2010′s MP’s may not hold a candle to 2015′s ‘People’s intake’!

25% of MP’s after the next election are likely to be career politicians with little experience of business, public service or the professions according to the Think Tank New Local Government Network .  Does that concern you?  Is democracy going to be weakened or is this a storm in a tea cup?  And is this a fair representation of the Conservative PPC’s?  Voices are starting to speak out, none least Anne Widdecombe in the latest edition of Total Politics magazine who worries about a ‘third rate Parliament’ in 2010.   Whilst 2010′s intake may cause concern, Cameron’s Candidate Selection revolution gives great hope for the 2015 ‘People’s Intake’ of MP’s!

Covered in the Daily Telegraph today, (http://tiny.cc/KEgFf), analysis of the backgrounds of 782 candidates selected by the three main parties to fight seats at the general election, (within 10 months), shows that only a third have had any experience of business. One in four can be described as a “career politician,” having had paid employment working in Parliament, or worked as an adviser to a senior politician whether as an employee or volunteer.  The research by the New Local Government Network think tank using biographical information provided by the candidates and their parties shows that only 11.7 per cent of candidates have worked in the public services, including 2.6 per cent in health care. In addition, the figures show that fewer than three in 10 prospective parliamentary candidates (PPCs) are female.  The analysis shows that nearly one in three Tory candidates have worked in Parliament or for a political party in the past. 

This is something that should hugely concern all of us.  Candidates divorced from real life experiences, certainly wont add value to the rich debates of the House of Commons.  Recently, I attended a Party event, which included a new PPC in a winnable seat, (I won’t name names).   It was fascinating.  I was sharing a pint with a local businessman who has successfully set up a start up business, which has grown into a huge employer, with offices across the country.  By any definition he is successful and merits being listened to for his experience.  What followed made me embarrassed.  The PPC went on to explain their views on small businesses and their blueprint for being successful.  It was rather like listening to a University Graduate tell Alex Ferguson how to build a winning team and win the Premiership!  This was from a PPC, with no commercial experience, young, who sounded like he was reciting a press release from Central office.  The successful businessman, with 30 years plus commercial experience, stood there aghast as he was being advised by this upstart who so obviously not attune with the really tough decisions being made in the real economy.  That lack of political antenna from the PPC concerned and was commented on as you can imagine by the businessman!  Credibility whithered….

I have nothing against career politicians but a House of Commons full of MP’s with real life experience and an understanding of life wins for me every time, than the career politician with a degree in Politics and a text book of answers. 

Candidate selection is a controversial area and generates much heated debate.  It is for many people a very personal area and sensitivities always seem to arise.  When I raised this issue previously, I was flooded with emails on the subject.  Whilst current facts on candidates choices are hard to argue against, candidate selection has changed forever in the Conservative Party, and the intake of Conservative MP’s in 2010, does not represent the revolution that Central Office has introduced ready for the next Parliament in 2015, (latest).  The debate on candidate selection has become too simplistic in many many ways and should be seen in two phases.

Pre the expenses scandal, many of the Conservative PPC’s, (like those of any Party), possessed a background with mostly some form of political influence.  Be it they were career politicians, (ie worked for a Politician/MP/think tank etc), or went the traditional route, ie worked their way through the local Conservative Party, eg Association Chairman and then became a Councillor, and then applied to be a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate.   The so called, ‘traditional route’.  The 2010 Parliament is set to intake many of these sorts of candidates as noted above.

However, as we all know, post the expenses scandal, post the backlash against MP’s and politicians in general, David Cameron has revolutionized Candidate Selection firstly by encouraging applications from people with non political backgrounds.  Hence over 4,000 applications from diverse people like nurses, ex soldiers, teachers, doctors, charity workers, flooded Central office with their applications and enthusiasm.  Candidate Assessment Centres, (PAB’s…Parliamentary Assessment Boards), have been busily assessing these applications over the past few months and word is, that there are some phenomenal candidates entering onto the books.  One assessor of talent on these PAB’s, (and reads this site regularly), is really motivated and inspired by the new talent emerging.

Coupled with this is Cameron’s revolutionary idea, (Hannan would point to it coming from ‘The Plan’), that candidates should be elected by Open Primaries, hence adding further legitimacy to the selection process. Totnes is a leading example, where the whole constituency was polled to select the local candidate.

Hence then, the 2015 Parliament will be the Parliament of the people, the ‘People’s intake’, the ‘People’s Parliament’, with the new revolutionary candidates emerging.

CCHQ gets a rough ride at times but on Candidate Selection it now has it spot on.  We Conservatives have a superb process now in place.  The PAB’s will sort out / filter strong candidates, based on thorough assessments, and then these candidates will go into Open Primaries and the people will then decide the best candidate.  No doubt, some of those candidates will be ‘career politicians’ and some will be the new intake of candidates eg the nurses, doctors, social workers etc.  The people will then decide who is the best candidate.  Who can argue with democracy?  We are all about ‘letting the people’ decide.

I have had emails complaining that the local Association should be left to select candidates and not CCHQ, (via PAB’s).   But this is pure bunkem.  Central Office are using professional Assessors who can help weed out the wheat from the chaff.  Modern businesses will either employ in house recruiter’s to help assess great candidates for their company or outsource candidate assessment to a professional body. Recruitment is an art and cannot be left to those not attuned to best selection methods.  This is no different than what the Conservatives are doing by using a team of professional assessors to screen best candidates.  These candidates, (passing PAB’s), at the end of the day will be then free to present themselves to Associations and then Primaries for election.  Associations cannot complain at this and particularly some of the ones that are have selected some shocking candidates in the past should zip it up.  Good on CCHQ for professionalising Candidate Selection.  Three loud cheers.  The public will certainly notice the difference moving forward in candidate quality.

Some emails to me have questioned the merits of being a card carrying member of the Conservative Party.  They question this because of previous benefits and perceived links to being a member was the THE route to local / Parliamentary Office.  Arguing that some of the candidates being assessed today don’t possess a political bone in their body and no affliations with the Conservatives in the past…..hence why belong to the Party as it matters not when seeking Office!  If these new candidates get elected, then there is no point in membership of the Party, they argue.  Wow.  I always thought membership of the Conservatives was because someone believed in their principles and what they were trying to achieve not because they only joined to seek office and hold power. 

Let’s also be clear, when people complain that the new candidates are not political ie the nurses, social workers, army officers etc, that does not mean that the CCHQ PAB’s will be selecting people who are left wing!  They are being thoroughly assessed and these people’s political judgement and gut feel naturally resides with the Conservatives. 

The proof is in the pudding of course, but I would argue that Conservative MP’s with real life experience are preferable to  ‘career politicians’ with no commercial or reality experience. 

Key to this is to attract the best candidates, remuneration has to be an incentive.  £65,000 basic is not a salary that will incentivize the best candidates in society.  Many of my friends would make brilliant MP’s but they are on salaries that are secure and far higher than £65,000.  Anyone who argues that £65k is a fair salary is frankly out of touch.  Take a look at the appointments section of the Sunday Times and you will see salaries of £100,000 for public sector roles that carry far less responsibility than an MP!  So I do align that an MP’s salary should be pegged at £100k to start and that MP’s should be allowed 2nd Roles eg Consulting a local business.  Again a reality check as they keep in touch with real life business issues.

Not everyone agrees with Cameron’s Candidate Revolutuion.  Anne Widdecombe warns, “I came into this place as a Member of Parliament, I leave it as an employee of the House of Commons… I think we’re going to have a third rate parliament.”  Anne’s full interview is here…take a look: http://tiny.cc/9qd6V  Two paragraphs I would loved to draw to your attention from the interview:

Iain Dale: What did you make of David Cameron’s plea for anybody to come forward who wants to be a Conservative candidate? Apparently 4,000 have.

Anne Widdecombe:  I think he’s wrong. It’s been well known for a long time that David and I have not agreed on candidate selection. I think he’s a fantastic leader, he’s winning. But all leaders get some things wrong and I think our approach – which hasn’t just been David’s – to candidate selection over the last few years has been completely misguided. We have gone for category rather than ability. We’re looking for more women. I’m all for more women, I’m all for more members of the ethnic communities, I’m all for more anythings as long as they get there on merit. I believe, as a woman, that every woman in Parliament should be able to look every man from the Prime Minister downwards in the eye and to think she got there on exactly the same basis that he got there. And if she can’t she’s a second class citizen. We’re going to have a Conservative Party full of second-class citizens.

Iain Dale: You are calling your successor in Maidstone a second-class citizen.

Anne Widdecombe: No. I think – and she would say – she wished there were no A-list. That she wished she’d been allowed to compete on merit because the fact is she’d have got through anyway. But what was happening was that we were told – and that moment in the selection process stands out in my memory -that we had to have, in the final, two men and two women regardless of the assessments we’d made. Helen [Grant, Conservative PPC for Maidstone and The Weald] was going to go through anyway. And one of our association said to the Central Office agent “are you telling us that we may not select on merit?” And with admirable honesty the Central Office agent said “yes”. Now that is lunatic: it is putting cart before horse. First you look at merit, then you look at category. I think we’ve actually insulted a lot of women who would have got there on their own merit. Instead we’ve insisted on equal numbers on the shortlist, fast tracking on A-lists. I’m very glad it didn’t happen in my day.

So where do you stand on the whole candidate selection debate? Is Widdecombe right that the 2010 Parliament will be a ‘third rate Parliamanet’?  Do you agree that Cameron’s Candidate Revolution will produce a Parliament to be proud of in 2015?

Huge thank you for all your support.  We have achieved 5,000 Twitter Followers.  As per usual, I try to follow back all those who follow me.

Over the coming weeks, I have some exclusive content for this site, which will continue the growth of this TrueBlueBlood.com….and I look forward to your continued support and comments on how to improve.  Expect a full site re-design pre the Conservative Party Conference in October.

If you are on Facebook, please feel free to add me as a friend.  Grassroots TrueBlueBlood can be found here:  http://www.facebook.com/trueblueblood   This Facebook page includes a full import of this blog site, hence many people are debating these posts within the Facebook community…take a look….

Lastly, thank you to Conservative CCHQ for their support.  TrueBlueBlood is delighted to receive the latest Official Conservatives Press Releases.

Again, thanks for your support.

Great oratory and thought provoking thinking is what this site loves.  Hence I had to share, for those who have not seen it, Dan Hannan ‘on fire’ and at his best, speaking at The Army and Navy Club, August 2009.  Hear his views on Healthcare.  Note, a great orator is one who does not need notes or an autocue……

Fascinating and very stimulating…..is this a future leader of the Conservative Party?

No further commentary needed…just pour yourself a fine glass of red wine and enjoy.  The videos are split because of the YouTube ruling of 10 mins max vids.  Upload by RegularFolksUnited.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4 (Q&A)

Part 5 (Q&A)

Part 6 (Q&A)

A reminder of Hannan on Fox News

David Cameron sprinted faster than Usian Bolt to the TV cameras to defend the NHS yesterday, following Dan Hannan’s tv interview daring to criticise the NHS.  Hannan claimed he was ‘amazed’ that Americans were thinking of introducing a system like the NHS, called it a ‘relic’, concluding that he ‘wouldn’t wish it on anybody’. 

Also interesting to note that perhaps I was wrong on the decline of the Right Wing as with both Davis and now Hannan, wagging their tail and shaping the news agenda, things are afoot on the Right?  (Whither the Right…..Right Wing in Retreat? http://bit.ly/F7miZ)

Hannan was interviewed as Obama seeks to provide Universal healthcare coverage in the USA.  This is proving to be an issue to take him to his limits as the US people fear his plans and the harshest American critics have gone as far as to say the NHS is ‘Orwellian’ and even ‘evil’.

For those that missed Hanan’s comments.  Take a look at this clip from the brilliant Sky News:

This produced a veritable shitstorm in the media.  With News Channels struggling to fill their schedules in the silly season, this was like a gift from heaven.  Labour lept out the starting blocks and lied their way to headline grabbing attention.  Andy Burnham even had the audacity to call Dan Hannan ‘unpatriotic’. 

Cameron’s was the most interesting reaction.  He put down Hannan quite mightily, some would say patronisingly, by saying Hannan has ‘eccentric views’.  Wow.  I am sure that rattled Dan’s cage.

Now this whole shitstorm has many viewpoints.  First off, we are obviously living in delicate times heading towards the next election whereby the media and Labour will seize on any comments and twist them.  Hence any politician daring to criticise or make suggestions for improvements must know of the repercussions.  Hannan would have known that speaking on the issue of the sacred cow of the NHS, would lead to media headlines.  If he did not realise that to be so then I underestimate him as a man. 

Cameron is so close, so so close, to leading the Conservatives back to power.  He is trying to tread the tightrope to power and hence wants no damaging headlines and the full spotlight to be on Labour and their obvious failings.  Hence Hannan’s intervention would have pissed Cameron off royally yesterday.  Cameron has, give him his due, turned the health issue into a Conservative vote winner and no longer is it an election Achilles heel.  (Hence why Labour lept on these comments yesterday to reopen old wounds and hence why ‘Usian Bolt Cameron’ sprinted to belittle Hannan and show the NHS was safe in his hands.

For Cameron the NHS is a personal issue.  he more than many, has first hand experience of how the NHS cared for Ivan.  The NHS did all they could for Ivan and DC spent many nights sleeping in hospitals to be with his son and care for him.  Hence, Cameron has a life long support for the NHS and no person can credibly question his commitment to the NHS.  The British people know how much the NHS means to DC and hence Labour fear this.

But the other point to this story is that, so sanitised is British politics coming, is free speech dead?……or at least until after the next election?  Do Conservative politicians have to take a vow of silence and tow the Party line?  When is suggestions for new policies and ideas becoming a criticism and challenge to the leadership?

That feels anathema to modern politics.  We revel in being the finest Parliamentary Democracy in the world.  We revel in debate.  New ideas.  Challenging the status quo.  If an idea is strong, questioning it will either increase its value proposition or lead to a new idea and change.  But debate is being curtailed.  The House of Commons is run by guillotine.  sad times for free thinking and debate.

The NHS is treated by media and Labour alike as the sacred cow…..it must always be in place, never touched, never questioned.  Gordon Brown loves the NHS, then sneaks off for private healthcare.  Hypocritical to the extreme.

Is the NHS perfect?  No where near.  Does it need reform?  Hell, yes.  Can we talk about it?  Not yet….it seems.

So asking these questions, Andy Burnham would call me ‘unpatriotic’!  (what an idiotic statement from the Health Secretary, linking in patriotism and health care is moronic).

Does the NHS deliver value for the billions it spends?        (NO)

Is it right that it operates a postcode lottery for life-saving drugs?   (NO)

Why are hospitals still riddled with filthy wards and the MRSA superbug?   (YES WHY?)

Why does the UK still lag behind on cancer survival rates and waiting lists?   (NO CREDIBLE ANSWERS TO THIS)

Why do we need such a large, bureaucratic management structure to support it?  (WHY?)

The NHS Spends a billion pounds every 3 days and employs over a million and a half staff.  There must surely be room for cost savings and efficiency costs.   (YES)

There are huge inefficiencies. Spending on bureaucracy has nearly doubled in four years, with almost £1.2billion now lavished on administrators and clerical staff in Primary Care Trusts.  The total is almost twice as much as the £700million the Health Service spent on anti-cancer drugs last year.

So to David Cameron.  Yes, we have to win the next election.  Yes, the founding principles of the NHS must be respected and its egalitarian ethos preserved.   But isn’t now a great time for us Conservatives to start a deep, sensible debate about the future of our NHS. Now is a great opportunity, let’s use it.  We must stop just pumping more and more and more and more and more and more money in the NHS as unquestioningly as we have for many years.  The NHS could be more efficient with less money….now there’s a shocking point….spend less on the NHS and get better healthcare!

We must never shackle free speech.  We should not criticise others for opening debate.  Yes, we should be sensitive to the next election and opinion polls but we are a broad church and a party of reform.  Let’s discuss the big issues.

The Party is for Turning!……The Lady wasn’t!

Whither the Right?  Things are changing.  The Right Wing, once the dominant force in the Conservative Party now finds itself shrinking in influence and with lessening access to the levers of power.  The Party no longer a ‘Thatcherite Party’ but a centre right/left of right- centre  Party.  Margaret would not be happy! 

What evidence of the decline of the Right?

-           David Davis.  The current standard bearer of the Right.  Feisty.  Challenging.  Innovative thinker.  But on the fringes looking in.  Perceived as a thorn for Cameron.

-           John Redwood.  Despite his vast experience, he is left on the outside of the Shadow Cabinet.  The man with actual Cabinet experience and the mettle which is needed in Government as witnessed in 1995 when he returned £100,000,000 of Wales’ block grant to the UK treasury unspent following efficiency savings and cost-cutting measures.  Unheard of under Labour!   Redwood has been the subject of a previous blog article: http://bit.ly/2B9oeG

-           Douglas Carswell & Dan Hannan.  The Right’s brightest thinkers as witnessed by ‘The Plan’ but again what to do with them in Office?  Carswell remains on the Backbenches for the time being.  Will they be inclusive figures in a Conservative Government or left to philosophise on the fringe and be ‘think tank’ revolutionaries?  Both are radical thinkers and surely will not be silenced.  Hannan especially espouses Right Wing ideology in the European Parliament.  Cameron has not shown his hand on this pair as yet.

-           Conservative Way Forward, the Thatcherite pressure group, standard bearers of the Right, opting safe with a new Chair in Don Porter, a loyalist, as a hack says:  ‘He’s been careful to steer clear of factions and is regarded as a wise old owl figure, as well as liked by politicians and volunteers alike. He has a rare ability to pour oil on troubled waters’.  CWF watering down its Right Wing credentials to have more influence with Cameron?

-           The new breed of candidates.  A new breed of candidates as witnessed by Chloe Smith.  Non ideologue politicians.  Smith, 27, was not even born when Thatcher came to power and would have no recollection of the 1980’s period of Conservative Government, hence no emotional attachment to Thatcherism.  A Cameroon through and through.  With Cameron opting for new candidates like former police chiefs, teachers, nurses, charity workers, the intake of new Right Wing MP’s will surely be severely curtailed.  Indeed arguably, since the new breed of candidates will be generally non Party activists, ideology and principle will diminish in the next parliament.  Conviction politics replaced by idealistic populist opportunism?  The life blood of new right-leaning candidates is stiffled, cutting off new recruits to the ideological cause.

Hence, the Right is in decline, in retreat…….a minority.

A lot of chatter has been taking place this week about what should happen with David Davis post the next election.  The Conservative Party is clearly moulded as a Cameron Party now.  Does Davis fit?  Should Cameron offer David a Senior job in the Cabinet, (if the Conservatives win)?  This opens up a huge discussion about how broad a church the Conservative Party is and how free people are to suggest new policy and disagree with existing policy.

There is no doubting Davis is a talented man.  A deep thinker.  And highly ambitious.  And there is nothing wrong with that.  But here comes the problem.  Suggesting new ideas and distancing oneself from existing policy gets portrayed by the media as disunity and positioned as a fight with the leader.  Hence headlines create that feeling of the Tory civil war, which is a wound that we don’t want to re-open.  But that is unfair on Davis.  This is a democracy.  We have a right to hear his views.  So therefore are we to blame the media?  But they need headlines, disunity stories sell newspapers….and their job is to sell papers.  The viscous circle continues spiralling and is unlikely to be changed. 

Davis knows what he is doing.  Perhaps positioning himself if Cameron should falter……we know that the next Conservative Government would face huge decisions, many mightily unpopular.  Hence Cameron’s popularity, (as anybody in that role would face), will take a hit early to mid the next Parliament.  If it doesn’t, it means big decisions have not been made on spending cuts.  This dip in popularity is a calculation for Davis….and one he may be gambling on?  Maybe we will witness a new battle for the heart of the Party in years to come with Davis taking the persona of Thatcher and Cameron as Heath, (many of the policies today would not be out of place under a Heath Administration).

Of course, the next election looks to be heading towards a thumping Conservative Majority.  ‘But events dear boy, events!’ can still change the political map.  What if the economy starts to turn round and confidence starts returning? What if Labour ditch Brown and Alan Johnson enjoys a honeymoon period that sees a snap election called early next year and a Hung Parliament is the result?  What if there is a big terrorist incident that calls for national unity?  What if the UK goes to war and again people stick by their current Government at times of war?  What if Cameron gets mowed down by a bus…this is a Cameron Party and another leader may not harness the same support.   What if?  What if?  But what if? became reality?…….. Davis is there.  Surely critical that the Conservatives did not reveal enough of their policy.  Were overly opportunistic.  Too populist but with no foundations or ideology to guide voters.  But conversely, a thumping majority for Cameron will marginalise Davis and the Right still further.  But Davis has to roll the dice……

The fighter on the outside….bruising for a battle or the last bastion of the Right fighting to make a mark?

So Davis aside, this brings to the fore, the question of what Cameron should do with two of his brightest stars on the Right of the Party.  Two other outspoken policy prescriptors.  Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell.  Bright, switched on visionaries.  But like Davis, what will Cameron do with them in Power?   Are they an embarrassment or a national treasure? 

Like many reading this blog, I find ‘The Plan’ an inspirational read.  It is revolutionary and yet common sense.  The premise is that the UK is a mess and that the next Conservative Government cannot tinker at the edges but must be engaging in wholesale reform.  The Plan maps out over 12 months, a wholesale shift in power ‘from the state to the citizen, from Whitehall to elected councilors, from Brussels to Westminster’. They desire to restore power to the individual, and, where this is impractical, to the lowest feasible level of government.

For those who have not read the book yet….shame on you, but as a general overview, some of the ideas propounded by Carswell & Hannan include:  Scrapping all MPs’ expenses except those relating to running an office and travel from the constituency; Selecting candidates through open primaries; Local and national referendums; “People’s Bills”, to be placed before Parliament if they attract a certain number of signatures; Placing the police under locally elected Sheriffs, who would also set local sentencing guidelines; Appointing heads of quangos, senior judges and ambassadors through open parliamentary hearings rather than prime ministerial patronage; Devolving to English counties and cities all the powers which were devolved to Edinburgh under the 1998 Scotland Act; Placing Social security, too, under local authorities; Making councils self-financing by scrapping VAT and replacing it with a Local Sales Tax; Allowing people to pay their contributions into personal healthcare accounts, with a mandatory insurance component; Letting parents opt out of their Local Education Authority, carrying to any school the financial entitlement that would have been spent on their child; Replacing EU membership with a Swiss-style bilateral free trade accord; Requiring all foreign treaties to be re-ratified annually by Parliament; Scrapping the Human Rights Act and guaranteeing parliamentary legislation against judicial activism; ‘Great Repeal Bill’ to annul unnecessary and burdensome laws; Repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.

‘The Plan’, follows on from ‘Direct Democracy’, again by Hannan & Carswell.  ‘Direct Democracy’ identified voters’ dissatisfaction with politicians and reluctance to vote as a rational response to the way in which Britain is governed, with the decisions most clearly affecting people’s lives more often taken by quangos and bodies of supposed expert opinion than by elected politicians.

Two bodies of work, deeply influential amongst the Right.  But much too far reaching for a first term Conservative Government?

Now a number of ideas have been translated into Conservative Policy.  But the radicalness of many means it would take a courageous Cameron to implement the drift and tone of this plan.  Of course this will frustrate Hannan.  Hannan’s weakness is being an MEP.  He would be a far stronger voice at Westminster, with Carswell at his side.

Back to Cameron.  Should he offer a Ministerial role to Carswell?  Better to have him on the ‘inside pissing out than on the outside pissing in’ as the saying goes?  Is he too radical for Government?   Would the Civil Service neutralise Carswell’s visionary prowess?  Questions no doubt Cameron is asking himself.

And what of Hannan?  A cult figure in the Party following his rhetorical savage cutting down of Gordon Brown.  Obviouslya deep thinker and a lot further to the right and a fully embracer of the free market than David Cameron.  How will Cameron position Hannan after the next election? Will Hannan be as outspoken with the Conservatives in power as he is with them in Opposition?

If Cameron is serious about a Government of all the talents, then Hannan and Carswell should be at the centre of policy debate and at the heart of the Government.  Rare and exceptional talent and visionaries should not be lost to the political wilderness but that will require bold leadership from Cameron.

What next for the Right.  No doubting this is the weakest influence the Right have enjoyed in the Conservative Party for many years.  The Right is cornered.  Unfashionable under the flash sexy in-vogue fashion of David Cameron.  Future intakes of MP’s, bright fresh things and non party activist MP’s with no ideological baggage will surely dim the Right further……..

The Right will respond…on the back foot….but how is the question…..

Thatcher: A Legend in the History of the Party, but whither the ideology and principles….

A close friend of mine has been feeling very sorry for himself this weekend.  He has been a devoted Conservative all his life and when Cameron asked for a fresh wave of Candidates recently he decided to apply.  This weekend he heard that the first Parliamentary Assessment Board, (PAB), was taking place.  He was not on it and has concluded the Party don’t want him…..much to his dismay.

When he talked to me about applying to be a Conservative Parliamentary Candidate I advised him against it.  I steered that given what Cameron was saying and the PR messages behind what candidates should look like, someone with a Party background and years of experience as a councillor would not fit the current mould and to wait until the next Parliament.  The Party need to, from a PR perspective, show a raft of new candidates with fresh backgrounds.  In a previous blog I have called the new candidates the ‘Saint Squad’.  The Party will want people with respectable backgrounds like former policemen, civil servants, charity workers, nurses, doctors, teachers etc.  Where would be the sense of going with candidates who are Party faithful and ex councillors?  That would not represent a break from the past which Cameron wants to portray.  We have had those candidates for years and that is the make up of the MP’s now in the House.

Hence Cameron needs to say to the Party, here are the fresh breed, untainted by politics…who want to make a difference.  That makes great PR and will attract positive headlines.  Where would be the sense of, ‘Here are our new candidates, they are all Party Faithful with years of experience on councils’.  Wow that would be a PR backfire!

My friend, understood this but was in ranting mood.  ‘I have toiled blood, sweat and tears for this bloody Party’, they did not even have the decency to send me a rejection letter.  I hear about the PAB’s through the Daily bloody Telegraph…well f*** them.  I could add so much more value to the Party.  Look at that Chloe Smith.  Lightweight.  No gravitas.  I am gutted’. 

I sympathised but again stressed it was not the message the Party needed to send out if Party Faithful get the nod.  Cameron is underlining his credentials and his break from the past.  He needs those headlines of new ‘unpolitical canidates’. 

My friends time will come, (as will other readers of this blog).  Interestingly Charles Moore said in his DT article yesterday: ‘The range of bright, public-spirited candidates is impressive. This weekend, the Parliamentary Assessment Board is testing the new crop who have answered Mr Cameron’s recent call. Plenty, I gather, have experience of “real life” – ex-army officers, policemen, top-grade civil servants and people who have run their own businesses. They will look good when presented to the public at the party conference in the autumn.  But one cannot help asking if so many coming in for the first time, without having risen through the hard school of party politics, will know what to do if they find themselves supporting a Tory government. At present, the huge power of public-sector Leftists – in quangos, pressure groups, unions, the judiciary, green organisations, local councils and the BBC – directs disappointed anger on to Labour. After a Tory victory, all that will change. Like enraged addicts undergoing cold turkey, without their huge doses of public spending, they will trash the public space. Will the Tories have the tough foot-soldiers needed to fight this culture war? Will they have enough officers leading from the front? If voters spot this weakness in advance, will they support them’?

There comes the challenge…..and the last thing we want is a Parliament of mediocrity.  These new candidates will generate great PR and media headlines for us in the coming weeks and months….advantage Cameron and our Party!

Fascinating tribute from Charles Moore, who is of course Margaret Thatcher’s Official Biographer, to David Cameron, stating that he is the greatest Tory Leader of the Opposition since Benjamin Disraeli.  Take a look at the article here:  http://tiny.cc/nnZig

Moore states that the Conservatives have two advantages going for it.  Gordon Brown and David Cameron.  Many would fail to disagree with this.  Most interestingly, I think most in Labour would agree but it is what they will do about it that affects the result of the next election.

Moore cites his admiration for the way Cameron dealt with the expenses scandal making sure firstly the shadow cabinet repaid back any thing that did not look right and then Cameron turned his attention on to Conservative MP’s.  Whilst some MP’s grumbled, this was the right thing to do as it deflected attention off the Conservatives onto the Government and this strategy bore its fruits in Norwich North as Conservatives thumped home a whacking 7,300+ majority, in the first by-election since the expenses scandal.

Moore states: ‘Being Leader of the Opposition is notoriously the most difficult job in British politics. David Cameron has done it for nearly four years with a parliamentary party 30 per cent smaller than that which Margaret Thatcher led from 1975 to 1979. Judging strictly in terms of political management, I would say that he has so far been more successful than she. In fact, he must be the most skillful Tory opposition leader since Disraeli’.  That is some tribute.  But Cameron is not without issues.

The biggest issue Moore contests for Cameron is that policy needs to be defined more.  ’Voters do not recognise the Tory “signature” on anything much. In 1978/9, they would have known that the Tories promised something different on taxes, inflation, trade unions, and the Cold War. What do they know now? Nothing terrible, but also, nothing much. The vagueness of these impressions might not matter politically if in fact the Tories did know what they wanted to do. But where are they on terror, “human rights”, our constitutional decay, health service reform, local government, energy, our relations with America, the undeclared war in Afghanistan’. 

This asks an interesting question.  And it is true of any Opposition Party.  If the saying is ‘Government’s lose elections, not Opposition’s win them’, then why should Cameron reveal more?   Traditionally few Opposition Parties have spelled out their policies root & branch pre an election.  The more detail provided, provides more grounds for scrutiny and the spotlight must firmly stay on the Government and its incompetence.  Surely the goal is to provide tantalising alternative policies but not mapping them in the public arena to fine detail.

Cameron is a man that has changed much about the Conservative Party.  He deserves a great deal of credit.  He has gained public confidence on issues previously unheard of by Conservatives.  This evolves around his embracing compassionate Conservatism and the public trusting Conservatives with the health service and public services.  This is a huge win for the Conservative Party in gaining mass acceptance.

But does that make him the best Tory Opposition Leader since Disraeli?  That can only be judged after the next election.  If the Conservatives win with a big majority the Cameron deserves a pedestal in history for his work in Opposition.  If the Tories lose / hung Parliament, (and this can only happen if Labour remove Gordon Brown and there is a honeymoon period), then questions will be asked about why Conservatives did not reveal more policy.  All will be revealed within 10 months.