I have no natural will to oppose the party leadership – I am, above all, a Liberal Democrat because of our unique party structure and the balance of opinion that allows it through its democratic structure to express a comprehensive view through its representatives. I am one of us because I believe in our ability to hold these representatives to account.
But even internal democracy is difficult to manage – occasionally we don’t work our structure well, and in some recent moves our natural process of internal compromise/external compromise seems to have been reversed. While the technology exists to carry out rapid-fire online and telephone membership votes on party policy, we have not yet built such a system and as such we rely on our Executive and representatives to listen to branches and party organisations and take their views as mandate for or opposition to a given policy.
Now that we are in a position of power, this sensitivity must take on a more concrete form than simple quelling emails or the occasional LDV article. Our problem is that reinvigoration through power of the party at parliamentary level has not been translated into a reinvigorated sense of democracy and power extended to all parts of the party. Conference is simply not regular enough to do us service in our bold new position.
On the issue of fees we have members opposed to anything but the immediate eradication of fees, others who object to anything but a graduate tax and multitudes of minutiae in between. All of these are valid and deserve to be debated. We are, after all, a party of individual views and would not be ‘us’ if we were not. But some of us feel that this freedom – our spirit of openness, for which we are the standard-bearers in British politics and which we hope in government to extend to all citizens, is being eroded within our own party by the one-way nature of coalition policy-making.
I understand that government is government, whipping is whipping and it is not our place to reject our coalition partners blithely and with disdain. But it is not their place to do so either, nor is it fair to demand of us that we ignore our structure or misconstrue our positions to the public and our membership.
Whatever conclusion the party reaches on the issue of fees, it is my sincere hope that it will pass through the open process upon which our democratic identity depends. The members must be allowed a round of free opinion and decision on this issue. And it will not be the last matter that will require it.
This is a chance for we Liberal Democrats to showcase our best (but least understood) quality; our open, public approach to policy. It is a chance to renew our commitments to the membership and the country. Even if full acceptance of government proposals (which, while not abhorrent have not been broadly accepted by the party) is the result of this desperately needed enquiry, this reiteration of our democratic prerogative should at least start to restore the dignity and honesty that our members cannot bear to lose.
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
Geoff Reid
Tom Bailey
Leonora Scipio
Kira Collins
Daniel Walker
4 Comments
I interpret you here as calling for a more open and transparent dialogue between the leadership and the party on the matter of fees. This is to be welcomed, although I am uncertain as to how it is to be achieved.
We can’t make policy openly except at Conference, which is too infrequent to respond to the demands of Government. The Coalition Agreement, while approved at a special conference, was necessarily vague on some issues – particularly tuition fees. You mention using technology to provide another open method of consultation – are you proposing an ‘official’ policy online forum for the membership?
“While the technology exists to carry out rapid-fire online and telephone membership votes on party policy, we have not yet built such a system”
A small correction, we have built the system to consult and communicate with members and supporters at next to no cost, and Lib Dem Voice and HQ use it regularly. It has been available since January 2007
http://survey.libdems.org.uk/
The issue is more that the technology has not yet been built consistently into all our consultation processes. The Federal Policy Committee for example could use Liberty Research to consult representative samples of members on policy development, statement testing, reactions to events and the news etc.
Another issue is that political campaigners don’t always manage the difference between campaigning, consultation, and research well. I frequently for example get party polls that start by requiring me to indentify who I am, and ones that ask leading questions.
Adam –
Something along those lines. If needs be, an automated phone vote would be a start (albeit more expensive than the web versions). An online VPN perhaps, or a custom-designed secure-access server for depositing votes. These are all possibilities. My point is that we should be exploring them and looking at the costs.
If we spend five years in government without revamping our democratic process to closer match the real-time politics of power, we’ll be missing out on the chance to democratically approve or reject policy at the point of review and implementation. It would be an indictment of us if we were to sideline the way we do politics because it’s ‘too hard’ in government.
Andy –
While online polling is a handy way to get a simple reading, I’m referring more to actual policy and amendment votes. It would be great to see the party (and local parties) integrate more official polls as a record of opinion, but they are unfortunately not secure enough to use as a method for deciding on real proposals.
I have always said that the party as a whole needs a centralised system to discuss issues, policy and more, even if it is just a party members forum (where MP’s, Peers etc are active) – it wouldn’t be hard to do, after all, this site has a members forum, but most members aren’t aware of this site or its usefulness, including our MP’s.