Jane Ellison won the Battersea Open primary selection tonight. She fought Pendle last time. Many congratulations to her. She had very stiff competition. The final four for these seat was one of the strongest for a long time. There were three recounts and Louise Bagshawe came a close second.
Not like in Beverley, when they had a strong last 3 and picked a pigmy from Cambridge
Sam was lacklustre, I'm afraid, but had easily the best back story, and is obviously a superb businessman. James was full of ums and ahs and was often wrongfooted by Portillo; he also had a slightly chippy edge to him. Louise was cocky and fluent but too hockey sticks; Malcolm Rifkind should stand aside for her. The winner kept her Ken Clarke credentials quiet and talked up her campaigning and retail experience.
The "Anyone But Ellison" faction did not get its message through to the Battersea punters. Many were surprised to hear later about her pro-EU stance.
Crick was beetling around for Newsnight.
THATS what happens if you let other parties decide who should be your MP.
In the future every time a Tory
PM/leader/Minister/Shadow makes an announcement that we should get tough on something, the BBC Radio 4 Toaday progamme will phone her up for a standard quote saying he/she is the worse thing since Adolf Hitler and we should all be very afraid.
I feel so much better. Pass the fucking sick bag.
A great result
The fact that Guido Fawkes was against Jane Ellison is a plus for her in my book.
So a Yorkshire lass who fought a Lancashire seat and got a great result against the regional swing last May gets the seat. Indeed, someone with a real job who has shown total commitment to the Party over a long period.
Personally, I am just pleased that the nasty and personal attacks on her ( always anonomous and example above) on various blogs proved totally irrelevant. Maybe those so keen on personal abuse will learn that you can simply go too far and so over the top as to become risable.
Well done the selectorate and well done Jane the next MP
Call me Dave... remind me who was on the Beverley shortlist?! :)
"Many were surprised to hear later about her pro-EU stance."
Pity they couldn't re-vote.
No doubt the Europhiles will be trying to paint opposition to Ellison as an example of right-wing extremism/Europhobia or whatever. They love pretending that their views are mainstream.
1) Yes, I am anonymous. "Mark" does not single you out, either. Care to give your surname?
2) Which part of "she kept her Ken Clarke credentials quiet and talked up her campaigning and retail experience. The 'Anyone But Ellison' faction did not get its message through to the Battersea punters. Many were surprised to hear later about her pro-EU stance" is a personal attack on your friend? The comments about the other three were far closer to personal criticism.
3) Learn to spell, starting with "risible".
Ye Gods. I suppose we should be grateful that the shade of Edward Heath wasn't running - so that the Labour/LD 'infiltrators' could have stuck it to us even more.
(Pounding nails into the floor with my forehead).
Can we try to stick to facts on this 'infiltrators' business, please?
Iain, do you know how many people voted, and how that compares to the association's membership?
I suspect it would have been largely the members taking part. Surely assocaition members voting by post would have overwhelmed the votes of the other parties' supporters there on the night?
Michael Crick said he voted for Jane Ellison.
Hmmm Iain... Beverley... I think there was some guy called Dail? Is that right?
Mind you, it wasn't a another genius Tory primary... I think the panel weren't, let's say, amazingly open-minded?
If I was a Battersea Conservative, I would propose a motion that jane Ellison is immediately deselected as they were not told she was a europhile. This is a deception and should not be tolerated. Find a seconder. Put it to the vote and push her out immediately.
selection is open, but deselection is still the business of the constituency association.
If battersea don't deselect her immediately they will suffer the same fate as Bromley. It is very simnple. Conservatives are getting very unlikely to vote for europhiles. don't select them as candidates.
This focus on Europe is nuts. As a 'lapsed' conservative voter, I wish the party would just get over it.
The debates about Europhile vs Europhobe are as relevant and as attractive as Labour's debates in the 70s and 80s about unilateral vs multilateral disarmament.
Tapestry - not more disinformation about Bromley, surely? Our weakness there had practically nothing to do with the candidate's Europhile position and everything to do with poor organisation and the Lib Dem's ability to target weaknesses (Three Jobs Bob from the East End). No one mentioned Neill's europhilia on the doorstep - and all the effective anti-Tory fire was on other issues. If we are to turn around our by-election fortunes we need to analyse facts not invent reasons that suit our prejudices.
I should add that I am no Europhile and, if I'd been on the selection panel, would not have voted for Bob Neill.
Great, what position does she play?
Actually Portillo did a fairly good job and ensured that Ellison had to talk about Europe. Her answer was not exactly brimming with pro-EU sentiment so either she was lying or she is more pragmatic than you give her credit for.
Overall she was a very good performer and the only one that actually talked to the audience - of around 450! Almost all were obviously Conservative voters.
Curious aspect was Bagshawe's strong showing - she was poor and her manner is also a real turnoff.
Let me tell anyone posting on this thread that if they do it anonymously and what they say is gratuitously insulting to Jane Ellison I won't allow it through. Some of the comments posted anonymously so far have been a disgrace and the people posting them should be ashamed of themselves.
"Curious aspect was Bagshawe's strong showing - she was poor and her manner is also a real turnoff"
Obviously the Battersea voters didn't think so
Do we want candidates who'll think "correctly" on every issue. I left the Labour Party many years ago because members were expected to toe the line on socialist dogma.
Tories believe in freedom don't they?
what is the qualification for the a list? how can some one whos political achievement to date is giving the lib dems a 9.4% swing get on to the a list. they should be sent to a no hope seat and told to learn how to campaign not given a key seat.
That is corrct bebopper that is and always will be the strong point and weakness of the tory party but the very reason why it is the natural party of power traditionally as it stands up for civil liberties
To Jane Ellison's credit, she did fight the 'Bernie Grant' Tottenham 2000 by-election, and seats don't come much more unwinnable than that. Apart from Barnsley in 96 and 97, which she also fought.
So, setting ideology aside, she's certainly paid her dues.
Jane will make a fantastic MP. Graham Stuart, Beverley and Holdness, is a fantastic MP!
Iain, why don't you just delete the offensive posts - starting with the first one?
I think the Beverley final 3 included Graham Stuart and Robert Goodwill - can't quite recall the other one :-)
Why does she have so many enemies? She seems mild-mannered and boring enough. Her record may be unpopular, but why is this so personal?
Hey fellow Tories, calm down. You are allowing yourself to get worked up about a non-issue. It's only because of the press coverage that Battersea's selection is of such interest. If you're from Battersea Association, you may want to take issue and if you want to have a different system for selecting candidates address that to the party leadership. Don't attack a person who you probably know very little about. Come on, have some dignity and respect.
*bangs head against wall*
When will the anti europe tories realise that they are just talking amongst themselves, like half senile care home residents. No one gives two figs in the wider world whether we are in the EPP or reinstating Mr Helmer. Schools, jobs and the ailing health service are what matters now.
Maybe the primary was the correct thing if it prevented the selection procedure being highjacked by one trick ponies. Michael Crick was allowed to vote as he was a resident. If you choose this procedure then you can not have a veto on any hacks who may turn up.
Yes UKIP increased their votes in Bromley but does anyone think that at a general election people will rush out to vote for them (other than those who feel the Daily Mail is too left wing).
Lets just lie down for a bit and remember we are a 'broad church'. Her views on Europe never caused any trouble in Pendle, Barnsley or Tottenham. On election day it is the voters that matter not the internal party.
My problem lies not with her but with her record in elections which is to say, her best result is 0.2 % swing for i believe, average. When we we learn the secret to keeping office is to get hard working mps on the ground who can develop a good relationship and hence win against national opinions. There is a reason why the liberals often win a seat by a hand full but by the time of defence they win by many 1000's more than they should from the national polls. If we got MPs like that into marginals we may avoid getting hammered again next time the swing is against. but that is one for the future.
Thanks for the information Croydonian, but I feel like your picture.
In 97 and 2000, the Party had not resolved the European issue. It was 'in Europe, not run by Europe' - which was of course nonsense but was the best we could do at the time.
IDS set the course to euroscepticism, which Cameron is continuing.
Any Constituency selecting europhiles is running a big risk as Bromley shows. Many Conservatives are sick to death of the EU and would rather jump in The Thames than vote for a europhile.
If A List control sends in a good speaker from its europhile wing, and less good presenters from its eurosceptic wing, it is the fault of A List control, not the Constituencies.
The Constituency has made the best of a bad job. If battersea want to keep a europhile who did not declare her hand as its candidate, then that's up to them. But if we want to win an election, they should deselect her on the grounds that she did not declare her political beliefs clearly enough, and start again so that all understand who is and who is not eurocompliant.
If Battersea are happy with a europhile, then fine. If they feel that they have been conned on the other hand, then they are perfectly entitled to bring a motion of no confidence and move to deselect. No one can possibly object. This is pure democratic process,and it's no one else's business than Battersea Conservatives. They should look only into their own souls and not listen to anyone else.
Tapestry, I was doing my bit to lower the temperature a tad. I'm deeply eurosceptic, and would prefer that every last Tory MP and PPC is similarly eurosceptic, and thus if I was Battersonian I would not have voted for JE, shall we say.
However, to re-iterate, she has put in the miles and to be frank, if the good burghers of SW11 and thereabouts and the constituency party were less than fully informed as to JE's stance on the EU that reflects more on them than on her.
There were those of us in the association who tried, to no avail, to warn people what was happening. The problem is that Ellison's CV avoided all mention of Europe or the TRG (as you'd expect), others mentioned membership of groups such as the Bow Group and Bagshawe's even revealed her Labour membership so presumably there was a deliberate decision to hide Ellison's affiliations. In addition the direction of questioning at every stage was either directly controlled by the CCO reps or the Association officers who stuck strictly to the new unwritten "don't mention policy, is the person someone your friends would want a drink with" rule.
Unfortunately for Battersea most of the voters on the night have friends a good 20 years and more above the average age of the Battersea constituents, hence the wrong result was returned.
Post a Comment