 
|
« Saddam TV-tortured | Main | Sexism and the blogosphere » Nick Herbert - Conservative choiceThe public row over the choice of Nick Herbert to be the Arundel and South Downs constituency candidate for the Tory Party is only half of the story. It is who they did not select that says much more. Herbert is by all accounts a shallow, virulent anti-European: regressive not just on taxation, but on national identity and relations with the world. Up against him in the short-list of three who spoke to 400 odd local party members last night, was Laura Sandys. Among Laura's wide and lively range of interests, she Chairs the Board of openDemocracy on which I sit. So praise her I can't. Read her for yourself on openDemocracy, on Europe, on Iraq and especially her star essay on the nature of US politics, written before 9/11. How is it possible for the Conservatives to systematically refuse to choose Laura as a candidate? It is not just because local activists don't like intelligent, single women. It is also that the leadership is not modern and does not want the future to be different from the past it once knew. Unable to challenge Tony Blair by setting a new agenda, they permit him to indulge in his own version of conservatism. He can only get away with being King Tony Blair as so well described by Dominic Hilton because the opposition do not want to change the terms. It is how politics is done that matters now, in the era of globalisation. The selection of Nick Herbert is a deeply depressing confirmation that the Conservative Party is not interested.
April 7, 2005 in Blair's Bust - UK election | Permalink TrackBackTrackBack URL for this entry: Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nick Herbert - Conservative choice: The Tory Choice of Nick Herbert was a democratic one. He and two female candidates stood before more than 500 local conservative supporters and sought their vote -- the majority chose Herbert. No other mainstream British political party has such a thorough democratic selection process as this: where the candidate must first win the vote of local supporters, who they wish to go on to work with and represent, on the strength of their performance at a mass meeting. Both Labour and Liberal parties have much greater central control over the appointment of their approved candidates, especially if an appointment needs to be made in haste. Labour’s appointment process became more centralized in 2001 when it found itself needing to field candidates at short notice; the Conservative party might have done the same on this occasion, and freed themselves of a democratic tradition that no doubt many in Central Office (and many who are on the candidates list (such as myself)) wish there was a way round. Posted by: Sophie Scruton | 14 Apr 2005 21:32:00 Post a comment |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
