John Townend is the reason why the Tories should return to the old selection methods

BRUCE ANDERSON

No good deed goes unpunished. A few years ago, John Taylor was a jobbing barrister. He is a personable chap and not without some ability, but it seemed likely that the high honours and great emoluments of his profession would elude him. Then he and the Tory party discovered one another. He needed a less demanding career while the Tories needed black faces: not the reaction of a racist party. John Taylor became the candidate for Cheltenham, but lost because Liberal canvassers poisoned the doorsteps, using language which made John Townend sound like the Chairman of the Race Relations Board. Even so, a peerage is handsome compensation for a defeated candidate.

Not only that: in pre-peerage discussions, John Taylor told the party leadership that he had an adequate income, did not need another job and would have plenty of time for the Lords. Once he arrived, he felt less confident about his income, and expressed interest in further employment. The Tory front bench controlled its exasperation and tried to find him some.

The Tory party plucked John Taylor out of obscurity and has continued to assist him. He owes the party far more than it owes him, but he has found an odd way of expressing his gratitude. Over the past few days, it seemed that he had finally found a role worthy of his abilities: as Alastair Campbell's glove puppet. One would have hoped that after Cheltenham, he would not have wanted to imitate Charles Kennedy.

John Taylor has allowed himself to be puffed up by his peerage and to be manipulated by men cleverer than himself, but he is not a bad fellow, unlike John Townend. That is a nasty piece of work, and also a disillusioning one, for he is also a wine merchant. Even in a fallen world, the wine trade ought to be an ennobling vocation. Not in Mr Townend's case.

The late Jock Bruce-Gardyne had a son who was taking time to start a career. Then the young man went to Chile, discovered the excellence of Chilean wine, and reported back to his father that there was money to be made by importing it into the UK. By then Jock knew that he was dying, and it eased his mind to think that his son had now found an opportunity. But Jock, a dear man, was inclined to be naive about people. He advised his son to draw on the experience of his former Commons colleague,

John Townend. This was done. Then there was silence. The Bruce-Gardynes heard nothing from either Mr Townend or the Chileans. When Bruce-Gardyne fifs eventually spoke to the Chileans to try to expedite matters, he discovered what had happened. John Townend had told them that they would be foolish to do business with an inexperienced youngster; he would look after their UK interests.

Apart from being in the wine trade, Mr Townend is also an obscure fellow, and deservedly so. He has been a legislator for 22 years, yet hardly anyone at Westminster takes him seriously. There was certainly no need for William Hague to do so. It would have been absurd to take away the Whip from him. That punishment should be reserved for grave breaches of discipline, not for public-house philosophising. In the words of the late Lord George-Brown, John Townend ought to have been treated with a complete ignoral, despite Ted Heath's attempts at trouble-making.

He has claimed that he demonstrated strong leadership by sacking Enoch Powell, whereas Mr Hague has shown weakness by failing to sack Mr Townend. That is a ridiculous analogy. Ted Heath did sack Mr Powell, hut from the Shadow Cabinet; there was no question of withdrawing the Whip. Mr Powell did eventually leave the Parliamentary Tory party, but at his own volition. The Tories were fortunate in his departure because he might otherwise have displaced Mr Heath. The party was better off with Margaret Thatcher, as even Ted Heath might agree.

Ted Heath ought to have a care. There are always a few MPs who earn gratitude tinged with contempt from the Press Association by their willingness to say anything at any time in order to fill a gap in a wire service report. Throughout his years in Parliament. John Townend has striven to be such a rentaquote. Ted Heath now seems to have developed the same ambition. This is hardly a dignified role for a former Prime Minister, especially when the quotes are so absurd.

But there is a broader lesson in all this. The Tory party needs to exercise more care in its choice of personnel. Twenty-five years ago, Anthony Grant (subsequently knighted) was the party's Vice-Chairman in charge of candidates. His methods were informal and old-fashioned. Pleasant-spoken chaps from traditional Tory back grounds would stick their head round his door, be invited to sit down for a chat, and would rapidly be invited to join the candidates' list.

It was then decided that matters ought to be up-dated, so Marcus Fox was put in charge. Suddenly, the pleasant-spoken chaps were at a disadvantage. Preference was given to gritty Northern businessmen, like John Townend; the sort who preface every remark with 'I'm a blunt-spoken man, but where I come from, we believe in speaking our mind.' When it came to moral weight, Marcus Fox travelled light. He chose some candidates in his own image.

Twenty-five years on, it is possible to compare the Grant and Fox methods. The Tony Grant one was an outstanding success. It helped produce the 1979 intake of Tory MPs, one of the best vintages of all time. The Foxites include some of the party's crudest populists and worst troublemakers.

Since Sir Marcus's days, the party has continued to experiment with new methods of choosing candidates; every new headhunter's gadget is eagerly embraced. That is a mistake. There is no harm in looking at the ways in which other organisations select their high-flyers, and it is obviously desirable to broaden the intake, without discriminating against hereditary Tories. But there is a key concept which is sometimes in danger of being submerged by jargon: character. The party needs men and women whom it can use rather than those who are cynically determined to use it.

In recent years, the Tory party has been continuously embarrassed by MPs who should never have been MPs. So it ought to devise a system which would have ensured that Edwina Currie, Christopher Gill, Teresa Gorman, John Townend, George Walden and Shaun Woodward were never allowed to become Tory candidates. It may no longer be possible to run the entire selection process along Tony Grant lines, but there ought to be an injection of Grantism.

In its absence, the antics of irrelevant characters make it harder for William Hague to discuss important issues, such as asylum and nationality. It is fortunate that Mr Hague is a genuinely gritty Northerner, who can rise above John Townend, John Taylor — and Alastair Campbell_ But recent events are not a good prelude to an election campaign.