Chandila Fernando, who came third in the contest for Lib Dem party president, attracting almost 1,800 votes (6%), issued the following response shortly after it was anounced that Baroness Ros Scott had won the all-member ballot:
Congratulations to Ros on her victory.
Internationally, this week we have seen a triumph of liberal democracy in America.
But here, barely, half of our own members voted in the election for Liberal Democrat Party President. And our membership is now the lowest it has been in any of our lifetimes.
In the early hours of Friday morning, we failed to save our deposit in a Parliamentary by-election, despite having an excellent candidate in Harry Wills.
Kidding ourselves about the scale of the challenges we face is a route to nowhere. Far better to address tough questions today than to face electoral reverse tomorrow.
In this campaign, I believe I have helped set the agenda. I believe I have challenged the party to address the outside world, rather than to keep talking to itself.
My heartfelt thanks go to the many hundreds who have voted for me – and also to the many thousands more who didn’t, but truly engaged in this crucial debate.
We can transform ourselves into a party that merits the support of growing millions, but this change must start today.
(We’ll post Lembit’s response as soon as we receive it).
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
DWP imposing misery on carers
At last! Proof that BBC East's Joint Account quiz existed
US outperformance isn't *all* about Tech
Last West End Christmas Fortnight events today! #dundeewestend
Jack Nicholls
Adam
Jonathan Brown
Joseph Bourke
22 Comments
Not sure that even the handful of people who voted Fernando will be impressed by that statement.
His must be the least popular crusade since…. well, I don’t know, any crusade experts here?
To be fair, I would hardly call 1,800 “a handful”. Mind you, odd to see Chandila so concerned about the level of membership – didn’t he want to downgrade the significance of membership?
Does 1,800 votes count as “a handful of people”?
I’d have thought 6% was pretty good for someone without a public profile (nor a seat in the House) whose campaign only started a few weeks’ ago.
I just thought it was ironic he criticised the Party for losing a deposit when he only barely scraped over 5% of the vote himself.
Given his atrocious performance perhaps Chandila should look at his own methods before lecturing the rest of the Party about them?
Maybe you should grow up and stop posting personal abuse under a somewhat pathetic pseudonym.
I actually think close to 50% is a good turnout for an internal party election to a secondary position.
I look forward to the high profile that Ros will now achieve as a result of her elevation to party president.
Although 1,800 votes is impressive, I’m not sure it could be called ‘setting the agenda’…
Chandila’s petulant moan demonstrates exactly why he got such a derisory result.
He needs to grow up. His divisive, factional non-manifesto, which demonstrated a lack of experience of campaigning on the ground, would be a road to disaster for the Liberal Democrats.
One other thought:
Chandila seems to be saying that the American presidential election was a triumph for liberal democracy, whereas our ballot wasn’t because the turnout was barely 50%.
Mmmm – something a little over 60% for the most powerful elected position in the world v 48% for an internal party position.
No Chandila; I’m not sure that’s a valid (or even sensible) comparison.
This was an amazing result for Chandila, given he only had a few weeks to campaign, and started with no profile. To get more than a quarter of the votes of someone who has been an MP for 11 years is amazing.
The turnout is derisory. If people have chosen to join a political party (with democracy its prirmary value) you should normally expect them to vote.
The turnout ought to be HIGHER than in a public election.
The bottom line is that everybody both on this blogsphere and I am totally sure recognises the challenges that we face…it rather comes down to the fact that people resoundingly *did not* feel that Fernando’s policies were the solution…as has been said I am sure that some of his own supporters will not be impressed by this…
*in the wider party…after totally sure lol
There is an interesting trend with civic society organisations that they tend to have lower turnouts for their internal ballots than the wider public. I would include my own organisation in that, but my understanding is that it is also the case in trade unions.
So I wouldn’t automatically assume that turnout in an internal election would be higher. Nevertheless, I do think we need to think carefully about why it was so low.
As for Chandila’s response, I think petulant is a good summing up. It certainly isn’t very magnanimous.
Chandila was the candidate who came up with the radical proposals to reorganise the party, but given we have just had the Bones Commission it seemed a pointless exercise. Did he submit these proposals to the Bones Commission? What response did he get?
Chandila identifies some serious problems that the party currently faces, and he doesn’t say what should be done about them, although I can only imagine that we are meant to conclude that we should have voted for him. Personally I think that our current situation can be explained more buy the political direction we have taken, rather than whoever we elect as president of the party.
I think the tunout is fair enough. We are not voting for the leader of the party. Most members simply pay their subscriptions and have little idea of the party organisation or which of the candidates would do the better job. It would be good if all our members were activists, but they are not, and that is true of all UK political parties.
Not sure the turnout was so bad. I have been a member of the party since the mid-90s and an activist for the last decade but I don’t have the first clue what the president does. Many members will have only been in the party a short while and will know and care even less.
Very impressive result for Chadila all told. He was against two strong candidates – one with very extensive backing from the party establishment and another with a massive profile.
I thought he’d get about 2%.
He did a lot to trigger debate – especially in the LibDem blogosphere and he’s right to sound a cautionary and realistic note about where the party stands.
James Graham’s point is interesting – but, on one reading, LibDem MEMBERS now have a lower propensity to cast a ballot than American VOTERS (although I accept that Obama v McCain is rather different to Ros v Lembit v Chandila!)
On the membership point, about 4,000 fewer ballot papers were issued in this election than in the 2007 leadership election. I guess Chandila believes this constitutes further evidence that the membership system is in continued decline.
“On the membership point, about 4,000 fewer ballot papers were issued in this election than in the 2007 leadership election. I guess Chandila believes this constitutes further evidence that the membership system is in continued decline.”
Well, it’s obviously evidence that the membership is in continued decline – down by more than 16% since Kennedy was ousted in 2006, and continuing to drop at a rate of 400 a month since the election of Clegg.
But of course that couldn’t be anything to do with the takeover of the party by a slightly less charismatic clone of David Cameron, and its transformation into a team of cheerleaders for cuts in public spending and taxes.
No, it must be evidence that the “membership system” is flawed. When the numbers look bad, let’s just find a way to stop counting…
1 Chandila raised some useful issues during his campaign but both this statement and the presentation of his campiagn leave much to be desired.
2 The turnout is not bad. I had many times more emails and saw much more coverage about the US Presidential election than I did about our own so to be only 10% shy of a historic and world changing election is not at all bad.
3 We definitely do need to start recruiting members again AND to stop blaming the party leader for the decline. The small number of local parties that bother to actively recruit do fine. The other 95% need to follow their example.
I enjoyed running in the contest and learnt a great deal from the experience. I campaigned for the issues that I strongly believe are important but the result is indicative of where the party has positioned itself. I wish Ros and her team well.
Interestingly, the turnout, as a percentage of the membership, was better than any other contested Presidential election apart from the very first in 1988.
It would have been easier to drive turnout up had the candidates been given access to the membership lists, and perhaps we need to give this some thought before the next contest.
Ever since I’ve been a member of this party, there have been people who have the idea that the way to improve its fortune is to run it as some sort of glossy PR brand, with PR people like themselves heading it, and the rest of us reduced to happy little salesboys and girls.
The best way to improve our party would be to minimise the influence of this sort, and have a leader who is capable is standing up to them. Politics is failing in this country because people believe all the parties are glossy PR brands run by glossy PR people who have no connection with real life, with local members just happy little brainwashed salesboys and girls.
Glossy PR people who join the party with the idea that this is how parties should be, are a disaster. The best thing about Chandila Fernando is that he can be held up as an example of all that is wrong in modern politics.
If we could re-awaken the idea of politics as about organisation from bottom up, and party as an empowerment device for ordinary people, we might get somewhere.
I voted for Ros and am happy she got it but the only thing of any strategic signifigance about this lection is the membership figures which are going off a cliff.