Guest Blog: Richard Robinson on European Candidate Selection

In the next couple of months the Board of the Consrvative Party will decide how candidates for the 2009 European Elections will be selected. There has been much comment about how this should be done, about the implications for incumbent MEPs, and about the (mis-)alignment between the attitude to Europe of our delegation in Brussels and Party members.

The Spectator is now reporting a recommendation by the party’s National European Forum that unlike the selection for 1999 and 2004, party members will have no say in the selection of candidates. According to the Spectator, the proposal is that incumbents would require the approval of Regional Selection Colleges who would presumably rank the highest places in each regional list. Other places on the list would be allocated by CCHQ.

The arguments are all very reminiscent of the debate about how we select the Party Leader: members can not be trusted to act in the best interests of the Party; the cost of consulting members is disproportionate; an election would be a distraction. I know that some members of the Board believe that the hustings in previous selections were divisive. I thought that, given the passions that the EU raises among some party members on both sides of the debate, the hustings that I witnessed were conducted in a constructive spirit and members representing all shades of opinion contributed and were heard with respect.

There is clearly a belief among those who campaigned to remain within the EPP that they might pay a heavy price during an open selection and the protection being afforded to incumbents probably reflects this fear. I suspect that it is largely misplaced. In spite of the majority of party members being broadly euro-sceptic, the composition of the party in Brussels remained much the same after 2004. Members of the Party are a sophisticated electorate who are quite capable of appreciating the work, expertise and contribution of MEPs who hold a wide range of views.

Just as in the debate about selecting the Party Leader, the choice is what sort of organisation is the Conservative Party. Are we a membership organisation in which ordinary members actively participate in the decision making processes, or are our members just a supporters club: active, vociferous but disengaged?

Important as these issues are, I think that the way we select our European candidates also says something about our attitude to Europe. We criticise the EU for being centralising, for taking decisions behind closed doors, from promoting self-interested deals. We believe that institutions should be accountable. We believe that decisions should be taken locally where possible. We are proposing a new grouping in the European Parliament promoting a vision of the EU as more open, more outward-looking, more democratic. How much stronger would be our claim to be the voice of reform in Europe, how much greater would be our espousal of these values, how much more would these ideas resonate if we depended on these same principles in the selection of our candidates.

Let us renounce the hole-in-the-wall deal, the back-stairs fix. They give the impression that we do not take European Elections or MEPs seriously. Let’s trust party members by inviting them all to participate in candidate selection and ranking in a postal ballot. As David Cameron said in his New Year message last year, “I want us to usher in a new type of politics in this country: constructive, thoughtful and open-minded. And I want every single member and supporter of the Conservative Party to remember that personal commitment is the most powerful way to bring about change: as Gandhi said, "We must be the change we want to see in the world."”