Factors and Issues in British Parliamentary Candidate Selection

David Denver. Britain: centralised parties with decentralised selection in Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective. Michael Gallacher and Michael march eds. (1988) Sage Publications: London

Denvers chapter appears in a 1988 comparative analysis where the level of analysis is the state. Within each state the main political parties are assessed in further comparative analysis where the unit level is party. This is an example of Scoping to find an appropriate way of discussing the selection of candidates in different countries and we can then draw conclusions from each state and from all states at the end.

Denver begins by saying selection of candidates in Britain as in most democracies is a private process internal to the parties. Denver observes that although party administration is highly centralised and process of candidate selection is centrally determined the act itself is decentralised. Denver says all selections are taken by very small groups of people. (Page 47)

Denver’s research shows that between 1955 and 1970 three quarters of seats in Britain never changed hands are were ‘safe seats’ Selections therefore are where ‘the person chosen is in most cases assured of election’ (page 48)

Denver questions democracy as he reminds us that it follows that ‘it is not the voters but small groups of selectors who determine who shall be MP’s’ (Page 48)

As sitting MP’s are reselected selections processes usually happen in marginal or hopeless seats which make them redundant processes with little chance of amounting to anything (Page 50)

Safe seats attract more candidates and long lists will be longer is constituencies where if selected, parliamentary electoral success is almost a given. The behaviours of the selecting committee is likely to be more serious too. (Page 50)

In 1980 Labour changed its selection procedure so that sitting MP’s would not be automatically reselected and would instead need to go through the selection committee at each general election. This was in response to a rift in the party in relation to selection in the 1970’s

Denver states that in Labour seats, candidates are put forward to party HQ for approval by local bodies which makes his claim that only small groups decide future MP’s suspect as a nominee can be chosen by a unanimous body of hundreds of people at trade union level. (Page 53)

Denver reminds us that central party scrutiny and control over Labour selections is rigid and formal. (Page 54)

Selection for all parties involve ‘interaction between the local and national organisations of the parties’ and that ‘there may be some tension’ between the two. (Page 57)

Denver says local party activists are suspicious of national organisations and guard the rights they have in selection and importantly ‘parliamentary candidates in Britain are selected according to the desires and preferences of local selectors’ (Page 58)

Denver remains convinced that ‘candidate selection in Britain is that it is the prerogative of small, unrepresentative groups’ (Page 58)

Denver says that ‘there is no evidence that the ideological atmosphere generated by Thatcher significantly affected the role of ideology in selections.’ Service to the constituency is more important of Conservative selections. Ideological orientation is however of high importance to Labour selectors. Vague character qualities are shared by all parties the same e.g being presentable, articulate and decent. (Page 62-63)

A clear issue Denver raises is that often selection committees base their decisions on a small bundle of forms and a 20-30 minute interview and given that MPs spend more time with people and at meetings than they do making roaring speeches this seems unhelpful. (Page 63)

In his conclusion Denver says the only real issue central party HQ’s have with local selection is the propensity to select candidates suited to the back rather that front benches (Page 68)