Liberal Democrats

Preview of English Lib Dem Executive – Sat 23rd Jan 2016

Saturday sees the first English [Liberal Democrats] Council Executive (ECE) of 2016. Put out the bunting! I wrote a short explanation of what the body does just over a year ago.

The first part of the meeting contains the usual reports from officers of the English Party (Chair, Treasurer, Vice-Chair and Candidates) and its reps to other party bodies (Federal Executive (FE), Federal Conference Committee (FCC), Federal Policy Committee (FPC) and the G8 local election grants scheme), although within these there are sometimes substantive issues that need discussion. Some of these officers also chair committees which also report back, such as the Vice-Chair chairing the Regional Parties’ Committee and Treasurer chairing the English Finance and Administration Committee. I have included a section on the membership of the committee and various other elected reps at the bottom of this post. The second part of the meeting involves reports on particular areas of work of the English Party at the moment.

Due to space and time I am not going to go in to every item that is due to be discussed at ECE and instead I just pick out the key parts that I think are OK to be in the public domain (do let me know if you think something shouldn’t be or there’s something you like discussing). I have long argued for all agendas and reports to be available on the party website for members to look at if they wish, which would help negate the need for me to do this although giving my view on the areas being considered I would continue with. Getting the reports to be circulated or included on the party website has been hindered slightly by vacancies in the relevant parts of Lib Dem HQ and the need to spend time double-checking everything for anything that shouldn’t be available to the public. Personally, I think very little that we discuss really needs to be kept that secret and will be of little more than of passing amusement to the opposition. However there is a proposal to the ECE meeting tomorrow that should push this along a bit more quickly and I assume will be uncontroversial as almost none of the English Party’s work has ever been that secret, except in the tiny handful of cases where it involves named individuals such as party disciplinary issues or employment situations. An appropriate balance needs to be struck, which may not always be just right, but I can assure members that it is certainly considered properly.

The main issues for noting or discussion tomorrow are:

Diversity motion to conference – this is to improve diversity within the parliamentary party by allowing any local party to request an all-women or all-disabled shortlist for selections or to have reserved places on it for specific groups, and to require all local parties with retiring MPs to choose from an all-woman shortlist and similar provisions for a specific proportion of seats that achieved above particular levels of support at the 2015 General Election. Although candidates are the responsibility of each state not the federal party, there is clearly a desire from many for conference to take another view on positive discrimination, with states then expected to come up with the rules to make this happen. This will no doubt be a source of some controversy at conference and within the party and so probably needs to be debated in a larger forum. I remain unconvinced that the biggest problem is at the selection stage anymore, but is instead earlier in the process, but I do agree it needs to be debated.

Regional employment of Campaigns Staff – a source of considerable discussion at the last couple of ECE meetings has been the restructuring of HQ staff that saw all campaigns officers directly employed by Lib Dem HQ rather than any regional involvement as largely happened before. A number of regional parties have been very unhappy about this and been pretty strident about their opposition to it and despite an attempt by the English Party Chair to broker a compromise, this hasn’t been successful. Personally, I think having a centrally employed campaign resource to be deployed where needed is sensible, although I’ve been in a considerable minority on this within ECE. Previously, regional parties were able to have some influence over the work of campaigns staff and able to employ someone specifically for their region by sharing the cost with party HQ. With party HQ employing people directly, it will mean that regions will need to find other ways of funding any campaign posts they create, and I am very much keen to see this progress as building local campaign skills is a good area for regions to work on (in conjunction with my own employers at ALDC).

Operations Committee – this is a new committee that has been created by the Federal Executive to oversee the day-to-day running of the party. This has occasionally existed before in different guises, but has often involved people who are too busy in other roles to do it effectively. Its membership is the chairs of state parties and chairs of the key federal committees. Hopefully this will ensure that the different committees and Lib Dem HQ work together more effectively and talk to each other properly on a regular basis rather than operating in silos and then getting grumpy with each other when they hear about things on the grapevine (which may or may not be true) or after the event.

Wired Working Group – FE has created a working group to review the party’s IT strategy and how the party supports digital activities more effectively.

Federal Conference – due to the introduction of one-member one-vote and to help the party use its funds more efficiently, the exhibition at the York Spring Conference will be considerably scaled back. Autumn Conference is moving to hold more of the event on the Saturday which will mean finishing on the Tuesday rather than the Wednesday.

English Party Strategy Review – this was a paper adopted by the English Council (EC) last November on the ‘strategy’ for the English Party going forward. Some parts of it were controversial which led to it very nearly being referred back, although when this failed it was passed quite comfortably. For now, the English Party is concentrating on those areas that are more straightforward and less controversial or where there is a clear route for dialogue. Whilst I supported the strategy paper at EC, largely because I thought there were enough bits I agreed with for me to support it and also because I think the English Party needed a document on which to focus its attentions, I am hopeful that the implementation of it will be done steadily to allow further discussion on those bits that were less universally supported and because the Federal Party is involved in its own strategic review, parts of which overlap with this. The areas currently prioritised are campaigning (largely about how we boost skills on the ground and the roles of regional parties in this – see above), membership (looking at involving existing members further and how we recruit and retain members in the future) and organisation (how the English Party is run and implementing one-member one-vote).

Finally as promised…

Membership of ECE

ECE is slightly different in its membership from last year, albeit not massively, and is comprised of the following members:

Officers Elected by English Council: Steve Jarvis (Chair), Richard Brett (Candidates’ Chair), Antony Hook (FE rep) and Geoff Payne (FCC and FPC rep).

Ordinary Members Elected  by English Council: Margaret Joachim (Elected Vice-Chair by ECE), David Hughes (Elected Treasurer by ECE), Paul Hienkens, Rachelle Shepherd-Dubey, Simon McGrath, Gerald Vernon-Jackson, Paul Clark, Brian Orrell, Justine McGuinness, Dawn Davidson and myself.

Regional & Liberal Youth Chairs: Adam Killeya (Devon & Cornwall), Gavin Grant (Western Counties), Tahir Maher (South Central), Paul Hienkens (South East), Ade Adeyemo (West Midlands), Phil Knowles (East Midlands), Stephen Robinson (East of England), Chris Maines (London), Stewart Golton (Yorkshire & the Humber) and Amanda Hopgood (North East). The North West regional chair’s position is currently vacant. Sophie Thornton represents Liberal Youth.

ECE has already agreed to co-opt Anne-Marie Curry (Diversity Champion) and Lucy Nethsingha (ALDC rep).

A year ago my comment on diversity proved controversial when it was picked up by Lib Dem Voice, and whilst it’s got better it’s still not great. On gender 6 of the 25 (24% this year, and 12% last) are women. On other areas of diversity it’s harder to comment as I don’t necessarily know which groups people fit in to but taking two areas that I feel I’m on fairly safe ground on then amongst all of ECE at least two of the 25 (8%, last year 4%) are BME and at least 5 of the 25 (24%, last year 16%) are LGBT+. When you break these things down it often shows a different picture – such as no female chairs last year and only one this, but all of ECE’s BME members are regional chairs. Both of the current co-optees are women, which was partly because of their roles within the party but gender was a consideration and will marginally improve the male/female split to a still embarrassing 70% male/30% female. We simply need more women standing to be regional chairs (and there have certainly been many in the past, although not having reviewed the figures I’m not sure if this a temporary blip or a longer-term issue) and of course also an improvement in numbers standing as directly-elected members.

Committees

ECE has three standing committees with the membership of each elected from within ECE, although it can (and usually does) co-opt other people to improve diversity and to bring in specific skills:

English Finance & Administration Committee (EFAC) is in charge of the funds of the English Party and liaises with the departments of Lib Dem HQ with which there is a service level agreement such as membership and candidates. Members elected are Paul Clark, Brian Orrell, Rachelle Shepherd-Dubey and Gerald Vernon-Jackson. It is chaired by the Treasurer David Hughes and Chair Steve Jarvis is an ex-officio member.

Regional Parties’ Committee (RPC) deals with membership, compliance and disciplinary issues. Members elected are Dawn Davidson, Tahir Maher, Geoff Payne and myself. It is chaired by the Vice-Chair Margaret Joachim and Chair Steve Jarvis is an ex-officio member.

There are two further posts that have been elected by ECE – Paul Hienkens is English rep to the International Relations Committee (IRC) and Anne-Marie Curry is Diversity Champion.

 

The post where I try to explain Farron’s religious dilemma, by comparing it to how I became a Liberal Democrat

Some years ago I attended a memorial service for a friend of mine. At it, one of the people giving a eulogy said something along the lines of “As someone who goes through the same conflicting emotions, I know how hard it was for him trying to reconcile his sexuality with his Christianity.” It was a very emotional part of the event, and it stuck with me and I still remember it many years later. Not only because the person giving the eulogy had at that time spoken little about his own sexuality, but also because many of those who knew the person for whom the memorial service was being held probably didn’t know he was a Christian. But this must be something that affects thousands of people in this country. It is also a conflict that will affect many more people who whilst not gay, have a strong Christian identity and have strong liberal convictions.

I deliberated a while before writing this post, as adding yet another post to the discussion about what Tim Farron’s attitudes are or are not on both religion and the morality of homosexuality or abortion, didn’t necessarily feel helpful. But when the quote above came to mind again, it felt like something I wanted to get off my chest. As someone who doesn’t believe in any religion and was brought up in a resolutely atheist household, wading in to any discussion on religion is also perhaps not helpful.  However that’s what I am about to do.

I imagine being a Christian has many parallels with how people such as myself became Liberal Democrats. We hadn’t initially thought about why we were, we just sort of knew deep down that it felt right. Later on as you read more about it, you get to know more people involved and you start to deliberate either with others or internally some of the issues that arise, you realise that your gut instinct was right, and yes you are a Liberal Democrat. But like being a Liberal Democrat you also find some of the things that are said or that are written don’t tally with quite how you feel about the world. Largely they aren’t fundamental issues, but they are places where if pressed you find it hard to reconcile your gut instinct view with the accepted view of what being a Liberal Democrat is about. In the end you have to accept that no one will ever agree on what is ideologically pure and even if they could then everyone’s beliefs are always a bit of a compromise as you have also been heavily influenced by other life experiences, the opinions of others or you simply just take a different view from the accepted wisdom of other Lib Dems.

I once wrote a comment on a blog where I disagreed with the party’s views on how education was structured. One person came back and asked me “why on earth therefore was I a liberal” because of my views on that one specific subject. It was, and is, entirely unfair to question someone’s whole political outlook based on their views on one issue, or even one part of an issue. Just as I have tended towards a more traditional socialist structure on the organisation of education, I have also over the years not agreed with votes at 16 (these days I tend more towards ambivalence) and I have also not felt entirely comfortable with allowing gay couples to adopt (although I’ve accepted that it’s better than the alternatives). These are all issues about which many Liberal Democrats feel passionate and they see as something that makes them identify as a Liberal Democrat. For me, they aren’t but I am a Liberal Democrat in nearly every other respect so why should a tiny handful of specific issues make me fundamentally not a Lib Dem.

Which brings me back to Tim Farron. Tim Farron has clearly supported same-sex marriage in parliament, and whilst there were parts of the specific act of parliament that he quibbled with, he has still on the whole supported it. He has also argued against changing the law on abortion. But that doesn’t stop him having some internal conflict about these issues based on two instinctive but at times conflicting beliefs that he holds. The words “at times” are also important here, as much of the time there won’t be conflict with the two and will actually reinforce each other. But at the end of the day, there are a number of issues, on which there is a conflict between what Christianity says and what the instincts of a liberal are, which makes it tough for those who are both. I won’t go in to here what is the truly Christian view on these or what exactly the Bible says, as I’ve realised how few Christians agree on that anyway. In the end Tim Farron has voted with a strongly liberal stance throughout his time as an MP.  If we knew that Tim Farron was a massive homophobe – which he absolutely clearly is not to the point where even just writing that sentence dismissing the idea still feels ludicrously unfair – then as Liberal Democrats we would question his views. But in reality he has a conflict between two powerful and at times contradictory, yet instinctive beliefs. He won’t be the only person to have that, and the reasons for his conflict on these specific issues are probably far more convincing that the doubts I have about the issues I mentioned earlier which can be summed up as “well it’s just how I feel”. Tim perhaps needs a better way of expressing this conflict that doesn’t resort to religious terminology (which does put off a large proportion of the country who aren’t religious), but instead looking at any conflicting instincts that we all have, which for the majority of apolitical people don’t involve their political stance, and arguing why his political instincts win out.

We all get different aspects of what we believe in from different parts of what goes to make us who we are. For some people it’s religion, for others it is family or friends, for others it is reading literature, and so on. It’s not what gets us there, it’s what our general attitude is at the end of it. And on that, I have no doubt about Tim Farron’s liberalism and it’s that liberalism that matters.

Charles Kennedy

Given the number of tributes there have been to Charles it seems unnecessary to do one of my own, but as I woke up to hear about his sad death yesterday there were a few things I wanted to set down in writing.

I didn’t know him personally but he was leader for eight of the 19 years I’ve been a party member and so has in many ways been a leading figure in my life.  Back in the very late 1990s I was on the executive of the Liberal Democrat Youth and Students (LDYS) and my first job after being elected as its Youth Development Officer was collecting Charles Kennedy from the local railway station and walking him to Staffordshire University nearby where we were holding our conference.  He had yet to be elected leader but it was at a time when I’d still get quite starstruck about meeting well known political figures.  The only thing I remember of our conversation on that walk however was him telling me about the importance of the current Countryside Alliance march and how it wasn’t all about hunting but protecting the rural way of life.  Something that was undoubtedly important to him.

I was unusual amongst the group of friends I had in the party at the time that I voted for Charles to be leader.  I think most people felt he was too much the establishment choice, were slightly suspicious of his SDP roots, and didn’t seem enough as being either a grassroots campaigner or political thinker.  That may have been true, but then (as it has been at every leadership election) my choice was about who I thought would be the best figurehead that could get our message across to the public.  I do remember however chatting to a lobbyist at the subsequent federal conference who told me “He won’t be a great leader, but it’ll be fun as a member having him as your leader.”  In hindsight, although without really answering the question, I suppose it’s how you judge a great leader.  One thing I certainly loved was Charles’ conference speeches which always appeared fresh and passionate in a way that I think no leader before or since has quite managed, and made me leave conference enthused.

My only other personal connection with Charles was shortly after he became our leader.  One of his first acts – and one that we were impressed by as we weren’t aware that anyone else had done it – was to invite the LDYS executive round to his flat in Victoria to discuss LDYS issues.  We were all a bit nervous about impressing him but his quip when someone accidentally kicked his coffee table “don’t worry about it, it’s only a family heirloom” relaxed us all.  He certainly knew the way to student hearts and gave us all a beer and then asked us lots about what he could do to help us.  It certainly improved his reputation with those who didn’t vote for him.

Obviously what most people loved about Charles was his reputation as someone normal and unvarnished.  Whilst this can be over exaggerated and many leaders with that reputation have actively cultivated it, with Charles it never really seemed an act.  Everyone knew he didn’t live the healthiest of lifestyles (in a bizarre appointment he was for a time the party’s health spokesman during which he was once overheard outside a healthy eating event saying “well that’s enough health for one day, I need a fag”) although the issue of his drinking was downplayed by many until his notorious Paxman interview and his subsequent admission when his leadership was challenged.  Personally, I think it was right for Charles to retire when he did even if the way it was done seemed brutal.  Although he still seemed on top form to the public; party staff and MPs found him difficult to work with.  But despite this it felt a shame that he never had time as a minister in the last government to show what else he could do.

For me, Charles embodied something that I feel other people have struggled to convey.  The sense that you can be equally passionate about your local roots, your national pride and your Europeanism and internationalism.  In Charles’ case it was as a Highlander, a Scotsman, being British, European and wanting to be significant on the international stage.  Whilst it is true that Charles had to be persuaded in to opposing the war in Iraq, it fits absolutely with him wanting the party he led to be seen as positively internationalist rather than his country ignoring international law and reverting to the British warlike jingoism of the past.  His pro-Europeanism is something that people outside of politics don’t readily associate with Charles, but for me it was one of his greatest attributes.  To me, his greatest victory was not achieving the highest number of seats the party had won since merger (many at the time believed we should have done far better in 2005) but leading us to victory in the 2003 Brent East by-election.  It is a by-election in which I played a very active role and that I absolutely loved being a part of.  It was the perfect embodiment of Charles in his leading role in the anti-war movement and as a positive down to earth figure that people could relate to and whose cause they could rally to in a constituency that was not at all natural territory for us.

I believed that at the recent General Election, Charles was one of the few MPs in Scotland who could resist the SNP tide.  He couldn’t, and so who knows what role he would have continued to play in the future?  Instead he will now join the ranks of those popular charismatic political figures such as Robin Cook, Mo Mowlam and John Smith, who were taken too early and never quite fulfilled their potential.  I didn’t shed a tear yesterday, but I did have a wee dram to remember him by.

Preview of English Lib Dem Executive – 30th May 2015

This Saturday is the first English Lib Dems Executive meeting since the General and Local Elections.  For that reason the focus is partly about reviewing the election just gone but in particular looking at where we go from here (the Strategic Review), which is what will take up all of the second half of the meeting.

The first half of the meeting consists of the usual reports back from the officers of the English Party and the representatives to other party committees.  There’s nothing worse at a committee meeting than people who read out the report that we’ve all already had in writing, and this bit of the agenda is increasingly being focused on questions or detailed discussion on one bit of someone’s report.

Strategic review

The English Lib Dems agreed at its March meeting that after the General Election there would be a review to make proposals for the “future role of the English party and the English regional parties in the rebuilding and future development of the party, including the structure.”  This plan was agreed before the result was known, but the rebuilding process is more significant than most of us anticipated.  The idea is to prepare some initial questions and thoughts for the English Council meeting on 13th June, and this will then be worked up to become final proposals for the November English Council and English regional conferences to consider.  In between times the English Party will be consulting with members to get their views and ideas.

Those members who have been around a while will remember the Party Reform Commission (or Bones Report from c. 2008) and there’s a risk that it repeats the same job.  However, the impression I get is that there is an increasing willingness to look afresh at a lot of things and with the devastating General Election result there will be a need for more dramatic change.  There is a danger that the review will become fixated with structure and the clear desire of many people to scrap the English Party altogether, however it is certainly my view that if the party is to be a success it needs to look at what it wants to be and then design the structures appropriately to support that objective.  That may or may not mean keeping a similar structure to the one we have at present, but that isn’t where we should start. (more…)

Where we go from here: some thoughts for the Liberal Democrats

When I joined the Liberal Democrats towards the end of 1995 it had 24 MPs. I’ve often said that fortunately I wouldn’t see that few Lib Dem MPs again. Even reading the worst opinion polls for the party over the last parliament I didn’t believe I would see that few. Yet here we are, on just eight MPs.

One of the things that’s been hard over this parliament has been to see all the electoral progress that has been made by the party over the 19 years I’ve been a member fall apart. For some people, the successes of the opposition parties has galvanised their resolve and made them want to fight harder. For me, it’s taken some of the fight out of me and made me thoroughly depressed, although there is more to that than just the party’s electoral performance, but that’s another post. I sort of assumed that if the results were absolutely awful it would be time for me to gradually walk away and do something else with the next 19 years even though I’d continue to stay on as a member as it is too engrained in my DNA now.

What I’ve found remarkable however is how that’s not been my reaction. Perhaps it’s been the realisation that all Lib Dems have been hit by the result, not just a handful. Perhaps it’s been the reminder of how awful majority Conservative government is going to be, just as it was when I first joined the party, and that there’s a real need now to stick up for the things that I think are important and that they don’t. I think the surge in party membership has also helped give me some real optimism about the party’s future. Plus the discussion from many people in the party on Twitter, Facebook and on blogs about where we go next has made me find that my thoughts are not heading towards giving up but towards where we go next. So in that spirit, here are a few random collected thoughts from me on that subject.

This was intended to be a brief summary, but on each point it became quite lengthy, so apologies for that. The list is not comprehensive, and I expect I’ll come back to some ideas that are missing or not properly explained. It’s certainly not fully thought through, nor is it all original, but it’s my bit of putting on record what I have going round and round in my mind at the moment and what I’d like to see from the party and whoever we elect as our new leader. (more…)

Preview of English Lib Dem Executive – 24th Jan 2015

A belated report but it’s been a slightly manic week.  Tomorrow it’s time for the first English Liberal Democrats Executive (ECE) of 2015, and perhaps unsurprisingly with the general election around the corner there are few major new projects underway but instead it’s largely about updates on ongoing day to day stuff.  As with all party committees this doesn’t of course mean that the meeting will move rapidly through the agenda finishing early.  One thing that is both a positive and a negative with ECE is that it spends a lot of time discussing each issue, but also in its role as a collective voice for the English regional parties, other issues will always be raised by regional chairs that everyone will want to discuss.

Chair’s report

This meeting is also the first with its new chair Steve Jarvis at the head of the table.  One thing that has particularly pleased me from his first report is that he will be making full contact details for the members of ECE along with agendas and a summary of decisions available in the members’ area of the party website.  So no sooner do I start blogging each meeting then perhaps my reports will become superfluous.  Otherwise his report is largely about the committee’s work programme for the year, with the tasks before the election being about getting people elected in May and the second half about the inevitable post-election review which increasingly seems as though it will include a review of the party’s structure and governance. (more…)

Preview of English Lib Dem Executive – 13th Dec 2014

One commitment I made when I stood for election to the English Liberal Democrats Executive (ECE) was that I’d write on this blog about what was coming up at each meeting, and then do a post summarising what was discussed or decided after the event.  I was pleased to be elected back on to ECE for 2015 (I currently sit on it as Chair of Yorkshire and the Humber Lib Dems) and so here’s my first of these posts.  I warn people who have no interest in internal committees of political parties, especially those that deal with internal issues, that this will be very long and very dull and that is largely why I’ve inserted a ‘read more’ tag to the article!  I will endeavour to be much shorter in future, but as this is the first one I need to explain the background to more things.

This is the last meeting of ECE of 2014 and is taking place a few weeks later than usual to allow the newly elected regional chairs and directly-elected committee members to attend, along with the existing members from 2014.  If the meeting had taken place on the usual date the election results wouldn’t have been announced in time for that to be possible.  The benefit of this is to allow elections for those positions that are elected by the other members of the ECE to be held before the New Year and to take office alongside the new chair (Steve Jarvis) on 1st January.  The full set of positions to be elected are – treasurer, vice-chair, four members of the Finance and Administration Committee (EFAC), four members of the Regional Parties’ Committee (RPC), a rep to the International Relations Committee and the English Diversity Champion.

(more…)