European Selection Diary: Day 12 - the dilemma of the level playing field

One of the key problems of European selections is, as I have already noted, the incumbency factor. The processes are designed to, as far as is possible, create a level playing field. The reality, of course, is that no such thing exists.

The profile of a sitting MEP is huge, relative to virtually any potential opponents, a point seemingly oblivious to those who design the selection process. For only someone oblivious to that inbuilt bias would restrict the ability of individual candidates to actually campaign, which has been the position in the past. Luckily, I have, in recent years, found myself in a position to try to change that, as a member of the English Candidates Committee, and I did the best that I could.

It isn't easy, and there are legitimate arguments against 'letting a thousand flowers bloom'. In the first list selection, some very clever candidates exposed gaping weaknesses in the then rules, spending unimaginable amounts of money in search of that elusive top position on the list which almost guaranteed electoral success and a ticket to Brussels. And why not? After all, it really mattered because you could actually win.

The powers that be weren't going to be fooled again, and the rules became more restrictive - no buying electoral success because that wasn't fair, was it? But in an age before Twitter and Facebook were so potentially influential, the cost of telephone calls, letters and leaflets was potentially a hurdle to candidates without means, so making it virtually impossible to use them was obviously a good thing, right? Well, no, it wasn't, was it?

The internet has changed the way we campaign, albeit more so in internal Party affairs than amongst the general public. It is free, or at worst cheap, which is good. From a Returning Officer's perspective, and in terms of control, it offers an interesting challenge, however. The old philosophy, whereby a Returning Officer acted as an all-seeing gatekeeper, becomes impossible when you can theoretically send an e-mail to 2000 or more members without recourse to him or her (usually him, in my experience, for reasons I can't begin to comprehend).

Instead, the emergence of the Returning Officer as a policeman has become desirable, whereby instead of approving everything, an arduous task at best, he or she merely deals with complaints, leaving the candidate to take responsibility for reading the rules and acting accordingly. It always puzzled me that, in a Party which believed in giving people power over their own lives, we put such restrictions on those who wish to put those principles into practice as elected politicians.

So, we'll see if our people are up to the challenge. As an optimist, I'd like to think that they are, although my experiences have demonstrated that you shouldn't presume anything. And as I won't have a disciplinary role this time, it won't be my problem anyway. Let's just say that I'm not exactly unhappy with that...