Very odd news from the Merton and Wandsworth London Assembly constituency, where members will shortly be voting to select the Liberal Democrat candidate for next May’s elections.
The candidates have been told that they are banned from calling on party members at home during the selection contest. They have also been given extremely tight restrictions on what else they can do – just one leaflet, one email and one phone conversation.
As regular readers will know, I’m a strong advocate for more campaigning to be allowed in internal party contests – and the party has made some significant progress on that in the last couple of years (with a big step forward agreed in Birmingham at the Lib Dem conference).
But for the Merton & Wandsworth selection, this set of rules is more restrictive than we’ve ever had in a London Assembly selection contest as far as I’m aware (even allowing for any smart candidate spotting the loophole and hunting out members at work rather than home). Since the first selection contests for 2000 more campaigning has always been permitted than can be the case in Merton and Wandsworth.
And for good reason too: campaigning by candidates is good for them and good for the party. Would be candidates who are put through their paces end up better candidates as a result, and members end up more motivated to help someone who has taken time to win their support. That is good for candidates, good for members and good for the party.
No prizes for guessing what issue I will be taking up at the London Region conference next month…
UPDATE: Belay that last line, the rule has now been changed.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
Reform makes first gain from Conservatives in this by-election cycle
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Leonora Scipio
Kira Collins
Daniel Walker
Tristan Ward
Peter Martin
16 Comments
How very odd. This is not the first contested election contest for the Assembly, were the same rules in effect for previous contests?
Any justification offered? Desire not to discriminate against lazy, complacent candidates, perhaps?
Presumably (and I, like all here, am not supporting this) it is on the basis that some members have got fed up with this type of approach in the past?
There are two candidates, and just under a month until the date of the hustings. At worst, they will receive two visits.
In the calling notice, the RO will suggest that people who do not want to be contacted by phone or email contact him to let him know. He could do the same with visits.
@Tim13 – I think that’s probably why. In the last Scottish elections, I was quite happy to be contacted, but l told all the candidates that anyone who contacted my wife would definitely not get her vote (she’d asked me to do that before anyone questions it!) I would imagine that the rules were put in place before they knew how many people were standing – and I can actually understand it.
In campaigning, you need to be able to ensure that all is equal – someone who might not be able to campaign for selection, for example, might still be able to campaign fully as a candidate. Restricting the amount of contact / info can help with this, but I’d see that balanced by the local party organising events to meet the candidates (hustings, cheese & wine type fundraisers, etc.)
@KL – you are wrong – the decision to restrict visiting members was taken fully in the knowledge that there were only 2 candidates going forward (and neither has requested this restriction).
KL: I disagree with the idea that in campaigning for selections we should “ensure that all is equal”. If we wanted equality, we could skip campaigning and simply put people’s names in a hat and draw one out 🙂 Far from having rules which treat everyone equally, we should have rules that benefit those who will make the best candidates for the party. For example, an ability to charm people in personal contacts is a key attribute for candidates, so our rules should benefit those who have this skill over those who don’t. On the other hand, being able to complete a local party’s monthly donation report isn’t a key skill for candidates so it’s right the system doesn’t put them to the test on that.
Grammar Police – You clearly know this situation. Do you then know why the rather unusual decision has been taken? I couldn’t agree more with Mark that ability to charm (and persuade!) people face to face is so obviously a key skill for all political campaigners, and even more so for those who actually put themselves forward as candidates for election, that this just seems to fly in the face of logic.
I wish I knew why; I agree with you that it defies logic.
I’m not supporting this restrictive decision and I agree with Mark’s very good points about candidates improving on the campaign trail if they’ve had lively selection contests.
However, while many members are happy to be “campaigned at” and may even be motivated to become more active as a result, there are also quite a few – like KL’s wife – who really don’t want to be pestered by random potential candidates.
Couldn’t there be an opt out so that candidates are only given details for members who are happy to be contacted? We already have that for email addresses, why not just extend it to home visits? That way candidates can campaign all they like without bothering the members who’d rather be left in peace (and who can still meet the candidates at local party functions if they want).
And in fact we could have a multi-choice system – for example, I’d be happy to receive any number of emails from candidates explaining how fantastic they are but I admit that I get fed up with phone calls and I can’t stand people showing up on my doorstep. And I know another member who looks after an elderly relative who gets very agitated when strangers come to the door.
@ Catherine, you’re exactly right that there should just be an opt out, as there is for emails/phone calls. This is in essence what we do with the public, where they tell us they don’t want us to call on them again we don’t. We’d never restrict ourselves to not canvassing at all, just because some electors don’t like canvassers.
only 2? I thought there would be more.
I hope I receive my voting papers this time (didn’t get anything for the Mayor selection :-/)
Seems like a silly rule. What’s wrong with members using the tried and tested PFO response?
The restriction has been removed.
Well, I was part of the selection committee that made the rule. There was a wide range of views expressed at the committee, from more liberal to more restrictive. We were mainly guided by precedent – the RO’s previous seat (Greenwich & Lewisham, I think) having very similar restrictions.
There are some things to remember. Quite a few members don’t like being harassed on selection contests. Doorstepping is very time-consuming, especially with the membership of 350 dispersed across 5 parliamentary constituencies. This advantages the time-rich. Restriction on mailing limits the cash-rich. The time available for campaigning is very limited. Personally I would rather candidates spent less of their time and money on primary contests and more on the real campaigning.
Thanks for sharing your reasoning Matthew. I think there is a fallacy lurking in your final sentence, as putting candidates through their paces in a selection is not a distraction from public campaigning but rather a key step towards having more and better public campigning. That is because putting people through their paces means candidates get better at campaigning by learning, members get better informed about who to vote for and members who feel more involved in a selection are more willing to help the winner.