September 30, 2020 § 1 Comment
Liberal Democrat federal conference this weekend was the strangest in a very strange run of years and conferences since I joined the party in 2015. Reeling from an abysmal general election result last year, demoralised by a fractious leadership election campaign that left many on the party’s left questioning their place in the movement, it felt at times heading into conference like there might be a doom bell tolling over the struggling party. On top of that, COVID meant that a physical conference was impossible, meaning that this would be the party’s first attempt at an online-accessible event, an idea fraught with possible pitfalls.
The result was, however, one which left party members like me feeling our resolve stiffened – not, perhaps, reconciled to how things are going, but feeling that this is by no means the end of the road.
This was not, alas, due to the party’s leadership. Both leader Ed Davey and president Mark Pack were frustratingly evasive on key questions about the party’s direction. Ed’s speech was effective on his motivations, in a quietly personal way, but failed to provide a sense of vision. His charge of the party “failing to listen” came across poorly to those in the membership who feel that over the past decade, it has tended to be the leadership in which Ed has often featured, not the membership, who have often failed to address the reasons why the party lost many voters’ trust and to move forward effectively from the party’s time in government. The leader’s Question & Answer session saw even fairly innocuous questions about the leader meeting with party bodies blocked, presumably in case they caused embarrassment.
For his part, party president Mark Pack gave some rather unsatisfactory defences of the diversity arrangements on his new steering group project, which he defended by suggesting that having members who are, for example, northern, or LGBT, is sufficient to ensure those viewpoints are represented in discussions – despite the fact that the members of the committee with those characteristics are ex officio representing other stakeholder areas entirely. That in turn is before one gets onto the question of democratic deficit, in a handpicked 14-member group that has taken over the Federal Board’s functions whilst only containing a single directly elected Federal Board member who did not actually win the Federal Board election. In a strategy discussion, descriptions of the party as a “brand” and claims that voters don’t vote on values by new communications head Mimi Turner were viewed with some suspicion by those like me who suspect that the reason most voters’ impression of us is “don’t know” comes from a failure to articulate values and principle not an over-reliance upon them.
So why is there a sense of quiet satisfaction at the weekend’s proceedings from even Ed’s most strident critics I’ve been talking to among the membership?
Put simply, it’s because this conference showed that, perhaps despite themselves, the Liberal Democrats still have a voice, and a distinctive one in which the party’s radical tradition can make a difference, and that despite COVID-19 the party’s democratic processes can still function very effectively.
For the latter, huge credit has to go to the Federal Conference Committee, led by Geoff Payne, and especially to Jennie Rigg who was instrumental in among other things recruiting and running the volunteer moderation team (of which I was a part, doing about four or five hours of text-chat moderation over the course of the weekend). The Hopin system used wasn’t without problems, and the exhibition in particular suffered from the online format, but in general FCC managed the whole event magnificently and with a great deal of slick professionalism, and the presence of excited members who hadn’t been able to come to conference for years if at all previously made the whole event feel especially rewarding.
The party’s policy outlook was also undeniably shaped by this weekend, too, and largely for the better. Most prominent in the long run was the adoption of a Universal Basic Income policy, via a motion drafted by myself and former Harrow PPC Dr. Adam Bernard and backed by Welsh Lib Dem leader Jane Dodds. UBI is definitionally a flagship policy, and has become an increasingly loud ask within the party in recent years: its effects are so wide-ranging that one can’t help but design the rest of the policy platform around it to some extent. It was an excellent debate, in which thoughtful critiques especially from prominent candidates Laura Gordon and Ian Sollom provided a constructive counterweight to the successful proposing arguments in a discussion that will hopefully continue as Federal Policy Committee develops the policy details further.
The party’s fight on Europe, whilst an avoidable mess, ultimately was a victory for the leadership’s opponents too, and one sealed before the debate had even begun: Ed Davey and Christine Jardine’s attempts to brief about moving away from a position of explicitly favouring membership and bounce the party into backing that position backfired, as did their attempts to avoid the Federal Policy Committee putting forward a more explicitly pro-Europe motion which FPC member Olly Craven broke ranks to discuss with the Independent. Duncan Brack, perhaps the party’s most prominent policy veteran, led the charge to re-insert a clear statement of longer term intent to rejoin into the policy, whilst Radical Association executive member George Potter successfully tabled a second, far more aggressively pro-rejoin, amendment – which successfully scared the leadership into accepting the Brack amendment in order to defeat the Potter amendment, exactly the intended outcome.
Other policy fights of note included a very close-run vote on whether license fee non-payment should be a criminal rather than civil matter – a loss for the latter position taken by the radicals, but not by much. My own amendments both sailed through without incident. I presented one alongside Ryan Mercer to the post-Covid public debate policy that called for focusing engagement on the most marginalised and worst affected groups rather than advocating sortition-based methods as the original motion did, which was accepted by Daisy Cooper as the motion’s proposer. My other amendment, on enshrining biodiversity concerns and the use of nature recovery networks in our post-Covid planning, equally proved without incident and was accepted by Duncan Brack on behalf of the motion’s movers: Peterborough Cllr Nick Sandford kindly provided a very good summation. My speech on that was the first time I’ve gone and read a verse of poetry mid-speech, which if a bit flowery seemed to go down well.
Finally, on equalities and civil liberties issues, the core of the Lib Dems’ raison d’etre for many activists, the party seems to be finding its feet better than it has done in a while. A successful Black Lives Matter motion firmed up the party’s plans to curb Stop and Search and presented a worthwhile plan for citizens’ assemblies to discuss the impacts of Empire, a powerful debate on Hong Kong was a nuanced and profoundly liberal look into how we could best support the people of that city against the authoritarianism of the CCP, and the business motion on trans rights was won by an overwhelming majority of members despite obsessive organising by the party’s transphobic lobby which included one of their members sitting on the networking function for the entirety of conference to try and lobby people. I sincerely hope we don’t have a debate like that again any time soon – having to hear waves of regurgitated transphobia from a succession of speakers from the stage must have been painful for trans members watching, and I share concerns that the chair was too laid back rather than stepping in at some points. Nonetheless, stunningly strong speeches by trans members Jasmine Josephine Sakura-Rose and Charley Hasted at the end of the debate were absolute highlights of the conference, and the decisive outcome at least firmly shows that there is no place for those views in our party.
The party’s policy outlook is just one part of its make-up of course, and the presentation can be wildly variable even with the same policy substance. But the essential values and theses of the party – social justice, civil liberties, a mistrust of over-centralisation, empowering people both legally and financially to make their own decisions – show more continuity between now and the party’s greatest modern election success in 2005 than some give credit for. That’s a reflection of some of the key instincts that bring people into the party, and the relative fit of that to particular electorates is one reason why the party has struggled with the post-Clegg strategy of attempting to find new turf in centrist, sound governance and finance style appeals to the commuter belt as opposed to the campaigning, scrappy, misfit coalition that saw greater Lib Dem successes in the late 1990s to 2000s. The embrace of the innately radical-looking UBI will further cement the Lib Dems’ need to pivot to hunting for a slightly different class of currently conservative swing voter than the highly affluent commuters who Clegg and later Swinson seemed to design their campaigns around targeting.
After all the leadership contest furore the party’s leadership seemed in the end somewhat secondary over the course of the weekend: Ed Davey and Mark Pack were understated, Daisy Cooper largely uncontroversial (though a well recieved speech in the trans rights motion was very much to her credit). Rather, this felt like a party collectively testing where it now was, and pleasantly finding that it had a little more to agree on than it might have feared. Those agreements will have long term consequences for Lib Dem strategy, and there can be little doubt that at six percent in the polls the strategic and constitutional wrangling of the next year or so may be severe – but the party’s internal voice, perhaps despite the party’s predicaments, is still noticeable and has its own tune. The question for the coming years is whether the party’s upper echelons are going to go for their volume mixers and autotune, or whether they will find that, with a little conducting and instrumentation, that liberal voice can sing in its own electoral right after all.
August 22, 2020 § 1 Comment
I’ve voted for Layla Moran to be the next Liberal Democrat leader. At our best, we’re a democratic, blue skies thinking party that revitalises communities: at our worst, we’re a clique-led party of dull centrism that stares into potholes. Layla, I think, is the candidate who best understands that.
I’ve increasingly felt that the key to this leadership election is between a vision of the Lib Dems that justifies our existence by electoral results and one that justifies our existence by the liberal clarity of our vision and policy outlook. Fundamentally the latter is my view. Liberals have best survived over the past century by retaining a passionate, effective activist base, and by articulating values – localism, mutualism, human rights, internationalism – that other parties all too often fail to talk about. We also need to recognise the past voter coalitions that brought us to the more successful elections of 1997-2010, rather than doubling down on the rather less successful commuter belt strategies of recent years, and I think Layla is the right person to achieve that.
If we can do that and articulate our values, it’s the best way for us to succeed electorally too, winning voters for the long term and turning local into Westminster level gains. Putting liberalism and policy at the heart of what we’re trying to do, and emphasising that electoral strategy is a means and not an end, is also important because it allows us to build other means as well: as Layla has been showing with her work in the Coronavirus APPG, we can influence policy by influencing the national conversation, as we have done so many times in the past, and that too is a worthwhile goal for a liberal movement. Essentially, I think our electoral future depends on our ability to show that we have a distinctive purpose in a world where “inoffensive centre left party run from London” already has a big red occupant in its box. A strategy of a sharp focus on a few uncontroversial issues might win us more district council seats next year but it won’t win us more Westminster seats at the next general election, and in a country as overcentralised in its decision-making as the UK, the latter really does matter for actually achieving liberal priorities rather than becoming an effective network of residents’ associations.
I also trust Layla on policy. I said at the start of this campaign that I’d need any candidate to commit to tackling our over-reliance on policing before backing them: Layla was the only one who responded positively to that call to look at alternative ways to solve social issues, providing servies other than the police and making restorative justice methods a core part of how we deal with crime in the UK. In addition, as someone who’s spent countless hours working on minimum income campaigning within the party in recent years, an often difficult task, Layla is clearly the person whose record and outlook places her best to credibly take that policy forward in the future.
Believing in leaders as the primary source of change is a bad idea in politics, and I’ve always thought that – it’s a large part of the reason why I’m a liberal to begin with. And that’s my final reason for backing Layla: I think Layla will give the party the space to fix itself. In my interactions with her, I’ve felt that she has massive respect for party democracy and accountability, two things that we desperately need at the top of the party right now. I believe that we need someone who hasn’t presided over the party’s top cliques developing into their current form to work out how we make the upper echelons of the party more accessible to informed member input, scrutiny, and debate. I’m sure that the results won’t be perfect, but I think this is a problem that Layla is the only one of our candidates credibly placed to have a go at solving.
I deeply believe that it’s important to give candidates a fair hearing in elections: I’ve worked to hold to those values this time, and didn’t want to make my voting call in the immediate aftermath of last week. But this election matters, and I wanted to share my thoughts now.
So, for those still undecided on the Lib Dem Leadership, I’d urge you to Vote Layla. For an innovative, democratic, liberal party caring about human rights and income security for all, and for thereby securing the future of our movement, Layla is the leader we need right now.
August 9, 2020 § 1 Comment
A week or so ago, I was asked by the Radical Association to chair their Liberal Democrat leadership hustings event. As a former Association Chair, as an academic historian experienced in moderating discussion events, and as someone who has not endorsed, nominated, or campaigned for any of the candidates, I was happy to accept.
Unfortunately that event will not be going forwards, largely as a result of issues over chairing. Specifically, I was made aware in the past week that Sir Edward Davey’s leadership campaign had made representations to Lib Dem HQ making allegations about my partiality and complaining about my ability to chair the event. I have not been shown the content of that complaint, or given any right of reply to it. Even more surprisingly and disappointingly, Ed’s team at no point made any attempt to discuss their concerns about my chairing with me and thereby attempt to resolve any issues through reasonable dialogue.
I try not to take myself too seriously in politics – it pays not to, as a Lib Dem. I do, however, take my professionalism and integrity seriously, and I take my sense of fairness extremely seriously. Having those things attacked and undermined by a leadership campaign, out of the blue, has been one of the most deeply disappointing and demoralising things that has happened to me as a party member.
I’m sad for Radical Association members that they won’t get a full chance to put all their questions to the leadership candidates, and I’m hurt on a personal level that Ed’s team thought that this was an appropriate way to deal with me as a party activist who’s spent countless hours in recent years working on Liberal Democrat policy and on getting our party’s candidates elected.
I hope sincerely that this conduct by Ed’s campaign has been a one-off which they will on reflection agree was not up to the standards to which they would wish to hold themselves, and is not representative of their wider attitude to my fellow party activists. I will be taking no further part in anything else relating to the leadership campaign for a few days as I deal with the outcome of this extremely unfortunate episode and consider what to do next.
July 19, 2020 § 3 Comments
A lot of people wonder what on earth binds the Liberal Democrats together. A lot of those people are Liberal Democrats – though it’s also confusing to external observers. The glib answer is that liberalism binds the Liberal Democrats together, but this is also unhelpful for observers, because the Lib Dems’ understanding of what “liberalism” means is somewhat internationally idiosyncratic, sitting economically well to the left of most of their counterpart liberal parties in similar countries.
The failure to pin down the core elements of the Lib Dem coalition – and the challenge and failure of attempts to change the core Lib Dem instincts and coalition over the past decade or two – are in my view closely intertwined.
Before 2010-15, the Paddy Ashdown/Charles Kennedy voting coalition brought us over sixty seats with strength in suburbs, university towns, the South West, rural Wales, northern Scotland, and some more remote English rural seats and seaside towns. One of the main arguments that has been raised against a return to this coalition of voters is the allegation that it was incoherent, and that we had such a “protest vote” support base that it was inevitably going to shatter. This leads to the question of where the Lib Dem support ought to come from, and the answer is usually one of refocus on wealthy, socially liberal seats: strong bastions of pro-European sentiment who might want a more caring option than the Tories. This strategic shift has been tried more than once now – the 2015 and 2019 General Elections both emphasised some of those sorts of seats – and it’s largely failed both times. I’m not here to re-do any of the endless post-mortems on that, but I do want to discuss why I think the party’s voting and membership coalitions are more coherent than they look and why the party’s traditions might have sat badly with trying to find the newer and more coherent voter base that some of its leaders have craved.
So here’s my explanation pitch: liberalism, in the British tradition of such, is misfit politics. It’s a political movement the most fundamental identifying feature of which is as a grouping of people who are (or at least feel) in some way excluded from societal norms, and who, equally importantly, want to retain the right to that difference, rather than either imposing a new norm or paper over those differences.
I use the term misfit here because it seems to better encapsulate the sentiment than, say a term like “diversity” – it’s not just about the range of identities under discussion (which has always been far too limited in our party), but about the relative acceptability, performed roles, and self-perceptions of people holding those identities. One can have a certain sort of diverse Toryism, but you can’t have misfit Toryism. Misfit also implies a more conscious rejection of authority. One can have a certain unity in diversity: misfit politics doesn’t value unity for its own sake, setting out explicitly to create a noisy, varied, ragged patchwork blanket of a society, pulling together those who dislike the imposition of prevailing norms and the centralisation of power.
This broadly helps explain much of the party’s history. Nineteenth century liberalism was often focused on religious exclusion: Toryism and Anglicanism were then deeply intertwined, and the non-conformists meanwhile had a strong liberal tradition. Some people I’ve seen have taken this religious divide and assumed that far too much can be explained by its aftershocks, like the continued strength of the Liberals in non-conformist areas like rural Wales through the twentieth century. But in fact, I want to suggest that rather the things that made those areas good ground for nonconformism also made them good ground for liberalism in this particular form. The fringes of Britain, often left quite badly off but with a mistrust of central governance and without the urban or union traditions through which Labour flourished, were misfit communities ideal for a misfit movement that would fight for more localist approaches and whose MPs somewhat by definition tended to build independent, local-minded reputations.
The later twentieth century saw a liberal movement that was increasingly invested in, and ahead of the curve on, issues like LGBT rights, and which was also adopting its distinctive “community politics” streak. These again fit the overall pattern: community politics in its original Greaves/Lishman formulation is fundamentally about ways to empower communities to act on their own behalf, accepting, permitting and making a strength out of their differences. Areas like civil liberties and LGBT rights are natural areas of growth for a movement whose defining characteristic is “people have a right to not fit in”. Cooperatives, championed by Jo Grimond? That’s where you end up if you don’t like conforming to corporatism or statism. The list could go on.
So we reach more recent times, and misfit politics in many ways formed a core of the new Liberal Democrats’ voting appeal, and certainly its appeal for its own members. Some people write off things like voting reform and localism as being a matter for anoraks, but correctly played they can be a powerful call to people who feel alienated by central government policies. Core Lib Dem shouts of “decentralise”, “community services”, “make votes count”, or “protect our rights” all have important parts to play in building that. Another core appeal point has always been the idea of the Lib Dems as the blue skies thinkers, the ideas party. Again, this fits in very well with a party that at its heart sees itself as out of the box to begin with, so approaching ideas that are also out of the box comes as a comparatively natural next step.
The problems of the Lib Dems in more recent years have come from a number of sources, but have not fundamentally altered this fact about the party’s make-up. Misfit politics, built on that fundamentally human desire to see an authority figure and stick a middle finger up at them, has never sat so easily with the desire for the Lib Dems to be a party of moderating influence as it fought the catastrophic 2015 election on. Outgunned by a barrage of attacks from Eurosceptics before and after 2016, the also party never managed to do the thing it most needed to do and present its internationalism within the scope of its misfit sensibilites: as the “you shouldn’t be allowed tell me which country I get to live in and who I get to love”, rather than as an appeal to not rock the boat and tick back to past halcyon days which is how it all too often came across. That’s been a factor in the splintering of the Lib Dem vote share: one of the explanatory factors for losing votes to the Conservatives after 2010, other than a general loss of trust in the party, is that anti-Westminster sentiment became increasingly effectively weaponised as anti-Brussels sentiment by the right, allowing certain sorts of voters to be hoovered up into Conservative or even UKIP voting tallies.
Recent events, I think, show that the party has not lost the knack or desire for misfit politics. In particular the work of Jamie Stone in becoming the parliamentary front man for ExcludedUK, a group for people falling between the cracks of the government’s Covid support measures, is a very notable example. It also shows how misfit politics isn’t just identarian in nature: anyone can find that they have fallen between the cracks, and enough people have done at times to potentially make their collective action a politically powerful force. This may be mistaken for purely protest politics because of its explicit appeals to disaffection, but it offers something very different – a mode of politics that aims at empowered individuals and strong communities, not in order to bring everyone into one bubble of increasing similarity, but to allow, liberate and empower people to keep not fitting in. “If you’re excluded, you’re included,” says ExcludedUK’s website. Taken more generally, that’s a political blueprint worth paying attention to.
I certainly don’t mean to say, with all of the above, that I think this conception of misfit politics is the only force in defining the Lib Dems. It emphatically isn’t, and slogans like “Open, Tolerant, United” which I had to cringe through in recent years display that there is a much more centralising and unity-driven tendency that’s strong within the party. We also emphatically fail to live up to what the strategic and ideological requirements of misfit politics done at its best would be: in particular the party has been and continues to be poor at engaging disaffected working-class folk and, overlapping those, BAME folk who are some of the most marginalised in our society today. Nor can any of this stand alone as a principle – the harm principle in combination with the social-liberal political turn are important mediators for this style of politics, preventing it from veering into spaces where people’s right to not fit in is misinterpreted as a right to abuse and harm others. I do think, however, that understanding this approach is critical to understanding what drives the UK’s liberalism as opposed to that in other countries, and helps provide an overarching principle that explains much of how the UK liberal movement we see today came together and stays together.
Finally, well… I don’t actually have a final point here about what all this should mean for the party’s strategic future, other than the fact that I think we have to live with the fact that this is who we are as a political movement. I don’t know if it’s possible to persuade enough people in for example former South Western stomping grounds that they share their perception of themselves as outsiders with migrants, LGBT folk, etc, and if one can any more put together a voting coalition on that basis. The Brexit divisions are very, very deep. But I think there’s a lot to be said for recognising this aspect of who we are, for better or worse, recognising that there IS a workable policy and electoral logic to attempting to form the grand misfit coalition, and then deciding what we do with that information.
As for me, I think and hope that there’s a future for misfit liberalism. May we never be brought into line!
July 17, 2020 § Leave a comment
We’re here again, a year later, for another LD leadership contest. I’m not doing an endorsement, having said that I won’t endorse anyone who doesn’t sign up to a meaningful set of actions on policing reform – though those who know me won’t find it hard to work out which way I’m leaning, but rather I wanted to make some comments on the state of the race and my models for dealing with these races.
I’ve previously held that I think one can adopt something of a “lanes” model for internal party elections, as I explain here. I think last year’s election give some interesting twists to that, which is that for leadership elections we need to take more of a tiered approach to the party – my lanes identification, whilst I think it’s valid, I also suspect falls into the trap that most activists fall into in leadership elections, namely over-focusing on swings and movement among a small activist core and not thinking about the armchair members who make up most of the actual electorate. It’s very hard to know how those members think for the most part, and this perhaps gives quite a large capacity for surprises and also makes things like media appearances more important and party endorsements far less important than most of the party’s core tend to think.
Another tweak to the “lanes” model is that I think the FBPE bloc as a regular segment of the party can now more or less be dropped for model purposes. After last year’s general election and Brexit happening earlier this year, the number of “rejoin now at all costs” votes within the activist base is too low for it to be a core of anyone’s campaign.
I think we can nonetheless see lanes as being useful for understanding what positioning candidates are adopting, and the activist part of the base are by no means irrelevant in leadership contests as candidates need them to actually volunteer to run and staff their campaigns. MPs seeking leadership will want to build a broad coalition of activists to win, although those who tack hard outside their standard lane may alienate activists and hamper their future base within the party.
The candidate choice in this election is pretty clearly defined in style: Sir Ed Davey, a former coalition minister who touts his climate change record, has a south London constituency, relatively heavy establishment backing and a lot more money, versus Layla Moran, a former teacher who would be the party’s first leader not to have been an MP during the coalition years and who has a more populist, ideas driven style. Ed is straight, white, and male: Layla is a half Palestinian pansexual woman.
Whilst none of these lanes are absolutes, it’s fair to say that Layla’s activist base is on the social and radical liberal wing, while Ed’s is based around the HQ lane plus a good chunk of more parochialist backers who he’s spent a great deal of time cultivating. The true centrist and orange book factions are fairly solidly pro-Ed, but given the lack of a challenger to his right he’s making minimal effort to court them. The division between the candidates, at least in the campaigns, is not however primarily one about a left to right divide – not least because Ed has pitched himself in a “centre-left but a safer pair of hands” mould – but rather about radicalism and electoralism. Ed’s political style is electoralist first and foremost, and his strongest supporters are often backing him on the grounds that they think Layla’s open discussion of radicalism and lower experience may make her less electable. Layla meanwhile is an ideas first politician, and her strongest supporters are likely to be those that charge that if we don’t have a strong liberal vision and persuade people to back it, there’s not much point in us winning elections to start with. Both candidates are likely to somewhat pitch away from those starting points to avoid being percieved as weak on their opponent’s natural turf – Layla has been rhetorically leaning increasingly heavily on her experience taking soft Conservative votes to win her formerly Tory seat, in response to Ed’s charge that radicalism won’t win the Conservatives we need to peel off our largely Conservative-facing block of marginals next election. Much more than last election or the presidential race last year, though, this election may test a subtle but important distinction of viewpoints on what the Liberal Democrats should be for.
Layla’s campaign has perhaps been the less slick of the two organisationally, but has largely avoided major slips so far and has managed to craft a fairly distinctive image as a “change candidacy”, with a lot of material on the need to move on from coalition and shed some of that political baggage. Her release of an entire new multi-author book led by her on possible future directions for the party has been largely well recieved, and she has been endorsed by a number of well respected voices in policy circles, like former Cambridge MP Julian Huppert. She has half of the party’s Scottish MPs backing her (Jamie Stone and Wendy Chamberlain) along with Wera Hobhouse of Bath, whose own leadership ambitions with a strongly pro progressive alliance pitch faltered largely due to lack of parliamentary support. Her hustings performances have generally been well recieved, and her recent appointment to lead a new All-Party Parliamentary Group on tackling and scrutinising the Coronavirus response has been a significant new boost to her credentials as someone who can make effective cross-party working happen.
The weaknesses of Layla’s campaign are partly in relative visibility – with a less well known candidate who isn’t already party leader, it’s simply harder to make up ground. Her past includes an arrest a number of years ago alongside a then-boyfriend after an altercation between them (both parties were released without further action), and this along with her more radical presentation and occasional incidents of verbally shooting from the hip has fuelled some suggestions of her being the “risky candidate”. As discussed below, she has generally lagged in endorsements and had rather fewer nominating members than Ed, which whilst meaningless in terms of the party as a whole is the sort of thing that can indicate a more stretched and less broad based campaign team. She has also perhaps struggled, despite her more ideas-led campaign plans, to really get easy clicks on big policy ideas, in part because Ed has tacked relatively leftward himself (to the point where in a hustings he recently started talking about a key childcare policy as a core reason to vote for him, at which point Layla quietly pointed out that it had in fact been her policy as party Education spokesperson). On policy, her struggle is therefore to avoid getting boxed in – though it seems likely, as I’ll discuss below, that the later stages of the campaign may increasingly move onto valency issues like media competence.
Ed’s campaign meanwhile has a strong starting point in terms of finances, organisation, and money. He’s had the infrastructure in place solidly since last year, has greatly outraised Layla allowing him to spend heavily on Facebook advertising, and has worked very hard on the endorsements game with considerable success. Notably he’s gained the support of Christine Jardine, who was one of Jo Swinson’s most loyal backers, of former leader Tim Farron, and of St Albans MP Daisy Cooper. Daisy’s endorsement is the most surprising, as her base has generally been very much on the party’s left and she’s known for among other things being a severe thorn in the side of Nick Clegg during the later coalition years – she will presumably be hoping that the gains in profile and establishment support made by backing Ed, if he wins, are significant enough for her to lose a lot of her backing on the social liberal wing of the party. Prominent members of the SLF who would have been among Daisy’s most enthusiastic backers had she run herself have been publicly talking about feeling disappointment or even betrayal at her endorsement. It’s nonetheless a coup for Ed, and may well net him additional support from some of Daisy’s supporters on the left and from the large local parties of southern Hertfordshire. Ed’s role as acting party co-leader is perhaps his greatest asset, though, giving him very large quantities of additional media time when acting as a party spokesperson that Layla can’t easily match. If Ed wins, it’s likely to be a result of better financed organisation coupled with better recognition among the membership.
Ed does, however, have vulnerabilities, despite his impressive infrastructure. His strategy is fairly clearly to avoid controversy, clock up endorsements, and keep things steady: his simple, core policy pitch of “the environment and carers” is somewhat motherhood and apple pie in Lib Dem circles. However, as mentioned above, endorsements often mean far less than people expect, and in a campaign with a fairly dynamic, policy-driven opponent, the safe hands approach can start to look flat footed. More worryingly for his strategy, though, he has not succeeded awfully well at avoiding controversy and has struggled at hustings. His defences of the coalition have tended to continually return to his successes on green energy to the point where they sound tone deaf – him taking the ‘but we got green energy’ line with a member who asked a question about their personal experience losing out from benefit cuts recently was a particularly egregious example. A recent interview with right-wing radio pundit Julia Hartley-Brewer where he angrily referred to her as senile and accused her of being paid off by the government also raised questions about his temperament and media skills. As effectively incumbent leader, too, the rather flat single-figures polling the Lib Dems have had all year, despite core issues like civil liberties being so high on the agenda, is potentially a weakness for Ed. The question “how will you get us above 8% in the polls reliably” is much easier to answer if people can’t then say “so why aren’t you doing that already?” The overall risk for Ed, then, is that through hustings and media his core initial selling points as a serious-minded, reliable, respected figure with huge experience as an election winner may be undermined by poor polling and a need to improve at hustings performances.
So where will the contest go now? There are many virtual hustings to go. From the race so far, my suspicion is that Ed has the starting advantage thanks to his better name recognition, but my sense, like that of most in the party, is that it will be a tight race overall. Differing attitudes to dealing with coalition, and the related question of whether it’s more electorally and morally valuable to try and lead conversations on liberal policies or to push a smaller number of less controversial issues to maximise potential breadth of appeal, involve quite deeply entrenched pre-existing party divisions: that in turn makes it likely that the activist membership will sort strongly based upon them and that the conversation will turn to valency issues for the voters who don’t have a strong opinion on that particular divide. What they think, and what the wider membership thinks of it all, we’ll really only know when the ballots are counted.
June 3, 2020 § 3 Comments
We stand at a point of crisis. The death of George Floyd and the subsequent suppression and maiming of protestors in the USA horrify us – but we in the UK cannot and must not pretend that this critical point and desperate cry for justice is an American problem alone. Black people are also targeted by a range of police actions at wildly disproportionate rates in the UK. Stop and searches are, to take one of the most prominent examples, used on Black people at a rate over ten times that of White people; 2018 figures suggested that of uses of force by police, those on Black people accounted for four times more than their share of the population.
There are many facets to this problem. Racism is deep-rooted, permeating and harming all aspects of the lives of people of colour. Redressing it and the vast societal disparities it has caused is something that covers all areas of public policy. Black people along with other people of colour face barriers in areas as varied as education, access to both mental and physical healthcare, access to housing, workplace discrimination, and many others.
In light of the recent crisis, however, and as one small strand of this wider task ahead of us, we wish to particularly highlight the role of over-policing in presenting additional burdens to people and communities of colour in the UK. Racial profiling leads to the over-criminalisation and dehumanisation of young BAME men in particular, resulting in them being harassed by police for simply existing in public while Black or Asian.
As a country we rely too much on the police and procedural criminal justice for roles that they are often ill suited for. Moving away from this over-reliance is possible: pledging to not just operationally reform the police but actively seek to allow alternative pathways to justice is a positive and long overdue step that we as liberals should seize this moment to commit ourselves to.
Redressing the balance of power between citizens and the state has long been a core fundament of liberalism in Britain. We are at our best when we are proudly standing up for civil liberties, for a more diverse, welcoming society, and for forward-thinking policies that help shape a path towards a kinder and more liberal country. We must recognise with some humility that we have not always been that party when people of colour needed us to be in the past. Equally we must not, at this crucial juncture, fail to be that best version of ourselves that is so badly needed in this moment.
We therefore challenge fellow Liberal Democrats – especially those who seek to lead our party – to agree to back the following six points and commit to backing a policy paper to bring them forward as party policy at the earliest opportunity. These are not an end-point to the issue of how we as a society tackle racism and keep one another safe: but they are a start towards relieving the pressure that many communities have long felt and continue to feel, and open up new possibilities and hope for those seeking justice of many kinds.
We believe Liberal Democrats should work and campaign to:
- Ensure police searches require judicially approved warrants, ending blanket stop and search powers. If searches of particular areas are an operational requirement then warrants for these should be strictly time limited.
- Develop use of restorative justice approaches to make them more regularly deliverable, including routes to access them that do not work through the procedural criminal justice system.
- Pledge significant new funds to both expand restorative justice services and raise awareness of them as an option among victims of crime, aiming for restorative justice use to become a new normal for a wide range of crimes and conflicts.
- Pilot and roll out the use of mediation and intervention teams that work outside police forces and can provide an alternative point of contact to use restorative justice and de-escalate conflict situations in the community without engaging the police.
- Work toward stricter oversight structures for the police, especially on reducing racial profiling, and replace current state enforcement bodies such as the UK Border Force which currently have weaker oversight structures than police forces with ones that will receive at least that level of accountability.
- Move forward with and expand our existing Liberal Democrat commitment to decriminalise victimless crimes such as cannabis possession, reducing burdens on police forces and communities alike.
This statement supported by:
Natasha Chapman (Co-Author: Vice-Chair, Lincoln, Sleaford and North Hykeham Liberal Democrats)
James Baillie (Co-Author: Member, Breckland Liberal Democrats)
Dipa Vaya (Vice-Chair, Racial Diversity Campaign)
Cllr Jon Ball (Vice-Chair, Federal Conference Committee; Deputy Leader, London Borough of Ealing Liberal Democrat Group)
April Preston (Member, Federal Board; Director, Radical Association)
Alisdair Calder McGregor (Member of Federal Policy Commtittee; Chair, Radical Association)
Olly Craven (English Party Representative to Federal Policy Committee; Parliamentary Spokesperson, Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Jennie Rigg (English Party Representative to Federal Conference Committee; Former Chair, LGBT+ Liberal Democrats)
Joe Toovey (Member, Federal Conference Committee; Executive member, Radical Association)
Cllr Kate Smith (Police and Crime Commissioner Candidate, Derbyshire; Secretary, Amber Valley Liberal Democrats)
Cllr Fran Oborski MBE. (Deputy Leader, Wyre Forest District Council; Worcestershire County Council; Treasurer, Wyre Forest Liberal Democrats)
Cllr George Potter (Guildford Borough Council)
Cllr Nick Barlow (Colchester Borough Council)
Pushkin Defyer (BAME Officer, Young Liberals)
James Bliss (Policy Officer, Young Liberals)
Katharine Macy (Accessibility, Diversity and Standards Officer, Young Liberals)
Meraj Khan (BAME Member, Young Liberals Diversity Committee)
Richard Flowers (Treasurer, Liberal Democrats Party in England; Treasurer, LGBT+ Liberal Democrats; Treasurer, Lib Dem Immigrants)
Andrew Hickey (Member of English Council)
Charley Hasted (LGBT+ Lib Dems Exec member; Lambeth Lib Dems Exec member; HVP Young Liberals)
Holly Matthies (LGBT+ Lib Dems Exec member; Lib Dem Immigrants Exec member)
Stephen Chapman (Chair, Lincoln, Sleaford and North Hykeham Liberal Democrats)
Jasmine Joséphine Sakura-Rose (Treasurer, South Wales East Valleys Liberal Democrats)
Mark Waller (Treasurer, Cambridge Liberal Democrats)
Andy Hinton (Wandsworth Liberal Democrats: Access and Diversity Officer, Radical Association)
Archie Coomber (Social Secretary, Durham University Liberal Democrats)
Dr William Barter (Westminster Borough Liberal Democrats)
Luke Graham (Highland Liberal Democrats)
Philip Dixon (Newport Liberal Democrats)
Clio Toogood (Trafford Liberal Democrats)
Amanda Wintcher (Gateshead Liberal Democrats)
Jack Fleming (Camden Liberal Democrats)
To be added to the above list, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
January 31, 2020 § Leave a comment
So, today is happening. I thought before the referendum in 2016 that people as a whole were best off with Britain having full membership of the European Union. I thought that after 2016, through two General elections, seven Lib Dem party conferences, one European election, and hours of activism that I will never attempt to count.
It will, then, come as no surprise that I still think that today, and I fully expect that I will continue to do so tomorrow, and the next day, and onwards after that.
Today is not the end of the Brexit process – it hasn’t even taken the very real threat of a no deal exit off the table, and once again the Conservative government has a matter of months to try and cobble together some sort of deal with the EU. The flags may wave, but they herald the dawn only of further limbo. It is a victory hollow and unclear for its victors, and painfully bitter for its losers.
Today is not the end, either, of British struggles with our collective identity and our place in Europe and the world. Pro-European sentiment is more of a political force in Britain today than it was in 2015, and it will continue to be so. Political issues are not concluded by votes, of any kind: they are concluded when the political body in question is sufficiently content with the situation en masse that there is no call to reopen the question. The Conservative policy since 2016 has been to deepen that divide. As a pro-European I could not cross it whether or not I wanted to: the entire rhetoric and reality of the Brexit project has been an attack on things that are important to me. It offers nothing and takes much; it is a repudiation of the things I am and the things I stand for, by intentional design.
Today is not the end of hope, for me. It is painful, but the pain will fade. Who I am will not fade, and everything I am calls me to fight for rights and freedoms – freedom to move, live, and love where we choose, to have a say in matters that affect this whole continent, to defend the freedom from conflict that has underpinned European life for over half a century – that today are being curtailed. These things, for me, can never just be someone else’s problem: to call for liberty is intrinsic to my understanding of who I am and the world around me.
As liberals, we need to do better on those things than we have done in recent years, in which the European struggle has too often been reduced to psychodrama and removed from its very real costs and its wider context – a growing illiberalism that has seen great pain inflicted especially on non-EU migrants to the UK, whose voice was all too often lost or denigrated by people trying to make political points, and which has also seen an executive that has taken dangerous steps away from permitting scrutiny of its actions, whether that comes in the form of suppressing potentially damaging documents in the wake of an election or literally hiding in a fridge to avoid interviews. There is more need than ever for politics that is internationalist, compassionate, and sharply critical of overreach by a central state infrastructure high on a lethal cocktail of nation-statism. Liberal Democrats, your – our – task at least should today have in clarity of purpose what it lacks in optimism.
I don’t know if Britain will ever again be a member of the EU.
I do know that campaigning to achieve that outcome sooner or later is, and will continue to be, an integral part of campaigning for liberalism in Britain. Be it in sorrow, in anger, or in hope, this is a part of everything we seek to be.
Long live the European Cause.
And what of me, now?
I am torn in two today. My flat, my work, my life: my family, my passport, the places I grew up. I am not going to ask you to “think how that feels” because I know perfectly well that in 2015, before I’d ever contemplated moving to Europe or that Britain might seriously leave it on these sorts of terms, I’d never have been able to understand, empathetically, what I’m feeling as of Jan 31, 2020.
So I won’t ask you to understand. I’ll just tell you, and what you do with that information is yours. Ich bin Englisch, ich bin Europäisch; მე ინგლისელი ვარ, მე ევროპელი ვარ; I am English, I am European. And, like it or not, however much one tries to dance around claims that “Britain isn’t leaving the continent, just the EU”, the fact is that on a very practical basis Brexit is a statement in hard cold legal text of incompatibility between two of the most important parts of my self. Its purpose is above all else to make that duality of migrant existences more difficult: Theresa May’s comment that citizens of the world are citizens of nowhere comes across in retrospect not as commentary but as policy. Brexit is for Britain’s government to “take back control”, not of money, for we have spent profligately on this project, not of decisions, for it is giving up its power to influence the course of a whole continent – it is taking back control of people. People like me.
So here I am. Where is home, now? The country in which, as for all migrants, I live on the whims of successive governments in whose machinations I have not the least say, or the one where I can reliably vote every few years, get represented by a Tory regardless, and have a resulting government whose fundamental policy goals include making my life more difficult? Rejected from one and never accepted to another, I end up a stranger in two worlds.
That’s another part of who I am.
A stranger, beneath yellow lamp-light, with my books on one side and my hope – for there is nothing for it but to hope where hope is palest – on the other. I know less and more alike about who I am and where I fit in than I used to. But I don’t think my part in these stories is over yet. Today is not the end.
November 10, 2019 § 2 Comments
I’m hosting this open letter on behalf of Lib Dem parliamentary candidates who want to highlight our party policy of piloting an unconditional minimum income as part of the social security system. Too often, folk don’t hear about progressive Lib Dem policies beyond stopping Brexit, and I’m very happy to be helping spread the word about this policy, which is particularly important to me as something I’ve personally campaigned for in recent years.
We, Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidates for the 2019 election, wish to highlight the party’s policy of trialling an unconditional minimum income element in the social security system, as endorsed by conference this year within our A Fairer Share for All policy paper. It is crucial that a liberal perspective on this debate is heard as widely as possible: whilst our core aim of stopping Brexit is at the heart of this election, as a prospective party of government it is crucial that the electorate hear about the full range of effective, progressive policies with which we want to tackle the deep evils of poverty and insecurity in Britain.
In 2017, the Liberal Democrats pledged funds for a stronger renewal of social security levels than Labour or the Tories, and we are proud to stand again on a policy of abolishing benefit sanctions – but as a party we have rightly committed to going further and piloting a minimum income element, accessible to all. One of the most damaging features of poverty is the chronic insecurity faced by the worst off in our society; as liberals, our policy will give a route to tackle this and pilot a new, twenty-first century system that will give people the freedom to make use of opportunities and improve their lives. We are proud to be standing as candidates with a party policy to secure pilots of such a system, given its potential for putting our Liberal Democrat values into practice, and as such we wish to highlight our personal support for this policy and our willingness to work to secure such trials in the next parliament.
Adam Bernard, Harrow East
Lee Dargue, Birmingham Ladywood
Beth Waller-Slack, Blackburn
Iain Donaldson, Blackley & Broughton
Rebecca Forrest, Bolton West
Andrew Brown, Bristol South
James Cox, Bristol West **
Ben Goodwin, Broadland
Jasmine Joséphine Sakura-Rose, Caerphilly**
Stephen Richmond, Coventry South
Nukey Proctor, Coventry North East
Simon Sprague, Croydon Central
Susan Murray, Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East
Tom Inglis, Edinburgh South West
Charley Hasted, Eltham
Guy Russo, Enfield North
James Archer, Erewash
Austin Reid, Falkirk
Louise Harris, Filton and Bradley Stoke
Lisa-Maria Bornemann, Harrow West
Mike Beckett, Harwich and North Essex
Stephen Howse, Hexham
Thomas Clarke, Hornchurch and Upminster
Daniel Walker, Leeds West
Sarah Brown, Mansfield
Laura McCarthy, Meriden
Brendan d’Cruz, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney
Steffan Aquarone, Mid Norfolk
Alison Willott, Monmouth
Dr Craig Dobson, Morley and Outwood
Jack Davies, New Forest West
Rupert Moss-Eccardt, North East Cambridgeshire
Graham Cockarill, North East Hampshire
Richard Whelan, North Warwickshire
David Thomas, Norwich North
Dr Richard Brighton-Knight, Nuneaton
Ross Stalker, Paisley and Renfrewshire North
Gordon Lishman, Pendle
Beki Sellick, Peterborough
Graham Reed, Plymouth Sutton and Devonport
Craig Fletcher, Romsey and Southampton North
Rob O’Carroll, Runnymede and Weybridge
Katharine Macy, Selby and Ainsty
Stephen Porter, Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough
Colin Ross, Sheffield Central
Oliver Craven, Sleaford and North Hykeham
Nick Ireland, South Dorset
Chris Brown, South Norfolk
Chris Lofts, South Northamptonshire
David Beavan, South Suffolk
Josie Ratcliffe, South West Norfolk
David Campanale, Spelthorne
Alex Wagner, Stafford
Lisa Nash, Stevenage
Andrew George, St Ives
Dr Anna Fryer, Stretford and Urmston
Jenny Wilkinson, Sutton Coldfield
Rob Wheway, Tamworth
Dr John Timperley, Tiverton and Honiton
Jennifer Gray, Walsall North
Chris Bowers, Wealden
Chris Carubia, Wirral South
Neil Hughes, Workington
James Blanchard, York Central
** These prospective candidates will not be on the ballot paper, having stood aside as part of the Unite to Remain deal with the Greens and Plaid Cymru.
If you’re a Lib Dem parliamentary candidate and you’d like your name added to this list please email me at james (at) wavcott (dot) org (dot) uk. Many thanks!
Map of signatories (updated 10 Dec 2019):
October 26, 2019 § 1 Comment
I’m not endorsing anyone for president, as I mentioned in my previous post about endorsements. Here I give a brief explainer of the race, the campaigns, and their appeal, and the reservations and issues that have stopped me throwing my support behind one candidate or the other. I hope this is useful to readers, and is taken in the spirit of constructive criticism that’s intended – I will vote in this race, but I can’t fully endorse either candidate, and I hope the below will explain why.
Christine “CJ” Jardine
As the MP for Edinburgh West, Christine Jardine is a key figure in our small parliamentary group. She’s also home affairs and equalities spokesperson, and so covers a huge range of issues on behalf of the party.
Christine is a solidly liberal candidate sitting about in the centre of the party, with a decent overall record and a long record of commitment to the party and its members. She’s a former journalist who’s included strong communication skills in her pitch, and she’s an effective, punchy speaker. Her main campaign pitch is primarily focused on the benefits of her being an MP, meaning she has far stronger day to day access to the parliamentary party, and her own place as a values-driven liberal who can connect the grassroots to the leadership.
If we look back to my seven-part theory of how the Lib Dems fit together, as explained in my lanes and runners post from earlier this year, we can start to see how Christine’s voting coalition within the party is likely to fit together. Before we consider lanes, there’s one obvious advantage for Christine that can override most of the voting coalitions, and that’s name recognition. There’s a vastly higher chance that an armchair voter who doesn’t really engage heavily with the party structures has seen Christine before than Mark, her opponent, and that’s a big starting advantage. Christine’s campaign has been a lot quieter than Mark’s on social media, that said – I feel reminiscences of the leadership election to some extent, where Jo’s campaign looked quiet, Ed’s looked pushy and strong, and Jo still won by a large margin, but the dynamics in this race may prove different. But outside that, what’s Christine’s base? Her appeals to her own values as a liberal are likely to be more resonant on the left of the party – the social and radical liberals – at the moment, after the disgruntlement from those quarters at the admission of certain former Conservative MPs to the Lib Dem ranks. Conversely, the True Centrist wing are definitely less likely to be in CJ’s camp for exactly the same reason. She’s also got an obvious advantage among HQ loyalists, due to her being an MP and being known for being close to Jo, although Mark has gained some high profile MP endorsements such as that of Layla Moran which may help blunt that appeal. An interesting feature of the race, on the other hand, is the general lack of appeals to policy or positioning, so there’s been little move from either side to try and claim the #FPBE voter mantle – Christine and Mark aren’t that far apart on that question, and have other differentiating features to their appeal, so haven’t tried to flank each other on that issue. This is a little surprising given the president’s importance in policymaking – they get to sit on the policy and conference committees, influencing what papers get written, whether they get to conference, and whether the results go in the manifesto – but it’s how things have panned out. Broadly, then, Christine is mostly likely to be reliant on her profile, but where she’s laid down specific appeals it’s been toward a coalition of HQ loyalists and the party’s centre-left.
So, I should probably say what my reservations are about Christine as president. These are threefold. Firstly, I think there’s a disadvantage in how close Christine is to Jo. As one of Jo’s most passionate loyalists, Christine isn’t necessarily the right person to be telling Jo when she’s made the wrong call. Second, I’m concerned that Christine will end up personally overloaded to an extent that detracts from the job – her home affairs brief is very wide, and something I think needs to be a core Liberal Democrat priority, so I’m not sure how well that would square with the equally very heavy additional duties of the presidency, where an extremely quick off the mark response time is needed. Finally, my experience of seeing her in action she’s naturally someone who is very good at holding a line and keeping a message, and that strength can become a weakness when you need to engage with people internally. When the president has to get on the phone to an expert advisor or someone speaking for a group of grassroots members, I want to be confident that if the party’s line is wrong or damaging, the president will see it as their job to hear that, keep people on board, and represent those views effectively to the leader, not to try and convince the expert or activist that it is they who are wrong. I think that’s something I’d like to be more convinced that Christine will be good at than I currently am.
A long standing member of various Federal committees, Mark’s main sales pitch is that he’s a party strategy guru – giving talks and devising ideas for how the Liberal Democrats can win elections. (He has a book on this subject. If you were unaware that he has a book on this, I can only assume that you have never met him.) He runs Lib Dem Newswire, his blog, which he’s built into one of the party’s largest internal news sources – the size of his mailing list has been a key launchpad for his campaign.
His key argument is that the presidency should be about organisation first and everything else second – that it’s fundamentally a platform from which to help get Liberal Democrats elected to stuff, and that he’s the person with a plan to do that. The plan in question is the ‘core vote’ strategy, which advocates the idea that the Lib Dems need to, well, build a core vote by connecting with people’s values and building up a wide support base. One of the key elements of this was Mark driving proposals for the Lib Dem supporters’ scheme, which whilst it’s had its uses doesn’t seem to have delivered a much enlarged base, currently taking in far fewer people than the actual membership. The most effective part of building a core vote for us in the last few years has fairly clearly been our switch to much punchier anti-Brexit messaging, rather than anything much we did in the backroom – the core vote strategy, in other words, has a lot to be said for it, but Mark’s modus operandi of technical changes isn’t likely to solve that jigsaw alone. What can be said is that Mark understands how the Lib Dems work and how the basics of modern communications work better than most, and there’s little question that he has an exceptional level of campaigning experience to draw upon.
Mark’s campaign base is likely to be among what I termed the party’s moderate and parochialist lane – people whose focus is “can I win my ward”, and who want a president who’ll say “yes, and here’s how”. Of course, people in every lane of the party campaign very hard – but it’s the subsection of the party who prioritise their own campaigning in how they vote on internal issues who are likely to be the #BackPack base by and large. Mark’s spent a lot of time cultivating those supporters, and has done so effectively by all accounts, and this gives him an important voting bloc from the start that are likely to be more loyal than much of CJ’s support base. Mark has meanwhile strenuously tried to stay out of things like the Orange Book/Social Liberal fray, so is unlikely to be strongly favoured or heavily penalised in either of those camps (with radicals the story is a little different, and dealt with below). My “True Centrists” may not be a fan of a core vote strategy which tends to imply the idea that we’re not there mainly to Hold The Centre, but Mark’s not been pushing the actual details of the CVS heavily in his campaign so this is unlikely to matter to more than a tiny handful of voters. By and large, Mark seems to think that a campaign that stays on topics of broad agreement – we all want to win, after all – and functions more like a job interview than a clash of visions is one that suits him, and he may well be right. Whilst HQ loyalists may initially lean to Christine, Mark has pulled out some impressive backers, Layla Moran notably but also Tom Brake and Wera Hobhouse, which is likely to blunt that appeal to some extent. The might of the fabled-in-scale Lib Dem Newswire mailing list may also help Mark level the playing field in terms of recognition – he’s probably slightly likely to do better if turnout is somewhat lower, where the cut-through of his better oiled social media campaign can have an impact, whereas the more disengaged voters who vote, the more Christine’s better name recognition outside party circles is likely to be telling.
What are my reservations about voting for Mark Pack? Again, three major ones. Firstly, I find that whilst Mark clearly does want Liberal Democrats to win, he isn’t good enough about articulating why he wants that to happen, or where he stands on core issues of party policy and even positioning. Indeed in this campaign he’s actively avoided discussing policy matters on the grounds that the presidency shouldn’t be elected on that basis – given that the President has an automatic seat on all three core federal committees, though, they do get a vote on policy and their views therefore do matter. Second, he’s on record as actively disliking the idea of “radicalism” as an idea of where the Lib Dems should go, which unsurprisingly doesn’t endear his campaign to me on a strategic level. I think Mark is very much wrong to dismiss radicalism, as he did on his podcast, as being mostly either a vapid want that’s not backed up by policy or it being a way of people banging the tub on their own favourite single policy initiative. Whilst like all political terminology – indeed all words – radical has some fluctuations in meaning, there are good arguments for a bold, unapologetic, core policy driven tone to our messaging, and more fundamental and structural changes to the status quo and less managerialism in our policy outlook. I don’t expect all Lib Dems to agree with me on the need for those things, but I do expect candidates to take those arguments seriously and I think Mark could do better on that.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, he hosts a podcast alongside a severely transphobic co-host, Stephen Tall, and apparently doesn’t think that’s a problem. For a Federal Board member, there’s a much lower profile and different bars that get set. For the president, though, running shortly after the two most prominent trans women in the party resigned over mishandling of relations with the party’s LGBT organisation – relations which will now be the incoming president’s job to handle – the fact that Mark seems to be tootling along with this as if it were a non-issue is deeply concerning to me. The party president also needs to be prepared for scrutiny in a way that Federal Board members don’t get – “Lib Dem Party President Gives Platform to Transphobe” is not a headline I want to see LGBT media pumping out in the near future. It’s disappointing that this issue hasn’t come up more in the race, but it really should have done.
I’m sure some of the above may come across as combative or heavily critical, and I know that we as Liberal Democrats tend not to like adjudicating the flaws of others in our Lib Dem family. On a personal level, I’ve only ever had amiable interactions with either candidate, and I hope that both of them – if they see this post at all – see the above as what it is, a set of sincerely meant points for them to take on board and for the membership to consider. The presidency is an exceptional role, and any candidate who goes for it will face exceptional challenges – I wish whoever wins all the very best for their term of office.
October 26, 2019 § 1 Comment
OK, ballots are dropping, so here’s some suggestions on how you might want to vote, based roughly on how I’ll be voting for the federal Lib Dem elections.
A few notes on all this. For the three major federal committees, I’ve put them in two rows: row one are mostly people I know or have worked closely with personally, or who I think have such an exceptional contribution to make that they should be in the running for your first preference. Row two is people who I may have less personal experience working with but who also endorse and who I think would make good members of that committee. I’ve only endorsed for the committees that I can actually vote for, so if you get a vote in the councillor elections then I can’t help you! I’ve discussed the presidential race and how it’s panning out in a separate post, but I’m not publicly endorsing either candidate for that.
A couple of technical notes: FCC’s gender balance will be very poor regardless due to the candidate composition, but high preferencing people who aren’t men won’t help a great deal with that because the number of candidates running who aren’t men is equivalent to the gender quota – every candidate for that committee who is not a man will automatically be elected to it.
Some notes on what these bodies actually do:
Federal Board is the party’s governing body. Disciplinary matters, finances, the constitution, strategic decisions, and so on all run through it. For FB, I’ve prioritised people I think will be strong on ensuring the party’s new disciplinary system gets implemented effectively, people who will be good at voicing activists’ concerns to the president and leader, and people who will overall favour a progressive strategy for the party.
Federal Policy Committee does what it says on the tin – commissions policy papers and writes the manifesto. For FPC I’ve prioritised people I think will give us a more radical liberal manifesto, both on social issues where we need to keep strong pro-LGBT stances, civil liberties, and policing reform at the heart of what we do, and on economics where we need to build on things like the party’s policies to support cooperative/mutual business models, boost NHS funding, scrap benefit sanctions and pilot a minimum income.
Federal Conference Committee organises, but more crucially controls the agenda at, federal conferences, and is important in deciding whether member-led policy gets onto the table, what amendments are allowable and so on. For FCC I’ve prioritised people who I think have a really strong commitment to ensuring actual debate takes place at conference, and don’t get scared off debating more radical out of the box ideas any time there’s an election coming up (which, after all, is “pretty much always”).
International Relations Committee and the ALDE (our European party) delegation are reasonably self explanatory.
Final note: all the committees can and do cross over, and that’s worth remembering – the different committees get to nominate reps to one another, many of whom are voting representatives, so your Federal Board choice may get to sit on Federal Policy or Conference committee as well, and that’s worth thinking about a little.
And so, to the endorsements!
April Preston, Caron Lindsay, Lisa-Maria Bornemann, Ross Pepper, Ross Stalker, Luke Cawley-Harrison
Neil Fawcett, Jo Hayes, Candy Piercy, Elaine Bagshaw, Joyce Onstad, Kishan Devani, Theo Butt Philip
FEDERAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
Adam Bernard, Joe Toovey, Bex Scott, Jon Ball
Liz Lynne, Geoff Payne, Nick da Costa, Toby Keynes, Keith Melton
FEDERAL POLICY COMMITTEE
Alisdair Calder McGregor, Oliver Craven, Paul Noblet, Ryan Mercer
Alyssa Gilbert, Gareth Shelton, Nigel Quinton, Duncan Brack, Mohsin Khan, Christine Cheng, Adam Corlett, Jeremy Hargreaves, Elizabeth Jewkes
FEDERAL BOARD – ENGLISH PARTY REP
FEDERAL INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE
Ruth Coleman-Taylor, Hannah Bettsworth, Paul Reynolds, Phil Bennion, Mark Valladares
Hannah Bettsworth, Belinda Brooks-Gordon, Ruth Coleman-Taylor, Joyce Onstad, Merlene Emerson, Mark Valladares