You don't need to be a professional to be an MP

The Conservatives were the first party in the UK to use primary elections to select parliamentary candidates. At the fringe event it was surprising to note the lack of controversy surrounding primaries, particularly compared to the debate in both the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties about whether they should be introduced. Indeed, Andrew Adonis remarked that at the Labour and Liberal Democrat fringe events the idea of primaries received a mixed reaction, largely because both party leaders and members feared this could result in them losing control over the candidate selection process and the candidates themselves. The biggest problem however remains the cost; with postal primaries costing £40,000 per constituency no party currently has the finances to bankroll their use nationwide. Unless they are publicly funded, as the Coalition Government pledged to do but subsequently backed away from, primaries are unlikely to become a mainstay in UK politics. As well as the financial costs of primaries to the parties another issue was raised which affects all candidates whatever the selection process; the extraordinarily large financial cost to individuals of trying to win a seat in Parliament, which the Institute has highlighted in the report on Candidate Selection. As Iain Dale pointed out, it cost him personally £40,000 to fight a marginal seat remarking, "People from low incomes are clearly disadvantaged, so why on earth would someone do this?" And this is by no means unusual but what it means is that many people who might make terrific MPs are put off from running because either they cannot afford to do so or are not prepared to make that level of financial sacrifice, particularly if the seat is not a safe bet. Is this the way democracy in Britain should operate in the 21st century? Similarly primaries, which the Conservatives have used in some constituencies on a trial basis, cost similar sums. If, and it is a big if, these might be used more widely, there will need to be some creative thinking about how they might be funded more cost effectively. Interestingly, Dr Sarah Wollaston MP, speaking at the event and who had come through the full postal primary route, supported the idea of having joint selection procedures for all three main parties. She also argued that "you don't need to be a professional to be an MP but it is professionalism which enables you to challenge the culture of Westminster. Doctors have a duty of care of whistle-blowing when there are system failures and poor performance by colleagues and this should be mirrored in Parliament." Dr Wollaston had no previous record of political engagement but had responded to David Cameron’s call to widen the range of candidates. This was reinforced by Christina Dykes, another of the speakers and who has been heavily engaged in candidate selection and political leadership. She emphasised that the Primaries were used as a mechanism to encourage more people to join the Conservative Party and to try and ensure that the Party had the best people available to it. This meant that effective candidate selection should not be seen as a fad but, rather, was an essential component in the efforts to restore confidence in Parliament by attracting real talent. It might also mean that Dr Wollaston would be less likely to be criticised, as she has been, for wasting tax payers’ money to educate her to become a doctor and then leaving it to become an MP. They are both difficult and tough jobs and have equal value but are rarely perceived as such. And yet better candidate selection is only one part of the process. What are clearly still lacking are any effective support mechanisms for aspirant and newly elected MPs for example through mentoring, training and coaching. This is in stark contrast with GPs who receive proper training and mentoring support as part of their professional standards and development. This is a key finding which underpins our recent report on ministers. It is no good getting good people into Parliament and then letting them sink or swim through the absence of any form of real professional development – a situation which would rightly be seen as ludicrous in most other walks of life.