Federal Council - the bureaucrat cut

I did promise in my manifesto for Federal Council that I would report back, and so I offer some personal thoughts on Wednesday night’s meeting.  

Our agenda revolved around three key items - a briefing on General Election planning and organisation, a review of the Federal Board’s decision making on the fate of Autumn Conference, and a briefing on the revisions to the Party’s disciplinary processes.

Bearing in mind that I’m really not a campaigner, and perhaps don’t match the classic definition of activist these days, I thought that Neil Fawcett explained the strategy with a level of credibility that you might (a) hope for, and (b) expect, from a hardened campaigner like Neil. There will doubtless be an inquest into the outcome, regardless of what it is, but decisions should only be made on the basis of the available facts and I think that, as far as medium and long term strategy can be deduced, I’m content that the decisions are in good hands. As for short term strategy, we can probably only hope that those in the campaign’s wheelhouse have the good sense to respond rather than react, and resist the temptation to chase rainbows.

There has been a great deal of unhappiness about the suggestion that Autumn Conference might be axed in anticipation of a General Election after the summer. And I do wonder whether or not the risks have been selectively placed before members. But I suppose the argument rests on a number of key points:

• Opportunity cost - does cancelling, or truncating, conference risk the loss of valuable media coverage?

• Staff cost - can our limited professional team cope with both an Autumn conference and a General Election?

• Financial cost - what effect would proceeding with Conference or cancelling it have on the funds available for a General Election campaign?

I was prepared to be swayed on the decision, and listened to the arguments as they flowed backwards and forwards. But overshadowing the discussion is the uncomfortable truth that we have a Conservative administration whose decision making is difficult to assign logic to. And with the media all over the place in terms of opinion, I don’t envy Federal Conference Committee in their choices.

It isn’t necessary to make a decision quite yet, but my suspicion (and it’s no more than that) is that some sort of glorified rally will take place if Rishi doesn’t go in May. If our campaigning is still ramping up at the end of the summer, will activists in target seats want to up sticks and head to Brighton for a few days? I’m not sure that I would. But I’d want the decision to be based on an airing of all of the facts, and I’m not sure that they’ve all been made available yet.

But Council have made some recommendations for any decision making process that follows, and hopefully that will help.

The disciplinary process has been an area of much concern in some quarters within the Party and, as a former member of the Appeals Panel for England, I’m more aware than some of the ramifications of getting it wrong. But political parties are increasingly bound by the impacts of legislation and case law, which place a potentially heavy burden upon them in an increasingly litigious society. Doing what’s right, philosophically and legally, becomes an increasingly costly “luxury” when placed in the context of financing political campaigning yet, if you yield to anyone who threatens you with lawyers, what hope is there for philosophical coherence or political unity?

Unfortunately, by the time we got to the presentation on it, we had overrun somewhat, and members were drifting off. That meant that a useful discussion was missed by some colleagues, and we may be obliged to address the issue further in the future.

I do wonder though if part of the problem is a sense of distrust in some quarters as to whether or not any disciplinary process might be used to ensure adherence to one particular view or other. Is that distrust supported by the facts? I’m not convinced that it is but must accept that others have a different perspective.

As someone who believes in an element of policy difference within a broader party canvas, I tend to the view that behaviour is more of a problem than policy disagreement, and respectfully arguing your case shouldn’t be, in itself, a reason for disciplinary action. But if, in expressing those views, you disrespect or otherwise mistreat others, then there probably ought to be consequences.

All in all, an interesting and occasionally challenging meeting, albeit we still feel reactive rather than responsive. But it’s for members to draw a conclusion as to whether or not we add value either collectively or as individuals, and we can only strive towards doing so.