Thanks for your comments.

Note to self – ensure LDV is used more in the policy making process.

All the best

Greg

“What you seem to be saying is that local parties are not going to be interested in getting involved.”

That’s dead right. A local party does not normally have a homogenous opinion. Nor does it want to waste time and cause internal wrangling by debating (say) tax cuts and deciding by 8 votes to 7 that it should declare itself “for” or “against” to a central policy panel – only to find its comments lost amongst 634 other LPs’ comments.

“And that people who post on LDV are not interested in getting involved in our other policy forums such as the consult site, joining our policy panel, or going on to working groups to discuss and formulate policy and innovative ideas.”

No, I didn’t say that. The minority with loads of time and specialist expertise will do these things. But an awful lot won’t. Are you happy to ignore that resource?

“However it (LDV) remains a small, often anonymous, and self-selecting sub-section of our party base.

Reading threads do not always give ‘professionals’ any clear guidance – particularly when it is conference (not LDV members) who ultimately vote on and decide policy.”

Well, Conference is a small, often self-selecting sub-section of our party base too! It has all the power, are you sure you should simply reinforce that?

Liberal Eye has given you some sensible comments about the crying need for “nimbleness” and responsiveness. LDV achieves that, and could achieve more, if more widely advertised to members. Your consultation site clearly gets far less widely read.

Of course there are disadvantages. A flood of LDVers supporting something which in our party terms is “populist” doesn’t prove that a policy is right, or even workable. So don’t, whatever you do, decide that the way to settle a contentious issue is to put it to LDV and weigh the comments on the two sides!

But do, when you have a contentious kite to fly, try it out on LDV, for example by letting its main champion write a personal opinion. See how well it stands up to the slings and arrows of outrageous lazy amateurs. You might learn something. You might get the really duff ideas shot down before they beome official policy proposals, not afterwards!

I very much like the direction of your thoughts re “LD Policy Network”.

I have long thought that, especially for a small party with limited resources, we are mad if we don’t find a way to tap into the knowledge and enthusiasm of the membership. Just as the membership (actually just the subset that is interested) has carried the flag so successfully in local govt, so there is surely the opportunity to do something parallel in policy development and open a second front. As a small party we need to make up in nimbleness what we lack in weight. Sadly, we are far from this ideal.

I certainly agree with David that formal procedures involving local Execs are not needed – this is always going to be a minority sport. On the other hand catering for the ‘lazy amateur’ (aren’t we all?) has huge potential. Sometimes this will strike pure gold.

LDV plus the various initiative you mention are the nearest that exists, but neither quite hits the spot. I am a great fan of LDV but policy is only incidental to the huge volume of ‘chatter’ and threads are too ephemeral.

I suspect that key to making it work is a somewhat different format than the traditional blog (though I confess I don’t know exactly how it might look) and some way of segmenting the debate into coherent threads that could be developed (or followed) over time and link to other topics as necessary. Thus ‘nuclear’ and ‘renewables’ would be subsets of ‘energy’ but would be improved by links to ‘economy’ since energy will certainly need massive investment in the next few years.

And of course hugely skillful managing/guiding/moderating etc.

I must admitt to not really understanding what you are proposing.

What you seem to be saying is that local parties are not going to be interested in getting involved.

And that people who post on LDV are not interested in getting involved in our other policy forums such as the consult site, joining our policy panel, or going on to working groups to discuss and formulate policy and innovative ideas.

The LDV site – especially the members forums – is often a useful indicator to ‘professionals’ as to what a certain group of activists and individuals are thinking.

However it remains a small, often anonymous, and self-selecting sub-section of our party base.

Its a fantastic debating forum but reading threads do not always give ‘professionals’ any clear guidance – particularly when it is conference (not LDV members) who ultimately vote on and decide policy.

Can you make suggestions as to how you think LDV should be used more?

It would be great if, in consultation with the FPC, we can come up with more innovative ways of teasing out new ideas.

Greg

Your “policy network”, I would suggest, already exists – it’s LDV.

Looking at your consultation website, I see just a few rather careful and detailed submissions, no doubt carefully read by a few. That’s fine, and as I said earlier, there’s a lot to be said for professionalism. Now let me speak up for the lazy amateur, like myself!

The lazy amateur wants to spend a few minutes during the lunch-hour chucking in his haporth, which is easy on LDV. He/she hopes that just occasionally, it might influence something. Just occasionally, it deserves to.

Look at the debate on tuition fees on this site, for example. Doesn’t that give a useful snapshot of what people are thinking, and what aspects matter to them, that the professionals would do well to listen to?

What local parties do not want is a formalised procedure to make inputs into things. As local Chairman I well remember telling the rest of our Exec we were asked to spend half an hour following a (half-baked?) formal process, in order to input our official view on one chosen aspect of Bones. The Exec contemplated just how little unity of view we had, just how little influence one LP might have, and just how vague the Bones questions were. It then emitted the loudest yawn in unison that I’ve heard for a very long time. So I moved on to next business!

If some serious thinking and outreach is to be achieved on this, resources are required, and you’re right, the most important resource is human.

In a general election year, it is unsuprising that resources are devoted to campiagning and communication rather than policy making.

It may be that like minded people determined to achieve a greater degree of grass routes involvement (and new ideas) in policy making should set up a new AO/SAO called say:

The Liberal Democrat Policy Network

Such a group could encourage all local parties to me more a cult of leaflet deliverers but to enact their own rights under the constitution to propose policy motions to conference.

It could of course do more with determination. leadership ( and a bit of funding).

The first thing to do is encourage debate. I hope this article has encouraged that.

I’ve spent most of my life working in businesses large or small and there the instinct would be that if something is holding you back, then change it ASAP!

I know that politics is not like business but knowingly to continue with a constitution which mitigates against success is not clever in any sphere – if that is indeed the problem.

Time for leadership, I think. In the end it always comes down to people.

You are not alone in thinking this.

Over the last few years there has been considerable innovation within the current structure to make working groups and the policy process more fleet of foot.

But short of wholesale reform of the constitution (which sets out the FPC’s remit and membership – and the remit and rights of our democratic conference) there are distinct limits to how flexible the process can be.

The FPC does spend a significant amount of time thinking strategically. Initiatives such as Meeting the Challenge from 2005-6 were specifically designed to ‘survey the horizon’ as you put it.

However more could always be done.

I would paraphrase the old saying rather as: If it needs a tune up, get it serviced

I like your emphasis on integrating policy with real politics, but …

The Policy-making process you describe has, as far as I know, been essentially unchanged for around 20 years now – since the Lib/SDP merger in fact. It has always ticked the boxes but never excited, never yet managed to present a coherent and attractive vision of a liberal Britain.

Partly, this is down to the policy papers themselves which are worthy but tedious. I sometimes wonder if you could achieve the same result armed only with scissors, paste and the inside pages of the Guardian.

But most of all I can’t help wondering if it’s something to do with the FPC (and I say this never having been close to the FPC in any way). Is their thinking too dominated by the close-quarters combat that is Parliament to think strategically? Do they have the time, headspace and talent to survey the horizon and spot the big opportunities?

I frankly don’t know but, to paraphrase the old saying – if it’s broken, then it need fixing.

As I said in my article “In deciding the membership of groups, the FPC tries to ensure a decent balance in terms of gender, age, ethnicity, and regional coverage.”

Working groups are by no means London-centric, its just that the administration of the groups is.

If readers of Lib Dem Voice want to get involved in helping us come up with new ideas or show case their own, why not visit http://consult.libdems.org.uk/ which is our on-line policy forum for working groups

Greg

There are also some points against restricting influence to a small semi-self-selected group of mainly London-based policy wonks. The people who want to make widget policy tend to be widget-producers and to come up with an unrealistically widget-centric view of the universe. This needs to be counterbalanced by reference to the wider wisdom and experience of the rest of the party.

Should LDV be brought formally into the policy-making process, and used as a means of doing just that?

Technology has moved on so should be even less of an issue now.

There has been historically an under-representation of non-London/SE members on working groups (don’t know if that still holds true). However if it does it means its much easier for people from “the north” to get onto working groups.

Lots of the work of the groups between meetings happens by email, and many set up discussion wikis to help keep people involved no matter where they are based.

Most meetings will use tele-conferencing facilities where necessary.

I would guess the second, in which case the party must be missing out on a lot of experienced people who can’t find the time and money to make 18 trips to London at their own expense.

In this modern technical age, is asking members to travel across the country to contribute really the best we can manage?