There is, not unexpectedly, much debate on what needs to change after the fairly ghastly events of the past three weeks. A change of leader, a change of policy (or perhaps an adherence to the policy we already have), a reorganisation of Party structures, withdrawal from the Coalition, I've heard them all. And, in fairness, some, maybe all of them are necessary. But they aren't going to be easy, as some are beginning to discover.
Gathering signatures in the hope that a beleaguered Leader will see the light having failed, and a bid to obtain a leadership contest by dint of resolutions passed by seventy-five Local Parties having seemingly run into the sand - it seems awfully quiet out there all of a sudden - unless the Parliamentary Party in the Commons mutinies (not likely... yet), one might assume that we will enter next year's General Election under the current leadership.
Policy offers equally difficult challenges. There appears to be relatively little disagreement with Party policy, and the issue is about how much of that policy survives as far as government, whether the remainder is fought for sufficiently vigorously and whether the inevitable compromises that coalition, and events, bring are acceptable. For some, the outcomes haven't been good enough. But some of that comes down to the ability of either element of the Coalition to overcome its own internal dissension, something that we can't control in the case of the Conservatives.
George Potter has written an interesting piece in Liberal Democrat Voice with his suggestions on how the Party structure might be redesigned. I don't really agree with most of it, because he seems determined to ignore the fact that, in volunteer run and led organisations, leadership and organisation are limited by the talent available. In an area like mine, you might have to expand the size of an organisational unit quite a lot to find one willing and able Treasurer, for example. And, at that point, they may not want to travel so far to get to meetings.
But, ultimately, every part of the Party structure is only as good as the people who make it up. And, sadly, those people are often only too familiar, because they're the only willing volunteers. You can get a long way in this Party without meeting any significant opposition - for example, I served five terms as Regional Secretary and was opposed just once. English Candidates Committee is often elected unopposed, and as for Local Party officers, well, arm-twisting is often the order of the day.
So, rather than demand change because the current structure appears not to work, perhaps it would be better to find out why it doesn't work first and, if necessary, do some of that administrative work rather than leave it to those who are willing, but under-resourced or under-skilled.
3 comments:
I'm not so sure the 75 parties thing *has* run aground -- I know several parties who've got EGMs planned in the next few weeks.
As for volunteering for national party positions, this is something that would be a lot easier to do if they didn't require fairly regular trips to London...
Andrew,
It has gone very quiet of late....
But I wasn't saying that you, or anyone else, needs to be volunteering at national level. Your Local Party probably has posts that need a willing volunteer, and your Region probably does too.
Ah, right, probably me misreading things (I'm suffering from lack of sleep at the moment) -- I read this as talking about on a national level.
(I do of course volunteer in posts for my local party -- I'm data officer and stood as a paper candidate in the council elections).
Post a Comment