What You Can Get Away With » conference

Let’s say you want to see the House of Lords replaced by an elected chamber. ‘Great!’ Someone tells you. ‘Then you’ll love my plan! I want the upper house to consist of three hundred senators, each one elected from a single constituency at each General Election with the same electoral system as MPs, will you support me?’ You say no, because that’s not the sort of upper house you want to see, but before you can talk about the flaws in that plan or explain a way to improve it, the proposer starts telling you that you’re clearly not interested in electing an upper house because if you were you’d support their idea whole-heartedly and then make any changes after it’s introduced.

It’s an odd example, but it’s how I feel after encountering the people who are proposing that the Liberal Democrats switch to ‘one member, one vote’ (no more local party representatives at party conference, and federal committees elected by all members not just conference reps). Various people – including me – who aren’t opposed to widening the electoral franchise or changing the way Conference works have pointed out that there are various flaws with the current proposals, and in return the response has come that we clearly don’t support the idea at all, and that if there are problems then we should support the proposal as it is and look to fix them afterwards.

The problem I have with the proposals is that they fall into a trap that’s common in British politics in assuming that democracy is about voting for things, so if we have more people able to vote for more things then we must be more democratic, right? This ignores the fact that democracy is a process, not an event, and to make something ‘more democratic’ is about more than just reforming voting procedures. Whoever the electorate is, they need to be engaged and informed about the process they’re part of, and there are no proposals to change that process.

At an electoral level, there’s no commitment to change or invest in the electoral process to ensure that members are actually able to make an informed choice about who they’re voting for. As it stands, we’re likely to get more manifestos that say effectively nothing and have to rely on individual members giving up a lot of their time to ensure there’s any scrutiny of people standing for election. If we want a more open and democratic process then effort has to be put into achieving it, not just crossing our fingers and hoping for the best. (My proposal would be to publish manifestos and open campaigning three or four weeks before voting opens, giving proper time to campaign)

There are lots of other things that have been suggested (see the comments here for examples) but the point is that they should be introduced at the same time, not some add-ons to be potentially brought in at a later date. Over the years, I’ve seen too many packages of reforms in different fields that have introduced a first phase with a future second phase promised but never delivered (to go back to the beginning, look at House of Lords reforms) and I think just introducing ‘one member one vote’ without contemplating the wider implications of it is a mistake. I worry that people seem to think it’s a magic fix for everything they perceive as wrong with the party, and are assuming that ‘more democracy’ is automatically better without considering what ‘more democracy’ actually means.

, , ,

A bit of Brecht for a Tuesday.

After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers’ Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

I saw that quoted elsewhere as reaction to the recent mass resignations from the SWP. However, in the light of the resignations from the Liberal Democrats over the weekend (Rose, Shaw, Sands, Doctorow), the continued haemorrhage of members since 2010 and the proclamations of Richard Reeves et al that social liberals should leave the party, is it perhaps a description of Clegg’s ambitions for the party?

As Gareth Epps points out, the real split in the party at the moment is between the leadership and the activists. Perhaps the only problem with Gareth’s analysis is to assume that the leadership want to close that gap, when their actions indicate otherwise. Clegg’s attitude in his Q&A on Saturday to members who raised concerns about the secret courts legislation was – as Alex Marsh points out – pretty contemptuous, and one common feature of this and other issues is just how much of a tin ear Clegg has towards the concerns of the membership. It feels as though he’s happy to talk at the membership, but not to talk with them.

It often feels that the perspective of the leadership is that the party membership are merely there to do as they’re told and clap at the appropriate times when the leadership congratulate themselves in public. This centralism might be how it’s done in other parties, but people don’t normally join the Liberal Democrats to be told how to think. The raison d’etre of the party is to campaign for liberalism and liberal values, so the membership obviously expect the party to be run on those principles. And while leaders complaining about the actions of the membership have been commonplace throughout the history of the party, those arguments felt like passing spats within a generally respectful relationship of equals, whereas now the members are being expected to keep quiet and clap louder, or else coalition Tinkerbell will die.

The introduction of accreditation kept several strong liberal voices away from Conference, others have left the party and the leadership’s response to Conference’s democratically expressed position on several issues has been to completely ignore them. Is the hope that eventually people will just give up and let the leadership have its way and that a new, more malleable, membership will take their place?

, , ,

Another gathering of things people have said better than me:

I Hate It When Politicians Talk About “Hard-Working Families” – Jennie Rigg points out the flaws in a bit of politician-speak.
Democracy 2015 – The Independent’s new campaign – I was thinking of pointing out some of the flaws with this campaign, but A Dragon’s Best Friend has beating me to it.
Gathering of the damned – DoktorB on party conferences and leaders’ speeches.
Do we have to be so macho? – In the wake of David Cameron’s ‘butch’ comments, Emma Burnell questions the style of modern politics.
Comedians using their fans for co-ordinated, safety-in-numbers bullying – There’s a ‘y’ in the day, so Rick Gervais is behaving like a privileged arsehole.

, , , , , ,

Yesterday, I learnt something I didn’t know before about British politics – the police claim the right to pre-emptively veto people attending the conferences of political parties.

I probably wasn’t go to go to Liberal Democrat Conference this year, as various other commitments and the hassle of getting to Birmingham and back likely outweighed the benefit I could get from it. So, I didn’t really notice the email about booking for it being opened and the new security arrangements that had been put in place until they created a large storm of concern amongst Liberal Democrat twitterers and bloggers.

If you haven’t heard the news yet, then this is it: to register for a Lib Dem Conference now, you have to provide a passport number, NI number or driving licence number as well as a photo that complies with passport rules. This information will then be passed on to Greater Manchester Police (on behalf of West Midlands Police) to assess whether you’re a security risk and decide if you’re entitled to come to Conference. Oh, and they’ll also want to keep the data you supply to them in one of those handily-secure databases from which information never gets leaked.

Now, I can understand these sort of rules being imposed onto the Labour and Conservative conferences without protest because – as recent political history shows – both parties are full of people extremely happy to trade liberty for the appearance of security and neither of their conferences get to decide much of importance. We, however, are meant to be different – we’re liberals, we’re against this sort of thing.

That the Federal Conference Committee and the party hierarchy rolled over so meekly at this request from the police worries me – what else is being acquiesced to behind the scenes in the name of ‘security’ that we’re not being told about? Why were we not told that anything like this was in the works before it was suddenly landed on people?

And then there’s the big question that really troubles me – why are so many people who call themselves Liberal Democrats so happy to meekly roll over and accept this? Do they not realise how ridiculous they sound when they bleat about security and how it’s nothing to be worried about because it probably won’t lead to you or anyone you know being banned? As others have said, the one thing that now makes me want to go to Conference is the prospect of party policy being set by people who are quite happy to nod their heads and agree to something like this – what else might they give away on the grounds it doesn’t really affect them?

If you’ve made it this far, then will you please sign the open letter or the petition against this?

, ,

Anyone else going to the East of England Lib Dem Regional Conference tomorrow? There’s not really time for a full bloggers/tweeters meet-up, but if anyone fancies meeting up at the lunch break for a quick ‘so that’s what you look like in the flesh!’ moment, let me know or just come and say hello.

Oh, and don’t forget to bring some cash with you so you can come to the Colchester local party stall and buy some of chocolate – there’s still some left, if you didn’t get the chance to buy any at Federal Conference!

,

I was reading Charlotte Gore’s debut on Comment is Free and, once I’d managed to dismiss the image of Alan Rusbridger as a mad scientist cackling evilly that the process of Toynbeeization had begun, this section caught my eye:

While libertarians, classical liberals and free thinkers were all in the bars and fringes of Bournemouth complaining about policy, the nanny state Liberal Democrats were all in the conference hall pouring reinforced concrete on our reputation as yet another mildly authoritarian social democratic party, just like the other two.

What I’m wondering is how many of us who complain about the direction the party takes on certain issues were in Bournemouth as voting representatives? (And this is where I’m being somewhat of a hypocrite – I’m one for my local party, but couldn’t make it to Bournemouth, though I was in Harrogate in March and will be in Birmingham next spring.) And if you were there as a voting rep, how much of the actual conference (as opposed to the fringe and the training events) did you attend?

The point is – and I’m not singling Charlotte out here, it’s just that it’s her article that prompted this train of thought – if you want to change the direction of the party, then you have to be in the room and voting when these decisions are made. It’s all well and good complaining about the Nanny Tendency within the party, but people are going to continue to push for another little ban here, another restriction there – all for your own good, of course, and won’t you think of the children? – if the votes aren’t there to block them because they’re in the bar, at a fringe meeting, writing a blog post or couldn’t be bothered to go their local party AGM and get elected as a conference rep. If you want to change things in the party then you have to be there – at a federal, national and regional level – to change them.

And on that note, while I wasn’t in Bournemouth, I will be in Huntingdon for Eastern Region conference next month so please say hello if you see me there.