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...
12 comments:
Furthermore, it doesn't take much to imagine what Liberal Reform would say if a future leader were to exercise such a veto on a policy that they favoured.
@Andrew,
I am confident that they would accept such an event in a calm and dispassionate manner. After all, how could one object to giving someone a power which they then use?
I'd like to see it come before Conference, for Tim and Norman both to speak against it, and then to have a really big bag of popcorn for the Liberal Reform summation speech explaining that the Leader can veto everything except this.
" 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 he'd made no attempts to even limit the pledge, change the policy or even put across that it'd be a lower priority in a coalition than in a LD led Govt in the run up to the GE, that was the real problem, lack of leadership.
Basically, I agree with you completely ;-)
The leader isn't always right, nor is the FPC. The leader is at least accountable for his or her decisions.
Sending a leader into an election campaign to bat for a policy they don't agree with is, I suppose, par for the course. Nigel Farage handled this well in explaining the difference between his position and his party's on the NHS.
But sending a leader into coalition negotiations to bat a policy which, rumour has it, he or she doesn't support, and then has to be conceded, gives a crushing free hit against us on "trust".
This is about learning our lessons on trust. Happy to consider better ideas.
"But sending a leader into coalition negotiations to bat a policy which, rumour has it, he or she doesn't support, and then has to be conceded, gives a crushing free hit against us on "trust"."
A leader's veto on any slighly controversial policy may lead to the same. Having open devisions between party and leadership on policy will certainly not help to regain trust.
As far as coalition negotiations are concerned we need to make it much clearer that it is conference that sets policy not the leadership. In future negotiations the chair of FPC/manifesto working group may be put centre stage in the party's media game to avoid such 'conflicts of interest' stories developing
@Alex,
Is there a bag of popcorn big enough?
@MatGB,
You can always underpromise and overdeliver. What you can't do is overpromise and then deliver something that looks like the opposite...
@Joe,
I agree, neither FPC nor the Leader is always right. But Conference is sovereign, which is rather the point. In any event, a Party is not simply a fan club for its Leader - well, I'd like to think not this Party, anyway. We follow a Leader because we want to, and he or she is going in a direction that we support. Your proposal jeopardises that link. But, if you want to insist on pursuing this...
@Josef,
A fair point, well made...
If a Leader doesn't like a policy, then they should come before the party to put their case. If it is a good case, the chances are the majority of the party will support a change.
We are not generally in favour of centralising power. Why would we want to give control to one individual (however stellar)?
There is a fuller explanation of the proposal here:
http://www.libdemvoice.org/a-small-step-for-trust-in-the-manifesto-46604.html
The points about conference's right to set policy are a bit of a red herring. Conference doesn't have the right to put policies in the manifesto. This is a power of the elected but unaccountable FPC that I am adding a check to.
@Joe,
Yes, and it's a pretty poor explanation too. The powers enshrined in the Party's constitution are not a 'red herring' as you put it. And if FPC isn't accountable enough for you, amend the constitution to make it accountable enough.
The notion that a liberal might believe that giving unlimited power to one person is a good idea is a horrifying one.
Mark,
I'm struggling to follow your argument now. Nothing in my proposal changes either conference's right to set policy, or the absence of a right of conference to put something in the manifesto.
The unaccountability of FPC is relevant to the question of who has the better mandate, but is not central to my point, which is about taking away a reason that voters might have not to trust our party leader.
Nonetheless the lack of transparency is something I have raised in the past for example in a question to the FE report at the York federal conference. What have you done? Why is it suddenly my job to fix the problem of the transparency of federal committees?
And this 'unlimited power' of which you speak is still rather less power over the manifesto than the FPC wields (unaccountably).
@ Joe,
Go away and read your proposed amendment, why don't you? It says that the Leader may veto ANY specific policy - explain to me where the limit is in that. It theoretically allows the Leader to veto every policy and, whilst that might appear unlikely, you make it possible.
The Constitution, as agreed by Conference, empowers FPC, a group elected by Conference, to act on its behalf. They are accountable every two years and, with the introduction of OMOV, are therefore a reasonable reflection of opinion across the Party. If you don't like FPC, say so, rather than seek to override it.
In terms of transparency, I have walked the walk, reporting back publicly via my blog and Liberal Democrat Voice on those committees I have served upon. You might have noticed, given that you're a member of the Editorial Board. But tell me, how did Liberal Reform decide that this proposal was to be put forward? Were its members consulted first before the e-mail was issued seeking support? Or is the strong leader model in vogue amongst your gallant crew?
Post a Comment