The Party is looking for a Returning Officer for Federal Elections. It isn't going to be me...

I've been a Returning Officer for the Party for many years. Many, many years. I've run everything from European selections to Associated Organisation ballots, from House of Lords Parliamentary Party elections to committee ballots. I've even been a Returning Officer for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe. And, for the most part, I've gained a certain satisfaction in doing a good job. Indeed, many of the people I've worked with have been surprisingly pleasant about it afterwards which, I guess, is an endorsement of sorts.

One of my perceived strengths is that I like to support candidates as far as possible. Running for anything means putting your ego on the line, with little in the way of gratitude, especially if you don't win. I therefore see one of the roles of a Returning Officer as a nurturing one, helping candidates to navigate the rules and procedures, providing clear guidance and flagging up areas of concern as early as possible. And, ultimately, enabling the electorate to have as much information as possible in deciding who will represent them.

I know my way around the Party, retain a modicum of credibility and am capable of handling difficult people when necessary. So, you might think that I'd be, potentially, the sort of person who might make a good Returning Officer for the party's Federal elections.

I'm not going to apply though. You see, I've already been put through the process of applying for two difficult, unpopular voluntary jobs in the Party.

In the first instance, I was up for reappointment, and my Regional Party made such a hash of it, debating my character behind my back, that I concluded that I really didn't want to be treated in such a manner. Admittedly, they originally thought that they were debating my character in my presence but used an incorrect e-mail address for me (as if that would have made it any better).

In the second instance, I was directly approached and asked if I would apply for a position that I had previously decided not to apply for, given the impression that the interview was a formality, and then rejected. I begin to realise why I find headhunters to be so loathsome.

The role of Returning Officer is going to be a challenging one. And, asking people to voluntarily apply for a role requiring a (promised, but probably insufficient) commitment of seventy-two hours over a twelve-week period to do the job is, I suspect, more than many people will fancy. I certainly don't think that the "honour" of being treated with disrespect by people who assume that you're paid to do this (and thus at their beck and call) justifies me putting my ego on the line a third time.

That said, the Party's internal democracy is one of the things that makes the party what it is, and it needs someone with a steady nerve and strong character to front the organisation of our internal elections. It may be you, gentle reader, and if you think so, here's the link to the advert. And, if you do apply, may I wish you the very best of luck.

FIRC: thoughts on getting a message out there

It’s now the third year of my three-year term as a member of Federal International Relations Committee, and regular readers will be aware that it hasn’t always entirely gone to plan. I would argue that we haven’t (formally) communicated as well as we might, and having proposed and had accepted a communications plan which didn’t really take off - it did to some extent rely on my enthusiasm as Secretary, and a sense of buy-in which didn’t entirely materialise - I do feel some sense of responsibility.

And so, this week, I have been stirred to think about it again. Ironically, this had nothing to do with events at Federal International Relations Committee itself, but instead has been inspired by the online course that I’m taking, “Diplomacy in the 21st Century”. This week’s module has been about digital diplomacy, with particular reference to the use of social media by diplomats and ministries.

One particularly prominent suggestion is that, for such diplomacy to work, it has to be active, rather than passive. My sense is that FIRC combines two ‘misfortunes’, the first being that the intention to use the Party website for communication with members is doomed by the inability of the Party to maintain a reasonably up to date website due to a lack of human resource.

For example, can you find the minutes of Federal Committee meetings on the website? I can’t. Or identify the members of any Committee other than the Federal Board? Now you might reasonably suggest that such matters are of little import to outsiders, the sort of people who might seek the website to find out what we think, or what we’re campaigning for, and I’m sympathetic to that. What resources there are are certainly best targeted towards activities to help get Liberal Democrats elected.

But, if you want an informed democracy, you need to be able to access information and, if you want to influence the work of the Party, you need to be able to reach decision makers. I would argue that we make that quite hard.

I am, I fear, in danger of digressing though. So, how can FIRC reach out to potentially interested Liberal Democrat members if the Party website isn’t an option? The obvious answer is to create its own social media presence, something that Party committees haven’t done much, if at all. And this offers up a new question - how do you do this, and can it be done to a sufficient standard?

Party committees tend towards a certain age profile, one that is less enthusiastic about social media, and probably less likely to take up video chats, Instagram or any of the other cutting edge media. And yet, if you want to bring in a new generation of activists (and, whisper it quietly, bureaucrats), you have to reach out in a manner that will grab their attention/interest.

Ironically, a few of my FIRC colleagues are quite active on Twitter, Robert Woodthorpe Browne (@robertbrowne1), our Chair, being one of them. He’s a bit more combative than I am (bureaucrat, see), but entertaining in an occasionally frustrated way (and who can blame him?). Adrian Hyyrylainen-Trett, my successor as Secretary, is prominent on Facebook, albeit that his life is far more glamorous than mine and thus more obviously interesting.

But, for the most part, social media can feel a bit like a ‘contractual obligation’ than a valued communication tool, and if we are to reach out effectively, we need to have a team approach to doing so.

So, here’s a question for my readers. If FIRC had to pick one social media tool to reach out, what would it be, and what should be prioritised? Do let me know in the comments...

Federal International Relations Committee: the official unofficial report...

So, I've written a report for Liberal Democrat Voice on what happened at Sunday's meeting of the Federal International Relations Committee, as I promised I would do when I ran for election in the first place. Read it, why don't you. It is, as you might guess, a reasonably neutral version of events for, after all, Liberal Democrat Voice represents a kind of unofficial official record. 

Here, I don't have to be quite so restrained.

The input from our guests from the ALDE Party Bureau, Timmy Dooley TD, and Henrik Bach Mortensen, was genuinely interesting. To read the debate in the United Kingdom you could easily believe that there are only two parties to the Brexit negotiations, "Europe" and the United Kingdom. But, of course, that isn't entirely accurate, in that there are twenty-seven nation states on the other side of the table, and a whole slew of interested parties beyond the European Union who might be impacted by any deal.

We heard of the sadness at the breach in our relationships with neighbouring countries, of the impact on the economies of Denmark and Ireland. Our Brexiteer friends will rely on that to claim that they wouldn't put that at risk, but they're wrong. They will realign their trading towards Germany, in the case of Denmark, or look to other markets, in the case of Ireland, because the losses that would arise from a breakdown of the Single Market are far worse than any losses due to Brexit. The less barriers to free trade there are, the better, and the Single Market has achieved just that.

Our Belgian guest, Bart Somers, was pretty inspiring. His application of core liberal principles in addressing the causes of radicalisation in the community was something that should be brought to the attention of liberals in local government everywhere. In that sense, his time was better spent addressing the LGA and ALDC crowd than an international relations committee, but I learnt much from his approach.

The Committee itself continues to bumble along, without any sense of strategic vision. You could argue that, in the absence of a clear steer from the Federal Board (they're still working on developing one, in fairness), but too much of the Committee's efforts are last minute, ad hoc and ineffectual. I did my best to create some basic structure and process, but I do feel like a lone voice, a practical Roundhead in a world of Cavaliers. Funnily enough, the Roundheads won in the end. All I have to do is find the best strategy, I guess.

As an example, ALDE Party Congress takes place in early December, and the deadline for submitting motions is coming up fast. And yet, despite me including it in every agenda up to the point of my resignation as Secretary, nothing was done about starting the process of coming up with some resolutions. Now, something may be cobbled together at the last minute. Given that the Congress is an annual event, you wonder that nobody has given the problem much thought earlier than this. Bluntly, I don't anymore, my expectations are that low.

The Committee is in danger of becoming an ineffectual talking shop, making decisions either in haste or at the whim of key individuals, and it requires a greater sense of active engagement from its members. It is not enough to simply turn up at meetings, react to events and then leave things to slumber on, relying on our remarkably capable but hideously under-resourced International Officer to keep the show on the road.

I do not despair though, because I have my own thoughts as to how I can make a difference, and rather than rely on the formal structure, I'm minded to be more creative.

Watch this space...

A bureaucrat on the edge - triumph and disappointment...

It's that walrus again...

Well, I managed to get myself re-elected to International Relations Committee, elected on the sixth count in third place, which was somewhat unexpected, given the quality of the opposition. Various people had been very supportive but, given the size of the electorate and my lack of 'celebrity', for want of a better word, one can never take anything for granted.

So, thank you to all those of you who supported me, regardless of where you put me on the ballot paper. I'm already hard at work preparing for the new committee, so you'll hopefully see a more visible Federal International Relations Committee over the coming weeks, months and years.

There will be a new Chair of the Committee to elect, which won't be me - I'm not running. However, one of the other five directly elected members will be taking the job on, and I have initiated a process of seeking nominations from them so that we can move forward quickly, if possible. I will  be seeking to stay on as Secretary though, and we'll see if anyone else comes forward to oppose me. 

The result of the election of the ALDE Party Council delegation was not so great. I came fifth which, given that there were five places to be elected, sounds good. However, I fell foul of Election Rule 10(b);

As required by the September 1992 conference motion elections to the ALDE Council delegation shall include a minimum of one person from each State Party and one person under the age of 26 at the time of election.

This meant that I was overtaken by Peter Price, the only Welsh candidate (there were no Scots or young people standing). There is, I would suggest, a certain irony in losing an election due to a twenty-four year old rule that very few people had realised was in existence. I'm guessing that I'll be first reserve in the event that someone drops out, but I'll need to check how that works.

So, I'm going to be busy in 2017, regardless. I'm going to have to be better with this blog though...

So, why the @ALDEParty Council delegation?...

Yesterday, I wrote about what I offer in terms of the International Relations Committee. Today, it's the turn of the Party's delegation to the ALDE Party Council...

Traditionally, candidates for the delegation have talked about their commitment to the European idea, about their belief in policy ideas. And, equally traditionally, I mutter darkly about the small matter that the ALDE Party Council doesn't have much to do with policy making. I tend to focus on what the Council is for, monitoring the work of the Bureau and the Secretariat, considering new membership applications and the Statutes, querying expenditure and debating recommendations for future activities.

And the curious thing is that, for all the enthusiasm that some candidates bring to the contest, I'm still one of the relatively few who take a keen interest in the papers in advance of the meeting, and add my comments as and when I feel that they are of help.

There are even fewer who spend as much time on the inner workings of the ALDE Party as I do, given that I serve on its Financial Advisory Committee (think 'audit and compliance function'), and offer an initial view on such things as proposals for membership subscription levels, revised representation structures and ethical fundraising guidelines.

For, after thirty years as a Party bureaucrat, I have a pretty good idea where I would bury the bodies, were I so inclined. I know how organisations work, how decisions get taken, who is responsible and who should be. And, more importantly, I understand that process matters. I also have an acute understanding of what is possible, and what level of administrative burden is appropriate or even manageable. I'd say that this all goes to make me a good person to scrutinise the work of the Bureau and the Secretariat on your behalf.

I've managed, I think, to establish credibility with all concerned as being fair, reasonable and, above all, constructive. I want things to work for everyone, so I don't take a narrow view based on what is best solely for my Party.

Over the past six years as a member of our delegation, I've drafted those ethical fundraising guidelines, campaigned for a membership fee structure that reflects the ability of smaller parties to pay, picked budgets apart and supported innovative projects designed to add value to both the ALDE Party and its member parties. I've also reported back, via my blog and Liberal Democrat Voice, so that you have a chance to find out what is happening.

Why? Because effective political parties, be they national or pan-European, matter. They are the means by which the individual can influence the political agenda and, in a contest of ideas, you want yours to have a solid foundation for propagation.

So, I ask you to vote for me - for efficient bureaucracy, for keen scrutiny and for better governance.

Thank you.

It's time to announce my candidature for International Relations Committee and the ALDE Party Council delegation...

A bureaucrat (right) seeks policy compromise
that works for (nearly) everyone...

... the nomination papers are in, and accepted, the manifestos designed and submitted, and all that is left is the campaign.

So, why am I running, and why should you vote for me?

Let's start with the International Relations Committee...

I ran two years ago more in hope than expectation. Yes, I felt that I could contribute, but there are lots of Liberal Democrats who have an interest in international politics, and who are better known than I am, so I didn't set my sights much beyond making a decent showing. Coming fourth was a bit of a surprise...

Since then, I've rather thrown myself into the role, bringing to the table my knowledge of the inner workings of the ALDE Party gleaned from five years as a member of its Financial Advisory Committee, a firm grasp of constitutions and an awareness of when and how to keep meetings moving.

Earlier this year, in anticipation of the outcome of the Party's Governance Review, I assumed the role of Committee Secretary, thus taking a little of the pressure off of the professional Party staff. It will become a key role within the workings of the committee, as communication between our committee and, in particular, the Federal Policy Committee will become more important given the IRC's new responsibilities in policy making. The relationship between the two committees will need to be developed, so as to ensure a harmonious partnership rather than a turf war. As a bureaucrat with an eye for the important of stakeholders, I think that I have much to contribute here.

One thing that I think will be important over the next year or so is to evolve our approach towards our European sister parties in the light of Brexit. Assuming that Article 50 is invoked, our delegation to ALDE Party Congresses will have no formal say over the manifesto for the 2019 European Parliamentary elections. That means that we need to take a more conciliatory view, looking to take a more broadly European than narrowly British view. It also means showing a little more self-awareness than some of our delegates have in the past. We need to be seen as helpful, not obstructive.

I am also keen to see us use our international links to explore new policy ideas, sometimes simply referring them onto Federal Policy Committee for their consideration, in appropriate instances developing them further ourselves.

Finally, I am of the view that we need to do much more to engage the wider Party. We've just recruited 20,000 or so new members who joined because of our pro-European, internationalist philosophy. If the International Relations Committee isn't engaging with them, what is it for? I would want the new Committee to be much more visible, speaking at Conference, proposing motions for debate, writing pieces for Party publications and websites such as Liberal Democrat Voice. I have a record of engagement, and am proud of that.

Tomorrow, I'll write about the ALDE Party Council...

European Selections: could these be the most open ones for a generation?

Being a European Parliamentary candidate for the Liberals and then Liberal Democrats has seldom been easy. Before the advent of list elections, it was not until the 1994 elections that a Liberal Democrat was elected (there were two of them – Graham Watson and Robin Teverson). And so, when list elections were introduced for the 1999 European Parliamentary elections, European selections began to really matter, and not just in places of traditional liberal strength.

With as many as eleven candidates to be elected in some Regions, achieving 12% of the vote across a European Region would probably be enough to get you elected, should you be lucky enough to be on top of the list. Indeed, with the use of the D’Hondt system of proportional representation, in some Regions, electing two Liberal Democrats was a possibility (South East, for example). The selections really mattered, and were fiercely contested as a result.

There was a small catch though, one which only began to emerge in the course of the next selection, which took place in 2002. The incumbent MEP had a huge advantage, with a budget to issue annual mailings to members (some of which were conveniently timed to go out just before the campaign phase) and a profile that made it hard to envisage them being defeated in a selection contest.

As it turned out, it wasn’t hard to beat them – it was impossible. And with the curious fact that, as a pro-European political party, we tend to underperform in regional list elections (and one could go on for hours about why that is), it meant that other applicants were contending to be the ones that didn’t get elected (unless the incumbent subsequently fell under a bus post-election). Interest began to fade, to the extent that, in 2012, there wasn’t much interest in candidacy. Indeed, in the East of England, where I chaired the shortlisting committee, there were so few applicants that they were all waved through to the membership ballot.

This time, it will be different. There will be no incumbents, and few of the ex-MEPs are expected to run (there are exceptions, I’m led to believe, but I don’t have any firm knowledge and, as a Returning Officer, I don’t see why I should promote them anyway). So, there is every possibility that new names may emerge and end up as Liberal Democrat MEPs. That means, potentially, more competition, on the basis that “it might be you”.

There are other factors in play too. The Party is far more conscious of the need to have more diverse candidates than it was in 1997 – gender was considered, but not ethnicity, for example. The evidence of the Spring Conference in York is that the mood of the Party has become more determined on that front.

So, as a Returning Officer, I expect to have a rather tougher job than I might have had in, say, 2012. How much tougher is, I guess, up to the membership…

Want to be a Liberal Democrat candidate for the 2019 European election? Not on the approved candidates list yet? You need to move fast!

It is hard to believe that, if all goes well, the advert seeking applications for consideration as a Liberal Democrat candidate for 2019 will go live in less than eleven weeks. Yes, less than eleven weeks. How do I know this? Because I've got the schedule, and I'm one of the Returning Officers (London, for those who didn't read yesterday's post - and it disappoints me how many of you don't hang on my every word...).

Given that so many of our members only joined the Party in the month after the May 2015 disaster, they are only now becoming eligible to attend a candidate development day and gain approval (strictly, if I recall correctly, you need to have renewed your membership to be eligible to attend such a development day, although you can submit the paperwork before then). So, for all of those keen, probably young, people, time is of the essence.

However, regardless of your age, or length of membership, if you want to be a European candidate in 2019, you perhaps ought to start thinking about it now. Yes, I know that there are Police and Crime Commissioner elections, Assembly elections in London and Wales, and Parliamentary elections in Scotland, plus local elections in scattered locations across the English counties, and I would be the last to suggest that anyone should lose focus on those, or even the European referendum that follows but, if you do want to be a contender, a small investment of time spent coming up with a strategy that will guide your moves over the months to come might help you achieve a good result.

If you aren't on the approved list, the earlier you get your application form in, the better. Regional and State Candidates Chairs will need to organize development days, and the more notice they have of likely demand, the better, for you, and for them. Remember, a development day is not that easy to organize, or prepare for, and you may only get one shot at it to meet the deadline for this selection (you can, of course, have another go in time for the Westminster selections that will follow).

So, contact Candidates Office at Party HQ, ask them to send you the forms and make sure that you fill them in and return them promptly. My fellow Returning Officers and I look forward to welcoming you to the wonderful world of European candidate selections...

I, the Returning Officer for the aforesaid Regional List...

And so, it can, apparently, be told. A schedule for the selection of our European Parliament regional candidates lists for 2019 has been agreed, and Returning Officers are being appointed.

There will be those of you who might think that this is all a bit premature, especially given the small detail of the referendum on 23 June, and you may well be right. However, any advert isn't due to be published until after that, so in the event that there is a vote to leave the European Union, not so much effort is wasted. It is, I think, probably better to be prepared on the basis of optimism.

European selections have been a thread of activity during my time as a faceless Party bureaucrat. I ran my first one in 1989, and have been involved in every round subsequently. In 1997, I was Returning Officer for the South East region, when seventy-two applicants came forward for what turned out to be eleven places on a list and, eventually, two seats in the European Parliament. It would be fair to say that it wasn't an easy selection, but I was lucky enough to have a shortlisting committee who were a joy to work with.

I was back in 2002, which was rather easier, and then 2007, a selection made simpler in many ways by the fact that I met and proposed to Ros in the middle of it. It would be fair to say that both shortlisting committee and the candidates encountered a more generous than usual Returning Officer...

By 2012, I was in a new Region and a new role, as Chair of the East of England shortlisting committee. It was a very straightforward job - we never met, and agreed to wave all of the applicants through to the all-member ballot.

It won't be that easy this time. We will surely do better than we did in 2014 (it can't possibly be that bad, can it?), which means there is the potential for gains in regions such as London, the South West and the North West. Without incumbents, contests will be, potentially, far more open, making the job of Returning Officers rather more challenging.

And so I'm back, from Outer Space, in my newly appointed role as the Returning Officer for London. I'm looking forward to working with a new shortlisting committee, and to meeting a bunch of interesting candidates. I'm probably a gentler Returning Officer than I once was, and it could be fun. Time to start preparations, I suspect...

ALDE Party delegation - squeezing fifteen into six is just as difficult as it looks...

Following our not so glorious General Election result (think Charge of the Light Brigade but without the same level of survivors...), the Party has had to do a lot of thinking about what next and how. This, naturally, is way above my pay grade as a Local Party Treasurer. However, it has had effects that most members wouldn't see, and just as many probably won't care much about. As a member of the International Relations Committee though, I am suddenly confronted with one of them.

You see, our right to delegates on the ALDE Party Council and to its Congress are linked to the number of votes obtained at the most recent General Election, and the loss of votes has had a deleterious effect on our numbers, down from fifteen to six on Council, and from sixty-two to thirty-two at Congress. Luckily, we don't elect our Congress delegation. Unfortunately, we do directly elect our Council delegation, or at least, eight members of it. Our dilemma might be beginning to dawn on some readers...

In 2014, we elected eight members of the Council delegation through a vote of Federal Conference delegates and, most generously, enough of you voted for me to enable me to serve a third term. To complicate matters, none of them was the Chair of the International Relations Committee, who represents the Federal Executive on our delegation, and who really ought to be there.

The other seven places are nominated by the three State Parties, Federal Policy Committee and the Liberal Democrat European Group (LDEG) - somewhat helpfully, the State Parties all failed to nominate anyone.

And so, a resolution of this problem is required and, in a fit of enthusiasm, I volunteered to draw up a paper for International Relations Committee to discuss and, hopefully, adopt.

This is proving somewhat harder than I expected. Balancing gender, ethnicity (and yes, I fully intend to do that) and the State Parties is a challenge, but how do you address the historic role of Federal Policy Committee, or include the Party President, or ensure that the delegations aren't London-centric?

So, with the next meeting of the International Relations Committee approaching fast, I can see how my afternoon is going to look... 

Unless anyone knows different... a first tonight in Cambridge(shire and Peterborough) as a PCC prospective candidate is selected

Tonight found me having to deal with a bit of a diary clash, as two major commitments coincided - International Relations Committee was meeting in London from 6 p.m. until 8, whilst the members' meeting for the Cambridgeshire PCC selection was scheduled to start in Cambridge at 8 p.m. Given that I work in Ipswich, there was always going to a problem, but fortunately, International Relations Committee is civilised enough to allow the more distant amongst us to dial in.

So, only detouring home to pick up the last minute postal ballots, I set off for Cambridge, and dialled into the committee meeting in time for its scheduled start. The problem was, I was on a train in West Suffolk, where mobile reception is, and I'm being diplomatic here, patchy. It would be honest to say that I did miss parts of the meeting...

But I got to Cambridge easily enough, found the venue for the meeting, and found a corner where I could resume the call. So far, so good.

And, at 8 p.m., the sole candidate was invited to address the gathered throng. I've known Rupert Moss-Eccardt for some years, but never really seen him 'politick' and, I have to say, he does seem to know his stuff. He spoke knowledgeably about early interventions, restorative justice and all of those other good things that Liberal Democrats get shouted at about by the 'hang 'em and flog 'em' brigade, i.e. Labour, the Conservatives and UKIP.

Questions from the audience were thoughtful, and received equally reflective answers - a lot of crime and punishment issues can be addressed through a variety of early, targeted interventions that might have no police involvement at all. Rehabilitation of offenders through training and education, for example, would go a long way towards reducing reoffending rates.

An hour passed, and it was time for the final ballots to be cast, and the count to start. Luckily, it didn't take too long, and I was able to declare that Rupert had beaten 'reopen nominations' by one hundred and six votes to seven, with four spoilt papers. I think that such a result might reasonably be described as overwhelming...

So, Rupert is, we think, the first Liberal Democrat prospective PCC candidate to be unleashed on an unsuspecting public. I wish him, and party activists across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, the very best of luck with the campaign ahead...

Taking a deep sigh, and finding something else to do...

Liberal Democracy has been good to me personally. I've met fascinating people, done interesting and, occasionally, useful things, I hope. I met Ros, who has made my life better in a whole bunch of ways. The past week has been deeply dispiriting though.

It would be foolhardy to describe those aspects, on either side of the argument, which have depressed me most and, to be fair, there have been participants on both sides who have led me to wonder whether or not I am the right sort of liberal to be at home here, or perhaps, an acceptable enough liberal.

And yet, one hesitates. I am deeply fond of my Local Party, for all its idiosyncrasies, and I enjoy what I do at a European level. I like to think that, all in all, my contribution is a useful one, and that I serve those who I represent to the best of my ability.

But my confidence is shaken, rather then bolstered, so perhaps it is time to take some time out, particularly from the online debate, which seems to have taken a turn for the rather less pleasant.

Don't mind me, I'll shut the door as I go... 

@ALDEParty Congress - actually, why don't I call upon the knowledge of hundreds?

I am a member of the International Relations Committee of my beloved Party, and represent most of you at ALDE Party Councils and Congresses (the rest of you go yourselves, and I know who you are). However, having been elected by Conference delegates, I do like to get involved in the policy debates where I can. The catch is, you can't. At least, not in the way that I can. However, you know stuff, gentle reader, and almost certainly stuff that I don't know.

And so, it dawns on me, why not tap into your knowledge when considering what we might do with (or to) the various policy resolutions up for discussion?

So, here's a list of topics up for discussion and, if you're interested, leave a comment here and I'll e-mail over the resolution to you;

1. A coherent and ambitious EU Development policy
2. Antimicrobial resistance
3. Creating a competitive EU labour market for the 21st century
4. Creating a growth-friendly regulatory environment
5. European Integration of the Western Balkans
6. For a comprehensive TTIP Agreement
7. Iraq and Syria
8. On the Situation in Ukraine
9. Policies on the development of European bio- and circular economies
10. Reclaiming Liberalism - Shaping a modern liberal approach to migration (I've already passed this one on to Liberal Democrats for Seekers of Sanctuary)
11. Reclaiming Liberalism - Shaping a modern liberal policy for economic justice
12. Reinforce ETS as the single instrument for CO2 reductions
13. Removing PKK from EU’s terror list
14. Responding to the refugee crisis
15. Strengthening criminal justice and transfer of prisoners within the EU
16. Sustainable use of maritime resources
17. The Energy Union should focus on security of supply
18. Towards a Global Climate Change Treaty and Decarbonisation
19. Towards a truly global fight against tax havens – proposal for an inclusive UN body to combat global tax evasion

As always, these things are on a tight turnaround, and the deadline for submitting amendments is Friday (October 23rd).

So, we've got this technology, and why not use it?

Labour Leadership contest: destroying the village in order to save it?

For those of us who believe that a country is best served by a vibrant democracy, especially those of us who believe internal party democracy is key, the unfolding nightmare that is Labour's leadership contest is a cause of some sadness. The events of the past week have not been pretty, although there are some lessons we might all benefit from.

Messing about in the affairs of a party you don't support is still stupid

Oh yes, it's been highly amusing as various non-Labour supporters have waved their ballot papers in front of cameras or on social media. That doesn't make it clever, because it merely exposes how vulnerable to entryism every political party is. Regardless of your party affiliation, does your local group actually vet new members for adherence to your Party's values? So, when you have a leadership contest, or are making some other important decision, can you be confident that it is unadulterated? But, of course, you've now declared open season on such things. Labour are probably the first to be impacted - they may not be the last. And, if you've had your laugh this time, don't be upset if it comes back to bite you...

Green Party support is conditional on Labour being centrist

It is alleged that 1900 of those excluded from the Labour electorate are recent Green candidates or supporters. That's bad news for the Greens, as it means that their increased support is very shallow. Mind you, now that Caroline Lucas is calling for a formal partnership, is there much point to the Greens? And so much for internal party democracy, when your only MP can go so far off message without apparent consequence.

Slagging off your internal opponents seldom ends well

Today's charges of sexism against Andy Burnham appear somewhat artificial from this distance. How on Earth could he answer a question about the value of a female leader for the Party now, when he's running to be Leader? If he had said, "Yes, that would be great.", the obvious follow-up would be, "So, why are you running?".

And accusations relating to the creation of internal ginger groups by the likes of Chuka Umunna and Tristram Hunt do make you wonder how you could unite the Party afterwards, regardless of who wins.

Internal democracy is important, so don't mess around with it unless you've thought through the consequences...

It does seem that the likely consequences of using a leadership contest to encourage new members to sign up was not wholly thought through. One of the issues surrounding online recruitment is that vetting such new members is more difficult than with those you actively sign up - the personal relationship may very well not exist. Likewise with the notion of OMOV for internal party elections. Yes, democracy is a good thing, although informed democracy is better. An uninformed electorate is more likely to vote for well-known, well-established candidates than radical outsiders without a profile. That may lead to administrative ossification and a reduced ability to react to a changing political situation.

So, just a few thoughts from the other side of the Atlantic. I was a democracy activist before I joined the Party, and have earned a modest reputation as someone who takes an interest in the workings of internal party democracy. And, right now, I'm a mote nervous...

International Relations Committee doesn't exactly meet...

Never let it be said that Party committees move slowly. So, when I received an e-mail last Thursday evening, inviting me to a meeting on Wednesday, I moved swiftly... to open the e-mail (one doesn't want to over-exert oneself...). 

It seemed that I was invited to attend a meeting to discuss the Party's engagement with both ALDE and the Liberal International, both in terms of the forthcoming Congresses (Budapest and Mexico City, respectively) and of our delegations. One of the lesser known effects of our election result is that our entitlement to delegates to each is, how might I put it, somewhat reduced - there is a direct relationship between votes received and representation.

As far as ALDE is concerned, we lose nine of our fifteen Council members, and half of our sixty-two Congress delegates, with effect from 1 January 2016. The catch is, we elected eight people to serve a two-year term as Council delegates covering the 2015 and 2016 calendar years. Eight into six doesn't go terribly well. Throw in the delegate slots assigned to the Federal Executive, the Federal Policy Committee, the Chair of the International Relations Committee and the Liberal Democrat European Group, and you've got a real problem.

So, what to do?

I have a personal interest, in that I am one of the eight directly elected members of ALDE Council, and was the fifth elected last year. And, I'd quite like to carry on next year. The initial proposal, that the election be re-run and the top six candidates chosen, had some obvious personal benefits, but it would leave us without the Chair of International Relations Committee, and key dealmaker at international Congresses, Robert Woodthorpe Browne (and he is undoubtedly a class act...).

The counter-argument was that this would exclude those who were ex-officio and might have chosen not to stand for election accordingly. The only catch with that argument was that such individuals would have been presuming that they would be re-elected to the relevant committee and retain their ex-officio roles, which should have been something of a gamble if our internal party democracy is genuine.

I proposed a compromise, arguing that a democratic mandate from Federal Conference should trump any ex-officio rights, especially as there is no firm constitutional basis for the current arrangements, but acknowledging that the Chair of the International Relations Committee must form part of the delegation.

Was this accepted? In truth, I couldn't tell you. I do know though that I have been tasked with producing a formula that will address this problem in future, which will doubtless make me a lot of friends (note, irony alert). My challenge, to ensure that the States are fairly represented, that diversity is reflected in terms of gender and ethnicity (I'll do my best with the other disadvantaged groups) and that the process is as transparent as possible - it might have been fair in the past but it was hardly transparent.

I may be gone for some time... 

Dear members who read Liberal Democrat Voice, it seems that we aren't as representative as you thought...

So, Sal Brinton is the new President of the Liberal Democrats, a result which seems to have come as a surprise to some people. Me, I had no clue in advance of the declaration, as the Presidential campaigns almost entirely bypassed Mid Suffolk, which is my connection to what one might describe as 'ordinary members' (they aren't ordinary, as I note here).

Nobody visited us, nobody approached any of our members to canvass support on their behalf as far as I can tell, and all we saw was the mailing and, for those of us on e-mail, three messages from each candidate, one of which was probably too late to matter, especially given that nearly three-quarters of members voted by post.

I don't think that Mid Suffolk was particularly unique though, as unless you were easily accessible, or had some Party event taking place on your patch, it was unlikely that a candidate would come your way - Liz Lynne being the honourable exception to that statement. And even she could only visit so many places in the time available.

Naturally, I kept my eye on Liberal Democrat Voice and my Twitter feed, although given my Local Party's bemusement at both, I was never likely to be convinced that what I was seeing online was likely to reflect the outcome. Hell, I didn't believe it in 2008, when it was pretty accurate as it turned out.

Daisy's campaign, whilst it was lively and enthusiastic, didn't appear to have anywhere near as much reach beyond social media, and given her late emergence as a candidate, it was never likely to leave enough time for her to raise her profile to reach beyond the Internet. That isn't, by the way, a criticism. After all, it took Ros two years of travelling the country to establish her credibility as a likely contender for the Presidency.

So, if you're an ordinary member, confronted with three candidates of whom you're likely to have little personal connection, what are you likely to do? The most likely thing is to read the manifestos and study them for marks of credibility. Who else thinks this person is good, and are they someone that I know and trust? In 2008, Ros's campaign had Regional Chairs, all of whom were well connected and well respected. Her background in local government over two decades meant that there was a network of local councillors who knew her, or knew someone who knew her. There were, even in areas where we had relatively little strength in local government, people willing to endorse Ros if asked for an opinion.

It didn't strike me that any of the campaigns had that network available to them - again, time didn't really permit. So, the endorsements were key, and that's where Sal scored hugely. Ordinary members see the names of Paddy and Shirley and, if they vote at all, are likely to be swung by that in the absence of a personal connection. That is, I presume, why candidates seek endorsements.

My friends and fellow readers, you are more Internet-savvy than ordinary members on the whole, more engaged with the day to day stuff inside the bubble - and Liberal Democrat Voice is within the bubble, I'm afraid. You're disproportionately male, disproportionately young, disproportionately politically engaged (well, two out of three isn't bad in my case...), in short, somewhat atypical of the Party's membership. You are, because you're more engaged, less likely to be swayed by endorsements. You are, perhaps, more likely to be swayed by a candidate who engages with you on social media - you were rather more supportive of Tim Farron in 2010 than the membership as a whole (LDV readers favoured Tim by a 2:1 margin, whereas the result was 11:9).

So, are Liberal Democrat Voice polls worth the bandwidth they take up? Possibly yes, possibly no. They may signify trends - ministerial popularity measured over a sufficient length of time might be a signpost towards future problems, or might signal potential future leadership contenders, perhaps. Do they reflect membership opinion more widely? That, I guess, depends on the question asked.

But should we, or anyone else take them terribly seriously? I can't help feeling that I shouldn't, merely seeing them as they are, a snapshot of our views as Liberal Democrats who read Liberal Democrat Voice. And, until there is some other, more truly representative means of measuring opinion amongst members, I don't doubt that Liberal Democrat Voice will continue to poll readers, and that those who wish to interpret the results as being of great import will continue to do so...

A day in the life of a Returning Officer

It has been rather busy over the past week, through no real fault of my own, apart from saying, "Alright, I'll do it.". In respect, that might not have been entirely the most sensible thing for me to do.

But, despite everything, I've made it to the penultimate day of the process. Candidates are campaigning, my ballot box is assembled, with a silica gel packet at the bottom to absorb moisture, ballot papers have been printed, a membership list is printed and noted with the names of all those who need to renew their membership before being able to vote. I've e-mailed a copy of the Selection Rules to my Kindle so that I have it available to me if I need them, as well as an archive of e-mail in case there is a problem.

All is calm for the time being, and the sun is shining. I've even managed to find time to assemble a piece of garden furniture, string up some garden lights and go to the gym - Ros made me (a bit).

It probably can't last...

The race for the Party Presidency: a few things that you might have forgotten

It has been four years since we last had a contest for the Party Presidency, and for those people who might not have been around in 2011 for the Tim Farron versus Susan Kramer contest, here are some of the things that need to be borne in mind.

The President is the principal public representative of the Party and shall chair the Federal Executive. The President is elected by the members of the Party for a term of two years starting from 1st January in the year immediately following the election and shall hold office until death, incapacity, resignation or the election of a successor; the President shall be eligible for re-election once only.

The timetable for the election shall be no shorter than 7 weeks and no longer than 12 weeks.

To be a validly nominated candidate, you need the nomination of not less than 200 representatives entitled to attend the Federal Conference in not less than 20 Local Parties. Liberal Youth, and their Scottish and Welsh equivalents count as Local Parties, and don't forget the Local Parties overseas and in Northern Ireland. You don't have to be a Federal Conference delegate yourself, although it will be very helpful to attend the Autumn Conference, as it is the easiest place to collect nominations.

Candidates (and their campaign teams) don't have access to the membership lists. That means that reaching members is that much more difficult, so it helps if potential supporters can reach you.

There is a spending limit for all candidates, to be decided by the Federal Executive. It would be nice if they decided upon that early, so that potential candidates can organise accordingly. The Federal Executive are also supposed to review the Regulations for Presidential elections six months after an election takes place. It doesn't look as though they felt the need for change...

If there are three or less candidates, each is entitled to a double-sided A4 election address, printed and paid for by the Federal Party. If there are four or more, the entitlement is reduced to double-sided A5.

So, there are some of the key factors that candidates and their campaign teams will need to consider over the weeks and months ahead.

It's going to be interesting...

The race for the Party Presidency: some questions for the candidates

Alright, I've given the matter some consideration, and whilst John Tilley gave me food for thought (despite rather missing the point to my mind), I've come up with four questions to put to the candidates at this stage;

• What do you think the role of the President should be in the year of a General Election?

• What do you think should be the relationship between the President and the Party Leader?

• What do you think should be the relationship between the President and the voluntary party, i.e. the activists and volunteers?

• Name three personal attributes that would help you perform the role of Party President and why?

I will be asking the candidates to keep their answers fairly short - I don't want to take up too much of their time, and I'm sure that they're planning campaign strategy and thinking about what they want to say to members. I will also wait until I have all of their answers before I start publishing them, so as not to disadvantage anyone.

The race for the Party Presidency: efficiency isn't likely to be a problem

Well, that was quick!

Yes, within the day, every one of the four candidates has kindly replied, and all are willing to answer my questions.

Now, given that there is a review underway into the recent election campaign, I don't want to put them in an uncomfortable position, so I'm planning to focus on the role of the Presidency. However, I do want this to be useful to members and activists so, if you have a suggestion (or even more than one!), use the comments space below, or use Twitter, including @honladymark, so that I see it on my timeline.