Since exploring some of the details about how the next Archbishop of Canterbury will be chosen, there have been a number of further developments which are worth highlighting. Although we have to wait until “early April” for the names of the 5 Communion members (selected several months ago) and confirmation of the 6 central CNC members (4 of whom are now clear), the bishop on the CNC has been announced and there are yet more questions surfacing about the Canterbury diocesan processes in addition to those raised previously.

Bishop Graham Usher

There has been widespread surprise, even shock, at the news that the House of Bishops have chosen the Bishop of Norwich to be the episcopal representative for Canterbury Province. Although it is a shame that transparency does not extend to the details of the election being published, the fact that their choice is seen as more liberal (back in November 2023 he was one of the 44 calling for clergy to be allowed to enter civil same-sex marriages “without delay”) is not surprising given the composition of the House. 

What has taken so many people aback is that Bishop Graham was widely seen as a leading contender for Canterbury in both the secular press and among church commentators. His name was consistently present, usually with some prominence, in discussion of the runners and riders in the New Statesman, the PA news agency, The Guardian, Bishop Graham Kings on Covenant, Tom Middleton in The Living Church (“Two names are common to almost all the lists” he notes, leading to discussion of Graham Usher and then Guli Francis-Dehqani). He was also seen as a serious contender as, unlike some other names, he has significant parish experience.

One of the interesting consequences of this development is that Bishop Graham was usually the only male bishop in such lists who was seen as clearly identified with the liberal wing of the church. The other male diocesans who signed the letter have all either since retired or are too close to retirement to be serious contenders—with the exception of Jonathan Frost (Portsmouth) and Stephen Lake (Salisbury), though neither of these appear on any prediction list. This might point to the choice now more likely being either a woman or a more conservative male candidate.

Canterbury Diocese

As set out in my earlier piece, there have been multiple problems already with how the diocese has managed the crucial process of constituting the Vacancy-in-See Committee (ViSC) which sets out the needs of the diocese and elects representatives (uniquely only 3 rather than 6 in this case) to serve on the CNC. 

The changes in regulations for this process at the February General Synod are also a significant problem. Because of the failures in Canterbury these are now being used despite the fact that by the time they were introduced all the Vacancy-in-See committees should have been chosen for the next 3 years (and indeed Canterbury has, with dubious legality, chosen to constitute a totally new ViSC after the vacancy was announced simply for this process). Thus the bishops acknowledged back in September when they first set out the hurriedly formulated changes, “Whilst there is not time to change the Regulation before the next triennium of ViSCs being elected, it is proposed that this should still be addressed for the longer term discussion”. There was, in short, never any intention the process for the Archbishop of Canterbury (even if Justin had not resigned) would follow anything other than the previous rules and, as noted below, this is significant given their impact both in relation to constituting the ViSC and the members of the CNC elected by the ViSC.

As set out on the diocesan website, the election of, if possible, 2 clergy and  4 laity from each of the 3 Archdeaconries by the members of Canterbury Diocesan Synod is underway with voting closing at 12 noon next Monday (24^th March) and the count next Tuesday. 

I am aware of the following six areas of concern about the process.

Firstly, the new Regulations took effect during the period in which candidates could be nominated. These altered (under the new Section 6(A)) who was eligible for election to the ViSC with a major new restriction based on someone not being able to be elected if they had a “relevant connection” with one of the ex officio members (such as those serving on General Synod for the diocese or the Dean of the Cathedral, effectively meaning anyone worshipping at the Cathedral cannot serve on the ViSC, although the ex officio members include an Archdeacon who is a residentiary canon of the Cathedral as well as an Archdeacon as the Regulation about a “relevant connection” does not apply here). 

I understand that some nominations fell foul of this new rule which was in effect when nominations closed but not when they opened and when some nominations were submitted. However, as the regulation does not prevent the nomination of someone with a “relevant connection” but only their election there are two candidates on the ballot paper who are not eligible for election under this new rule. This is, however, not made clear on the ballot paper or in their statements and voters were only informed of the situation after voting opened. It is therefore quite possible that people will vote for them unaware that they are not able to be elected.

Because the voting system is the Single Transferable Vote, this thankfully does not mean that the vote is necessarily wasted as long as other candidates were listed by the voter. However, it does mean that, following the complex rules, such candidates on the ballot paper are immediately eliminated (even if they get a significant number of first preference votes and so are not excluded on the basis of the lack of support from the electorate) simply because they worship at the church of someone who is already on the ViSC ex officio:

Secondly, before the ViSC can meet it needs to have both a Chair and a Secretary. These are appointments of the Bishop’s Council (in Canterbury the Archbishop’s Council though now chaired by the Bishop of Dover). This is a body where there are no less than 12 ex officio members (currently 11 given the see is vacant) from the diocesan senior leadership and only 6 (currently 5) elected members, a ratio which appears significantly weighted against elected members compared to other dioceses.  Because of the urgency of progressing a process that began (with the original ViSC that actually met once) in late 2024 but was then put on hold, an extraordinary online meeting of the Archbishop’s Council has been called by the Bishop of Dover on Zoom for the very day on which the election result is announced. They will need to choose a Chair from the ViSC membership (whose up to 18 elected members, comprising over half its members) are not known until that day and a Secretary who is not on the ViSC (or loses their seat if they are).

Thirdly, that same meeting is being asked to consider adding up to four new members to the ViSC. This is a standard process under the Regulations (Section 6) if “the person reflects a special interest in the diocese” or “the person’s nomination is, in the opinion of the bishop’s council, appropriate for the purpose of securing a better reflection of the diocese as a whole”.  They will not be able to have a “relevant connection” with any of the ex officio or elected candidates. Once again, however, Canterbury’s situation is highly unusual, even irregular on a number of counts:

• There has just been an election which—unprecedentedly and against good practice (the Regulations are clear in Section 7(3) that any individual vacancy in elected places on the ViSC should not be filled after the vacancy of the bishopric has been announced)—to consider the appointment to an already vacant see, indeed the most significant see in the Church of England. Any candidate added to the ViSC now either was not willing to stand for election or stood but was rejected by the electorate.
• A precedent was set in December when four women were added by this means after the see became vacant to a ViSC which had been in existence for three years without people being nominated. However, this was seen by many as an abuse of power in which the bishop and others on the Council were effectively seeking to gerrymander the ViSC with their slate of preferred nominees lacking a theological breadth representative of the diocese.
• The composition of ViSC is not known until the day on which the Archbishop’s Council meets. As a result, there is no time for Council members to seriously consider whether some “special interest” is not represented or the membership is not a sufficiently good reflection of the diocese as a whole. The one exception here may be that there will be one vacant clergy space in the Maidstone archdeaconry as only one clergyperson is on the ballot paper.
• It would therefore appear likely that, if there are to be any such nominations, the bishop and/or a group within the Archbishop’s Council, will have to be considering and approaching people in advance of the election results to secure their willingness to stand and availability for meetings. This is now further complicated by the fact that they cannot have a “relevant connection” with any of the elected (or ex officio) members whose identities are not known until the day of the Archbishop’s Council meeting. 

Fourthly, there is a lack of clarity about how votes are counted in relation to the ViSC election.  The electorate is members of Diocesan Synod and voting is across Houses (ie clergy can vote for laity and vice versa) by numbering candidates in order of preference with the count taking place by the Single Transferable Vote (STV).  However, there are in effect 6 different elections as the rules require 2 clergy and 4 laity from each of the 3 Archdeaconries. 

I understand that there are 25 names on the ballot paper although 2 of those are ineligible and will, it seems, immediately be excluded with any first preferences being given to their second preference. However, as noted there is only 1 clergy person in Maidstone where there are 2 seats to be filled and only 4 lay candidates in Ashford where there are 4 seats to be filled. These 5 candidates are thus clearly going to be elected but they are on the ballot paper. In Oxford diocese (which is similarly for some reason only now electing a ViSC) candidates in this situation were not put on the ballot paper but declared elected unopposed and the number of seats to be filled reduced accordingly. This is important because of the complexities of the STV system where there is a “quota” determined by the number of seats to be filled by the election. Of particular importance is whether (in a mirror image of those two candidates ineligible because of their “relevant connection”) these 5 effectively unopposed candidates are immediately declared elected however many votes they receive and all their first preference votes handed over in full to their second preferences or whether they stay in the count until a later stage. Given the Oxford practice the former would appear to be the application of the STV rules but it would be helpful to have this technical process question clarified, not least as it may be relevant as discussed below for the election of the CNC members.

Fifthly, in announcing the election of Graham Usher it was stated that “The remaining membership will be announced in early April”. The only gaps now are the 3 members of the Canterbury ViSC. I understand that (despite having neither a Chair nor a Secretary and over half its members still being undecided) the first meeting of the ViSC has already been set as an in-person meeting for the day after the results are announced and the Archbishop’s Council meets to choose a Chair and Secretary and perhaps 4 additional members ie 26^th March. 

To meet the apparent deadline of electing its 3 CNC members, it seems that the ViSC will have to make a choice with very little time to get to know each other or to work together on the diocese’s statement of need and discern through those processes who would best be suitable. Given that the dates of CNC meetings are most likely fixed already and the demands of three or more lengthy meetings in May, July and September it may of course prove to be the case that only a small number of ViSC members are able to take up this role at such short notice. All this clearly gives significant power to those senior people (mainly clergy) who are ex officio members of both the Archbishop’s Council and the ViSC i.e. The Bishop of Dover, the Archdeacons, the Dean, and the Chairs of the House of Clergy and Laity.

Sixthly, whenever the election of the 3 CNC members takes place they too are subject to new restrictions in the latest Regulations. This means that not only must at least half the number of those elected be laity as has always been the case (usually this means 3 or more out of 6 but here means 2 out of 3) but if at all possible there must be 1 lay woman and 1 clergy woman. 

This means that, as long as a clergywoman stands, no male clergy on the ViSC can be elected to CNC although there could be a repeat of the ViSC nomination process and a clergyman be on the ballot but then immediately have their votes transferred no matter how many or few they get. Indeed, if no male clergy stand because they believe at least one woman will stand and they will therefore be ineligible but no woman stands then there would be no clergy elected at all to CNC from the diocese. If only one woman clergyperson stands she will be elected no matter how little support she has but how this is done is unclear to me with it seems the following 3 options (as with elections to ViSC):

1. Being on the ballot but not immediately elected and first preferences not being transferred in full to other candidates
2. Being on the ballot but immediately being declared elected and all first preferences transferred in full to another candidate
3. Not being on the ballot but declared elected unopposed and only 2 seats being elected by ballot (following the pattern for the Oxford ViSC elections but not the Canterbury ViSC elections)

The first option would make it rational for supporters of the woman not to vote for her as this is (unusually for STV) a “wasted vote” as she will be elected anyway. This rational voting behaviour would then result in her being elected with no votes at all. The last two processes mean that those whose theological commitments lie with those of the sole woman candidate will effectively be able to have an extra full vote for another candidate who shares those commitments. In other words, this new rule, especially in this circumstance, significantly skews the careful capturing of voter preferences which is one of the hallmarks of STV.

It is interesting to note that of the 8 clergy candidates on the ballot for the ViSC there is only one woman. There are only 2 ex officio ordained women eligible to be on CNC (a member of General Synod and the Chair of the House of Clergy) although it is possible the Archbishop’s Council will nominate one or more ordained women. There is therefore in effect 1 of the 3 CNC places which is being set aside for an ordained woman if any stands and can be taken by at most 1 of the elected ViSC members.

In relation to the 2 CNC seats for laypeople, if only one lay woman stands (less likely as the overwhelming majority of lay candidates for election to ViSC are women, in contrast to the gender balance of clergy candidates and the lay ex officio members are also split 50:50) then she will be on the CNC. Here again the exact election process is unclear to me and the problems noted above apply. If more than one woman stands but a layman is elected first, then it would appear that any other laymen standing are immediately given the wonderful designation of “doomed candidate” (Section 24) and their votes redistributed to determine which of the women is elected however few votes she secured and however many male candidates had more votes than her.

Conclusion

Given the serious failures that have already come to light in the way that Canterbury diocese has handled the crucial processes relating to the ViSC it is concerning that there remain real possibilities of further problems. These could result in an unrepresentative group of three being chosen through a process with questionable democratic credentials to serve on the CNC and/or further loss of trust in the processes both within the diocese and the wider Church of England. Hopefully there will be as transparent a process as possible in relation to full declaration of the ViSC results, the decisions of the Archbishop’s Council in relation to adding nominated members, and the selection and voting process by which the 3 ViSC members who are elected to serve on CNC are chosen.