A new constitution to play with...

I guess that I should be flattered to have received the call. After all, it's not every day that you get invited to join a working group set up to look into aspects of a major organisation's statutes and rules of procedure, and an international one at that.

And thus, part of my morning was spent with colleagues from Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, North Macedonia and Spain, as well as the ALDE Party's Deputy Secretary General and its new HR Manager, looking at how to address the issues within our remit. I wasn't in Dublin when the debates took place which caused our group to come into being, so it was interesting to establish the "backstory" and thus the context underpinning what we have been asked to do.

It is perhaps a sign that I am mellowing but I found myself resisting an urge to stray into the politics of the decisions we are asked to reconcile with the Statutes and Internal Regulations. After all, we are an advisory group, tasked with drawing up proposals to go before the Party Council and Congress, not a decision making body. I see our goal as one of reflecting the wishes of Council and the Congress in such a way as to give them what they want, as far as is possible within the framework of Belgian law and of good organisation.

Now I accept that what I've said so far is opaque to the point of total obscurity - "What is the bureaucrat on about?", I hear you mutter - but I'm not actually sure how much of what I'm being asked to consider is in the public domain and, even if it is, I'm not wildly enthusiastic about the notion of discussing it too widely - yet.

Regardless, it was nice to be doing something which demonstrates that I still have a role and have something to offer.

So, here are some general perspectives which will guide my contributions over the coming weeks;

• constitutions should protect all parties as far as is possible
• change should not stem from personalities, but from situations, even if the personality has created the situation
• complexity should be kept to a minimum
• the laws of the legal jurisdiction should be at the core of constitutional change

I've spent far more time than is necessarily healthy reading constitutions over the years - partly because nobody else ever seems to - but a grasp of the rules of any game tend to help you to play it more effectively. And you develop a philosophical position over the years which either becomes more rigid or more questioning - I've personally gone for the latter.

As I understand it, we are to report back to Council in Bratislava at the beginning of December, so time is short, especially if, as I hope, we don't "spring" our proposals on an unsuspecting room full of delegates. And now, I must draft something for my colleagues...

Talking about a constitution...

Never let it be said that this blog is not focussed on the big issues, such as constitutional reform. Yet, funnily enough, having written about the importance of our unwritten conventions, this evening I found myself debating a new constitution for our county umbrella group, the Suffolk Association of Local Councils.

Apparently, the current version has developed over many years and almost as many iterations, finally becoming so overloaded that it was felt easier to just start again. And, indeed, it is a far more streamlined, accessible document. But, as is often the case, I felt that it could be better.

This evening was billed as being one of the three means by which members could make their opinions and suggestions known and, after the Chief Executive had introduced the document, I had intended to raise two issues of immediate concern. It was perhaps then unfortunate that the debate segued almost seamlessly into a discussion of issues relating to planning enforcement, which the chair of the meeting not unreasonably ran with, as it was clearly the will of the meeting to raise mutual concerns.

I let the debate blow itself out, before the Chair attempted to move on to next business. Politely, I noted that the accompanying document to the draft constitution stated quite clearly that the meeting was an opportunity to raise issues of concern or to seek clarification, and that I wanted to do just that.

There was a little uneasy shuffling, but I felt that I needed to stand my ground. So I did.

I wanted to question why the constitution as drafted appeared to make no reference to issues of diversity and equality, noting my previously stated concerns about the lack of gender balance amongst the Honorary Vice Presidents three years or so ago (they were all male). Where was the commitment not to allow such things to happen again? What message did the apparent lack of interest send out to women and other under represented groups?

In fairness, both the Chair and the Chief Executive acknowledged that SALC needed to do better in this area, and promised that my concerns would be conveyed to the Board (I now intend to be at the AGM to follow that up).

There was also a proposal to remove term limits for officers. Funnily enough, I might have let that slide a few years ago, but it is clear that best practice for public bodies is to have term limits, and I have been convinced by that argument. Long-established leaders in most groups tend to become ossified, and hard to shift, and I noted that SALC appeared to be heading away from acknowledged best practice.

The logic was, apparently, that people had simply ended up rotating through the Board positions, which perhaps indicates a closed-shop mentality amongst some of them, conscious or subconscious. Or, in other words, “we’re not very good at developing new leaders, so we’ll give up trying”.

Finally, whilst I had the floor, I raised the issue of holding an AGM during a workday. Yes, I can see the attraction, but it does send a subliminal message to non-retired Parish Councillors that they aren’t perhaps as important as retired ones, who possibly have more time on their hands.

So, a small blow for diversity, and a marker to the SALC Board that somebody is watching them. Transparency, as one of my fellow councillors noted, is a good thing, and it tends to lead to better decision making.

Here’s hoping, eh?

Lib Dem peerages row - it is, apparently, an outrage...

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, it seems that the notion that the Liberal Democrats might pick up some new Peers through the Dissolution Honours list is upsetting some people. It is, they claim, causing increased disproportionality in the Upper Chamber. Well, yes, although nobody seemed to care very much when it worked the other way for so many years.

And if proportionality is such a good thing, are all of these people manning the barricades in favour of proportional representation? Almost certainly not.

The Dissolution Honours list is designed to reflect a desire to honour those perceived to have served their country well and faithfully over a period of years in Parliament (you will notice that I use the word 'perceived' - that's rather a matter of personal opinion, I appreciate). And some worthy recipients will be named in due course, I suspect.

There will be arguments about whether there were enough women, or BAME, Peers announced, undoubtedly, although those are as much arguments to be had within the political parties as anything.

But, in the lists of new Peers that will follow this one, it seems unlikely that there will be many Liberal Democrats, if any - if the proportionality argument resonates with David Cameron, that is. And the Grim Reaper will also act to level things up, if that's what people want - there is a steady winnowing out of the membership year on year.

So, good luck to the new Peers, whoever they are. Holding the government to account, scrutinising its activities and examining proposed legislation for defects is seldom glamorous, but in a Parliamentary system designed as it currently is, it is a means for Liberal Democrats to contribute to the governance of this nation.