We Liberal Democrats pride ourselves on being the most democratic Party in the UK. We were the first (and so far the only) major party to have members electing the leaders in a one member, one vote, election. Our Conference is not just a rally; it actually makes Party policy and key committees are elected by members, not appointed by the Leader.
But we are failing to make use of technology to deepen our members’ participation in the Party.
Firstly our main conference is still dependent on people travelling from around the country to stay for 5 days debating policy, but this disenfranchises many of those who would love to take part. The ever-increasing cost of travel and accommodation rules it out for many, even before the reduction in people’s incomes due to the economic crisis. Then there are those who are carers, are ill or very severely disabled or for whom conference is at the wrong time. Teachers are frustrated by travelling to conference for just 2 days and those fighting local elections may not want to give up a whole weekend in March.
There is a straightforward way of resolving these problem of access to Conference – we should be using Skype and other internet technologies to allow those who can’t get to Conference to follow it online, to speak and perhaps even vote.
Secondly we could use technology to involve party members in decisions otherwise taken by Party Committees. Should we allow Conference delegates to choose at least some of the motions on the agenda, rather than leaving the decision to the Federal Conference Committee?
Finally we could involve many more members in Policy Working Parties. Although the Party is open about asking people to nominate themselves for these, who gets selected is deeply mysterious. While there is clearly a need for a strong core of experts in the field under review there is no reason why many more members can’t comments on draft document, listen to the discussions at the Working party meetings and review the evidence put forward, all of which should be straightforward with the use of technology.
The Party has already made some great steps – the webcasts that have been run for members recently have been excellent. But they have been essentially a more advanced way of pushing information out. The great gain will be if we can use the web to involve members in building a more democratic, participative and accessible party.
* Simon McGrath is a councillor in Wimbledon and a member of the board of Liberal Reform.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Scandic
The Joy of Six 1276
West End Ward Thursday Surgeries #dundeewestend
India - the centre of the known world (once upon a time)...
Katharine Pindar
Jack Nicholls
Nick Baird
Mary Fulton
Nonconformistradical
28 Comments
Well, it’s a funny old world. I posted this yesterday to start exactly that campaign http://aviewfromhamcommon.blogspot.com/2012/10/im-starting-camapign-to-make-most.html
I also believe all members who attend conference should be able to vote – not just voting reps
@Richard – and there was Paul Walters piece on LDV earlier this week. It is an idea whose time has come !
Why not save the horrendous expenditure of much needed party funds annually spent on conferences by quitting such and e-putting the whole shebang more democratically on an all-inclusive interactive online paid-up member participative e-facility…
I agree with much of what you write, Simon. I also agree with Richard that every member of the party should have a vote at Conference, as we do in Scotland.
Can I just ask a little bit about the technology, though? How do we make sure that the voting is secure? If speeches are to be made by Skype, does that not depend on the quality of the mic and camera that the person has at their end and could it not look really bad and be inaudible at times if the connection isn’t right?
I don’t think we can just rely on technology, though. There is something really special about being there with your friends and Lib Dem family so we need to look at how we make Conference cheaper and more accessible. Do we need to have a bursary fund so that people can get grants to go? Stewarding doesn’t suit everybody, but that’s a cheap option and there’s always cheaper accommodation available.
And Conference isn’t just about taking part in the debates – can we look at ways of streaming some of the fringe meetings, too?
More remote participation would, of course, give a voice to those who can’t or won’t participate because of accreditation, a flawed system which I don’t believe makes anyone safer.
Can I repeat my request that we look at things that aren’t Skype? Skype’s fine if you’re using one of the relatively few devices that Skype choose to support, but since it’s proprietary software using a secret protocol, you’re out of luck if Skype don’t choose to support you. There are open standards for videoconferencing such as SIP which are well supported on all the platforms that Skype is, and more.
I’m standing down from my regional exec because it’s replaced our officers’ phone conference with a Skype solution I can’t use. I haven’t been able to take part in any of the webcasts because they’re using Mac- and Windows-specific technology. The choice to use closed platforms is disenfranchising, and goes against our commitment to free people from conformity.
Caron, voting at Conference isn’t secret which makes arranging online voting a lot easier. Actually, another argument for open standards instead of Skype is that people’s videoconferencing to make speeches etc. could directly use their Liberal Democrats Account, rather than having to use the registration process to try and tie their Lib Dem identity to a Skype account…
I too agree – although I suspect there would be significant resistance from “the establishment” as not only would this enable current not attendees to vote (whether their reasons are physical, financial etc. etc. ), it would also mean that a proportion of current attendees would stay at home and e-participate. This would cause a few things – 1) loss of sponsorship – why sponsor an event when no-one is there ? Also why pay for an exhibition stand when no-one is there? These are major revenue sources for the party – as they are for the other parties. 2)Less people there = less people on tv cameras = us looking like no-one is participating…..
@Brenda – The conference is essentially self-financing (through income from registration fees, exhibitors, advertising, etc.) so does not incur net expenditure, “horrendous” or otherwise!
@Everyone else – I broadly support these views and, with modern technology, there is much greater scope to involve more party members. However, there is a risk of seeing democratic policy-making purely in terms of the formal proceedings at conference. We also need to involve more people in the gestation of policy. Simon McGrath’s point about policy working groups is well-made, but there are also many informal opportunities. Local parties should augment their campaigning activities with more policy discussions (which many already do through ‘pizza and politics’ evenings, for example), and involve more members in developing and drafting motions or discussing policy papers. This sort of activity requires no technology or expense at all, and there’s no excuse for not doing it.
Above all, we should remember that policy-making should be a deliberative process, not just a passive vote on ‘here’s one I made earlier’ motions. So we should not confine this discussion merely to voting procedures but consider participation in the context of the whole process of how policy is formulated.
Part of the fun of conference is about getting people together. What is really wrong is expecting people to trek to the most convenient seaside resort for our London centric management, – all credit to those who trecked from the North.
After next Spring can we have a total ban on south coast resorts, especially as their hoteliers don’t have any idea about standards, but do know how to bung the prices up just for our week.
I agree entirely, Simon, about involving members in policy discussion, the self selecting approach to drafting policy is dubious. Every fringe and every consultation session produces people from the audience who are expert in their field, every policy motion has wording flaws in it, such as the housing paper, that would have been put right if the draft had been shared with Members who work in the field. A simple audit of Members’ skills and occupations would show what a wealth of knowledge we have just waiting to be made use of… and wouldn’t that help the membership to feel included?
Reps prioritising the motions was something I pursued a few years back. FCC said there wasn’t time in the schedule, so they had to do it (keeping control?), but now with full use of email it could be a ‘respond in 48hrs’ exercise.
Having worked in two policy groups I can testify to the fact that it is hard enough as it is even with that limited number of people. But the idea of throwing the discussion open online every so often – in place of the consulstation sessions at conference – is a very sound one. It’s one that current policy working groups could consider right now. It does, though, depend on having a strong core rapporteur/adviser capable of taking in all the comments and evaluating their implications, etc while ensuring the whole thing is reasonably coherent – difficult since the party can afford few paid staff.
Finally something on which we can agree Simon 🙂
Working in the industry can I say the technology is not quite ready for this… There are financial, political reasons (as Grace suggests) for not doing it too but the biggest issue is the technology… At work we have a system called BeThere that is used but not for voting – it could cope with the numbers viewing and we have a texting system that could be used for voting but they are not accurate enough and would (ATM) not really allow for clear democracy or two way participation…
I have never fully understood why we have representatives rather than one member one vote… I can see pros and cons!
(Sorry for the shameless plug)
As it happens, this idea of widening access to and participation in conference is one of the key issues I’m interested in as a candidate for the elections to the FCC:
http://thepotterblogger.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/george-potter-for-fcc.html
For the Federal Party to become more democratic it needs to adopt one member one vote for all internal party elections. Forget the technology aspect, change the rules to be more democratic.
On the practical side of things, the BBC already live streams the conference debates so all that’s needed is an online voting system – of which several already exist.
Yes, some people might vote without watching the debates but that happens at conference already. And yes, let’s not forget that there are people without internet access who’d still be excluded under such a scheme.
But such a scheme is, as far as I can make out, well within the realms of technological possibility (the German Pirate Party already use a much more complicated online system for policy making) and, more importantly, should drastically expand the accessibility of conference to our members. It can’t be right for just 350 voting reps to make policy for a party of 45,000 people and anything which offers even a partial remedy to that should be jumped upon.
George Potter
It can’t be right for just 350 voting reps to make policy for a party of 45,000 people and anything which offers even a partial remedy to that should be jumped upon.
OK, but can it be right for a small number of obsessive nerdy types who are happy to spend hours on-line in internet discussion groups (amongst whom I include myself) to make policy? This sort of thing reminds me of when I was a councillor and there were people (mainly of the obsessive nerdy type) who insisted all council decisions could be made by on-line referendums. How many people have actually ploughed through a typical council committee agenda (I mean in the days before Blair abolished the committee system, so that councillors had real decision making to do)? Many of the decisions to be made are mind-blowingly tedious, and I often found it hard to motivate myself to do the reading and contribute to the decision. So it seemed to me the ideas of thousands of borough residents wanting to do that every night instead of doing what they actually do in the evenings was rather far-fetched.
To me one of the most surprising things about the internet is the way it doesn’t seem to have improved democracy. We need only look at Liberal Democrat Voice to see how it is dominated by the same few people, whose nerdish determination to keep pressing their own viewpoint (yes, as I said, I include myself) tends to drive out others. And it has managed to keep relatively sane and well-mannered compared to other internet discussion arenas I’ve been involved in (grudging thanks to the moderators).
The problem of finding a decision making mechanism which is inclusive and representative, and yet does not deteriorate to the dictatorship of those who have time on their hands (I don’t, but e.g. I never watch television, which gives me a few hours each day other people don’t have) remains.
George not saying it is that far off! Gradually getting there but of course the industry likes people meeting in one place….
As George mentioned, the Pirates in Germany have been using the Liquid Feedback system to discuss and decide party policy, and it (or something similar) is something I think the party should be actively looking into. (see here for more: http://www.nickbarlow.com/blog/?p=1813)
The problem with saying that anyone who goes to Conference can vote is that it then weights the votes in favour of whoever can attend Conference. There are plenty of barriers to people being there, notably cost and time, and the principle of a representative democracy is meant to alleviate those problems. Not everyone can make it to Conference, and electing representatives means we can have a balance of votes from across the country, rather than anyone who lives within easy access of the venue swamping the votes.
Electronic voting on motions is superficially enticing, but there are a lot of risks in it. There are all sorts of issues with system security that need to be addressed – the same ones that get brushed under the carpet by people proclaiming we should vote in regular elections on the internet – and even if that’s addressed, there’s the question of when people get to vote. Are they allowed to vote at any time in the run up to Conference, thus making it into a referendum on policy with a debate at the end, after most minds are made up and votes are cast? Or do we expect them to vote at the same time as conference delegates having watched (and possibly participated in) the debate?
I am pleased to see so much support for this idea, and for widening access to Conference more broadly.
@Dave Page, I certainly wasnt intending to suggest that we use any particular type of technology @ Caron – you are right of course that therer will be issues about technical quality to be sorted out
@Simon Titley – I completely agree with you, very important not to forget discussing policy at a local level.
I am standing in the election for FCC on a platform of making Conference more accessible and democratic and hope that those who agree with this article will consider voting for me
@Simon McGrath – “I am standing in the election for FCC…” I trust that the timing of your opinion piece is entirely coincidental.
At last! After many years where the system handed down from the Lib/SDP merger seemed sacrosanct, moves for reform are welcome.
One of the failings of the current system is that we finish up with policies that, once approved by Conference, become ‘official’ until and unless Conference revisits the topic. So, 95% of the time they are givens and this, for all its democratic legitimacy, has serious drawbacks.
Firstly, there is a lack of coherence across the policy spectrum as I have commented in earlier LDV posts (eg Bill le Breton’s most recent one). I would hope that the FPC tries to identify which issues are most important and where clashes might occur and that this is reflected in their briefs to working parties. In practice, I see no evidence of such co-ordination. Certainly the output is very disjointed and prone to degenerating into policy lists.
Secondly, it is inevitably ponderous and moves only at a stately pace. Committees’ natural biases mean that policy tends to stay in familiar ruts even when there is clearly a problem (eg on the EU) and any attempt at blue sky thinking is soon countered with the riposte, “Actually, the Party’s policy on that is xxx”. As a small party, one of our biggest advantages should be nimbleness. In practice, we are far more likely to have our clothes stolen than to steal others’.
Thirdly, important topics don’t comfortably fall into the description of ‘policy’. The obvious thing here is ‘narrative’ – an overarching sense of what we are about that is still missing in action more than 20 years after the merger. The existing approach has been entirely unable to address this deficiency.
Fourthly, there is the question of what it means for the leadership. As the tuition fee debacle so graphically illustrated, we can easily finish up with a policy the leadership itself didn’t want and doesn’t support and a base that is very unhappy with the leadership when it acts as it sees fit – as it must.
The way to resolve these problems is to have a leadership that, well, leads. His/her main tasks are to co-ordinate, to prioritise, to articulate, to evangelise. Those are things that can ultimately only come together in the head of a single person (good advisors are also necessary). We have instead devised a system that puts a bureaucracy in the driving seat. It reduces leadership elections to a beauty contest in which all candidates necessarily support existing policy with only the most nuanced differences. If their true position is somewhat different that comes out only after the election creating much unhappiness all round.
This implies a very different approach to organisation; one that supports the emergence of ‘big beasts’ from among the MPs who win support by developing and articulating their own platform within the LD universe but who the membership and Conference keep on a short tether as the Premiership does with its managers. For them the message is either perform or move out; this club is more important that you! (The difference is that for liberals it would be the season ticket holders who hold the whip hand while the Tories are more like the real-life Premiership – it’s the big money that’s in control).
Utilising the latest technology to create a more perfect Athenian-style democracy (ie all ‘citizens’ get to vote) via Conference seems like the obvious way to go but is it necessarily the best solution? Are there any policy resolutions over the last 20 years that would have had a different outcome? Will it change the dynamic to improve the Party’s messaging in any way? Will it increase the agility and quality of the leadership? I don’t see that it would.
@Simon Titley
Sorry, Simon I do not believe your sweeping under the mat statement that conferences do not incur net expenditure, “horrendous” or otherwise!
Brenda – see the party accounts. Conference income is around £1.5 million, conference expenditure around £800,000
Okay… I respectfully yield to Simon Titley and Hywel… and… as the Lib Dem party conferences appear to be so profitable… over and out of this e-debate!
Spring is loss making but I think the party would shoot anyone who tries to cancel spring!
Conference also has huge targets to meet, that has been challenging in recent years!
In fact, conference is one of the party’s major sources of campaign funds – and anybody who proposes changing it needs to be certain that their changes won’t cause that money to be lost, and hence the seats it funds.
Given that there’s less than ten sites in the whole country which are large enough to host an Autumn conference, eliminating two of them would be a bad idea. It’s supposed to move around the country so that everybody has a chance to attend – not just those who happen to live in the north where hotels are cheaper.
As for changing the voting mechanisms – keep in mind that this is a fundamental constitutional change to the party, and as such will need a well-thought-out and specific proposal in the form of amendments to the federal party constitution and the standing orders.
As a new member hoping to stand in local elections next year, I feel a long way from the centre of Liberal Democrat policy making. That’s not a surprise but don’t miss the point that this is exactly what many voters feel about democracy. That’s why a lot of people don’t vote.
There is a new democratic debate building online that does not take place in the ancient structures of conference halls and committees. It is largely apolitical and issue based. But it is real people making the comments on Twitter, Facebook and blogs galore. They are all potential voters.
If the Lib Dems are to win seats in 2015, let alone in next year’s local elections, we need to harness social media and online technology to the fullest. If the creaking, cumbersome structure of political parties were still relevant to the majority of people, party membership would be in the millions.
The Lib Dems can lead in integrating its communications and decision-making structures into social media or limp behind. It can help lead a political revolution or chase after it. Which is to be?
Is a possible compromise a much more open/deliberative/online Spring conference (especially if that is loss-making)?