I have legal opinion from several barristers on this.

I do not want to go into it here but trust me, the rra is still current.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

May be I should say that I made it clear that if I lost the hustings in 2005 and when I made the complaint that if a proper and trustworthy investigation found the result to fair, then I will accept the verdict of the members.

I have other ambitions in life and was especially keen to travel to Africa to work in food aid etc.

But the deeply flawed, arrogant, cruel and biased manner in which the party conducted my complaint and the lies and deceit from people who I thought were my friends and comrades in arms, made it impossible for me to move on.

Besides there is so much negative publicity on the net plus the rumours and lies that were spread about me, I am now unable to get a job!

So I have to fight on.

I’m not sure that’s the case for constituency selections. Even if it were, having the ballots counted by ERS ballot services is not reflection on the fairness or otherwise of the rules.

ERS (well ERS ballot services) run the election on the rules they are given – hence them conducting ballots for Building socities where “approved” and “non-approved” candidates for the board are listed seperately.

I think this is a flawed position by ERS (and why I’m not a member) as they can be used as a brand name to indicate the election is fair.

46 – would an RRA action over a 2005 selection not be out of time by now in any case?

Of course, one may dissent with any balance of opinion and it can be a harsh eye-opener to fall on the side you least expected, but a rationale nevertheless supports all opposing sides whether or not you can comprehend or justify them.

It is a conceit to think that justice is set in stone and doesn’t need to be fought for and argued out, but neither is justice reclaimed by simply reversing decisions, however disagreeable consequences get – situations move on.

It is also complacent to play the blame game and point to a ‘defective’ constitution (illegal, incoherent or self-defeating, perhaps?), as this is destructive and it obscures any personal responsibility of failure to win support.

Elections provide an education in other people as well as oneself – if you can face the truths to be learnt – I’m sure you’ll be valued and make an even better candidate with your experience in the locker.

It is not unusual for the chair of the regional exce to be a returning officer also. The rule which is followed is that the returning officer is independent of the constituency involved – i.e that he or she is not a member of that constituency party and is not a friend or close colleague of any of the participants. So, that does not preclude the chair of the local regional committee. Indeed, if that person is independent as above, then often they are very experienced with the procedures and so well qualified to act as the returning officer.

But I do not have the money to fund it and the Legal Services Commission is still considering my application. It has been long and exhausting process and they make the child support agency look competent.

The elections I am talking about is the selection of candidate for the parliamentary elections for 2005 and the returning officer in my case was the chair of the north west regional executive!

Agreed – as usual you zero in on the essential issue while I am still struggling!

“Also, the candidate selection process is deeply flawed in that there is nothing to prevent a candidate claiming that as a white man he is in a better position to win on council estates where white working class people are racist and will not vote for a non white person.”

There is nothing to stop someone claiming anything legal during the candidate selection process ***but that would mean it would need to comply with race relations legislation.***

It is very difficult to have a debate about concepts and the constitution in general without talking about specifics of a case with which I was not involved and have only read a short newspaper article about.

Suffice it to say, all statements in a hustings situation have to comply with all legislation which includes race relations legislation, and are subject to an appeal process and to potential review in the High Court.

Why aren’t you going to bother? I bothered to thoroughly answer your points, why can’t you bothered to answer my points? Aren’t you interested in debate?

What are the specific “weak” points of the constitution which you are alluding to?

When you say “my case” what do you mean?

What elections are you referring to where you say the returning officer only observed them? The presidential and leadership elections are observed by the Electoral Reform Society. The local party selections are observed by independent returning officers. I have been one. They are always chosen from outside the constituency being ballotted so that they have no interest.

If you had lawyers studying the constitution and you say there are weak points, I am assuming you won a legal case against the party did you?

I am tempted to say ‘I rest my case’. I have read the constitution VERY well and so have the lawyers who studied my case.

In my time there was no one observing the elections just the returning officer!

As for the rest of your comments, I am not going to bother!

“The Liberal Democrats have a defective constitution, in that it allows for conflict of interest and foul play.”

What do you mean specifically? The constitution is about 400 pages long. Have you read it? I have read most of it.

“Also, the candidate selection process is deeply flawed in that there is nothing to prevent a candidate claiming that as a white man he is in a better position to win on council estates where white working class people are racist and will not vote for a non white person.”

There is nothing to stop someone claiming anything legal during the candidate selection process. It is a free country after all. So what? It doesn’t mean that anyone will take notice of the statements. I am not sure that significant “council estates” even exist in many places these days – they tend to be shared ownership, part buy/rent or housing association owned. And characterising any places as having “white working class people” is an invalid generalisation. And sweepingly accusing any “class” of people of racism is appalling.

“The constitution is also managed by incompetent ‘minions’ who deliver the outcome that is desired by the party higher ups rather than justice.”

Which elements of the constitution are you referring to? All elections for the party have their vote count supervised by the independent Electoral Reform Society. They are not “minions”.

“This happens even when barristers, solicitors, councilors, MP’s, MEP’s and Lordships are involved”

Another extraordinary sweeping generalisation which doesn’t merit rebuttal.

The Liberal Democrats have a defective constitution, in that it allows for conflict of interest and foul play.

Also, the candidate selection process is deeply flawed in that there is nothing to prevent a candidate claiming that as a white man he is in a better position to win on council estates where white working class people are racist and will not vote for a non white person.

The constitution is also managed by incompetent ‘minions’ who deliver the outcome that is desired by the party higher ups rather than justice.

This happens even when barristers, solicitors, councilors, MP’s, MEP’s and Lordships are involved

One thing occurred to me Aaron. Why not write a posting or two for LibDem Voice on specific policy things about which you obviously have high interest and expertise? For example, why not do one on the transport/air tax/invest proposal which got press coverage today and which you commented on on my blog?

I believe Stephen Tall posted details of how to do it recently on LDV – you basically mail him the article.

I think the IT policies are there with the drug policies…

..in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’.

Hence my annoyance. Specific stuff like that isn’t something local party members can relate to, and very few of them are interested in, and the specialist groups have all pretty much died from party neglect.

Richard and I consciously decided we would keep it on the boil (although I admit we haven’t very much to make that happen apart from the very occasional IT related post – it’s probably running just about room temperature).

And Aaron did want to know what our policy actually was: we do have policy on open source – and we do have policy on intellectual policy. I’m not sure that it’s on the Federal Website, but it does exist.

Martin

On the IT-related policy front, feel free to get stuck in at http://www.makeitpolicy.org.uk

There’s also a moribund IT policy list at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lditpolicyconsultation/ – which we should probably move to the party’s list server. I doubt anyone would complain if you posted a few comments to get discussion going.

Martin