Politics

My response to the Local Government Finance Policy consultation

I’ve written most of this post on the train down to Birmingham for the Liberal Democrat Autumn Conference. The timing of my travel meant that I missed this morning’s consultative sessions, in particular the one on the local government finance. So this is my written response to the local government finance consultation paper instead. Posted online via the free wi-fi in the ICC.

Over all this is a pretty soundly based attempt at practical steps towards the kind of funding arrangments for local government that Liberal Democrats have long argued for. The broad thrust of the paper should be strongly sported.

The paper proposes that local taxes should be based on a ‘four pillar’ approach of income tax, property tax, fees & charges and specific local taxes. I will take each pillar in turn.

Local income tax

The paper contains proposals for what is essentially an interim step towards the fully flexible local income tax that Liberal Democrats have long argued for. This involves directly allocating a share of income tax receipts to local government on a formula basis. Given that the political realities make moving to a full blown LIT in one go unrealistic I see this as a very sensible and welcome move.

However, it also introduces the idea that this formula would have a component based on the workplace as well as the residence. The idea is that areas that are centres of employment, and have to provide services and infrastructure to support those employment activities, where a high proportion of the workers live in another local authority do not lose out. It equalises revenue between areas with a residential or non-residential profile.

I think this idea is an attractive one but I would be concerned about public reaction. I am not sure how people would feel about paying income tax to an area where they do not live. I wouldn’t want public opposition to a “workplace tax” to scupper the more general goal of a more localised tax system.

Property Tax

I welcome the strengthening of the party’s commitment to land value taxation that this paper represents. I wouldn’t pretend to any great expertise in this area so I will refrain from commenting on the detail. However, I do have two general comments to make.

Firstly, I think it is really important when developing proposals for taxes on land and property to understand and carefully consider the impact of such proposals on the planning system. The interaction between such taxes and land use is complex and have the potential to be either hugely beneficial or damaging. Inevitably together they result in a policy choice about how we what our communities to develop, so we had better understand what we are doing before we start.

Secondly, there is the politics around a “mansion tax”. I have no objections to a mansion tax in principle. However, far more important is getting consensus around the idea of a move to some form of land value taxation. If a row about the introduction of a mansion tax is going to get in the way of that then, whatever the merits of the scheme itself, it is best avoided.

Fees & Charges

The idea that local authorities should be free to set fees and charges for the services it provides as it sees fit should be uncontroversial for anyone who is a true advocate of localism. I would argue for the maximum possible discretion to be given to councils.

Other Local Taxes

Again, I would support councils having the ability to develop new and innovative ways to raise revenues making use of the particular characteristics of their area. Shaping the funding of local services so that it fits with the nature of that locality has the potential to both improve the effectiveness of those services and place them on a more sustainable footing.

However, in developing this aspect of our policy I would like to see more concrete examples of how this would work in practice. The examples in the paper are too vague to use to judge the implications of this move.

The equalisation system

As the paper says; “Given the significant differences in local area revenue-raising opportunity, especially with regard to need, there is the need to have a clear and stable equalisation system to shift resources from the wealthiest to the neediest areas.” This is crucial to getting any form of local government finance to both work properly and have public support. Again, without claiming any great amount of expertise in this area, the system proposed in the paper seems to make sense to me.

The key characteristics any such system should have however are simplicity and transparency. The funding formulas that currently exist are so complex that even the most experienced local government finance officers struggle to get there heads around them. This makes it almost impossible for local politicians to engage in any meaningful debate around funding issues. Any new system should be no more complex than that required for a reasonably engaged member of the general public to understand it.

Central government funding

This is an area of the paper where I would like to see us go further. We need to see a shift to a situation where the majority of revenue received by local government is in effect “raised” locally. We also need to see a situation where local government has near total discretion on how to spend that revenue. The great barrier to creating this situation is central government. It has to be forced to let go.

While recognising that central government does need to retain some ability to provide specific funding streams to local government, we have to be very careful how we construct that relationship. The desire of different government departments to fund specific projects and areas of work is understandable. Yet the way in which this is done often is corrosive of local discretion and accountability. I would like to suggest the policy proposal that we implement a ban on any government department funding local government outside of a funding framework jointly agreed between the Local Government Association, DCLG, and the Treasury. In this way we can hopefully be able to police those funding arrangements to ensure that account is properly taken of localism.

Democracy: the missing element

Finally, I wanted to mention an aspect that is not talked about in the paper but that I believe to be a vital element of a working system of local government finance. That is how it directly impacts on the health of local democracy. Many, if not most voters, believe that what their local council spends is raised from what they pay in Council Tax. It might have something to do with the name. Yet despite the frequency of politicians campaigning on Council Tax levels at local election time, the truth is that this is a very small proportion of how local government is funded.

You don’t have to be a student of the American Revolution to recognise the important link between taxation and representation. Yet for local government across the UK that link is effectively broken. While I doubt that many Liberal Democrats would disagree with this point, I believe it is important that any proposals for reform of local government finance is clear about it’s connection with the health of local democracy. So we should make sure in any policy we propose how it would a) make local government finance understandable to the voter and b) capable of being influenced by the voter via the democratic process.

 17th September 2011   16:47   1  Tags Politics 

This blog come 94th in the top 100 Lib Dem blogs

Top 100 Lib Dem BlogI was somewhat surprised, although very pleased, to learn today that this blog has been awarded 94th place in Total Politics magazine’s list of the top 100 Lib Dem blogs 2011.

While I occasionally have had posts chosen for Lib Dem Voice’s Golden Dozen, this is the first time I’ve had an award like this. I get a snazzy badge as well. Thank you to the folks at Total Politics and those that voted etc.

Should I aim for the top 50 next year?!

 16th September 2011   23:29   2  Tags General, Politics 

The proposed new Luton South constituency

On Monday 12 September the Boundary Commission for England released it’s proposed changes to parliamentary constituency boundaries for Bedfordshire.

The proposed new constituency of Luton South would be made up of the following council wards (all within Luton Borough):

  • Barnfield
  • Biscot
  • Crawley
  • Dallow
  • Farley
  • High Town
  • Round Green
  • Saints
  • South
  • Stopsley
  • Wigmore

Having looked again at this I will stand by my initial reaction to the proposed new Luton South constituency. If implemented these changes would make Luton South a safer Labour seat. Although it would remain competitive for all three main parties. The Conservatives do lose out though and it becomes harder for them to catch Labour. The Liberal Democrats get a modest boost.

The figures below show the actual result in 2010, the Guardian’s best guess of what the result would have been in 2010 on the new boundaries, and the average vote in each ward in the new constituency at the 2011 local elections. The local election figures were calculated by me and so I apologise if they contain any errors.

The old Luton South (vote at the 2010 General Election):

  • Labour 14,725
  • Conservative 12,396
  • Lib Dem 9,567

The new Luton South (figures from the Guardian DataBlog):

  • Labour 18,325
  • Conservative 14,532
  • Lib Dem 9,977

The new Luton South 2011 local elections (average vote in wards in new boundaries):

  • Labour 13,538
  • Conservative 6,383
  • Lib Dem 8,999

 15th September 2011   17:15   0  Tags Luton, Politics 

The proposed new Luton North and Dunstable constituency

On Monday 12 September the Boundary Commission for England released it’s proposed changes to parliamentary constituency boundaries for Bedfordshire.

The proposed new constituency of Luton North and Dunstable would be made up of the following council wards:

From Central Bedfordshire:

  • Dunstable Downs
  • Icknield
  • Northfields
  • Watling

From Luton:

  • Bramingham
  • Challney
  • Icknield
  • Leagrave
  • Lewsey
  • Limbury
  • Northwell
  • Sundon Park

Initially I wasn’t sure what to make of a Luton North and Dunstable constituency. Now, having looked at the numbers, the conclusion is pretty clear. If implemented these changes would mean that the proposed new seat would be a highly marginal contest between the Conservatives and Labour.

The figures below show the actual result in 2010, the Guardian’s best guess of what the result would have been in 2010 on the new boundaries, and the average vote in each ward in the new constituency at the 2011 local elections. The local election figures were calculated by me and so I apologise if they contain any errors.

The old Luton North (vote at the 2010 General Election):

  • Labour 21,192
  • Conservative 13,672
  • Lib Dem 4,784

The new Luton North and Dunstable (figures from the Guardian DataBlog):

  • Labour 20,325
  • Conservative 20,246
  • Lib Dem 7,358

The new Luton North and Dunstable 2011 local elections (average vote in wards in new boundaries):

  • Labour 12,455
  • Conservative 11,328
  • Lib Dem 3,441

Note that the Liberal Democrats didn’t stand candidates in some of the wards in the 2011 election so their local election figure is to some extent artificially deflated.

 15th September 2011   17:05   0  Tags Luton, Politics 

Previewing the Liberal Democrat Conference: my week ahead

We are only a couple of days away from the start of the Liberal Democrat Autumn Conference, this year to be held in Birmingham. So I have been busy leafing through the agenda, juggling my schedule, and deciding on my plans for several days of wall to wall Lib Dem style politics.

This is what my conference looks like so far.

Saturday

I won’t be getting to Birmingham until after lunch on Saturday so I will be missing the three consultative sessions in the morning. Which is a shame because in some ways they will be three of the more important topics discussed at conference. Getting local government finance right during this time of austerity is a challenge which has a huge impact on how people experience public services on the ground and therefore on how they perceive the government. Plus there are the implications for tax policy. The mid-term review will set the agenda for the latter part of the term of the coalition government. Finally understanding what happened in the most recent set of local elections, why we did so badly, and learning lessons from it is crucial to help the party adjust it’s campaigning for the next four years. All three of these will be discussed while I am on my way up.

But I should be there in time for the debate on elections to the House of Lords so I can give my support to the motion. This is a more important debate than it may first appear. Conference needs to send a clear signal to those Liberal Democrat peers that have gone oddly wobbly on this issue of what the party at large expects them to do. I have written more about the background to this here.

The following debate on the Employment and Support Allowance and Work Capability Assessments will be an important one also. I am expecting some passion to be displayed in the speeches on this one.

The evening may start with me going along to the conference rally although that may depend on who I have run into by that time. But after 20:15 you will find me joining my regional colleagues at the East of England reception. Then it is on to one of the highlights of conference. Yes it is this years Lib Dem Blog of the Year Awards. I hoping for some entertaining acceptance speeches from the grateful recipients of a BOTY.

Sunday

Sunday seems to have become training day for me. I’ve marked off a few training courses that seem useful and so will hopefully be learning some new stuff. Regrettably that will mean I am likely to miss the fireworks in the Accreditation for Party Conference debate at 09:00 and the jokes in Sarah Teather MP’s speech at 11:15.

I will be feeding my inner geek at lunchtime as I will be going to the Local, Social, Digital fringe to find out the latest about what happens when social media meets politics. This does mean I will miss out on seeing what happens when Hollywood meets Lib Demmery as I will miss the Social Liberal Forum and Hacked Off Campaign fringe on phone hacking and privacy attended by actor Hugh Grant.

Hopefully, I will be finished with the training in time to vote in the debate on drugs which starts at 16:40.

I am slightly overwhelmed with the choice of fringe events for Sunday evening. I’m also noticing there seems to be a choice of buffet. Although I think “the Demos Grill” might be a poor choice if you are after a kebab. There are some excellent speakers on offer also. Although disappointingly the Chief Executive of the CIA turns out to be someone from the Chemical Industries Association. I think it might be Philip Blond from ResPublica at 18:15 and Will Hutton from the Work Foundation at 20:00.

Finally, I expect to end the evening at the Local Government Reception which is usually entertaining.

Monday

I will be spending Monday morning mostly in the main hall. The key debate will be on the policy development agenda policy paper Facing the Future. This is the party thinking ahead to the next manifesto and I expect looking for themes for the mid-term review. I am not expecting much excitement. Indeed these sorts of debates can often by quite predictable. But I will be looking to see if I can detect the trends that the party most wants our policy to follow and to judge whether I agree with them or not.

The choice of lunchtime fringe is again a very wide one. Those who missed Hugh Grant the day before and are after a bit of star power can choose from the Olympics’ Seb Coe and TV’s Quentin Wilson. Although you don’t get Feargal Sharkey until Tuesday. The Guardian Debate has a good line up including Paddy Ashdown so that might be worth a go.

In the afternoon I will probably be in the hall for the Q&A with Nick Clegg and the debate on the digital economy.

There is the temptation to spend much of Monday evening in a good pub with proper beer. However, there are two fringe meetings that I have in the diary. Unfortunately they are both at the same time. I would like to be at the Liberal Democrat History Group meeting where Paddy Ashdown and Shirley Williams will be helping to launch a new history of Liberal politics in Britain. However, I feel rather obliged to be at the Love Luton Campaign meeting which I’ve written about here.

Tuesday

I’m trying to keep Tuesday mostly free so I have some space to arrange to meet up with people. Networking, plotting and gossiping. I also think I will spend part of Tuesday having a proper look around the various conference stands. It might also be the opportunity to see some of the sights of Birmingham.

However, I will be back in the main hall for the Quality of Life debate at 15:50 and then for the Community Politics debate at 17:20. This last one is the debate I am most interested in this conference and the only one I am considering putting in a card to speak in. Although I might not be saying what you would expect me to say. I hope to write a bit more about this later.

Tuesday evening may or may not end with songs at the traditional Glee Club depending on what mood I am in.

Wednesday

I am going to attempt an early start on Wednesday morning and get in the hall for 9:00 for the debate on internal election regulations. I do appreciate how nerdy that makes me sound! But it is something I have written about before so I want to be there to make my vote count.

After that there are a couple of interesting foreign policy sessions that I may stay in the hall for, but I tend to take things easy on the Wednesday morning of conference. However, we do have the addition of the controversial debate on the NHS reforms just before lunch. This has potential to be a good old fashioned conference versus the leadership ding dong. But we will see. Then of course there is the leader’s speech. This will be a challenging one for Nick Clegg to make so I will be fascinated to see what the themes will be.

Conference for me will then come to a close with my traditional leisurely late lunch before heading home.

 15th September 2011   15:23   3  Tags Politics 

Why Clement Freud would be smiling at the boundary review

I have probably spent far too much time looking at parliamentary boundaries over the last few days. I have been trying hard to get my head around the Boundary Commission’s proposals and their implications – and I haven’t even got beyond the East of England region yet. However, I have come across one proposed change that I reckon would get the approval of a much loved former Liberal MP.

The late Sir Clement Freud famously won the Isle of Ely by-election in 1973 and went on to represent that part of North East Cambridgeshire until 1987.

Under these new proposals it turns out that the City of Ely is to be combined with the Suffolk town of Newmarket to create the new Newmarket and Ely seat. A seat that would therefore contain the whole of Newmarket Racecourse.

Given that Sir Clement was a passionate follower of horse racing and an enthusiastic gambler I suspect that this new seat would have suited him down to the ground. I reckon he would be smiling at the prospect. Well, maybe not smiling. Possibly raising a lugubrious eyebrow above a dead pan face, but nevertheless, he’d be pleased.

 15th September 2011   09:15   0  Tags Miscellany, Politics 

Luton at the Liberal Democrat Conference

I was somewhat surprised when planning my diary for this years Liberal Democrat conference, being held in Birmingham, to find that one of the fringe meetings is to be dedicated to Luton.

The Love Luton Campaign, the campaign behind Luton’s bid to get city status for the town, has arranged a meeting on the Monday evening (19 September) which they have called “Celebrating DiverCity”. The event will be hosted by my good friend Lord Hussain and will feature performers from the carnival and the mela. Lib Dem equalities minister Lynne Featherstone MP is also down to be present.

This is the first time I am aware of that a specifically Luton event has been held at a party conference. I am all for promoting the town and celebrating the extraordindary richness of our diverse community. The event does sound like fun. Yet, I have to honest and say that I do have reservations about the bid for city status and I am not entirely sure that holding this sort of event is the most effective form of lobbying that can be undertaken on behalf of it. However, I will be going along to the meeting and am prepared to have my doubts confounded. I will report back on this blog!

The Love Luton Campaign: Celebrating DiverCity will be held in the Sonata Room of the Hyatt Regency Hotel, Brimingham at 20:00 on Monday 19 September.

 14th September 2011   01:05   2  Tags Luton, Politics 

The proposed new parliamentary boundaries for Luton

Yesterday the Boundary Commission for England released it’s proposed changes to parliamentary constituency boundaries.

The headlines for Luton are:

Luton South loses the parts of Central Beds (the village of Caddington and the surrounding area) it currently has to a Hemel Hempstead seat. It gains from Luton North the two wards of Barnfield and Saints.

Luton North loses those wards but gains the four Central Bedfordshire wards that contain the town of Dunstable. It is renamed Luton North and Dunstable. I’m not yet sure what I think about this change.

The big news for the rest of Bedfordshire is that Nadine Dorries’ seat of Mid Bedfordshire is effectively abolished. It’s various wards are broken up and distributed amongst the remaining Bedfordshire seats and two of the Hertfordshire seats. This has the potential to lead to an interesting Conservative selection battle for the reconfigured South West Bedfordshire constituency.

I had blogged previously about the potential implications of the boundary change for Luton. I was right in my expectation that the two Luton constituencies would be shifted north and west respectively. But I wasn’t expecting Luton North to be joined with the whole of Dunstable.

I will confess to a little bit of disappointment that the fun and games of a Luton South and Harpenden seat have been avoided!

As for the political implications of this, my initial reaction is that these changes make Luton South a little safer for Labour. It is bad news for the Tories in the seat as they lose the mainly Conservative voting Caddington. It could also be good news for the Liberal Democrats. At the last local elections they got a reasonably good vote share in the two wards that move into the constituency from Luton North and they have one councillor in Barnfield.

At the moment I am less clear about the implications of Luton North joining with Dunstable other than it will make the seat more competitive.

However, the big question is whether or not these proposals get implemented. They have to get the approval of parliament first and there is that old thing about turkeys and Christmas.

 13th September 2011   11:31   1  Tags Luton, Politics 

Margaret Moran is “unsocialist and unsociable”

Having written something almost complimentary about former Luton South Labour MP Margaret Moran in my last post here I thought I ought to redress the balance. Luckily this tweet appeared in my Twitter feed today thanks to @lordbonkers and I thought it needed sharing.

This is how The Olive Press, “Spain’s No1 English news website”, reported the news that Moran is to face 21 expenses charges;

You can tell from the quotes in this article that British ex-pats who move to Spain soon lose touch with the mother country by the way they seem to think that most Labour MPs still describe themselves as socialists!

‘One neighbour Nick Nicholson….said: “She must be gutted. We did not come here for this petty, completely unsocialist behaviour. It is bloody minded and completely unsociable.”

Another neighbour Nuri added: “She is meant to be a socialist MP, but behaves like an English imperialist from the days of the Raj.”’

 12th September 2011   21:20   0  Tags Luton, Politics 

Luton Labour MP Gavin Shuker votes for Dorries amendment

Yesterday saw the attempt by the Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire, Nadine Dorries, to amend the NHS bill to change the legal basis by which women seeking an abortion receive advice and counselling. Now this is not area where I would claim to have a great deal of knowledge, but I know a piece of bad legislation when I see it. This extremely controversial amendment had united woman’s rights groups, the medical profession, and many others in opposition to it. It seemed to be based on the assumption that the current system is failing and those involved in it where largely motivated by things other than the welfare of the women they were dealing with. Evidence for this assumption was not provided.

I don’t generally approve of Diane Abbott MP but she did make a very good and well argued speech in yesterday’s debate. One with which it is hard not to thoroughly agree. She said;

“The case that the amendment is intended to make is that tens of thousands of women every year are either not getting counselling that they request, or are getting counselling that is so poor that only new legislation can remedy the situation. I might say, after many years in the House, that in matters of this kind, if legislation is the answer we have almost certainly asked the wrong question…..

…the proposers of the amendment are asking us to believe, on the basis of purely anecdotal evidence, that tens of thousands of doctors, nurses and charity workers involved in the 190,000 abortions a year are wilfully ignoring both the law and the guidance of the British Medical Association and the Royal Colleges. They go further than that, arguing that tens of thousands of doctors, nurses and charity workers are merely in it for the money. They imply that those men and women are involved in some sort of grotesque piecework. It is almost as though they were paid per abortion. The proposers of the amendment, I might add, also seem to be arguing that thousands of women do not actually know what they are doing. It tells us something about the validity of their claims that they are obliged to smear tens of thousands of doctors and nurses to make any kind of case…..

…There is no evidence base for the amendments, and on the basis of all the recent polls there is no substantive support for amendments of this nature. Legislation addressing the issues raised by Government Members is already in place. This House should have more respect for the medical profession and for the vulnerable women who put themselves forward for abortion in one of the most difficult periods in their lives, rather than support an amendment of this nature, which is spurious and baseless. I urge the House emphatically to reject the amendment.”

So the question has to be asked – what on earth was the Member of Parliament for Luton South, Gavin Shuker, doing voting for this amendment?

I’m afraid you can’t justify this vote with arguments based on religious and moral views on abortion. This wasn’t about that issue. This is very bad judgment on Gavin’s part.

They irony is that his predecessor as Labour MP, Margaret Moran, who is facing charges of forgery and false accounting later this month, given her record on women’s rights, I’m pretty sure would have voted against. Gavin, you are being seriously misguided if in comparison to Margaret Moran you come off worse!

In fairness I should say that the Conservative MP for South West Beds, Andrew Selous, along with, embarrassingly, four Lib Dem MPs, also voted for the Dorries amendment. So he isn’t the only one displaying bad judgment. The other Labour MP for Luton, Kelvin Hopkins, voted against.

Happily, the amendment was voted down with a massive 250 majority (368 against – 118 for).

 8th September 2011   12:19   2  Tags Luton, Politics 

Margaret Moran to face 21 expenses charges

This blog has often in the past talked about the scandal surrounding former Luton South MP Margaret Moran and her parliamentary expenses. Today it was announced by the Director of Public Prosecutions that she will face 21 charges for allegedly claiming parliamentary expenses illegally when she appears in front of City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court on the 19 September.

She will face 15 charges of false accounting and 6 charges of forgery.

The BBC has more: ‘Ex-Luton MP Margaret Moran facing 21 expenses charges‘

For more on the background to this you can read the full list of Margaret Moran related posts on this blog.

 6th September 2011   23:30   2  Tags Luton, Politics 

Results of the Electoral Reform Society council elections

The Electoral Reform Society (ERS) are meeting in London for their AGM today and I imagine that those attending are digesting the result of the ballot for the Society’s ruling council which were declared a couple of days ago. The full results are here:

Having over the last few weeks blogged about these elections here and here, I thought I better record my response to the result.

All of my top five choices of candidate got elected – so on that score I am happy with the outcome.

In general it looks like a victory for the “reformers”. Only a handful of the incumbents who were re-standing were re-elected so there are a lot of new faces on the council. Hopefully this injection of new blood will give the ERS new energy and new direction.

However, there are also some experienced old hands who have been elected who can provide some continuity. I was particularly pleased to see that Michael Meadowcroft and Keith Sharp were elected. So my impression is of a balanced result which has the potential to be a good thing for the future direction of the ERS.

In an email to members Katie Ghose, the ERS’s Chief Executive, has commented:

“Our recent elections have returned a Council that reflects what our members want – a mix of experience and knowledge, long-serving members along with fresh faces, cross-party representation and a good diversity of age, gender and nations.”

This looks to be about right. If the winners are able to dial down some of the language which was used in the election campaign, work to respect and understand each others opinions, and operate through consensus then I think those elected have the makings of a strong team.

 3rd September 2011   13:23   0  Tags Politics 

Former Luton Council Chief Executive to chair government’s panel on riots

Darra Singh, a former Chief Executive of Luton Borough Council, has been chosen to head the Communities and Victims Panel that the Government has set up to talk to those affected by the riots in August and to attempt to understand why they occurred. The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, announced the membership of the panel this week.

Darra was the Chief Exec for my first few years as a councillor in Luton and so I got to see him at work. I reckon he is a good choice for this role. I have in the past praised the work he did as chair of the Commission for Integration and Cohesion under the last Labour government. Some of the conclusions of that commission where quite challenging and so if this new panel applies the same degree of rigour to it’s work it’s conclusions won’t necessarily be comfortable for the current coalition government.

The establishment of this panel is in step with the more sensible response to the riots that Nick Clegg has taken. I think it is unlikely that Darra will be inclined to endorse the more wilder aspects of the Tories knee jerk response. That said, I get the impression that he is respected across all political parties so what he and the other members of the panel come up with should hopefully have some weight.

 2nd September 2011   11:41   3  Tags Luton, Politics 

Conference to vote on changes to the Liberal Democrats internal election rules

As we move towards the end of August thoughts inevitably turn towards the agenda and issues to be debated at the Liberal Democrats’ Autumn Conference. Well they do for me anyway.

So this seems like a good moment to update my post from April about the proposed changes to relax the restrictions on campaigning in internal party elections.

Back then I welcomed the fact that the Party’s Federal Executive had agreed to support these proposals. In particular, I welcomed the removal of the ridiculous ban on electronic campaigning. Well these changes have made it on to the agenda for the Conference in Birmingham and will be debated and voted on first thing on the morning of Wednesday 21 September.

To get into the details for a moment; the changes to the rules for the federal committees, the area I am most concerned about, includes the deletion of Rule 4(d) which states:

“Candidates or their supporters must not use e-mail, e-groups, cix conferencing or websites during these elections to promote their candidacy,”

It is more than a little embarrassing that it has taken us until 2011 to get rid of this silly and unenforceable rule, but I am glad that it is going. Indeed, the changes suggest we will be taking further steps in a positive direction with the new provision that the returning officer “may carry out electronic communications with the electorate to facilitate the election”. Exciting cutting edge stuff!

The serious point is that this is a step that improves the health of the Party’s internal democracy. As I said in April;

“I want the Liberal Democrats to have a healthy and vibrant internal democracy that encourages debate, challenge and accountability and the use of online communications is an essential method of encouraging that. So I hope the proposals will be supported when they come to conference for approval.”

 24th August 2011   14:50   3  Tags Politics 

More on the Electoral Reform Society elections

There are only a couple of days left before the ballot closes for the election to the Electoral Reform Society‘s governing council. Since I wrote about my take on the elections I’ve been interested to read what other have been saying about the elections.

There was a good summary of the issues from Simon McGrath. Also on Liberal Democrat voice Stephen Tall has pulled together a collection of blog posts on the elections (kindly including my post among them) which gives a good flavour of the debate. Finally Mark Pack has written about the five questions you should ask before voting.

Having read through these I am more convinced that the best result for ERS would be a mix of established figures and new reformers to be elected to the council. If the could respect and learn from each others positions then the society will be strengthened. The danger is that the election results in divisions and discord which I hope those elected will actively guard against.

 24th August 2011   00:35   2  Tags Politics