THINNING OUT THE MENTAL PORRIDGE
Simon Helfer thinks the
Conservative Party is choosing its candidates in the wrong way
IN HIS biography of Mr Major, Mr Ed- ward Pearce recalls how the Prime Minis- ter won the Tory nomination for Hunting- don in 1976 while such as Mr Chris Patten and Mr Peter Lilley were not even short- listed. In his newly published memoirs, Sir Norman Fowler notes how the likes of Sir Leon Brittan and Mr Nigel Lawson were not given a look-in when he put himself before the Conservative activists of Not- tingham in the late 1960s. It appears, though, that cabinet material is not so profuse when Conservative associations select parliamentary candidates today; in- deed, some have complained that the calibre of would-be MP they are being offered is execrably low, and the bottom of the barrel is having to be scraped.
The decision of 48 Tory MPs to stand down (so far) has depleted the supply of candidates who by training, commitment and ability would enrich the House of Commons. There are some famously low- grade people among those already chosen, and likely to be elected. Some pessimistic Tory ministers feel the damage is already apparent. One refers to his backbench colleagues as 'the mental porridge': he points to the low standard of Commons oratory and debate, the increased evidence of ministerial incompetence, and the abs- ence of backbone that caused so much panic last year as signs that poor quality MPs are undermining the Conservative party. There are fewer people with a pedigree in politics going into a House where the benches were once littered with `With me it was the bright lights.' elder sons; politics has become a less attractive business, partly because it pays so little, partly because the work is so unforgiving and takes a heavy toll on MPs' health and families.
Yet however much Conservative activ- ists complain about the standard of the 800 or so people on the Central Office list of approved candidates, it seems even when they are sent good ones they are incapable of spotting them. On 'the circuit', among the hopefuls who trail around looking for seats, tales abound of how selection com- mittees contrive to miss talent. In some instances they are, superficially, well meaning — as in the case of the brilliant special adviser to a popular cabinet minis- ter, who was not chosen because — the local party claimed — it was felt he could better serve the nation by staying where he was. Similarly, another committee apparently felt that one superbly qualified candidate deserved a seat with a better majority than the mere 12,000 it had to offer.
Prejudice plays an important part in whittling down the 300 or more people who apply for the average safe seat to the 20 or so who are asked for a first interview. This is inevitable, as there is no standard procedure for choosing candidates, and local parties jealously guard their auton- omy. When they begin the procedure Central Office offers to advise them, but they rarely accept: the days are long gone when a grandee would 'have a word' with a local chairman about 'a bright young man', mainly because the local chairmen are now usually not the sort of person a grandee feels he can easily communicate with.
Some committees throw away the ap- plications of those under 30; others reject those without a spouse, or without council experience. Once the interview stage is reached the rules vary from one association to another, and confuse even the cognos- centi. Sometimes the candidate will be chosen entirely by the committee, and be put before an open meeting for rubber- stamping. Or, the committee will choose the best two or three, who will be judged by a meeting of all paid-up members.
In one such selection an outstanding applicant won nine-tenths of the commit- tee's votes. The subsequent open meeting chose the applicant who had scored just one-tenth. Such confusion in part explains the trouble in Cheltenham over the choice of Mr John Taylor, the black barrister, as the Tory candidate; however, that episode also proved the prejudice of some Con- servative activists. Nor does one have to be black to feel it, as women on the candi- dates' list confirm. Where committees do tend to find women useful is when they happen to be the first-class wife of a second-class candidate; and committees have been known to pass over the best because they like the wife of the second or third best. Her skill at constituency coffee mornings will be of little help to him or his party in Parliament.
Many on 'the circuit' have noted other prejudices not associated with the old Tory party. Even though two-thirds of Tory candidates at the next election will be ex-public schoolboys, there is a feeling (even among those with seats, who have no axe to grind) that there is an animus against them and Oxbridge types. Selectors like self-made people who run businesses, which may owe something to the frequency with which such people sit on selection committees. With them often sit council- lors, who put a self-important emphasis on local government experience that far ex- ceeds its usefulness. Middle-aged university-of-life men with town hall and enterprise scheme credentials have, there- fore, a strong advantage.
Associations like someone with whom they can feel 'comfortable', and whom they feel they can easily hold to account. When deference existed in the Tory party, that did not matter. Now, though — especially since the party does not normally de-select — committees taken a consumerist approach and want to pick somebody who will think like them, ruling out the independent-minded and counting against that smallish proportion of candidates who are brighter than their selectors. What makes a man agreeable to his activists his support for hanging, his willingness to spend half the week in the constituency and to put up with being patronised or bullied by his chairman — will not always make him an ideal man to help govern Britain.
The party's area agents are supposed to guard the interests of Central Office at selections. In the early stages they wield great power, assisting in the sifting of applications. Area Agents often recom- mend chairman for honours, so it is a brave chairman who will ignore the wisdom of his area agent. Some successful candidates will tell of the curious way they were never even invited for interview in seats in a certain area of the country, because they had upset the area agent. Normally, though, the agents simply ensure fair play without becoming involved. (This did not, though, stop one of them, after a candidate had cracked what seemed a good joke, turning to the chairman and saying loudly that he had heard the story before).
If the arbitrariness of the procedure is creating poorer MPs, and in time poorer ministers, Conservative Central Office must decide whether to dilute local auton- omy, as has happened (with success) in the Labout party, and play a strong role in shortlisting. If fewer people of quality want to become Tory MPs, it is important not to lose the good ones who do. A heavy pruning of the list to thin out the mental porridge would be a start; but a fairer, more regulated and better designed system for selection that would not deter the Brittans, Lawsons, Pattens and Lilleys of this generation is essential. Otherwise, the natural party of Government risks running out of natural governors.
Previous page
