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)

The History of Candidate Selection 1950-1966

The History of Member of Parliament Candidate Selection in the Labour Party and Conservative Party 1950-1966
A look at today’s selection procedure for the three main parties would seem incomplete without delving into the historical machinery of selection. Michael Rush in The Selection of Parliamentary Candidates. Michael Rush (1969) Thomas Nelson and Sons: London. Looked at both main parties at the time through a comparative case study and made some observations worth bearing in mind today concerning the decision making processes and some statistical analysis.
Rush was writing at a time when ‘for the aspiring politician, the would be Member of Parliament, there is little doubt that the most promising vehicle of his ambition must be either the Conservative party of its labour rival’ (Page 3) Today of course we have a third party, the Liberal Democrats, who also provide this vehicle’ but also it implies that these two (and now three) parties would therefore have longer short and long lists to select their candidates from. This has implications for our project as we are dealing with the most ‘promising vehicle’s and should therefore anticipate the largest draw to prospective Members of Parliament.
The Conservative Party
The Machinery of Selection
For the general election in 1970 for Conservatives ‘the selection of candidates was the responsibility of Constituency Associations’ but interfering by party central HQ was not unknown such as Salisbury by election in 1965. Rush quantifies this by observing that ‘unlike the labour party, the conservative party did not possess a formal constitution… the absence of a formal constitution renders it difficult to define the relative positions of a national and local organisations’ In this climate it would be hard to discern at which level of analysis the decision making was made. Rush thinks it a good idea therefore to describe the ‘spheres of influence’ for both local and national party administration. (Page 13-14)
The spheres of influence of these two elements of Conservative candidate selection has implications for us as when we look at who gets selected and why. The uncodified procedural bureaucracy of the party may make thinks difficult is discovering the answer.
The Conservative party founded the Maxwell Fyfe Committee in 1935 to oversee the selection of candidates by holding a database of approved persons. Although this committee acknowledged that local associations had the right to select someone not on their list, it did impose recommendations that included financial arrangements being in order and character being acceptable before adoption. Details of marital status, religion and past and present occupations as well as name address etc.. needed to be sent to party HQ for consideration and no reason was needed for refusing to accept a prospective candidate. Acceptable candidates were then forwarded on to local affiliations. Where non approved candidates also presented themselves although in Richmond in 1958 only 4 out of 135 did this. (page 45)
Locally, ‘the major decisions in the selection of a Conservative parliamentary candidates are taken by a much smaller number of people representing a tiny proportion of the local membership.’ (page 35) Firstly, a selection council comprised of young conservatives, local affiliates and was chaired by the local party chairman. It numbered from 27 in South Worcestershire to just 7 in Crayford in 1965.
The selection council by a method of application scrutiny and interview, narrowed down a long list to a short list that will be presented to the second stage, the executive council. East Worcestershire’s 23 person selection council for instance cut the initial 85 applicants (an average number of applicants for a Conservative constituency at the time and unsurprising given Rush’s ‘vehicle’ hypothesis) interviewed 12 and shortlisted 4. (page 40) Shortlists of one were not uncommon.
It was at this stage that the executive council chairman can have a profound effect on the remaining selection candidates. Candidates wives were invited and asked to sit in on the interview for the executive council to assess her as well as her husband. The wife however do not address the council leaving us to wonder what she was being assessed (page 52) After interview selection is decided by simple majority.
These spheres of influence are confusing and seemed to serve only to keep closer, arbitrary ties between the association and HQ.
Factors in Selection
Rush’s research found that the 16 years between 1950 and 1966 there was a marked difference between the selection of candidates in seats they could win and those they could not. For unwinnable seats more under 40’s were selected, less public school alumni and more with local connection. Rush surmises that this was because in winnable seats selection councils and executive councils were selecting a MP not a candidate but Rush fails to mention that these choices such as non public schooling may have been to entice voters from the other side of the electoral dichotomy and appeal to Labour voters. (page 60)
In the same 16 years only 99 women were selected as candidate from the 1,850 selections that took place. That’s 5% and includes seats Conservative associations knew they would not win. This does not however translate to the proportions of women doing the selecting. In the South Worcester council seat mentioned earlier 12 out of the 27 were non male 44% and this was not uncommon over the country. (page 62) The vice chairman at the time however did say only 10% of applicants to the Maxwell Fyfe Committee were women leaving us to wonder not why were women not being selected by local associations but why were they not applying in the first place.
The Labour Party
The Machinery of Selection
As set out in the Labour Constitution Clause III, local parties must follow what is set out by the party conference to the minutiae of detail (page 131) The Labour National executive committee (NEC) had considerable influence over the selection of candidates at every stage. This meant the party would not contest elections it could not win and save party resources.
It had the power of veto over selections but on the whole Rush observes that Labour NEC has rarely abused its power.
Locally, a management committee runs the local party or CLP. This is populated by delegates from the women’s section, youth sections, and ex members with voting powers. As above, the NEC must approve the committees make up before it can proceed. Average CLP membership is around 1,250, much less than trade union membership per constituency.
Labour candidates were harder to find that there opponents. Advertisements had to be taken out in newspapers and left leaning journals. The interviewing procedure occurs much sooner than in Conservative candidate selection procedures. The issue here identified by Rush is the difference that prospective candidates were not forwarded from party HQ to the constituencies. Candidates are therefore sourced locally and only then have to be approved by the NEC not the other way round.
NEC approved candidates are then shortlisted to 3 or 4 as with Conservative party shortlist to appear before a selection conference.
The Factors in Selection
Labour candidates can be selected thanks to sponsorship from trade unions. In fact at the time of writing between 1950 and 1966 again, 1 in 3 Labour MPS were sponsored. (page 165) Unions put forward their candidate alongside not instead of CLP candidates for NEC final approval. NEC take into consideration the Unions previous and anticipated relationship with the Labour Party. Trade union candidate selection is not as heavy supervised as CLP selection procedures. (page 178)
However unlike Conservative selections both winnable and unwinnable seats have similar candidate types nominated. CLP candidates are similarly educated, have similar previous occupations etc.. whether in winnable seats or not this holds true for trade union candidates but not at the same levels. Where around 12% of CLP candidates were from business background whether in winnable seats or not only 25 of trade union candidates were. (page 181)
Rush’s Conclusions
Conservatives: Selection mainly remit of local associations, there are no codified rules to selection but most follow very similar routes to selection, nominees are forwarded to constituencies so there is a flow of already approved candidates to choose from, selections goes through a 2 committee interview/application procedure like a job,
Labour: NEC can influence selection at local level, formal selection does not vary from constitutionally agreed method. (page 275)