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 AvatarDavid Evans 24th May - 10:41pm
    John (Marriott), Yes I do like getting my hands dirty. And have done regularly. I do want us to be part of a Government again....
  • User AvatarMichael BG 24th May - 10:06pm
    Joseph, It is really good to read that you support that basic rates of benefit should be increased to the poverty level as defined by...
  • User AvatarDavid Chadwick 24th May - 9:05pm
    Thank you Bernard. I studied in Den Haag for three years and several of my friends are active within D66. They’re a well-organised, friendly bunch.
  • User AvatarDavid Raw 24th May - 8:58pm
    @ Joseph Bourke And unlike you, Joe, I believe what they all have/had in common was that they could have paid a lot more income...
  • User AvatarJoseph Bourke 24th May - 8:44pm
    David Raw. I don't know how you come up with these little snippets like Danny Alexander's tweets and the strategic importance of Gibraltar's Barbary Apes...
  • User AvatarDavid Evershed 24th May - 8:19pm
    If the Lib Dems were acting in the national interest by forming a coalition with Conservatives in 2010 then why were the Conservatives not also...