All Women Shortlists: Not In My Name

I agreed with much of what David Cameron had to say about attracting a more diverse range of Conservative candidates. Much progress has been made in this direction, not just over the last three years, but over the last ten. The selection methods which were instituted under Iain Duncan Smith (while David Davis and Theresa May chaired the party) were crucial precursors to what has happened following David Cameron's election as party leader.

I was uncomfortable about aspects of the A List but I recognised that something needed to be done. It was successful in pushing women candidates and more women were selected. However, it did little to attract more women to come forward to apply to be on the approved list. Even now, I am told that only 30% of the approved list are female. It is this issue which needs addressing, not just the proportion who end up being selected. The fact is that there are 30% women on the list, and 30% selected candidates, I believe.

It was thought that Open Primaries would also enable more women to be chosen. That hasn't quite turned out to be the case. Of the last seven, only one (Totnes) has chosen a woman.

David Cameron has today raised the possibility of imposing all women shortlists on some selections which will take place after Christmas. He has no doubt said this knowing full well the outrage it will cause among party activists and male candidates on the approved list. But let's be open about it. This announcement will be seen as a sign of failure, not one of strength.

As a Conservative I believe in equality of opportunity. I believe in a meritocracy. I can just about stomach a final shortlist having to consist of three men and three women, but for me it is thus far and no further. Imposing all female shortlists is a fundamentally unconservative thing to do and one has to ask where it will lead. All black shortlists? All gay shortlists? All disabled shortlists? All christian shortlists? All muslim shortlists?

Not in my name.

I look forward to hearing the views of Women2Win. Will they think this is manna from heaven, or will they think like Conservatives?

So, what to do about it? Apart from deploying force of argument there is little than anyone can do. Futile gestures would be just that. Futile. I'd like to think female Conservative candidates would feel just as strongly on this issue as male ones, but to pretend that anyone can do anything to change David Cameron's mind would be to grandstand. And we have had enough of that in the past.

Even by writing this post, I suppose I will be accused of indulging in a bit of boat rocking. But you'd expect me to be honest in my views, and I have been.

Nothing British About the BNP Say Veterans

Taken from Nothing British.

LibDems All Over the Shop on Afghanistan Withdrawal

Last week I blogged about the possibility of the LibDems tiptoeing their way to a position where they would fight the next election with a policy of withdrawing from Afghanistan. I speculated that this might well be a cynical electoral ploy, designed to create some clear yellow water between them and the two main parties. I cited an interview with their defence spokesman Nick Harvey I did at the party conference.

Sunday's Politics Show exposed the LibDem sham for all to see. Jon Sopel asked Nick Clegg whether they would ever advocate a withdrawal from Afghanistan. Clegg said 'no'. Sopel than put to him Harvey's response to my question, which Clegg maintained was exactly the same as his own position! Amazing.

See for yourself. Click HERE and scroll in about 6 mins 30 secs and watch for the next two minutes.

Gordon Brown's Top Ten Dithers

With the news that Gordon Brown will now not be appearing side by side with David Cameron and Nick Clegg at today’s Speakers Conference, it appears that the Prime Minister has bottled a simple decision once again. This set me thinking. Wouldn't this be a great opportunity to compile one of my famous top ten lists? So here we go. Below are the top ten dithers, bottles and hapless miscalculations Brown has made.

1. The release of al-Megrahi
After the Lockerbie bomber was released from jail on compassionate grounds, the Prime Minister refused to give his opinion on whether it was the right thing to do. Instead, he said that it was a matter for the Scottish Executive and that he couldn’t give an opinion as part of the British Government. But papers later showed that he had given an opinion. But when the UK Government and Scottish Executive published papers relating to the controversy, it was revealed that Bill Rammell, who was then a Foreign Office minister, told the Libyan government that ‘neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary would want Mr Megrahi to pass away in prison”

2. An early election
Brown appointed a general election coordinator three days before he became Prime Minister in 2007. He started writing a manifesto within two weeks. He reorganized the Labour Party’s entire structure. He hired an advertising agency and then he got his closest adviser to tell the newspapers that he was on an ‘election footing’ (Ed Balls, Sunday Telegraph, 23 September 2007). Brown refused to dampen speculation. When asked by Andrew Marr in September about an early election, Brown said: ‘whenever the time comes for an election these will be the issues… whenever the time comes for a decision I think the issues, of course, are clear…. that's what I think I will be trying to show the people of Britain this week. Brown bottled it and declared there wouldn’t be an election after all. On 6 October 2007, after months of dithering, Gordon Brown finally announced that there would not be a general election in 2007.

3. His favourite biscuit
When the Prime Minister took part in a webchat with readers of the Mumsnet website, he was asked on 12 separate occasions what his favourite biscuit was. Each time, Brown responded with silence. This failure to answer such a simple question prompted one user to question how much political calculation the Prime Minister needed to provide a response: ‘Maybe he needs to consult with his advisers on what would be the most vote-winning biscuit to admit to liking?’ It was only the next day when Number 10 strategists realised that his failure to answer was attracting negative publicity that an answer was cobbled together. Brown posted the following on his Twitter account: ‘I missed Mumsnet question about biscuits: the answer is absolutely anything with a bit of chocolate on it, but trying v hard to cut down.' See, wasn't so hard, was it? But still no brand.

4. Brown’s favourite food
Brown offered 8 different dinner and types of cuisine when asked what his favourite meal was by a school child. Brown responded to the question by saying: ‘Traditional things like steak and….all that and I love er…spaghetti bolognese, carbonara and all these things…so I like all these er er things…er…er, I like Chinese food, Indian food, I like English food, British food…I like…er…er…French food…I like, I like almost everything.’ When pressed further by his interviewer to give a firm answer, Brown finally replied: ‘I think it would be steak.’

5. Brown’s favourite band
Brown attempted to portray a softer side of himself by professing that he enjoyed listening to the Arctic Monkeys. In an interview with New Woman magazine in May 2006, Brown said that ‘the Arctic Monkeys really wake you up in the morning’. Months later, it emerged that Brown couldn’t actually name any songs by the Arctic Monkeys. When asked by men’s magazine GQ to give the names of any of the songs on the band’s debut album, Brown couldn’t offer a single one. He instead said ‘they are very loud’ and went on to praise Coldplay.

6. Televised leaders’ debate
Brown refused to have a televised leaders’ debate. When asked by David Cameron last year to commit to a televised debate between the main party leaders, Brown refused to do so out of hand: ‘In America they do not have Question Time every week, where we can examine what the different policies of the different parties are’. (Hansard, 27 February 2008, column 1084). Earlier this year, Lord Mandelson said that Brown would be happy to have a televised debate with David Cameron. However, the Prime Minister’s aides rejected such a notion with one saying: ‘Our position has not changed. Voters have the chance to compare the party leaders each week at prime minister's questions’. Brown was going to announce support of televised leaders’ debates in his conference speech before deciding against doing so. According to Nick Robinson, the BBC’s political editor, ‘Drafts of his conference speech yesterday contained a promise to do what no British prime minister has done before: to call for a series of TV debates with his opponents not just during the election campaign but starting now. Once again, however, Gordon Brown has shied away at the final hurdle. An offer to debate will not now be in his conference speech because, I'm told, “he wants to focus on policy not tactics”’. One aide later added more detail of the short notice at which the decision to back out of the decision on leaders’ debates was taken: ‘Do you know when the decision was finally taken by Gordon to drop the commitment to debate Cameron from the speech? At 1:30 in the morning on the day of his speech, that’s when he decided. At that point there’s panic. Quick, who has some substance we can use to fill the hole in the speech? That’s when they quickly re-heat the stuff about putting single mothers in state-care homes, and chuck it in. At… 1… 30… in the morning of the speech.’ (Labour aide, Ian Martin’s WSJ Blog, 4 October 2009). Brown finally decided to announce his support of leaders’ debates 18 months after David Cameron challenged him about it at PMQs. The Prime Minister finally committed to televised debates on 3 October saying: ‘It is right that we set the issues before the British people.…I relish the opportunity of making our case directly to the people of this country.'

7. Meeting the Dalai Lama
After months of dithering over whether to meet the Dalai Lama when he came to Britain, Gordon Brown finally decided that he would meet him. The Prime Minister arranged to meet him at the Archbishop of Canterbury’s residence, rather than his own. It was reported that the decision was taken because Gordon Brown was afraid to upset the Chinese government. But the Prime Minister’s spokesman claimed the decision reflected the fact that the Dalai Lama is a ‘respected spiritual leader’.

8. Welcoming the Olympic Torch
The original route for the Olympic Torch did not include Downing Street. But on 3 April, it was announced that Brown would welcome the torch in Downing Street the following Sunday. While the Prime Minister did welcome the torch into Downing Street on 6 April, in order to look like he understood the position of anti-China protestors he refused to touch or hold the torch. However, he was happy to be pictured with it.

9. Signing of the Lisbon Treaty
In late 2007, Gordon Brown couldn’t decide whether to personally sign the Lisbon Treaty or not. After days of dithering, he finally opted to put his signature on the document, but not to attend the official signing ceremony on 13 December 2007. However, a question still remained over whether he would sign the renamed EU Constitution in public: ‘At first Downing Street suggested that he would miss the entire event. When his attendance was confirmed at the start of the week, it was suggested he would sign the treaty in private. It was only on Tuesday that his officials finally announced he would sign in public’ (The Daily Telegraph, 14 December 2007).

10. Beijing Olympics’ opening ceremony
In March 2008, after Nicolas Sarkozy announced he might boycott the Beijing Olympics’ opening ceremony, Gordon Brown said he would attend the opening and closing ceremonies: “We will not be boycotting the Olympic Games; Britain will be attending the Olympic Games ceremonies” (BBC News Online, 10 April 2008). Days later, he confirmed this saying that Britain would “be present at the Olympic ceremonies and I will certainly be there” (ibid). On 9 April, after two weeks of dithering, Downing Street announced that Brown would not actually attend the opening ceremony, contrary to his earlier position.

In actual fact I could easily have turned this into a Top 30 list. There's just so much material...

One Rule for the LibDems, Another for UKIP

Michael Crick has an excellent blogpost pointing out the inconsistency of treatment of the LibDems and UKIP by the Electoral Commission.

Spot the difference(s)

Case A: Alan Bown gave a political party £363,697

1) It was his money
2) He had a business trading in this country, making him eligible to donate money
3) He was not on the electoral register when he donated although he was the year before, and also the year afterwards.

Case B: Michael Brown gave a political party £2.7m
1) It was not his money, he had defrauded it
2) His business was not trading in the UK, so therefore he was ineligible to donate money
3) He was not on the electoral register; neither was he the year afterwards, nor the year before.

Do you see the difference(s)?
Well the main difference is that the Electoral Commission has doggedly pursued the Alan Bown donation, and today won an appeal forcing the party to give up the money, despite a judge previously ruling that the political party that received it had acted in good faith.

In the Michael Brown case the Electoral Commission has always maintained the political party acted in good faith and need not repay money. Although following the criminal proceedings against Mr Brown they have re-opened an investigation, it has not had yet had any result and they have not managed to say when, if ever, it will.

Oh yes there is one other difference:

This year the Political Parties and Elections Act went through Parliament, and among other things it restructured the Electoral Commission and gave it new funding and powers.

The political party in Case A, UKIP, has no MPs and only three representatives in the House of Lords (where the government has no majority and is particularly vulnerable to amendments).

The political party in Case B, the Liberal Democrats, has 63 MPs and 71 members of the House of Lords (where the Government has no majority and is particularly vulnerable to amendments).

At least those are the difference that I can see. Perhaps you can you suggest others?

Feel free to help Michael. Buggered if I can...

UPDATE: LibDem Voice is chortling over UKIP's plight. Not sure they will be laughing so hard soon...

Balls Doesn't Do Irony

Poor old Ed Balls. Someone tell him that when he's in a hole he really should stop digging. After the story earlier today about the childrens' commissioner, he's now accused the Conservatives of planning to pack quangos with their own appointees. I think a ROFL is called for here. Oh the hypocrisy. Isn't that exactly what Labour has done over the last twelve years?

Bribing the Marginals

Just seen this tweet from Labour MP Parmjit Dhanda.

I suspect there will be a lot of such announcements in Labour marginals over the next six months. It's called electoral bribery. I seem to remember the Major government doing a lot of this sort of thing in its final year. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

Do feel free to submit other examples.

An Inspector Calls

This poster was issued by the Conservatives in the 1929 general election. It may have taken Labour eighty years to make it come true, but it just shows how far sighted Tory election strategists were at the time!

Because remember that Labour has told local councils to come and inspect every inch of your home in future, so that councils can charge you more if you have a nice view, or a nice garden.

As I have written before, if they think they will get over the doorstep of SimmonsDale Towers, they have another thing coming.

Introducing a Book of the Day Feature

What do all these people have in common?

Sheryl Gascoigne, Jeremy Clarkson, Peter Kay, Jo Brand, Ozzy Osborne, Jack Dee, Chris Evans, John Barrowman, Katie Price, Jamie Oliver, Rick Stein, Loose Women, Justin Lee Collins, Gordon Ramsay, Al Murray, JLS, Leona Lewis and Ant and Dec...

They all have books out at the moment, and they dominate the front of house sales display in each branch of W H Smith. If ever evidence were needed of our dumbed down culture, this list of mediocre literary offerings provides it. The only quality books in the same display are William Shawcross's biography of the Queen Mother and Andrew Marr's History of Britain. Are there really only two such books which merit a main display? Or is it because the publishers have to pay a marketing fee to get the position, and the only books which will recoup the fee are the celeb books? You know the answer.

I am not singling out W H Smith. The other chain bookshops do the same thing. I understand the financial reasons for operating in this manner, but it still pains me to think of all the brilliant books which are published which don't get shelfspace let alone a front of house display.

Thank God for the internet. Without online bookstores we'd never get to know about half the books which are published.

I am intending to introduce a new regular books feature on this blog. If you want to nominate a new political title you have read and think worthy of mention, do let me know.

Bully Balls

If ever proof were needed that Labour couldn't give a toss what Parliament thinks, it cam this morning when Ed Balls said he would press ahead and appoint Maggie Atkinson as childrens' commissioner even though a Labour dominated select committee voted down her appointment, saying it didn't think she would be independent enough or be able to stand up to Ed Balls. The committee chairman, Barry Sheerman called Balls a "bit of a bully" who "likes to get his own way.

Michael Gove has issued a fairly strongly worded statement, but failed to say he would replace her if he becomes Education Secretary. Why not?

Labour's Dodgy European Allies

The hypocrisy of the left in criticising the Conservatives' bedfellows in the new Reform Grouping in the European Parliament has to be seen to be believed. Yes, I am sure there are a few undesirables in the group, but that's the case in virtually every group in the EP. I don't remember these concerns being raised when most of them were members of the EPP. Funny that.

However, Tory Bear has done us all a service and batted the ball back to the left's court. I don't often quote a blogpost in full, but this one merits it.

TB is getting sick to the back teeth of Labour, and their stooges, attempting to create scandal around who the tories sit with in the European Parliament. The audacity that they have in these attacks can quickly be exposed with Google and rather appropriately given today’s attempt at journalism from the Observer – Wikipedia.

The Labour Party sit with the European Socialists grouping (PES), a bunch of nuts lefties that make Blair and Brown look slightly to the left of Hannan. Labour can try have a half-hearted smear attempt at the tory groupings, but it is a national embarrassment that the governing party of the day consort with communists, terrorists, murderers, anti-semites and 9/11 deniers.

Oh you didn’t know this? Well it’s not like it’s reported by the main stream media. Dan Hamilton wrote a great piece a few months ago and TB would like to share some of what he exposed. Lets just have a quick peek at a couple of Labour’s friends in Europe shall we...

First up we have former Italian Communist Party officer holder and Josef Fritzel look alike Giulietto Chiesa. A member of the Communist Party until 1991 Chiesa has since made a name for himself not only blaming Russia’s invasion of Georgia on European countries but more significantly as an extremely vocal 9/11 denier. His documentary Zero, as well as various essays and TV appearances have suggested that the US government was behind the planning and execution of the attacks. This lunatic is now the official European spokesman for the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Who else are close allies of the Labour Party in Europe?

How about Proinsias De Rossa, ever heard of him? This former IRA man originally joined the Communist and Allies group before transferring to the PES and taking an active role in the drafting of the European Constitution. What do you expect from a Labour Party who didn’t bat and eyelid when their guest Martin McGuinness was allowed to stroll around the Grand Hotel in Brighton almost 25 years to the day the IRA had murdered so many there.

So many loons to choose from, but TB’s absolute favourite scumbag has to be Andrzej Zbigniew Lepper the leader of the Polish Self-Defence of the Republic Party, who Labour sit hand in hand with in Europe.

Where to start with their leader and the sleaze, the criminal activities and the general insanity of the man. Another former communist, he has done time for assault and even demanded sexual favours for jobs in his office. Famed for throwing hecklers onto piles of manure according to the BBC, the "chorus of his party song is: This land is your land, this land is my land, we won't let anyone punch us in the face.”

Perhaps most worrying is Lepper’s honorary degrees from the anti-Semitic Interregional Academy of Personnel Management. To give you an idea where these guys are coming from, their honorary professor is the white supremest David Duke.

So next time you hear some Labour tool having a go at tory allies, tell them to go take a long hard look in the mirror and then behind their own shoulders.

The hypocrisy is sickening.


UPDATE 19.11: Not one Labour hack has been able to successfully defend this, or at least have the decency to condemn the facts. Kerry McCarthy, an official spokesman for the Labour Party online resorted to name calling instead of defending her MEPs. Says a lot. Arguments have ranged from the surreal - apparently it's fine as they weren't sort out, to laughable from those who should know better - it's ok because they are pro-Lisbon.

Maybe time to ditch the mud strategy guys.

I doubt they will, but we can live in hope. The truth is that all European Parliament groupings contain some pretty dodgy characters, many of whose views are unacceptable to UK parties. The LibDems suffer the same in their grouping. I don't pretend that the views of the Polish Law & Justice Party and some of the Lithuanians coincide with many Tory views. But to pretend they are any worse than those in other groups is just playing stupid, petty politics.

New York Times Praises Osborne

There was an interesting piece in the New York Times on Friday which poured praise on George Osborne and his approach of telling it straight to the British People.

In a party conference address earlier this month, Osborne gave the speech that an American politician will someday have to give. He said that he is not ideologically hostile to government. “Millions of Britons depend on public services and cannot opt out,” he declared. He defended government workers against those who would deride them as self-serving bureaucrats: “Conservatives should never use lazy rhetoric that belittles those who are employed by the government.”

But, he pivoted, “it is because we treat those who work in our public sector with respect that I want to be straight with you about the choices we face.” The British government needs to cut back.

Osborne declared that his government would raise the retirement age. That age was scheduled to rise at some point in the distant future. Osborne vowed to increase it sometime in the next five to 10 years.

Osborne declared that there would be no tax cuts any time soon. He said that as a matter of principle he believes that the top income tax rate of 50 percent is too high. But, he continued, “we cannot even think of abolishing the 50 percent rate in the rich” while others down the income scale are asked to scrimp.

Osborne offered government workers the same sort of choice that many private sector executives are forced to make. He proposed a public sector pay freeze in order to avoid 100,000 layoffs. He said that the pay freeze would apply to all workers except those making less than £18,000 (nearly $29,000) “because I don’t believe in balancing the budget on the backs of the poorest. Nor do you.”

There were other austerities. Osborne vowed to cut a program he once supported but which has not proved its worth: a baby bond program that was meant to help offset the costs of childhood. There would no longer be means-tested tax credits for families making more than £50,000.

Osborne’s speech was not an isolated event. The Conservatives have treated British voters as adults for a year now, with a string of serious economic positions. The Conservatives supported the Labour government bank bailout, even though it was against their political interest to do so. Last November, Osborne opposed a cut in the value-added taxes on the grounds that the cuts were unaffordable and would not produce growth. It is not easy for any conservative party to oppose tax cuts, but this one did it.

And the public has responded. The Conservatives now have a dominating lead over Labour. Over all, support for the Conservatives rose by 4 percentage points after Osborne’s speech. The polls reveal that nearly 60 percent of Britons support the austerity measures. The Conservatives have a 21-point lead when it comes to being honest about public finances and a 14-point lead on economic policy generally.

The key is that Osborne is not merely offering pain, but a different economic vision — different from Labour and different from the Thatcherism that was designed to meet the problems of the 1980s.

In the U.S., the economic crisis has caused many to question capitalism. But Britain has discredited the center-left agenda with its unrelenting public spending, its public development agencies and disappointing public-private investment partnerships.

Osborne and David Cameron, the party leader, argue that Labour’s decision to centralize power has undermined personal and social responsibility. They are offering a responsibility agenda from top to bottom. Decentralize power so local elected bodies have responsibility. Structure social support to encourage responsible behavior and responsible spending.

If any Republican is looking for a way forward, start by doing what they’re doing across the Atlantic.

Read the full article HERE.

Reflecting on Bracknell & Moving On

Front: Julia Manning, Katy Lindsay, Ryan Robson
Middle: Margaret Doyle, Rory Stewart, Phillip Lee

First of all, I have been overwhelmed over the last 24 hours by all the emails, texts, tweets and blog comments people have left. 98% of them have been very nice and almost made me feel like I am reading my own obituary!

Yesterday was a a very good one for Bracknell Conservatives. At the end of the day the Open Primary has to be judged a success. I told the selection that I believe any one of the seven candidates would be a good MP and I stick by that. It was a very strong shortlist.

I arrived at the venue at 1pm and dished out my leaflets on each chair in the auditorium. BBC South were there and wanted to do an interview but I was reluctant to do one unless the others did too. At 1.30 the room started to fill up with constituents, many of whom were very keen to have a chat before the proceedings got underway. I wasn't sure if this was really allowed so after a short time retreated to the rather spartan room which had been set aside for the candidates. Just before 2pm we were called down to draw lots in front of the audience. I drew number 7 meaning that I was last on. I didn't know whether to be pleased or not. Would they all be so punch drunk by the time I appeared that they would just want it all over with? Or would it be an advantage. The others seemed to believe I had struck lucky. But it meant that I had three and a half hours to sit there, with no contact with the outside world, until I was on.

Obviously we didn't listen to each others' performances, so I can't tell you exactly what was said but the Bracknell Blog has an extensive blogpost outlining what each candidate said and how they approached it. As we were waiting most of the others were boning up on some local issue or other or rewriting bits of their speeches. I am afraid I take the view that if you don't know it by now, you never will. So I just sat there mentally rehearsing a few lines in my head. Some went into a separate room to rehearse their speeches out loud. I kept thinking, should I be doing this too? But in the end, you have to do it your way.

We all had to do a three minute introduction, then answer questions for 20 minutes and then do a three minute wind up. The questions had all been submitted in advance and were put to each candidate. There were no spontaneous questions from the floor.

Eventually, at about 5.20pm, my turn came. I was really pleased with my opening statement. I decided to address the issue of trust head on and the reason we were all there. I was told afterwards that I was the only one who had addressed the expenses issue head on. Was this a mistake? Surely not.

We then moved on to questions. I know at the Executive Round that I was far too loquacious in my answers so I was determined to be more succinct. We covered a huge range of issues including nuclear power, working with the local councils, Europe, Heathrow, how we would split our time between Westminster and the constituency, Trident, the euro, our personal priorities and the NHS. I am sure there were others which I can't recall now.

I got a couple of rounds of applause when I mentioned I was in favour of an English Parliament and against the government's plans for a so-called paedophile register and I also made them laugh a few times.

I was really pleased at how the question session went and felt that I had given very robust and honest answers to every question. Perhaps things were going too well...

I then made a mistake. I didn't use my full three minutes at the end. I thought that the audience had probably had enough, as they had been sitting there for more than four hours. So I reiterated the point that it was up to a new MP to restore trust and expressed the hope that they would allow me to be given the chance to do that. I was told afterwards that several people had voiced the opinion that I should have used the full three minutes.

But apart from that, I genuinely think that I performed well.

We then trooped off back to the candidates room to await the verdict. Time after time, the Association chairman, Lesley Philpot, knocked on the door to deliver the terrible news to one of the candidates.

I knew my best chance was to win on the first or second ballot. When it went to four ballots and it was down to Rory Stewart, Phillip Lee and myself I had an inkling that the game was up. Why? Because I reckon I am a bit of a marmite candidate. You either love me or you hate me. I don't do well on second preferences! So I always knew that when the supporters of the other candidates had to vote again, I might not do as well. We weren't told the figures, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if I had been ahead on round 1 or 2, but gradually slipped back. I guess I'll never know.

So when Lesley came into the room for the final time and told me I was out, I wasn't in the least surprised. I'm normally quite emotional in these circumstances, but on this occasion remained completely calm. One or two of the other candidates were clearly devastated. For some reason I wasn't - not because I didn't care, or didn't want it badly enough: I did. But somehow I just knew Phillip was destined to get it. I had told quite a few people right from the start that if I didn't win, I hoped he would, and I genuinely meant it. I don't know him well, but I knew enough to know he'd be a good choice. So when Lesley came back and told him he had won I was delighted to shake his hand and wish him well. Rory took it very well. He had clearly made a huge impression and I have no doubt he will soon be selected elsewhere - maybe Penrith next weekend.

There have been a lot of comments about whether Open Primaries are working. Personally, I have absolutely no complaints about the system used in this selection. It was conducted fairly and transparently. The Association Agent, Mary Ballin, did a terrific job and I'd like to thank all the members and councillors I have met over the last three weeks for their unfailing courtesy and helpfulness.

My only doubt about the whole process would be the fact that there were seven of us in the final. It was too many and made the event far too long-winded. It would be far better in future to allow Associations to reduce the shortlist of 6 to 4 at an Executive Round. I know this issue has caused some angst in other constituencies.

So what now? Obviously I wanted to win Bracknell - I think I made that fairly clear. But anyone who expects to apply for one seat and then win it is either delusional or very lucky. Michael Howard applied for 44 before he got one. Bracknell was the first seat I had applied for in two years.

Will I apply for others, having fallen at this hurdle? You bet I will.

I didn't apply for Devizes, Gosport, Esher or Central Suffolk as the deadline was last Monday and I wanted to concentrate on Bracknell, but I'll certainly now apply for other seats as they become available. But I won't use a scattergun approach and apply for everything. It has to be the right constituency.

Congratulations to Phillip Lee

Just to say that Philip Lee got the selection in Bracknell. He will be an absolutely brilliant candidate and I offer him my genuine congratulations. Rory Stewart came second and I came third. It's been quite an experience, which I will blog about properly later.

Obviously I am gutted; who wouldn't be? But it was a fair contest and there can only be one winner. And Philip is a very worthy one.

Thanks to Bracknell Conservatives for handling the whole selection so well and thanks to all those of you who have been texting, emailing and twittering your words of encouragement throughout the day. It means a lot.

I'm now driving to Saffron Walden to celebrate my Dad's eightieth birthday. I'll try and get myself in the mood on the journey by playing some Mango Groove!

UPDATE: Bracknell Blog has written a full account of the Open Primary HERE.

Preparing for the Open Primary

As most of you know, this weekend is an important one for me, as tomorrow afternoon I will be taking part in the Open Primary in Bracknell. I'm up against six other terrific candidates so I don't underestimate the magnitude of the task ahead of me. Any one of them would make a great MP.

Preparing for an Open Primary isn't easy. We're not asked to make a normal speech. Instead, we make a three minute opening statement, answer questions for 20 minutes and then make a closing three minute statement. As there are seven of us, the whole event may last five hours as I suspect there will be at least two rounds of voting.

So forgive me if I disappear now for the rest of the day. I'm doing the Daily Politics at noon on BBC2 but after that it's time to mug up on all the things I have learnt about the constituency over the last month.

The next time you hear from me I will either be in a state of elation or depression! I know I will sound like an X Factor contestant, but I really do want this. And that's what I need to convey tomorrow.

Newton-Dunn Replaces The Sun's Pascoe-Watson

It was reported earlier on tonight that The Sun's political editor George Pascoe-Watson is to leave the paper to join Portland PR. I think quite a few people will have been shocked by this news.

I understand he will be replaced by the Sun's Defence editor, Tom Newton-Dunn. He has a superb reputation as a story getter but will he find it so easy in the lobby? He's a hugely talented journalist but it is a huge step to take on one of the top jobs in political journalism when your contacts book is in another sector entirely.

By the way, what is it with The Sun and journalists with double barrelled names? :)

Another Tory MP Stands Down

David Wilshire has tonight announced he is standing down at the next election. He issued this statement...

"The allegations made in today’s Telegraph are deeply hurtful and unjustified. However, my Constituents rightly want reassurance and the truth. This is why I have referred this to the Commissioner. I am confident that he will confirm that I have done nothing wrong. That said, I am very conscious that the allegations and investigation will cause great distress to my family and friends. These allegations also run the risk of harming my local party and our national party’s chances of winning at the next General Election. In the circumstances I have reluctantly concluded that it is sensible for me not to seek re-election next year."

This followed an interview earlier today with Conservative chief whip Patrick McLoughlin. Mr Wilshire clearly believes he is in the right but has fallen on his political sword to save embarrassment to the party. Was he pushed or did he jump? I have no idea, but there will be many people in Tory High Command who breathed a sigh of relief when they heard about his decision. It's rare for enquiries by the Standards Commissioner to be completed very quickly and the last thing they will have wanted is something like this hanging over the party in the runup to an election.

Was David Wilshire right to stand down? Yes, I believe he was. Frankly, he had little alternative. Whatever your views on what provoked his departure, at least he didn't prolong the party's agony.

UPDATE: Paul Waugh recounts the day.

The Flaws of the Standards Committee

The David Wilshire case, which the Telegraph reports today, is a great example of one which may well expose a major flaw in the system of scrutiny of public standards.

Mr Wilshire has rightly referred himself to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, Sir John Lyon. Sir John will decide if there is a case to answer, then conduct an investigation. He will then issue his findings and the Standards Committee will decide on Wilshire's punishment if he is found guilty. This is the same Committee which decided Jacqui Smith should issue an apology on the floor of the House but need not pay any money back. When it decided that punishment I believe 6 Labour MPs were present but only one Conservative was there.

Most people will find it odd, to say the least, that Mr Wilshire was paying his own company for services provided to his office, and no doubt the full details will emerge. His defence is that the arrangement was wholly approved by the House of Commons Fees Office. If this case had arisen two years ago that may well have been the end of the matter. But we all know now that the Fees Office hasn't been fit for purpose for a very long time.

But the Fees Office approval presents Sir John Lyon with a dilemma. He, like them, is a servant of the House. If he finds against Wilshire he will be emulating Sir Thomas Legg and changing the rules retrospectively. Essentially, he will be saying that Wilshire should have used his judgment better, and known that his office arrangement would not stand up to public scrutiny. Fair enough, you might say, but would this really stand up in a court of law? We may well find out.

The Committee itself then has a dilemma. Can it really force Wilshire to pay money back when they let off Jacqui Smith with a mere tap on the knuckles?

So it's not just the Fees Office which isn't fit for purpose, it may well be that we have to make the same judgment about the Parliamentary Standards Committee.

In my view the days of MPs sitting in judgment over each other must draw to a close. The Standards Committee has, over the years, proved itself incapable of ignoring narrow partisan politics and I see little prospect of that changing. The Parliamentary Standards Committee needs replacing by something which is transparently not open to party political game playing.

Labour Selection Woes in Barrow

If you ever had any doubts about the wisdom of open primaries just read THIS take of woe from Alex Hilton on LabourHome. He recounts in graphic detail the internal machinations in Barrow in Furness over selecting a successor to former Labour Cabinet Minister John Hutton. I was going to say it's the usual tale of command and control Labour Party stitch ups. But it's worse than that.

The fact of the matter is that if Labour followed the Tory lead and used the open primary process, this sort of stitch up would surely be avoided.

And why is it that Labour seems determined to select party apparatchiks for very reasonable seat that becomes available?

Are the LibDems About to Change Policy on Afghanistan?

With every day that passes, I am convinced that the LibDems will enter the next election campaign with a promise to withdraw from Afghanistan. They daren't come out with it now, but as sure as eggs is eggs, that's the direction in which they are tiptoeing. If it was some principled stance, one could have a rational debate about it, but it's not. It's pure, calculated, naked political opportunism. Their strategists have identified it as the only issue on which they can really differentiate themselves from the main two parties.

What does this say about them? I'll let their actions speak for themselves.