London : A study examining the Conservative Party’s 2006 ‘A-list’ reform – an initiative spearheaded by then-leader David Cameron to modernise the party and increase the diversity of candidates – found that centrally promoted candidates required substantial financial backing to remain competitive.
In a new discussion paper, co-authored by Professor Konstantinos Matakos, A-list candidates were significantly less “locally embedded” than traditionally selected candidates. Nearly 44 per cent of A-list candidates had no strong local or regional ties, compared to just 15 per cent of standard candidates.
To compensate for this lack of local appeal, the party had to heavily subsidise their campaigns. The researchers found that non-personal party campaign spending in constituencies with A-list candidates surged by between 11 per cent and 21 per cent during the 2010 general election.
Despite this period of increased spending, the study detected no measurable short-term boost in the candidates’ vote shares. Furthermore, the candidates themselves did not increase their personal campaign spending; the financial burden fell solely on the party’s organisational budget.
The researchers noted that this increased spending applied equally to both male and female A-list candidates, indicating the cost was tied to their status as centrally imposed outsiders rather than gender.
The findings were revealed in a new discussion paper, Reining the Party In: The Price of Taking Back Control, co-authored for the Aboa Centre of Economics by Selcen Çakır, Asli Ceren Cinar, Florian Foos, Konstantinos Matakos, and Janne Tukiainen.
In the paper, the researchers highlight a “price of control” for political leadership. While centralising candidate selection can successfully diversify a party’s ranks and promote loyalists, it forces parties to redirect campaign resources to offset the electorate’s natural preference for local candidates.
The researchers said: “Because resources committed to one constituency cannot be deployed elsewhere, nomination control generates opportunity costs across the electoral map. Candidate selection, party organisation, and campaign finance are therefore intertwined: effective control over nominations is also dependent on resource capacity.”
‘Parachuting’ candidates into parliamentary seats carries substantial cost
When the leaders of political parties bypass local branches to install their preferred parliamentary candidates, it comes at a steep financial price, new research co-authored by a King’s academic has revealed.
For full report, click the following link :
