The new Federal Board is responsible for setting the strategy of the party. But it can’t do it alone. This strategy has to be passed by Conference – which means that the Board will have to get buy-in from across the party as outlined in Article 5.2 of the Constitution.
The Federal Board shall publicise a timetable for the production of the strategy and its submission for debate by Conference. In preparing the strategy, the Federal Board shall consult widely within the party, including in particular the Parliamentary Parties (as defined in Article 9), all relevant Federal Committees, the State Parties and Specified Associated Organisations.
One the strategy is passed, the Board has to oversee its implementation and report on progress to Conference.
So who are the people who will be charged with such responsibility?
The FB will be chaired by Party President Sal Brinton who starts her second 2 year term on 1st January 2017.
Other members on the Board as of right are:
Leader, Tim Farron
A Vice-Chair of the Federal Policy Committee and Chair of the Federal Conference Committee
Three parliamentarians
One principal local authority councillor (Chris White has been re-elected to this role)
A Liberal Youth representative
English Party Chair (Liz Leffman from 1 January 2017)
Scottish Convener (Sheila Thomson)
Welsh Chair (Rodney Berman)
One person elected by each state party from among its members
The 15 directly elected members announced yesterday, who are:
Elaine Bagshaw – campaign whirlwind who has spearheaded the near tripling of membership in Tower Hamlets and massive upscaling of campaigning activity
Dinesh Dhamja – member from the South West endorsed by Gavin Grant and Nick Clegg
Neil Fawcett – campaigning genius and Councillor from Abingdon
Helen Flynn – Chair of the Social Liberal Forum
James Gurling – Currently chair of the Campaigns and Communications Committee
Nasser Kessell – Activist and campaigner from Portsmouth
Caron Lindsay – me
Gordon Lishman – longstanding activist and Social Liberal Forum director from Burnley
Victoria Marsom – Manager of historic Brent and Eastleigh by-elections and former party Campaigns manager.
Joyce Onstad – Newbie and treasurer of Lib Dem Women
Mark Pack – blogger and co-author of pamphlet calling for a Core Votes Strategy
Pauline Pearce – Hackney Heroine and London activist
Candy Piercy – Training and campaigns guru
Alice Thomas – Incoming chair of Lib Dem Women
Gerald Vernon-Jackson – Leader of Portsmouth City Council Lib Dem Group
It’s a pretty good mix of people who know how to win elections and get our message across.
If you are a party member, you can keep up with what the committees are up to on the members’ area of the website and also from our regular reports on this site.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
15 Comments
It is not just the Federal Board that has its work cut out, the Policy Committee needs to move very quickly. Our Brexit strategy is serving us well at the moment, but this is going to be a fast moving scenario and we need to ensure that liberal principles are upheld however the events unfold.
There are more important issues, addressing inequality, loss of work through globalisation and technology, managing immigration, crisis in our NHS and Education system, collapse of local services, north south divide and all the issues that drove many to vote for Brexit. Furthermore we need a road map for the Spring Conference that outlines how we propose to address the issues.
Really solid group. David Becket’s right on the many other issues we need to address. IMO we’ve been debating at the sidelines a bit at Conference with worthy causes (eg. party shortlists) but sometimes failed to produce anything concrete (eg. nuclear weapons) or address issues at the front of voters’ minds. Where’s our Conference debate and policies on automation at work, economic reform or immigration? The group elected are a strong one though- progress on ways and means to innovate with social media and build a core vote spanning all instinctive liberals would be fantastic.
I endorse what has been said above about the challenges facing Policy Committee but I strongly believe that their top priority needs to be the future of Britain.
Post Brexit about half of all Scots support the break up of the UK and Theresa May seems intent on ignoring the referendum vote in Scotland and Northern Ireland. At the same time the Labour Party are moving towards adopting federalism.
I believe that the only prospect the UK has to avoid breaking up is the adoption of full federalism including an English Parliament. The time is finally right for what has been the historic position of the Liberal Democrats and FPC must now put flesh on the bones.
@Neil McKinnon “the adoption of full federalism including an English Parliament. ”
Yes to full federalism but NO to an English Parliament! To work properly units need to be of approximately the same population so we need Regional Assemblies for England to reflect the diversity of it’s constituent parts. Let’s go for serious localising of decision making in keeping with Liberal philosophy. The continuing implementation of unitary authorities for local government has reduced the number of administrative tiers of government in England making Regional Assemblies more acceptable to the voters.
Rather more germane is to oath or not to oath, that is the question.
More pertinent is to oath or not to oath.
Does the conference have the power to amend a strategy presented by the “Federal Board” (I put it in inverted commas since it’s a daft name). Or to choose a different one?
Three quick thoughts.
1. @ Ian Patterson I assume you refer to Sajid Javid’s notion that every public office-holder should swear an oath of allegiance to British values. This loyalty pledge would be expected to cover elected officials, civil servants, and council workers.
I hope the party leadership pour the scorn it deserves on this vapid notion.
2. I hope the Lib Dem powers that be start to present short sharp snappy motions to Conference instead of the three page sub GCSE type essays where everybody forgets the first para by the time they get to the end.
3. My last hope….. for goodness sake get some of the best brains in the universities to do research for policies (as Jo Grimond used to do).
To answer Tony Greaves’ point – yes it does have the power to amend it – and to defeat it or refer it back.
For people interested in the FPC’s new membership, it’s here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/federalpolicycommittee/
@David Raw. Yes, absolutely to all three.
@Leekliberal In the run up to the 2014 Scottish referendum we were repeatedly told by Messrs Cameron, Milliband and Clegg that the United Kingdom was a partnership of four equal partners. If you are going to have proper federalism then the powers exercised by the UK Parliament would have to be the same throughout the UK. In other words everything that is devolved to Scotland would need to be devolved to England. That’s why there needs to be an English Parliament so that you don’t have asymmetric devolution.
Neil Mackinnon – apologies for miss-spelling your name. I see the rationale for what you are saying but I am deeply depressed at it’s implications. If we must have an English Parliament it should, like those in Scotland and Wales be elected by proportional representation. The precedent for PR has been set so Lib Dems need to look at an minimalist English Parliament dealing only at those issues that cannot be addressed by regional assemblies, also elected by PR. It’s called ‘subsidiarity’ so I hope
that our Lib Dem constitutional wonks are thinking this through!
@leekliberal I think it is fair to assume that Lib Dems would push for any parliament or legislature to be elected by PR.
Onice responsibility for domestic policy has been passed from the UK Parliament and Government to the English Parliament it will be up to the English Government to organise itself internally. That’s not for me as a non English person to have a say about. What matters to me is that we have a proper federal parliament and a proper federal government which is only responsible for the same portfolios (defence, foreign policy, international aid, trade and macro economics) throughout the whole country.
Theory on federalism is one thing. Reality is another. England is somewhat richer and massively more populated than Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Any federal relationship in which one partner is far bigger than all the others put together is bound to be asymmetric. Decisions will be taken at the devolved level in England that willy-nilly affect the rest.
Besides, how can Scots and Welsh deny the English the right to subdivide if they want to?
Simon Banks, I think you are either confusing federalism with devolution, or unaware that the United Kingdom comprises four nations. The number of people in each nation is not relevant, which is why Westminster has, depending on the amount of devolution at the time, always legislated for one or more of the four nations, not for fragments of a nation.
If the federal upper house were based on the four nations, a legislative majority would have to be forged across representatives of more than one nation. Representation in the lower house would no doubt continue to be based on population, with no guarantee that a majority would include representatives from more than one nation. This is precisely the distinction in the US between Senate and House of Representatives.
To my mind, each of the four UK nations could do with a massive dose of internal devolution. This is certainly true in Scotland, as it is in England.
If you want to keep the United Kingdom together, you need to be aware that it could be seen as a gerrymander if you create a federal UK and sub-divide England, which has been a single kingdom since 927 AD. An independent England could of course organise its government as it saw fit, but the English should not attempt to impose on the Scots and Welsh their view of who the nations of the UK are.