Limiting parliamentary candidates to local activists reduces the talent pool

As the size of New Labour’s first landslide grew on election night 1997, Tony Blair freely admitted he knew little about many of those elected as his new MPs. “Isn’t that the guy who used to do the photocopying?”, he asked catching sight of one new member. 

Landslides and “change elections” bring many fresh faces to Westminster. As big opportunities open up, there is often a power struggle between competing selection panels over who will get the chance to be a candidate. 

The leaderships of both main parties are already ruing the consequences of allowing too much local control in choosing the candidates in recent by-elections.  

In Wellingborough, the Conservative’s record-breakingly dismal drop in votes was not helped by the selection of the disgraced ex-MP’s girlfriend as the candidate. 

In next week’s Rochdale by-election, Labour finds itself without a candidate after being compelled to drop the local council worthy chosen, after his antisemitic remarks at a party meeting were revealed. 

After fourteen years of Conservative rule, a change of government party is expected. Exhaustion, boundary changes and internal party factionalism have all driven a significant turnover in candidates, especially on the Conservative side. 

It is difficult to keep score of the number of MPs who are retiring at the next election. According to the latest figures from the Institute for Government, 92 have announced the intention of not standing again, 58 of them Conservatives, with a further five “independents” who have lost the Tory whip.

A senior Tory told The Sunday Times this weekend: It’s going to be well over a hundred in the end”. There are even predictions that there could be as many as 150 current Conservative MPs who decide to give up. 

If things go as badly as some Conservatives fear, it will not matter much who is the Tory candidate. The fresh MPs will be from Labour or the Liberal Democrats.

There will still be great interest in those who hold back their retirement announcements until the last moment. Once the election is called, some in safer seats may even be encouraged to do so with the promise of a peerage in the resignation honours. 

That is because national parties can seize back control choosing who gets to stand from autonomous local selectors, once parliament is dissolved, or if there is “insufficient time” before the election to complete normal processes because of the number of unfilled vacancies. This opportunity to take back control applies as much to Labour’s National Executive Committee as it does to Conservative HQ. 

There was an outcry when Rishi Sunak tried to take these special powers from the beginning of this year. His “unjustified power grab” was fought off. This was fine, ConservativeHome’s Paul Goodman noted sarcastically, if “having a Conservative Parliamentary Party which increasingly consists, on present trends, of male local councillors is either unproblematic, or else a price worth paying for local autonomy.”

From the start, the national party leaderships have only a limited say over who gets onto the longlist for selection. The Tories have an “approved list” of those eligible to be candidates. Any Labour Party member of a year’s standing or more can put themselves forward.

In normal times, the final decision on who gets to be a candidate is taken locally. The shortlist of candidates is drawn up by either the executive committee of the local Conservative Association or the selection committee of the Constituency Labour Party, CLP. Local party members then vote to select the winner. 

Unsurprisingly, party activists tend to choose people like themselves. The overwhelming majority of prospective parliamentary candidates chosen in this cycle are “local”. This increasingly means being currently actively involved in local party politics, not just having family ties to an area. Around 85 per cent of those who have been selected have been local councillors. 

Many MPs say they get their greatest job satisfaction from sorting out their local constituents’ problems. This is worthy and important work but it is not necessarily the best qualification for governing a country or running a department, such as the Foreign Office or Treasury, say. The success rate of stars of local government at Westminster is mixed. Some, like the Mayors of London and Greater Manchester, have even gone the other way back into local government. 

The public may increasingly see their MP as being at their beck and call to sort out their problems. It has not increased their respect for them, as MPs’ low ratings in public opinion polls demonstrate. In some lamentable cases, open access surgeries have been abused to assault and, twice now, to murder the MP. 

In generations past, “local” connections were not a pre-requisite. Wannabe candidates would tour the country, cutting their political teeth before numerous selection panels. David Cameron, George Osborne, Michael Howard, Tony Benn, Michael Foot and Boris Johnson all tried for seats around the country. This is an expensive and time-consuming business which not everyone can afford. On the other hand, effectively limiting selections to local activists, vastly reduces the talent pool of local recruits. To level things up, parties should consider grants or bursaries for some actively seeking selection.

As party leader David Cameron tried to broaden access by drawing up an “A” list of potential candidates who he felt had something to offer. Derided by some back-to-basics Tories then as “the pseuds and poseurs of the London chi-chi set”, ConservativeHome points out that the A list actually introduced some MPs who have been far from Cameroons including Priti Patel, Suella Braverman and Esther McVey. 

Cameron successfully improved the gender balance of Tory MPs. In the current selection round, only about 25 per cent of new Conservative candidates are women. Labour is doing better with just under half, although the women are not concentrated in the most winnable seats.

The key to a better House of Commons next time surely lies in having a more diverse range of MPs across the chamber. Not everyone should be an ex-councillor or an Old Etonian. The well-meaning drive to devolve party decision-making locally has failed. It has not resulted in the selection of more impressive candidates. Nor has the enhanced opportunity to take part in choosing candidates revived political party memberships. Once measured in millions, Conservative and Labour membership now hovers in the low hundred thousands at best. This means that a dwindling band of activists, with limited political horizons, have more power than ever to pick who gets to be an MP – or potential Prime Minister. 

Jeremy Corbyn’s constituency of Islington North is now exhibiting typical strains between a local party and the centre. Corbyn has been knocked out as a Labour candidate by Keir Starmer, although all the signs are that he intends to stand again at the election as an independent. The selection of a new Labour candidate has been delayed, perhaps in the hope that the NEC can impose its candidate. Local activists, many of whom were loyal Corbyn supporters, are demanding instead that they should make the selection locally. 

Let us hope that there are lots of opportunities for party leaderships to put in the candidates they want at the last minute – and that the electorate then serves up some surprise choices of their own. The health of our democracy demands variety and a bit of random luck. Tony Blair’s photocopier ended up as a senior member of Ed Miliband’s shadow cabinet. 

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life