What do FGers think of Tom Curran's statement on Selection Conventions?

[Casualbets]

What do Fine Gaelers think of FG General Secretary Tom Curran's commitment to "restrict the number of candidates local organisations could choose" with candidates instead being added by FG HQ?

“I think quotas are the only show in town for political parties,” Mr Curran said. “The reality is there’s going to be blood on the floor.”

The chairwoman of the conference, broadcaster Olivia O’Leary, said male candidates would probably have to be “displaced” to bring about greater representation of women. She asked Mr Curran what Fine Gael would do if local organisations ignored instructions from headquarters and “the boys sewed it up” at selection conventions.

Mr Curran said the party was prepared to restrict the number of candidates local organisations could choose at selection conventions. “We have an ace up our sleeve: we can add candidates.”

My personal feeling - and this is not in any way restricted to Fine Gael, it's an issue for all parties - is that in many instances Selection conventions will be reduced to doing little more than rubberstamping incumbent candidates, with HQs picking the majority of new candidates.

Mind you, I reckon Tom Curran's statement shows a jaw-dropping lack of respect for the ordinary members of the party of which he is General Secretary.

Oh, And some Poker Advice : if you have an Ace up your sleeve, you don't tell everyone about it.

[simeongrimes]

The displaced "boy" will run as an Independent and win. Political parties have outlived their usefulness to the democracy. Policy has long been dictated form above and now candidate selection will be too. The trend to Independents should accelerate.

[Radix]

More Healy Rae's, Mings 'n things...

They won't be any worse than some of the offerings party constituencies are selecting, and they won't drive their Korean chariots down the plinth either...

[wombat]

Mind you, I reckon Tom Curran's statement shows a jaw-dropping lack of respect for the ordinary members of the party of which he is General Secretary.

I used to hold that opinion but having been involved in several unsuccessful campaigns where the membership ignored the advice from HQ, I changed my mind.

[Luachara]

What do Fine Gaelers think of FG General Secretary Tom Curran's commitment to "restrict the number of candidates local organisations could choose" with candidates instead being added by FG HQ?



My personal feeling - and this is not in any way restricted to Fine Gael, it's an issue for all parties - is that in many instances Selection conventions will be reduced to doing little more than rubberstamping incumbent candidates, with HQs picking the majority of new candidates.

Mind you, I reckon Tom Curran's statement shows a jaw-dropping lack of respect for the ordinary members of the party of which he is General Secretary.

Oh, And some Poker Advice : if you have an Ace up your sleeve, you don't tell everyone about it.

Local Party Organisations have not always been good at selecting candidates who could get elected. Typically the sitting TD in a party in a 3 seater will want to pick a weak running mate usually a County Councillor who has no hope of providing real competition. That said if you can't get through a convention you don't have much hope of getting elected.

Party headquarters are not in the business of opposing candidates who can get elected by promoting rivals unless loyalty to the current leader is an issue.The Presidential election demonstrated where an outside candidate might have appealed to a broader support base than an insider who had lots of votes at the convention. Parties can mazimise a vote by having balanced tickets which includes running young female candidates, and get a vote bounce by broadening the appeal beyond their traditional base. Local organisations are not always good at doing this.

Quota sitters are a major obsticle to parties increasing their share of seats won. Those shafted at conventions by directives from headquarters don't always comply with headquarters directives and while you can tell an organisation they must have a candidate not of their chooseing you cannot make them get out and work for a candidate unless they want to.

Holding conventions early allows a little time for healing of wounds between supporters though, there is never much healing between candidates. The level of hatred between candidates can only be understood by becoming a candidate. Candidates in other parties are much less threat to a candidate as they are less likely to get votes form your potential party support base.

Tom Curran is a very able man who would be more likely to have a lot of groundwork done to advance a candidate, than to end up imposing one in a clumsy manner, and getting people's backs up.

I can recall attending conventions with my father in which his biggest job was to remember which headquarters directive was in which pocket and to ensure the correct one was withdrawn to deal with events as they unfolded on the night.

The prospect of being added to a ticket is often used to delay a candidate for as long as possible from running as in independent, until it is too late for them to do so.

[jackryan]

If the local party has its role in selecting candidates reduced, you'd have to ask what would be the point of being a member of a party?
This quota system will as someone else said drive more into the indo camp.

[Casualbets]

I used to hold that opinion but having been involved in several unsuccessful campaigns where the membership ignored the advice from HQ, I changed my mind.

Even though I fundamentally disagree with you, I can't help but smile

And yes, HQs are not evil ogres - they are generally acting in (what they reckon are) the best interests of the party. But we should be encouraging more people to become members of political parties, and the best way to do that is to allow them a collective say in (a) Candidate Selection and (b) general policy direction.

Of course Gender Quotas didn't cause the problem of HQ interference, but they will increase it (although I'm a bit taken aback by Curran's gusto on the subject). But hitherto Fine Gael have been content to add candidates to unrestricted tickets - ie Galway East in February where Ciaran Cannon was added as a 4th candidate. Curran's relish for restricting tickets is a new development to my mind.

[Casualbets]

Local Party Organisations have not always been good at selecting candidates who could get elected. Typically the sitting TD in a party in a 3 seater will want to pick a weak running mate usually a County Councillor who has no hope of providing real competition. That said if you can't get through a convention you don't have much hope of getting elected.

Party headquarters are not in the business of opposing candidates who can get elected by promoting rivals unless loyalty to the current leader is an issue.The Presidential election demonstrated where an outside candidate might have appealed to a broader support base than an insider who had lots of votes at the convention. Parties can mazimise a vote by having balanced tickets which includes running young female candidates, and get a vote bounce by broadening the appeal beyond their traditional base. Local organisations are not always good at doing this.

Quota sitters are a major obsticle to parties increasing their share of seats won. Those shafted at conventions by directives from headquarters don't always comply with headquarters directives and while you can tell an organisation they must have a candidate not of their chooseing you cannot make them get out and work for a candidate unless they want to.

Holding conventions early allows a little time for healing of wounds between supporters though, there is never much healing between candidates. The level of hatred between candidates can only be understood by becoming a candidate. Candidates in other parties are much less threat to a candidate as they are less likely to get votes form your potential party support base.

Tom Curran is a very able man who would be more likely to have a lot of groundwork done to advance a candidate, than to end up imposing one in a clumsy manner, and getting people's backs up.

I can recall attending conventions with my father in which his biggest job was to remember which headquarters directive was in which pocket and to ensure the correct one was withdrawn to deal with events as they unfolded on the night.

The prospect of being added to a ticket is often used to delay a candidate for as long as possible from running as in independent, until it is too late for them to do so.

Good post. The thing is that - and correct me if I'm wrong - post 2002 Fine Gael liberalised their membership policy which allowed an influx of new people into the party, whilst also introducing One Member One Vote? This was beneficial to them as it meant that younger and new candidates were able to get their supporters into the party to vote for them at conventions, and also that any prospective candidate was guaranteed a reasonably fair crack of the whip at convention (ie it's much easier to stitch up a "branch" selection convention than a OMOV convention).

If you start "restricting" selection conventions willy nilly as Curran seems to be promising, they will be able to do little more than rubberstamp incumbent candidate which will lead to a definite diminishing of party morale and an atrophying of the party organisation. This is true of Fine Gael and all parties.

[ergo2]

In most political parties local organisations pay scant regard to HQ recommendations/directions.

Local organisations jealously guard their right to nominate candidates - after all it is they who have to campaign.

To paraphrase Churchill political issues in all constituencies are a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

In a typical rural constituency there are loyalties based on parties, sport, family, areas etc. Even someone living there all theri lives and being politically active would find it difficult to assess potential of various candidates. HQ would be relying on views of certain people who would have their own agenda. Any polls are usually on a small sample, and not reliable.

I believe HQ seeking to impose candidates has not been a success.

Local organsations will oppose the list system, as it gives too much power to HQ

[gijoe]

This is all to do with the 30% gender quota. Why anyone would want to remain a party member with candidate selection now effectively having to be controlled from the centre is beyond me.