Conservatives MEP selection corrupt

I have to say I am completely disgusted at the voting system employed by the Conservative Party to select MEP's. It has been a process Mugabe would be proud of - How can we sit here in the mother of democracies and accept a process that shows such blatent arrogance, dictatorship and lack of repect for grass root views. A process whose outcome was predetermined but crudely dressed up in democracy.

The ballot was such that your first choice got one point , second choice got 2 points etc. Hence, the candidate with the lowest points came top, second lowest 2nd etc. No problems so far! So tell me how and why have the sitting MEP's been pushed to the top regardless?

In our region for example Theresa Coffey came 3rd. But Central Office have placed her 5th behind the MEP's. As can clearly be seen in the above official results table for our region.

This is where we are told to keep quiet as it is the local elections and good party members should ignore injustice and be quiet.

I am by no means alone in this however. Go to the following Conservative supporter links:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/goldlist/2008/04/what-others-are.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/danielhannan/april08/iwindemocracyloses.htm

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/04/proof-that-battle-for-party-democracy.html

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/589131/fixing-it.thtml

Ignoring supporters wishes is no way for a modern party to behave. We do not ask for peoples opinions then ignore them without cost. We do not win elections by rigging them. We do not have the right to call ourselves a democratic party if we use undemocratic processes.

The key faults with our MEP selection were the following:

• Grassroots members were prevented from deselecting incumbents.
• Female candidates won better MEP slots even though they received fewer votes.
• Strenuous efforts were made to prevent the grassroots from learning anything meaningful about the candidates that they were allowed to rank.
• There were no official hustings and unofficial hustings were discouraged.
• Candidates were only allowed to use template CVs to communicate with members and these CVs were edited at CCHQ.
• Candidates were given lines to take.
• The voting process was complex and restrictive.
• Full results of the election process have been suppressed.
• The proportion of spoilt ballot papers was probably higher than in 2007's Scottish Elections.
• John Maples was responsible for candidate selection as well as being the returning officer.
  

One member concisely summed this all up by saying:

"We may claim the language of localism transparency and accountability, but we do not show those virtues in our internal affairs. The only conclusion I can reach is that, if we return to government, when we face a difficulty, our instincts will be to control, to centralise and to disenfranchise.
The Party is treating its members as if they are the problem. “Trust the people….unless they are members of the Conservative Party” is the approach.
The natural inclination of Party members is to be loyal. We want to win the general election and we don’t want to rock the boat. CCHQ seems to be taking cynical advantage of that, by rigging the rules and hoping we won’t make too much fuss."

NOTE:

1. The best Borough Council candidates in the local elections here in Farnborough and Aldershot are still the Conservatives by a long chalk.

2. The Conservatives are a great political party, but as with all things the people running parts of it make mistakes. I support Conservative Party values not the bad decisions of some people in leadership.

3. Evil prospers when good people do nothing.

I leave the final word with our Leader David Cameron:

"We want a Britain where politicians are less arrogant about what they can do for us, and more optimistic about what we can all do together "(David Cameron at Swindon - April 2007)