There are many justifiable criticisms of how the Tories ran candidate selection for the last election. On the day that Rishi Sunak headed to the Palace, scores of nominees were still to be chosen, prompting a mad scramble to find 160 candidates in 12 days. Some seats faced accusations of ‘stitch-ups’, including Basildon and Billericay, where the-then party chairman was controversially selected from a shortlist of one. Scores of unknown names had to be parachuted in elsewhere.
The good news for long-suffering members is that this message appears to have been heard by senior Tory figures. An eight-page paper on candidate selection has now been drawn up as part of the Party Review into the 2024 election. The draft paper makes 49 recommendations, currently being circulated among senior Conservatives. Three points are of particular interest. They concern future candidate selections, lessons from the 2019 intake and the possibility of ex-MPs returning next time.
Future candidates
To prevent nepotism in future selections, the document suggests the creation of ‘regional candidate co-ordinators’ – senior volunteers with ‘no parliamentary ambitions of their own.’ Conflicts of interest would be reduced by making future holders of roles like regional and area chairmen ineligible from joining the candidates’ list ‘for a period of (say) two years after completing their role.’
It adds too that ‘consideration should be given to restricting party staff (locally or nationally employed) from applying for specific seats, if there is a conflict or unfair advantage.’ Then there is the recommendation that by-election rules ‘must never consist of fewer than three applicants.’ This could be dubbed the ‘Richard Holden rule’ – a change designed to prevent associations from only being handed a shortlist of one in future.
Aspirant MPs will be given tighter contracts in future, setting out clear expectations and requirements. According to the draft document, the ‘Candidate Agreements/Contract must remain binding on those who are successfully elected as MPs.’ This would give clarity over the mutual expectations between MP and party, with ‘a process developed to take action if it is breached.’ This would also be ‘supported by ongoing vetting, potentially on a random basis.’ Candidates should also be recruited from ‘outside of the “usual” pools e.g those connected to Westminster, councillors.’
Lessons learned from Boris Johnson’s landslide
The experience of the 2019 intake loom large over this document. It stresses the importance of ‘clear information at the outset of the application process’ as to the ‘family, privacy, personal safety implications of proceeding.’ It advocates that questions on ‘political convictions’ are extended to include ‘campaigning activity/experience within the party’ and an ‘in person, dedicated interview’ using a debate on the applicants’ views on topical issues.
An interview would probe candidates’ ‘Conservative values to establish that they have a fully rounded and well developed philosophy of what it means to be a principled Conservative.’ The document also suggests the Approved List be cut, that expected by-elections commitments for those on the List be reviewed and that a ‘dedicated development programme’ is established, like Labour’s ‘Future Candidates’ scheme.
Former MPs coming back next time
Then there is the subject of ex-MPs hoping to return in 2029. Those seeking re-approval to the candidates’ list could face a full in-person assessment. This would focus on their personal record of past campaigning, voting record as an MP and relationship with their Association. For those on the list as of July 2024, the approval stage is a re-list assessment, with a specific focus on their record during the election campaign. The selection stage for both would be retained unchanged.
Following a consultation over these proposals, the Party Review will then finalise the recommendations, which will then go to the new Candidates’ Committee. After a final, detailed draft is completed, they will then be recommended to the Party Board for implementation.
Comments