Are the Liberal Democrats manageable? - the bureaucrat’s cut

Last Wednesday, I had an article published by Liberal Democrat Voice and, I think, was well received. But perhaps I should take the opportunity offered by my own blog to expand a little... the original article is in italics...

Two weeks ago, I wrote a piece questioning a proposal for managing the Party through a Steering Group, pointing out that, based on what I had been led to understand, it appeared to duplicate existing bodies while adding another step between those in charge and those to whom they are accountable. Subsequently, there were reassurances given, which I think were reasonable.

But today, I have another question.

When the Liberal Democrats were formed, it was said that it was a merger of one Party whose motto was “never trust the members” with another whose motto was “never trust the leadership”. The problem is, that the two beliefs continue to run in parallel, and are reflected in how we run our Party today.

Our Committee structures are designed to ensure that there are myriad people whose role is to reflect and defend the views and positions of their “client group”, and others whose purpose is of oversight without apparent responsibility. So, for example, the Chairs of the various Federal Committees are members of the Federal Board so that they can be held accountable. Meanwhile, the Federal Board appoints representatives on the various Federal Committees. Why? Do they not trust the Chairs to report backwards and forwards faithfully?

So, perhaps somebody might like to explain the following;

1. What are the Federal Board’s representatives on its subsidiary committees for?
2. What instructions are they given in taking up their roles?
3. To whom are they accountable and how?

We could slim down the various Federal Committees by stripping out some of the duplication - how many of the represented groups have members who have been directly elected in their own right, for example, and wouldn’t that be better anyway? Does the Federal Board need to be represented on every other Committee?

I would argue that it does not. “Report up, scrutinise down”, should be the thread that runs through the Party’s committee structures. And besides, wasn’t one of the key concepts of the last Governance Review that people shouldn’t, as far as possible, serve on more than one Federal committee?

And members don’t help. Every three years, we elect a bunch of people to Federal Committees to “break up the Establishment” and then, as soon as they’re in post, we charge them with being “the Establishment” and display as much distrust of them as we ever did their predecessors.

I’m afraid that I’ve observed this too often. People are elected on the basis of their claims that they can change things without necessarily understanding why things are as they are or, in a few cases, caring to find out. Federal Conference Committee is a case in point - a committee which has, from an outsider’s perspective, been rather well run over the years, with a willingness to engage. And yet, we go through a regular cycle of members complaining about the lack of variety in terms of venues, running for election to FCC, and then discovering that the criteria for a successful physical conference are surprisingly restrictive.

The problem is that the Party’s democracy is performative, not real. We have elections, but accountability and scrutiny are poor. Finding out what the Committees do between elections is difficult - the various minutes are seldom published, very brief reports go to Federal Conference. Here at Liberal Democrat Voice, we publish reports as they are sent to us, but we’re an imperfect way of reaching the wider membership. Meanwhile, it is difficult for individual Committee members to report back on their own personal activities, which makes voting on their records challenging and occasionally unfair when they run for re-election.

Jennie Rigg made the very reasonable point that it isn’t easy to report back as an individual, as she noted in her frank comment;

When I was elected to FCC by the wider membership I blogged about what happened, and included vote numbers in my blog posts. There was significant pushback against this from almost all of the rest of the committee. I took to instead saying things like “unanimous” “large majority” or “close vote” instead because one doesn’t like to upset people, but it just shows that even someone like me can be pushed into being less transparent than they would like by the urge for secrecy from others….

I feel her pain, having written extensively on the dilemma eleven years ago. It gets no easier, and with the fragmentation of social media, it becomes harder to reach a wide audience in any event. Is the angst worth it?

Openness and transparency are supposedly liberal values. They’re certainly mine, even allowing for the fact that there are certain subjects where discretion is not only appropriate but wholly necessary. But for openness and transparency to be practical, you need trust - on both sides. Is anyone willing to start the process of building that trust?

I would courteously suggest that the Party President takes a lead on this, preferably not via his own blog, but through official Party media. Whilst as individuals, our cynicism doesn’t necessarily create difficulties for the Centre, we have little means by which to make change happen. The Leadership, on the other hand...

Mid Suffolk Liberal Democrats have a new Secretary...

So, the absence from frontline politics lasted less than a fortnight before I found myself a new project, that of my own dear Local Party.

In fairness, I had made a promise to take over as Secretary, as our previous Secretary had served six years in the role and was keen to hand it on. Admittedly, she and I had made it a personal bargain, so much so that, at Thursday's AGM, it required drawing the attention of the Chair to the fact that it wasn't simply a case of re-electing the incumbent. And so, I have a new job.

One of my first tasks is to establish what our Local Party Constitution looks like, which isn't necessarily the simple task it sounds. The Mid Suffolk Liberal Democrats only came into existence on 1 January 2014, following a reorganisation of the County's Local Parties from Parliamentary boundaries to District/Borough boundaries. Ros and I may have had something to do with that...

There are two places where the Constitution should be;

• The Regional Party - a copy of the Constitution should be lodged with the Regional Secretary after each adoption/revision. Admittedly, that doesn't always happen...
• The Local Party Secretary - if they were handed one by their predecessor...

In our case, a copy turned out to have been held by our former Agent. It isn't entirely clear that what he held was actually adopted in that form, but we'll see. It can always be readopted at the next Annual General Meeting to ensure peace of mind...

Another task is to establish who is actually on the Executive Committee. Thus far, some people who probably think that they are on the Committee don't appear to be, which may lead to fun and games.

And, finally, I'm trying to create a directory for the Local Party, in the first instance for my own use, so that I know who to contact as and when, but perhaps for wider circulation if it appears to be of value.

So, I have my role, and an outline plan for delivery. Let bureaucracy commence...

If the still voice of despair can be replaced by faith...

It’s been a trying day on Planet Bureaucrat for reasons not worth expanding upon but, at the end of the day, one must put it all into perspective. And music can help that, so here’s something to lift the spirits, some German Church music from 1643, “Von Gott will ich nicht lassen”, by Heinrich Schütz.

https://youtu.be/m3wAn76SA0c

My favourite part is possibly the fourth verse...

Auch wenn die Welt vergehet

mit ihrem stolzen Pracht,

wed’r Ehr noch Gut bestehet

welchs vor war gross geacht

wit werden nach dem Tod 

tief in der Erd begraben,

wenn wir geschlafen haben

will uns erwecken Gott.

The world may disappear

with its proud splendour

Neither glory nor goods last

What we once thought mattered,

may after our death
be buried deep in the ground,

If we sleep,

God will wake us.

Taking a step back from the front line of Liberal Democracy

I am not a fanatical anything, not even a fanatical Liberal Democrat. That is, in some quarters, an admission of a lack of commitment, but I find it hard to maintain a high level of enthusiasm for many things other than Ros. Regardless of the circumstances, my desire to do things comes in waves, rather than in a constant flow.

I first joined the Liberal Party in 1984, and it was fun. I did a whole bunch of things, met a slew of interesting people and had some amazing experiences. And then, after about eight years, I drifted away from everyday activity. Yes, I carried on with a few things, mostly one-off jobs like being a Returning Officer, or candidate assessing, but I didn’t hold office at any level really, and didn’t miss it that much. Yes, I had other distractions, and I wasn’t exactly adrift from politics altogether, but I wasn’t what you would call fully engaged in the wonderful world of the Liberal Democrats.

That changed when I became single again. The Party came searching for me in the guise of Flick Rea, the then London Region Administrator. It started with merely stewarding a rally, but before long I was waist-deep in the Party organisation. I dislike disorder, and have never met the political body yet that couldn’t be improved by an understanding of bureaucracy, its limits and its merits. And I am, on my day, a pretty good bureaucrat.

I met Ros. That was life-changing, and wouldn’t have happened had I retained my distance. And, in truth, she is my primary focus.

But it’s been nearly fifteen years now, and my enthusiasm for political bureaucracy is waning a bit. Not for Liberal Democracy, you understand, but for carrying out jobs over a period of time. And, when that happens, it’s time to step back a little. And so, I advised my beloved Local Party that I would be standing down as Treasurer at the end of the year.

At our Annual General Meeting, I presented my report, and explained that I thought that my enthusiasm for the job was not what it might be, and that, as a result, it would be better if I stood down. They were very understanding, I thought, until they concluded that there was a vacancy for Chair, and might I be interested in filling it?

It didn’t take me long to turn the offer down. I’ve been a Local Party Chair, and I know how that book ends. It was, on reflection, nice to be asked though, as it implied that I might be thought capable of doing a half-decent job.

And so I’ve gained a number of midweek evenings, and lost a monthly task of updating and reconciling the accounts. It isn’t an arduous job, but it could be done better - a more ambitious fundraising effort (not one of my strengths, I fear) might be valuable.

The Local Party know where to find me if they need me, and if I can help, I will. But it’s time for a break, to recharge the batteries of enthusiasm, and let my mind wander just a little. And, in time, and if they want me, I’ll be back. You should never turn your back on your friends, and Mid Suffolk Liberal Democrats are, I’m proud to say, my friends.

This Committee isn't working like I'd hoped. Can I start over, please?

And so, I've just spent an evening at Federal International Relations Committee. Not one of the organisation's finest hours, although by no means a painful one. However, it isn't going as I had hoped, nor is it achieving what I think it might. What is its secretariat to do?

But what do I think is wrong?

First, and I can see the irony here in what I am writing, the Committee is too bogged down in process, leaving too little time for the creative part of our role, advising on policy, considering ideas. The notion that policy might be squeezed into a ten minute slot at the end of the meeting when time is against us does seem to me to be a bit of a nonsense.

Second, there is not enough discipline. It is no use submitting a written report to the Secretary by e-mail forty-one minutes before the meeting starts. Effectively, that means a verbal report, and they're always a problem - I've never yet heard a verbal report which didn't run on beyond the time taken to note a written report, especially if those receiving the report are required to do something.

So far, my entreaties for written reports have been taken as a request to be ignored or, at best, the deadline is treated as optional. Which is fine if your Secretary has nothing better to do. Sadly, I do have other, better things to do. In other words, your inadequacy is not my problem.

What I would like to do, therefore, is find ways to reduce the process stuff and increase the intellectual stuff. So, more written reports, submitted in advance, perhaps seeking approval of the minutes online, rather than at the meeting. More papers that suggest ways of progressing matters rather than attempting to address them on the hoof. More collaborative working by the Committee, new sub-committees perhaps to deal with the  process stuff.

Hmmm... sounds like I might be talking about a revolution. Although, given my role in this, let's call it an evolution. I know, let's call it "building a better walrus". It worked for me, so why shouldn't it work for Federal International Relations Committee?

Federal International Relations Committee - I'm going to need another set of coloured pens, aren't I?

It's taken me much longer than usual to report back on what happened at FIRC's first meeting, and I am grateful to Caron and the team at Liberal Democrat Voice for fitting my piece in at rather short notice. It's just that I had almost forgotten just how much work there is to do with a new Committee, especially at a time of organisational change.

You can, of course, just wing it but, if I'm honest, laying down some ground rules early tends to avoid quite a lot of pain later. Thus, it is clear that whilst Robert, our Chair, will play good cop, I am to be the disciplinarian, creating structure, designing process, monitoring compliance, enforcing the Federal Constitution. It isn't necessarily glamorous, but then, dealing with things that go wrong subsequently is even less fun. And, if I say so myself, I'm good at it.

Paul Reynolds had written a very interesting paper on the Committee's policy role, and it was unfortunate that we didn't find time to discuss it properly - remind me to schedule it into a far more disciplined agenda for our next meeting - as we need to establish the relationship between ourselves and Federal Policy Committee. We apparently advise them, although as they have a place on our Committee, and we don't have one on their's, you do wonder how that works in practice.

We focussed on campaigning for the most part in our strategy session, and whilst I acknowledge that campaigning is essential, you do need to have something to campaign on, and unless we are a Party of ideas, we risk falling back into the routine of campaigning against things rather than for them. That got us into government, but it became increasingly clear that, once we had done so, and the Tories had stolen so many of our clothes, we didn't offer much reason to vote positively for us other than hard-working local MPs and an unproven ability to restrain the Tories from being more right-wing.

We also need to integrate our work with ALDE and Liberal International into that of the wider Party. It does, in the nicest way, feel like a bit of a hobby sometimes, a group of well-meaning souls debating big issues without always having much of a mandate to do so. Our delegations, after all, are made up for the most part of people who volunteer themselves and are selected by a process so opaque that even I don't really comprehend it. That can't be good, can it?

In fairness, it always seems to have been done like that, but in a modern age, we need to be more transparent. We also need to ensure that those who are included in our delegations as voting members actually earn their places. It shouldn't be too much to ask that they attend delegation meetings and voting sessions, although some of our people take a curiously dim view of having such obligations. So, that's another project for later in the year...

I also want to do some policy work, or at least make a credible contribution to it. That might be a bit daunting when you're surrounded by former diplomats, journalists and MEPs (we have two on the Committee, plus our remaining extant one), not to mention four Peers and an MP, but I do bring the perspective of someone whose background is not entirely British. Besides, policy is about combining knowledge with principles, and I like to think that my liberal principles are sound enough. 

Federal International Relations Committee meets - some personal thoughts...

I spent most of yesterday either travelling to and from, or in, the first ever meeting of the Party's Federal International Relations Committee (FIRC). At least, as now constituted - the old International Relations Committee was a rather more pallid creature - it is a new, rather more defined, structure. It is, if you like, under construction, as members attempt to define its place in the wider Party structure beyond those tasks assigned to it by the Federal Constitution.

It would not, then, be unreasonable to ask what FIRC is for, and how is it relevant. You might also expect me to report on that. But before I do, I want to reflect a little on our first day. Indulge me for a moment...

To hold a strategy meeting whilst today's events in the United States and elsewhere unfolded might feel like a peculiarly Liberal Democrat exercise in rearranging deckchairs, and you may be right. The timing was, how shall I put it, unfortunate, but you do have to start somewhere, don't you?

For FIRC to be effective, it needs to define its locus and decide upon how its various resources can be allocated to fulfil its constitutional and political objectives, working within the confines of the strategy as set by the Federal Board. That's dull, but likely to have benefits later. At least, that's what I tell myself, even if I have a sneaking feeling that I might not have much company in that view. Structure, organisational design and constitutions are, how can I put this, not why people get involved in international politics.

I wanted to be the Committee's Secretariat, partly because I'm good at that sort of thing, and partly because I do understand the role that 'ordnung und verwaltung' have in achieving good outcomes. And, actually, it annoys me to see such things come badly, as they can be sometimes in our beloved Party.

The problem is that, having got a job that nobody else wanted anyway, I have a nagging sense that being the organisational conscience of a committee is akin to being the one Roundhead in a Civil War re-enactment society. Hell, the Cavaliers lost, but their outfits were so much better. And, as it has been pointed out to me, you can be a bureaucrat anywhere, so why FIRC in particular?

I have, it seems, something of an existential dilemma. And now, I have to find a way of dealing with it...

It's just one Liberal Democrat thing after another at the moment...

I seem to be popular, and thus busy, at the moment, thanks to my beloved Party. First the by-election, which took up most of May. Then, the aborted European Parliamentary selections - we were just five days of publishing the advert when the process was finally abandoned just days after the Referendum. Next came the snap General Election that might never be, and the job of Senior Returning Officer for my Regional Party. And now that that's pretty much out of the way, I've got the International Relations Committee to take care of.

That isn't all, of course. I have my responsibilities as Treasurer to the Mid Suffolk Local Party, and as Chair of the County Approval Panel, as a member of the ALDE Party's Financial Advisory Committee and, closer to home, as a Parish Councillor.

It all takes time, and effort, and energy. And, as I get older, it gets a little harder to find time, make that effort, preserve that energy.

And yet, without my contribution, the burden of making a political party work would fall on an even smaller number of people, all of whom have lives, jobs, other responsibilities. It seems churlish, if one is really serious about building a meaningful civic society, not to do what one can to support it.

Of course, there are professionals who hold the whole thing together. Not as many of them as the public, and even seasoned political activists, might think, and they are often taken for granted or even abused by people who should know better. I've never wanted to be one, probably for that reason. I prefer my amateur status, and with it the ability to say no, even if I don't do that very often.

It never ceases to be amaze me how much of the Party's processes rely, as a result, in the goodwill of those willing to give of their time for a cause which can be decidedly ungrateful. Returning Officers, Regional Party Executive members, Secretaries at every level, all utterly unglamorous but necessary, and often delivered by people who have plenty of other roles to perform.

And, as politics becomes more confrontational, and the stakes get higher, the demands on the Party bureaucracy grow. More process, new process, more challenges, less patience. Less tolerance of individual limitations, more demands on less resource. Was it ever thus?

Ah well, back to work, I guess...

I, the Returning Officer for the aforesaid Regional List...

And so, it can, apparently, be told. A schedule for the selection of our European Parliament regional candidates lists for 2019 has been agreed, and Returning Officers are being appointed.

There will be those of you who might think that this is all a bit premature, especially given the small detail of the referendum on 23 June, and you may well be right. However, any advert isn't due to be published until after that, so in the event that there is a vote to leave the European Union, not so much effort is wasted. It is, I think, probably better to be prepared on the basis of optimism.

European selections have been a thread of activity during my time as a faceless Party bureaucrat. I ran my first one in 1989, and have been involved in every round subsequently. In 1997, I was Returning Officer for the South East region, when seventy-two applicants came forward for what turned out to be eleven places on a list and, eventually, two seats in the European Parliament. It would be fair to say that it wasn't an easy selection, but I was lucky enough to have a shortlisting committee who were a joy to work with.

I was back in 2002, which was rather easier, and then 2007, a selection made simpler in many ways by the fact that I met and proposed to Ros in the middle of it. It would be fair to say that both shortlisting committee and the candidates encountered a more generous than usual Returning Officer...

By 2012, I was in a new Region and a new role, as Chair of the East of England shortlisting committee. It was a very straightforward job - we never met, and agreed to wave all of the applicants through to the all-member ballot.

It won't be that easy this time. We will surely do better than we did in 2014 (it can't possibly be that bad, can it?), which means there is the potential for gains in regions such as London, the South West and the North West. Without incumbents, contests will be, potentially, far more open, making the job of Returning Officers rather more challenging.

And so I'm back, from Outer Space, in my newly appointed role as the Returning Officer for London. I'm looking forward to working with a new shortlisting committee, and to meeting a bunch of interesting candidates. I'm probably a gentler Returning Officer than I once was, and it could be fun. Time to start preparations, I suspect...

So, what did a liberal bureaucrat get up to at the @ALDEParty Congress?

Whilst Ros was campaigning for the Vice-Presidency, I had work to do too. After all, I'm not the best 'minder' in the world, having been fired during her Party Presidential campaign for a tendency to stop and chat to people, rather than making sure that she got to where she needed to be. And besides, I have my own role, that of Council member and occasional diplomat, seeking compromise where possible and offering organisational enlightenment when process is discussed.

At Party Council, in the discussion about changing the internal procedures so as to withdraw voting rights over the European Parliamentary election manifesto from non-EU member state parties, I got up to note that, where aspects of it impact directly on them, enlargement, for example, we were potentially denying them a voice. And, whilst I understood the motivation underlying the proposal, I did want to remind Council of the inherent risk.

In the resolution working group, I tried to bridge the gap between the pacifists within our delegation, who were trying to insist that a military response to Islamic State should be the last alternative, and those delegates who felt that diplomacy was impossible. I noted that, whilst direct diplomacy with IS was well nigh impossible, talking to those countries who could stop the flow of black market oil trade, for example, was certainly worthwhile. I like to think that I was able to broker a compromise between the two sides of the argument.

In the debate on a new development aid policy, I successfully agreed an amendment with the movers from LYMEC (European Liberal Youth), adding provision for support to tax administrations in developing countries both to enable them to increase available resources but also to help in the fight against global tax evasion.

So, all in all, a fairly successful ALDE Party Council and Congress for the house bureaucrat, and with the prospect of a working group to look at future changes to the Statutes and Rules of Procedure, I can see how I might have a future role.

Oh, and yes, my wife became a Vice-President. Actually, it was a pretty good three days, wasn't it?...

[insert title here] - 19 October 2015

Something to look forward to next week in the Lords

The Parliamentary Party in the Lords increases by two next week, as Shas Sheehan is introduced on Monday, and Jonny Oates on Tuesday. I really ought to write about this for Liberal Democrat Voice, oughtn't I?


On this day... in 2007

Is it really eight years since the Clegg versus Huhne leadership contest got underway? It must be, because I was getting ready to chair the first public hustings in Newbury the next day. As usual, I was somewhat undecided. Luckily, I had Ros to keep in on the straight and narrow...


Never let it be said that I don't know how to have a good time...

This evening's task is to draw up a system for selecting our Party's delegations to ALDE's Council and Congress. Gender, ethnicity, nations, all of these have to be carefully counterbalanced and accounted for. I may be gone some time... At least you'll know who's fault it is...


New York, New York...

If someone had told me two months ago that I would have been watching a World Series contender, I would have laughed at you. Yes, the New York Mets, the Cinderella of New York baseball, are two-nil up in the best of seven National League Championship Series against the Chicago Cubs. But, Ros and I can claim that we saw them play if they go all the way. Their likely opponents, the Kansas city Royals, who are two-nil up against the Toronto Blue Jays in the American league equivalent. We saw them play the Boston Red Sox two weeks later...

A day out to the East of England Regional Conference...

So, off to Cambridge for Regional Conference, starring a medley of Party Presidents - Ros, Tim Farron and Sal Brinton. And, for a change, I had work to do, as I had been asked to chair a session.

An early start, fortified by bacon, was necessary, and we even made it to Churchill College on time (that would be Ros's doing) for the Chairs and Aides briefing (don't do anything stupid, here's some guidance to read, turn up on time, that sort of thing...).

Conference was opened by Norman Lamb, who started by overrunning a bit - I suspect that he'd been given some relaxed timings as the next item was likely to be shorter than had been allowed for. And yes, we do debate policy at our Regional Conference, with a motion on DWP statistics on deaths of those who had been assessed as being fit for work. I admit to being less angry than some, as I tend to be cautious about statistics as a justification for outrage, even as I accept the need to look very closely at how claimants are assessed, and the targets (sorry, expectations) given to DWP staff (do not start me on the target culture within the bureaucracy).

Next up were the reports from the Commons and the Lords, followed by a nice young man from the North, who came to inspire us to action. Tim, for it was he, got a standing ovation simply for turning up - we don't tend to get a lot of Party Leaders in these parts - and justified it with a really excellent, impassioned speech, with particular emphasis on housing (with the London fringes and Cambridge in our patch, we see the problems caused to those not already on the housing ladder here).

The speech was punctuated with enthusiastic applause, and gained another standing ovation at its end. Sadly, Tim was off to High Wycombe for the South Central equivalent, a journey which would have been made far easier had the East West line from Oxford to Cambridge been in place...

A very good lunch left me time to head to the hall for my session, a motion on East West rail (see what I did there?) and a business motion on One Member One Vote. The rail debate was straight forward. Unfortunately, the business motion became somewhat messier. Over the lunch interval, it was indicated that one of the Party's Compliance Officers had declared the motion to be unconstitutional. Accordingly, a partial reference back was to be moved. Time to read the standing orders, I thought.

As it turned out, they weren't entirely helpful, so it was time to wing it. I decided that we would have the motion and amendment moved, have the debate, then take the reference back, the amendment and the motion in that order. Fine, except that it was then suggested that the amendment would, if passed, convert the motion into a constitutional amendment, which would require a two-thirds majority to be passed. Oh, and one shouldn't forget, there was an either/or option to be taken.

Reference back on a constitutional motion being moved at East #ldconf but still no @markpack appearance. The summoning spell does not work.

— Nick Barlow (@nickjbarlow) October 17, 2015

So, what happened?

Firstly, the amendment, proposing an interim step for 2016 pending the Federal party finally getting all of their ducks in a row (effectively granting every Local Party one voting representative at the Regional Conference for every two members) was lost, albeit not by much. The reference back was lost quite clearly, and Option A, replacing the current electorate with all members of the Region who are paid up twenty-one days before the Regional Conference, was overwhelming preferred to a rather more bureaucratically complex Option B. And then, the motion was overwhelmingly carried.

All that we need now is for the Federal Party to get its act together...

At that point, I fled. I wonder if I'll be invited for another turn next year?...

International Relations Committee doesn't exactly meet...

Never let it be said that Party committees move slowly. So, when I received an e-mail last Thursday evening, inviting me to a meeting on Wednesday, I moved swiftly... to open the e-mail (one doesn't want to over-exert oneself...). 

It seemed that I was invited to attend a meeting to discuss the Party's engagement with both ALDE and the Liberal International, both in terms of the forthcoming Congresses (Budapest and Mexico City, respectively) and of our delegations. One of the lesser known effects of our election result is that our entitlement to delegates to each is, how might I put it, somewhat reduced - there is a direct relationship between votes received and representation.

As far as ALDE is concerned, we lose nine of our fifteen Council members, and half of our sixty-two Congress delegates, with effect from 1 January 2016. The catch is, we elected eight people to serve a two-year term as Council delegates covering the 2015 and 2016 calendar years. Eight into six doesn't go terribly well. Throw in the delegate slots assigned to the Federal Executive, the Federal Policy Committee, the Chair of the International Relations Committee and the Liberal Democrat European Group, and you've got a real problem.

So, what to do?

I have a personal interest, in that I am one of the eight directly elected members of ALDE Council, and was the fifth elected last year. And, I'd quite like to carry on next year. The initial proposal, that the election be re-run and the top six candidates chosen, had some obvious personal benefits, but it would leave us without the Chair of International Relations Committee, and key dealmaker at international Congresses, Robert Woodthorpe Browne (and he is undoubtedly a class act...).

The counter-argument was that this would exclude those who were ex-officio and might have chosen not to stand for election accordingly. The only catch with that argument was that such individuals would have been presuming that they would be re-elected to the relevant committee and retain their ex-officio roles, which should have been something of a gamble if our internal party democracy is genuine.

I proposed a compromise, arguing that a democratic mandate from Federal Conference should trump any ex-officio rights, especially as there is no firm constitutional basis for the current arrangements, but acknowledging that the Chair of the International Relations Committee must form part of the delegation.

Was this accepted? In truth, I couldn't tell you. I do know though that I have been tasked with producing a formula that will address this problem in future, which will doubtless make me a lot of friends (note, irony alert). My challenge, to ensure that the States are fairly represented, that diversity is reflected in terms of gender and ethnicity (I'll do my best with the other disadvantaged groups) and that the process is as transparent as possible - it might have been fair in the past but it was hardly transparent.

I may be gone for some time... 

Liberal Democrats, candidates and diversity (part 1) - a look back over my shoulder

It's been about a decade since I returned to what I would describe as active involvement within the Liberal Democrats after a partly, but not wholly, self-imposed exile, and one of the common threads in that time has been the issue of diversity, especially in relation to Parliamentary candidacy. This can be broken into two parts - gender and ethnicity.

In some ways, gender has been easier to deal with, even if the results have not reflected the efforts made. All of the data that I saw in my time as a member of the English Candidates Committee indicated that, the rate at which women were approved and selected was broadly reflective of the rate at which they applied. Indeed, women appeared slightly more likely to succeed in getting approved, and marginally more successful at getting selected, than their male counterparts. It just appeared that, for reasons that have never become clear to me, that they weren't able to get through the one process that the Party doesn't control, i.e. the electorate.

In 2010, a number of excellent women candidates were selected to contest either top target seats or held seats where a male incumbent had chosen to retire.  And, had they been elected, the gender balance of the Commons Parliamentary Party would have been radically better than it now is.

Ethnicity, on the other hand, has proved to be more difficult. Given that the gender split amongst the population at large is broadly even everywhere, getting the processes right should mean that the outcome is broadly reflective of the community in the most simplistic sense. However, ethnicity is not homogeneous, nor are BAME communities evenly spread across the country. There isn't even a satisfactory definition of BAME that, in process terms, you can comfortably rely upon.

In Brent North, where I grew up, the various South Asian communities form nearly half of the population and Brent as a whole is a white minority borough. You might reasonably expect BAME candidates to be prominent and highly likely to be selected and elected. I now live in Bury St Edmunds, with a BAME population nearer 2%. If you believe that politics should reflect the community, then having one BAME district councillor might be a reasonable statistical outcome.

Therefore, if you want to take affirmative action, the nature of that action might be different in London than it might be in Suffolk. And yet, the Party's first effort at affirmative action, for the European Parliamentary selections in 2012, offered up the blunt instrument of a guaranteed place on the list in every Region. Worse still, it offered the illusionary benefit of being selected to be a candidate whilst offering no guarantee that any such candidate could be elected.

History shows that, even if you were top of your Regional list, you weren't going to get elected given the catastrophe that was the Liberal Democrat result in 2014, but even if our vote had trebled, it isn't clear to me that any BAME candidate would have been elected anyway. One might have given respectable marks for trying, but I would have failed the initiative for proportionality, process and outcome.

So, what are the problems, and are there any possible solutions out there?

Might this finally be the end of the English Party?

In a motion which runs to rather less than the character limit of a Tweet, the future of the English Party might be made to look something a bit less than secure on 8 November.

The motion reads as follows;

That the East of England Liberal Democrats become a state party on 1 January 2016.

It must be said that the East of England does have some constitutional form here, in that it moved from one-year terms for its Executive Committee to two-year terms a few years ago - it was my idea and Regional Representatives seem to like it.

The notes outlining the impact of, and reasoning behind, the motion are rather longer;

Section 2.1 of the Federal Party constitution allows for regional parties to become state parties and this is reflected in 15.1 of this region's constitution.

Becoming a state party allows this region to receive greater funding, employ more staff, provide more services directly to the local parties and remove a level of bureaucracy, the English Party, from members in this region.

As the time to convert to a state party cannot be done overnight the proposal would be to change in 2016 and complete all the pre-administration after the general election in the second half of 2015.

Frankly, as a long-term critic of the English Party, its insularity and its consistent failure in terms of openness and transparency, I'll be voting in favour of the motion, and it will be interesting to see if it is part of an organised attempt across a number of Regional Parties.

Dear Nick, would you mind awfully keeping out of the disciplinary process?

I note that, according to the media, Nick Clegg is being called upon to expel Mike Hancock from the Party, in just the same way that he was called upon to expel Chris Rennard from the Party not so long ago. And, regardless of the offence, I have the same advice for him and the Leader's Office - stay well out of it, and offer no comment other than to confirm that the matter is in the hands of those whose hands it should be in.

You see, the Leader has no more say in the disciplinary processes of the Party than you or I, a point made abundantly clear by the disciplinary aspects of its membership rules. He (in this instance) can, however, distort or damage the process by merely expressing an opinion, and we can already see how well that has gone. All that has happened is that the media have been allowed to control the agenda, and given their disdain for due process, and frequently expressed dislike of the Liberal Democrats, it can hardly be said that they have justice at heart.

In both of the cases noted above, the Leader's Office have responded by trying to manage the story - badly. All that has been achieved is to inflate the story to being one of leadership, and they don't intend him to come out of it looking good. Instead, had he said, "A complaint has been made against X and, in accordance with the constitution of the Liberal Democrats, a disciplinary process has been initiated. I look forward to the matter being handled in accordance with the Party's rules, and await the result of their deliberations.", the matter could have been properly investigated, a judgement reached and disciplinary action taken as appropriate.

But in a world where the distance to the political horizon can be measured in minutes rather than years, the temptation to treat each situation as a media test to be 'managed' leads too many key people to react rather than respond. And, given the apparent disconnect between the leadership and the voluntary leadership - the very people who manage, amongst other things, the disciplinary processes of the Party - the scope for unhelpful interference is almost unbounded.

You see, the advantage of having published rules and processes is that they deal with most situations, and provide a framework for action where they don't. They won't satisfy everyone - some people only want one outcome and don't always care how they attain it - but they will usually reach a verdict that is in accordance with natural justice and can be justified on the basis of the evidence. Of course, they aren't designed to deal with certain types of cases - issues pertaining to legality, for example - as the full range of investigative powers is not available and nor would we want them to be. But, if my memory serves, that's what the police and Crown Prosecution Service are for.

I have no real optimism that lessons will be learnt from this - there are those who, when push comes to shove, don't really like the idea of internal party democracy, or due process unless it suits. But that doesn't mean that an aging bureaucrat like me can't wish for rather more respect for those who, like me believe that respect for the rule of law is a basic underpinning of liberalism in a democratic society.

Perhaps, instead of demanding that someone do something, have you thought of being that someone?

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.

A day in the life of a Returning Officer

It has been rather busy over the past week, through no real fault of my own, apart from saying, "Alright, I'll do it.". In respect, that might not have been entirely the most sensible thing for me to do.

But, despite everything, I've made it to the penultimate day of the process. Candidates are campaigning, my ballot box is assembled, with a silica gel packet at the bottom to absorb moisture, ballot papers have been printed, a membership list is printed and noted with the names of all those who need to renew their membership before being able to vote. I've e-mailed a copy of the Selection Rules to my Kindle so that I have it available to me if I need them, as well as an archive of e-mail in case there is a problem.

All is calm for the time being, and the sun is shining. I've even managed to find time to assemble a piece of garden furniture, string up some garden lights and go to the gym - Ros made me (a bit).

It probably can't last...

Exactly how much power do you want a leader to have?

The recent debate on the disciplinary structure of the Liberal Democrats has been fascinating, albeit in a "gosh, that's an awful train wreck, I hope that nobody's been too badly hurt" sort of way. And whilst I really don't have anything to say on the specifics of the matter, the question of the power of the Leader has intrigued me.

Not to be used on the membership, please, Nick...

There have been demands for action that seem, on the face of it, to be quite attractive. Something must, it seems, be done, although what exactly it should be, and by whom it should be done, is the subject of much angst. The media have it easy, in that they can attack Nick Clegg for not assuming dictatorial powers and simply issuing orders. And, indeed, some of our members and activists appear quite relaxed about that. "Change the disciplinary rules!", is the cry, "Deny the whip!".

And yet, if my understanding is correct, we are a political party based on the notion that power is to be shared, indeed to be almost given away by our currently over-dominant centre, so that power can be exercised at the most appropriate level. Indeed, our constitution is an attempt to demonstrate how it might be done, empowering Local Parties, Regions, Specified Associated Organisations and the like to take on a range of functions within a defined framework. For the most part, it works, and whilst one might grumble about the quality of leadership at various levels in particular instances, I seldom find myself wishing that it were fundamentally different.

What I don't want is for an unaccountable person in the Leader's Office to have the ability to override the democratic checks and balances of the Party, regardless of how legitimate their intentions are, just because it's 'easier' that way.

So, instead of demanding that something be done, why not respond in a properly liberal manner, and establish some proper transparency and accountability within our Party? Instead of a myriad of anonymous committees, why not publish details of the structure of the Party on its website, explaining what each committee does, and who sits on it. You could, if you wish, include contact details.

What we have at the moment is a political party which believes in democracy, indeed lives it in its every action, yet accountability, especially at more senior levels, is blurred. Revisions to the membership rules would require the approval of the relevant State Party, in my case, via English Council, so it would be nice to know who they are, in order to lobby them should I feel so inclined.

Knowing who represents us, and how they were appointed, is a vital element of our democracy, something which is just as true as a member of an organisation as it is as a citizen in a participatory democracy. As Liberal Democrats, we are in a position to set an example, and I can't help feeling that we have a duty to take a lead.

A weekend far from the madding crowd

One of the curious things about political parties is how they are organised, and where power lies. It isn't always where you might think, and it isn't always in the hands of the people you think would have it.

Whilst most people look at elected politicians and, quite reasonably, assume that they run the show, quite often they have power in the land, but not in their Party. Parties, as opposed to governments, are run by committee. For example, the Leader might want candidate X to be the chosen one for constituency Y. However, Committee A might either want candidate Z or, preferably, not care if candidate J is chosen instead.

So, as Labour Party members have recently discovered as they select their European Parliamentary lists, victory goes not to the swift, or the brave, but the friends of the shortlisting committee or those who appointed it. And the Conservatives have experienced similar problems in the recent past.

We're lucky like that in the Liberal Democrats. The English Candidates Committee is notorious for ignoring the desires of others, fiercely defending the concept of a level playing field for candidates. Alright, it may not always get that right, but that is its hope and aim. Returning Officers do not influence the decisions of shortlisting committees unless those decisions defy the rules and intent thereof.

However, some committees are obscure and probably deservedly so. For example, I sit on the Financial Advisory Committee of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe (ALDE). "The what of who?", I hear you ask. "Exactly!", I reply.

We offer our financial knowledge to the ALDE Party as, if you like, a backup to the Treasurer and the Secretariat. We consider funding bids and audit reports, the membership fee structure and fundraising initiatives, amongst other things. And, given my background, I was considered to be a legitimate nominee for one of the five places on the Committee.

For that reason, I'm on a Eurostar train somewhere in East Kent, heading back from today's meeting. My colleagues, from Catalonia, Croatia, Finland, Germany and the Netherlands, and I have discussed a range of issues, made some proposals for future action, and are now heading for home.

Unfortunately, it has meant more time away from the County Council campaign, although the lingering effects of shingles, combined with my study commitments, have made my contribution fairly negligible anyway.

But the sun is shining, Ros and I have enjoyed a thoroughly decent weekend in a city we both rather like, and I have six bottles of good Belgian beer in my suitcase.

Life could be far worse, couldn't it?