The Wrong Answer

Nick Bourne, leader of the Conservative Group in the Welsh Assembly has, in my view, identified a problem within the Conservative Party but his remedy is ill thought out, ten years out of date, un-democratic and is to an extent based on self-interest.  I thought hard about writing this response but Nick has invited a debate so here are my initial views on his proposals.

Firstly what is the problem?  In simple terms the Assembly Group is seen as male dominated and white.  In terms of male domination it is a fair comment with 11 of the 12 members being men which is clearly not a representative sample of the Welsh public at large.  As for lack of AMs from a black or minority ethnic background the disparity between Assembly Members and Wales in general is less clear.  According to the Census of 2001 2.1% of the population of Wales are from an ethnic minority background.  With 60 members the Assembly should therefore have 1.2 members from an ethnic minority background.  The actual number is 1.  This is hardly evidence of discrimination.

I would argue therefore that there is an issue in terms of the lack of elected Conservative women but there is less of a clear case in terms of ethnic minority representation.  So in effect Nick Bourne has identified half a problem.

What of his proposals?  They are mistaken in my view.  He makes four key recommendations;

1. "The establishment of a priority list of candidates for target seats with specific emphasis on getting more women and people from ethnic minorities into winnable positions.  The list will be drawn up from approved candidates by the Welsh Conservatives' board of management"

This option is dangerous.  I say this as an approved 'A' lister under the Cameron reforms who always felt unhappy with the creation of a centrally approved list of candidates to be made available to local associations.  Such a list will have the inherent danger of creating politicians who owe their allegiance to the Party centrally rather than their conscience and the local electorate.  It should have no place in a party committed to local-ism and democracy.  This proposal should be rejected.   

2. "Local associations in target seats to ensure at least half of those candidates put forward to final selection to be women or from an ethnic minority background"

I find this proposal to be lacking in intellectual rigour.  If an association interviews five candidates and proposes to recommend three for final selection (this is what often happens) then two would need to be women or ethnic minority candidates.  Was this meant to be the potential outcome?  Secondly, if the scoring had put a man first, woman second, man third, man fourth and woman fifth then the three individuals made available for final interview would have been the first placed man, second placed woman and the fifth placed woman.  Anybody aware of the rules would immediately question which woman was there on merit with the obvious consequence of both being damaged.  This proposal should be rejected.    

3. "Mentoring and training for candidates and also for local associations"

Why not?  Compared to the proposals made for reforming the Assembly by Sir Roger Jones I can at least see the merits in training people before they are elected rather than after the event.  Worth considering. 

4. "For regional lists the first available vacancy should be a woman or ethnic minority candidate.  Where there is no incumbent the top spot on the regional list should go to a woman or ethnic minority candidate"

No, no and no again.  I do not like party list systems (which we have in Wales for Assembly Elections and for the Euro elections) since they put all the power in the hands of the political parties at the expense of the electorate.  They are bad enough as they stand but to use them for internal party political reasons is un-democratic and leaves the electorate with little or no choice as to who represents them.  At the recent Euro elections the people in Wales who bothered to vote were choosing only one MEP - the fourth seat which as it happens went to UKIP. 

The reason for this is that the close list system means that the number 1 candidate for the Welsh Conservatives, Labour and Plaid Cymru are virtually guaranteed to be elected.  In other words, keep your party happy and you can be an MEP.  This is slightly less obvious with AMs since the link between the list system and the individual constituency successes of a party can result in even a number one regional list candidate not being elected but in general lists often result in candidates/elected members who are more concerned with keeping their party happy than responding to the needs of the electorate.  

To use the lists for gender equality is wrong.  We know this in North Wales where Dafydd Wigley, the former MP for Caernarfon was not placed on top of the Plaid Cymru regional list because he was not a woman (he won many more votes than the top placed woman). Those in North Wales who voted for Plaid Cymru on the list element of the Assembly voting paper in order to get Dafydd Wigley elected were cheated with (the second rate) Janet Ryder elected to serve us.  Does Nick seriously feel that this is an example we should follow? 

I also feel that the comment that the top spot should go to a woman or ethnic minority candidate unless there is an incumbent is unacceptable.  This is creating one rule for most candidates and another for Nick Bourne (who is the incumbent in Mid and West Wales).  This proposal should be rejected.

I have no agenda here.  I do not propose to stand for the Assembly in Aberconwy since my efforts are 100% focused on being elected as the constituency MP.  But we do need to engage people with the political process again - and I know that we have a huge amount of work to be done. A system for choosing candidates which is based on party lists and an out dated political correctness is not the way in which the Conservative Party should attempt to re-engage with the electorate.

What will re-engage people with politics in my view is honesty and trust with candidates chosen on merit. 

This proposal is not honest since it argues for minority aadvantage but not at the expense of current Assembly Members.

This proposal by its very nature displays no trust in local people with decisions moved to central lists and democratic choice restricted.

This proposal stamps on the long held Conservative commitment to meritocracy.  Every Association should aim to choose the best possible candidate to present to the electorate.  If we choose not to do this for 'political' reasons then we will diminish our democracy.

Finally can I stress that these are my views on the proposals made by Nick Bourne.  The proposals are, in my view and as you may have gathered, a mistake.

Guto Bebb

        

Comments

[David Logan]

As quoted by Tom Bodden in the Post! Nick Bourne seems to have no political antennae at all, stirring it up in he run to a general election. He could have had this debate next summer.

He has rarely been supportive of Westminster candidates, unless they are in his clique, and regularly undermined them in the past, as those of us in North Wales in 2001 will long remember.

If he wants fairness, he should look at the mid-Wales list. If it had been decided on merit, not incumbancy he would have been streets behind local, welsh speaking woman - Lisa Francis. Funny old world!