The rationale was that the current role of President in practice encompasses two entirely different jobs: (a) being the voice of the membership at the centre of the party, morale-raising, etc., etc.; and (b) overseeing the work of the federal party and coordinating its committees. I think it’s almost impossible to do both of them satisfactorily, and they demand different sets of skills and personalities. Most Presidents over the last twenty years haven’t even tried to do the second job, and those that have, like Simon, have really not had the time or resources to do both as well as they could be done.

The new post would have been elected by conference reps at the same time as the directly elected members of the federal committees; I argued that only a position that is separately elected, explicitly to oversee the organisation of the Federal Party, would have the authority and status necessary to play a difficult organisational and coordinating role.

But the FE went for the less radical option of having the possibility of appointing someone else to chair its own meetings. In reality I doubt it will have much impact, since if a newly elected President says they want to chair the FE, I bet none of its members would disagree. But at least it’s an option.

If the role of the President is to enthuse the membership and beef up the organisation, all have failed thus far.

Simon was going to double the membership, CK boozed and puffed his way from chat show to chat show. Shirley Williams did OK, provided she caught her trains on time.

Chris Rennard can win byelection after byelection (basically, anything he turns his hand to), but what he cannot do is provide political leadership. That is something only a politician can deliver.

Oh alright, I’m being facetious. Amid such high-minded debate, someone has to do it.

The two require very different skills; I doubt many people are blessed with the ability to do both effectively, certainly not at the same time.

Since the leader is obviously the external role, the president ought to be the internal organiser, a role any political party needs to be done and done well.

If the ammedment goes through surely the President should then make sure they are a voice for the whole party membership on the committees and in public.

Having regional chairs and presidents seems to work well. Certainly when I was on the Yorkshire and Humber Exec John Smithson and William Wallace were both excellent as Chair and President respectivly.

I will ignore your question re what is the point of Simon Hughes, as I don’t have a couple of hours to spare to list all his achievements! However, I think you raise and interesting point. Outside of political parties it is usual that Chairs of boards (and of course our President is the equivalent of the other party chairs) have responsibility for policy whereas Chief Execs have responsibility for operations. In party political terms it is the other way round, which is why I think it is essential that the Party leader chairs FPC. So to remove the responsibility for chairing FE from the President seems to me a tad odd. I am interested in the rationale. There of course is also the “cermonial” mayoral type of role which is also important for someone to take on when the leader’s priority is clearly leading the party. So, I for one think there is clearly still an important role for Party President – but it is an interesting debate!

My reading of the Constitution has been very similar to yours: that it intended that while the Leader take care of the political leadership of the party, the President be responsible for its functional management.

I think the thinking behind the amendment this weekend is that in practice the role of President has been mostly ceremonial, and that it’s not really practical to expect the sort of figure that the President has been, to be deeply involved in running the party. As you say, this isn’t a point about the current President – who in fact I can attest has been pretty assiduous in involving himself in the party management aspects – but generally about the sorts of people who have been President over the last twenty years, ie MPs or Peers. (There is sometimes a debate about whether MPs or Peers should be party president, but the clear fact is that when they stand, party members elect them).

Whether the new role is intended to be someone who simply chairs the meetings, or actually takes some broader responsibility outside meetings, I’m not sure.

Personally I’m pretty open-minded about this amendment and (since I will have to be in the hall at that time anyway!) will be interested to hear how the debate on it goes.