Is the Candidates' List too long? Should the Priority List be scrapped? How should we select MEP candidates? The three men bidding to be chairman of the National Conservative Convention offer their views

Having already introduced the three candidates standing to be chairman of the National Conservative Convention, below is the first of three tranches of answers to the questions ConservativeHome readers wanted to put to them. The other tranches are to be found here and here.

One issue that has regularly provoked considerable debate within the party is that of the selection of candidates for Westminster and the European Parliament.

Asked whether they had supported the mechanism used to select MEP candidates for June's elections, only one - Jeremy Middleton - said outright that he had opposed it. All candidates agree, however, that the process needs to be reviewed before the next European election.

On the topic of Westminster selections, all three candidates raise a variety of issues: Simon Mort believes that the Candidates' Department has lost the confidence of the voluntary party and that the candidates' list is "absurdly too big" - as well as asserting that sitting MPs should have to "justify their continuance more formally"; Jeremy Middleton calls for the Priority List to be scrapped and for more flexibility to allow local candidates to stand who are not on the candidates' list; and Sir Graham Bright calls for local members to be involved earlier in the selection process, whilst questioning the success of the Primary system.

Here are their answers to our questions in full:  

Question: Did you support the mechanism used for MEP re-selection/candidate selection for this year's European Parliament elections which made it virtually impossible to deselect a sitting MEP and guaranteed the top vacancy in each region to a female candidate - even when she got fewer votes than the leading male? What process would you like to see implemented in the future?

Sir Graham Bright: It wasn’t just a case of supporting the mechanism for the re-selection of MEPs.  This was a decision made by the Board and, as the Regional Chairman, I am very much a team player.  I most certainly reflected the fact that many people were very unhappy and there is a clear need for this to be reviewed. I feel, as with MPs and local Councillors, MEPs should only go forward for re-selection by popular vote and all candidates should be selected on merit.

Jeremy Middleton: I opposed this at the board and forced a vote on the issue.  However, despite support from some colleagues, I was not successful in carrying the majority of the Board.  I have therefore accepted the decision of the Board until the next MEP re-selection cycle arrives and it is appropriate to review the process again. I would prefer to see candidates selected on a one member, one vote basis – not by a selection panel.  If sitting MEPs cannot secure re-selection by their own members then I do not think they should be our candidates.

Simon Mort: I question the basic premise. It was possible to ditch sitting MEPs. As you will well know, the aim of the measure was to approximate the position of sitting MEPs to that of sitting MPs. Members just need to be a bit more bold and not intimidated by the incumbency.  The whole process of selection of MEPs within the ghastly undemocratic framework which the government has imposed upon us, needs serious considered consideration. It is not a subject for kneejerkism. I would give it a high priority after June.  As Regional Chairman for the 2004 Euro-election I insisted on having a meeting in each of my six Areas and producing a mosaic of them so that they were at different times of day and on different days of the week.  The balance in favour of female candidates was a vital, clear and uncompromising part of David Cameron’s presentation in 2005.   It was therefore our obligation and duty to get on and run with it after his democratic election.   After the 2009 Euro (and the 2010 General) it will have served its purpose.

Question: Are you happy with the current procedure for the selection of Westminster parliamentary candidates or are there changes you would like to see implemented? Do you favour a compulsory reselection process for all sitting MPs?

Sir Graham Bright: All sitting MPs should seek re-adoption by the Constituency Party and only if they are rejected should there be a re-selection. I do not feel that the Primary system that has been used is that successful as it stands but I like the idea of involving all members of the local Party at a much earlier stage of the selection so that the Executive has a very clear view of the people that the membership support before producing a short-list.

Jeremy Middleton: There are currently a wide range of procedures for the selection of Westminster Parliamentary Candidates.  Some of these are still being developed and we are right to test new methods.  However, I think that it is time to scrap the Priority List as it no longer serves a purpose.  I would also like to see more local candidates and more women candidates and to that end would propose that we create a National Volunteer officer to work on candidate selection.  I would like to see this person working with an appointed Volunteer officer in every region seeking out local candidates themselves to put through the selection process.  I am an advocate of more flexibility in selections, especially in non target seats. For example, it is my view that we should allow local candidates to fight their local seat if they have a long history of campaigning and the support of their Association even if they would not pass the rigorous central selection criteria demanded of those who we may one day expect to sit in government.

Simon Mort: I am not happy with the current procedure. I was Chairman of Candidates 2005-6. The role was enormously rewarding in encouraging, coaching, outreach and filtering quality. A week ago I re-met a candidate and she said to me “Thank you for the advice which you gave me three years ago: it changed my political life.” That is one of many things that makes political work feel worthwhile.  At some point since then I perceive that the department has lost the confidence of the Voluntary Party: The list is absurdly too big for this stage in the cycle (thus generating much disaffection); the Euro-process must be revisited; the City Seats Initiative (CSI) must be restricted to city centre seats with no significant membership; and the candidate selection process is too focused on the level playing field sometimes at the expense of constituency needs.  Whenever I chair a selection or address groups of candidates I tell them to look in the looking-glass every morning and say to themselves “I am only a Member of Parliament. I am the servant of my constituents”.   There is certainly a case for getting sitting MPs to justify their continuance more formally. Much can be done under the radar to get past-sell-by-date MPs to stand down and there is a role in this for senior volunteers (Board level, Regional Chairmen and constituency Presidents) (behind the constituency office with a baseball bat; or in its more civilised form a glass of sherry before Sunday lunch).

Jonathan Isaby

Comments

[Tim Montgomerie]

Jeremy Middleton's answer on MEP selection is enough to get my vote (if I had one!).

[Rupert Matthews]

I was already inclining toward Jeremy Middleton. Having read these answers I am now confident that he would make a cracking Chairman. Mind you, I don't get a vote. If you do have a vote, please cast it for Jeremy. If not, go to his website and volunteer to help - as I have done.

[Freddy]

I agree that Jeremy Middleton is the one for the job

Incidentally why don't ORDINARY party members get to vote on who is the Chair of the NCC?

[Cleethorpes Rock]

My first thought was to go for Jeremy Middleton. Having read this, I'm even more sure. He is also the only candidate talking about modernising fundraising and internet campaigns.

Having said that, now he has the backing of ordinary members, it will probably go to the knighted ex-MP or the party veteran.

[Alex Agius]

I think that the open primary system for selecting PPC's is fantastic and its use should be expanded.

I think that the priority list of approved candidates has delivered us some very high calibre candidates and helped to support these candidates while not preventing non-approved candidates seeking selection.

I think that the list system that we use to elect our MEP's needs to change as it is wrong and undemocratic but while we have to use this system the ranking of our candidates by the members (as we do) is the only sensible way to select them.

Which candidate best represents my views?

I do have a vote.

[Robert Reynolds]

I agree with Tim, Jeremy is right on MEP selection and I think I would support him, if I could vote. However I also agree with Simon Mort on the CSI scheme, it has taken far, far too long and while I am glad that the party have finally recognised St Helens as a city, we have a strong party structure here and don't need outside inteference.

It is very frustrating to be waiting on people in some far off land of whom we know nothing to tell us when we can select our candidate.

[Tony Sharp]

For me, Jeremy Middleton is the breath of fresh air that is urgently needed. If the NCC wants the support and goodwill of the grassroots it needs a Chairman with the kind of vision his answers suggest he has. He seems in touch with what members think and that is needed within the party.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Best answer by a mile from Middleton. The MEP selection process was a farce and I'm sorry that Sir Graham and Simon Mort did not oppose it with more gusto at the time.

[HF]

I liked the answers from Jeremy (candidates) and Simon (sitting MPs). Both are areas which need to be tackled. Beyond 70 years old I cannot see how an MP can fully undertake what should be a physically demanding job.

Frankly if a sitting MEP or a sitting MP, cannot through their actions hold the support of their Association/Area they should be out.

MEPs spend far too little time looking after the members in their area.

[nigel syson]

Who is entitled to vote in this election?

[will.b]

Not that I get a vote but Jeremy Middleton would be my choice.

Simon Mort is however completely right about the candidate list - it is way too big. Completely unsuitable candidates are being encouraged to try and get on the list as a money making exercise by the party.

[anne allan]

I hope by cheering on Jeremy Middleton, I haven't blasted his chances. By the way, although an activist for the last 30+ years, I have only a vague idea of what the National Convention actually does, but it is refreshing to hear a potential bigwig talking like a Conservative. And who votes in this particular election?
The candidates list for MPs is a joke. I have sat listening to and watching Central Office pets and have had to exercise massive self-control to stop my jaw hitting the floor at the sheer awfulness of some of these A listers. What was wrong with the system when local candidates were automatically included? They knew their patch and actually wanted to represent it. Perhaps too many of them had a personality.
The MEP selection process just sums up 'Yoorup'.

[Serf]

the aim of the measure was to approximate the position of sitting MEPs to that of sitting MPs.

So give the same job security to MEPs that MPs have rather than create a more accountable system for all our elected representatives.

Deselection of an MP or MEP is a very divisive thing to try and do, and it hands our opponents ammunition. It is only really useful in cases of gross abuses of privilege, not for lacklustre performance.

A reselection procedure on the other hand is a positive way of ensuring that our representatives remain focused on their contituents, not their expense accounts.

In the case of MEPs, I am a believer in better off out. If MEPs who take an opposite view are selected by the party, that is democracy. If they are forced on relectant voters, then taht is unacceptable.

[Jonathan Isaby]

To those asking who is entitled to vote, I have added the details of the electorate to the original post introducing the candidates:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2009/04/the-candidates-for-chairman-of-the-national-conservative-convention-set-out-their-stall.html

[Marian]

I too would back Jeremy Middleton, he is a very pleasant man and seems to be offering some real change. Local candidates, ending of the Priority List. I think he would be good for democracy inside the party. I also think he has given by far the best answer.
I think Middleton is the man for the job. It will be interesting to see if the almost unanimous support he is receiving here has any impact on the voting process.

[Will S]

I would be more inclined towards Simon Mort's perspective. He appears to be a man who is able to think and move with the political process without being too radical.

But Middleton's ideas do seem quite appealing. I'd keep in mind that implementing his ideas could be quite tricky.

[Super Blue]

The future's Bright ..........

[MG]

What a breath of fresh air Jeremy Middleton is....head and shoulders above anyone else and exactly what is needed.

[Shaun Bennett]

Can't say I even knew that there was an election on. However, from reading the answers given here, it is quite clear to me that Jeremy Middleton is the man for the job.

The way in which EU candidates have been selected is an utter disgrace-for which I will not be voting for them in June. Sitting MEPs seem to have just gone to the top of the list as though they were playing a game of 'monopoly' and it was their reward for passing 'go'.

Its all very well Sir Graham Bright saying that he privately opposed it but didn't want to make waves. Waves NEEDED to be made, and if he isn't up to it then he shouldn't have the job. And as for Simon Mort's 'I don't recognise that there is a problem' argument well the less said the better.

Jeremy Middleton obviously has the passion for the job and he is in touch with ordinary members.

What a pitty us 'bog standard' activists and campaigners don't actually have a say. Thats democracy for you.

[Steve]

I met both Jeremy Middleton and Simon Mort at a recent conference, and this further inclined me to support (nominally, as I don't have a vote) Jeremy Middleton.
I like his attitude and approach, and also I like the fact that I had previously met him when he came to campaign in the Glasgow East by-election - walking the walk, not just talking the talk.

[Andy]

Incumbancy protection is irrelevant: MEPs should be reselected on merit. They must demonstrate achievements in Brussels and Strasbourg. If they vote with Europhiles in the EPP, fiddle their expenses or are idle, the members should have the chance to deselect them.

[Ross Warren]

"Is the Candidates' List too long? " and getting longer all the time. There is plenty of talent out here.Incumbency protection is wrong, when there are so many possibly better candidates. Nobody should get automatic reselection. Any blemish at all should result in a need for reselection at the next election. Such a system would help to rid us of the leaches, and the lazy. Maybe we need a number of referees independent of parliament who set the rules for MPs. Its a sad fact but the people are insisting on reform of the house. D.C. would be very wise indeed to push for implementation of a radical overhaul of the house of commons. Labour sleaze and bad behaviour over many years by all the big parties has reduced the respect that the country has for politicians. I think the current bunch would struggle to implement any state of emergency. At the first sign of any pain people will turn on their political "masters". The Fact is they can and will be replaced by better people if D.C. strikes the right tone from the out. We need to clean up our act so that we again have the moral authority to rule.

"What a pitty us 'bog standard' activists and campaigners don't actually have a say. Thats democracy for you."

Isn't it? But its up to us to lobby for change. Democracy is a bad joke and always has been, its time to restore the sense of unity that used to be the mark of Great Britain. We activists have only to band together to achieve our ends. There will always be a tendency for activists to be used by those who have climbed the slippery pole. There is a class of player who screws activists because that is what they are for.
The best way to deal with corruption and abuse is by fragging from below, those who are on the make should be aware that real fire that is in the belly of the best and brightest of the new wave.There are hundreds of us who could be excellent MPs but there is somebody in that job already. So from now on we should be clear that nobody is indispensable and a blot on your record is a blot on the record of the party. Those who will not buckle down should be outed from above certainly but also from below.