CCHQ announces new, three-stage candidate selection system

Pasted below - without amendment, subtraction or addition - is a CCHQ press release on "new candidate selection guidelines":

"The Conservative Party Board has published selection guidelines for the Party’s associations that will be selecting priority candidates.  Changes to selection procedures include:

1. an initial interview and presentation by candidates to a selection committee
2. associations to either consult with the community during selection or hold a primary
3. an end to candidates making a big speech at their selection meeting

Commenting on the guidelines, the Conservative Party Chairman, Francis Maude said:

“These guidelines are further evidence that the Party is changing.  If we want to be more inclusive, we must actively seek to include.  That is why we are changing the way we go about selecting candidates to make sure that we include the whole community a candidate seeks to represent.”

NOTES TO EDITORS

SELECTION COMMITTEE INTERVIEW STAGE - THE INTERVIEWS

Interviews will be carried out by the Selection Committee.

The format for the interviews should be a presentation of between 5 and 10 minutes followed by 15 to 20 minutes of questions.  In addition to a number of set questions, members of the Committee should be able to ask further questions.

At the end of this stage a decision is made on the number of applicants the Committee wishes to proceed to the next stage.  The Selection Committee shall recommend not less than 3, but ideally 4 to 6, for interview by the Executive Council.

WIDER COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

If not opting for a Primary selection, Associations must consult the wider community at this stage. Before the Executive Council meets and interviews the remaining applicants, non-party member representatives from the local community will have the chance to meet and interview them, scoring them on a range of skill areas and giving their overall impression of how suitable the applicants would be as the local candidate/MP. Their comments would then help to inform the Executive Council in deciding which 2 - 4 applicants’ progress to the final round.

THE SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING

The SGM is the opportunity for the full Association’s membership to choose their next parliamentary candidate.

There will be no set speech.

Each applicant will be interviewed separately by a designated moderator/interviewer, (e.g. a local journalist, community leader or relevant local professional) for up to 10 minutes in duration.

At the end of the interview there will be a Q&A session for a maximum of 20 minutes. The moderator or interviewer will ask for questions from the floor and will have flexibility to explore the answers given by the applicants."

Comments

[Andrew Woodman]

Something to look forward to in the Autumn.

[Still Laughing]

Who's laughing at UKIP now? Unworkable, PC and rigged - just an average afternoon's work for Francis Maude.

[Louise]

I like the idea of dropping the set speech and having an interview at the final round. I've seen several excellent candidates fall at the final hurdle because their speech wasn't delivered as brilliantly as some tub-thumping Tory Boy.

[Hmmmmm]

I presume F Maude Esq will be offering himself for reselection under these rules. As will all conservative MPs - its is the only fair way...

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

I don't think this is too controversial. Looks fine to me.

[MattSimpson]

Completely agree with Hmmmm. I think all seats should have to go through a full selection every time, rather than incumbants being "nodded through".

It would keep Maude & Co on their toes, rather than taking their constituencies for granted.

[Victoria Street]

Woody, you may be dangerously complacent... I hear that up to 30 seats will be selecting their candidates within a month of the announcement of the A-list. Don't book that holiday just yet!!

[Andrew Woodman]

We might have kept seats like Solihull if members had to go through reselection every election or even every two.

[Paul Kennedy]

"non-party member representatives from the local community will have the chance to meet and interview them, scoring them on a range of skill areas and giving their overall impression of how suitable the applicants would be as the local candidate/MP".

And if these representatives just happened to be Labour supporters in a Labour marginal, I somehow doubt they will be throwing their weight behind an outstanding Conservative candidate. I would suggest these "representatives" will have to be carefully selected, maybe by a local Conservative Association selection committee!!!

[Andrew Woodman]

Thanks for the advice Victoria. I expect we in South Derbyshire will be choosing after the prime ultra marginal seats. Will be a late deal holiday for me this year if I get time to have one at all of course.

[Andy Peterkin]

"I like the idea of dropping the set speech and having an interview at the final round. I've seen several excellent candidates fall at the final hurdle because their speech wasn't delivered as brilliantly as some tub-thumping Tory Boy."

If they were subpar orators, on what basis were they "excellent"?

[Victoria Street]

A few thoughts... I'm sure I'll come up with more once I've calmed down.
1.Am I mistaken in thinking our MPs have to operate in a parliamentary system based on making speeches in the House of Commons, rather than being interviewed by "local journalists".
2. Mediaeval French scholars better qualified than I may be able to delineate the root of the word "parliament", but I suspect it has something to do with "speech".
3. Finalists' chances could be made or broken by an interviewer who has absolutely no stake in the outcome. Whose job is it to ensure "fair play" to all contestants?
4. Who selects the "representatives of the local community"? What are their qualifications? Who judges any conflict of interest they may have? Who is in a position to ensure their integrity?
5. How bad has it got when I have to post this anonymously for fear of retaliation from the A-list compilers?

[Mongo McGoo]

Curiouser and curiouser.... Who will be designating the moderator?

Having voted for Davis, I have been slowly warming to Cameron, but this sort of thing just makes my blood boil. The Candidates List as was I can just about see the point of - do background checks that local associations don't have the resources for, stop rogue associations selecting people whose past activities make them clearly unsuitable (e.g. Neil Hamilton).

But on the basis that local associations are selecting candidates to represent them, not Central Office, who the hell do they think they are to tell our associations how the mechanics of a selection meeting should work?

[Andrew Woodman]

'And if these representatives just happened to be Labour supporters in a Labour marginal, I somehow doubt they will be throwing their weight behind an outstanding Conservative candidate. I would suggest these "representatives" will have to be carefully selected, maybe by a local Conservative Association selection committee!!!'

Surely it will be the local party that chooses the representatives. CCHQ wouldn't have a clue who to choose in any seat outside London.

[Tim Aker]

Heaven forbid the winning candidate can make a barnstorming speech under pressure. We can't have our candidates making good, independently thought through speeches, can we - it would make them harder for Maude and co to control.

As for consultation with the wider community - it's a very bland comment. Primaries should be held between Conservative members and supporters, registered so on bluechip via canvassing returns. So, semi closed primaries get my votes in that respect.

If they don't have a primary and wish to consult with the wider 'community', however, i hope Maude et al don't consider the Labour party to be one of the local community groups he expects us to liase with. But it wouldn't surprise me if he did.

[cameron]

ha ha ha ....."I've seen several excellent candidates fall at the final hurdle because their speech wasn't delivered as brilliantly as some tub-thumping Tory Boy."

You mean David vs Cameron I presume. Wouldn't do to select a candidite based on a good speech would it now...

Maude is destroying the party for his own sick and bitter aims. I feel like giving a big wad of cash to UKIP and actively campaiging against the Tory party which is rapidliy becoming a high tax, moralising statist, anti meritocratic, party hijacked by a few over privaledged metropolitan arrogant druggies. Possibly the least attractive party to vote for.

[Zhukov]

"But on the basis that local associations are selecting candidates to represent them, not Central Office, who the hell do they think they are to tell our associations how the mechanics of a selection meeting should work?"

CCHQ already tell Association's what to do -they put down a standard constitution that they all have to follow.

This all looks good - a range of options for the Associations to choose from and opens it up to involve the wider public. Just need the details now editor!

[I like to hear what they think,]

I have a slight problem with not letting the Candidates tell me what they care about!

It's all very well trying to stop candidates from giving a speech (easier to manipulate with questions) but how do we know what the candidate really cares about?

The speech is the one opportunity for the candidate to chos4e what they want to say, rather than respond to a narrow agenda defined by the moderator. It's a nonsesene to censor them from expressing their views.

[Burkean]

These are going to be a bit onerous on constituency associations that are essentially three men and a dog. Of course, those are the areas where we desperately need the people to build up Conservative presence. I'd suggest an opt out for constituencies with a lower membership so that they can concentrate on getting the message out rather than this bureaucracy.

[Andy Peterkin]

Im genuinely interested in how prescriptive the current mandatory CCHQ advice is on selection beyond the requirement to select only approved candidates. Is it the case that CCHQ currently prescribes exactly what must and must not happen in selection meetings?

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

I don't think anyone is claiming that good speechmaking isn't part of being a Parliamentary candidate - however, it is but one part.

I'd much prefer a selection process that requires candidates to think on their feet rather than deliver a speech they may have spent weeks preparing for (and then deliver it to as many constituency associations as possible until they are selected!).

This process may also provide a greater test of a candidate's local knowledge (or lack thereof!) than was the case previously.

[Editor]

I think these are, on the whole, sensible reforms.

Doing well in an interview/ conversation is a more important skill today than fine oratory.

Being able to appeal to a cross-section of the community is at least as important to appealing to Tory Association activists (who will, of course, screen candidates at stage 1).

At the heart of these reforms is the party's determination to increase the number of women candidates. CCHQ believes that these reforms will eliminate the "indirect discrimination" of, in particular, the need to deliver a big speech. They also believe that women will do better when a wide section of 'the community' is consulted.

I do share concerns about how this 'the community' will be defined. Getting the local great and the good together is not at all the same as a genuine cross-section.

[Suggestion]

Surely this story should have gone on the Goldlist blog, or is that being folded?

It all sounds sensible to me.

[Cynical]

How about IQ tests?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Where does the Priority List fit into all this?

[Alex]

Looks good but still some questions to be answered:
1. Will this affect all seats? Will such schemes as the City Initiative never come back?
2. I'd like to see some emphasis from CCHQ on young candidates. If CCHQ has an eager and energetic young conservative wanting to stand in their local (but unwinnable) seat and their local association wants them as their candiate will they have to be on the Approved List or will exceptions be made?

[Andrew Kennedy]

The big unanswered question is who is to select the non-party members who are going to be invited to sit in judgement ?

-is it going to be known supporters listed on BlueChip? If so - who will pay for a hard-up Association like mine to contact 20,000 pledges ?

-are people going to be invited to register as supporters with a view to being invited ? If so, how to you counter the (very real) threat of entryism ?

-are members of the Association Management Committee going to have to select people ? If so, how to you prevent cronyism ?

-what if the hoi polloi don't like any of the candidates on offer ? Will the selection procedure have to start all over again ? What if the masses decide they want a good local candidate (who may have been prevented from standing due to Gold List requirements). Will CCHQ listen or will the view of the people suddenly be relegated due to the PC nonsense that now drives our policy development?

These issues should have been addressed before this announcement was made.

[kingbongo]

I think this sounds a sensible way to select candidates.

at stage two I would hope most assocations would choose primaries as the method most likely to engage the local electorate.

The wisdom of crowds ensures an open primary is the most likely method to succeed and I hope Tim will provide a Primaries thread to discuss the benefits and risks of this.

The winners at this stage are all people who have shown an ability to cnnect with the local electorate and any one of them should make a good MP so letting the association have the final say can't be a bad thing (but it MUST be the final say in 99.99% of cases)

My concerns would be -

a) Will CCHQ be prepared to live with the decision - they can't claim it's being made by a small unrepresentative clique but they aren't going to want another Neil Hamilton being selected

b) what special measures are going to be put in place in the areas where the party is almost non-existent - help is going to be needed or there'll be no inner city revival.

c) what support is the party centrally going to offer to attract fewer lawyers and more people like me (average salary, no independent income)

[Rick]

In olden days - maybe even golden days - an MP was a local candidate who knew something of the constituency and had a claim to represent local interests.

How far does Maude want them to be local in such a sense, and how far does he have a template of exactly the candidate that London expects every constituency to clone ?

The Conservative Party is off the rails if it thinks it will operate democratic centralism and make the MP primarily a party loyalist putting local constituency interests second - this party cannot afford to have any MP who is not first and foremost local and responsive to his constituents in every respect simply because the Conservatives do not have a party infrastructure outside the Southeast

[Richard Allen]

I can't see why anyone should be surprised by this. Cameron and Maude have nothing but contempt for the local associations and this kind of centralism was to be expected.

[Louise]

Apologies for late reply to points raised. Elections and all that...

I like both Iain and the Ed have explained my point well. Of course the ability to speak well in public is important, but it isn't the most important attribute a candidate can have. I would rather a candidate who could think on their feet and answer questions, particularly on local issues, rather than one who could deliver a stock 5 minute speech with inter-changeable constituency names.

Very little of an MPs work is actually making set-piece speeches in the Commons, much more is spent dealing with constituents, community groups and in committees.

I hadn't actually thought about the Davis/Cameron aspect, but now you come to mention it....

[RodS]

More garbage from Francis Maude!!. What is the point of having local selection committees and then setting up all kinds of obstacles. What this really means is that CCO do not trust local Associations to pick the kind of candidates CCO wants. With one breath they say candidates should be representative of the electorate and with the next try to 'engineer ' some photofit preferred model. It will not work. Guidelines can be ignored and local associations should stick to their guns.The set speech is an important hurdle - if you can't hack it, then tough !!

[matt wright]

Interesting but I think CCO could have been more innovative and had real change. I like the ideas of primaries but this is only an option in this plan. I think there is a role for speeches so ruling them out completely seems odd. The process is still dependent on how well someone does "on the night" so is not that much different. I think we should have adopted a process I call "Mentor & Measure" which would test candidates in real life over a period of time by getting them to work for constituencies. This would also help more women into politics and get good local candidates.

Matt

[Goldie]

It's a coup. Cameron and his buddies will obviously select candidates on fealty to the new line. No real conservatives need apply.

[Clare Lewis]

If only I were:
-Gay
-Disabled
-Female (well 1 out of 5)
-Coloured and a
-non-Tory
I would be assured of a safe Conservative seat. Maybe....Folkestone or Daventry!

[Annabel Herriott]

Agree with Iain Lindley. A candidate can interview well, speak without notes, ie has spent 6 weeks memorising and rehearsing the thing, but fall flat on their face as soon as they get on the job. Also agree with Editor as to just who these"great and good" are. I am aware that some of them are thoroughly unreconstructed.
Up here, we had planned to take each candidate out canvassing during the morning, followed by the speech in tne afternoon. Using that method, we selected Maggie Throup, and she knocked Kali Mountfords maj down to 1501. Would have got there as well if she had had more than 6 months, but we had a difficult start with our picks, on of which defected to the Dimlebs after she resigned.
This new selection system would safe guard us from that. It would show us if any homework had been done, apart from visiting a few websites. Obviously it will have to be talked through and refined, but, I feel a good start. I do wonder how many of the detractors of the proposed system have actually been involved in their constituency selecting a candidate. If they had, they would surely realise how nuch you are in the dark, and there can be a certain element of "Pot Luck!"

[Giffin Lorimer]

Delighted with stage 2 in getting potential MP's in front of ordinary non-party members i.e. voters, and something I've been thumping on about in various comments on this site. We need MP's who have appeal as well as ability - Zac Goldsmith is a great example of that.

Couple of concerns:

1. the external panel should be representative of the constituency demographic make-up.

2. selection needs to be made 12 months in advance to give the new candidate plenty of time to get to know the team and start to meet the voters.

[Paul Kennedy]

"We need MP's who have appeal as well as ability - Zac Goldsmith is a great example of that.
2. selection needs to be made 12 months in advance to give the new candidate plenty of time to get to know the team and start to meet the voters".
GL

Didn't think he has aspirations to become an MP, does he?

With regards to 12 months, guess that is OK if you have a "local" candidate they will already know the team & VV, the voters & VV, the area and will be able to hit the ground running. That timescale can be a bit more difficult for the "carpetbaggers" in the marginal type seats.

[Hmmmmm]

I gather Candidates Dept are now offering courses to people on the list called "Induction to the Conservative Party" - it explains to them who we are, our history and what we believe - assuming of course that many of them dont know, or havent bothered to get to know the party before they decide to become tory MPs. This says it all and I GUARANTEE it will end in tears.

[Simon C]

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.

The Guidelines seem to be silent as to what happens if an Association chooses to use a primary - will speeches be allowed in the primary process? I think they were in Warrington.

[Paul Kennedy]

"will speeches be allowed in the primary process? I think they were in Warrington".

They were.

[Paul Kennedy]

"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". Simon C

You are right, it is possible to deliver a very good really focused speech in 5 minutes.

[Nicholas HN]

Can this editor of this site please tell us whether ---

he ***is*** already on the 'priority list'

OR

whether he has ***applied*** to go on it?

This 'full disclosure' would be very helpful.

Thank you.

[Michael McGowan]

For a man so keen to present himself as forward-looking, modern, pivotal, vibrant and in love with Britain as it is, Maude seems to have ultra-conservative dress sense.....even if he has abandoned ties. Has he shared with us yet what underwear he prefers?!

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Nicholas - you will find Tim answers your question on my recent interview with him which you can find at www.toryradio.com

I'm off for my A list interview now!

[Nicholas HN]

Many thanks Jonathan. Sadly I just cannot get real player to work, so ......... any chance of a precis?

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Sure - Tim please correct me if Im wrong but when I asked if he fancied being an MP - he commented that no he didnt and that there are other ways of being influential in conservative politics than putting yourself forward as a candidate.

These are my words not his - but my understanding is that Tim isnt on the A list.

[Rick]

So by getting a soapbox and letting each candidate address the public in a market square this "open primary" can be fulfilled with instant voter feedback and question and answer sessions instantly available - a truly interactive experience

[David Brackenbury]

The composition of the 'A' List will not be announced until after the May Elections.

It should be an interesting announcement and will encourage a lot of chat on this forum!

[James Maskell]

I have held back from posting here partly because I thought it looked alright. However after long consideration, I cant support this.

What happens if even through this system, more men are going through? Will Cameron order constituencies to go through the system again or to overturn the democratically chosen candidate? Hes talked about "further action" before.

This is a diktat from Central Office. I have a serious problem with open primaries and dislike the idea of other parties having a theoretical or even tangible involvement in the selection of the candidate. The candidate chosen should be right for the party first as its what we are offering as the summation of the local association in a conservative candidate. Pandering to the opposition is just going to water down the candidates to a one size fits all arrangement.

The last stage is concerning. What is the moderator favours a particular candidate and after one person in the crowd (could easily be a plant) asks a question about a particular controversy, the moderator could sway the peoplem into voting for the particular candidate they favour. Internal politics is important in the second a third phases. If a candidate has been particularly involved in the area but some people dont like that person they can sway it, even if in consultation with the association by giving bad reports. Personal issues would get involved and these proposals dont avert it and if anything encourage it.

Sorry, Maude, Jenkins and Cameron, cant support this. Tim Aker was absolutely right when he spoke in favour of semi-open primaries. we are the Conservative Party and the candidate should represent us, not every group in the constituency. That comes afterwards.

[Rick]

I have a serious problem with open primaries and dislike the idea of other parties having a theoretical or even tangible involvement in the selection of the candidate

Reminds me of student politics when lots of OUCA members joined the Liberals to vote in their new executive elections

[Richard Willis]

There are a lot of knee jerk responses on here from people who are clearly unfamiliar with the current selection arrangements.

Francis Maude and CCHQ are no more "telling local Associations" who they should select than under the old arrangements. It is currently the case that CCHQ maintains an approved list and sets the criteria for selection processes. I see no great shock or horror in the new process proposed.

It is eminently sensible to involve some outside people in the selection process, rather than just the hard core activists. After all we are trying to win their votes as well! The Associations that had a primary style process produced some very good results in 2005. My own old seat of Reading East had a closed primary (Where people had to register to attend) and selected a local Cllr who won the seat from Labour. By using the primary process he gained some good coverage from the local press.

It is laughable the way some people constantly predict the end of Conservatism as we know it, just because their favoured son didnt win the leadership. Times have changed and too many Tory activists rather wish they hadnt. They are stuck in the past and are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

[Voice from the South West]

Insulting activists who have spent their lives working for the Conservative Party as being "stuck in the past" just because they don't 100% agree with some of the leadership's actions is something that I find very offensive and ungrateful. If it wasn't for them Rick you would never have got as far as you've done now.

[Richard Willis]

I suggest you read the comments from Goldie and Clare Lewis above to see how detached some people are from reality!

The idea that being female, black, gay or disable "guarantees" you a safe seat is ridiculous. As is much of the hysteria on here from a few posters.

I am also an activist and am well aware of the problems and issues that affect people. I did not attack all activists, just those who are stuck in the past and particularly those who post silly postings on here that are not based in fact.

[Anon]

Richard - could you clarify what you believe the "further action" being taken would mean if Associations chose men from the A list? Would you envisage this to mean all women short lists?

[Richard Willis]

Anon - I really dont know and I suspect neither do CCHQ. I am opposed to all women short lists as are many activists.

We will have to wait and see. It will depend on how the first tranche of selections go.

[b.garvie]

Non-party individuals should not be involved in this selection process.Why should outsiders who do not belong to the local Association be allowed to interfer? it would cause mayhem and upset the loyal, hard working Association members.

[Richard Willis]

To B Garvie I would say that where a primary has been tried it has been successful. No mayhem has been caused and the activists were generally pleased to see outside interest.

Non party members are far more representative of the electorate than activists.