The new process is being used for a first batch of 26 non-Labour held seats which the party has calculated it is worth selecting candidates for now because their geographical location means they will form the basis of a successor seat after the boundary changes caused by the reduction in size of the Commons. We ruled out selecting in seats where the process could have to be rerun because of merger with a neighbouring winnable or Labour-held seat eg in towns with two winnable seats, only one of the two seats is selecting now to avoid a messy future run-off between two sitting candidates if the seats are merged by the Boundary Commission.
The basic differences between the new pilot process and the old one are:
• There’s no national panel process of pre-approved candidates – people self-nominate and it’s up to the CLPs and a representative from the relevant Regional Board to apply quality control
• The process is shorter – four weeks of live campaigning with access to a membership list after shortlisting rather than the previous 12 weeks from self-nomination
• Longlisting (by CV) and short-listing (by interview) are by a selection committee elected by the CLP EC, rather than by the full GC
• The materials candidates can put out used to be unlimited; now they are limited to two leaflets and an ‘out card’
The sharp end of the process – a hustings with voting by all CLP members – remains fundamentally the same.
The principle we were seeking to apply as an NEC were:
• To streamline and speed up what had become a cumbersome and lengthy process (three times longer than the month an actual general election campaign takes)
• To create as level a playing field as possible where anyone can access the process and no one can buy a selection with excessive weight of glossy literature (given we have criticised the Tories for using Ashcroft money to do this in general elections we needed to clean up our own internal process)
• To trust the members to make good choices of candidates and give as much control over the process as possible to CLPs themselves
We also needed to construct a process that works just as well in a safe Labour seat with 100 applicants (a process that in those kind of seats only happens once a generation and effectively decides who the MP will be) as in a total unwinnable where a local activist has to have their arm twisted to run.
Richard’s concerns are important but I think exaggerate the risks in the new process.
He worries that the selection committee ‘itself is wide open for stitching up the result. One or two strong-willed local members can, either on behalf of potential candidates or just with an axe to grind, skew the whole outcome of the selection.’ But that could already happen with GC shortlisting and the function of the selections committee is quite clearly defined in the new procedure. It is absolutely not to make a political decision as to who should form the shortlist, as Richard fears, perhaps blocking strong candidates from going before the members. Its job is to act on behalf of the wider membership of the CLP to pick on merit the strongest possible shortlist of candidates for them to choose from. It’ll be doing this under the scrutiny of a Regional Board rep who will be looking out for any jiggery-pokery and ensuring it is an equal opps process looking at the merits of the candidates. The CLP can bring in external expertise in interview skills and equal opps to serve on the committee. They will have a clear set of criteria to judge prospective candidates against. And they will have been elected by and are accountable to the CLP EC. In every selection process I have been involved in the CLP Officers are incredibly mindful of the need to run a fair process on behalf of their members and to treat prospective candidates fairly. Whenever possible we should be trying to make sure the people directly picked by local members, with the CLP’s interests at heart, get the greatest possible control over the running of the process.
Richard also says that the new process will make ‘it easier for those with a base in the constituency already’ but I don’t see the evidence for that. The previous system required the ability to get free time for a 12-week slog of a campaign, cash for unlimited expensive mailshots, access to print and design facilities, and even more cash to pay for travel and accommodation if you didn’t live locally. This sort of marathon virtually closed the door on participation to everyone except professional politicians be they people that work in politics in London, or the favoured candidates of union machines, or full-time local council cabinet members from the town concerned. Some people are lucky enough to fit into more than one of those categories! It worked against people with non-political jobs or caring responsibilities or limited cash and contributed to a narrowing of the range of people we pick as MPs.
Richard worries that the limit on the number of leaflets ‘hampers innovation in communications’. In fact it does the opposite as the leaflets permitted are allowed to point towards online material which can be presented in ways which is both innovative and interactive.
I’m not claiming the new system is perfect. That’s why it’s a pilot. Let’s see if it works and reserve our criticisms until then.