Selecting the right candidates fairly is one of the most important things the Conservative Party does in local government. Councillors are our frontline representatives. They shape local services, set council tax (…much lower than any other party), make difficult decisions under pressure, hold other parties to account and embody Conservative values in their communities every day.

Done wrong, poor selections can cost us winnable wards, or drive good people away.

That is precisely why we are reviewing and consulting on the Party’s local government candidate selection rules. This exercise is not about change for its own sake. It is about ensuring our processes are fit for the realities of modern local government and modern campaigning, and fully involving Associations and councillors, not dreaming up new rules within CCHQ and handing them down without any local input.

Our consultation document is available here, and you can submit your views here.

Over time, well-intentioned rules have accumulated. In some places, that has left us with a system that can feel slow, complex, and overly administrative. Too often, valuable volunteer time is absorbed by process, paperwork, and far too many appeals, rather than campaigning, recruiting members, and winning elections. In some cases, the rules also prevent frank conversations with and about candidates who do not pull their weight.

Our aim is therefore threefold. First, to continue to select high-quality candidates who are committed to Conservative values, their communities, and the Party. Second, to modernise and streamline the process where we can, without weakening fairness or safeguards. Third, to speed up selections in appropriate circumstances, freeing Associations to focus on what really matters: campaigning and winning.

That is the context for the draft rules now out for consultation. They are designed to simplify the architecture, clarify responsibilities, reduce unnecessary duplication, and lower the risk of dispute, while keeping member involvement at the heart of the process.

We have already received a substantial volume of thoughtful and constructive feedback, both in writing and through online consultation discussions. The overall message is encouraging. Many respondents support simplification and clearer governance, but there are also clear pressure points where views differ and where further work is needed.

One of the first questions is scope. Should these rules apply only to principal authorities, such as county, unitary, district, and borough councils, or also to town and parish councils? Some argue strongly that parish and town councils should not be burdened with a heavy process, particularly where recruitment is already difficult. Others make the case for consistency, noting that parish or town councils are really significant bodies in many places, and often a pipeline into higher office. We are keen to explore whether a two-track approach, with mandatory rules for principal authorities and lighter-touch guidance for parish and town councils, could strike the right balance.

Another area of debate is how we handle applicants who are subject to Code of Conduct complaints. Some favour exclusion until matters are resolved. Others point out that complaints can be vexatious, slow-moving, or even weaponised. Feedback suggests there is appetite for a clearer, more transparent decision framework that weighs severity, status, timing, and relevance, rather than relying on ad hoc local judgement.

Conflicts of interest are a recurring theme. There is broad agreement that conflicts must be managed properly, but frustration with vague rules that leave too much to discretion and invite appeals. Several respondents have suggested clearer recusal triggers and a simple conflict register, with an escalation route for borderline cases. We think this is an area where clarity could strengthen trust without adding unnecessary bureaucracy.

We have also heard strong support for consolidating the application and re-approval forms into a single document, with tailored sections for new candidates and incumbents. The message has been clear: reduce duplication, but retain the ability to assess councillor performance and contribution properly.

The most debated issue, unsurprisingly, is the final selection stage. How should we balance member voice with the practical reality that many wards have very small memberships? Feedback shows no single perfect model, but there may be workable compromises. For example, binding member decisions where ward membership is above a clear threshold, and joint member and Executive meetings where it is not. Online ballots could also play a role. What many respondents agree on is the need to avoid systems that feel like the Executive can routinely override members’ views.

There is, however, strong consensus on proportionality. Many welcome simplified and emergency procedures for less winnable seats and late selections, provided there are objective criteria and transparency to prevent abuse. This reflects a wider theme running through the consultation: processes must be rigorous, but also realistic about volunteer capacity and where effort is best focused.

Finally, appeals. Moving approvals to the Area or council level (a strong recommendation in the current rules, but proposed to be mandatory) requires moving appeals from Area to Region. This has attracted broad support as a way to reduce local conflicts of interest, though respondents rightly stress the importance of clear timelines and a focus on genuine procedural breaches, not re-running properly taken decisions. There is also concern about the work this shifts onto Area teams, which will need to be addressed. A final backstop body to resolve procedural disputes will also speed up difficult cases.

We encourage all those involved in local government, whether councillors, officers, activists, or Association chairs, to engage with the consultation and share their views. The final rules will be stronger for it.

This consultation is not about centralising power, nor about defending the status quo. It is about designing a system that is credible, workable, and trusted by members, volunteers, and candidates alike.

And critically, it should help us win.