In November I blogged my suggestions for how the party’s internal election rules should be changed. In brief – fewer restrictions on candidates and voters being able to talk about the contests and who they support, more leeway for online campaigning and a series of steps to encourage more debate and discussion within the party about the elections and merits of candidates. The last point was fuelled by my experience of standing (successfully) for the Interim Peers Panel – and being asked almost no policy questions by voters in the process.
Following the federal committee, interim peers panel and Presidential elections, feedback from candidates and other participants is being gathered with a report and (potentially) recommendations for change going to the Federal Executive in March. Most likely recommendations would then in turn require a vote at party conference, probably in the autumn, though some changes (particularly those of administrative detail) the FE could approve without needing to go to conference.
If you have views and have not yet sent them in, now is the time to do so. Having checked with David Allworthy, if you send them in by 21 January then there is time for them to be included in the process. David can be contacted at david.allworthy AT libdems.org.uk or 4 Cowley Street, London, SW1P 3NB.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Northern Ireland debates the future of its railways in 1957
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Jeff
Nonconformistradical
John Peters
David Raw
Henry
4 Comments
One chnage should be thjat anyone standing as part of an organised slate – ie Liberal Vision or Social Liberal Forum should have to state that they are part of that slate.
Two easy changes to make:
1. Make it much easier to be an approved candidate for non-Parliamentary selections by not using the Westminster approvals process for anything except Parliamentary selections.
I know one superb BME candidate who didn’t even apply for the GLA because he couldn’t get approved on time. Yes there was one special approvals day for the GLA – but it was the weekend after his wedding.
2. Publish indicative timetables for selections several years in advance of elections
Currently you need to be an insider to have the faintest clue when we are planning to select for virtually any level of the party. So, for instance, a brilliant potential candidate who might want to stand for the European Parliament in 2014 currently has no idea whether she should be preparing for a selection in 2011 or 2012 or possibly 2013.
Liberal Vision hasn’t run any slates to my knowledge, internal elections tend to be more an obsession of people who enjoy deciding the biscuit budget by committee.
On that basis, whatever happens to the archaic internal campaign rules might I humbly suggest scrapping
– the Federal Policy Committee
– the Federal Conference Committee
– the International Relations Committee
– the ELDR delegation &
– the peers panel
In the case of the first two these are professional not political functions. Running an effective and balanced policy consultation process or volunteering to help deliver or produce ideas for party conference requires expertise not factional support and should be led in both cases by the staff member employed to deliver that expertise. Political leadership and input, where required, should come from elected politicians.
No one outside the tiny group of internationalists who care would notice if elections to the IRC or ELDR were replaced by appointments or just an FE/MEP selection respectively.
The peers panel creates a tedious opportunity for self promotion that has little bearing on who is finally appointed.
We have better things to spend our scare resources on.
As for electing the FE, it represents and is elected by active local campaigners not the party membership or supporters. It would be welcome if that, along with the right to vote at party conference were widened to the same basis as the party president and leader.
It is worth bearing in mind that apllying to be a GLA candidate, unlike standing for internal party elections, is like applying for a job, and should be treated with the same degree of seriousness and commitment. An indeterminate number of successful applicants (probably between 3 and 5) were guaranteed a job at the end of the process — actually a far higher sucess rate than proportionately one would find on the normal job market!