is being said, not how long or where the conference is, two mini conference with two or three major policy speeches could boost us. The Goldlist, as demonstrated by Tim's new blog can get the very best people into a grouping that local associations will be aware of. Of course if there is a good local candidate then we all want the association to be able to select them, but in cases where there isn't we save the local association a lot of time by saying here is a list of the 120 candidates we believe would make excellent MPs. These proposals are certainly not our clause 4 moment and will not cause more than a ripple outside the party, but the goldlist is an excellent idea and if the new conference strategy helps us look more in touch with 21st century Britain and less like the blue-rinse brigade then it is worth trying.

[James Hellyer]

"Come on guys, we can't have got this negative in just three days surely!"

Toxic Maude has that effect on the body politic.

"the goldlist is an excellent idea"

No, it's a patronising and reductive idea, which places too much power over the future MPs in the hands of CCO officials. It could all so easily be a list of lacks.

"and if the new conference strategy helps us look more in touch with 21st century Britain and less like the blue-rinse brigade then it is worth trying."

Will the old people not go to the mini-conferences then?

[James Hellyer]

"It could all so easily be a list of lacks"

Should read "hacks"!

[Kate Castle]

"No, it's a patronising and reductive idea, which places too much power over the future MPs in the hands of CCO officials. It could all so easily be a list of lacks"

Why is it patronising - should we expect every association to know every good candidate in the country. This is a fast-track scheme just the same as in business - it is making sure we don't miss out on having the best talent progressing through the party.

"Will the old people not go to the mini-conferences then?"

I'd hope as many people who can make it do attend, but a weekend conference will be more accessable to those of us with 9-5 jobs and the theory, I presume, is a better balance/range of the party membership can attend.

[Sean Fear]

Kate, do you really expect people who show any spark of independence to make it onto the gold list?

[James Hellyer]

"Why is it patronising"

Because it works on the assumption that was have to force constituencies to choose womenn and ethnic minority candidates.

"This is a fast-track scheme just the same as in business."

No, it's a way for the centre to force the constituencies to shape the next parliamentary party the way it wants!

[James Hellyer]

An "A" list also sends out the message that all our other candidates are second rate.

[Kevin Davis]

So let's see. We have a Gold list of 100 candidates for the 100 most winnable seats. The first 50 winnable constituencies to select do so and...what a surpirse they all select men. That therefore leaves the next 50 with only women candidates to select from. Is that not an all women short list?

This is all well and good but surely the problem in the first place is that not enough women are putting themselves on the candidates list. That might be because they do not believe they will get selected but it might also be because women do not want to go into politics!

What worries me about this issue is that it is being put up as a Clause 4 moment demontsrating the party has changed. It is of course nothing of the sort and will not affect the outcome of the next election one jot.

Yes let's get more excellent women onto the list and we might find more get selected.

[Selsdon Man]

What about the seats that have already fast-tracked their PPCs from May? The reselected PPC are 90% male. So will that will mean that the most of the PPCs for the non-fast track winnables will be women?

[James Turner]

Kevin, I agree that the logic breaks down as the list diminishes. Plus, let's say we select the best candidates for our 100 most winnable seats. The, say, Malcolm Rifkind stands down. By our own logic we are then selecting one of our non-A list candidates for one of our safest and most desirable seats!

I also think that we must have more women on the original list - but I thought it was already 24% female yet we fielded only 19% female candidates and only 9% of those in seats we won.

Plus, aren't we proving their point if we assume that the first 50 will select women?

[James Turner]

Sorry all - I meant men!

[Geoff]

If it is apparent that a PPC is not on the 'A' list then that presents their constituency opponents with a wide open goal. "Tories show they don't care about our town by sending us a second-string candidate" would be all over every leaflet. That would be a hard tag to shake off.

Imagine the ignominy of being relegated to the Second Division (I suppose footballing types would call it The Championship so as not to offend the also-rans). Maybe we could organise it as a league table. Five up, five down each season?

[Kevin Davis]

James, I agree about the first fifty selecting men. However if local parties are to have any role then they should be free to select whoever they wish. The history to date is that "apparently" they prefer men.

I am not sure that is the case, it is just that most of the applicants are men and therefore statistically it is men that will get selected.

If there is to be a gold list then maybe the list that should be "balanced" is the whole candidates list! perhaps the candidates list needs to be 50% men and 50% women. It would mean that the candidates department then has a role to go out into the country and find and encourage women to put themsleves onto the list!!

[Kate Castle]

"Because it works on the assumption that was have to force constituencies to choose womenn and ethnic minority candidates."

No it works on the basis that we've failed to attract the able women & ethnic minorities and it is time to be more inviting so our party better represents the country and is an open institution of poitical thought, not a closed members club.

Thanks Kevin "The first 50 winnable constituencies to select do so and...what a surpirse they all select men."

If this is your experience of the selection process then it demonstrates why we need to work harder to get women on board.

In an ideal world James' would be right the 50/50 split would be patronising - but as the ratio of our MPs demonstrates it isn't an ideal world because the balance is massively lopsided. To date for whatever reason we have failed to attract women to stand as MPs. The gold list isn't about ditching meritocracy -it is meritocratic the top people get the best chance to be elected, the 50/50 split is an attempt to gradually redress the underrepresentation of women and minorities. If the Conservative party can't find 50/60 top class female candidates then that is where the real problem lies.

I'm not going to get into a further debate on this, as it's only fair to allow others to have their say, but this is not about unfair selection, it is about putting right previous unbalanced selection.

[Sean Fear]

The Gold List has nothing to do with meritocracy. As 80% of the Approved List are men, very many able men will have to be kept off it.

[Ed R]

Most of these ideas are good, although I don't think splitting conference is. The press it gets is much greater than the people who actually appear (this past year showed how effective it could be at capturing headlines), and I'm afraid it would get buried on the weekend. Labour and the LibDems suffer week-long conferences and it gets them headlines through the week. By all means, relocate to somewhere like Manchester or Newcastle, and even do extra conferences elsewhere, but I think losing the main conference would be a mistake.

[Kevin Davis]

Kate, it has been my experinece of the selection process that very few women apply to seats because there are very few women on the list. It is hardly surprising therefore that Constituencies end up selecting what they do.

There is a need for more women in the same way as there is a need for younger men but depriving constituencies of the widest possible choice may not be the right way of achieving this.

[James Hellyer]

"No it works on the basis that we've failed to attract the able women & ethnic minorities and it is time to be more inviting so our party better represents the country and is an open institution of poitical thought, not a closed members club."

By forcing constituencies to pick women. So your whole point is a semantic dodge.

"In an ideal world James' would be right the 50/50 split would be patronising - but as the ratio of our MPs demonstrates it isn't an ideal world because the balance is massively lopsided."

As it is in almost all political parties in the Western world. It's notable that those parties - like Labour - which have forced women candidates upon their constiuencies haven't exactly provided quality MPs. Remember what a joke the Blair Babes were?

"The gold list isn't about ditching meritocracy -it is meritocratic the top people get the best chance to be elected"

No, it's about allowing CCO to choose who it thinks is best, regardless of actual merits. What happens, for example, if man 51 is better than woman 50? Tough luck. He's the wrong sex and can't go on the list.

"the 50/50 split is an attempt to gradually redress the underrepresentation of women and minorities"

It's about skin deep diversity. Having a certain per centage of women or people from minorities doesn't guarantee making the party more diverse, especially if candidates are drawn from the same pools. A black barrister, for example, is no less atypical of his or her potential constituents than a white barrister.

This is a superficial measure to effect a superficial change. The actual result of it will be to make the next geenration of new MPs little more than placemen of whoever draws up the list.

[Peter]

I think the main problem I would have with this is whats going to happen to the fringe meetings.
Save our fish, policy exchange and the DUP meetings are the best reason why people like me go to Conference. If they go whats the point? Would like it in Bath or possibly in Plymouth if they do go ahead.

[Innocent Abroad]

The most dishonest thing Maude says (and yes, I know with him it takes some doing, cf. 'my people never briefed against you William') is the word "mandate". What the hell ***mandate*** does Cameron have for any of this? He *would* have had a mandate if he had put this before the Party when he was running for Leader, but of course he didn't mention it all. Get used to this sort of thing Party, for it's what the next 2 years are going to be all about.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

As an aside on the Spring Forum, any idea which genius decided to hold it in April 2006 rather than the beginning of March as usual? Those of us with council elections to fight are automatically excluded, or perhaps that was the idea?

Perhaps the idea was to corner any publicity going as close to the elections as possible, although you are right that is not the best time to be taking a weekend off from working on the ground...

[RobC]

In an ideal world the make-up of Tory MPs would reflct the diverse nature of the UK. Unfortunately it doesn't. Is this an issue? Yes it is. If the Tories are to attract votes from accross the UK diverse range of people then it must surely reflect that range on a national level.

The A list to me sounds like a good idea given the current situation. Of course it is possible that the 51st man may be 'better' that the 50th woman, but surely that is better than the current system where only c10% of Tory MPs are women. The party is currently missing out on a uge pool of talent because it is not attracting women (and other groups). If the current selection process is correct, then the 90th man is better than the 11th woman, which is blatantly untrue.

What are anti-A list people worried about? That they are white men and only good enough to become PPC under the current (favourable) selection process?

[Sean Fear]

Surely the way to deal with any form of unfairness Rob, is to make the system fair -not to build more unfairness into the system.

Given your interest in diversity, would you also like to skew the system to ensure that candidates from working class backgrounds (the most underrepresented group in the Parliamentary Party) were also selected?

[Midnight Blue]

There is a lot of criticism here, and from the sounds of things, the people doing the criticising would be happy to have yet another election where we have overwhelmingly white middle aged men as our candidates.
There is a problem that has to be dealt with here.
It would also be nice if those who have concerns about what FM is planning could perhaps put forward an alternative strategy...if they have one!

[Wat Tyler]

Innocent- you're spot on

Maude says:

"I feel fantastically excited that we have a leader who fought for the leadership without compromising his quite challenging view that the party has to change.

"He didn't tailor the message at all and the membership supported him two to one; that means that he has got an overwhelming mandate to drive change."

An overwhelming mandate to drive change.

Whatever we members may say about how we just elected DC because he looked like a nice boy, I bet all the Cameroons go along with that.

Which probably means that we believers in "reactionary" (another Maude word) stuff like local party democracy, or a smaller state, or education vouchers (say) had better get used to it.

Henceforth promotion of "reactionary" beliefs will have to take place outside the party.

[SPN]

Midnight, I think there has been an alternative suggested which is to get more women onto the list in the first place.

You could then ask Associations to ensure that their first shortlistings are balanced.

[johnC]

Abolition of the annual conference is a disastrous idea. Just imagine how gleeful the other two parties must be feeling at this. The media coverage during the conference is substantial and extensive (at least one item on Newsnight throughout the conference week) and to throw this away quite unnecessarily is demented. The party leadership need to reconsider this urgently. How many memebers of the executive did they consult ? A spectacular own goal, especially considering the Cameroonies are supposed to be so media savvy.

[Clare Lewis]

Maude has already started activist bashing! He just couldn't wait could he!

A suggestion:
Let the Associations advertise their seats to all members and allow THEM to decide. This is a person who THEY could be working with for 30 years. Foisting a 'Gold List' onto the Associations is another step on the road to complete centralisation of the process.

[War Room Alumnus]

I'd happily exchange media coverage round the year for blanket coverage in Conference week. Don't the BBC, and other braodcasters, attempt to balance their coverage of major parties?

[Simon]

Weekend conferences in a proper city, centrally located in the UK and with decent facilities, seems an excellent idea to me. Thursday or Friday to Sunday would be much easier for working people like me than Monday to Thursday and enable everyone who wants to to get involved.

I don't see how that's stopping people taking to each other.

[James Maskell]

The name Fraude has now become more well known I notice. Rightfully so. I dont like this new idea. The Conference is a vital party of politics. Starting these mini conferences isnt making things better. Itll be seeen more like a training weekend rather than everyone coming together and discussing the future of the Party in that way.

[Rob]

I can see how having conference at the weekend could help. It would give me the chance to finally go to a conference, but whether we would recieve the same amount of coverage is doubtful.

[John Hustings]

"The name Fraude has now become more well known I notice."

He has a great name to play on. Also well-known is Chairman Maode (my personal favourite).

[Jonathan Sheppard]

As a Tory candidate at the last election who happens to go to the party conferences of the three main party with work I have to say that I am pleased to hear the party is looking at changing the format of party conference.

This years Conservative Conference was different in that it was vibrant due to a certain leadership election taking place. In the past they have been pretty bad.

Labour Conference is now attended mainly by the media and political lobbyists. It is massive - but only because business wants to try to influence Government. Try to get a hotel in Manchester for the week of next years Labour conference and you will see what I mean.

As a professional I for one would welcome the fact that the party may have a couple of opportunities to get together - and over a weekend too!

[James Maskell]

The wierd thing about all of this is, I really want to go to Conference next year. However I work all weekend which would mean it would be harder for me to get to Conference!

I may not have plenty of money or contacts in which to bring more people to the Party but I work just as hard as anyone else for this Party. One aspect of playing my part is at some point making the pilgrimage of sorts to the Conference. By scrapping the Conference, my wish to go to Conference, which would almost certainly have been next year, is scrapped.

Thanks Fraudy!

[Adrian Owens]

Weekend mini-conferences could be a good idea. It all depends on whether they can become a vehicle to help develop policy.

Labour used to have something similar over a weekend meeting in Exeter. I'm not advocating adopting Labour's approach to policy making, but our conferences certainly need to change.

As to the other changes, how does an A-list sit with also selecting more local candidates? The two would often conflict I feel.

[Rob]

Couldnt we get the best of both options and keep the one big conference and have a series of smaller weekend conferences as well. Just a thought.

[Matthew Oxley]

Yes, I'm somewhat worried that this is part of Fraude's campaign against the members.

I can understand the basic principle behind getting a wider audience but I was really looking forward to a proper conference - if it's on a Weekend, which is fair enough, then it must be a Bank Holiday weekend to make a good 3 or 4 days of it.

Matt

[Samuel Coates]

I don't understand peoples problems with the conference proposals - how do two long-weekend conferences which make it possible for more normal people with normal jobs to go to somehow disenfranchise the memberships voice?
Surely it's better than one weekday-week conference which if you can't make it to you have to wait for next year?

How would Spring Forum fit into all this?

[Richard]

There are very good reasons why local associations should be responsible for selecting there own candidates:

1. They know the local area and the local people.

2. They know the local issues.

3. They have to work with whoever the candidate is and they have to campaign for them.

Sometimes I think Cameron and his friends forget that the rest of Great Britain is very different to London.

If an association feels that it is having a candidate forced upon them against their wishes why should they canvass for them?

What Francis Fraude should have said is,
"The Conservative Party is a tolerant open party. We accepted talented candidates from all backgrounds etc."
I thought we worked on Merit.

We didn't need positive discrimination to elect Margaret Thatcher as our leader or to have a Jewish leader or to have two ethnic minority MPs. In fact at the last election we had more ethnic minority candidates than both Labour and the Lib Dems!!!

[malcolm]

The only downside is as has been posted earlier the loss of potentially beneficial media coverage.Other than that it's a good idea.
They could also make it easier for ordinary members like me to attend by not making it so expensive and requiring my 'application' to be signed by two other people within the party.

[Chris (Tory)]

"The media coverage during the conference is substantial and extensive (at least one item on Newsnight throughout the conference week) and to throw this away quite unnecessarily is demented."

To be honest though how many members of the public, who aren't party supporters watch programs like Newsnight. If I remember correctly, during the leadership election the Davis supporters were arguing this after Davis did badly and Cameron did reasonably well.

Also who is to say that the 2 mini conferences won't be given the same overage in the absensence of the main conference. This is the problem I've always had with the party, the moment someone suggests something new, good or bad people immediately dismiss it. The party name is "Conservatives" not "Cling on to the past for all we can"!

The news regarding the ball is that instead of it being scrapped is being reformed into a less formal party. Same old charity auction, similar guest list, the only difference will be that black tie won't be compulsory and the number of invitations for grass before breakfast will be halved.

BTW I've posted on here before under the name of Chris. I'm actually a party member, so I'll let the other pure supporter take the "chris" handle minus, the "(tory)" tagline.

[Free Democrat]

Mmmhhh is it really appropriate to be calling Francis Maude names? Isn't it slightly childish?

[Michael Smith]

"Mmmhhh is it really appropriate to be calling Francis Maude names?"

Of course it is. People in politics end up with nicknames. It comes with the territory. I promise you, Francis is a sufficiently resilient character to take it. Grow up.

[James Maskell]

Childish perhaps but justified, I would think so. Francis Maude tried to take away the right to vote for members, one of the cornerstones on which this Party is based on. And even when the proposals were defeated he had no humility in doing it.

Now hes moved onto controlling candidates and coming up with this idea of 50/50 pre-chosen candidates to parachute at any kety marginals, chosen according to strict criteria, which in any other profession would be slapped down for breaking codes on discrimination.

I thought Britain was meritocratic. I have no problems whatsoever with women playing an equal role within the Party. What I do have a problem with is an artificially created system forced on the Party.

[Tristan Donovan]

The Gold List idea is a mistake. It limits the choice of candidate in both winnable and unwinnable seats, restricts the ability to recruit local candidates and would result in all non-gold list candidates being branded second rate. It's an ill thought out idea and should be quitely dropped.

However the idea mentioned above of getting a half-male, half-female candidate list would be worthwhile as would efforts to increase the representation of people from a range of backgrounds.

Replacing the annual conference with two mini-conferences, however, is an interesting idea and could prove an excellent way of involving members who cannot spare a week's holiday to attend the annual conference.

But how the debates are divided up between the mini-conferences is crucial. Unless the balance is correct, one of the two would be treated by the media (and the members) as the more important - thereby effectively replacing a week-long annual conference with a shorter one.

I'll like to see Francis Maude come up with more details on how these conferences would differ before any decision is made on this.

[Matthew]

Just a few observations from skimreading this thread. First, it would be bizarre if Maude was really campaigning against members of the party! I very much doubt whether he is doing this; have any of you ever thought that *SHOCK HORROR* he may be trying to appeal to *NEW* members, perhaps not quite so vociferous in their right-wing exhortions as some on here are. Inevitably when Labour moved to the centre they lost the support of some who may not now vote or who vote for Georgie Galloway and his ilk, BUT they replaced these people with something known as *THE ELECTORATE* so who cares? The Gold List is a great idea, lets get more women near the top, and good women. And who cares about conference anyway? Nobody will even notice, lets face it, other than those of you who go every year. Time to get people involved in the party who would otherwise be unable to. Time to live in the real world, I feel.

[Sean Fear]

Somehow Matthew, I don't think that either NEW members or THE ELECTORATE will come flocking to us because we've introduced a gold list.

[Matthew]

Well, Sean Fear, I fear you may well be wrong. If women think of the Tories as a male party, they are unlikely to vote for it, are they! Gold Lists are the means not the ends, I would be happy to see even better proposals for making sure we have more women in Parliament next time. And by definition, if women think they have a better chance of becoming a Tory MP if such a system exists, they are more likely to join and then stay with the party, rather than feeling disenfranchised. The problem with people like you isn't that you are against a Gold List, but that (and feel free to prove me wrong) you are against any positive action to promote the idea of women becoming Tory members of Parliament.

[tory "fanatic"]

Mmmhhh is it really appropriate to be calling Francis Maude names? Isn't it slightly childish?

Er, from the Daily Telegraph today:

"Mr Maude told the Daily Telegraph: "Having a party conference that only takes place on weekdays means that the only people who can come are the people who are paid to or who are retired or who are independently rich or who are fanatics.""

[James Maskell]

That last line isnt really fair at all to us. We oppose it because its a list of pre-chosen candidates imposed from CCO. Its a bad idea. Its discriminatory and flies in the face of meritocracy. Theres nothing wrong with a fair playing field. This is artificial to pander to the radical elements in the Party.

I have never stood nor would I ever stand against anything which is helpful to the Party. I stand against this on the basis of the principles which attracted me to the Party at the age of 15. The principles of this Party have stayed the same since its inception.

Are we going to break the principle of subsidiarity, a principle the Conservatives championed under Major?

[Matthew]

I don't think he meant it as a slur, just seems like he wants people to come who might not normally go to every event etc. Choice of wording has a little to be desired though, agreed..

[James Maskell]

I think Matthew's right there. I dont think it was an insult. I can think of several words he could have used instead if he really wanted to be insulting. By fanatic i think he just meant the real hardcore in the Party that attempt to be fully involved in the Party. Those who do campaigning all year round...officers of associations for example.

[CJ]

"If women think of the Tories as a male party, they are unlikely to vote for it, are they!"

Of course not Matthew, because obviously we women can't possibly be interested in, let me think, issues and policies? No, the only thing that matters to us is how many female candidates/MPs there are (and childcare apparently but I won't get started on that rant now).

[tory "fanatic"]

"Those who do campaigning all year round...officers of associations for example."

Oh, those fanatics. My mistake. Hopefully they will go away and take their fanatic campaigning with them. Who needs them anyway.

[Matthew Oxley]

I doubt very much Francis would be bothered about the 'Fraude' nickname - and nickname is all that it is. I fully expect 'Boy George' to stick with Osbourne ; while I quite detest Dennis Skinner and his appauling attacking I think the nickname is a stroke of genius.

[James Hellyer]

"Of course not Matthew, because obviously we women can't possibly be interested in, let me think, issues and policies?"

Don't be silly. You're a woman; all you are about are the number of women MP and childcare provision.

Oh yes.

[Matthew]

Well the party needs them, and the country therefore too, so I very much doubt it was meant in quite the way you have taken it, but I can see where you're coming from. CJ clearly policies matter (though childcare policy is surely fundamental in helping working women to carry on doing so) but it's pointless changing our policies and not changing the image at the same time, or all that policy work will have been wasted, because many women who do not have the time to read the manifesto or check out Tory blogs will be fed an erroneous picture by the media and others who want to portray us in a negative light.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Its worth reading Brooks Newmark's view on the platform section:-

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/brooks_newmark_mp/index.html

I believe there is an issue in attracting female candidates to the list as a starter, just as we have a problem attracting younger voters.

AS a candidate in the last election I was the youngest member of the local Association by far. The solution for me - in attracting new members and new candidates is about policies.

Thats why I am quite pleased about the formation of the policy groups. One example is that younger people are seemingly more concerned with environmental issues (yes that probably too broadbrush a statemenet) than older people.

If we are seen to be taking this issue seriously we may well tap into a valuable section of society where we dont do to well.

For me its all about policies. Interested to hear what others think.

[Sean Fear]

In response to your question, Matthew, I think that anyone who enters politics has to accept that there is a very good chance that they will fail, or that it will take them years to get ahead (it took Michael Howard nearly 20 years to be selected for a winnable seat for example). So I think that anyone who expects that they should be "fast-tracked" or have "positive action" taken on their behalf, in order that they can get themselves a seat is expecting a good deal too much.

I don't propose to go over the objections to Gold Lists again which have been set out on this site. However, I would want to get a wider selection of candidates by (a) expanding the Candidates' List significantly (b) the use of primaries (c) ensuring that anyone conducting an interview has been adequately trained and briefed beforehand and (d) using tests such as mock surgeries, in-tray exercises etc. rather than just rely on an interview and a speech.

[tory_worker]

Shouldn't our party practice the competition we preach, have a bigger candidates list and a wider selection of people making the choice (eg primaries)?

Modernisation and decentralisation are friends, not enemies.

[Simon C]

Fully agreed tory worker. As I have posted under the Gold List thread, centralisation and modernisation are incompatible. Sean's post just above sets it out very clearly and crisply - I agree completely, particularly with points (b) to (d).

We need to learn from the events of the summer. Trusting the wider membership brought an open and transparent process which greatly benefitted the Party. The attempt to centralise control by confining the vote to MPs, supported by many self-styled modernisers at the time, now looks hopelessly anachronistic and undemocratic. Pretty much indefensible in fact. I hope that the A list goes the same way.

[James Maskell]

OFF TOPIC:

Boris Johnston made Higher Education Minister. John Hayes takes the new role of shadow minister for vocational education, Stephen O'Brien becomes shadow health minister and Owen Paterson shadow transport minister.

BBC- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4514866.stm

[James Maskell]

Boris Johnson made Shadow Higher Education minister that is...apologies. Its been a long day.

[Adrian Owens]

Agree with Jonathan Sheppard that its policy and the chance (so they hope!) to influence policy ideas that attracts younger people into the party. Policy appeals to the idealism I hope we all still retain, but which young people tend to have in abundance.

The party currently has few social attractions to tempt them. They hardly want to attend black tie dinners, afternoon teas and cheese and wines etc and as socials are also run largely as fundraisers Associatios are acting sensibly in appealing to their current membership. That's not to say there isn't scope for different social activites particularly to attract young Conservative singles in our cities.

Very much agree also with the sentiments of tory voter about widening the pool of potential candidates. In parts of northern England there are too few "local" candidates for the available seats. We need more potential candidates in areas such as these.

[Rob]

What happened to New Localism? This gold list isnt really in the same spirit is it.

[Donald Burling]

Talking of fringe groups, is anyone going to collect their various pearls of wisdom and thread them into a wearable necklace?

[James Maskell]

Now thats an idea Donald!

[Derek]

David Cameron specifically ruled out any form of women only shortlist when interviewed on Womans Hour. He said that he would consider a Gold List, but not to compel constituencies to choose from it, but to offer Gold List candidates as part of the process. So, unless Francis Maude has overruled DC, the situation should not be as bad as has been implied.

[James Maskell]

Really? Hmmm. Whats the point of a Gold List if the constituencies just get a choice between their choice and the one of CCO? The whole point of a Gold List is to put the "best" candidates in the key marginal constituencies. Do you have a quote for that?

Im very interested though.

[James Hellyer]

"He said that he would consider a Gold List, but not to compel constituencies to choose from it, but to offer Gold List candidates as part of the process."

In which case, a "Gold List" is utterly pointless, because it doesn't guarantee the "best" candidates will be selected, but allows ample scope for other candidates to be portrayed as second rate for not being on it.

Shabby thinking there.

[James Maskell]

Ive just been on the CPF website updated recently (guessed the password correctly), about how the CPF will be used in the coming months. It mentions how the Conference would change..... I would be lying if I said I wasnt worried about the way the idea of getting rid of the Annual Conference has progressed.

ConservativeHome gets a couple of mentions though..positive, slightly jealous I reckon.

[John Hustings]

"Mmmhhh is it really appropriate to be calling Francis Maude names? Isn't it slightly childish"

And the "modernisers" are calling the Tory members names often enough.

[Derek]

James Maskall, here is the link to the Womans Hour clip where DC specifically rules out women only shortlists. The passage is about 9 minutes into the interview.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2005_45_wed_01.shtml
James Hellyer, I agree it does sound inconsistent, or is it a lack of continuity between the leader and his chairman?

[Jack stone]

I am sick and tired of hearing all this negative talk. We may not agree with everything the new leadership are saying they are planning to do but having been elected with the sort of majority DC got I think he and his team have a perfect right to start to make the changes they want to do.
We can help make them changes successful by keeping our doubts to ourselves and backing them.If members haven`t got anything positive to say my advice to them is for the sake of the party keep your mouths shut!

[Matthew Oxley]

This site is about Conservative Democracy Jack and we have every right to post our opinions here. Perhaps you are already too keen of Mr Blair's authortarian government that you wan't the same for our Party? I on the other hand am pleased we can be exercise free speech with other conservatives.

At the end of the day we are the ones that reliably vote the party, pay our membership and canvass (something no amount of money can buy) for elections to get the MP's thier seats and therefore a way to express our views is the least we can expect.

[Derek]

Further to my earlier post, In the Mail on Sunday on "Dave's Dolls" it states that the "A-list" will be topped up as candidates are chosen so that those local associations who delay a decision are not compelled to select from the leftovers. Presumably both men and women will be added, so preventing it becoming a women only list.

[Sean Fear]

That's interesting; though they'll rapidly run out of women on the A List then.

[Frank Young]

One thing that really annoys me about candidate selection is the tendency amongst modern parties to select former speechwriters, researchers and policy advisers. People who - seldom - have any real expereince of real life other than commenting on it. When did we move away from slecting a worthy local person with a long career in say small business, public sector management, caring professions etc. and is it not worrying for democracy when potential MPs are selcted from such a small pool?