There was a simpler time, when a Returning Officer turned up, ran a contest between whoever had put their name forward, and the members who had bothered to turn up made the decision. The administration was more onerous, given that things had to be posted to people, and more expensive to Local Parties as a result, but it was at least simple. It wasn’t necessarily fair, or consistent, and more often than not the prize for winner was to come a distant third in the subsequent General Election, so there wasn’t much harm done.

Now, it can be technically more complex, even though technology means that you can send mailings for free in the blink of an eye, and hustings meetings are often held online. A Returning Officer can deal with everything from his own computer at home most of the time. But there are more “moving parts” to deal with.

If you’re not the most technology friendly soul, you need an e-ballot administrator, so that’s one person you have to co-ordinate your diary with. You’ve got a Shortlisting Committee to deal with, possibly made up of members of multiple Local Parties, all of whose Executive Committees not unreasonably want to be kept up to speed with progress.

And, of course, you need answers from authoritative sources, your Regional Candidates Chair and your Regional Campaigns Manager, for example. They’re busy people, and might be waiting for answers themselves.

So, for example, the new English Selection Rules state that any decision regarding positive action must be signed off by either the Party’s Head of Compliance or the Head of Party Services on behalf of the Chief Executive. How do I know that this has happened? I could assume that all is well, but we all know what happens if you assume…

Is your seat a target seat? Well, the answer to that question determines whether or not positive action requirements apply, so you need to know. But who decides, and have they decided yet? That’s rather beyond my control, obviously, but if the Selection Rules require an answer, and guessing leaves me open to challenge, I need to know, as does the Shortlisting Committee. If it is a target, they must all be trained in the selection process, the recognition of unconscious bias and the avoidance of explicit or implicit discrimination, either by the Returning Officer or by an accredited Shortlisting Committee trainer.

I also require a refresher course on the revised Selection Rules, as I’m not permitted to formally start a selection until I’ve taken one, according to English Candidates Committee. Again, diary co-ordination is an issue – there are only so many training opportunities and, like many Liberal Democrats, I have a variety of commitments to juggle. Luckily, there was a date that worked.

Add to all of this that key people take holidays, or fall ill, or aren’t always great at managing their correspondence, and the scope for delay is obvious. Meanwhile, there is pressure to get on with things, sometimes from the very people whose failure to do their bit has caused the delay in the first place.

There is cause for a sense of urgency, of course. The earlier a candidate can be selected, the better the prospects for success, we are told. And, picking up on a point that Laurence Cox raised last week, there is a new clause in the Selection Rules:

If the Local Party has not commenced their candidate selection process, of their own volition, within three years of the date of the previous General Election, then their Regional Candidates Chairs is empowered to advertise on their behalf.

This should theoretically mean that there will be no more candidates appointed in the run-up to a General Election, and that all candidates will be in place well before the campaign starts. What it does mean is that the “gallant few” who volunteer to be Returning Officers will be pretty busy…

* Mark Valladares is the Returning Officer for a constituency somewhere in the Home Counties…