John Moss is a Campaign Manager at College Green Group. In the last Parliament, he helped over 150 clients as they sought approval, selection and election as Conservative candidates. He is a past parliamentary candidate, GLA candidate and currently a Councillor and Association Chair in Chingford & Woodford Green.
In the second of his three part series about candidate approval and selection, John looks at what other parties do and suggests ways the Conservative process can be improved.
—
It may surprise Conservative members, used to approval panels for Council candidates and choosing parliamentary and other candidates from an “Approved List”, that the Labour party don’t have one.
Seats are advertised – by the central party – but any member of 12 months standing can apply. The NEC has a selection sub-committee which vets these applications and may interview candidates. Then they provide the local parties with their long-list of candidates. If you are nominated by an affiliated Trade Union, you are not subject to the NEC filter.
There is then a local interview to reduce the long-list, and those who make the shortlist are given access to a membership list and expected to campaign. For the most competitive seats, websites appear, Facebook Pages are set up, running targeted ads, members are likely canvassed and emailed. All a good test of a candidate’s ability to organise and run a campaign. Like the Conservatives, the final choice is made by local members at a final hustings meeting.
The Liberal Democrats do run an Approved List. Their application and due diligence are done as one stage, and then candidates who pass that stage attend an Assessment Day and are either passed or failed. In a commendable show of transparency, the whole process is set out online
Their selection process is similar to the other two main parties. However, there is an explicit expectation of campaigning for votes amongst members, with membership lists being provided to the final candidates.
So, to address the main issues of contention in the Conservative process, it would appear that a more thorough “Tory test” is needed, the whole approval and selection process needs to be done more quickly, and the balance between the power bases of the Party needs to be addressed.
Do we need an “Approved List”?
In my experience, there is no bias in favour of, or against, candidates who have a particular position on particular policies, though as discussed previously, there is certainly a need for a more stringent “Tory test”. Ardent Brexiteers secured Comprehensive passes, as did those who had campaigned to remain. On balance, I favour retaining the current system, with tweaks, rather than starting afresh. Not least because I expect the next General Election to be in 2028, not 2029, so we need to move quickly to be ready for that, even if it does in fact come later.
Should all those that are elected be automatically approved to stand again?
At the council level before each round of elections, councillors must go through the approval process. It is odd that there is not something equivalent for sitting MPs. This could become very political and very complicated. However, some of the by-election losses could have been avoided if there had been stronger party management and MPs that were not living up to our values as a party had been challenged before being allowed to stand again.
Should defeated MPs be automatically approved?
When acting Chief Whip Stuart Andrew spoke on the Wednesday morning of this year’s party conference, he referred to colleagues who had lost their seats in July, and said, “we want them back!” That did not get quite the round of applause he might have expected and having spoken to some association chairmen in seats we lost, I can understand why.
No losing MP will have gone through the 2019/24 version of the candidate assessment process. So, for no better reason than fairness, any who seek re-election should be subjected to the same process as everyone else who was a candidate in July. There should certainly be no expectation amongst losing MPs that they will be given any sort of preferential treatment given how badly that went down at the end of the last parliament.
How should we approve candidates?
I doubt many would disagree that some form of candidate vetting is essential, and the competency-based assessment that has been used since the process was redesigned when Sir Iain Duncan Smith was leader has merit. Members would clearly like to see a more stringent assessment of a candidate’s values and policy preferences, but every candidate who passed in the last Parliament has done most of this already.
We could simply carry-over current approvals. That has the advantage of cutting out the whole “reapproval” process, which given the number of people on the list, will probably save a year. But it would not address the concerns about the lack of a sufficient “Tory test”.
A less radical step might be to invite all previously approved candidates to undergo a much shorter re-approval process. Perhaps just the application and an interview – plus some verification of the work they did in the election – and the Tory test. This was done after the 2010 election, when there was concern that the coalition might not survive.
For new applicants, most of the current process remains valid, (but it does need to include that Tory test). When I took my PAB in 2004 part of the challenge was to set out your ‘Personal Political Philosophy’ on one side of A4. That can easily be replicated with a further section added to the current four on the application form.
Applications should then be processed more rapidly.
The Party recruited and trained a lot of assessors in the last Parliament. I do believe there were too few when the process started, which contributed to the delays many candidates experienced after submitting their initial applications. But those assessors also need to be assessed. Anecdotally, some displayed certain biases which ought not to be there. They should expect confidentiality, but their decisions need to be reviewed, and they also should be expected to pass that Tory test.
Assuming that there is a good pool of assessors, then there is no reason why reapproval interviews cannot begin soon. There is also no reason why applications cannot be opened to new applicants, and due diligence done in parallel to ensure decisions on initial applications are made more quickly. If passed forwards, online tests can be done before candidates attend a single in-person assessment day to do the interview, collaboration exercise and public speaking/Q&A test.
A note on digital vetting.
This task is becoming harder, as many people have now been online for many years and may have forgotten what they have done or said before. Professional vetting is therefore essential to cover all potential sources of later, embarrassing disclosures. However, individuals are not perfect and what voters may see as fair comment and debate, may well be very different to what assessors or the media might take fright at. To expect candidates to have never done or said anything concerning is probably unrealistic. But what is the Party’s risk tolerance?
The final sign-off before someone is added to the Approved List is the monthly Candidates Committee meeting with their recommendation formally approved by the main Board. This is an opportunity for any final queries to be raised about recommended passes and failures, but this is perhaps not the right place for this. The voluntary party’s senior leadership is represented on these boards, but are they really close enough to potential candidates to do this? It might be a better function of the Regional and Area officers to play a role here, but it is an open question to see how this could be done without it becoming too political.
There is also an emotional toll of being in politics.
It is very hard to interview for “grit” and “stickability” in the face of what can be a constant barrage of vitriol from a few nasty individuals. As part of the approval process, we need to know that they are ready for what might come at them during their time as a candidate. For example, few probably realise they receive a visit from the police within a couple of days of being nominated to discuss the threats and risks they may be subject to. This is not just something for candidates and MPs, it also affects their families. We ought to consider the advice and guidance that can be given when people apply, and consider appropriate support for those who are approved and then selected.
Before the 2010 election, candidate burn-out was considered a problem. We have swung the other way with candidates having too little time to be effective in many seats. However, my feeling from many conversations over the years is that early selection is better, so whatever approval process is put in place, it needs to be swifter than in the last parliament.
In the final piece in this series, I will consider how to select in a way which is fair to members, but also to those who might make great MPs, but who don’t have history in the party or strong local connections. I will also make a radical suggestion about weaker seats – who have had the roughest of rough deals in the last three elections.
