Thirty-five or more years as a bureaucrat, both professionally and on a volunteer basis within the Liberal Democrats has, to be honest, taught me that the answer is no, not really.
Given that, in my experience from five Local Parties, two Regional Parties, my State Party and a Federal Committee, most key administrative tasks are performed by busy people who, on the whole, would rather be doing something else, that leads me to wonder how vulnerable political parties are to organisational failure.
Most people join political parties because they either want to be something or change something. If you're lucky, they want both, because that means that you can fill the roles that need filling. That's primarily seen as being either a candidate or a campaigner, because what is a political party if it doesn't run candidates for public office? But, behind them are a small corps of people who enable, for want of a better word. They're the ones that ensure that your group is compliant with the law, like Treasurers, or the Constitution, like Secretaries.
And, unlike your candidate, who at least theoretically has a chance of getting elected and holding power, your Treasurer and Secretary are probably doing it because "someone needs to" and they're the ones too slow, or too nice, to escape. There is no glory, little gratitude, and a swathe of hassle from those who would rather criticise you for doing what they perceive to be a bad job than offer to do it themselves. You probably don't need to travel much though, so that's a good thing at least.
Then there are the organisational roles which are required by the Party's rules, with good reason. Neutral returning officers, members of disciplinary and appeals panels, for example. If you thought that there was little glory or gratitude to be had from holding local office, trust me when I say that there's even less in holding one of these positions. They can take days and weeks out of your life and, whilst occasionally, someone says thank you, it is perhaps a mark of how often that happens that I am pleasantly surprised when someone does. This year's Young Liberals fall into that category, for example. And, in normal times, you are expected to travel, though please keep the costs down.
To give you an idea, I was once barked at by a European Parliamentary candidate for not approving their manifesto (we used to do that once) within five hours. And they were right, in that I hadn't. The fact that I was on holiday in Argentina, and it had been sent at 3 a.m. my time was an irrelevancy - it was assumed that their urgency trumped respect for a volunteer.
My sense is that Liberal Democrats don't really approve of bureaucrats. They are, at best, an obligatory element of running a political party, but that lack of approval runs further than that, in that I've often found myself bridling slightly when Liberal Democrat politicians talk about the Civil Service. Admittedly, that doesn't happen perhaps as much as it should - when was the last time you heard a Liberal Democrat talk about Civil Service recruitment and retention, or pay and conditions, or how Government Departments might be better managed and led?
Perhaps a look a the 2019 manifesto might enlighten? Actually, no it won't... The 2014 Policy paper "Protecting Public Services and Making Them Work For You"? I'm afraid not.
Now, before the cavilling starts - "we're really grateful", "thank you for everything you do" - and for those of you who do, and have, thanked your friendly neighbourhood bureaucrat over the years, please don't feel the need to do so now, I wouldn't suggest that the problem is unique to Liberal Democrats, far from it. However, Labour and the Conservatives have the advantage of a pool of paid professionals who can handle much of the arduous bureaucracy.
And, when push comes to shove, the unglamorous, arduous bits of politics are just as unvalued across the political spectrum, which is why most politicians discussing bureaucracy are generally critical rather than constructive.
I am, perhaps, more resilient than most. In my professional life, I seldom expect to be thanked, or even liked - that would be a bit weird, if I'm honest. But, as a volunteer, doing a job that very few people want to do, you do need to receive a little respect and gratitude, commensurate with the effort outlaid if you're doing a decent job.
So, when your next AGM comes round, and your Secretary, who has been hinting that they'd really like to be relieved, is being urged to do "just one more year", perhaps it might be a good idea to do some succession planning in advance? At the very least, thank them for their service, lest they decide that a midweek evening is more pleasurably spent in front of a television scheme or with loved ones.
As someone who has been Local Party Secretary, Ward Treasurer, Organiser, Election Agent, and Executive Committee Member at various times, I have great sympathy for you. Candidates and Councillors often do not appreciate just how much work is needed to keep a local Party running smoothly.
ReplyDeleteIn my last role as Election Agent, I did make succession-planning an integral part of my work; unfortunately, in my case it fell over when the person who had succeeded me as Agent moved to another local party after just a year and one election.
NOBODY appreciates bureaucrats. But we're the people who keep the wheels going round.
ReplyDeleteThere's a chapter in Little Women where the mother basically goes on strike for the day. Nothing gets done in the house, the stove goes out, and the canary dies because nobody remembers to give it any water. A Lesson for the four girls. Not exactly bureaucracy, but the same principle.
And I can sympathise with Laurence Cox - every time I think I've found someone to take over one of my roles, they move. Or, worse, we get them elected to the Council and they cease to be any use to me.