Last night forty people braved the snow and ice to attend my reselection meeting in Romford.
It began with a fifteen minute report back in which I covered my work in the last two years. Highlights included the opening of the new fire station at Gallows Corner - the first new fire station to be built in London for 20 years. I also talked about the success of Fairlop Waters in the Mayor's 'Trees for London' public vote, and the visit from William Torbitt primary school, which saw the children deliver 300 votes to City Hall.
On a policy note, I highlighted our continuing opposition to the proposals for an illegal immigrant amnesty, and our lobbying for legislation to control the turbulent industrial relations on the Tube. I talked about the changes to the London Plan, particularly the move away from large blocks of tiny flats, and the decision to remove arbitrary targets for travellers pitches in each borough.
Then we had thirty minutes of questions from an interested and engaged audience. Business people and charity groups wanted the costly low emission zone timetable delayed again. There were requests for Boris to do yet more to help cyclists, and local councillors demanded greater freedom from TfL dictat. We discussed the phasing out of bendy buses and there was much relief to hear that the infamous number 25 would be 'debendified' over the summer of 2011, and all would be gone by the election.
I left the room during the vote, which was a secret ballot. The numbers were not revealed but I'm told that I was reselected by an overwhelming majority. That means that almost all of the group have successfully completed the reselection process and soon we will be moving on to choosing and ranking the top up list. Only 18 months to the election...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Hi Roger,
Please could you answer a question for me. With regards to your reselection, who exactly was entitled to vote? Was it open to anyone, only Conservative Party members, only Conservative Party officers or was it some other permutation of the great and the good. Do you think the system for selection is effective (I know you won so clearly it's marvellous, but I mean do you think it's open and transparent and not open to abuse)?
Hi Rog,
This was the first stage in what could have turned into an extended process. The format is that I give a fifteen minute report then take questions. The secret ballot is on the question of my readoption - if a straight majority had voted 'no' then applications from all comers would be invited and a full interview process would take place.
The electorate is made up of Conservative members from each parliamentary constituency, chosen by their constituency executives. I believe the number was set at two members per ward. I have three parliamentary constituencies which I share with neighbouring GLA seats, so their representation was reduced accordingly e.g. Leyton & Wanstead, with two wards in Redbridge and the rest outside my patch, was entitled to four delegates.
The process, which was used for all the sitting Assembly Members, was much more rigourous than it has been in the past. Although the final numbers of votes were not revealed, it was more transparent. I was asked to complete an application form and to focus particularly on my achievements for the constituency.
As to abuse, it is quite difficult to 'pack' a meeting which is selected by seven different organisations over such a large area. The 'great and good' included one MP, the leaders of both my local authorities, some councillors and a wide variety of activists with public and private sector backgrounds - it certainly wasn't a clique.
I do quite a lot of candidate assessments, so I think I can step back and be objective about this process. In my opinion this was the best we have seen, and I actually found the questions on the evening quite demanding.
... so the exact number of votes that a readopted candidate receives is unknown, and there is no shortlist of alternative candidates unless the sitting member is deselected? Interesting. A question: do the members vote in the ballot on personal preference, or as representatives of their constituency executives' endorsements? As you can see, we bloggers in this part of London are fascinated by the arcane rituals of this process, and its sometimes mystifying results ...
Mrs A,
Clearly the answer to your first two questions is 'yes', although obviously the chairman of the meeting and appointed scrutineers know the totals.
In my experience members make up their minds on a personal preference, and they are very open minded. Conservatives in East London do not take well to being 'mandated' to vote in particular ways and in 20 years I have never seen a case of this in a selection meeting.
And if there were any 'arcane rituals' I missed out on them...
To Mrs Angry: I have participated in and indeed chaired a great many Conservative Party selections over the past 15 years, and I can assure you that:
1. Voting numbers are always (or should be) kept secret, for some very good reasons.
2. The process of candidate selection or re-selection has progressed and become steadily more rigorous in the past few years, quite rightly.
It is all too easy in politics of every hue for things to be done on a nod and a wink, which is neither democratic, fair nor transparent.
Finally, the same anti-discrimination laws that apply to employment are applied to selection procedures.
mmm, well, perhaps the mystifying results in certain quarters (not in your case, of course) can only be explained by a process of arcane rituals and the tell tale whiff of sulphur?
Well thank you, Selection Guru, and Roger, for your attempts to enlighten us on these procedures. I do not understand, if these processes are as satisfactory as they are alleged to be, how one or two members (if we all hold hands, close our eyes and concentrate, we may be able to think of a few likely culprits)have received such a glowing endorsement from your party officers. This suggests that the behaviour and opinions of some of your more embarrassing colleagues reflect the views of the wider party: I would politely suggest that this decision may prove to be fatally misjudged in the next GLA elections.
Mrs Angry, I cannot understand why some of my dearest (and otherwise highly intelligent) friends persist in voting Labour!
I think we just have to accept that a)people have different opinions, and b)people sometimes 'call it wrong'.
Mrs Angry - I'm surprised that the person you may have in mind even survived the LAST election!
Judith: if you were sitting where I am sitting, you would perfectly understand why some of us persist in voting Labour, if for no other reason than to rid us of the alternative.
Redbridge resident: I know, but: that was then, and this is now. I think that perhaps someone may just have outstayed their welcome, this time ...
Roger,
I don't really understand why you just don't allow anyone who can get say five sponsors to put their name in the hats and let all members vote.
It's not just the GLA or the Tories, but surely that would be fair and transparent. I'm sure someone such as yourself who does a good job would sail through.
Theres always talk about why women/BME candidates do badly in selection meetings for all parties. I can't help but think arcane practises are the answer.
It's not just you, Labour got a bloody nose in Tower Hamlets mayoral election for the same reason
Yes, Rog T: Labour got a bloody nose in Tower Hamlets with Ken Livingstone (Labour's candidate for London Mayor) supporting the "independent" winner. But have Labour exercised their rule about members supporting candidates not of their party? Not on your nelly! Clearly Ed Moribund starting as he means to go on.
Hmmm!
The initial selection of Boris was a sort of open primary, even I got to vote. But not for his second try.
Maybe it's a different system for encumbent members?
very good, and good luck.
Post a Comment