It has, to say the least, been one heck of month.
At the start of May, I was in Vancouver, attending the Executive meeting of Liberal International where I gave a speech on the topic of The challenges facing Liberalism over the next decade. We also met up with the Canadian Liberal Party Convention where they celebrated the election of Michael Ignatieff as their Leader. The international theme continued later in the month with the launch of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Poland.
Back home, the Telegraph expenses story broke and, with events moving along with amazing rapidity, led to the resignation of the Speaker, whilst a number of Labour and Tory MPs announced their intention not to fight the next General Election. With Federal Executive due to meet on 18th May, I took the decision to clear some items from the agenda in order to make room for a full discussion.
It had become clear that our members, like the public generally, were extremely angry and were expecting action. The fact is, however, that neither the Federal Executive nor the President have a strong constitutional role in all this. Removal of the Whip is a matter for the Parliamentary Party concerned, whilst suspension or revocation of membership is a local, regional and state party matter. De-selection of a sitting MP lies with the local party, whilst matters relating to staff are the remit of FFAC.
Where Federal Executive comes into its own though is that it contains people directly elected by Conference, as well as people from the various parts of the Party. Thus, collectively, we were able to agree a course of action relating to expenses which we were able to send out to the members. It has always been my aim to communicate as quickly as possible, but to distil a long discussion amongst the 30 members of FE and to be sure that there was a common understanding took 3 days. I have received literally hundreds of responses, and have tried to answer them all.
The resignation of Chris Rennard as our Chief Executive has been difficult for staff and members alike. We owe Chris a great debt of gratitude for what he has achieved for the Party, and wish both him and Ann all the best for the future.
Recent events have caused me to reflect on the best way to communicate with the Party. Blogging is a great medium for recording instantaneous reaction to events, but there are times when the constraints of the Party Constitution, the legal framework and political sensibilities mean that instantaneous comment on my part is inappropriate and potentially dangerous. However, the existence of my blog seems to have led some people into thinking that it is possible to keep up a running commentary on what is going on. I wish to avoid a recurrence of that and so, with some regret, have closed down my blog. In future, minutes of FE will be published here on LDV, within the one month required by the Standing Orders, and I’ll post this monthly report as close to the end of the month as possible. Liberal Democrat News and all member e-mails will form alternative means of communication.
In amongst all this, we are of course fighting an election campaign! At this point, my visits to local parties are campaign based rather than fund raisers, social and fact finding. During the course of May I have visited Chesterfield, Derby, High Peak, North Cornwall, Newquay & St Austell, Redruth & Camborne, Truro & Falmouth, St Ives, Somerton & Frome, Bristol, Bury St Edmunds, South Cambridgeshire, Colchester, North Norfolk and South Suffolk.
I know that it hasn’t been an easy time for our campaigners. People are angry and want to have their say. However, I think we have a good story to tell. Just as we were right on Iraq and the economy, we are being proved right on the need for reform of our constitutional settlement.
The very best of luck to all of you on Thursday.
* Baroness (Ros) Scott is president of the Liberal Democrats.
Share:
26 Comments
I thought we wished for him to pay back the money he took in expenses that in no way related to his work in the Lords?
Thanks for the update, Ros.
Isn’t it a somewhat remarkable coincidence that Rennard quit when he did, for supposed reasons entirely unrelated to expenses allegations?
I am hopping mad about a) the deletion of your blog and b) the way you have described it above without any apology on your own behalf (you’ve implied it is every one else’s fault for expecting a running commentary).
(a) Why on earth delete the whole thing – why not just discontinue it with a statement? It looks like you have something to hide. It looks as though you did not take advice from Dr Pack before you did this.
(b) You should have continued the blog. People need a running commentary now more than ever. I can’t believe you’ve stopped it after such a promising start. People would have understood if you’d simply said the day after the FE “We had the meeting and I’ll give a report on Friday or asap”. Instead you left everyone hanging in suspense, and didn’t publish comments submitted (how illiberal is that!) after building them up with (a) mentioning the FE meeting in and implying it was crucial in the first place and (b) Blogging in detail about at least one previous FE meeting the morning after it.
Can you please apologise for leading us all to believe in your campaign and first few months as president that you would maintain a blog which would give all the updates you could about your role as President? We have been badly misled by you.
I think you have totally over-reacted. You could have easily maintained a blog without giving away anything legally suspect. I think you are chicken. You have run away from what was a proper bold liberal initiative. You have now hidden behind an illiberal shroud of standing orders, mentions of legality and other such nonsense.
It just won’t do!
Paul: I think you need to re-read your comment, and then ask yourself “if people were directing that sort of comment at me, would I bother to continue?”
Ros: I’m sorry to see your blog go, and hope you’ll also find the time to publish the questions-in-the-lords series that I was enjoying here (or elsewhere), but I get that the kind of pressures you are under, something had to give. Blogging is something you can only do if your heart is in it, and if it’s not then it’s not. Hope you don’t get too much grief about this from entitlement queens who think you were only put on this earth to do what THEY want you to do.
I’m sorry Ros felt the need to delete the site she created as it could easily have become a more personal ‘day in the life’ journal showing common oiks like me and ambitious candidates what is involved in her job.
Elected representatives cannot provide running commentary without creating a conflict of interests, I think that much is clear.
I advocate for an ‘official’ blog reporting on the actions of all the federal committees run by the secretaries as part of their duties.
I think this would nicely complement the ‘independent’ LDV, ‘leadership’ LibDemNews, ‘membership’ LibDemBlogs and other affiliated professional/expert/factional group areas like LV and SLF.
“Paul: I think you need to re-read your comment, and then ask yourself “if people were directing that sort of comment at me, would I bother to continue?” ”
As I have made the comment after she stopped that doesn’t really apply does it? If she hadn’t stopped I wouldn’t have criticised her. I wasn’t the person who ran a campaign on openess and using the blog technique. I wasn’t the person who reported in the blog the inner workings of the FE meeting in March. I wasn’t the person who told the world that there was a crucial FE meeting coming up. I wasn’t the person who implied that other peoples’ expectations “seem” to be problem.
Ros has made a mistake. It would nice for her to hold her hand up and apologise. That is all.
Considering it was a manifesto commitment to “Keep in touch with the membership through regular e mail bulletins, my blog, Liberal Democrat News and the Party Mailings” – albeit the manifesto has now been taken offline and is accessible only through the Google cache – it seems pretty shoddy treatment of the membership not only to terminate the blog, but also to remove all the existing posts and comments.
The latter smacks of having something to hide, and is particularly unfortunate given the syrupy eulogy that was posted after Rennard’s resignation. No doubt bloggers of other parties will have a field day commenting on this.
Paul,
You have, for most of this sorry affair, acted like an idiot. A well-meaning idiot, but an idiot nonetheless. Employment law, the Constitution and natural justice have been cast aside in your quest for the personal gratification of vengeance. You should be ashamed of yourself, but that is far too much to ask for, I fear…
However, given that it took anyone in the Lib Dem blogosphere a week to notice that the blog had been deleted, I am surprised at all the fuss. Especially given the readership figures…
“However, given that it took anyone in the Lib Dem blogosphere a week to notice that the blog had been deleted, I am surprised at all the fuss. Especially given the readership figures…”
I’m not sure that’s surprising, given the moderation policy.
A while ago I left a perfectly polite comment, simply asking when news about the FE meeting could be expected. I checked back a few times over the next few days to see if my comment had appeared. Eventually I gave up.
But anyway, if Ros Scott’s critics are going to be accused of being “idiots”, wouldn’t it be better if she did it herself, rather than through others?
Herbert,
I’m not accusing Ros’s critics of being idiots, I’m accusing Paul of being one. People have the right to criticise the President – it’s probably one of the only things enshrined in the constitution!
Sorry about your comment, I’m presuming that it was lodged at the point when the blog was suspended pending a decision on its future. However, a report was lodged with the LDV team as soon as it could possibly happen. Providing you with a holding answer probably wouldn’t have helped much.
I won’t comment any further, I’m in danger of breaching my self-denying ordnance…
Mark – I was disappointed that (like Herbert above) a comment I made on Ros’ blog in advance of the most recent FE meeting didn’t get published. I was not in any way abusive. I went back again and again, unimpressed at zero communication, not even a message to the effect that ‘I have a lot of messages waiting and am very busy’.
But I decided to keep my mouth shut and not criticise the party President until after the elections for what I regard as broken promises, incredibly poor communication, refusal to take responsibility and a bunker mentality. And that’s without even mentioning the FE’s utter feebleness, or that its chair thinks that in the current political climate giving some sort of report within a month is remotely adequate.
So I did notice Ros’ blog was gone, Mark. But, again, I didn’t want to make waves just before elections. It hasn’t stopped you slagging people off, though, so I figure, why bother? And lovely as you are, could you possibly give Ros a nudge and suggest she’s the one who should be explaining herself, rather than criticising everyone else for letting her down?
Ros is the party’s deputy leader in the country. If she didn’t want to do that job, she shouldn’t have stood for it. And speaking to and listening to party members is pretty much crucial not only to my understanding of the job, but the platform on which Ros stood.
“Sorry about your comment, I’m presuming that it was lodged at the point when the blog was suspended pending a decision on its future. However, a report was lodged with the LDV team as soon as it could possibly happen. Providing you with a holding answer probably wouldn’t have helped much.”
But this was ages ago. I’m sorry, I can’t tell you exactly when, because the comment never appeared and the whole blog is gone anyway.
If the blog was suspended, it would have been a good idea to stop people submitting comments.
Alex,
As a former Regional Secretary, I was very aware that my fellow colleagues on the Regional Executive deeply distrusted me for keeping a blog. They feared that I would pass on information that might compromise them, even though I never did. My reward was to be the attempted victim of an ambush, an attempt to replace me without warning. There is an art to blogging when you have a formal position of responsibility, and it’s a very difficult one. Luckily for me, my role was not a particularly high profile one, and I had no audience expectation.
Ros has a responsibility to the wider Party, not just the blogosphere, and I have found myself wondering whether or not it was right that a small, if influential, audience should have priviliged, priority access to information of interest to the entire Party. Indeed, managing expectations in the absence of any previous model – no other President has used any medium other than Liberal Democrat News to my knowledge – provides an interesting challenge in itself.
Writing when you know that every word is being parsed for ‘hidden meaning’ is incredibly difficult. I’ve been amazed at some of the views expressed within elements of the blogosphere, parsing meaning that wasn’t there on the assumption that politics is about what isn’t said as opposed to what is. The time taken to communicate yet provide information that leaves no hostages to fortune (or our opponents) is a difficult thing to justify when there are so many other issues to be dealt within a fast-moving media environment.
The Party is a many-faceted gem, with ordinary members, activists, elected representatives and party officials all having their own perspectives and issues. The demands of each need to be balanced, and it will never be an easy task. I suspect that it is all about prioritisation at the end of the day, and anyone who feels that they should be given greater priority will vent their frustration. Bloggers have a more public way of venting that frustration. Ordinary members mostly don’t.
Finally, there is an assumption that runs through the blogosphere that I have some sort of influence over Ros. Even you, someone who has emphasised the individual within the community, seem to feel that it is appropriate to use me as a means of persuading Ros to act in a particular, preferred way. I am disappointed that, in a liberal party, the idea that I might understand that such an obvious conflict of interest exists is so difficult to understand. I feel, as a result, that my freedom to comment on matters that I feel strongly about is compromised, and I have been forced to deny myself the use of my blog as a platform for my views on such things. It is difficult to understand why people assume that views I held and espoused long before I met Ros are necessarily representative of her views.
If even people I consider to be friends cannot understand that we are married, not the subjects of some kind of ‘mind meld’, I do wonder why I have, until now, strived to be reasonable. It is better to retreat from the fray than to try to communicate with people who have already made their minds up.
I am truly saddened…
I think there is a rather more serious matter here, Baroness Scott is both a member of the FFAC and the FFAC is an sub-committee accountable to the FE.
To claim then that “neither the Federal Executive nor the President have a strong constitutional role in all this.” then raises some questions:
http://rainbowherbicide.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/im-powerless-says-the-president/
Sorry, that third paragraph leaves something important out… The value of the time taken is relative to the audience reached. Spending that time on something that will go to all members for whom an e-mail is held is perhaps more useful that using it to communicate with the infinitesimally smaller number who read the blog.
It also probably takes second place to making the decisions and taking the steps that create the content that goes into the message…
This does raise a few other questions:
http://rainbowherbicide.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/im-powerless-says-the-president/
But Mark, the simple fact is that Ros promised to do these things and recieved a positive response for doing so. When she then withdraws from doing so criticism is entirely valid. Either the manifesto was disingenuous or ill thought out. In either case its hardly a good thing, and people who thought it was important have a right to feel poorly done by.
However, this is really a side issue. Agents excellent post outlines the real issues here. There is no clear statement around the issues around Rennard, and the attempt to duck the issue makes no sense whatsoever. His six questions are the ones that really need answering here, and thus far there has been little but evasion from the top of the party. If we cannot manange ourselves properly and openly it rather dims my confidence when I walk the streets telling other people we should govern them.
“I have found myself wondering whether or not it was right that a small, if influential, audience should have priviliged, priority access to information of interest to the entire Party.”
This was pretty much exactly the argument used when the revolutionary idea of posting the FE minutes on Cix wa originally proposed.
In fact it was used in general to rubbish Cix by “them at the top” leading to the consequential decline of that forum.
The party does (desperately) need a fairly secure forum for discussions. This history of Cix shows that discussions can take place in a such a forum without leaking like a seive.
It is difficult for you to comment on such things given your relationship to Ros – and I don’t think that issue is resolvable. However you have in this instance taken it upon yourself to explain her position so you are to some extent making the rod for your back.
I too was disappointed to see Ros’ blog disappear (I noticed). It seems a shame that some sort of blog could not be continued.
And I think it a shame that we have not said what sort of behaviour is acceptable by our Lords. We need some leadership and clarity here.
Actually, I have another question.
The Federal Executive statement nearly two weeks ago said that an independent external assessor was to be appointed “immediately” to examine Lib Dem expenses and allowances in the House of Lords.
Has this assessor been appointed yet. If so, are we allowed to know his or her identity?
“You have, for most of this sorry affair, acted like an idiot. A well-meaning idiot, but an idiot nonetheless. Employment law, the Constitution and natural justice have been cast aside in your quest for the personal gratification of vengeance. You should be ashamed of yourself, but that is far too much to ask for, I fear…”
What have I done which is ioditic Mark? I put a few reasonable comments on Ros’ blog, most of which were not published. I asked for details of the FE meeting the day after it occured. That was not unnatural as Ros had built the meeting up as crucial herself and she had reported back from the March FE herself the day after on her blog.
So what was ioditic about that, Mark?
Then yesterday I merely pointed out that Ros had set up the expectation of a running commentary herself, by doing a running commentary herself up until an abrupt halt on the day of the last FE meeting.
Please tell me this Mark – I am an idiot, after all, so I can’t work it out – How was I to know that “employment law, the Constitution and natural justice” were blocking any publication of output from the FE for four days? – there was just complete silence. Why didn’t Ros explain this? She could have put out a one liner to explain it. Instead we got silence and all comments shoved in her wastebasket.
“quest for personal gratification of vengeance”. I was merely after important information about the workings of our party, Mark. I don’t have any axe to grind against Ros. I supported her in the campaign against Lembit. I have no ambitions whatsoever in teh party or outside of it, and that includes in the blogging sphere. I certainly don’t have an axe to grind with Chris Rennard. If I had anything eating away at me which made me ask for more information about the FE meeting it was that I was extremely worried about the expenses revelations and I was very concerned that our party was as clean as possible in dealing with any allegations against us.
“Ros has a responsibility to the wider Party, not just the blogosphere.”
The blogsphere is not some separate entity. There can’t be many party members without access to Google, which in turn gives them access to blogs on any party subject of interest to them.
I was angry yesterday, I am not now. I am very sorry I was initially strong in my language against Ros and I have now completely modified my post from yesterday on my blog.
Am I still an “idiot” on a “quest for personal gratification of vengeance”?
Can’t you accept that party members wanted and want information of important matters, that Ros created an expectation of providing information on her blog and therefore it is not unnatural for there to be disappointment when the blog is deleted?
Does that really make them idiots wanting “vengeance”?
I’m just trying to think of a non-preachy way of saying ‘I told you so…’
Mark Valladares wrote: “I do wonder why I have, until now, strived to be reasonable.”
The past participle of “to strive” is “striven”.
Whether or not Ros Scott maintains a blog is entirely a matter for her, and her alone. Personally, I cannot see that there is a problem. What does bother me, just a little, is that Ros Scott has wheeled out her husband to defend her from criticism. I don’t think that can be right.
Ros,
Thank you for your regular presidential update, I find them not useful and interesting.
I am sorry that you have decided to stop blogging, I found ‘Becauses Baronesses are People Too’ a very enjoyable read. However, I totally respect your decision and am shocked that some people would seem to be suggesting that you have a duty to keep it going irrespective of your personal view.
Please keep using LDV as a medium of communicating with members and supporters.
Best wishes
Amy Kitcher
PPC, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney
Paul/Sesenco,
Two responses…
1) Paul, I still think that you have behaved like an idiot at times. I believe that I retain the right to think so.
2) Sesenco, Ros wheels nobody out in her defence. This is merely freelancing on my part. What is so difficult to understand about the fact that I have an independent perspective?
And that, my friends is it from mid-Suffolk as far as this debate is concerned. You have made your minds up, you have determined your stance, as is your right and privilege. I have made my point, as is my right and privilege.
To all of you, good luck with your campaigning over the next thirty-six hours – I’ve got some leaflets to deliver…
“Paul, I still think that you have behaved like an idiot at times.”
Join the club.
I have no problem with this Mark. I am kept awake at night by recalling the times I have been an idiot. But some specifics from you would be nice.
You obviously won’t give me any – so ho-hum. It’s making a great top bar for my blog!!!!!! Many thanks indeed!
One last point:
“It is better to retreat from the fray than to try to communicate with people who have already made their minds up.”
You call the above comments ‘retreating from the fray’ do you?!