Author Archives: Andy Hinton

1 Supporters’ Scheme 2. ?? 3. Profit!

Conference this weekend is due to vote on Vince Cable’s proposed expansion of both the electorate and potential pool of candidates for Lib Dem leadership contests (in case anyone hadn’t noticed already from the parade of leadership-supportive articles on LDV so far this week). I call it that, rather than a supporter’s scheme, because I think that is the real heart of what is controversial about what is proposed.

Thus far, criticism of Vince’s proposal has centred around entryism, and I have to say I share those concerns, despite the assurances that these concerns have been addressed. We must assume that bad faith actors will target our weakest defences, not our strongest, so for HQ to say that our new electorate for leaders would be screened by bank card checks, and then mutter under its breath “unless they claim not to have a bank card, in which case they just need to prove that they have a postal address” seems naïve to me.

Of course, we are told, if people are found to be acting in bad faith, they can be chucked out. All we need is for our bad faith entryists to a) publicly announce that they are dodgy and b) be noticed by (*checks notes*) our army of HQ staff with free time to comb Twitter for Labour and Tory trolls.

But I’d like to look at this from a different angle. Nakedly self-interested it may be, but my question is: what is the benefit of this supporter’s scheme supposed to be for the party?

Proponents tell us that, even if these supporters aren’t obliged to give the party money to join, we may still benefit from them as new recruits to our army of deliverers, tellers, door-knockers etc. They might even donate to the party in the fullness of time. Sounds great, but any local party worth its salt is already running a mailing list and offering opportunities to get stuck in helping the party. They are, to all intents and purposes, running supporters schemes. Centralising these schemes so that HQ can run them instead achieves what, exactly?

“Ah yes”, proponents say, “but not everyone has a local party worth its salt”. Quite so, but people in black-hole areas who want to deliver or canvass will find themselves distinctly underwhelmed by the incapacity of their local party to take them up on the offer. If they don’t even want to call themselves a party member, the chance that they are going to want to jump straight into a leadership role in campaigning seems, to me, a stretch.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 14 Comments
Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarMichael 24th Mar - 11:57pm
    It is depressing how poor the likely candidates for leader are. I do not doubt Jo's commitment or integrity, but I just don't think her...
  • User AvatarGlenn 24th Mar - 11:21pm
    Helen Dudden, I get it. My roots are Jewish and Romany. We don't all see "Europe" as a big noble ideal. To my folks it...
  • User AvatarDavid-1 24th Mar - 10:04pm
    A sensible course of action (to the extent that anything can be sensible in nonsensical times) might be: 1. Revoke. 2. General election. 3. People's...
  • User AvatarEdwin Poultney 24th Mar - 9:58pm
    I don't think it matters who is in charge of the Conservative Party next week, none can be trusted to realistically consider siding with any...
  • User AvatarJayne Mansfield 24th Mar - 9:41pm
    @ Michael 1, @ David 1, Sorry, I thought you were an evidenced based party, My mistake.
  • User AvatarMichael 1 24th Mar - 9:40pm
    David-1 Hear! Hear! Very good post!