On 17 September, I was among those summoned as regional representatives to Stoke Rochford to form part of a regional board to select Labour Party candidates for next year's elections to the European Parliament. We were to consider sitting MEPs, plus new candidates selected by one member, one vote in each Euro constituency.
Each board comprised five members of Labour's National Executive Committee, two other members nominated by the NEC, the General Secretary and three regional representatives. In other words, eight unvarying NEC people and three variable regional people. Apart from the General Secretary and Ian McCartney MP, these are less well-known figures. It took a little time to put faces to names.
Prior to Stoke Rochford, we were thoroughly patronised at training sessions. We were lectured on such thrilling subjects as 'How the European Parliament Works' as though we were new Labour Party members. Other advice was more useful, such as how to look out for candidates' dress sense. We were also invited to cross-check the assistant general secretary's 'blind' marking of each candidate's application form, which counted 30 per cent toward the final mark.
At the big event itself at Stoke Rochford, each MEP and candidate gave a four-minute presentation to their relevant regional board on why they would be a good candidate. Regional representatives from any other regions where they had expressed a second or third preference sat in on these presentations. This involved representatives in a fair amount of sitting around waiting and, perhaps not surprisingly, attendance was patchy. Occasionally, representatives simply did not turn up, found the lure of the golf course too great or went to the toilet at the wrong time and missed it, so brisk was the process.
The four-minute presentations were sudden death to many candidates. Sitting MEPs were guaranteed progress to the next stage. But a candidate who had attended several Constituency Labour Party selections, winning at least one and then won a one-member, one-vote ballot over the Euro constituency could be ditched after just those four minutes. Some candidates were unable to repeat the eloquence they had demonstrated to CLPs and were summarily cast aside.
The survivors and the MEPs then progressed to 'interview mode', where the same board attempted - and in some embarrassing cases succeeded - to tear them apart with hostile questions. Presentations counted 30 per cent toward the final score, interviews 40 per cent.
Everyone was expected to behave as though they were real candidates, giving the Labour Party line rather than their own opinions. This gave me a creepy feeling about candidates who I knew actually believed otherwise. It gave me an even more creepy feeling about candidates who reeled off the approved line with suspicious promptness and fluency. We decided that we were not going to have such androids in our region.
On the afternoon of the fourth day, all the marks had been added up. The results were distributed to the regional representatives for the relevant region only and we were not supposed to look at any other regions. However, we did catch the odd glimpse. The forms were also collected back at the end, but one representative photocopied his.
An official then gave us a general run-down of the scores, which were in bands A to E. We were not to divulge to anyone what score candidates had got, particularly not the three MEPs who had only got Es. However, the official did tell us their names. This emphasis on secrecy was rather like extolling the necessity for marital fidelity to United States presidential candidates.
Representatives seemed to take this injunction to discretion very seriously. It was just that a few of them felt they had to take a walk in the garden at that point and felt the need to chat to someone or other on their mobile telephones.
The scores were generally agreed to be fair although, in a few instances, I wondered whether the NEC people had been at the same interviews as I had.
Each selection board (without Ian McCartney, who had to depart on sudden and urgent family business) then met to arrive at the final decisions on candidates and rankings for their region. Sometimes this was quick and easy, sometimes long and difficult. The results are now known.
One hopes that this process will never be repeated. The NEC people clearly had some favoured candidates. The rules seemed to be a bit elastic at one point. The strength of a candidate's support in his or her nominating region appeared to count for little.
Assessing candidates on forms and interviews cannot help but have a considerable subjective element. It seemed to me that scores sometimes reflected the preconceptions about a candidate rather than their actual performance. Above all, such small numbers of people should never wield such power.
We were instructed not to reveal the final results to any of the candidates. I kept this injunction for a couple of hours and then succumbed to an irresistible temptation to be the bearer of good news.
Such naivety.
'Have you heard?', I asked. 'Well, yes', replied the candidate.