At a political soiree a few weeks ago, I met a former Tory minister who looked less than happy about having to be subjected to the same candidate selection process he had previously passed some 15 years ago. “It feels strange sitting the exam again,” he said. “I think I helped set it.”

Knives out

Originally, I thought Kemi’s new purge was designed to get rid of non-Tory candidates but now I wonder if it’s more political, and another savvy political chess move designed to put her stamp on the party, give it a makeover in her political Boudicca-like image and above all, put real fear into the parliamentary party ranks.

As one veteran former Tory MP put it to me: “This move has got not only ex-MPs worried but also sitting MPs. What’s stopping her saying next that there will be a new process for CCHQ clearance for all current MP’s before they are re-adopted for their existing seats before the next election. Of the 120 MPs left, there will be some she would like to purge in the name of her New Conservative Party.”

Indeed after James Heale broke the story of Shapps’s candidate board snubbing, Kemi came out fighting on the subject telling a Sky news press conference: “What I will say is that we’re going to be announcing candidates shortly and you will see that this is a very different party from the one that was removed from government in 2024. We have got a plan and everyone is focused on delivering for the country. That is what I want people to see: that this is a new and different conservative party.”

“Grant was surprised. He thought the interview had gone well enough. There was no blow up or argument during the selection board process”

Which could be seen as an opportunity to knife the further career ambitions of those who were not Kemi allies and liquidate political enemies or non-loyalists. A former Tory MP I spoke to, who has already subjected himself to the candidate list re-selection process, says that he estimates that around 20% of the 175 Tories who lost their seats in 2024 were re-applying. A little like the French revolution, when aristocrats were allowed the dignity of being guillotined by rank together, former Tory MPs have been allowed to sit the new competence test and selection tests before other Tory candidate list hopefuls. The big difference from 15 years ago is that it is mostly being done digitally, not using paper forms.

Whilst the official explanation is that the Tory party is blocking candidates who do not back its human rights and net zero pledges, the truth seems to be that this candidate purge may have wider ambitions. What’s strange, talking to some candidates who have been through the process, is that Sir Philip May – husband of former PM – was one of those interviewing would-be candidates.

Since May’s government was the first major economy to legally commit to reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050, having Sir Philip as being part of Badenoch’s anti-net zero pogrom seems surprising; it certainly was to the candidate who was interviewed by him. His wife’s landmark policy amended the 2008 Climate Change Act in her final days in office. But a senior CCHQ source defends Sir Philip being used as a selection gatekeeper saying: “It is a testament to Kemi’s trust that Philip is being involved in the candidate process. It shows that she is not being factional.”

Such discrimination against anybody Kemi doesn’t care for much does raise questions about whether the Conservative Party is striking the right note in claiming to be the party of meritocracy and equal opportunity. The Tory party has always been a fairly broad church, tolerating whiggish Tories (now called wets) as much as more right-wing traditional types like Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (whether he has applied for re-selection is unknown).

“For years, under former CCHQ Head of Candidates Gareth Fox, the Tories’ virtuous talk of “diversity” concealed a covert policy of reverse discrimination against white, upper middle-class candidates”

Exactly why Grant Shapps, a Brexit voting former Tory co-chairman (under David Cameron) and Home Secretary, has been axed as a candidate is not clear. But it cannot have helped that he was appointed in February 2023 by Rishi Sunak as the first Cabinet minister for the newly created portfolio of Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, a role he jumped at (although he only lasted six months).

Yet when a former political colleague rang Shapps after the news broke of his candidate humiliation, to commiserate, he told me: “Grant was surprised. He thought the interview had gone well enough. There was no blow up or argument during the selection board process.”

One CCHQ insider tells The Mace that Sir Grant Shapps may have been made an example of, having held so many offices of state – including transport secretary, business secretary, energy secretary, defence secretary and briefly home secretary – that he became something of a poster boy for the Tory brand that Kemi is now keen to distance herself from. He also had a habit of appearing in the press in various mishaps or guises that didn’t reflect well on his Day Job as a constituent MP or minister. He was revealed to use various business pseudonyms including Michael Green, Corinne Stockheath and Sebastian Fox attracting unwelcome media attention in 2012.

He first denied having used a pseudonym after entering parliament but then in March 2015, Shapps backtracked, saying he was “mistaken over the dates” of his outside employment. He said he had “over-firmly denied” having a second job. Then there was his resignation due to allegations of bullying of a young party volunteer when co-chairman of the Conservative Party. A party youth organiser called Michael Clarke had been appointed by Shapps to head the Tory party’s RoadTrip 2015 campaign in January 2015 but ended up committing suicide due to alleged bullying that was ignored.

Then, in August 2018, the  FT reported a “secret pay deal” between Shapps and OpenBrix, a British blockchain property portal company. The story alleged that Shapps would have received payment in cryptocurrency tokens with a future value of up to £700,000. Shapps resigned from OpenBrix and from his position as chairman of the APPG group on blockchain which he had set up and founded. And so the list of Shapps’s colourful and chequered political and commercial career goes on…

“Kemi is determined that there is to be visible change in the personnel in the Conservative parliamentary party” says my source within CCHQ. “She is showing a streak of ruthlessness which many in the parliamentary party welcome. Nobody is trying to stand in her way. She has been clear that only those committed to her new policies will be allowed back on, particularly if they have a history of factionalism”.

Speak to former parliamentary colleagues of Shapps and they will note that he was aways manoeuvring to be on the winning team and lived by the example of George Osborne’s Westminster career advice – “always back the leadership candidate most likely to win”.   In Shapps’s case, he first jumped on the Theresa May bandwagon (with landmark legislation to amend the Climate Change Act) and then he jumped on the Boris bandwagon. As Prime minister, he backed Britain’s net zero targets and hosted the Cop26 summit in Glasgow which resulted in limiting the use of coal and a commitment to climate finance for developing countries.

Reverse discrimination

On the whole, I favour Kemi’s candidate pogrom. Labour and Conservative candidate selection has long been a rotten racket. For years, under former CCHQ Head of Candidates Gareth Fox, the Tories’ virtuous talk of “diversity” concealed a covert policy of reverse discrimination against white, upper middle-class candidates. 

Thankfully the Hon Clare Hambro, Chairman of the Conservative Candidates Committee, looks to be putting an end to all this. And about time. On becoming party leader, David Cameron reportedly instructed Fox to ensure that no new Etonian candidates would be put forward for safe seats. Political journalist Harry Cole, at the time, wrote after his investigation into the 2015 batch: “If you’re a white, middle- or upper-class man, you’re unlikely to have landed a safe seat.”

Leave it to Boris

This CCHQ prejudice often worked against Brexiters. One might have expected that when Boris Johnson took over, CCHQ would have looked for articulate Leavers to stand as candidates, especially in Labour-held Northern or Midlands seats.

That proved harder than expected. The Parliamentary Assessment Board (PAB) selection procedure remained deliberately opaque with one staffer admitting to The Mace some years ago that it’s “just an excuse to say no” to various people if they don’t tick the right affirmative action boxes. At one PAB in Cambridge, where all the candidates were, according to one, “smart, successful high-achievers”, all nine – mostly white, long-term party members and avowed Leavers – were rejected.

Why was this? The answer’s simple. CCHQ was – under Fox, and PMs Cameron, Johnson (aka Dominic Cummings), May and Sunak – still a bastion of Remain. While Boris was able to ruthlessly cull Remainer rebels from his first cabinet and pack it with Brexiters, he and Cummings seemingly didn’t have time, or the effort, to exorcise the Cameron and May staffer legacy within CCHQ.

Insiders expected Boris to make a purge of the candidate list at CCHQ but he was removed from office before he had a chance. In the Gareth Fox years, there were two types of candidate pass: a “full list pass” meant you could apply for any seat, while the “team initiative pass” was awarded to “less desirable” second-tier candidates, allowing them to stand in Labour-held or urban seats.

Pale, male, fail

The procedure openly discriminated against Oxbridge or public school types, Indeed, the policy is spelt out in the opening question of the 2019 applicant guidance notes.

“What are the assessors looking for?” the document asked. The answer didn’t make promising reading for many hopefuls: “The assessors are not looking for a conventional Conservative MP. The Party is seeking diversity in its candidates.” 

The message was clear, a former CCHQ staffer told The Mace: “Unless you tick the ‘diversity’ box, there’s not much point in paying the £250 PAB course fee.”

Wrong answers

The application process was not outdated but many thought it contradicted 100 years of Conservative thinking and philosophy. A copy of the 2019 guidance notes was passed to our Pepys columnist by a disillusioned candidate who said that despite all the progressive noises, it felt as if the selection exam hadn’t been changed in 20 years.

“We were told to write a press release to solve a local motorway planning issue,” the candidate said. “In the case notes, the local farming community were badly affected by foot and mouth disease. But that epidemic was back in 2001!”

The only question he was asked was to name the head of the European Commission. The ‘public-speaking exercise’ question was to speak for three minutes about which Strictly Come Dancing contestant he would like to be partnered with. Another was asked to speak on the subject of “whether drinking wine led to a longer life”. 

Let’s hope the new selection board, under Hambro, brings some sanity back to becoming a Tory candidate. As the co-founder of the Italian Conservatives, I would suggest the answer, if they don’t change the question, is “Sono innamorato a di bere il vino Italiano.”