A call to new members – apply for party jobs and think about job-sharing

Once upon a time ‘everyone’ agreed that only aristocrats and landowners, of the male and pale persuasion, were fit to be in Parliament. Then we had a very British set of polite revolutions.  Firstly, we agreed that middle class men could do the job, and after a struggle middle class women. Then we let a few well-connected working class people in. And every so often, we didn’t get too bothered when a few BaME folk got involved – although not too many.

That’s a fairly roughshod run through of a few centuries of British political history, but we hope you get the point. While our country’s demographics and cultures have changed, our Parliament, local governments, and internal elections processes are still based on ‘one person, one post’.

But let’s be a bit heretical for a minute. Is politics a regular job? Do we believe that only folk who can commit to full-time campaigning and ‘politicking’ are our best representatives? And if yes, is it simply because its the ‘status quo’, and so easier to follow than to change? Well we think not. We think politics should embrace the modern world and explore part-time and flexible working and we are not the first to call for this.  Even Tom Brake has written a post for this site advocating job-share for MPs.

We appreciate this may not be to everyone’s taste and we’re are not advocating that every Lib Dem should, but we do think our party should think about how job-sharing might change the way we meet our wider political goals. We believe that it can take us much further to achieving Tim’s aspirations for BaME, Disability, LGBT+ and Gender equality than our current strategy of asking folk to apply and to hope for the best.  At a time when we have so few opportunities to give people experience and responsibility, wouldn’t job sharing help to support a wider range of candidates into positions of visible leadership and generate that amazing exchange of knowledge that Lib Dems thrive upon?

Although this piece began discussing publicly elected roles, we end by looking at internal posts. This is because we understand that the electorate may take longer to convince.  We also recognise that our internal roles are not subject to public scrutiny and provide a fantastic opportunity to change our party from within – to turn the ‘pale and male’ into the ‘vibrant mixture’ of genders, nationalities, heritages, sexualities, disabilities and social class.

This worked well in Hackney  where we used job share to support a new member in the role of membership secretary.

So here’s the call. We are opening this debate just in time for the London Regional Elections and our annual Local Party Elections, and hope to inspire our new members to apply for these roles. We believe the #libdemfightback will be stronger and fairer if more people share the load. Unless it says you can’t, go find a like-minded Lib Dem and apply for these party roles as a job share!

* Mark Platt and Teena Lashmore are Liberal Democrat candidates for the London Assembly.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

4 Comments

  • It’s not a “regular job” (US culture, by the way!)

    Having spent quite a few years in Personnel work (sorry, HR, management – speak) I am more than comfortable with the idea of job-share, but in people representation, how do you do it? Your “constituents” (ward residents etc etc) will still come to you, whether you are “on” or “off” duty. What sensible political being is going to say – oh, you’ll have to consult so and so, I am not working today? You can see it happening right now, with multi member council wards. People will go to the one they trust / like most, the most accessible from their point of view, or (let it never be said!) the one from the political party of their choice! As I say, I am not against the idea, just don’t see the practicality.

  • Dawud Islam 22nd Oct '15 - 1:47pm

    Tim I think your argument is actually an argument in favour of job share rather than against it. The very fact that in multi member wards, such as in local government up here in Scotland, people are used to having several different people as their councillors including more than one from the same party, should mean that they have no problem with the concept of having more than one person representing them. As you know there are very few occasions when casework is ‘mega time urgent’ in that it has to be actioned the same day and so if the constituent preferred one of the candidates to the other he/she could simply wait until that councillor came back ‘on duty’ for their case to be actioned.

  • Hi Tim, a good point, but one easily dealt with by telling them that you will pass on their issue, concern, complaint to you share-colleague. Of course the share could be that one of you does the engagement/community work, and the other attends meetings and events, which may be a boon for those with other responsibilities, such as caring. Of course one of the key reasons that we’re keen to promote this idea is to help those for whom it’s hard to get on the electoral ladder, so that they can get the experience, secure profile raising opportunities, and get to show the ‘selectorate’ what they can do.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • GWYN WILLIAMS
    "And it is not just fingers. I got a very nasty dog bite on the bum once." It's only Monday and I have a mental image of someone trying to push a leaflet throug...
  • Alex Macfie
    Steve J Smith: Яeform may claim to be against the Online "Safety" (sic) Act and other online "for the children" surveillance for the sake of getting a few vote...
  • Peter Martin
    @ Tom, Your figure of the richest 200 families being worth £711 bn suggests that a 1% wealth tax should bring in £7bn on them alone. I'd start with thes...
  • John Smith
    And yet millions of people have managed to protest against Israel’s actions without getting arrested. It’s almost like expressing support for a group tha...
  • Nick Baird
    I agree with Tara (without necessarily supporting what the PA activists did). It was wrong to proscribe PA as terrorists, and in any case that happened *after* ...