You are about to elect a new Party President. Our existing President, Simon Hughes, will end his term of office on December 31st - the election of his successor is a chance for you to decide who will be, in the words of the Constitution, "the principal public representative of the Party and Chair of the Federal Executive".
Constitutionally it's a key role, but it's so much more than that. As the only person, other than the Leader, who is elected by the entire membership, the President should be someone who represents that membership not just to the outside world, but internally, to the Leader, to the decision making bodies and to the paid executive.
I believe that the Party President has three key roles;
My background as a council group Leader in joint control of a budget of £650 million, my time on the Board of the Audit Commission and my experience as a non Executive director of large private sector organisations has given me valuable experience to bring to the first of these roles.
I have been a Councillor and Peer since 1991, and an activist throughout. My experience at all levels of the Party will enable me to fulfil the second of these roles.
I have been a council group leader, chair of the national Local Government Association Transport Committee, a representative of UK Local Government in Europe and a front bench spokesman in the Lords. All this qualifies me for the third part of the job of Party President.
I am not campaigning simply to occupy the position of Party President. I really want to make a difference to how we operate.
I would devote much of my time to the work - being in the House of Lords is a distinct advantage as I will not have to balance the duties of President with being a constituency MP. I have pledged to remain on the backbenches for the duration of the term of office if you elect me as your President.
There is limited scope for the President to wave a magic wand and just make things happen. Much of what I propose will be in the hands of the various Party decision making bodies and the decisions will ultimately be up to them. However, it is only right that as I stand for election, my personal views are up front from the start.
I will, if elected:
Candidates, councillors and staff are the front line of the Party, and for many members of the public will be their only personal contact with the Party. We need to ensure that people feel that their contribution is valued and that more information goes out to help people understand how it all fits together.
Human Resources systems within the Party have improved remarkably, and a testament to that is the awarding of "Investors in People" status to the Party HQ, unusual in a relatively small organisation. We need to seek accreditation across our organisation as a way ensuring best practice.
Ensuring that the staff of MPs, who are employed by individuals rather than the Party, feel part of the Liberal Democrat "family" and that their work is part of a co-ordinated whole.
Across the country we have a large number of interns, researchers and volunteers, many of whom work with us for a time and then move on. We should facilitate an alumni organisation so that we can keep in touch with former staff, many of whom will go on to hold key positions in organisations where contact is helpful.
Our councillors are a major resource, not just because there is a link between success at local level and parliamentary success, but in its own right. Councillors, especially those in control, have an opportunity to show what Liberal Democrats do when they are in power. We should increase the public profile of our council leaders instead of always using MPs and Peers. The recent joint working between the LGA and ALDC has resulted in successful initiatives such as Kickstart and Leadership training; this needs to be further developed to enable best practice to be shared. I undertake to continue to develop the close links I already have with the local government family through regular dialogue and attendance at key events.
The Party Reform Commission is proposing the formalisation of the "tithing" system where councillors put a share of their allowances into a pot for campaigning and political research. I support this, but believe we need to consult widely on the "how" and particularly how we have a system flexible enough to deal with individual circumstances.
The Commission also proposes mandatory membership of ALDC. I am less persuaded of the merits of creating a membership organisation by force. Perhaps a solution is for the tithe to include group membership, but I would consult widely on this.
The candidate approval system has recently undergone radical change and needs time to bed down before being judged. We need to encourage English Candidates Committee to monitor the development of the new system to ensure that it is effective against a variety of objectives such as speed, the extent to which diversity has been achieved and whether candidates, local parties and returning officers are happy with the process. Scotland and Wales have their own approval and selection procedures, but it makes sense to ensure basic consistency and perhaps a move to mutual recognition.
The selection procedure for Parliamentary candidates is a constant source of criticism from local parties and candidates alike. English Candidates Committee is reviewing the procedure, and should be encouraged in this. Any new procedures should;
There are proposals for the development of a "virtual" leadership academy which will act as an umbrella for all the training and development activity within the Party. This co-ordinating role is to be welcomed. However, I am not in favour of heavy handed mandatory training which acts as a potential barrier to candidates coming forward at any level of the Party.
Diversity is a constant theme within the Party and there is the view, clearly expressed by many members, that positive discrimination is not favoured on the grounds of being fundamentally illiberal. However, we have to address the fact that women, people with disabilities and people from the BME communities are underrepresented in our Parliamentary Party (although we have a good story to tell on representation of younger people) and if we rely on nature to take its course, progress will be glacial. We have tended to focus on gender, and the work of the Campaign for Gender Balance has helped women through from approval to selection and beyond with some success in terms of selection. We need a similar approach to representation from the BME communities and the appointment of a diversity advisor has marked out a path which includes a more outward looking approach to the BME communities. There is a question over the funding of diversity work - we should consider a hypothecated allocation of the membership fee for this work.
An extra 50 pence per member per year would provide something like £30,000 for the diversity agenda in all its forms.
Essentially, however, diversity is more than picking out particular groups for special attention. What it really means is that any individual who shares the values of the Party has the opportunity to serve in any capacity for which they are suited - we are still, all too often, guilty of stereo-typing. But, whilst most MPs are white, male and able-bodied, people who come from outside that group may be overlooked or self-exclude. Breaking the circle and changing the stereotype should be a key strategic priority for all the Party's decision-making bodies.
The Party Reform Commission has recommended formalising the existing Chief Officers' Group arrangement so that much of the internal party decision making will be by representatives of the various party committees and structures through a series of delegated powers. The bodies involved have now agreed to this, so the new President will have the role of bedding in the new arrangements. Members have been clear about their concern that Party democracy should not be by-passed and I agree with this.
The existing arrangements were so complex that one of the key requirements for democracy, i.e. accountability, was often missing. I will judge the success of the new arrangements not just by the extent to which they speed up decision making and make it more efficient, but also by whether they provide members with clarity about who made what decision and therefore who is accountable.
Currently, it is not always clear who is making a particular decision; our committees contain a mix of directly elected members and those who represent sectional interests and this can also cloud the decision making process.
The FE should be the Party body charged with creating an overall business plan to which all other parts of the Party structure adhere when carrying out their specific responsibilities. Breaking down the silo mentality is a challenge for an organisation as dispersed as ours, and proper business planning is an essential part of this.
The Federal Executive remains the main route to democratic oversight of decision making, and is the strategy creating body. The proposal for the Party President to cease being the chair was defeated at Federal conference in Spring 2008 - a decision I support. Whilst the FE remains the foremost party committee, it should be chaired by someone who is elected by the wider membership.
Local parties are the bedrock of our campaigning but are all too often under-resourced and feel isolated. New technologies provide us with effective and relatively low cost tools to build capacity in local parties by providing training for officers and campaigning materials.
It is difficult for Cowley Street to engage with local parties in anything other than a strategic sense, but there is a clear role for the regional parties in supporting local parties, especially in weaker areas. This is key, not just for the progress of the Party in council and Westminster seats, but because our performance in weaker seats is often the cause of underperformance in list elections.
I would like to explore ways in which regional parties can be strengthened. As a federal party this is entirely in line with our philosophy and has practical value in that regions are well placed to determine campaigning priorities in their areas and to work with capacity building in local parties.
Improved central co-ordination of best practice across the Party, which is communicated back to regional and local parties, should be given increased priority.
I fully support the proposal put forward by the Party Reform Commission that we should have an independent audit board to consider the issues around standards and compliance given the new focus on party funding and use of allowances.
