The Party is in the worst position in its long history. We have 120 MPs. We have just lost swathes of councillors and control of previously solidly Conservative councils.

The reasons for our decline are, to my mind, the crucial areas of policy, communications and candidate selection.

Conservative members and supporters are talking about the Party having reached the end of the road. That its decline is terminal. If you ask yourself what is the more likely result at the next General Election, between a Reform minority government or a Conservative return to power, the current energy and momentum makes the former seem the more likely, however wrong or unjust that may feel to committed Conservatives.

So the Party needs to be thinking radically if it is to turn its fortunes around. Those of us who believe that Conservative policies are the most effective and beneficial means to govern our nation – and indeed our Leader Kemi Badenoch herself states clearly in today’s Mail on Sunday that she believes in ‘lower taxes, personal responsibility and a leaner, better-run state’ – can see no real alternative to the Conservative Party.

We know that we need to turn away from what I have been calling the ‘failed status quo’ mindset that has led to our decline. With the spirit that has maintained our party and given it endurance to survive over so many years, we now must pull something novel, necessary and dramatic out of the bag. There is no longer room for error, but it can be done.

Draft recommendations for candidate selection were published last week. As one of the three areas I identify as central to the decline of the Conservative Party and therefore crucial to our rebuild, and the first of the three to emerge from the party review for consideration, these draft recommendations set the tone for our approach more broadly. They therefore also set our expectations for how the Party Board intends to lead us.

There is much to discuss but for brevity’s sake I will concentrate on what I consider the key elements.

How you interpret them will depend on your point of view. Are you coming at this from a position of believing that the previous approach was fundamentally fine, but could do with a little improvement? If you are, you will find much to like about the proposals. The intentions of the proposals make sense…

‘These proposals have been developed to ensure, as far as possible the following:
A. The confidence of all elements of the Party (especially the voluntary party, whose confidence in the process was badly damaged in the run up to the 2024 General Election).
B. Improved engagement of Party members in the selection of their candidate.
C. Fair and respectful treatment of applicants/candidates,with appropriate setting out of the expectations upon them.
D. A consistent level of rigour in testing basic requirements and vetting all candidates.
E. That applicants/candidates are required to expend effort and prove themselves to a degree commensurate with the privilege of standing for Parliament as a Conservative.
F. Transparency in relation to the processes for approval and selection, to all parties involved.’

…and some practical suggestions in the report support this, such as bothering to probe prospective candidates on whether they are actually Conservatives at all. Bravo. I was not asked anything about why I am a Conservative during my listing process and I am relieved to see that this requirement is now likely to be part of the process (‘likely’ because these proposals are still draft, remember).

However, if you are coming from the perspective of believing that we are in such dire straights that we need to be thinking completely differently, as a last-ditch attempt to drag the party back on track, these proposals will simply smack of the failed status quo that led us down a cul-de-sac, instead of onto the highway to power.

Firstly, the ‘high level objectives’ state ‘Our aim is to win the next General Election’. Great. My aim is to win the women’s 100 metres at the next Olympics. I am going to spend time producing a plan based on that outcome and I will commit myself to following it. That’ll do it, right?

Well no, it won’t. Guests to my home will not be finding an Olympic gold medal proudly displayed in my downstairs loo, ever. For any plan to be taken seriously, it has to be realistic. Just as I would do better to set my sights on a bit of jogging and a Parkrun, these proposals need to start from a place of realism to be trusted. How about a stated aim to ‘produce an approved list of excellent prospective Conservative candidates’. After all, this has to happen before we can get anywhere close to winning a general election.

In power, the party was able to attract far more prospective candidates than it could ever field, and it treated prospective candidates accordingly. Those of us who made it onto the list and candidacy were explicitly told to follow the instructions of the candidates department, be they sensible or flawed, or find ourselves thrown off the list (and you can read about my astonishing experiences here). Our CCHQ handlers made it clear that we could be easily replaced. That there were plenty more where we came from. For many, this is a powerful threat. But times have now changed and our mindset must too. It may no longer be possible to find such an excess of prospective candidates that such a threat will carry any weight.

To become a prospective candidate you have to get yourself on the list in the first place. The draft proposals state that the size of the list will be reduced, and sets out how the unidentified authors think they might do that. However, we are no longer in power and are currently in no position to be thinking we might return to power any time soon. That makes applying to become a Conservaitve MP far less appealing ot they ambitious. And yet the party evidently thinks it will have the luxury of seeking to exclude potentially good people.

Most harmfully in this regard, we are considering placing restrictions on our most committed and experienced volunteers, by excluding Area and Regional Chairs, and possibly Association Chairs too (but not other Area or Regional Officers, strangely) from the list not only during their time in these roles but for years afterwards as well. These are people who have careers and other commitments yet still give up their time to help lead the voluntary party. Most of them do an outstanding job and the party couldn’t function without them. If they are then to be punished by being excluded from the prospect of standing for Parliament – and to be clear, not all of them will want to – who on earth will be found to take on these responsible voluntary party roles? At the same time, with the prospect of standing for Parliament for the Conservatives seeming much less attractive than in did in the early part of 2024, we may well find that we would be glad of having these generally excellent people on the approved list. Obsessing over who to restrict from the list seems to be the ultimate decadence when we are looking like a spent force.

The clunky and time-consuming candidates activity log may be overhauled, and that would be welcome to anyone who has had to use it; but are we really going to attract talented, experienced heavyweights from fields outside of politics – which is exactly what we need – if we are going to treat them like children and expect them to account for their activities in this way? Previously candidates were expected to follow instructions to travel to wherever the latest by-election is taking place, to trudge around following prescribed but outdated campaign methods that are turning out to be less and less effective. (See my thoughts on how that works out for the 2025 local elections here). The proposals suggest an awareness that this was not optimal, yet they nonetheless suggest formalising certain activities as part of a candidates contract. This is not the way to attract the calibre of prospective candidate required to propel us anywhere near the report’s stated aim of wining the next general election.

Anyone who doesn’t mind, or indeed welcomes, the idea of accounting for their activities in this way probably doesn’t have the right qualities to actually be a good MP. Obedience to pointless or demeaning requirements should not be part of the character of someone whose job it is to stand up for the interests of their constituents and their country whilst working as part of a team of committed Conservatives. We need to throw off the mindset that has produced a system that attracts and promotes qualities that do not fit the role.

The frenzy of selecting (or indeed, imposing) candidates after the shock announcement of the last general election brought the importance of our by-election selection rules into sharp focus. Once a GE has been called, those very specific rules kick in for candidate selection. This meant that a ‘choice’ of one to three candidates would be imposed on an Association by the candidates committee. The Association had no say on who these people were, and in my experience, the Associations’ wishes had no place in creating this very restricted shortlist. When Rishi Sunak stood outside Number 10 in that downpour announcing the election to the sound of Labour’s theme song played at full volume outside the gates to Downing Street, somewhere between 160 and 190 constituencies, out of 650, still had to find their candidates. By this time, trust in the central party had been eroded, as the draft proposals recognise, and some felt that these seats had been specifically held back to give the candidates committee and the candidates department control over who was allowed to stand as candidates. I have no idea of the truth of this, but I do know that the situation was sub-optimal and created confusion and ill-feeling.

In the end, what did it matter? Only 121 of our candidates won. This was an abject failure and what had led to it fits into my ‘failed status quo’ category. These new proposals suggest that by-election rules should insist that the imposed shortlist should offer at least three candidates. For me, this sums up the problem with these proposals. My fear is that taking the previous system and adjusting it somewhat – and in some ways, improving it – is simply moving us into a ‘fail a little bit less’ category.

The all-important candidates committee is in the process of being re-formed. Clare Hambro has been appointed as Chair, and has vast experience within the Party, including being Regional Chair for London overseeing the selection of the GLA and London Mayoral candidates for the 2024 London elections. Her appointed deputy is Elizabeth Gibson, who is a former parliamentary candidate and a south London figure, married to the former MP for Anglesey Keith Best. The CCHQ candidates department supports the committee and the paid role of Head of the Candidates Department has recently been advertised. Between them the committee and the candidates department have their work cut out. Much depends on what they achieve.

© Joanna Reeves 2025, all rights reserved.