Post-Federal Council, some musings on internal Party democracy and accountability

At the end of Federal Council last week, I raised with my new colleagues the question of reporting back - how, and to whom. I wasn’t trying to start a debate, more an attempt to give them something to dwell on.

My personal view is that, having been elected by the members (at least, those engaged enough to want to take part), I have some obligation to tell them what I’ve done and why, so far as is appropriate. Naturally, I will do that in my own mostly light-hearted way - I’ve never been one to take myself too seriously - but I will respect the responsibility that has been placed upon me.

That isn’t always easy. There have been those, many on the committees concerned, who are uncomfortable with transparency, and I do get that. Indeed, I take the view that there are some things too sensitive to be aired publicly, in which case I will not mention them or do so in a neutral manner designed to indicate that the subject has been discussed but no more.

I will also adhere to whatever rules that Federal Council decides upon in terms of confidentiality. There are some issues that require discretion, especially where they relate to individuals, in particular, staff. As a Federal Council member, I have an obligation to treat others with respect and courtesy, as made clear by the Member Code of Conduct.

This disappoints some people, who think that liberal principles require us to be utterly transparent. I judge that to be naïve, knowing as I do that our opponents would never make the same mistake. And, given that our strengths include hard work and an element of surprise, why give anything away that might jeopardise either?

My personal policy has survived the best part of two decades now, from my time on the London Liberal Democrats Regional Executive, its East of England equivalent, via English Candidates Committee to Federal International Relations Committee, and I’ve tried to be pretty consistent throughout.

That means that my reports aren’t “official” - that would require me to be the Chair, which I’m not. And they represent my perspective, based on what I know, which means that they might not be perfect - I may have missed nuance, or be unaware of institutional history/memory. But they’re mine, and I’m accountable for them.

So, when (or if) I choose to run for re-election, voters will have rather more than a brief, carefully curated, manifesto upon which to judge my worth. It is for my colleagues to decide how, and if, they do something similar, and I wouldn’t criticise their decision either way - they’re busy people with their own priorities and personal styles. Some will be more restrained, others not used to blogging or other social media. We are all different.

NALC - elections are coming

I am, as I may have mentioned elsewhere, Suffolk's representative on the National Assembly of the National Association of Local Councils (NALC). And, in that capacity, I have received this notice;

Nominations are open for NALC's National Assembly members for the upcoming elections in December 2021.

The primary objective of the National Assembly is to oversee the delivery of NALC’s objectives as set out in the constitution, to represent the interest of the local (parish and town) councils in England to provide support and coordination to as aspects of the work of local councils.

NALC is looking for passionate, committed, enthusiastic local councillors with the right skills to serve on its National Assembly and governing committees and support county associations' work.

Hmmm... my bureaucrat antennae twitch at the thought of running for election in an organisation which might benefit from my organisational skills and sense of process. I am, as bureaucrats go, sympathetic towards the politics of our sector and am lucky enough to benefit from the wealth of knowledge and experience possessed by Ros, i.e. she is perfectly willing to patiently explain why my slightly random musings might be undeliverable, impractical or unnecessary. That is a good thing, let me assure you. Think of it as the difference between a practitioner and a theoretician...

There are a range of roles up for grabs;

• Chair
• Vice-chair (finance)
• Vice-chair (member services)
• Management Board (six vacancies)
• Finance and Scrutiny Committee (five vacancies)
• Policy Committee (seven vacancies)
• Larger Councils Committee (four vacancies)
• Smaller Councils Committee (five vacancies)

noting that I'm ineligible to stand for the Larger Councils Committee.

As a relatively new member of the National Assembly, I wouldn't have the audacity to run for Chair or Vice-Chair, and the Management Board, I feel, requires a rather firmer grasp of the culture and environment of NALC than I can reasonably claim at this point.

That rather simplifies the options, although there is a fourth option, which is not to run at all. Organisations need chiefs and Indians, and I'm probably better qualified to be the latter than any other member of the National Assembly - I'm half-Indian, remember. You could, and I would, argue that committees need someone to ask questions of them from the outside, so to speak.

I've not traditionally been a policy wonk, although I have an enthusiasm for ideas and a sense of the possible, whilst my professional background suggests that I could contribute to the Finance and Scrutiny Committee. On the other hand, I am passionate about ensuring that micro councils like mine aren't overlooked in the rush towards local devolution deals and empowerment - there's only so much empowerment that small communities can handle.

Luckily, I've got nearly five weeks to ponder over whether to run or what to run for. It will also be interesting to see if people actually campaign or whether there is any organisation of slates - you can learn a lot about an organisation by how it runs its elections.

First though, I've got an election of my own to deal with...

And so, in a not entirely welcome turn of events...

Seventeen months ago, in a set of internal party elections whose outcome was not entirely unexpected, I lost my place on the Federal International Relations Committee (FIRC) and failed to be elected back onto the ALDE Party Council delegation, the latter despite a second bite of the cherry granted to me by the party's (relative) success in the December 2019 General Election.

I wasn't that far from success in either contest but, if you haven't won, you've lost. And, in fairness, looking at who had won, and indeed at some of those who had lost, I couldn't in all fairness have much complaint. I don't offer the electorate promises on policy that aren't actually salient - ALDE Party Council seldom discusses policy and is more like a rather large Finance and Administration Committee - and my reputation is as a bureaucrat rather than an internationalist (that'll teach me to care about structure and process, won't it?). And, the candidates who beat me could claim experience and knowledge that, in truth, I can't match.

Accordingly, I had reconciled myself to the outcome and was hardly pining for a return - life is too short, and there's a whole world out there for someone with a sense of intellectual curiosity and a desire to understand as far as possible.

A vacancy had arisen, following the resignation of one of the directly elected FIRC members, both from the committee and the Party, but I wasn't the runner-up, and you seldom see that many resignations, even in a three-year term. And so, Jonathan Fryer's untimely, and extremely unfortunate, demise created an unexpected vacancy on both FIRC and the ALDE Party Council delegation.

Having been consulted on how the vacancies should be filled, for reasons I don't entirely comprehend, I pointed the Committee to Jack Coulson, the Party's very capable Company Secretary, who handles such things in accordance with the Party's constitution, and left matters to take their course.

Internal by-elections are often quite hard to call, especially when you're effectively eliminating someone with a considerable number of first preferences. The way they split isn't easily predictable, especially if, in the original count, their preferences weren't transferred as part of the process. Looking at the original result, there were a number of candidates potentially in the frame, so I didn't get my hopes up. And, as already noted, I wasn't desperate to return.

The result was a bit of a surprise, in that I was now successful in both elections. There was, however, something unexpected, in that the Constitution says that, in the event of a recount, no previously elected candidate should lose their place, and, in the ALDE Party Council recount, exactly that had happened. And so, I appealed, knowing that, if my appeal was successful, I would lose my newly gained place.

I should be somewhat embarrassed by the fact that my appeal was unsuccessful - * long time bureaucrat in interpretation fail * - but sometimes you don't have all of the facts and it turned out that the interpretation of the constitutional validity of the initial declaration of the result of the 2019 election had not been widely known.

And so, I am back, at least until 31 December next year. I'm not planning to get comfortable, and I don't know if I'll even run for re-election - we'll see how it goes. But you can expect some coverage here about what I'm doing on the Committee and elsewhere, for there's little point in my representing those people who kindly voted for me, and indeed, those who didn't - I didn't take it personally, I promise - otherwise.

So, bureaucrat, parish councillor and international activist. It's an eclectic collection of roles, but each offers me the opportunity to contribute to making things better, even if only slightly. And, at the end of the day, if you're making things better, you are making a contribution towards the wider community, and isn't that something we should all aspire to?...

The Kind Hearts and Coronets route to a place on a Federal Committee?...

Readers may recall that my campaigns for election to the Federal International Relations Committee and the Party’s delegation to the ALDE Party Council were less than entirely successful - I was the second runner-up for both. And that was alright, as I’m a great believer in democracy and have never seen myself as having a divine right to do anything. Besides, it’s not as if I don’t have other things to keep me entertained.

However, news reached me the other day that, after only eight and a half months, the Federal International Relations Committee has a vacancy, following a resignation. I know this because the Committee’s Chair contacted me to ask who would fill the vacancy, assuming that I had been the Returning Officer. I was slightly perplexed for a moment, given that I had been a candidate myself, but courteously pointed him in the direction of the Chief Executive, who can arrange for a recount to fill the vacancy.

And so I wait for news of the newly-elected member of FIRC. Given my somewhat lively past as a member, I won’t be lying awake at nights hoping that it will be me, although I still think that I have a different perspective to offer.

In truth, FIRC has not really achieved what I had hoped for it - a useful resource for the wider Party, bringing together expertise and marrying it with political strategy for the benefit of the Foreign Affairs teams in Parliament and for local campaigners who might come across specific issues in their local campaigning. It feels a bit like a bolt-on, rather than an integral part of the Party’s policy and campaigning effort.

Reporting back seems to have stopped too, although somebody would have to have the will to take the role and just take responsibility for it.

We’ll see what happens though...

It’s not just the Presidential contest that isn’t over yet...

One of the advantages of reading constitutions is that you tend to have a better grasp of the rules of the contest. And, if you read more than one constitution, you’re likely to have a better grasp of the intersections between them. Better still, if you had a hand in writing one of them...

When the new Federal International Relations Committee emerged from the Party’s most recent governance review, I was the Secretary of its predecessor, and I realised quite quickly that someone was going to have to deal with the constitutional niceties. Given the makeup of the Committee, that was probably always going to be me, and so I arranged for the creation of standing orders, a communications plan and all of the other stuff required by the Federal Constitution.

It would be fair to say that there was some grumbling in terms of why this stuff was necessary. But, if you’re going to have a job, you need a framework within which it can be delivered.

One of my early tasks was to suggest how the new ALDE Party Council delegation would be determined, and I concluded that, regardless of how many places we were entitled to, two of our delegates should be the Party President, given their stated role as the principle public representative of the Party, and the Chair of the Federal International Relations Committee, which seemed obvious. The rest were to be directly elected.

This was accepted by the Committee, and, in due course, advised to the Party so that this could be dealt with as part of the election cycle. I note, in passing, that this didn’t happen this year, and all six of our delegates were directly elected. And whilst that’s a problem, it’s not one that I can fix.

However, wearing one of my other hats, I was considering a proposal within the ALDE Party for revising its membership fee structure and, by extension, member party entitlements. From that sprang a revised formula for determining how many Council delegates a member party is entitled to, and this turned out to be;

1  +  number of votes received/500,000  +  percentage vote/10

where the votes received and percentage vote related to the last Parliamentary election.

2015 hadn’t been a good year for us, and so, the calculation was;

1  +  2,415,916/500,000  +  7.9/10  =   6.62

which was rounded to the nearest whole number, i.e. 7.

2017 was, almost unbelievably, worse, and so, the calculation was;

1  +  2,371,861/500,000  +  7.4/10   =   6.48

which, rounded to the nearest whole number, became 6, the number used to determine how many would be elected this time.

Those of you who “get” numbers will probably now be thinking, “ah, I see where this is going...”.

Throwing the current polling numbers into the calculation, and assuming that turnout on 12 December is similar to last time, the formula produces this;

1  +  5,120,000/500,000  +  16/10   =   12.84

or, rounded to the nearest whole number, 13.

In other words, the Returning Officer will be required to rerun the election with a revised number of vacancies, and my race may yet not be run...

A bureaucrat, a glass of Transnistrian brandy and some election results...

All good things must come to an end, I am told, and my time on the Party's Federal International Relations Committee has come to an end after five occasionally glorious years, following today's publication of the Federal Party election results.

In truth, I didn't do too badly, coming seventh on first preferences in an election for six vacancies although, in the final analysis, I was pushed down to eighth on transfers, but only just. And, given that I was beaten by some very worthy candidates, I can't really complain. Some churn is necessary to keep committees fresh, and I am no exception to that desirable rule.

Indeed, of the five members who ran for re-election, only two of us survived, with some interesting new members replacing us.

Hannah Bettsworth returns to the committee in a new guise, having previously represented the Young Liberals in her past life as their International Officer.

Doreen Huddart is an old friend, a fellow Returning Officer and candidate assessor but, more saliently, has served on the EU Committee of the Regions for two decades now. She knows how Europe works, and will add her own inimitable style to proceedings. She likes to do things, rather than be things.

Philippa Leslie-Jones is, I admit, a bit of a mystery to me, but as a former diplomat, you can hardly doubt her credibility as a member of the new committee.

Ruth Coleman-Taylor is another old friend, and has been an active member of our delegations to both the ALDE Party Council and Congress for many years, and is totally committed in her internationalism.

The two survivors are Phil Bennion and Jonathan Fryer, both of whom are well known and well regarded, so it is a strong committee going forward.

So, four women and two men, which is a bit unusual in historical terms, the committee having been a bit "male heavy" in the past.

I have one final task to perform, having been asked to act as Returning Officer for the election of a new Chair. One of the above six will fill the role, as per the Federal Constitution, and I will be working with Denali Ranasinghe, FIRC's Secretary, to progress this.

I also ran to return to the ALDE Party Council delegation after a three year break and, on first sight, it looks like I lost. There is a complication though, as we elected six members. The ALDE Party Standing Orders state that a member party's entitlement of Council delegates is linked to its electoral performance and is updated on 1 January of the year following the last set of national elections. So, if we do well, I might yet be back.

I may have rather more personal interest in our performance on 12 December than I had expected...

Why Labour's troubles should act as a warning to all political parties...

If you're a political activist, as most of the people reading this probably are, and not a member of the Labour Party, there is an obvious temptation to look upon the internal strife as Jeremy Corbyn and the Parliamentary Labour Party do battle and order stocks of popcorn. I started political life as a democracy activist rather than a party member though, and it's rather more complex than that, I suspect.

You see, a vibrant democracy requires a range of credible options for the voter, and if Labour do destroy themselves, it removes one significant option for the electorate. Yes, those Labour voters might opt for the Greens, or the Liberal Democrats. Some, many, would vote for an emerging Corbynista 'Socialist Party', others for some new 'Social Democrat' option. But, with 'first past the post', such a fragmentation of the left and centre-left would risk one-Party rule from the right for a generation.

All very interesting, but conjecture nonetheless. What we have learned, should we wish to, is the vulnerability of political parties to an influx of members whose views might not sit comfortably with those of the Parliamentary leadership, or of the voting base of the Party generally. We've also learned that political parties are vulnerable when process is weak or erratically applied.

There is no doubt that Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party was rooted in a breakdown of the relationship between constituency Labour Parties and their MPs, caused in part by that influx of new members last year. Admittedly, the naivety of some Labour MPs nominating a candidate they never supported in order to allow a contest was simply staggering. One must assume that said MPs didn't realise what the membership were minded to do given the chance.

And that membership hasn't fundamentally changed since then. Indeed, if you're young, and rather more idealistic than I am, the idea of a socialist leader of an erstwhile socialist party seems, not unreasonably, attractive. Throw in a £3 fee for the right to take part, and you can see the issue.

Actually, I don't see a problem with offering a reduced rate for new members. In the Liberal Democrats, we've traditionally offered a £1 introductory rate for Liberal Youth. The problem, perhaps, is the inability of the Party to filter out those whose aim is to undermine it, those who have seen the turmoil as an opportunity to subvert the cause that is the traditional Labour Party.

We are relatively lucky in the Liberal Democrats, in that because we rely on an activist-led ground war for campaigning, the link between activists and MPs/candidates has to be a strong one for it to be successful. Troublemakers or rebels can be spotted before they can do serious damage (hopefully). And even with 17,000 new members, I would be surprised if there were much risk of the nature of the Party being fundamentally changed.

100,000 new members is a different matter though. I'm pretty certain that our processes would struggle with that, relying as they do on Local Parties to vet their new members. In the Internet age, you may very well have never met them before they join. And, of course, in cyberspace, nobody can be certain that you are who you claim to be.

So, it might be worth watching what happens to the Labour Party over the coming months. I wouldn't gloat though because, should the worst befall it, there is no certainty that what emerges from the ruins would be comfortable for the rest of us...

A somewhat unexpected double triumph for the rural bureaucrat

When the text came from Ros that I had been successful in both Party elections I had stood in, I will confess to a degree of astonishment. After all, I am not a 'party celebrity', or a holder of high-profile positions, I am someone who happily works in backroom functions for the most part. But, to be elected to the International Relations Committee and re-elected to the Party's delegation to the ALDE Party Council is a tremendous honour and privilege.

I should therefore thank all of those who were generous enough to grant me their support, be it a first preference or otherwise, as well as Ros for instilling in me the confidence to run in the first place and for her lobbying on my behalf.

The next two years will be very interesting. There are moves to seek new arrangements for liberal and democratic forces across Europe which may come to fruition next year, there will be continued work to support liberal groups across the globe, there may even be greater clarity over the possibility of a referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union. And, in a fast-moving world, geopolitics has more influence on our day to day lives than ever before.

My modest role will be to work with others to connect up various parts of the Party to our international activities, to encourage involvement and to support those people doing great work already - in short, to enable as best I can. In doing so, I have a lot to learn, and much to catch up on, and look forward to attending a meeting before Christmas as a means of getting up to speed.

So, once again, many thanks, and congratulations to Merlene Emmerson, Phil Bennion, Ed Fordham and Jonathan Fryer, who have also been elected to the International Relations Committee, and to Phil, Jonathan, David Grace, Belinda Brooks-Gordon, Antony Hook, Ruth Coleman-Taylor and Iain Smith who are the other directly elected members of our delegation to the ALDE Party Council.

An undecided voter muses over the Party Presidency...

My ballot paper arrived yesterday (although the household's former Party President hasn't had hers yet...), accompanied by three manifestos all quite different in message and pitch. So, what to do with it?

Well, perhaps I ought to consider the role of the Party President first, if my decision is to be an informed one. And, having witnessed the Presidency up close for two years, and seen some of the issues that arise, I perhaps flatter myself that, on this particular subject, I am more informed than some, perhaps most.

So, what did I learn?

Firstly, the job of Party President is all about soft power, as James Graham so astutely noted in 2008. There are very few decisions, if any, that are made by the President in isolation, and progress depends on the ability to persuade others to agree with him/her (actually, I'll stick with her from hereon in, given that all three candidates are women). So, having, or establishing credibility with those who must be influenced or persuaded is key, I suggest. And they're an interesting bunch - State and Regional Parties, obscure committees, some elected, some appointed. The checks and balances that are built into the Party constitution usually require diplomacy, rather than the use of a 'bully pulpit', if progress is to be made.

Chairing Federal Executive seems like a pretty dull, fairly straightforward job, but it is, nonetheless, a critical one. If Federal Executive is to run the Party efficiently, it must prioritise its work so as to allow proper debate of key issues. And, as Gordon Lishman notes, it has seldom been done well in recent years (and I do appreciate that he makes one exception...). A good Chair will anticipate problems, build coalitions of interest where they can be found, and ensure focus on the things that she thinks really matter whilst responding to those who may see things differently. She will also organise meetings so that members are properly briefed in advance of any debate. As a result, meetings won't end up making hasty decisions because members want/have to go home...

The Party President is, or should be, a bridge from the members and activists to the Leader and, from time to time, the Parliamentary Parties, and not necessarily the other way round. The Leader has many ways to reach members, but the reverse is not true. There are risks in being too close to the Leader (are you really able to convey hard messages to him/her?) or in being too distant (are you going to get enough opportunities to convey any message at all?)

A Party President is most effective when she is able to gauge the temperature of the Party in the country, be it via social media or by regular visits to Local Parties or Regional Conferences. My gut feeling is that it should be a combination of both, as very little beats 'being there', even if social media is less resource intensive. And, if I might add a personal note here, the time spent on the road can be a bit lonely and will almost certainly keep you away from your loved ones.

Finally, for now at least, a Party President must have some strategic vision and, ideally, some thought through ideas of how to deliver upon it. Where does the Party want/need to be in five or ten years, and what needs to happen to get it there? What structural changes are required, who needs to make those changes and how can they be persuaded? As noted above, there are no levers to be pulled that make things happen.

From an utterly personal perspective, the candidates this time will be viewed through the perspective of my experience of Ros's term of office, which is possibly unfair but, you know, life is unfair like that sometimes. But, for the time being, my ballot paper lies in my in-tray, awaiting my attention. It will probably wait for a while yet...

Vote Mark Valladares for ALDE Council Delegation

I'm also running for re-election to the Party's delegation to ALDE (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe) Council...

It’s been twenty-five years since I first got involved in international politics - the Berlin Wall was still standing when I started! Four years ago, you were kind enough to elect me to the ELDR Council Delegation. And, as I had promised, I have continued to report back as best I can, using my blog, and Liberal Democrat Voice, (www.libdemvoice.org) to do so.

ELDR may now be ALDE, but my approach to the role hasn’t changed, so that members can find out what is happening amongst the European liberal family.

Still there, still working hard...

Since my re-election two years ago, I have, amongst other things;

• Ÿserved as co-Returning Officer for ALDE’s internal elections
• Ÿworking with our sister parties to reach consensus on policy issues,
• Ÿsuggested ways of making ALDE more accessible to smaller parties in more difficult political environments, and;
• developed an ethical framework for ALDE’s fundraising as a member of its Financial Advisory Committee

The expertise I’ve gained in political administration - I’ve held most posts possible at Local Party level, and been Regional Secretary in two Regions - has been valuable when analysing accounts and considering how best to organise activity, and I’d really like another two years to continue doing so on your behalf.

Away from European politics, I am a professional administrator and, in what spare time remains, Treasurer of my Local Party (Mid Suffolk). I blog at www.liberalbureaucracy.blogspot.com, where you can find out more about me, or, if you have any questions, please e-mail me at markv233[at]aol[dot]com.

Vote Mark Valladares for International Relations Committee!

It is that time when ballot papers start to hit doormats and inboxes, and whilst you're probably inundated with people seeking your support, I hope that you'll find time for another supplicant... 

Twenty-five years ago, I found myself in a hotel in Aarhus, Denmark, attending a seminar on youth culture, my first international event as a Liberal Democrat.

I was hooked and, within the year, I had been elected as the International Officer of Liberal Youth’s forebears. I travelled the world, or at least Europe, and enjoyed nearly every minute of it. But life got in the way, as it usually does, and I had to focus on my career and my family rather than on politics.

Luckily, I then found myself involved in the international wing of the US Democratic Party, and got a birds-eye view of politics US-style over a five-year period covering the second Clinton administration, including volunteering at the 2000 Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles.

Since then, I have become involved in our European work as an ALDE Council delegate and learned a great deal about international relations, and how political parties in different countries work, and now, I would like to apply some of that knowledge as a member of the International Relations Committee.

It isn’t just about meeting and greeting foreign dignitaries, it’s about suggesting policy to our Foreign Affairs teams in Parliament, organising our input into Liberal International and ALDE and so much more. I think that my background in international politics, combined with the work I have done in various organisational roles for the party, will enable me to make a valuable contribution to the work of the committee.

I’m not your usual suspect - I don’t live in London, I’m from a mixed British/Indian background, and I report back what I do as a committee member. If that appeals to you, then please give me your first preference, or as high a preference as you can otherwise.

You can find out more about me via my blog, or e-mail me at markv233[at]aol[dot]com.

I, candidate, who are about to place myself in the hands of Federal Conference delegates, salute you

It is that time again that comes around every two years when I take a deep breath, fill in a nomination form, agonise over the drafting of a manifesto and file it all in the hope that enough friends, colleagues and complete strangers will see it within themselves to put their faith in a mildly bemused bureaucrat to perform some service or another to the Party.

Historically, I ran for things that no sane person did too willingly - I served five terms as a Regional Secretary and was opposed just once - but now find myself wanting the sorts of roles that others, often more assertive than I, want too. Self-promotion does not come easy, which given the successful career that my father has built in the advertising industry, is perhaps counter-intuitive. But, being a nice person is not enough, I need to give people reason to vote for me over the other guys/girls/sea otters.

And so a Valladares manifesto goes through a number of iterations, filtered through the eyes of people better at this sort of thing than I am - Ros, for example - until a document exists that reflects me well enough. I then file it with the Returning Officer and wait.

Campaigning is not easy - you have no access to the electoral register and must rely on the network of friends and acquaintances, of contacts made through years of Returning Officer gigs, committee meetings and those small acts of kindness that are hopefully remembered when the manifesto booklet is studied. My blog helps, as does my reportage on ALDE activities for Liberal Democrat Voice, as I seek to report back on my activities as one of the Party's representatives. I have, radically, done things, and so have a record to run on.

It is, nonetheless, with a sense of trepidation that I await the verdict of the electorate, especially as I would really like to win - ALDE has been a valuable experience personally and, I like to think, I have played a part in helping it to work effectively and in its policy making, seeking compromises that bring different sister parties together in establishing a shared, liberal vision for Europe.

No doubt my opponents will all want to win too, and will offer up their skills, knowledge and experience. I hope some of them win too, just not so many of them that I don't...

@LibDems4Change - can we leave them alone, please?

The launch of LibDems4Change last week has offered an interesting insight into the internal democracy of the Liberal Democrats, and not a very edifying one, if the various comment threads of Liberal Democrat Voice are any reflection. Attacks on 'Orange Booker subversives' or 'anti-Coalition irreconcilables' indicate that there are those on either side of the argument that simply don't get it.

This is my party. I have supported it through my voluntary efforts for nearly thirty years, carrying out a series of almost entirely thankless tasks for a mostly unappreciative organisation because of my belief in the importance of a liberal voice in a vibrant civic society. I do not do it so that others within can demonstrate a lack of tolerance that shames our claim to believe in an open, tolerant society where people work together to make our lives better.

So, LibDems4Change have an absolute right to act as they do, even if I don't agree with them. They don't have to justify their approach, other than to make a case that allows them to win the argument. Those who believe that now is not the time to replace Nick Clegg can likewise argue their position.

But the nastiness is uncalled for, and unhelpful. If we can't treat each other with a bit of respect, why should others believe that we are serious about collaborative politics?

Labour's move to one member, one vote, and why I wish them well

It's a funny thing, democracy. It's very popular when it delivers the outcome that you want, but a problem when it doesn't, a point which becomes all the more evident if you are an activist in a political organisation. Note that I say 'organisation' and not 'party', as I've encountered the same situation both as a Liberal Democrat and in other groups that I've been involved in.

Organisations develop their internal democracies in a manner which reflects their philosophy. For example, Liberal Democrats are suspicious of 'strong leadership' whereby the Leader and his/her key supporters have the authority to take important decisions without much, if any, in the way of consultation. Accordingly, the Party constitution is designed to diffuse power to Local Parties, regions and States, as Nick Clegg has discovered recently.

The Labour Party, on the other hand, appears far more collectivist, which makes sense, I suppose. Built upon a foundation of union strength, individual Unions have an influence that reflects their financial and organisational impact, whereas the fear of entryism of the form perfected by Militant in the seventies and eighties made empowering individuals risky.

As for the Conservatives, power appears to be top-down and rather directive. As a member, you have no real say in policy-making, and as the voluntary party melts away, the potential influence of large donors becomes more decisive. That said, I'm not actually sure who, apart from pollsters and Old Etonians, drives Conservative policy-making at the moment.

Changing the way your internal democracy works is quite a step, and is a means of defining who you are, or how you want to be perceived. And there are three reasons why, as a leader, you might do it;

• to protect yourself from events that might be otherwise beyond your control - rogue activists, unexpected policy initiatives - by holding power close;

• as a response to what those people you need/want to influence are telling you that they would like;

• because what you have doesn't work - societal and technological changes mean that your structures are obsolete.

But, whichever reason applies, change has to be faithful to the underlying political philosophy.

So, for all the speculation over what Ed Milliband is hoping to achieve by these changes, the success or failure of them will only emerge slowly, over time. If he's right, his party's internal democracy will flourish, and with it the loyalty of some, if not all, of those who make Labour stronger and more effective as part of a participatory democracy. In itself, it probably won't attract support, but any organisation where morale is high will be more successful than one where it isn't.

And for those of us who believe that a healthy democracy requires healthy political parties, we can only wish the reforms a fair wind.

Throwing away the key... how not to run internal elections

I find myself in an unusual position. Well, actually not that unusual, in that I find myself in opposition to a bunch of conservatives who find social media 'a bit difficult'. So, where are these reactionaries?

Here is an excerpt from the election rules for the organisation;

"No candidate may pro-actively campaign for election online, or allow anyone else to campaign on their behalf. This includes - but is not limited to - setting up special Twitter accounts, "friending" or "following" people for the explicit purpose of campaigning, establishing a Facebook group or page, pro-actively "tagging" friends with status updates about their candidacy, writing a blog post, recording a video or audio message."

and another;

"Candidates may inform their existing friends and social contacts that they are standing and may answer direct questions about their candidacy, if asked. This applies to the informal use of social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.). However, there is inevitably a thin line between informing and campaigning via social media and there are circumstances in which  a candidate may not be able to control how their communications on social media are subsequently relayed by others."

Having just stamped out such nonsense from within the candidate selection rules of my own Party, you cannot believe how frustrating it is to encounter it again. But how frustrating do you think it is to discover that these rules come from the internal election calling notice of 'Unlock Democracy'?

I should like to put on record that I am deeply disappointed that an organisation that calls for a better informed, more participatory democracy should have such repressive election rules, a point I have made most forcefully to my fellow Council members.

It is a sad indictment of the organisation's leadership that I find myself in the position where I can't even tell you whether I intend to run for re-election or not. Because, no matter how ludicrous the rules are, I feel collectively bound to honour them.

So, until I either announce that I'm not running, or the close of poll on 21 June, I am able to give no inkling as to what is happening. What a crying pity, and what a terrible irony...

Is it really necessary to elect a new Regional Executive every year?

I have noted before that, courtesy of my new lifestyle, I've developed an awkward tendency to ask questions like "Why...?".

One of those questions was, "Why do we elect a new Regional Executive every year, given their role?". So, I drafted some amendments to our Regional Constitution, proposing a two-year term, and ran them past the Regional Executive. They had no objection, and so it was agreed that they could be debated at Regional Conference.

Of course, our Region has, amongst its membership, the legendary Colin Rosenstiel, not exactly prone to ignoring constitutional change, so there was a risk of debate, and I was prepared to get up and defend my proposals. What I had failed to realise was that, in producing the Conference Agenda booklet, Lorna, our ever-alert Regional Administrator, had included my justification for each amendment.

As it turned out, Colin had read all of the proposed changes, and was content. So, on being called to move the motion to adopt them by the session Chair, the ever fragrant Baroness Scott of Needham Market, I thanked my wife for her warm introduction and simply moved them formally. And, apart from a point of clarification, there were no apparent concerns, so I summated formally and watched as the constitution was amended without opposition.

So, next year, the East of England Liberal Democrats will elect an Executive Committee for the two years ending on 31 December 2014, allowing the new team to take a more strategic view, and making them more likely to deliver upon it.

I can't help but think that, at least for the time being, my work here is done...

I refuse to be a cynical goon, passing the masses an easy answer...

I am, it seems, knee deep in constitutions, Federal, State, Regional and Local Party, under fire for all corners merely for having the audacity to note that there are such things, and that they need to be applied. Due process, I think to myself, just a concept to be ignored as it suits, or something that underpins the notion of liberalism?

Naturally, I can't go into detail, but it is enough to say that being the guardian of the constitutional word is not a comfortable place to be, especially when you're on your own, worse still when you're an increasingly unwilling bureaucrat. But you know something, in a world of shoddy process, of short cuts and administrative ineptitude, somebody has to be willing to be lashed to the wheel of the good ship Liberal Bureaucrat, if only to find out what happens.

Heavens, it would be so much easier to say to people, "Yes, why don't you do that. After all, what's the worst that could happen?". The problem is, I have a nasty feeling that I know what happens when people focus on outcomes without thinking about the means of getting from A to B.

Now I'm not the sort of person who thinks that these things are there to prevent people from doing things, quite the opposite - I've always seen constitutions as a means of enabling people to get things done, to protect the innocent. They are remarkably even-handed creations, for the most part, balancing the rights of individuals with those of the wider community, be it Liberal Democrats, Rotarians or heritage railway enthusiasts. Better still, they are reassuringly liberal, if they're well written. They provide checks on executive power, and on those seeking to overthrow the established order.

So, for any of you out there who think that constitutions are to be circumvented, or ignored, or even subverted, please think again. Such behaviour may bring short-term advantage, but it tends to backfire in the end... and I'm prepared to do what is right, not necessarily what is easy...

When silence is not golden - reasons why you still don't know what Party committees are up to (part 1)

More than three months ago, in the midst of the expenses crisis, I took a self-denying ordnance not to comment on matters pertaining to the Party President or to internal Party committees. At the time, I was seriously irritated and, having taken some flak, decided that I saw no reason why I should continue to do so.

The summer has passed, and I have for the most part kept to my word, and I am minded to continue doing so. However, I have been giving the question of how the various Federal and State committees report back some thought...

Oh wouldn't it be nice...

If only we could find out what the Federal Executive were discussing, or could communicate with members of the English Candidates Committee? Many of us in the blogosphere are interested in knowing what might happen, what might be discussed. We conjecture about policy, criticise our leaders, opine about strategy. It would be great if we could have a voice around the table.

Naturally, as a Party which talks a good game in terms of openness and transparency, the idea that reports should be published is a laudable one. And, of course, the internet is free, immediate and simple to use. There is a forum, in the shape of Liberal Democrat Voice, which exists as a place where such debates can occur. In the Members' Forum, it can even be done behind closed doors.

Besides, we're members, we're entitled to know what's being done behind closed doors, aren't we?

Next, I'll look at the history of 'committee blogging' from a personal perspective...

Liberal Youth: now that the counting is over

It's been a long election campaign from the perspective of this Returning Officer.

I had been warned that, traditionally, Liberal Youth elections tended to present some unusual challenges, especially by previous Liberal Youth Returning Officers. However, a promise was a promise...

And yet, in many ways, these elections have been quite easy to administrate, especially given the surprisingly small number of serious rule breaches. Whilst there have been, and there is no point in evading this, some extremely unfortunate incidents linked to naivety, impulsiveness and occasional character failures, these are issues related to the ability of individuals to respond rather than react.

In a hotly-contested election, where passions are running high and the issues boil down to questions of personal style and approach, there is a risk that, in personalising the contest, you lose track of the purpose of the organisation. I believe that, in this instance, some individuals momentarily forgot that. It is, as someone said, a learning curve to be navigated with care.

In the midst of the maelstrom, there were some interesting lessons learnt. My experiment of permitting endorsements appeared to work well, and I would make two points;

1. If you are going to make an endorsement in anything other than a personal capacity, you need to understand that you need to have a robust process of consultation in order to validate it. On the whole, it's probably best not to try.

2. Endorsements are a double-edged sword. Sometimes, especially in liberal circles, an endorsement from a senior figure actually repels more than it attracts. Slates, real or perceived, are looked upon with even greater suspicion. If you are going to endorse, think of the implications to you of getting it wrong...

The apparent use of a Tory blogger as a conduit for attacks on candidates rather span out of control. I tend towards an old-fashioned view that internal issues are best addressed internally, that media management only works when you own the media, and that anonymity is a recipe for paranoia and recrimination. So, if anyone reading this is the 'mole', just one message - it wasn't necessarily clever, and it certainly wasn't helpful. Ah well, lackaday...

As I said to one candidate, elections are like thunderstorms, sometimes they clear the air, occasionally a lightning strike is fatal. Of course, one always hopes for the former, but you need to be prepared to deal with the latter. I stand ready to serve, regardless...

Liberal Youth: Chair election - the result...

Mohammed Elias Ali - 4 votes

Elaine Bagshaw - 148 votes

Sara Scarlett - 92 votes

RON - 44 votes

I hereby declare that Elaine Bagshaw has been elected Chair at count 1.