That'll teach me to read the Conference papers a bit earlier next time...

I'm a Liberal Democrat and I read constitutions. That makes me, it seems, slightly geeky, even by the standards of Liberal Democrats. However, occasionally, I spot something that makes me think and, having started the process of organising my diary for Spring Conference, I allowed myself to be distracted by the content.

That allowed me to spot agenda item F3: Business Motion - FIRC. It is, in the generality, a good thing, in that it tidies up the way in which the Party delegations to the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) and Liberal International are chosen and led, codifying what was done by custom and practice in the past. The problem is that I think that it contradicts the Internal Regulations of the ALDE Party. See what you think...

F3: Business Motion - FIRC

1. Our delegation to the ALDE Council shall comprise:

b) Any Liberal Democrat members of the ALDE Bureau, unless they already have their own place as Council members.

whilst the ALDE Party Internal Regulations say:

The following persons will be entitled to attend the meetings of the Council, with voting rights:

b) Members of the ALDE Party Bureau. Each Bureau member carries an individual vote and cannot take an additional proxy vote, either on behalf of another member of the ALDE Party Bureau or of an ALDE Party member party.

Now call me quirky and old fashioned, but that suggests that ALDE Party Bureau members can't vote on behalf of member parties, whilst the Business Motion puts any Liberal Democrat member of the Bureau in exactly that position. Doesn't it?

There is still time (just) to amend it, but I don't want to appear to be being awkward for the sake of it. Suggestions, Liberal Democrat hive mind?

Keeping myself busy, and vaguely useful too...

Ah yes, constitutions. Wonderful things, in the right hands. Admittedly, in the wrong hands, a thing of peril, but they are at least reasonably certain. And, for someone like me, used to working in a rules-based, legislative system, a cause of work within a party political environment.

People do not join political parties to enforce rules - they generally join to make rules, or change them. And thus, anyone willing to be the arbiter of them is likely not to be stampeded in the rush to do so. My Party “career” is a fairly good example of that - seldom opposed and often left to get on with it unmolested by interference.

At the moment, I’m reminded of that. I’m on Returning Officer duty at the moment, for a decent seat on the East of England, and having to reacquaint myself with the Selection Rules. Who knew about candidate compacts? And who do you have to talk to in order to get things done? But it all seems to be coming together, so we’ll keep our fingers crossed.

We’re in a constitutional review phase too, seeing what was missed in the recent Governance Review and what has been “shaken out of the tree” as a result. Personally, I find myself wondering why the Federal Board nominates members to its various subordinate committees. Each of the committees is represented on Federal Board, so can report upwards and convey the wishes of Federal Board back down again. It implies an effective lack of trust and places people in position without an adequately defined role. What is the Federal Board representative on, say, Federal International Relations Committee, for? What is their intended role?

I’m not a believer in form over function, so I tend to the viewpoint that every Committee member must be there for a clearly defined reason to carry out a broadly defined role. Otherwise, what are they for, and how much value do they add?

I’m also of the view that a member of Federal International Relations Committee should sit on Federal Policy Committee, instead of the other way round as at present. FIRC advises the Party on international policy, not the other way round, yet there is no official representative - the Chair attends in an invited, advisory capacity.

I often think that the Party bureaucracy is designed to reflect a cynical but widely held view that nobody is to be wholly trusted with authority, and that the more people you have supervising any particular body or activity, the better. We talk a good game about proportionate supervision and regulation, yet seldom demonstrate it in our Party’s organisation. I guess that that’s ironic (don’t you think?).

So, having been asked to consider the question of possible constitutional amendments by our Committee Chair, Robert Woodthorpe-Browne, I have the slight advantage of having already given the matter some thought.

And, finally, I’ve got an English Appeals Panel “gig”, tasked with interpreting an element of the Party’s Constitution. Luckily, it’s a paper hearing, saving me a journey to London, but nonetheless it has to be done right.

I guess that all that Constitution Reading is paying off...

[insert title here] - 21 October 2015

Conservatives miss the trick

Liberal Democrats announce that they will submit a fatal motion with regards to the Statutory Instrument intended to facilitate dramatic cuts in tax credits for working people. In response, the Conservatives say that the future of the House of Lords is in jeopardy. Many Liberal Democrats respond, "And the problem is?"...

Something to listen to

Never let it be said that we are without culture, here at 'Liberal Bureaucracy. Here's a little something from the works of Stefano Landi...

On this day... in 2011

I was, much to your surprise, no doubt, thinking about a constitution - in this instance, that of my Regional Party. Moving to a two-year cycle for Regional elections meant that the Regional Executive and its sub-committees actually had time to get a grasp of the issues before having to stand for re-election. Never let it be said that a bureaucrat can't be radical...

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?...

@liberal_reform - can you miss all four corners of a point?

I have been invited today to endorse a proposed amendment to the Party's Constitution, which reads;

In article 7.3 of the constitution, add to the end of the first sentence:

", and subject to the Leader's right to veto the inclusion of any specific policy."

What this means is that the Federal Policy Committee, which draws up the Party's manifestos for Westminster and Europe, shall retain its responsibility, subject to the right of the Leader to veto anything he or she doesn't like.

I like to think that I am not a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist - I prefer a panama for one thing - but do have some respect for the history and traditions of the Party. Policy making by ordinary Party members is one of the things that makes us different from Labour and the Conservatives, a point made abundantly clear by Lizzie Jewkes and her idea that raising the personal tax allowance to £10,000 per annum would be a liberal means of redistribution and would allow more people more control over their own lives.

This amendment would, if passed, allow a Leader to conclude - I don't think that this policy is workable, so I'll veto it, even were it to be passed overwhelmingly at a Federal Conference. And, you see, a Leader isn't always right.

I am a bit of a process geek. I favour the notion of testing ideas through the filtration of Federal Conferences and Federal Policy Committee, because there is always someone who will, if given a chance, get up and say, "I think that you'll find that the 1846 Paper Clips Act makes the proposal unworkable.". Liberal Democrats can be pedantic like that, but good policy making requires exactitude and knowledge.

Yes, a Leader has people to do research for them, but my experience of a series of Leader's Offices is that 'group-think' tends to set in sooner rather than later. Which one of them wants to be the one to say to the Leader, "You're wrong on this one, Boss."?

We are also a Party which treasures its internal democracy, the right for all of us to have a say. What impression would it give for the Party to have a passionate debate over an idea, draw its conclusion and then have that overruled by one man or woman?

I do see a logic in the way Liberal Reform are thinking. Tuition fees turned out to be a disaster, and had Nick vetoed it before the General Election, we might not have had so many problems with the notion of trust. But, it wasn't about the policy, it was about what we did with the policy, about the pledge that so many of our people signed in 2010, and how we dealt with it in Government.

My apologies, ladies and gentlemen of Liberal Reform, but you do not address a misjudgement by the leadership of a political party by giving that leadership more power. And so, with regret, I must advise that I won't be supporting your constitutional amendment...

It's that time of year when a bureaucrat's thoughts turn to amending the Constitution...

Off to Cambridge tomorrow for East of England's Annual Conference (we don't have a Spring Conference, the only Region not to have one, as far as I know), where I get to chair the pre-lunch session, including presentations on the 2012 campaign (not available in Mid Suffolk) and diversity, a speech from Watford's city boss, Dorothy Thornhill, and the report of our MEP, Andrew Duff. This means that I don't have to work too hard, but come up with pithy introductions for each bit, and maybe control a few questioners.

We then have the entertaining prospect of Ros chairing the session where I torture the Regional Constitution a bit more - I'm hoping to move to a two-year cycle for elections, and free up our Parliamentarians and Youth to select their representatives by a method of their choosing at a time of their choosing. I'm hoping that she'll be kind to me, as it's my first speech to Conference.

We also get a new Regional Chair, and I'll be intrigued to see who it is, albeit not intrigued enough to serve on their Executive Committee. As a result, I get to work with our Returning Officer to deal with the fallout from the nomination process. It seems fair enough, especially as I wrote the briefing notes for him, as well as the election rules.

And with only one meeting of the Regional Executive to go, I can quietly slip away into the evening, playing Butch Cassidy to Ros's Sundance Kid... or something like that. It will make life a little more peaceful...