It is nice for us LibDems to be heading towards our holidays with a bit of a spring in our step, due to a couple of reasonably sanguine by-election results.
We do have reason for confidence in the long-term due to robust structures in our party which mean we are “bomb proof” in three areas where the Tories have just received three direct hits.
Firstly, there is candidate selection.
We have a local selection process bolstered by independent returning officers. The process is sacrosanct. No Lib Dem leader is going to override it. If they did, there would be mayhem. The leader would be found hanging upside down from a lamppost in Cowley Street with his sandals stuffed into his mouth.
In sharp contrast, David Cameron overrode the Conservative candidate selection process at the Ealing Southall by-election, with shattering consequences for his reputation and that of his party.
Secondly, there is the policy-making process.
Again, the LibDem policy-making process is laid down in concrete in vast detail. Those of us who have attended conferences know that the debate and voting process is painstakingly democratic. For those of us who have tried getting to speak or proposing a motion at conference, we know that it is not a process which can be hijacked.
The ‘green tax’ and Trident motions in the last year have shown how we devise policy in a thoroughly democratic and transparent way. As a result, we do not have constant after-the-event fights about policy. Once it has been decided by conference, the controversy dissipates. The leader does not contradict what has been agreed.
Compare this to the Tories. Cameron makes up policy on the hoof. If the Grammar School policy had been properly devised and sanctioned by the Tory conference, there would not have been the recent debacle surrounding that policy. Cameron has embarked on a tokenistic green PR campaign. But what support does that have from Tory members? The only time they have had a chance to formally vote on green issues, they voted against. I refer to the last Conservative autumn conference where members rejected a motion suggesting cheap flights were “a false economy” by 57% to 43%. Museum entry. With the LibDems we would agree such a policy in advance. With the Tories, the front bench spokesman posited his own policy and then the leader sat on him within hours. This crazy policy-on-the-hoof rigmarole is causing chaos for the Tories.
So let’s give ourselves a pat on the back for a change. We have a water-tight policy making process. Yes, we may be criticized for our policies, but at least we agree on them in a democratic way.
The third area where we are “bomb-proof” is that we have a leader who does not believe in stunts.
I was much taken by Ming’s recent statement: “You can lose your reputation in an hour, and it will take 10 years to rebuild.” Very wise words. William Hague trashed his reputation in ten minutes with the baseball cap. David Cameron has taken a little longer. The seminal moment in the shredding of Brand Cameron appears to have been, looking back on it, the bicycle with the chauffeur driving behind with the shoes. I notice that audiences still laugh about this, to this day. The label “Sham Cam” is beginning to stick.
Ming will not make schoolboy errors. He will stick things out. and is more than a match for the Brown weightiness which appears to be flavour of the month.
* Paul Walter blogs at Liberal Burblings.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Risotto rice under threat from flamingoes in north-eastern Italy
Taxation truths
Latest PollBase is out, with all the British voting intention polls since the 1930s
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
A remarkable politician
Well done Planting Up Sunniside
Peter Martin
Peter Hirst
David Evans
52 Comments
You forget to mention that Ming is the first Lib Dem Leader in 17 years to fail to win a by election in a Government seat where we are in 2nd place.
Yes the Tories had no success in the by elections but nor did we. We had our worse by elections against the Govt in 17 years.
“Climb every stairway” – you aren’t Grant Shapps, are you? You are following the “insert negative comment and suggest that you are a LibDem” pattern.
Surely, Grant, you have learnt your lesson by now?
Climb every stairway is missing the point we saw off a really very strong Tory challange in the by election which we should take heart from. Also the by election was only 3 weeks another couple of weeks and we could of been in with a serious chance of winning it.
But the Ming point is sketchy as he was clearly outmanovoured by both Cameron (London Mayor)& Brown (Cabinet Jobs)looking rather naive in both cases.
Climb every stairway – you are a hoot! I didn’t mention it because you have mentioned it about twenty million times in various places. Since you were at school at the time, I can tell you that we had three months for the Newbury campaign, as just one example. We controlled the council and had been in second place in every general election since the 1960s at Newbury. In contrast, at Ealing Southall we had three weeks, one councillor and had only been second for one preceding election. I could give similar data for the likes of Christchurch, Littleborough and Saddleworth and Romney etc, but I simply can’t be bothered.
There have been only two by-elections since Labour were in power where the Lib Dems started in second – Dunfermline and Ealing. Trying to make a near-20 year trend out of all of two by-elections isn’t the most impressive of arguments 🙂
Grant Shapps has been sacked, no Lib Dem has. That should give a clue as to who had a bad result and who had a good result…
I like the way you’ve put all this in the article, Paul. Very well made points.
It is interesting to wonder however if Cameron could have done any better or got any further in leadership than his rivals. Davis would have simply kept the party in relative stagnation where as Ken Clarke has admitted if he had tried to modernise the party anything like what cameron had done he would’ve been sacked by now.
The fundamental problem the Tories face now is a generational one. Much like that which Labour faced in the late 80s. The party still too old fashioned to move forward but too unpopular to move back. In 10 years time however I believe things will have changed.
However, overall a good analysis of the strengths our party democracy brings us.
“Davis would have simply kept the party in relative stagnation”
Yes, but he would have alienated far fewer members.
Cameron was tolerated so long as he delivered the goodies. So was Blair, of course, but unlike Cameron, Blair actually did deliver the goodies, and went on doing so right up until his retirement.
Also, all but the most bone-headed in the Labour Party realised that socialism was dead in the water. The politics of the Tory hard right, by contrast, retains plenty of vitality – and is actually practiced in some parts of the world, such as Cheney’s USA.
The US military-industrial-complex dispached Frank Luntz to the UK to get Cameron the leadership. They didn’t like Brown, and feared Davis would lose. If Cameron fails, they will dump him. And they will look for someone else.
Cameron’s political career is about hype and manipulation. And I have the sneaking feeling the electorate is beginning to see through it.
Has anyone told the Lib Dems yet that they lost both by-elections,also lost 250 seats at the 2007 local elections?
What interests me about the byelections is what it says about public engagement with the Tories. It’s clear they want a different Tory Party from the one that’s been around for the last decade. The assumption made by most politicians and commentators – and the Tory leadership – is that they must want one that looks like Cameron (or how he’s presenting himself – young, green, liberal, approachable etc). Ealing suggests that actually they’re happy it’s changing – but they dislike the direction it’s heading nearly as much as the direction it’s come from. If so, that’s a bit of a conundrum for Calamity Cam and his Comedy Conservatives.
No, Jim, they haven’t. You Tories are not really on message, are you?
Regarding the policy creation process, it’s not actually that good.
A tiny, self selecting minority, mostly made up of career politicians and campaigners decide everything at conferences – a case of it not working well is in fact the Trident policy : I took part in an online debate on the subject only to be told that actually our input would be entirely disregarded as the motion was already on paper and couldn’t be amended before the conference, despite acknowledging several flaws.
Worse still for all his parliamentry experience and hands-on activity Sir Menzies Campbell is probably the most unreachable of the Party leadership – during the leadership election (that I paid a donation towards when asked, on top of paying my membership) he (and his entire office staff) failed to respond to email (unlike John Hughes who has personally responded to the same question, along with other senior party members). In fact I still haven’t heard back from anybody in his office about our drug policy – despite him saying back in march that the RSA report was a wakeup call.
The Manifesto discussion site seems to be a waste of time – you can’t even get any even slightly contreversial (or liberal) topic discussed, and nothing results from it.
So unless you’re a fulltime campaigner who’s primary interest is getting more seats in councils and parliaments and can spend a huge ammount of time at conferences and networking with the party leadership mere party members don’t get much input – worse still it’s the career politicians that always vote to water down any policy because getting elected is more important that principles behind the party.
Aaron
(card carrying liberal)
Except for your third point I really can’t agree with you less.
Our candidate selection process is a shambles. It’s bureaucratic, requiring a myriad of bizarre rules and ‘so-called’ independent returning officers – who reality are no more than a self appointed clique of ‘human resources’ specialists. The selection rules ban anyone from actually campaigning to win selection and the ban on endorsements mean we have the ridiculous sight of candindates websites pixelating the faces of ordinary party members who just happen to be in the background. It’s no wonder only the ‘great and the good’ have a chance of selection.
Our policy making process is hardly much better. It’s turgid, rigid and pedantic. It results in policy papers full of academic waffle and analysis, written in language that our opponents can tear apart without breaking sweat – ‘abolish mandatory life sentences’ anyone? The FPC sits over this shambles – desperate to protect its ludicrous ‘expert’ status like some medieval princelet – interfering in the process of communicating and promoting policy with a bureacratic swagger learnt from years of mixing in the refined atmoshpere of academia never having to talk to a real voter – for that would be beneath them.
It’s time to sweep these bureaucratic monaliths aside and introduce rationalised, efficient and inclusive systems for both developing policy and selecting campaigning candidates.
What refreshing views Dan and Aaron. I have been both a conference rep and a returning officer and I didn’t select myself or appoint myself in either case. (I am neither at the moment and I do not hold any office or anything in the LibDems except being a member.) I am not a “human resources” specialist either.
The rules on pixelating out photos are the same for all candidates, including the “great and the good” – whoever they are.
And I have come across scores of people who are conference reps and PPCs who would not be described as the “great and the good” by any manner of means.
I think you both brilliantly highlight areas for improvement, but I did write my comments in a comparison with the Conservatives whose leader overrides the candidate selection process and whose policy making process is top-down.
Candidates are allowed to campaign in that they can visit members and get their A4 leaflets sent around.
The FPC contains 8 MPs and numerous councillors who have to face voters to get elected to those roles and also have to be elected, mostly by the conference, to the FPC.
“Career politicians” have as much voting power as hundreds of other reps at conference – most of whom are not career politicians. If they are “politicians” they are normally councillors in their spare time.
One further point about the conference. Your local party executive committee (or LDYS committee) elects conference representatives. I have usually found that they are scrabbling round to find volunteers so I suspect they would welcome volunteers. (If you are worried about the cost of conference you can go as a a steward and get paid a small amount and not have to pay to get in.) If you don’t want to go to conference it would be worth finding out who your local or LDYS conference representatives are an bend their ear.
Someone really ought to tell “Climb Every Stairway” that if he’s going to try and pass himself off as a Lib Dem by using a song title from from the Liberator Songbook, he really should quote it CORRECTLY.
Another point on Aaron’s comment:
“So unless you’re a fulltime campaigner who’s primary interest is getting more seats in councils and parliaments and can spend a huge ammount of time at conferences…”
Most conference reps use their annual holiday to go to conference. Most of them have full time jobs outside of politics. So this comment doesn’t actually apply to the vast amount of conference reps.
I am not mittidly a particularly active returning officer – I have only done one selection so far – but I am certainly not a human resources specialist. When I went on the training I was a student and admittidly the youngest person their by some time but like most other parts of the party the people their were all volunteers from a very diverse range of backgrounds.
I agree that we need to be very conciouss of not making our selection rules overly beauracratic or seeking to solve every problem simply with a new rule but that is a slightly different matter.
As for you comments about FPC:
“swagger learnt from years of mixing in the refined atmoshpere of academia never having to talk to a real voter – for that would be beneath them.”
The chair is the party leader, who certainly talks to voters, one of the Vice-Chair is Steve Webb MP who like Ming has a job that deepends on engaging with voters. Both other vice-chairs Sal Brinton and Jeremy have considerable experiance of engaging with voters. Look at the election results from Watford where Sal is PPC and I think you could only conclude that she is rather good at communicatting with voters!
As for other members of the FPC pressent and past I can think of plenty of examples of people who have lots of hands on campaigning experiance. If you think it needs improving you could always stand for it yourself.
I’m a Returning Officer for various selections.
I think real HR professionals (if that’s not an oxymoron) would be horrified at the suggestion that I’m one of their ‘clique’!
There are some kernals of good points in amongst Dan’s comments but they tend to be lost amongst the hyperbole.
“Most conference reps use their annual holiday to go to conference. Most of them have full time jobs outside of politics. So this comment doesn’t actually apply to the vast amount of conference reps.”
Right – so not really normal people, who choose to focus on supporting their family while holding down a fulltime then.
No offense but it seems that unless you sacrifice most of what makes you a normal person representative of the populace you don’t get a say.
Me, I have a 6 month old baby and a disabled wife, and am self employed – where exactly does the opportunity to meet with my local conference rep (I don’t even know who that person is), let alone go to a conference fit in?
I won’t even be able to make the hustings as we can’t get childcare.
The (local) party doesn’t ever reach out to us casual members unless it’s to ask for yet more money. God forbid I should be able to contact anybody except my MP by email.
Heaven help those foolish enough to think they can question policy dictated from above outside of a yearly conference, or even get a reply to an emailed question about specific policy.
I joined the party because I thought that the party would be there to work for it’s members but so far it has felt very much the other way around.. when it comes to requests for me to make a cold telephone call to a complete stranger in ealing who’s probably sick of the by-election fever – the party is quick to ask, when it comes to funding yet more ‘campaigning’ for local councillors – the party is quick to ask (repeatedly, by letter, email, phone).
When it comes to me finding out what those councillors actual polcies are? Nothing.
When I want to find out what happened about the RSA report on drugs, or why our Health Spokesperson in the lords was making statements that contradict current research and party policy on BBC Radio? Zilch.
Aaron: many local parties hold local meetings so that people who can’t go to conference can discuss the forthcoming issues with those representatives who are going to conference. I don’t know if your local party is one that does, but if not it might be worth suggesting to them?
Also, I don’t know if you know, but all the policy consultation papers at conference now have an online element too, so you don’t have to get to conference to take part in the consultation. They go up at http://consult.libdems.org.uk
Aaron, it is good to read your concerns. There is a creche at conference as well as full disabled access/facilities. My wife and I went to conferences with our child when she was six months old, using the creche – and we both had full time jobs at the time.
You could phone your conference reps and have a chat with him/her/them. If you can’t get their phone number try the local party chair or secretary, or, worst case, phone the local party membership secretary who is named with contact details on your annual membership renewal letter.
Most local parties send out regular members newsletters which include local contact details.
Also, many of our local councillors have web sites (either individual or as a group) which discuss their policies and latest activities.
Emailing for answers is not a sure-fire was of getting a response. I have, in the past, had great success getting answers on policy by phoning Cowley Street on 020 7222 0134 and asking to speak to the policy researcher responsible for the subject area concerned.
As you are concerned about policy areas, why not have your LiveJournal added to the Liberal Democrat aggregator? That is a good way of getting responses and influencing people – you can do it here:
http://www.libdemblogs.co.uk/about/
By the way, I also got a request to phone someone in Ealing Southall and I thought it was a wonderful way of getting members involved in the campaign.
A couple of further thoughts. I would add that my wife has been to several conferences and would take great exception to being described as “not normal” – we made a holiday of going to the conference.
Also, two days of the autumn conference are held at the weekend so no time off work is necessary. Indeed, one of the most productive sessions, the consultative sessions, are always held on Sunday afternoon.
I would also point out that the regional conferences are held at weekends and normally have creches, and always have disabled access and facilities.
Aaron, I see your local LibDems have a website with contact names:
http://www.trurofalmouth-libdems.org.uk/contact/
…just in case you don’t already know that.
Truro and Falmouth Organiser
Jeff Muir
Liberal Democrats, 3 Charles Street, Truro TR1 2PQ
01872 242 493
07717 502 498
[email protected]
Sorry Aaron, I realise now that your LiveJournal is not really a political thing but you could start a political/general blog which could be added to the aggregator.
Paul, Mark,
All very helpful.
I pretty much lost interest in my local party when the calender they sent out contained only events to raise money for campaigning, and nothing about meetings to decide policy.
The local party website doesn’t have any news or helpful information apart from some contact details, which I probably have lying around on paper somewhere.
I’ve started a couple of lists on the libdem mailing list server, but that appears to be some kind of secret only a handful of us clued up techies are aware of and nobody with any power would demean themselves to take part in any discussion.
The consult website is news to me – but too late for deciding Crime and Trident, and look – there is nothing on there at all for the policy areas I’m interested in : Technology, Crime, Security.
Aaron, I have a great deal of sympathy for much of what you said – the vast majority of it in fact, but on your statement “I joined the party because I thought that the party would be there to work for it’s members” – I think that’s more the role of trade unions, rather than political parties. People sign up to political parties to get more of ‘their’ people elected to serve the whole public.
However, if you’re actively involved in your local party (and I understand why that’s difficult for you), then an informal support network builds up around you, I feel. People look out for each other – when they’re not busy clambering over each other to get the hot selections 😉
Aaron, It sounds as though your local party could very much do with a livewire like yourself to help them move forward! Coming from Cornwall myself I would imagine that switched-on people like yourself with a technical bakground are thin on the ground.
Lib Dems are an activists’ party and there is a culture of decisions being made by those who turn up. That poses obvious problems for those whose family etc commitments make ‘turning up’ in the trad sense difficult. Maybe Lib Dems online is a good group for you? Islington Lib Dems hold a very successful Pizza & Politics every Sept to go through the conference agenda and grill/brief our reps. Perhaps you could encourage your local party to do the same, at a convenient time, maybe a Saturday afternoon…?
I started writing some comments on this but I think they’ve got too long to put here so I have posted them here instead. While I don’t agree with most of what Aaron and Dan have said I do think they have some good points which should be considered.
I have also posted a blog on this:
http://paulwalter.blogspot.com/2007/07/members-involvement-in-policy-making.html#links
Aaron,
On the IT-related policy front, feel free to get stuck in at http://www.makeitpolicy.org.uk
There’s also a moribund IT policy list at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lditpolicyconsultation/ – which we should probably move to the party’s list server. I doubt anyone would complain if you posted a few comments to get discussion going.
Martin
Sorry to disagree with you Martin, but as that particular policy consultation process has run its course, been through conference, voted on and the party’s policy making process moved on, I’m not sure that’s the best of places to point someone who wants to take part in active policy making 🙂
Mark,
Richard and I consciously decided we would keep it on the boil (although I admit we haven’t very much to make that happen apart from the very occasional IT related post – it’s probably running just about room temperature).
And Aaron did want to know what our policy actually was: we do have policy on open source – and we do have policy on intellectual policy. I’m not sure that it’s on the Federal Website, but it does exist.
Martin
Martin,
I think the IT policies are there with the drug policies…
..in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’.
Hence my annoyance. Specific stuff like that isn’t something local party members can relate to, and very few of them are interested in, and the specialist groups have all pretty much died from party neglect.
Ah yes! Douglas Adams.
One thing occurred to me Aaron. Why not write a posting or two for LibDem Voice on specific policy things about which you obviously have high interest and expertise? For example, why not do one on the transport/air tax/invest proposal which got press coverage today and which you commented on on my blog?
I believe Stephen Tall posted details of how to do it recently on LDV – you basically mail him the article.
I am sorry to disappoint you yet again.
The Liberal Democrats have a defective constitution, in that it allows for conflict of interest and foul play.
Also, the candidate selection process is deeply flawed in that there is nothing to prevent a candidate claiming that as a white man he is in a better position to win on council estates where white working class people are racist and will not vote for a non white person.
The constitution is also managed by incompetent ‘minions’ who deliver the outcome that is desired by the party higher ups rather than justice.
This happens even when barristers, solicitors, councilors, MP’s, MEP’s and Lordships are involved
The party is a bit up its own arse about the level of ‘democracy’ that we have.
Yasmin Number 38
“The Liberal Democrats have a defective constitution, in that it allows for conflict of interest and foul play.”
What do you mean specifically? The constitution is about 400 pages long. Have you read it? I have read most of it.
“Also, the candidate selection process is deeply flawed in that there is nothing to prevent a candidate claiming that as a white man he is in a better position to win on council estates where white working class people are racist and will not vote for a non white person.”
There is nothing to stop someone claiming anything legal during the candidate selection process. It is a free country after all. So what? It doesn’t mean that anyone will take notice of the statements. I am not sure that significant “council estates” even exist in many places these days – they tend to be shared ownership, part buy/rent or housing association owned. And characterising any places as having “white working class people” is an invalid generalisation. And sweepingly accusing any “class” of people of racism is appalling.
“The constitution is also managed by incompetent ‘minions’ who deliver the outcome that is desired by the party higher ups rather than justice.”
Which elements of the constitution are you referring to? All elections for the party have their vote count supervised by the independent Electoral Reform Society. They are not “minions”.
“This happens even when barristers, solicitors, councilors, MP’s, MEP’s and Lordships are involved”
Another extraordinary sweeping generalisation which doesn’t merit rebuttal.
Dear Paul
I am tempted to say ‘I rest my case’. I have read the constitution VERY well and so have the lawyers who studied my case.
In my time there was no one observing the elections just the returning officer!
As for the rest of your comments, I am not going to bother!
Yasmin
Why aren’t you going to bother? I bothered to thoroughly answer your points, why can’t you bothered to answer my points? Aren’t you interested in debate?
What are the specific “weak” points of the constitution which you are alluding to?
When you say “my case” what do you mean?
What elections are you referring to where you say the returning officer only observed them? The presidential and leadership elections are observed by the Electoral Reform Society. The local party selections are observed by independent returning officers. I have been one. They are always chosen from outside the constituency being ballotted so that they have no interest.
If you had lawyers studying the constitution and you say there are weak points, I am assuming you won a legal case against the party did you?
More to the point, Paul, if the party’s constitution and mechanisms were defective, we’d have fallen foul of the Race Relations Act, surely?
Just to clarify my comment number 40, I have added some statements in “***”
“Also, the candidate selection process is deeply flawed in that there is nothing to prevent a candidate claiming that as a white man he is in a better position to win on council estates where white working class people are racist and will not vote for a non white person.”
There is nothing to stop someone claiming anything legal during the candidate selection process ***but that would mean it would need to comply with race relations legislation.***
It is very difficult to have a debate about concepts and the constitution in general without talking about specifics of a case with which I was not involved and have only read a short newspaper article about.
Suffice it to say, all statements in a hustings situation have to comply with all legislation which includes race relations legislation, and are subject to an appeal process and to potential review in the High Court.
43 James
Agreed – as usual you zero in on the essential issue while I am still struggling!
The laws have fallen foul of the RRA. I have already said that I was advised that I have a claim under the RRA for direct discimination on the ground of race against the party.
But I do not have the money to fund it and the Legal Services Commission is still considering my application. It has been long and exhausting process and they make the child support agency look competent.
The elections I am talking about is the selection of candidate for the parliamentary elections for 2005 and the returning officer in my case was the chair of the north west regional executive!
I can’t comment on your case, Yasmin. However, I would only say that you have put an exclamation mark after “the returning officer in my case was the chair of the north west regional executive!”
It is not unusual for the chair of the regional exce to be a returning officer also. The rule which is followed is that the returning officer is independent of the constituency involved – i.e that he or she is not a member of that constituency party and is not a friend or close colleague of any of the participants. So, that does not preclude the chair of the local regional committee. Indeed, if that person is independent as above, then often they are very experienced with the procedures and so well qualified to act as the returning officer.
Yasmin, I feel some sympathy with your frustration, although it’s important not to forget that voting occurs for the specific purpose of dividing opinion into agreed camps of action.
Of course, one may dissent with any balance of opinion and it can be a harsh eye-opener to fall on the side you least expected, but a rationale nevertheless supports all opposing sides whether or not you can comprehend or justify them.
It is a conceit to think that justice is set in stone and doesn’t need to be fought for and argued out, but neither is justice reclaimed by simply reversing decisions, however disagreeable consequences get – situations move on.
It is also complacent to play the blame game and point to a ‘defective’ constitution (illegal, incoherent or self-defeating, perhaps?), as this is destructive and it obscures any personal responsibility of failure to win support.
Elections provide an education in other people as well as oneself – if you can face the truths to be learnt – I’m sure you’ll be valued and make an even better candidate with your experience in the locker.
40 (Paul W) – “All elections for the party have their vote count supervised by the independent Electoral Reform Society. They are not “minions”.”
I’m not sure that’s the case for constituency selections. Even if it were, having the ballots counted by ERS ballot services is not reflection on the fairness or otherwise of the rules.
ERS (well ERS ballot services) run the election on the rules they are given – hence them conducting ballots for Building socities where “approved” and “non-approved” candidates for the board are listed seperately.
I think this is a flawed position by ERS (and why I’m not a member) as they can be used as a brand name to indicate the election is fair.
46 – would an RRA action over a 2005 selection not be out of time by now in any case?
Of course you’re right Hwyel – i was being a bit careless with my language – I was referring to the big elections like the ones for President and Leader.
Dear James S
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
May be I should say that I made it clear that if I lost the hustings in 2005 and when I made the complaint that if a proper and trustworthy investigation found the result to fair, then I will accept the verdict of the members.
I have other ambitions in life and was especially keen to travel to Africa to work in food aid etc.
But the deeply flawed, arrogant, cruel and biased manner in which the party conducted my complaint and the lies and deceit from people who I thought were my friends and comrades in arms, made it impossible for me to move on.
Besides there is so much negative publicity on the net plus the rumours and lies that were spread about me, I am now unable to get a job!
So I have to fight on.
Regarding the suggestion that RRA action might be too late – it is not.
I have legal opinion from several barristers on this.
I do not want to go into it here but trust me, the rra is still current.