So, with nominations closed, Babarinde vs Bray and Collins vs Hussain are the two contests at the top of the “bill”. Time, so think, to start the process of deciding how I might vote…
I’ve already given some thought to the choice for President, a contest made infinitely more edifying by the absence of Natalie Bird who, despite making protestations of having a campaign, never seemed to get beyond insisting that Liberal Democrat Voice publish her thoughts. Perhaps her failure to obtain the required two hundred nominations suggests that her particular viewpoint is not a widely shared one…
But now that it’s Josh against Prue, I can be confident that we might have an offer of two different philosophical and practical approaches to the role. And whilst I suspect that the average member, as opposed to those who are far more familiar with the inner workings of the Party, will vote for the MP over the long-term committee hand (and yes, there’s far more to Prue than that), I still want to be reassured that there is a candidate who will fulfil what I see as the basic requirements of the role.
Firstly, will an incoming President be willing to tell uncomfortable truths to the Leader if required? Given that I know Prue far better than I know Josh, I have firsthand evidence that Prue will at least try. Josh may have competing pressures upon him, although that is entirely conjecture.
That brings me to an interesting aspect of both contests, i.e. how little personal experience I have of the other three candidates. That isn’t a criticism of them, far from it, but perhaps a reminder that, as someone who has been increasingly semi-detached from the day to day work of the Party of late, I don’t really follow what our MPs are up too - my attention is more focussed on events at the other end of the Palace of Westminster, for perhaps obvious reasons.
Secondly, how does each see their role as Chair of the Federal Board, a body with perhaps more power than its predecessors? And in terms of steering the Federal Party in its dealings with the States and the various key committees?
As someone who has served in a variety of administrative roles on myriad Party committees, you wouldn’t be surprised to find that I have some pretty strong views on that, although not necessarily those oòyou might predict of a self-confessed faceless bureaucrat.
So, in that sense, Josh and Victoria, as well as Kamran, are more of a blank canvass for me to fill in.
The campaigns have caught my eye, mostly for the “shock and awe” tactics that Josh employed, but also the stream of endorsements that have reached me via social media, and I do look at the endorsements to see what those I trust are thinking.
But I haven’t made my mind up yet. Whoever wins the Presidency can only ever be the second-best holder of the post - my bias on that point is well and truly on my sleeve - but I do want whoever wins to succeed.
Turning to the Vice-Presidency, something that I’ve never had to do before, I guess that as a minority member of the Party, of part-Indian origin, I should take particular interest in the role. But, as most people would never guess that I am, I don’t experience the same issues that visible minorities do. At least, I don’t think that I do, even if my surname does occasionally create expectations that I don’t meet.
At some point, I’m going to have to find the time to read the campaign material, see what it says to me and to those roles that I have in the Party, and whether it makes sense. As a Returning Officer, I’m on a less “glamorous” part of the frontline in the fight for a more representative Party, and I want to see that our leaders understand what levers might be pulled in terms of candidate recruitment, approval and selection.
As I say, I’m going to have to read their material before making a decision…
No comments:
Post a Comment