Last week, the Lib Dem blogopshere lit up following a report in The Times alleging that the Bones Commission on reforming the party’s structures would “turn the party’s traditional structure on its head, centralising all decision-making under a new “chief officers group” and diluting the roles of its committees.” Nick Clegg himself addressed some of the concerns in an article for Lib Dem Voice last week.
Inevitably much of the speculation is just that, as few outside of the party’s inner circles have yet seen the report. And fair enough, to a great extent. After all, the report was jointly commissioned by Nick Clegg, the party’s chief executive Chris Rennard and Lib Dem president, Simon Hughes – it’s right that they and the party’s Federal Executive Committee should see it first.
Yet nature abhors a vacuum – especially in the hyper-connected internet age. And unsurprisingly those who are suspicious of what might be proposed are treating the silence as ominous.
The party may not yet feel able to publish the Commission’s report – though I can assure them that Lib Dem Voice would be more than willing as soon as is desired! – but the very least that should be done is an update on the process of publication. Look at the party website page on the Commission, and you will see no update since the closing deadline for submissions on 8th February, some six months ago.
We are assured there are extensive plans for publication – eg, an article in Lib Dem News and a full debate at conference. But the party needs to think more carefully about how it can make better use of new media communications not only in consulting, but also in informing party members in timely fashion – whether through the website, or an email to members – of what’s happening when our internal processes are discussed.
To be clear: I am sure that all those involved are keen for a good debate on the Bones Commission to take place. The question is how that’s best done. And I’m not sure the party has in this case assisted the Commission itself or party members in ensuring the proposals can be debated on their own merit.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Historic toll house up for sale
The white horses of Lutterworth
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Reform bans the Ukrainian flag
Chloe
Nonconformistradical
Pawel Urbanski
Kevin Hawkins
4 Comments
I doubt a pillar of the establishment and A lister like Stephen needs my support however this is a very posting. I doubt there is any vast right wing conspiracy going on. However in the interweb age you can get infomation to people very quickly and the silence so far on Bones was only ever going to be filled with rumours.
What’s the betting that one of the recommendations of the Bones Report will be to improve internal communications?
You know, they are making text book ‘business change’ mistakes; the first of which, Stephen, you have rightly idenitified as not giving a date for when the next piece of news will come out.
They’re treating the communication of organisational change as if it were a policy announcement: big mistake, they’re very different things.
Jo is right to draw the distinction. Which is why I think talk of a conference debate is wrong. The “debate” took place in the consultation/submission period so unless there is constitutional change needed (and I’m not convinced given how wide the constitution is drawn) it’s not something for conference to debate.
We elect the FE to manage the party – and the sorts of change this report was about come firmly within their competence.
AFAICS the FE has now endorsed this report so all the “communication with stakeholders” has been done.
Mind you I bet it will be a lot more exciting a report as a secret than it will in reality 🙂