The Conservative party is in a state of considerable confusion over the business of selecting candidates for the next round of European elections. This should not come as much of a surprise as the Tories are in a muddle about everything, but this one is really special. ''The whole thing is a complete shambles,'' my Central Office mole whispered.

The main problem in this instance is the poor quality of candidates who are seeking election in the Tory party's name. This isn't particularly surprising, either, given the party's prospects and the internal divisions about the political approach to the whole future of Europe. But it is nevertheless causing big trouble behind the scenes among those few remaining Tory MEPs and the committed enthusiasts for the European ideal.

An allied issue is that the only candidates who are any good tend to be fierce Eurosceptics. There is some murmuring here about the influence of the arch-sceptic Dame Angela Rumbold, a former party deputy chairman - as the Tories insist on calling women who chair things - with responsibility for candidates. Dame Angela, who lost her Commons' seat a year ago, is now herself among those on the list of candidates for Europe.

The date by which all candidates for seats in the South-east of England area were due to have been nominated was March 31. The original plan was that there would then be a ''sifting'' meeting in London on the weekend of May 15-16, followed by a selection conference at the London Arena on May 30.

The apparent inadequacy of the political calibre of those who have applied to stand for the European Parliament is such, however, that it is now planned that further new candidates will be considered at what was meant to be the ''sifting'' session. This has put the wind up existing Tory MEPs, who are largely strongly pro-Europe and who suspect with some justice that they are about to be stitched up. As the ''sifters'' are made up of the party's constituency chairmen, who are not known for their enthusiasm for Europe, they could well be right.

Former Tory MP Winston Churchill has been enduring some publicity about his parlous political fate. Having lost his Westminster seat, Churchill has also failed even to be selected for Europe. There is worse ahead, alas. The biography of his mother, the late Pamela Harriman, by the distinguished Time magazine journalist Chris Ogden, is about to be turned into a film. This is the book about which one reviewer unforgettably commented that Mrs Harriman, the US Ambassador in Paris at the time of her death, had inspected more ceilings than Michelangelo. Shooting starts in California next week with Ann-Margret in the lead role. The prospects are very promising - for everyone except Winston. But then he has got the money.

There are worse complaints about the Northern Ireland Secretary Mo Mowlam than those lately aired about her bad language. She is attempting to stage a concert in Northern Ireland in the grounds of her official residence, Hillsborough Castle, starring Elton John. Has this pleased the local populace? Has it what? The immediate residents are complaining about the parking implications, while Ian Paisley has been heard to declare: ''And now she's bringing in the Sodomites.''

George Robertson's language is apparently at least as bad - and that's on the record, or recorded anyway. He was about to be interviewed the other day while on an official visit to a defence establishment by a rather nervous local reporter with a tape recorder. He was asked to test the sound levels by speaking into the microphone and introducing himself. ''My name's George Robertson,'' he declared. ''I'm the Shadow Secretary of State for . . . oh bother . . .'' Except he didn't say bother. One year on and they still don't know what they're doing?

A horrific new illustration of the meaning of Birtism in

the BBC has just been revealed

to me.

The BBC is apparently aiming for something called corporate branding. This is the kind of thing on which John Birt is very keen. It means making sure that the logos are all the same on the writing paper and so on. But according to an account of what is happening in the BBC in Belfast, it also means making sure that all the entrance halls of all BBC premises everywhere all look the same

as well.

There has indeed already been a degree of refurbishment at Broadcasting House and Television Centre - although they still don't look remotely like each other - but building work is going on everywhere. The foyers are all to be made to look identical.

The point of this escapes me completely. There are very few people apart from journalists, broadcasters, and politicians who ever enter more than one BBC premises on a regular basis anyway - so who on earth is ever going to notice?

The only effect will be to reinforce the impression that the aforementioned politicians and journalists never know where they are.