In 1951, the Liberal Party fielded just 109 parliamentary candidates. 1959 was better with 216. And in 1979, shortly before the foundation of the SDP, we were fielding 577 – virtually a candidate in every seat.
Most of us have grown up in a political landscape in which our party attempts to field a full slate, at all levels. In the darkest days after the merger, in first-past-the-post European elections cynically rigged against us, we fielded candidates throughout Great Britain even though we knew we would likely win no seats at all. Indeed, I still remember my excitement at the prospect of winning any Euro-constituencies as we headed towards the 1994 European elections (we won two).
So attempts by some in the Party to suggest that we would not field candidates in next year’s Police Commissioner elections have come as a shock.
They won’t be easy for us and the rules have not helped matters by requiring a £5,000 deposit. And we have grave doubts about the concept of Police and Crime Commissioners, some fearing the ‘politicisation of the police’ outside London (people who use this phrase seem strangely relaxed about the metropolis itself, where the function already lies with the Mayor).
But our manifesto said we wanted directly elected police authorities – 17 police commissioners rather than the Tories’ demand for a single voice.
Even more to the point, elections for Police and Crime Commissioners were in the Coalition agreement – and our Parliamentarians were whipped into voting them through.
So any point of principle – namely that we have always opposed this sort of election – has been entirely lost even before the starting gun is fired, something the press and public (if they care) will be quick to spot.
Have we ever consciously abstained before? I am told that we are not fielding candidates for National Parks Authorities – but these are below the radar elections which will have minimal national impact. Elections which by definition must be about one of the public’s biggest concerns – and on which we have a lot to say as a national political party – are quite another matter.
It was arguments like this that clearly led the Federal Executive to accept that local areas must be sovereign in deciding whether or not to stand – and that the Federal Party, the English Party and indeed English regions should not be able to block local decisions. There is also the small issue of the Party’s constitution, which is clear on the role of local parties, namely to secure the election of Liberal Democrats as Members of Parliament, UK Members of the European Parliament and members of local and other elected public authorities.
What now? It is quite clear that we have a political and constitutional duty to contest these elections, even if we do not approve of the concept of what is being elected.
Members should without delay get their local parties, within each policing area, to meet and agree a timetable for selection.
And then get out there and campaign.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Mystery at Witchend is Went the Day Well? and Seven White Gates is A Matter of Life and Death
The long role of the Jewish community in Liverpool
Labour's post-election (non-)honeymoon: The Week in Polls
September now
Farron photos
Peter Martin
Mick Taylor
Michael BG
Jennie
Nell Jerram
17 Comments
“people who use this phrase seem strangely relaxed about the metropolis itself, where the function already lies with the Mayor”
Au contraire! You’ll probably find those of us that are critical of the politicisation of the police force are critical of how and why the Met operates the way it does
“But our manifesto said we wanted directly elected police authorities – 17 police commissioners rather than the Tories’ demand for a single voice.”
Which isn’t such a problem, since police authorities are already made up of elected individuals, just not ones that are for the purpose solely of organising police budgets. The concept of directly electing the police authorities is about publicising the fact they are there and a body that can be engaged with over local policing (something people fail to understand in the current system).
Refining an abstract system into the same but more visible one is a very different topic to a single authoritative voice speaking from a party political platform for an entire area…a LARGE area.
“Even more to the point, elections for Police and Crime Commissioners were in the Coalition agreement – and our Parliamentarians were whipped into voting them through.”
Terrible reasoning. The Tories and Lib Dems are their own party, just because they have compromised to each other to get elements of each other’s agendas through does not mean that the individual party has to agree with it, certainly not local parties. I highly doubt there are local Tory parties in the wake of the coalition agreement looking for anything less than the total abandonment of the EU, for example. That’s their prerogative, as it should be for Lib Dems to not want to engage with the Police and Crime Commissioners farce.
Well said, Chris.
Elected Police Chiefs will decide how to spend taxpayers money, our money. How many times have I heard or read that Liberal Democrats want more police on the beat? A rhetorical question to be sure!
Lib Dems must stand for these elections which is why I was surprised at the motion text passed by the Federal Executive.
The £5,000 deposit is steep but as I understand it the lost deposit threshold is 2.5% can someone confirm this?
On reflection, perhaps this has more to do with spin than money. Obviously the leadership feels that it would damage the party to project a liberal image where policing is concerned – hence the anxiety that these elections shouldn’t coincide with the local elections in the Spring. No doubt it’s now been decided that the best way of avoiding candidates saying unpopular things is to have as few candidates as possible!
Totall agree Chris. I didn’t want these elected commissioners and neither did anyone in my local party, but we have to accept they are now going to happen. As you say, it’s in our constitution that we stand candidates where we can as they aim of our party is to elect Liberal Democrats.
I’ll be pushing my local region to select a candidate (and I hope to be a part of the selection process if possible), I would urge others to contact their regions and ensure we contest all of these PCC elections.
I don’t know why the idea of directly elected police authorities was in our manifesto (I suppose it must have been agreed at Conference sometime, or was it parachuted in?), but it’s nearly as daft an idea as elected police commissioners. I don’t see anything very democratic about leaching the value out of elections, which in my view is what electing people to anything other than tiers of government does. Is democracy in the United States in a healthier state than in this country because they have elections for all sorts of public officials? Probably not. I am no more going to waste my time on an election for a police commissioner than I did on the referendum for a voting system I didn’t believe in.
There is an email circulating tonight from Jonathan Davies (Chair of the English Party) which states that:
“The Federal Executive… decided that the Federal Party will not provide any financial resources to support candidates in these elections, and that there is a presumption against Liberal Democrat candidates standing. As an alternative, individual Liberal Democrats may support non party-political candidates.”
That goes several steps beyond what has previously been said.
Is that your understanding of what was passed – and could you answer my question posed on another thread (which you may not have seen) about whether you challenged the wisdom of making this decision in such a public way (given that it would significantly undermine the efforts of those candidates we do stand) and how you voted on this matter as the representative of local councilllors.
Completely agree, Chris.
(joke) Given that several Lib Dems natural reaction is to oppose people in authority this may end up in a full slate of Lib Dem candidates for police commissioners in reaction to Jonathan Davies’ letter
Some safe predictions:
1. Overwhelming voter apathy
2. Tories will win almost everywhere
3. The voters that hoped to see prisoners scrubbing sewers whilst wearing pink trousers will be sorely disappointed
4. Daily Mail articles exposing their lack of understanding of the separation of the executive and the judiciary
5. The costs of elections will be seen to be taking coppers off the streets
6. A decision to scrap the system will be announced with embarrassing speed
My conclusion is – let them get on with it. We should spend our money, skills and volunteers’ time on elections to bodies that make the law, not implement it.
Hywel –
The Federal Executive did decide not to spend any resources on the elections, although their motion did not make the presumption that people wouldn’t stand (although I think the wording was trying to push people in that direction). The comment that there is a presumption against standing was made by Tim Farron in his email to regional officers telling them what the Federal Executive had decided.
I can’t answer for Chris White, but I think the issue of whether we stand or not was already very much in the public domain before FE or the English Party made any decisions. It was already being debated on several blogs, for example. If expect it was made more discretely the FE would then be accused of trying to make crucial decisions in private. Also, I’m fairly sure Chris isn’t the representative of councillors on FE and is on their under his own right, the principal councillor reps are Keith House and Stan Collins.
Anders – direct quote from an email from the Chair of English Party:
“The Federal Executive, on which Brian Orrell and I represent the English Party, decided that the Federal Party will not provide any financial resources to support candidates in these elections, and that there is a presumption against Liberal Democrat candidates standing. ”
It’s possible Jonathan didn’t check his facts 100% before commenting on a highly controversial issue but it would be monumentally out of character for him to have done that!
Fair point about who Chris represents – but he could still make his position clear. The reports are that the vote was “overwhelming” but there are quite a few people saying things which give the impression that they were opposed.
I did not agree with the Act which created PCC’s any more than I agree with directly elected mayors. But the role is so powerful that we must make sure that responsible candidates are put forward with a sensible manifesto and with an obligation to use their powers for the public good once elected. I think Lib Dems are better placed to do that than either of the other two parties and some (not all) potential independent candidates. My nightmare would be an American form of election where the candidates have to raise huge sums of money to fund their campaign and then have an obligation once elected to the donors.
It’s often said that the London Mayor is the prototype of this system. The Met is obviously not the same as other police services and Boris Johnson has a deputy mayor to do the non-publicity-orientated parts of the police job. And Kit Malthouse is appointed, not elected.
I can’t help thinking that one or two of the forty-or-so police and crime commissioners will find themselves completely out of their depth. With what results?
The English Council Executive (the LIb Dem equivalent of Bilderberg 🙂 have issued the most extraordinary document about what regions now need to do.
Anders – the FE could have passed something along these lines,
“We note Lib Dem concerns about the way in which Police Commissioners could politicise policing, that these have never been a Lib Dem policy but were a concession in the Coalition agreement. Local parties may therefore wish to take a different approach than with other elected positions.
Constitutionally it has always been open to the party to support the election of non-Liberal Democrats where it was felt this helped the party achieve its objectives. Examples can be seen in Tatton (1997) and Wyre Forest (2001 and 2005).
Therefore local parties may wish to support appropriate independent candidates who’s views are not in contradiction of the core beliefs of the party. Decisions about candidates for local government posts are a matter for those local parties involved so we urge the English and Regional parties to draw up guidelines to deal with such situations.
As with all elections the Federal party will support election campaigns in ways which are consistent with the available resources, the prospects of electoral success and the medium and long term objectives of the party. Spending priorities are constantly kept under review by the FE, FFAC and Elections and Skills department.”
On spending that might have amounted to the same – but it wouldn’t have had any impact on local campaigns.
I’ve no problem with the FE saying it won’t spend money on campaigns with little chance of winning – it does that at every election! What we don’t do is tell people where we aren’t spending money as then you just have a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The idea that the FE (or, even more so, the ‘English Party(sic)) could determine what the Liberal Democrats are going to do on these elections is SO comical. Lib Dems in many parts of the country (including many people who spend all their lives campaigning) had already decided to completely give these disgraceful elections for useless expensive interfering busibodies a ‘miss’ and this vote and the subsequent correspondence just reflects that reality.
The idea that Liberal Democrats should contest elections for Police and Crime Commissioners is absurd.
I was delighted by the commonsense and principled news in Mark Pack’s post ‘Liberal Democrats decide to pass up on fighting Police Commissioner elections (mostly)’.
The idea that there has to be a Liberal Democrat candidate for every public election is nonsense. It suggests that we think a Liberal Democrat party candidate will always be the best candidate for any public office and clearly that is far from true.
The idea that putting up a Liberal Democrat candidate for the Police and Crime Commissioner ludicrously suggests that putting a Liberal Democrat label on a candidate will help them when trust in the party is at an all time low.
We would also be buying into the deception that Police and Crime Commissioners will have real power when they will have very little – they will have pretty much only as much power as the current completely invisible police authorities. It is through not much fault of their own that Police Authorities are invisible, and the Commissioners will be much more media friendly, but they will have little power and be bound by all the same restrictions as now. A Lib Dem candidate will not change this but will probably lose the party votes in real elections by a poor result reducing our credibility.
I argued originally that the Liberal Democrats should back an independent in the first Mayor of London elections because it was symbolically important. That was before we had superb Simon Hughes as a candidate, but it was the right call then and it is right now for this.