Leader and President - perhaps the boundaries aren't so clear cut?

It's odd really, but I'd never given a lot of thought to the role of the Leader. After all, they're the Leader, right?

One of the candidates for Party President is emphasising the words at the beginning of Article 20 of the Federal Constitution:

The President shall be the principal public representative of the Party...

and, of course, Liz Webster is absolutely right to point that out. But what, exactly, being the principal public representative of the Party means in reality is rather less clearcut.

I thought, therefore, that I ought to see what it says about the role of the Leader. And that was something of a revelation. Article 18, which refers to the Leader, tells you how one is elected but doesn't actually tell you what the Leader does.

Now I hear you exclaim, "but it's obvious, the Leader leads, right?". Well, yes, but what does that mean, especially if you have a President who wants to be front and centre, as Liz does.

So, if Liz is going to take up a campaigning role, what happens if the Leader sees it differently? What if internal polling shows that her stance isn't as popular as she thinks it is, or the Leader wants to soft pedal that. Is Liz going to insist that her mandate gives her the authority to override him? Now, I don't know the answer to that question, but I do suspect that, if the relationship between the Leader and the President is poor, then the President is likely to come off worst. No Leader is going to want to be seen as not in control of their own Party.

In truth, I've always seen the President as being the principal public representative of the voluntary Party. The idea being that the President is the bridge between the members and the Leader and Parliamentary Parties, conveying hard messages in private and being supportive in public. By chairing the Federal Board, the President manages the voluntary Party and guides the professional team.

At the moment, I don't entirely get the impression that Liz entirely agrees with me and, of course, voters may agree with her. But, at the moment, there are a lot of assertions and little in the way of actual proposals for action. And, as I noted on Saturday, slogans may not get you very far when, in early January, you turn up for your first Board meeting...

Creeting St Peter - return of the prodigal?

I had thought that, having served four years as Chair of my Parish Council, I had deserved to enjoy a slightly slower pace of life as Vice Chair, and Finance portfolio holder. I'd even managed to resolve our lack of a Parish Clerk with what seems like a rather innovative solution. Unfortunately, for reasons too complex to explain, the Chair became vacant within ten weeks. After a discussion with my remaining colleagues, it became clear that the only solution was to return as Chair.

And so, on Monday night, Council met to pick up where we'd left off in July, with the first order of business to co-opt a new member. We had two vacancies, and still hope to fill the second next month, but having four councillors when your figure for quoracy is three can only be a good thing, especially as our newcomer looks likely to be active and capable.

My colleagues then graciously elected me as Chair, and so life returns to normal in our small, but perfectly formed, village.

That said, I'm probably better equipped than I was the first time. The experience of having to act as Chair, acting Clerk and Responsible Finance Officer has given me an insight into the mechanics of local government that I might not otherwise have gleaned. You can, as it turns out, rely too heavily on your Clerk, to the extent that you don't really have a grasp of how things actually work in reality. I would admit to having fallen foul of that but, if you've got a Clerk you can rely upon, the temptation is simply to let them get on with it.

And, right up to the point where the relationship is severed for whatever reason, that isn't a problem. And then it is. I was lucky, in that the relationship with our ex-Clerk was still good, and she was willing to tolerate acting as a "postbox" whilst we sorted out a replacement. I don't think that either of us thought that it would take nearly a year...

But, as noted before, we have now appointed both a Clerk and a Responsible Finance Officer, and I intend to work closely with them going forward, so that I understand what is happening and why, and can fulfil my obligations more effectively.

And so, my reign of terror leadership resumes. Watch this space...

Not so fast, Cllr Valladares...

Three months ago, I reported that my reign of terror four years as Chair of Creeting St Peter Parish Council was at an end. And I absolutely meant it, having persuaded a colleague to take over. Unfortunately, it didn't quite work out, as said councillor resigned last month, both as Chair and as a councillor. Naturally, the Vice Chair acts on a temporary basis until such time as Council can meet to elect a successor. That would be me then... 

I've discussed the matter with my remaining colleagues and they have decided that they'd really rather I return to the post. Under the circumstances, I don't really feel that I've got a choice - Council must have a Chair, and if nobody else will do it... well, I'd rather do it with good grace than grudgingly.

There is some good news though, in that our organisational problems appear to have been solved, with a new Clerk and Responsible Finance Officer starting on 1 September. Unusually though, especially for a small micro Parish, they're two different people.

Another Parish Council in Suffolk has been innovative in doing this, and it seemed like a perfect solution for us. So, having approached their Chair, I was told that their Clerk and Responsible Finance Officer might be willing to act for us too. I spoke to them both, and was impressed by their enthusiasm and expertise, and Council was happy for me to proceed. Hopefully, that will make my role less onerous than it had become, and I won't lie awake at night wondering what I've missed.

Council meets again in less than four weeks, and I'm hoping that we can also fill the two vacancies that have arisen over the summer - we're currently only just quorate with three councillors. I also intend that we take the Civility and Respect Pledge, not because we have a problem with that but because I think that it sends out a message to both those we represent, but also those beyond the Parish with whom we interact.

And so, I'm a responsible adult again. At least, more responsible than I had been. Wish me luck...

Creeting St Peter - my reign of terror is at a close

I’d always been a strangely reluctant Chair of my Parish Council, something which might surprise those who have watched me carry out my duties. But, if you’re going to do something, you might as well give it your best shot and, besides, I’ve probably benefitted from my observations of committee chairs good, bad and indifferent over the years. And, of course, I have views.

But, at last year’s Annual Parish Council Meeting, I made it absolutely clear that I wouldn’t be serving a fifth year in the role, leaving it to my colleagues to find a replacement from amongst their number. Last night saw the moment of truth arrive and, I’m pleased to say, I’ve been “relieved”, so to speak. My new role, apart from being Vice Chair, is to be the Portfolio Holder for Finance, Compliance and Street Lighting, which rather suits my skill set, and I’m already working on some of the more immediate issues, which should keep me busy moving forward.

Of course, there is the challenge which faces all former Chairs, i.e. how to avoid looking as though you think that you're still Chair. But I do believe that no organisation benefits from having the same person lead it for too long, and my successor will offer a change of perspective that will hopefully allow us to progress.

There is a strange sensation of having a weight lifted from my shoulders though, even if that sounds a bit strange. After all, how much pressure can there be leading an organisation with an annual budget of £5,500 or so? But, that said, you do have the responsibility of representing your community, trying to speak for it in the face of developments that are unpopular or unwelcome, and attempting to ensure that things happen when they're supposed to. It does weigh on you, even if only subconsciously, particularly if you take the role seriously.

It's probably far too early to assess whether or not my four years have been a success but my colleagues have been kind about my leadership, and my presence is still welcomed, so I ought to take that as an endorsement, I guess. And I still feel that I have something to offer, and want to remain engaged, so that, until next year's elections at least, I'll continue to play my part. After that, it's up to the electorate, albeit that we haven't had elections in living memory and might not in 2023 either.

Creeting St Peter - goodbye, Alice, and thanks for everything...

Small villages like Creeting St Peter tend to rely heavily on a small number of people who are willing to take on key, often unsung roles. That's especially true if the population is younger and thus busier with work, children and all of the other aspects of modern life that reduce the time available to do other things.

In our case, there are two organisations which tend to dominate civic life - the Parish Council and the Parochial Church Council. For the latter, there is the perpetual struggle to maintain the fabric of a historic building, i.e. the church itself. If your church serves a population of 275, many of whom are not particularly religious, that struggle becomes more acute.

Accordingly, the Parochial Church Council fundraises, and part of that fundraising is through village coffee mornings and pub nights, which are the backbone, indeed almost the totality, of the village's social activity. And residents turn up in sizeable numbers, buying cups of tea, homemade baked goods, catching up with each other and discussing the burning issues of the day.

Someone has to organise that though, chivvying people along, creating rotas, being "bossy". And, for some years now, that "someone" has been Alice. Alice describes herself as bossy but, in her role as Church Warden, she has worked incredibly hard to keep the show on the road. Unfortunately, that is about to come to an end, as she, her husband Mark and her family are moving away... a long way away.

And so we gathered in the churchyard yesterday evening to pay tribute to her. Jenny, the Treasurer of the Parochial Church Council, made a lovely speech to mark her contribution to the Church, the village and its residents, and our Vicar, Philip, offered a few remarks to remind us of her efforts.

It was a good crowd too, despite the rather dank, gloomy weather that had replaced the warm sunshine of previous days, which rather demonstrated how much we appreciate, and will miss, Alice.

As Chair of the Parish Council, I've been lucky enough to have a good relationship with Alice - indeed, I can't really see how I could have a bad one with her. She works hard, is incredibly effective and gives of herself freely. Every village should have an Alice, and I suspect that there are many that do.

Hillary Clinton wrote that "it takes a village". That's probably true, but villages need an Alice too, because without leadership, nothing that gets done is ever quite as effective as it might be.

So, thank you, Alice, and the best of luck in your new life. It won't be quite the same without you..

Drafting, drafting and more drafting - a Parish Chair and a planning application response...

It is, in all probability, the most challenging planning application that Creeting St Peter Parish Council has had to deal with in many a long year, and the stakes are high. A 156 hectare business and logistics park, featuring a range (in both senses of the word) of "megasheds" (as the Gateway 14 Residents Campaign Group refer to them) on the edge of our village is not something that a micro-parish such as ours is really equipped to deal with, given the imbalance of resourcing.

However, we are going to give it our best shot and, as Chair, I feel obliged to lead the effort. What is a Chair otherwise, if not to lead, after all?

But it is daunting, as I've noted previously. How do you balance the fears of the community against what is credible? What evidence is there, and can it be properly interpreted? Can you avoid mission creep, whereby existing problems are conflated with the possible but unevidenced impacts of the new development?

And so, I've spent a week mulling over our response, incorporating the contributions of my fellow councillors where I can, praying in aid the concerns of various statutory consultees - Natural England, Suffolk Highways, the Suffolk Wildlife Trust to name but three - and professional Council staff where their credibility is likely to be higher than ours but where their issues reflect ours.

It isn't easy. You have to create something which is likely to be taken seriously by the various councillors who sit on the Mid Suffolk Planning Committee, makes the points that really matter, but doesn't bury them in surplus verbiage. That isn't always one of my strengths - I tend to write like a slightly cautious Victorian bureaucrat. Given that I am a slightly cautious early twenty-first century bureaucrat, perhaps that shouldn't come as much of a surprise.

The fear is that, in attempting to be reasonable and realistic, you end up failing to sufficiently press the community's case but I have concluded that my only option is to be as true to my beliefs as possible and write a response which is honest, balanced and credible. At least, that's what I think it is.

We'll see soon enough, I guess...

The unbearable lightness of chairing

One of the slightly unexpected things about my political activity over thirty-six years is that I have seldom held down what you might describe as a leadership role. Secretary, yes. Treasurer, when there really isn't anyone else, perhaps. Organisational job that means turning up, delivering a defined outcome and leaving again? Over and over again. But being the person in charge of the show? Looks rather desperately for someone else.

People do kind of assume that, if you're politically active, you crave the limelight, that you want to lead. And, quite often, that's true. It can help to have that sort of mindset if you want to get elected, to achieve things. Being the Chair offers control, albeit with a large side order of responsibility. I've tended to avoid that - thankfully, somebody usually wants power more than I do.

I did chair my then Local Party, Dulwich & West Norwood, for a couple of years, with a modicum of success in terms of outcomes - best General Election result (second in 2005), first councillors elected (2006), but in truth my role was primarily enabling competent people to do their jobs with minimal interruption, one that I was happy to stick to.

Other than that, not much.

And so, becoming Chair of my Parish Council has been occasionally disconcerting. I worry about the job more than you might expect, although Ros is of the view that that's probably a good thing. Without much experience of being a Chair, and with plenty of competing advice on how it might be done, I've had to fall back on the experience gleaned from being subject to a variety of Chairs, and my personal preferences.

As a habitual Secretary, you appreciate short meetings, focussed on key issues, so as Chair I try to insist on having as much information circulated in advance as I can. Short meetings also free up everyone's time to do other things which, when people have busy lives, is surprisingly popular.

Control is important, and most committees have a member who tends to chunter on, blissfully unaware that everyone else is beginning to look intently at their timepieces, so I do tend to move meetings along once it's clear that all of the salient points have been made. Reading the room is important, so I switch from reading glasses to distance and back as required so that I can see everyone.

But you can't just sweep people along - they have to feel that their viewpoint is being heard, so I'll frequently pause to invite comment or questions to give my fellow councillors a chance to contribute. Given the diverse experiences of my colleagues, there's always valuable insight to be gleaned.

It's public meetings that I worry most about though. A Parish Council meeting has a structure, and rules, and a Clerk to guide me when I'm unsure. Public meetings often no such reassurance, especially when the subject is controversial, such as a significant planning application. A degree of neutrality is required which isn't always entirely appreciated and, as I don't much like confrontation, it can be a struggle when passions erupt.

So far, my colleagues are happy enough with my performance. The occasional words of encouragement are hugely appreciated, and allow me to operate on the assumption that I'm broadly in the right place as Chair. The only thing I need to worry about is keeping it like that...

Creeting St Peter - a Chair suspects...

Two years ago, I was the victim of what I might best describe as a genteel ambush, and became Chair of our Parish Council. Let’s be frank here, and note that we’re not talking about an empire here - our annual precept is just over £5,000, and the population for which I am theoretically in charge of is comfortably under 300. But, regardless, it is a responsibility that I take seriously.

The idea, I was informed, was that I would do two years and pass the role onto my Vice-Chair. And, I will admit, I was perfectly relaxed about that - power is not to be hoarded, it is to be shared, devolved. That said, I’d enjoyed my two years, and had found an unexpected niche in village life.

Annual Meetings take place in April or May usually, and we generally combine the two into one evening, the Annual Parish Meeting first, where various local worthies, the Parish Council Chair included, submit reports for consideration by Parish residents. There then follows the Annual Meeting of the Parish Council, where we elect officers and, if appropriate, sign documents.

Coronavirus put a stop to that, however, leaving us the question of what to do with the leadership of the Council. It was quickly decided that I should carry on for another year which either means that nobody else wants the job, or that I’m performing adequately. Of course, both could be equally true...

It would be fair to say that I’m not a radical Chair. I like short meetings, but encourage participation, maintain a reasonably tight grasp on procedure but am not fixated by it, and recognise the efforts of my colleagues, our Clerk and our residents. That doesn’t sound like rocket science, and it isn’t, but I see my role as being one of listening to people’s concerns, reflecting on what might be done, and using the tools available to us to achieve things.

Walking around the village as part of my 10,000 steps a day habit doesn’t hurt either, especially during the spring and summer when people are out and about. Admittedly, it does mean that a walk tends to take longer than it might otherwise do sometimes, but I learn a lot from the conversations I have.

And, of course, I have access to the incredible knowledge and experience of Ros, who has probably forgotten more about local government than I will ever know. Any rash notions I might have are usually tempered by a few words of wisdom from her, which makes me a better Chair.

So, another year starts, albeit under rather strange circumstances. We’ve held our first virtual meeting to deal with another controversial planning application and some financial management issues, and that seemed to go well enough. The leaflet that we circulated around the Parish with contact details in the event that anyone needed help has led to a couple of requests that have been taken care of, which is nice, although most people here are either wholly self-sufficient or have neighbours or nearby family who are looking after them.

And I really ought to write an annual report for circulation, I guess. I might leave out any reference to the absence of a plague of frogs this year - can’t be too careful...

Leadership delayed - and that's why being Party President is difficult...

I see that the Party President has run into a mild storm - see, I can do understated - over the decisions to a) postpone the leadership election until next summer, and b) suggest that Autumn Conference might not take place, at least not as a physical event.

It is, perhaps, a demonstration that winning the job is sometimes easier than doing it.

Being Party President does often mean doing things that annoy/upset/distress/anger people. Mind you, not agreeing with the unreasonable and unrealistic demands of some is sufficient in itself to attract ordure if you're nominally in charge. Occasionally though, it is enough, when offered a gun, to demur from pointing it at your foot and pulling the trigger. And I can't help feeling that postponing the leadership election so drastically is one of those decisions that will rumble on for a while.

In truth, I have no fundamental objection to Ed Davey as Leader. I voted for him over Jo Swinson, although I had no problem with her winning. But leaving someone in an interim position for so long offers its own risks.

I used to manage internal recruitment schemes, and one of our golden rules was that a temporary promotion shouldn't last more than six months without damned good cause - it undermined any open competition for the permanent vacancy that might follow. That was especially true if the temporary vacancy had not been filled competitively.

We also have declared contenders for the post - Wera Hobhouse and Layla Moran have already publicly declared - and whilst I have no doubt about their loyalty both to the Party and to Ed, their every utterance will be parsed by some, including a normally unfriendly media, for dissent.

Yes, running a leadership election offers certain challenges under current conditions, and I know that there are some who enjoy a good hustings - I even chaired the first Clegg vs Huhne event in 2007 - but in truth, the artificiality of hustings do little to change people's minds and very few people will actually attend them relative to the size of the electorate. Indeed, it is my increasing suspicion that the resources lavished on them would be better used on personal contacts.

There is an opportunity to explore new ways of engaging with members, to experiment with new media, in short, to do things differently. And yes, that will take a little time, but perhaps we should allow the ingenuity of liberals some freedom.

On the other hand, there are some human factors to be considered. Being the Leader is difficult, demanding, and to have uncertainty hard-wired into the mix by having an indefinite term is unhelpful to say the least. Ed is owed that much for, regardless of whether or not you think he should be the Leader, he is a decent man, doing a decent job.

So, I would have gone for a three or six month postponement, with a review option for extension by agreement of the Federal Board and Ed. That way, you offer potential candidates a degree of certainty and, should the decision be taken to have a contest, time to organise their campaigns.

But, of course, hindsight is 20:20, I'm not privy to the information upon which the decision was based, and it is entirely possible that the decision is fully justified. I'd need convincing though...

Time to endorse a candidate for Leader...

I've been involved in a lot of selection contests over the years - for Westminster and European Parliamentary seats - and even the odd internal party contest - the 2008 Party Presidential contest comes to mind for some reason. For the most part though, leadership contests have passed me by.

In 2006, as a Local Party Chair in South London, I was somewhat surprised to see how long it took any of the campaigns to contact me to seek my support - after all, I might have, theoretically, been influential in my own patch, or had the means to contact local members. And, having blogged my surprise, I was almost immediately contacted by the Huhne campaign team. I ended up supporting Chris, a decision made easier by such signs of competence.

In 2007, I was a bit busy with the early stages of Ros's campaign for the Party Presidency, but I did chair the first hustings (in Newbury), much to my own surprise. I attended more hustings meetings than most - I was in Derby and Leeds too - and was one, if not the first, amongst the blogosphere to question the Huhne campaign's attack strategy. It was, in the end, the decisive reason why I opted for Nick over Chris. I wasn't alone, and given the closeness of the margin of victory, that sense of unhappiness over negative campaigning may have been decisive.

And so, to 2015, Farron versus Lamb. I like both men, and would have no real objection if either of them became Leader. So, even if a second preference is meaningless, I'll cast one assuming the ballot paper allows it. But I am obliged to make a choice, and I should have some reasoning for doing so. So, here goes...

Tim Farron was, when I first ran into him, one of those 'annoying students' (you can tell that I was in the youth wing, can't you?). Almost always wearing that Blackburn Rovers shirt - and no, it wasn't an affectation - he was surprisingly much as he is now. He has almost mythic campaigning ability - just look at his majority. I have been sceptical about his leadership potential in the past, having even had a bit of a dig at him on Liberal Democrat Voice. Does he have gravitas? Compared to someone like Ming, no, not really. Do we share the same view of the world? Mostly, although I'm more cautious than he is (I'm a bureaucrat, remember). Do I think that his two terms as Party President were an unmitigated success? Well, he wasn't as good as his predecessor...

Norman Lamb is my more local candidate. A Norwich City supporter (which rather counts against him south of the Waveney), and a really good minister, he impressed me when I saw him speak at Saxmundham a few months ago. I used to run into him on the train to London, sitting in Standard class, working on constituency and ministerial papers, and he was always polite. In return, I would leave him alone. He has gravitas, he's an excellent campaigner - I've been on the doorstep with him in Mundesley and Potter Heigham - and he has tremendous energy.

They have both said what I believe to be the right things about our time in the Coalition, both been honest about the tuition fees debacle, both articulated a view as to the future of the Party and how it might be organised that resonates. They are both, I believe, gut reaction liberals.

Different times require different strategies. One thing that worries me is the risk that we try to recover by playing the political game in the same way as we have for more than a decade, i.e. just like the two Ugly Sisters. We're not like them, and if we want to be like them, frankly, they're better at it. We need to be positive, optimistic and live our principles.

I had been wavering over the past few weeks, leaning slightly one way, but not so that I felt committed. I wanted to be persuaded. And now, I have been. Here are my key criteria;

• boldness - we may well be fighting for our lives, and caution won't help
• integrity - the Leader must be seen to exhibit our values, not just in his words, but in his deeds and in those whom he surrounds himself with
• passion - ironic really, coming from a bureaucrat, but we do need some of that 'old fashioned religion', if you'll pardon the expression

There's not an awful lot in it, but Norman has been slightly more cautious, slightly less passionate and has been unfortunate in terms of the people surrounding him. And so, I have decided that I will be voting for Tim Farron. Well, unless he, or his campaign team, do something stupid enough to annoy me.

So, keep it clean, positive and upbeat, Tim. That's the best hope for our Party and for our country...

@libdems4change: Clegg must apparently go, but whither the Liberal Democrats?

Last night, I received an e-mail from a group calling itself "Lib Dems 4 Change", asking for my support for a letter calling upon Nick Clegg to resign as Party Leader. Apart from the interesting notion of "Lib Dems 4 the Status Quo", I found myself recalling that we have been here before.

Indeed, it is hard to remember that, not two years ago, I wrote about similar calls for Clegg to go, asking two questions, against which I now measure the latest attempt to defenestrate an unpopular leader;

• what are you changing the Leader for?, and;
• so, if not Nick, then whom?

This time, the organisers of this round-robin missive have at least answered part of the first question, in that they state that Nick will act as a lead weight upon our prospects next year. That may, or may not be true - I for one hear less anger about him now than I did in 2011.

However, they don't really indicate what should be being done instead. Are we to pull out of the Coalition? They don't say. What they say is;

We consider it vital that at the 2015 General Election the Party should be led by someone who will receive a fair hearing about our achievements and ambitions for the future.

I would love that. I would also love a National Lottery win, a trip to visit lemurs in Madagascar and my own private train, but none of these things are in our immediate future, I suspect. Can the organisers of the petition name a single leader of our Party who has received a fair hearing from the public and the media since Lloyd George (and he wasn't exactly loved by the Press either, as I understand)?

This government is doing a whole bunch of unpopular things - cutting benefits and finding ways of running government more cheaply are never, ever, going to be easy or popular, and any new Leader will be confronted with the same hostile media, the same cynical public and the same recent political history. Why on Earth do they believe that simply changing the Leader will make a significant difference?

Or is it simply that the organisers hope that, in the event of a leadership contest, a white knight on a charger will ride over the hill and lead us to a glorious recovery in public opinion? I'm an optimist, and even I can't see that one coming, especially this close to a General Election. The public may be fickle, they may be ill-informed, even contradictory sometimes - often, indeed - but I don't see them suddenly saying, "I hated that Nick Clegg, but X seems like a nice bloke/girl, I think that I'll vote LibDem after all!".

So, applying the Sherlock Holmes rule - after ruling out every other alternative, whatever is left, no matter how unlikely, must be the solution - I can only assume that they believe that they can defenestrate a leader and replace him with one that will pull us out of the Coalition.

Now, I am reminded that those who vote in Liberal Democrat Voice polls are not necessarily representative of the party membership as a whole, but in none of their regular polling has there been even a sizeable minority in favour of ending the Coalition. In other words, unless Liberal Democrat Voice-reading members are wholly unrepresentative of the Party at large, the campaign organisers for Lib Dems 4 Change are merely attempting to bypass the membership by building momentum for Clegg to resign of his own volition.

There is a process by which ordinary members can require a leadership contest, which I would encourage Lib Dems 4 Change to utilise, if they really believe that they represent the grassroots of the Party. But until then, I'm sorry but I won't be signing the letter any time soon...

The four-step approach: something to ponder over, perhaps?

According to Professor Veronica Hope-Hailey, Dean of Bath University’s School of Management, leaders need to demonstrate four key characteristics to really establish and maintain trust.

• Ability - demonstrable competence at doing your job.
• Benevolence - a concern for others beyond your own needs or motives.
• Integrity - adherence to a set of principles, such as fairness and honesty, that are acceptable to others.
• Predictability - a consistency of behaviour over time.

And, thinking about it, that seems like a pretty fair set of criteria for would-be political activists.

There is, however, a catch, in that they need to be accepted, and understood, by journalists and voters. After all, if you assume the basest of motives in all politicians, you're rather encouraging them not to adhere to them.

I can see that we're going to have a problem with this in some quarters...

Is this why the Leader's Office doesn't get it?

The recent debate over rumoured proposals to snoop on private internet traffic has been something of an eye-opener for many internet savvy Liberal Democrats. The report sparked a great deal of anger amongst the online community, all of which led to a hurriedly organised conference call between a group of Liberal Democrat bloggers, two Special Advisors in Nick Clegg's Private Office, and Matthew Hanney, Nick's political advisor on Tuesday evening, organised by the Liberal Democrat blogosphere's resident Auntie, Helen Duffett.

It was, it is fair to say, a rather difficult conversation, and it would be hard to describe it as a wholly successful meeting of minds.

There was a decided sense that the Leader's Office doesn't 'get' it, that they are too close to the heart of government to see why those of us with the opportunity to apply some perspective or, in some cases, expertise, are so aerated about the issue of internet monitoring. It would appear the Leader's Office suffers from a failure to connect to the wider Party.

If it's any consolation, it has been ever thus. David Steel was pretty much loathed by the radical wing of the Liberal Party (the feeling was almost entirely mutual), whilst Paddy Ashdown's leadership was punctuated by interesting 'out of the blue' policy announcements which did at least have the effect of ensuring that you listened to his leader's speech. Charles Kennedy never really engaged with activists, and Ming Campbell's understanding of how the Party really worked tended to ensure that he was respected but never really loved.

But whereas in the past it wasn't important because we weren't in government, and the absence of social media made organising a co-ordinated response was difficult (how outraged can you get if you don't know how outraged everybody else is?), both of these have now changed.

And that, perhaps is the key to the sense of dislocation between 'us' and 'them'. One presumes that the Special Advisors know more than we do about the detail of government - what is being discussed, at what level, and at what stage of development it is at. That knowledge is a blessing... and a curse. It is a blessing, because they can see beyond the newspaper headlines, but a curse because they therefore don't necessarily see what the impact of those newspaper headlines is on the rest of us.

However, that doesn't mean that they're right, and that the rest of us are wrong. We have to remember that a small group of people are tasked with attempting to keep track of the entire gamut of government business, whilst we can focus on the things that interest us. They are also outnumbered by evil Tories, with their own agenda (which isn't ours, lest we forget).

But the fact that we are watching, as an online community, changes the way that politics should be done at the centre. Unfortunately, the centre is suffering from time lag. In the same way that government was slow to understand the impact that freedom of information would have on its work, and that coalition would have on decision making, so it is with the ability of opposition groups to convey their message and influence the media agenda.

As Nick kept saying, we need a new politics. Ironically, that's not just because it is right, but it's because the old one is now transparently broken. And our mission, should we wish to take it on, is to help in those efforts to change the way that policy is made in this country, to break down the walls of silence and deception that impact on our body politic, and to shine a light upon those shadowy media moguls, lobbyists and apparatchiks whose influence is so strong over those who govern us.

It isn't easy, and it won't be quick. But, in the long run, it will reduce the scope for the sort of gulf that causes disharmony amongst us...

Leadership Election: Would now be a good time to ask what happened to peace, love and understanding?

I’ve noticed that the temperature of the contest has been raised somewhat in recent days. If that had been because the two candidates were going at it hammer and tongs to demonstrate their suitability for office (and who’s to say that they aren’t), I would be delighted. Unfortunately, the heat that I’m referring to is within the blogging fraternity, where tempers appear to be fraying just a little.

I’m going to claim to be the first person to publicly muse over the Huhne campaign’s apparent move towards negative campaigning, so perhaps I am guilty, to some extent, of hypocrisy (in fairness though, when I wrote my comments, I was still to make up my mind). However, it is perfectly legitimate, within the rules, for this to take place, and I am of the view that the sudden, perhaps co-ordinated, burst of outrage from declared Clegg supporters is ill-advised. Politics is a rough game, especially at the level where Chris and Nick play, and they, and their campaign teams, must remain true to their convictions, fighting the campaign that they believe will bring success to their man. It is then for the members to decide whether those attributes highlighted by the campaigns are the ones that they feel are most suited to leading the Liberal Democrats.

In all hard fought contests, particularly where the stakes are as high as they are here, the campaign will develop edge. Frankly, whilst that makes me personally uncomfortable (and you'll note that I'm not running for leader...), it is exactly what this party needs if we are going to successfully assault the dual forces of conservatism currently masquerading as the Government and the (overly) loyal official Opposition. The ability to get tough with illiberalism will certainly help to get our message across.

Negative campaigning will put some people off if they become aware of it. Some people will be attracted by a candidate who demonstrates what Lynne Featherstone so bluntly described as ‘cojones’. You pays your money, you takes your choice…

Leadership: it isn't just the responsibility of the leader

I have to admit that I've watched the events of the past few days with increasing despair.

I'll be honest, I didn't vote for Ming as my first choice (he got my second preference). Naturally, I thought that my choice (Chris Huhne) was better, but I accepted the verdict of the membership as I had in the past (in fairness, having voted for Beith against Ashdown and Rendel against Kennedy, I had little choice!). Like many non-Parliamentarians or denizens of Cowley Street, I had no knowledge of Charles Kennedy's drinking problems, and was surprised by the rapidity with which he was removed, even if the execution was sloppy - we're nice people, or is that simply an excuse for not being very good?

And here we are again. The Press have decided that Ming is wounded, and fatally so, on the basis of a very selective sampling of individual bloggers, regardless of their relative credibility. It might not be so bad but for the comments of anonymous senior Liberal Democrat insiders, whoever they may be, whether or not they actually exist.

In an ideal world, the Chair of the Parliamentary Party in the Commons (in this instance, Paul Holmes), our Leader in the Lords (Tom McNally) and the President (as representative of the wider membership) would take soundings, form and agree a conclusion, and go to the Leader with either a declaration of loyalty or a pearl-handled revolver. Unfortunately, this can't happen as Simon Hughes has a clear conflict of interest.

So how does the membership have its say, or who can speak for it? And that is our problem. We have no effective mouthpiece for our views, either pro or anti-Ming, and into this vacuum step the not-so-massed ranks of Liberal Democrat bloggers, compounded by the general fecklessness of journalists, so many of whom seek a story, any story, as long as it causes debate, even where it doesn't exist.

Perhaps the Chairs of the English, Welsh and Scottish State Parties could step blinking into the sunlight? It is a lot to ask of Brian Orrell, Rob Humphreys and AN Other (I can't locate the Chair/Convenor of the Scottish Executive Committee, even on their website), and given that, in the case of Brian, they can't claim a broad mandate - he's elected by the members of English Council, a group notable only for its usual lack of competition for membership - it perhaps is a step too far for them to be asked to take.

I've urged for a degree of restraint, or at least, that people consider the likelihood of their comments being interpreted in a manner not wholly compatible with their actual intent, but have realised that in a Party which treasures the individual, any hope that we could coalesce around an agreed stance is pretty futile and, frankly, not entirely liberal.

So let's either do the deed, or accept what we have, a perfectly decent man who cares deeply for his nation, his Party and our cause. But dithering makes us look weak, and occupies too many of the best and brightest minds of our Party in a doomed exercise in damage limitation, both personal and corporate. If Ming has the support of the two Parliamentary Parties, they should be able to demonstrate it soon enough.

Leaving it to Ming to "do the honourable thing" is a cop-out. He wanted to be Leader, I can't imagine that he doesn't want the job now, and asking him to be altruistic asks far too much of any man. Very few people are capable of making an entirely objective evaluation of their own performance, especially when it comes to deciding upon their own 'political mortality'. Allow him his dignity, he's done plenty enough for liberal democracy to merit it.

But for the benefit of any journalists who might be reading this, you'll notice that I'm not calling for a particular decision, just that a decision be made. In a crisis, whether real or imagined, kudos goes to the person who makes a decision, justifies it and sticks with it...

I get by with a little help from my Friends (Meeting House)

To Euston for the biggest and best of the Liberal Democrat leadership hustings (alright, so I'm biased, we hosted it). First though, the Spring Regional Conference...

I have to admit that it was a bit low key, with the hustings hovering over it, the air thick with anticipation. Under the circumstances, all went well, with Paul Burstow kicking things off and two of our Council leaders (Sean Brennan from Sutton, and our very own Peter Truesdale from Lambeth) giving the rest of us useful hints on what to do when we get elected. I have to admit to having been a mite flustered, as I had to keep an eye on the conference, whilst keeping in touch with the preparations for the hustings in the main hall downstairs. I also got to close Conference, in the absence of our Regional Conference Chair, Alison Sanderson (giving birth just to get out of turning up on a cold February evening is a bit much - only joking, Alison!).

You'll see plenty of other comments on the actual hustings elsewhere and, as I was in and out of the hall for large parts of it, helping to deal with late arrivals and minding one of the entrances, I'll stick to some impressions.

Ming was actually pretty good. I'm still comfortable with my choice (Huhne 1, Campbell 2, Hughes 3) and reassured that if my man doesn't win, the party will still be in good hands. He seemed to display more passion and more humour with a larger audience, an interesting realisation. Chris was solid, well-informed but perhaps could have kept his answers a little shorter. He'll need to work on demonstrating his sense of humour a little, as he occasionally came across as a mite too earnest.

Simon had the misfortune to be interrupted by a group of hecklers. Those who know a little about Southwark politics will be aware of the Imperial Gardens fiasco, and the key players in that drama took the opportunity to attempt to hijack our event. Perhaps they might learn that, in Liberal Democrat circles, we tend to rally around our own, and their attack probably served to bolster Simon's support amongst those present. It may have been foolish of me to join those attempting to intervene, but it was the right thing to do and we managed to deal with the situation without things turning violent, although it did look a bit dicey for a moment or two.

It was incredible to see a hall full of people, listening to speeches and responding warmly to them. I'm led to believe that the Guardian exit poll will show that Simon 'won' but given the number of polls that have been published, and the variations in their results, I'm going to wait until the results are declared next Thursday before I get excited.

Afterwards, off to Mabels Tavern (an old haunt of mine from my days at Inland Revenue Maida Vale) for a few beers. Simon was there with some of his supporters, and I was surprised, yet again, to encounter some of the people who read this blog. I have no real idea why you read this, my friends, but I'm flattered that you think it worthwhile to do so...

Another day, another hustings...

...although for me, this was my first in this special winter touring production.

And so to the National Liberal Club for the Ethnic Minority Election Task Force hustings with all three candidates in attendance before an audience of about thirty people.

Chris Huhne spoke first, covering a wide range of policy issues before addressing the topic of most interest to those present, how to make the elected face of the Party more representative. He was good, if not great, and was well enough received. Ming was next and, whilst a touch wooden, held the fort for classical liberalism well. I sense that he doesn't really enjoy small, intimate meetings, but again, it was a good performance.

Finally, Simon. Unlike the other two, he has great experience of issues of diversity from his own constituency (sorry, but I will never be convinced that Eastleigh or North East Fife have significant ethnic groupings within their borders), and quoted a series of statistics to establish this. He spoke with typical passion but, and this is the problem, I still fundamentally disagree as to the viability of his proposed solutions.

We then moved on to the question and answer section. The first question came from a Southwark councillor, calling for BME (Black and Minority Ethnic) only shortlists. Now I really ought to declare an interest here. I serve on the English Candidates Committee of the Party, on the London Region Candidates Committee and have been a Returning Officer for our internal selections since 1989. I fundamentally belief that restricted shortlists are illiberal and contrary to the notion of selection on merit and nothing else. I expect Simon to be in favour of quotas - he has form after all (remember Blackpool?) - but to see Chris pander to this was very disappointing. Ming, on the other hand, took the line that persuasion and leadership would be more effective and essayed a liberal philosophy that I was impressed by.

Other than that, the questions on Britishness, detentions under the 2000 Terrorism Act and institutional racism drew the sort of gut-reaction liberal responses that you might hope for and, to be honest, expect.

So, grades for the evening? A- for Ming, B- for Chris and a C+ for Simon. And I'm supporting Chris...

More thoughts on the leadership contest

Now that my ballot is in - at least, I hope that it's in, I posted it first class on Thursday morning - I can perhaps reflect on the leadership race so far.

From a personal perspective, I have been disappointed. Not by the quality of the candidates, as I think that all three have had something to say and the means by which to deliver their vision, but by the actual campaigns. I expected people to contact me, by e-mail, or telephone, or even by letter (I'm quite old-fashioned like that) and that never happened. It would seem that you have to be a semi-public figure, like a PPC, or a membership secretary, to get contacted (apparently, Local Party Chairs don't fall under that heading, or Regional Officers for that matter).

I did get some e-mails from senior Party figures telling me why I should vote for X, presumably because I've been on their e-mail lists in the past (I particularly enjoyed the two I received from Sarah Ludford, telling me first to support Mark Oaten, and then later urging me to support Menzies Campbell), but as I've never been enthusiastic about supporting someone because the hierarchy tell me I should, they probably weren't very helpful. What I wanted was some content from the candidates, more about what they stood for.

Instead, we got the manifestos with our ballot and otherwise nothing unless you can attend a hustings meeting. You can follow the campaign via the media but coverage is on their terms rather than those of the candidates and can hardly be relied upon for neutrality.

I think we got the rules for leadership contests wrong. We should encourage the building of campaign teams, and more importantly, personal contact between campaign teams and the ordinary members. It is absurd that a potential candidate for the European Parliament is provided with a membership list, and leadership candidates aren't. I accept the cost arguments but perhaps the principle of a representative, informed internal democracy is overriding. After all, whoever wins this contest is going to be vaguely important in terms of the Party's future, I presume...

Earth to Eastleigh, come in Eastleigh!

Our Membership Secretary here in Dulwich and West Norwood advised me a day or so ago that she had received 100 leaflets from the Campbell campaign team, with a request that we get them out to our members. Nice effort, ladies and gentlemen! If we had the funds to issue a campaign leaflet that would give one candidate an unfair advantage over the others, I'd rather spend the money on winning a council ward - and we have all-up elections here in two London boroughs where we are the minority administration (supported by the Tories in Lambeth, in Southwark not).

However, being a gentleman and a democrat (the latter being the prime reason I joined the Liberal Party all those years ago), I decided to approach the other campaigns to see if they wanted to do likewise (I ought to get a constituency newsletter out anyway...). I e-mailed the Hughes campaign and rang the Huhne campaign - I couldn't find an appropriate looking e-mail address. Silence from the Hughes campaign, two attempts to reach me from the Huhne campaign, admittedly unsuccessful so far, the second at 12.53 a.m. I get the impression that one campaign really wants to win...

In other news, the Reflecting Britain campaign is really taking off, with more signatories every day. If they were all to vote in the debate in Harrogate, I'd be confident of a victory. Having said that, on what grounds could anyone possibly oppose the concept, unless 'Freedom, Fairness, Trust' was intended to be just words. It wasn't, was it?

Gallantry in the face of the enemy

I managed to catch 'Question Time' last night and was surprised to see Simon Hughes there. I know that he was scheduled to take part but I had expected him to withdraw given the sort of day he had experienced, an act which most people would have understood and accepted.

So I was impressed to see him attend and speak cogently on his own situation, especially given the presence of John Redwood, whose sanctimonious attitude made me want to hurl, sitting next to him. And that woman from the Institute for Ideas... what is she on? It was reassuring to note that Simon drew as much applause for his various comments as any other panellist, a sign perhaps that the impact of his 'outing' by the Sun will be short-lived and insignificant.

I'm still not supporting him for the leadership but will freely admit that I was impressed by his approach. Good luck, Simon, and God bless...