The Thornhill Report was severely critical of our governance and control. The feedback to the Review identified severe strategy shortcomings, leadership, organisation, and disconnect at all levels of the party. In particular, the report claimed, “the Federal Board was often a ‘rubber-stamp’ and is too large a group to be a realistic decision-making body.” There is no way that cohesive decisions can be made simply, quickly, and effectively. “The Federal Board – 40+ members – is not, cannot, and should not be that team.”
So instead of recreating itself and its function, the Federal Board has created a ‘Steering Group’ that is composed of 14 of the existing 43 Board members. This plans to become the decision-making and strategy-generating body for the party. The Steering Group has two directly elected members, (the President and a Vice-Chair), Acting Co-Leader until new Leader elected, Vice President (appointed) representatives of the three state parties, five federal committees, the Young Liberals and Principal Councils. That leaves the 29-member rump of the Federal Board with no contributory purpose.
For a long time, there has been concern about the lack of English Regional Representation at the Federal level, with input only at English Party level via the Chair. The Lib Dems have a minimal definition of ‘federation’ as only relating to state parties (England, Scotland and Wales) but dictionaries include many other references: an organisation or group within which smaller divisions have some degree of internal autonomy; a group of people united in a relationship and having some interest, activity, or purpose in common; an organisation, comprised of a set of smaller units or groups, which seeks to bring attention to issues that are of importance to its members.
Some years ago, the restructuring of the party was under consideration because it was considered too unwieldy and unfit for purpose. Some contributors proposed doing away with other committees, but keeping their own! But the result seems to have ended up just as cumbersome and complicated as it was previously, as identified in the latest report. One suggestion that was not implemented was to abolish the English Party and have direct regional representation at the federal level. Bearing in mind that the English regions are comparable in size to Scotland and Wales, they should be represented as a true federation of like-minded groups. This would be fairer in terms of proportional representation, even though this would limit the positive discrimination currently in favour of Scotland and Wales.
There is now an opportunity to have a radical rethink of how the party can work together at all levels to further our electoral success. Back in 2016, I had suggested that the Federal Board should have 20 members: the President (as Chair); the Leader of the Party as Deputy Chair; the Leader of the Lords as an Assistant Deputy; The Chair of the FIRC (in the absence of the Leader of any MEPs!); Convenor of the Scottish Lib Dems; Chair of the Welsh NEC; Chairs of all 11 regional parties; Leader of Lib Dem group on the LGA; Chair of ALDC; Chair of Liberal Youth. This would be the principal authority for determining the strategic direction of the party, as proposed in the original Governance Review. It would monitor the work of the other Federal Committees with Board members allocated to them. It never happened of course! Members now complain about the self-perpetuating cliques at the top.
* David Murray is a long-time activist. He joined Liberal Party in 1966 and was elected to Cambridge City Council in 1970. When he moved to Shropshire he was elected to Bridgnorth District Council 2003 -2009 as well as 5 Town & Parish councils. Has held most positions in Lib/Lib Dem local parties, has twice been Policy Chair of the West Midlands Region, and is a member of ALTER.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The mysterious mole men of New York caught on video
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
Mick Taylor
Jason Connor
Chloe
theakes
24 Comments
I’m the Communications Officer for the *Young Liberals*. We haven’t been Liberal Youth for four years now and it’s a little disappointing that long-term members can’t bring themselves to remember our actual name.
youngliberals.uk/tax
As an elected conference delegate I had always wanted policy to be implemented because it should make the delegates consider carefully what they are doing.
I have repeatedly supported votes at 16 although it does not benefit me directly, so, WHERE IS IT?
I can remember the name “Young Liberals”. I have forgotten all the silly names they have had in the meantime.
Gremlins indeed, I was just completing a comment here when it abruptly disappeared, along with the whole site! Trying again, I was endeavouring to recommend to you, David, since I entirely agree with your point of view, a previous article on this theme which I had elaborately referenced. It was written by Michael Berwick-Gooding and published here on Monday August 3, attracting 30 comments. If followed, it would greatly reduce the size of the Board and keep the directly-elected members. This Steering Group sounds an affront to democracy, and we must hope that a constitutional amendment can effect reforms, though sadly not until next spring.
The reference, if I can retrieve it, is https://www.libdemvoice.org/reducing-the-size-of-the-federal-board-and-giving-power-to-the-members-65516.html
Dan Schmeising: as Communications Officer, you will see that it says, “Back in 2016 I had suggested …” some 4 years ago. I am well aware of the change to ‘Young Liberals’ since!
Adding all the English regional chairs would (as we don’t have similar structures in Wales and Scotland) mean a massive skew in the Federal Board towards England.
Our federal structures are not exactly great always at getting the balance right in the balance between the three parties that make up our federal party – England, Scotland and Wales.
I fear though you’re greatly under-estimating just how lopsided it would be to have a reform at whose heart is ‘add lots more people from English posts’.
@David Murray
“The Thornhill Report was severely critical of our governance and control. The feedback to the Review identified severe strategy shortcomings, leadership, organisation, and disconnect at all levels of the party.”
You make some very reasonable comments about the FB but, as you suggest, the problem goes much wider than that. We just aren’t getting the review to deal with the whole Party, we are getting piecemeal reform at the centre that is going to bring about the radical change needed “at all levels of the party”.
which bit of the Federal Board, and the new structure represents the issues and views of the AOs and SAOs? Not suggesting there is a “rep”, but who is the line of communication?
As a Federal Board member since January I have rapidly realised it is incapable of reforming itself, because everyone on it is conflicted. The wider membership must do so, by constitutional amendment.
The wider membership should see the new Steering Group as what it is – is a temporary expedient for the Board to be seen to be responding to the Thornhill Review, and not a very good one. It was the only suggestion on the table that could be put into practice without a constitutional amendment. It is a scheme of delegation.
The Steering Group consists almost entirely of reps from other party bodies. The lines of accountability are blurred. I asked for the composition of the Steering Group to be put back on the Federal Board’s agenda, but was refused. Grassroots members: do not let this group be solidified into a new normal.
If you, grassroots members, leave reform to the Federal Board, nothing much will happen.
I’ve written on here a few days ago about the options for a reformed, reduced Board. You, grassroots members, need to decide what sort of Board you want, bring the proposal to Conference and make that change. There is quite a long lead-in time for that, so get the discussion around drafting proposals going, please.
Mark Pack is right that a Board that includes English regional chairs is not the answer. An additional reason to the one he gives is that elections of regional chairs are generally speaking not contested. As a regional chair myself, I know this. I was first elected in 2017 in a contested election; people commented how unusual a contest was. As my two-year term expired, no one at all came forward as successor. So I ended up as chair for another term. That’s not the vibrant, democratic process we need: no contest means no debate, no vote, no opportunity for the grassroots to consider and choose between different agendas. And which agenda would each regional chair bring to the Board? For the regional party, or for the party as a whole? Adding regional chairs doesn’t make for a cohesive purposeful Federal Board which is what the party needs.
The ball is in your court, grassroots members.
“For a long time, there has been concern about the lack of English Regional Representation at the Federal level, with input only at English Party level via the Chair”
There is also a EP rep (plus one for the other state parties). I was this person for 2018 and 2019 and I think did a good job of reporting back to members of the English Council
As the party has such unclear structures and processes it relies heavily on individuals who ‘know how things work’. It may have been something that has happened over time but the party as a result has become very centralised in its approach. Decentralisation, a core Liberal principle, requires a holistic view of the parties Boards, Committees, National and Regional strucutures. My fear is that changes made, such as establishing a Board Steering Group is tinkering at the edges and may well have the effect of centralising decisions even more within the party n London. OK, I was elected un contested as regional Chair for the West Midlands, but can someone tell me who is better at representing my regions interests in the party? The West Midlands economy is the same size as Scotland and I would like my region to have as much say in the party as Scotland. No disrepect to them but unfortunately the powers that be within the English Party don’t represent my regions needs.
David Murray, I agree with you, especially the idea of regional chairs being on the Federal Board. It is high time we got rid of the English party, at least that would be one less layer in our system. I was depressed when I saw the announcement of the steering group and am relying on it being an interim measure because I am not convinced it will be radical enough in its ideas for change; but so much for getting on with the job quickly !!
Jo Hayes, I am disappointed but not surprised by your comment that the FB is incapable of reform. So many others in recent years who have had contact with the board have told me that; you have convinced me they were right. But where do we go from here ?
Can the steering group put forward David Murray’s suggestion to the party ? Can members start a campaign to put forward David’s suggestion ? It is sad that some of these matters have been suggested before and nothing has happened.
Can they also deal with the wider issues ?
David; I would be worried about a replacement for the Federal Board comprising only members who have other positions within the Party. Sure, there is a need for the Board to include representatives of the various strands within the Party, but there is also a need for members who have the time to undertake tasks for the Board – and these are generally people who do not have multiple other roles within the Party.
@ Mark Pack “Adding all the English regional chairs would (as we don’t have similar structures in Wales and Scotland) mean a massive skew in the Federal Board towards England.” The “massive skew” would ensure that we had representation from all parts of England as well as Scotland and Wales. It would not only be more proportional (and I thought we were in favour of PR) but the representation would be more geographically spread around the country, rather than being concentrated in London and the South East. The turnout in Federal elections is pitiful, because many parts of England do not see the elections as being particularly relevant, and are not au-fait with the high number of candidates concentrated in the SE. This can’t be justifiable or reasonable.
The Chairs of the English regions have the authority to represent their regions at the federal level, unlike individuals with their own agendas, and as David Craddock says from my WM Region, the Party has become too centralised to be truly representative.
Jo Hayes makes valid points. The obvious point about the new, additional committee, the ‘Steering Group’, is that somewhat fewer hands on the stering wheel can never turn a Tata Nano into a Ferrari.
It seems to me from the above discussion that we are more concerned with representation than with action and purpose. We are a political party so we need policies and the ability to fight elections and win. These should surely be the priorities of the main committee, whatever you call it. Then there are support activities such as finance and fundraising, employees and training which the main committee should delegate to sub committees for action while keeping an overview.
I moved from Bath to Trafford five years ago. I don’t think there are that many regional differences except being part of Greater Manchester it’s the Labour Party we need to oppose, not the Tories. I would have thought the regions would be more interested in being part of policy making and campaigning to meet their interests rather than the support activities of actually running the party where there seems to be little difference according to regions.
We need a more structured way of making policy rather than it being something that is dealt with by both the FPC and also the FCC. Members should have input at all stages rather than just getting motions to conference and voting on the ones allowed through by FCC and it should be clear at what stage members should be invited to make an input during this process.
We also seem to need the equivalent for campaigning with a structure that prevents over centralisation of campaigning at general elections. Again this requires input from local campaigners at all stages of development.
We need a central Board which can coordinate these functions, together with party management issues. The members of the policy committee and campaigning committee should be mainly elected because of their experience in those two areas. Representation from party interest groups should be allocated to the policy committee and representation from the regions to policy and to the campaign committee. Regional bodies are concerned with both these areas.
I really don’t think we can make incremental changes to get out of the operational fog we are in. We have to do the organisational equivalent of zero base budgeting. If anyone finds their primary motive is to maintain their own position I would say that if we don’t do root and branch reform we won’t exist for much longer.
Thank you Sue Sutherland. Well said.
David Murray in your article you point out that in the post 2015 constitutional review it was suggested that the English Party should be abolished. But you haven’t stated why the English Party concluded in its review that an English level was needed. When considering abolishing the English Party the finances and staffing of the State Parties and regional parties need to be considered. Also if the English Party was abolished it is likely that some English Party functions would end up being carried out by the Federal Party rather than by the regional parties.
Jo Hayes,
It is good to read that you think that members should propose constitutional amendments to reduce the size of the Federal Board. Perhaps separate ones are also needed to reform the Federal Policy Committee and the Federal Conference Committee. I have set out my view of what the composition of the Federal Board should be (the link is in the comment by Katharine Pindar of 19th Aug 7.43pm above). Hopefully I can gathered support for my proposals.
@Simon McGrath
“I think did a good job of reporting back to members of the English Council”
And just what does the English Council contribute towards our campaigning?
@MarkPack
Every single English Region except one has far more members than either Scotland or Wales.
We are meant to be a party that supports proportional respresentation, yet the Scottish state reps on every committee are there to respresent just under 5k members, the Welsh State reps are the voice of just over 3k members and the English Party reps are meant to represent the over 110,000 members. How is that proportional?
There are so many issues interweaved here, but I would like to just comment on the subject of members involvement in policy making. If you go on to the party’s website and click on Get Involved, then on Policy Working Groups, you will find three posts from February 2020 and the previous post is from late 2018.
All the posts announce the membership of groups already started or their conclusions. There is nothing about groups about to be formed, or how to put yourself forward. There is nothing about the selection process, either of the topics to be investigated or the individuals who will do the investigating. Again, the impression is of decisions taken in smoke filled rooms and the members told when it’s all over.
I imagine there are people out there, they may even be reading this, who know what’s coming down the line but why would they tell us ?
@Michael BG: I increasingly think that the entire set of constitutions needs to be reviewed on a set of consistent principles. It or rather they started out as a compromise between two previous constitutions, they’ve been amended piecemeal and the pieces don’t fit well. The party doesn’t yet have a broad consensus on what it wants to achieve from the revamped party organisation. Grassroots members on the whole aren’t much interested in the internal organisation. The Thornhill Review is a start. It says very clearly reduce the size of the Federal Board and do something about the rest. Your proposals for a reduced Board favour a directly elected Board. If you could identify what advantages your own proposals have over other options, that’d be helpful.
@Mary Regnier-Wilson, your comment is spot on. We are a party of people, not places, and our members mostly are where the population mostly is. The state party setup is very distorting. I would have said more but WordPress told me my comment was too long. I’ll have to write a fresh post.
@Michael BG The English Party was one of the contributors that wanted to keep itself, but OK about changes to the others. In your response to Nonconformistradical you said, “I suppose it would be possible to scrap the English representative and the directly elected members and elect one from each of the eleven regions that the party has.” How would these individuals be more representative of the regions than the Chairs, whether uncontested or not?
Jo Hayes commented in her original article, “There’s also the vexed question of whether we need both the 12 Regions and the Party in England intermediate between the Federal Party and the Local Parties. If there are too many tiers, which should go?” It seems to me that the English Party should go, and with 11 regional members out of 20 on the Federal Board, the English Party functions would be done directly at Federal level without an intermediary. The Regions then support their Local Parties in England.
Je suis le président de LibDems en France Parti local (je vis en France) Nous avons plus de 1000 membres et sympathisants. Nous rendons compte directement au Parti fédéral. Je suis également membre d’En Marche (Parti de Macron). L’adhésion à cette fête est gratuite – sans frais. Je vais sur leur site Web et recherche les groupes locaux qui ont désigné des coordonnateurs – je peux participer à n’importe laquelle de leurs réunions. Simples. Tous les dons sont gérés de manière centralisée – pas de bureaucratie localement. C’est une référence à la base. Tu as compris?
I am the Chair of LibDems in France Local Party (I live in France) We have over 1000 members and supporters. We report into the Federal Party directly. I am also a member of En Marche (Macron’s Party). It is free to join this party – no fees. I go to their website and look up the local groups who have designated coordinators – I can go along to any of their meetings. Simples. All donations are handled centrally – no bureaucracy locally. This is a grassroots benchmark. Do you get it?
[email protected] http://www.libdemsinfrance.org
ps We have a President who got voted in from nothing!