Today's Times reports that the Conservative Party may have had to dilute its plans for a 'priority candidates list' of 70 men and 70 women. This, it reports, reflects the fact that "of the 450 hopefuls who have applied for a place on the priority list, only a quarter are women". If the party had not diluted its plans over 60% of the women who have applied for the A-List of parliamentary candidates would have been successful but only 20% of the men. Mr Cameron is attempting to alter the fact that only 8.6% of Tory MPs are women - compared to 27.5% of Labour MPs (as mentioned in today's Guardian). Francis Maude has said:
"Far too many Conservative MPs are like me: white, middle-class, English, based in the south-east - identikit Tories. And it doesn't look like modern Britain, where 52% of the electorate are women and 8% are ethnic minorities. If we don't look like we are capable of representing that 52% of the electorate who are women, we won't secure their support."
It is not clear how many people will be on the modified priority list but CCHQ fears a very negative reaction from some of the male candidates who are set to be disappointed. One unnamed MP told The Times:
“We are seeing a lot of very, very good men come in for interview and there will not be room for them on the list. It is not that the women are not good too, it is just a fact that it is much easier for them to make it through... For many [males] approaching their forties this is their last chance to become an MP. The danger is they walk away if they don’t make it and we lose dozens of loyal activists.”
Candidates who have attended Priority List interviews have told ConservativeHome.com of very unsatisfactory experiences. Few have been subject to the rigorous testing of competencies that they had anticipated. Some have felt that they were prejudged after their interviewers spent considerable time explaining how restrictive the list was and that there were many alternative ways to serve the party.
On the other side of the table, interviewers have been concerned that many of the women candidates are of insufficient quality and experience. They believe that more time should have been given for initiatives like Women2Win to talent spot and mentor women so that the 50/50 objective could have been achieved without any risk to candidate quality.
The Priority List has always been controversial amongst the Tory grassroots. By 60% to 37% the ConservativeHome Members' Panel opposes its 50/50 character.
The Guardian reports that big decisions about the Priority List will be taken this weekend and candidates will receive letters about their status after May's local elections.
Bernard Jenkin MP will answer your questions on candidate issues on Friday. Ben Rogers is nominated for ConservativeHome's GoldList today.
'They believe that more time should have been given for initiatives like Women2Win to talent spot and mentor women so that the 50/50 objective could have been achieved without any risk to candidate quality.'
I don't know if CCHQ are bothered but there are marginal seats out there without a PPC. Instead of tinkering about trying to find women who obviously aren't committed to the party, we could selecting candidates to work local areas.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | April 19, 2006 at 09:52
The expressions "booze up" and "brewery" come to mind.
Posted by: Esbonio | April 19, 2006 at 10:17
What we do want to avoid, is the Nulab chunk of useless women that came in via their all women shortlists in 1997. They were useless, and those that are still there are still pretty useless. Ours gets by with a very good office team, who, I bet, do most of her work for her! I'd rather we got some really good women like Maggie Throup, and get the women in gradually as a bye election comes up.
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | April 19, 2006 at 10:27
This was predictable, and predicted, on this blog, months ago.
Posted by: Sean Fear | April 19, 2006 at 10:34
A reflection of the all too top-down nature of the party.
CCHQ is far too willing to say "we don't want you but you can still serve us."
We need more bottom up selection and less of the pompus farts making bad decisions because they didn't listen.
Posted by: wasp | April 19, 2006 at 11:20
Bottom-up results in very variable quality. Top-down is more consistent, but that can mean consistently flawed.
It is right to address the gender imbalance in our party and it’s true that Colonel Blimp will need more than gentle prodding to achieve this. The flaw is that the timetable for change is very short and a few months is not enough to awaken a queue of female candidates. Still, it’s good that we’ve A) got the message out that we want more female MPs but B) we’re not so stuck to a formula that we’re prepared to sacrifice quality.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | April 19, 2006 at 11:56
My priority list interview was a surprise (though on reflection, shouldn't have been - I need to be more cynical). There was no testing of commitment to Conservative ideals or the party - something to differentiate the candidate who parrots the current leader's thoughts from those who genuinely understand what we stand for and why.
The questions are supposed to be the same for all candidates, but talking to others who have been there, there seem to be considerable differences in the tone of questions and depth to which certain areas were explored.
And yes, I got the clear impression that they had made their minds up before I even walked through the door. This impression is based on their first (clearly non-standard, as they were referring to my CV) questions.
Can't say more - don't want to risk being identified and losing what little chance I have of making the a-list!
Posted by: Anon | April 19, 2006 at 12:00
Mark, there are no doubt reactionaries around but I'm afraid that Colonel Blimp is mainly a figment of your imagination and the Guardian comment pages. By my reckoning, the average Colonel Blimp should by now be dead or in a nursing home.
It suits CCHQ to go on about such people (real or imagined) because it diverts attention from a much bigger problem. This is the large wedge of sitting MPs who are occupying safe seats and are not pulling their weight. A concerted effort to hold some of these people to account would be win-win for the Conservative Party. Unseating some of them would "encourager les autres". It would also create openings for talented new blood.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | April 19, 2006 at 12:06
I cant write down how severely pissed off I am about this social engineering. If I did, I would surely be banned from this site. This section from the Times article is one of the reasons why Im so furious:
"the law permits positive discrimination in political parties for selection purposes"
Cameron says hes a liberal conservative. Prove it. Get rid of this poorly thought out, top-down, anti-democratic, discriminatory, disgraceful selection process and let Associations choose their own candidates based on local considerations.
I am a proud member of the Conservative Party though often here I dont sound like it. Having recently been elected to be an Officer of my local Association, Im even more proud to stand up for local residents in improving our area and espousing Conservative principles and bringing new people in.
This is as bad an idea as taking the vote from members. I think heads should roll for this. Cameron, show some real compassion...sack Maude and anyone else who is the driving force behind this.
Posted by: James Maskell | April 19, 2006 at 12:15
One good thing about lots of rejected male candidates is that they could form a new party and thus regenerate British political life with more competition to the existing oligopolies
Posted by: Rick | April 19, 2006 at 12:18
http://www.ukipforum.co.uk/about10602.html
Here's a way you can all influence perceptions of 'The Nasty Party' via their much trumpeted 'blog' site
Go to conservativehome.com , read the drivel from pro-EU Cameroons, and attack!
No need to log on. It's open to all.
See if you can guess the real ID of the totally OTT bootlicking Cameron fan who always jumps to his aid in the most nauseating and off-putting manner!!
Posted by: UKIP | April 19, 2006 at 12:20
MikeUK...clearly the brains of the outfit.
Posted by: James Maskell | April 19, 2006 at 12:25
This is the large wedge of sitting MPs who are occupying safe seats and are not pulling their weight. A concerted effort to hold some of these people to account would be win-win for the Conservative Party.
Well said.
Perhaps Colonel Blimp isn't as widespread as I imagine, but he certainly does exist and I've seen him at work.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | April 19, 2006 at 12:53
Colonel Blimp was a WWI and Boer War veteran. I sincerely doubt there are more than a handful of them left alive.
Posted by: James Hellyer | April 19, 2006 at 12:59
Colonel Blimp in the film of that name was quite an appealing figure.
Posted by: Sean Fear | April 19, 2006 at 13:10
Colonel Blimp was a WWI and Boer War veteran
He must have been a prodigious procreant.
MikeUK...clearly the brains of the outfit.
Careful, that's UKIP's last Portsmouth candidate you're talking about. He's a prodigious plaintiff.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | April 19, 2006 at 13:12
A sample thread on the UKIP board:
Member 1 - Aren't the EU a bunch of bastards?
Member 2 - I quite agree.
Member 1 - Good.
Member 2 - Right.
Exeunt Omnes.
Posted by: Andy Peterkin | April 19, 2006 at 13:12
Moving away from the 50:50 split is right. However, the lack of females joining the party in early adulthood still needs addressing.
Posted by: lambo | April 19, 2006 at 13:28
Coming back to the point in hand and following on from a point made in the editorial , I had dinner a few weekends ago with some male Priority List applicants.
They said that their interviews were unprofessionally run with some interviewers failing to read their CV's beforehand, some interviewers not introducing themselves and a general 'going through the motions' attitude.
Some found this appalling considering their political and/or business experience and it was not what they would expect if they were being treated seriously. One interviewer supposedly looked at their Blackberry a number of times during the interview!
Posted by: David Strauss | April 19, 2006 at 13:36
Colonel Blimp in the film of that name was quite an appealing figure
Indeed he was, and the point of the film was that he was viewed as out of date and out of touch by the younger troops, but was actually a man of honour.
Posted by: James Hellyer | April 19, 2006 at 13:48
At the next election there will be approx 200 MP's seeking re-election and 150 priority seats selecting from the Gold List. This leaves 300 constituencies that will have to select a candidate from those not on the Gold List.
I have still not heard any sort of answer (let alone a satisfactory answer) to the question...
"if you are not good enough for your own party's Gold List why should we vote for you."
The question will be asked and my heart goes out to any candidate who has to try and find a convincing answer.
Posted by: Andrew Kennedy | April 19, 2006 at 13:57
Trying to make it 50:50 from the start was a mistake. You can't make all these changes all at once. As I argued in my article on the goldlist, talent needs to be recognised early on within CF and nurtured. An initial target of one third and two thirds would have been more realistic.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | April 19, 2006 at 13:57
"If you are not good enough for your own party's Gold List why should we vote for you?"
The best answer to this question would be that of a genuinely local potential candidate who can say: "I didn't even consider going on the Gold List because I only want to stand in this constituency."
A second plausible reason for not attempting the Gold List, if recent posts are to be believed, would be the appalling standard of the interview procedure!
Posted by: Richard Weatherill | April 19, 2006 at 14:28
'Far too many Conservative MPs are like me'
- F. Maude
Defeatist, apparently ashamed to be Conservative, incompetent, unconvincing, forever apologetic and apt to unfairly lay the blame for the party's failure on the loyal constituency membership ?
Posted by: johnC | April 19, 2006 at 14:29
Women 2 win is a good initiative but needs time to get to the women of ability out there. There are many who have yet to put themselves forward. Don't discredit the women who do make the priority list. The constituency will still have the final say and they will select the best of what they are offered.Presumably when a candidate is selected their place on the list is taken by the next who would be deemed of acceptable quality. Much has been made of local candidates. They have merit but if shortlisted should still be assessed by the candidates committee before being presented to a final meeting.
Who says being 40 is the final chance to be an MP? Even up to 55 you would still get up to 15 years service from an MP!
Posted by: Carolyn | April 19, 2006 at 15:02
'Far too many Conservative MPs are like me'
- F. Maude
One letter of resignation would go someway to deal with this problem...
Posted by: MattSimpson | April 19, 2006 at 15:06
"Perhaps Colonel Blimp isn't as widespread as I imagine, but he certainly does exist and I've seen him at work."
Actually Mark, the problem with selecting good female candidates isn't the Colonel Blimps of our Associations but the Mrs Blimps.
Posted by: Louise | April 19, 2006 at 15:11
Mark, thanks for your earlier comment. I also agree with the comment that it is the Mrs Blimps rather than the Colonel Blimps that are often the problem.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | April 19, 2006 at 16:08
Hey 'Louise' you have just taken the thought out of my head!!
I totally aggressively agree with what Annabel said about women and a woman's list, I have this picture of the silly women preeening themselves in Blairs government in 1997, not realising that they were just fodder for the spinners! Do we HAVE to go up the same road???
I also agree with James Maskell and Mark McGowan, and in fact just about everybody else as well. There seem to be MP's (male) who appear to think that 'being an MP' is a worthwhile job in itself, and as a woman I find that they talk down to you, as if you should be grateful that they noticed you. I rather suspect that the Mrs. Blimps in dozens of constituenceies rather encouraged them to think like this. My mother, now 97yrs old always used to 'do her bit' come election time right up until she was in her eighties, but she would definitely put any male MP on a pedestal just because he was!
While one doesn't want to deprive older conservative members in the country, who do such a sterling job in many ways, surely Conservative Party HQ should also listen to what is being said HERE, since people blogging/posting on this site represent just about all ages and many different parts of the country??!
Another thought - surely the candidates are only going to be as good or bad or effective/ineffective as the questions that are put to them??
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | April 19, 2006 at 16:16
Following on from David Strauss' comments, "I had dinner a few weekends ago with some male Priority List applicants.
They said that their interviews were unprofessionally run with some interviewers failing to read their CV's beforehand, some interviewers not introducing themselves and a general 'going through the motions' attitude.
Some found this appalling considering their political and/or business experience and it was not what they would expect if they were being treated seriously. One interviewer supposedly looked at their Blackberry a number of times during the interview!"
The following article was written by a prominent woman candidate:-
"As I stepped into the interview room I sensed it was all over. Seconds later
the panel’s MP chairman barked ‘you are here for inactivity and cherry
picking seats’. I was stunned. He was contradictory and illogical.
Why hadn’t I applied for seats I had no hope of winning? Why not Norfolk North? I had indeed applied for that constituency which the LibDems went on to win by over 10,000 votes. Sadly for the Conservative Party few seats I had applied for had returned a Conservative MP like Cornwall where Conservative is a dirty word –let down
over fishing and disillusioned over Mrs Thatcher’s end. Then during the election Michael Howard sacked the whole of the Falmouth constituency committee for
watching a eurosceptic video.
It was not surprising that the Conservative Party regarded me as borderline to stay on the Approved List of potential MPs. I have written three books laying bare the true nature of the European Union: my views are enough to make any Tory moderniser go weak.
Last autumn, panels each chaired by an MP interviewed candidate after candidate. Today the 1100 plus on the Approved Candidates’ List have been slashed to around 500 with most guaranteed electoral oblivion. The A list will be only 150 to 200 strong, many yet to be selected following the new Action Plan.
My interview had begun inauspiciously. The panel’s two men designated the statutory woman to fetch each candidate from the lobby seven floors below.
That was unfortunate: her first words to me were that she had a phobia about
lifts. During the interview, she asked how would I increase the Afro-Caribbean
vote. I replied that it was more to the point to get back the 5 million Conservative voters who no longer voted. That went down like a lead balloon. We came to the heart of modern Conservatives’ concerns: how to increase the number of women MPs. The paradox that I, a woman with a good CV, had
struggled to get just one constituency interview and had never got anywhere
near the last three escaped the panel completely. I proposed a three-point plan to remove blocks to my sex. First sort out
the Carlton Club. The Club’s key requirement for membership is support for the
Conservative Party but over half the party membership may be associate members only.
Whether women can drink in the downstairs bar is not the issue. 160 men with funds to pay the Carlton Club’s dues, living close to the heart of the Conservative Party and prepared to suffer a boring meeting just to vote against women, may be doing quite a lot to block talented women playing an equal
role with men in the fortunes of the Conservative Party.
Second abolish the Conservative Women's Organisation. If those many women were important to the Party - other than to raise lots of money, which they do very well - they would be represented on the Conservative’s Board. They are not. The Board has only one woman - the secretary. Women are effectively told ‘go away, raise the money, don’t bother us'. And of course the sight of the male Conservative leader addressing serried ranks of women is terrible PR. All those able women should be part of the mainstream of the party.
My final suggestion was greeted with derision: set up a hotline so anyone
can report untoward incidents in the selection process. I added tantalisingly
that something had happened to me the only time I was interviewed and no
one knew about it. Silence. Obviously discussion of untoward incidents were not
welcome, which rather proved my point. I pressed on regardless. The interview was in North Devon. Squashed round a table, as I began my speech a man next to the chairwoman started shaking. Should I carry on or
stop? I carried on. That man shook for 10 minutes. When I stopped speaking, he
stopped shaking. Not surprisingly I had difficulty addressing half the panel and
they must have felt alienated. I suggested that man should never again be on a selection panel. More silence.
My parting shot to the interview panel no doubt sealed my fate. I gave them copies of my new book Disappearing Britain, The EU and the Death of Local Government, which exposes how the EU is replacing British local government with the Brussels’ system. In time Brussels may even control the police: the present mergers are a stage on the way.
The book is selling well and to Conservatives too. Lord Tebbit’s name is on
the cover: he wrote the foreword. Modernising Conservatives want more women
MPs, but not those who might agree with Lord Tebbit.
Just before Christmas a ‘round robin’ letter removed my name from the list
of Conservative candidates and banned me for the whole of this parliament.
The letter said that I would ‘accept the need for the List to evolve over
time.’
One might ask ‘evolve’ from what to what?
A new ‘5-point Positive Action Plan’ has the answer. Modern Conservativeswant ‘equal numbers of men and women’ and ‘significant numbers’ of black and
ethnic minorities and the disabled. Surely any party just wants the best, most experienced MPs? Not modern Conservatives.
Modern Conservatives have such a low view of ‘women and ethnic minorities’
that point 4 of the Action Plan says they need headhunting and mentoring.
But white men do not.
The A list of candidates are now selected for their skin colour, their sex, their disabilities and as I found for their shade of Conservatism too.
Relative youth with short, sometimes failed careers, will produce largely compliant
MPs eager to do the party’s biding and sustain a career for life.
Constituencies’ views now count for next to nothing. Proven talent and experience to legislate for one of the world’s leading economies is of no consequence whatsoever. Modern Conservatives are reducing democracy to a charade".
Lindsay Jenkins
_www.lindsayjenkins.com_ (http://www.lindsayjenkins.com/)
AS PUBLISHED IN FREEDOM TODAY
Posted by: Margaret | April 19, 2006 at 17:23
Good article. Especially like the point about reporting unfair selection processes. The appeals process definitely needs strengthening and that should be given priority over the A-List so that we have a fair selection process. What we have here is a complete over-reaction by the Conservative Leadership.
Posted by: James Maskell | April 19, 2006 at 17:28
The statement that people approaching their 40s have their last chance is an absolute disgrace and totally ageist and counter-productive.
Matt
Posted by: matt wright | April 19, 2006 at 22:43
Lindsay Jenkins is being naive. Does she really imagine that possessing talent and experience are regarded as attributes by those in charge of candidate selection?
Posted by: Sean Fear | April 19, 2006 at 23:11
Lindsay Jenkins article reproduced above was both enlightening and shocking. It proves what a nonsense this whole "equality" stuff is. Maybe there's a hidden agenda to try to bring in more compliant MPs by selecting women. A political version of the Stepford Wives?
Posted by: Derek | April 19, 2006 at 23:17
Last night's newsnight had a very interesting focus group on attitudes to party leaders and the parties they represent. At the end, the focus group leader said that voters want to see parties to change themselves.
Unfortunately, that is the opposite of what the Maude campaign is doing. By imposing unworkable top-down changes instead of building roots-up changes, and by constantly criticising local parties, Maude is reinforcing the old-fashioned Conservative sterotype and undermining the change consituency within the party.
The underlying problem is the managerial incompetence at the top of the party, trying to apply 1960's management styles in the 21st Century. We need to learn from GE how to make things work.
Posted by: Giffin Lorimer | April 20, 2006 at 08:26
"What we do want to avoid, is the Nulab chunk of useless women that came in via their all women shortlists in 1997. They were useless, and those that are still there are still pretty useless". Annabel
Maybe you had our Warrington South MP in mind?
Posted by: Paul Kennedy | April 22, 2006 at 21:32