As the party’s selection process for both our 2009 European and 2008 London Mayor candidates is now kicking off, Liberal Democrat Voice is introducing a slight change in our comment moderation policy for the duration of the selections.
Although this isn’t an official party site, we’re happy to abide with the spirit of the party’s selection rules. Therefore as the agreed rules for both contests ban endorsements, any comments that would infringe these rules will be withdrawn (e.g. a comment saying “I’ll be voting for Herbie Asquith” or “Don’t vote for Bill Gladstone; he supports chopping down trees”).
Any coverage of the selection contests on this site will also be balanced and fair to all candidates.
Share:
9 Comments
Why can’t I endorse a candidate in the comments? Some of our internal election rules are just ridiculous.
Has anyone checked to see if there are in fact any Herbert Asquiths or William Gladstones in paid eligible membership of the London party? If not you have automatically debarred them from standing by virtue of this post.
1 I agree with Letterman. The rules are so bust there is no point playing along.
I assume you are going to pixelate the faces of any party member in a photograph of candidate in case it might imply endorsement?
The rules are a joke and benefit the most well known (however useless). You just have to look at the London list to see how famous craps drifts to the surface under these rules – with the three sitting GLA members all being easily reselected despite an abysmal record of doing nothing for four years (except collect fat allowances). Not forgetting they could not organise a campaign to save themselves and have managed to miss every issue of importance, while highlighting the trivial for four years.
I can’t wait to see what dross emerges for the mayoral selection and provided they are from the LB of Richmond they’ll be in with a shout…
The no endorsements rule is actually intended precisely to give newcomers a fair opportunity and not be swamped by those who can obtain the endorsement of the great and the good.
That’s precisely the point Jonathan – it is INTENDED to give newcomers a chance but actually achieves the exact opposite since incumbents have already had x years in the spotlight and so dont need public endorsements.
It’s just one of the many well meaning rules that in practice work to the advantage of incumbents and against challengers who might actually know how to campaign (he says as he reads the London MEPs annual report leaflet, just arrived, at a time when other applicants for the job are not even allowed to sneeze in public without fear of breaching the rules.)
At which, I shall shut up until November.
http://duncanborrowman.blogspot.com/2007/08/mep-newsletter-arrives.html
I agree with Ed and Duncan on this issue. The rules appear to favour incumbents. Perhaps this was intentional?
Hi guys
I received my MEP’s annual report today. It’s not the first – I get one every year whether there is a (s)election or not; and I’ve had newsletters from this MEP as well.
I’m not so naive as to think the fact that MEP candidates are up for selection shortly is unrelated to our sitting MEPs wanting to get their reports out sooner rather than later. But if they did not campaign they could be charged with lazy or complacent incumbency.
There may well be problems with the rules. Having won PPC selections both against and as an incumbent I think that while there are natural advantages to incumbency under any system, simply because of profile and contacts, it’s not fair to attack incumbents for doing their stuff within the rules.
Bridget Fox
I think you miss the point of what’s being said Bridget.
My view is that the rules favour incumbency and perhaps were designed that way. That does not create a level playing field.
The criticism on my part is focused on the system not the individuals concerned.