Beyond the Cable fetish

Over the last few weeks an awful lot of energy and angst has been consumed by the debate within the Liberal Democrats over the new position towards tax cuts. Yet while that debate was being held in our bubble in Bournemouth the economic storm has been swirling around outside. While the votes were being counted the global financial crisis was washing away the ground from underneath us.

I was struck while listening to the discussion on Radio 4's Beyond Westminster programme this Saturday just how far reaching the political impact of the global financial crisis will be. The policies and approaches of all the main parties have been developed based on a set of assumptions about the economy and public finances that no longer hold true. They all, in their different ways, will have to adjust. How successful they are at making that adjustment will be critical in determining the politics of the next few years.

The Labour Party throughout their period in office have enjoyed a stable economy which has enabled and shaped the nature of the New Labour project. This is now shredded. Their record of economic competence, the "end to boom and bust", has been hollowed out. So where do they go next?

The shifts in language that Brown used in his speech at their conference, the criticisms made of the city and the "no time for a novice" line, is an early sign of their attempts to adjust. But as one pundit on the radio commented, they "haven't had to think about the economy" for years. So there are huge questions over their ability to develop a convincing new story. Will they develop a more interventionist approach to the market, a critique of the City, and "anti-fat cat" rhetoric and risk being seen as shifting to the left? Will the Blairites be able to accept this new emphasis? How will this feed into the all ready raging internal civil war? No easy answers there.

The Conservatives are probably even worse placed to respond. They lack any proper analysis of the situation with which to do so. They have had to quickly work to change the tone of their Conference, adapting the agenda, and George Osbourne was today trying out some language indicating "tough love" for City bosses. But will they be able to find a way to square their pro-market and anti-regulation beliefs with the new context? This is a really tough challenge for Cameron. The salesman in him will recognise that a new approach will be needed so as to respond to the feelings of the public. Yet I suspect that they will lack the intellectual capacity to develop policies that will contain sufficient substance. Then of course they is no guarantee that he will be able to take his Party with him in this new direction.

But before we Liberal Democrats get too comfortable - this is also a huge challenge for us.

It is true that we have foreseen many of the current problems. It is also true that many of the policies we have advocated, if adopted, would have helped to protect the economy from what it now faces. Bournemouth saw an awful lot of the politics of "I told you so". Vince Cable was the darling of the conference. The twinkle toed superhero and soothsayer who was given a standing ovation. But in heaping praise on Vince we are in danger of resting on our laurels.

This is something we have done before. We got the judgement right over the war in Iraq. Our reaction to that conflict was proved to be correct and we saw the benefit of that electorally. Our spokespeople could answer many a question or win round an audience just by saying that we were against the war in Iraq. We had an enormously strong political position but I believe we failed to fully seize the opportunity that this gave us. We didn't do enough to build upon it. Crucially we failed to take the position towards the Iraq war and build around it a robust critique of Western foreign policy and develop proposals of what to do about it that were clearly identified with the Party. We didn't back up our good judgement with a wider political argument.

We are in danger of doing the same thing with Vince Cable. I am beginning to hear spokespeople for the Liberal Democrats, when asked a question about the economy, waving Vince Cable at people as if he was a lucky charm. Yes, Vince has done an outstanding job as our shadow chancellor and is a huge asset to our party. But the answer to the economic crisis is not one man, however talented. We cannot make a fetish of Vince Cable. Our response to difficult economic challenges cannot be to just stroke the Vince shaped lucky rabbits foot.

We may have been right in the past about the dangers, but we also need to be coming up with convincing arguments about what to do next. We need to respond to the global financial crisis with some new policies, or at least a new emphasis based on our existing policies. The ground has shifted under our feet as much for us as it has for the other parties and we have to very sure footed in our response. It is an opportunity, we can make the criticisms of the Government that the Tories are unable to make, but I don't think we are ready to take advantage of it.

And by the way, this also means that the issues that concerned those involved in the tax debate, on both sides of the argument, have already been overtaken by events. Both Nick Clegg's desire to shift the Party's focus towards tax, and those concerned to preserve our social democratic credentials, have been developing their arguments in a climate far sunnier than the stormy one we now have.

Politically, the Liberal Democrats are best placed to respond to the new agenda. We have Vince and a very strong economic team, we have a philosophy capable of adapting to the new demands, and we have a record that should give voters confidence. But we need to do some hard work and some difficult rethinking in order to get that response right.

We have got our mojo. But we also need some analysis that is equal to the challenge of the times.

STV for Cincinnati

The Electoral Reform Society alerts me to the news that one of the issues at stake in November's US election is a ballot on the proposition to switch to the use of STV for elections in the city of Cincinnati.

Apparently many cities in the US historically used some form of PR but, in a backlash against the civil rights movement, vested interests got most of these places to turn to first past the post, leaving Cambridge, Massachusetts as the only place still using STV.

We should be keeping our fingers crossed that the reformers in Cincinnati are successful. More details at: www.betterballotcincinnati.com

Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church

"Of course, we have a separation of State and Church......But in the people's soul they're together."
Vladimir Putin January 2004

One of the least well received speeches at the Liberal Democrat conference last week was one in the security debate made by a representative named Adrian Whyatt. Never having met him I hope Adrian won't mind if I say that it was a very bad speech. It didn't seem to have all that much to do with the topic of the debate, being about something to do with Russia and the Orthodox Church, and at times appeared to be about a personal grievance. At the end it got no applause. I suspect it may have left many in audience confused over what it was supposed to be about. But, not wanting to rush to judgement, I made a mental note to do a bit of research when I got home.

Having done so, and in defence of Adrian, I think he had an important point to make.

The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) was for many decades severely persecuted under Communism, but under Gorbachev and Glasnost greater religious freedoms were introduced and the ROC saw a revival. After the downfall of Communism the Constitution of the new Russian Federation provided for freedom of religion, equality of all religions before the law and the separation of church and state. So far, so good.

But the reality is far more complex. It appears that in the last days of the Soviet Union the hierarchy of the ROC was significantly infiltrated by agents of the Soviet state. According to some who have seen the relevant archives the church was "practically a subsidiary, a sister company of the KGB".

This influence seems to have been continued. It is well known that former Russian President and now Prime Minister and puppet master Vladimir Putin begun his career as a KGB officer. Yet it has also been fairly well established that the current Patriarch of the ROC, Alexei II, was also a KGB agent.

Earlier this year the Telegraph reported on "the unholy alliance the Church has forged with the Kremlin since Mr Putin came to power eight years ago." This has seen the ROC acting to support the Putin regime as the case of the Priest defrocked for showing support for one of Putin's enemies reported in the Wall Street Journal illustrates. It has also benefited the ROC. A reading of the US Department of State's 2008 Report on International Religious Freedom - Russia demonstrates how the ROC is favoured over other religious groups. Putin has clearly sought to identify himself with the Orthodox Church and the ROC has increasingly become a symbol of Russian nationalism. The relationship between church and state has begun to resemble that which existed back in Tsarist Russia over a 100 years ago.

In the run up to this years presidential election the ROC endorsed Putin's successor Dmitry Medvedev.

This close relationship between church and state is not just a matter internal to Russia. There are international aspects also. In May 2007 the U.S.-based Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR), which is believed to be 1.5 million strong, reunited with the ROC and accepted the leadership of the Russian Patriarch. The ROCOR had split from the Russian Church at the time of the Bolshevik revolution and since then has been the main force for Russian Orthodoxy across the rest of the world. As Time magazine reports, the reunification "sealed the four-year long effort by Putin, beginning in September 2003, to have the Moscow Patriarchate take over its rival American-based cousin and launch a new globalized Church as his state's main ideological arm and a vital foreign policy instrument".

I imagine this creates something of a dilemma for followers of the Russian Orthodox faith outside of Russia. Do they really want to continue to be part of a church that is headed by a former KGB agent and is a tool of an increasingly aggressive Russian state? I suspect that this was the issue that Mr Whyatt was attempting to raise with conference representatives.

Watch the debate on the Bones Report

Those who are interested in the Party organisation issues that I have been discussing on this blog might want to have a look at the debate conference had on the Bones Commission report.

You can watch it on the BBC iPlayer

If anyone is particularly interested to see my contribution to the debate (oh the vanity!) it is about 21 minutes in.

Blogging Conference 08: Tuesday & Wednesday

Here is my final report back on "what I did in Bournemouth".

Tuesday

I spent most of Tuesday chatting to people around the conference centre and blogging. The result of which was 8 posts in a single day. Massively more than I have managed before.

I did get in the main hall for some business. However, this was the report of the Federal Executive and the debate on the annual membership subscription. Sad I know.

I went to only one fringe event, but it was a good one. The Liberal Democrat group in the House of Lords had organised a fringe on "Why nation states are failing". William Wallace and Paddy Ashdown were the speakers. I've heard a lot of what Paddy said about the effects of globalisation and the impact on our security before, but it is good to be reminded of it. And Paddy is always an inspiration to listen to.

I will gloss over the evening in the bar and how it involved something to do with pirates.

Wednesday

The last day of conference took its usual pattern. I wandered down to the hall for the Leader's speech and then up to the main conference hall to chat with other survivors and have a spot of lunch. Then the train journey home.

So how was conference?

For me personally and for the Party generally it was a good one. The atmosphere was very much more positive than I had expected. We seem to be comfortable with Nick Clegg as our leader and a relaxed but confident mood.

Personally I have returned refreshed and invigorated. I thoroughly enjoyed catching up with old friends and making new ones, and have been stimulated by the high quality of debate that I listened to.

For the Party this was I think a significant step on the way to making us better able to tackle the challenges ahead. Although I have my reservations about both, both the Bones Report and the new tax policy have moved the Party forward.

And the sun shone down on Bournemouth.

Phrase of the week: cognitive polyphasia

My new phrase of the conference week is cognitive polyphasia, the ability to hold conflicting ideas about the same thing at the same time.

This phrase was used in both the fringe events (reports here and here) that I went to that had public opinion data from IPSOS Mori that showed how people held mutually incompatible views about critical issues. It is particularly apparent when people believe that their own experience is not indicative of people's experiences in general.

Examples of cognitive polyphasia are:

• The NHS is falling apart - The care I had for my operation was wonderful
• All politicians are crooks - My MP is a decent man

You can see how it could cause problems for politicians!

Blogging Conference 08: The Tax Debate

I'm continuing to catch up with blogging the events of this weeks conference and have reached the main event - the great debate on tax.

Hang on? Why was the debate titled 'Make it Happen' in the agenda and what is all this other stuff in the motion? The fact is that this was supposed to be the debate on the new vision document, a chance to talk about an attempt at the Liberal Democrat narrative, and to highlight the ideas that will feed into the manifesto for the next election. Except that it wasn't. That opportunity was lost when the leadership of the Party decided to make it about cutting tax.

So it became the tax debate - and what a great debate it was. It was one of the best debates I've had the privilege to be in the hall for, with brilliant speeches on both sides. I won't go through the debate speech by speech, others have already done that. I would point you at Alex Wilcock (although I wouldn't be quite as harsh on Evan Harris as Alex is) and Liberal Democrat Voice. However, I will highlight two speeches; Tim Farron MP and Chair of the FCC, Duncan Brack.

Tim Farron gave what I thought was the speech of the week and one of the best speeches I have seen at any conference. Speaking against the amendment he started by saying; "This motion is about a redistribution of wealth from the super rich to the less well off and I am passionate about that. But I am intolerant of false choices....It is an insult to our intelligence to say that because we must tackle inequality that we must not further cut taxes." His argument that this was a redistributive measure and that we needed to have the freedom to be imaginative in our policies. He was keen to stress that his views where in the mainstream of the Party and that he wasn't speaking as a tool of the leadership saying "I feel slightly awkward not being part of the awkward squad". But he said the amendment was "just about talking to ourselves" and that we needed to fight the next election not the 1997 election. The times had changed and the economy had changed so the Party had to change to match. "I don't know how the scientists are getting on with their black hole but there seems to be a time warp around here."

The speech crystallised for me why I had decided to vote against the amendment and for the motion. I feel both that this is a progressive measure, a redistributive measure, that will help the poorer members of our society in a time of economic hardship. But I also feel that politically it puts the Party in tune with the times and talks to where the vast majority of the voters are coming from. The movers of the motion were trying to align the Party with the Country, whereas the movers of the amendment where really trying to make a point about the Party irrespective of the circumstances we find ourselves in.

Duncan Brack who supported the amendment on the basis of "process, politics and principle". On process he highlighted the unsatisfactory way this debate on tax had been forced on Conference by the actions of the Party leadership and that the lack of clarity there was about the proposals wasn't fair to conference attendees. On politics he was worried that the lack of clarity would make this appear to a shift to the right and confuse our message. On principle he wanted the money generated from the proposed savings should be put into tackling climate change.

On process and politics I agree with Duncan. The post I wrote last week, the first time I think that I have been directly critical of the Leader of my Party on this blog, stemmed from my anger about how this has been approached. I am also very concerned that the lack of clarity will make it difficult for us to sell this policy in the media and on the doorstep. But on principle Duncan was wrong. Climate change was just one of the many things that the money found from savings could be spent on. The supporters of the amendment suggested several. You could go on for ever finding things to spend the money on and so you would never cut taxes.

The Liberal Democrats are now a party of redistributive tax cuts, and I find myself entirely happy with that.

Blogging conference 08: Happiness: a new political challenge?

On Monday lunchtime I attended a fascinating fringe looking at the concept of "happiness" and its applicability to the political process.

Julia Clark, IPSOS Mori

Chaired by David Boyle, the fringe began with Julia Clark from IPSOS Mori outlining the conclusions they had gathered on this topic from their public opinion research. She pointed to how the concept of happiness is moving up the public agenda and that so called "soft measures" are becoming the new territory of politicians, witness David Cameron's recent advocacy of "nudge" theories, and that this is reflecting a concern with quality of life issues. She said that 70-80% of the public across Europe believe that public policy should shift towards less consumerist measures.

Happiness according to the research, she said, correlates with class and wealth, the more economically secure you are the happier you are, but across all classes happiness has over time been decreasing. The Danes and the Swedes are the happiest in Europe - the UK comes in 6th.

There appears to be a statistical correlation between happiness and the following things:

• How much gardening people do
• How much sport & physical activity people do
• Church attendance
• If people are married or cohabiting
• The more qualifications people have
• Having better health

And there is a correlation between being unhappy and:

• Being divorced
• Being in middle age
• Having teenagers in your home
• And being poorer than friends, neighbours or your peer group, in other words having less than the people around you

In a similar manner to the previous fringe involving research from IPSOS Mori, she made the point that people hold several contradictory ideas at once. In the UK we have become less concerned about the issue of equality, but we are concerned about the gap between the rich and the poor. However, we don't want the Government to intervene to do something about it.

She did say that people are very concerned about the idea of fairness in public services. We are concerned about the issue of the "post code lottery". We worry about people getting a free ride. We want our public services to be fair to everyone.

What does this mean for politicians who want to promote happiness? She suggested that when talking about public services they should talk more about real live examples of fairness. That they should encourage marriage and give support to families, especially with teenagers. They should concentrate on anti social behaviour. Oh, and they should also promote gardening.

Stuart Wallace, NEF

The next speaker was Stuart Wallace, the Executive Director of the New Economics Foundation. He raised two issues; why should politicians be interested and what can they do about it. In talking about why politicians should be interested he focused on the issue that we so often measure the wrong things. We measure our society using purely economic and financial measures such as GDP which do not reflect all the aspects of live that concern us as human beings. He quoted from a speech made by Robert Kennedy which is worth repeating;

"Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our Gross National Product……counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl…..Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile."

He made the point that politicians talking about well-being – about having a better life – is a critical message to use when attempting to tackle the ecological crisis we face.

He was uncomfortable with the term "happiness" saying that the NEF prefers to use the term well-being. We should be concerned with what Aristotle calls Eudaimonia or the flourishing life.

In talking about what politicians can do about promoting happiness he made the point that politicians can't make people happy, but they can create the conditions for happiness. Some possible measures they should look at could be;

• investing in early years and parenting
• incentives to reclaim time
• education that promotes flourishing such as involvement in sport, art and music
• in the health service make more emphasis on prevention
• discourage materialism and promote authentic advertising
• tackle inequality

But the critical thing was to measure it! NEF is doing work on how that can be done.

Finally, making reference to the work of Oliver James, he asked why is it that the more capitalistic countries have higher rates of mental health.

Jo Swinson MP

The final speaker was Jo Swinson MP who has been doing work on promoting this issue. She spoke about how we are richer but are not necessarily happier. She also talked about the particular problem we have with the happiness of our children. In the audience was the Children's Commissioner for England, Sir Al Aynsley-Green, who later in the discussion spoke powerfully about this issue and reinforced the points made by Jo.

She then pointed out that achieving a better quality of life is actually part of the official aim of the Treasury, but in their actions it is not taken seriously. We need to get away from the mind set that GDP is everything. She talked about how commuting, the length of the travel for work, adds to GDP but makes us unhappy. Something that was received with recognition by the audience!

In looking at how politicians should approach this issue she highlighted the potential pitfalls. We cannot force people to be happy. So this agenda is a challenge for liberals. However, people are happier when they have more control over their lives and when society has a greater level of sustainability and this fits with a Liberal Democrat approach.

She warned that the current economic crisis could push all this off the agenda. However, she pointed out that unsecured debt is something which reduces a persons sense of well-being. If public policy had paid more attention to effects on happiness of the role of credit in the economy we wouldn't be in the economic mess we are in now.

My conclusion

I am a happiness sceptic. I have written before about how happiness cannot be a human right.

But I fully accept that if we want to create a sustainable society we have to look at quality of life issues. I much prefer the term well-being to happiness. The use of the term happiness makes this important agenda appear flaky and leads to confusion. We need to talk about a wider concept of fulfilment, much closer to the Aristotelian concept of a flourishing life.

As liberals we have to be careful not to advocate, and must opposed those who do, measures designed to impose greater well-being on others. But we should work to remove the obstacles that are in the way of people who wish to develop fulfilling lives. We need to change the social and economic structures that prevent individuals from developing their full potential. We need to give people the liberty to pursue happiness.

I'm 4 Ros

I have blogged a fair bit about the role of the President of the Liberal Democrats and I do have a particular stance on what the job should be about. So it isn't surprising that I haven't taken an interest in the campaign for the election of a new President to take over from Simon Hughes MP.

My original intention was to remain neutral, publicly at least, until the last minute so that I could use this blog to comment on the campaigns of the two declared candidates. But I have chosen to declare my hand now. This is not because people keep asking me about it in the conference bars. No there are two reasons. The first is the Bones Report. The second is Lembit.

Take Lembit first. I am disappointed and annoyed with what I have seen of his campaign, or to be more accurate lack of campaign. From what has been reported in the press and from what I have picked up in discussions at this conference it has become clear that Lembit is relying on his celebrity status and the fact that he is well known amongst the wider membership to win the election. Jeremy Hargreaves has written about how, if this happens, it could pose problems for the Party. But my issue really is - if he is not willing to campaign for it then he doesn't deserve it.

Second, the Bones Report. I am an advocate for the reform of the party organisation. I think the Bones Report itself contains very good things, some wrong things, and wrong headed things. But irrespective of its contents the fact that it has been published and will, at least in part, be implemented means that this is a critical time of organisational change within the Liberal Democrats.

Whoever the President of the Party is, they will have to play a key role in that organisational change. So we need a President who understands that point and is willing to fulfill that role.

I have seen no evidence that Lembit understands this. But I am confident that Ros Scott does. So I will be voting for Baroness Ros Scott to be our next Party President.

I am 4 Ros.

In praise of Lembit

I am going to be rather critical of Lembit Opik MP later, but because it is not personal, I happen to like Lembit, I thought I'd “big him up” a bit first. Praising Caesar before burying him if you like.

Lembit is often criticised within the Party, mainly over his celebrity profile. An awful lot of that criticism is unfair. He is one of the few Liberal Democrats, lets face it one of the few politicians from any Party, that most people have heard of. And generally people like him.

For a “wonky faced bloke from Northern Ireland”, as a friend of mine once memorably called him, he is extraordinarily charismatic. He can be an inspirational public speaker. Late in the conference hotel bar last night a colleague was praising his undoubted abilities as a trainer. When he does do “serious” he can be highly effective.

I have said before that the quality I most look for in a politician is empathy. Lembit is a gifted empathic politician.

For me Lembit has a place in the top three or four most naturally talented politicians within the Liberal Democrats.

It is just a crying shame that so often that talent seems to be misdirected.

Blogging Conference 08: The Bones Report debate

Having gone on about the Bones Report so much on this blog I wasn't going to miss the conference session on the topic. It was a consultation session and not a full debate so there was no vote. But it was an opportunity for members to raise concerns and issues with the report authors.

For an early morning session the hall was busy and apparently quite a few people put in cards to speak. The tone of the debate I would describe as being one of a critical welcome.

Various people raised specific aspects they were unhappy with. A good example would be the proposal in the report to make the Spring conference an English conference. A speaker representing the Federal Conference Committee opposed the idea and was then followed by a speaker representing the Federal Policy Committee who also opposed the idea. It makes you wonder, if the two main committees effected by a proposal are opposed to it, why on earth it made it into the final version of the report.

I put in two cards to speak. One was on the governance section which I was called to speak in. The other was about the role of the activist which I didn't get to deliver. I wrote up both my speeches in order to help me prepare and so as not waste that effort I reproduce them below:

Governance and Management

I want to talk about the twin processes of governance and management.

Governance being the process by which the “owners” of an organisation decide upon its strategy and objectives, and monitors progress towards achieving them.

Management being the organisation of the activities that deliver towards those objectives.

When the report talks about management it is right.

It makes a number of welcome recommendations for improving our management and argues for a more directed, professional and hands-on approach to the management of our campaigning. This is right and the proposals should be implemented.

Where the report gets it wrong is on governance.

Governance in this Party is broken. The structures we have in place are not working properly. It is in urgent need of reform.

But the report does not propose nearly enough measures to reform the way we as members get to shape the direction of our Party.

The report is right when it says that it is important not to get governance and management confused. But the main reform it does propose, the Chief Officers Group, will actually further blur the divide between management and governance. It will make things worse.

In short. Right about management. Wrong about governance.

This is a good report, but it only does half the job.

The role of the activist

Second bite of the cherry. I want to talk about one aspect of the report that concerns me. What it says about the role of the activist.

The report is right to argue that we should value and appreciate our members and supporters more than we do. We must improve how we do this.

We know from our local parties that we depend on those volunteers who do a round of delivery, make donations, or do other jobs.

But we also know from our local parties that we depend on those who do much more. Those people, you may be one of them, who write the leaflets, organise the delivery of the leaflets, deliver a lot of the leaflets themselves – and serve on a local party executive committee – are probably a local councillor – and maybe even work at a regional or national level. These people do far too much, make far too many sacrifices in terms of time, money, maybe even career opportunities, to be called volunteers. These are the activists.

Yet the report is reluctant to talk about activists.

In the section on volunteers in the report it of course uses the word volunteer several times. But the word activist only once and that is in a negative context.

The report seems to have a model of a core of professional staff managing volunteers. But the party doesn't and can't work like that.

We understand the progression of supporter to member, member to volunteer, volunteer to activist, and activist to candidate.

But the report doesn't seem to recognise this middle ground. It doesn't properly recognise the role of the activist and in that respect it is flawed.

Blogging Conference 08: Monday

I was up and in the hall early on Monday morning for the consultative session on party reform, the debate on the Bones Commission report. I was pleased to be called to speak in one of the intervention slots. I will report on this in a separate post.

Shadow Chancellor Vince Cable MP's speech was a masterly example of speech writing and delivery. Vince really has developed into a brilliant political performer. With a swift jab he dispatched Gordon Brown saying he wasn't someone who would "kick a twitching corpse", before spending time on dissecting the empty rhetoric of Cameron and Osbourne. He then went on to a justification of the proposed new approach to tax. I actually thought this section was better than the speech he actually made in the tax debate later in the day.

My lunchtime fringe was again one based around data from Ipsos MORI but this time looking at "Happiness: a new political challenge". Again, I will report on this in a separate post.

After a detour to have my photo taken with Lorely Burt MP to help with the campaign we are running in my ward to stop a Post Office closure, it was into the hall for the key debate of conference on the "Make it Happen" document. Yet again, I will report on this in a separate post.

It was then back to the hotel for a bit of recuperation before heading off to The Goat and Tricycle for excellent real ale and chat with fellow bloggers at the Liberal Drinks. Then a group of us walked down to the venue for the Liberal Review which is a kind of satirical Lib Dem amateur dramatics. Lots of laughter, rude jokes, and a brilliant impression of Margaret Thatcher.

Then, as is traditional the bar and, after a lengthy interval, bed.

Shocking examples of discrimination within the Liberal Democrats

It has come to my attention here in Bournemouth that there have been examples of discrimination by members of the Liberal Democrats that I have found quite shocking. Despite our avowed commitment to equality and non-discrimination it appears that some Liberal Democrats continue to hold views and attitudes that can only be described as prejudice.

I have heard evidence that blonde-ism is alive and well within the Liberal Democrats.

Can I point out that if a woman is young, attractive and blonde it does not mean that she is not intelligent or in possession of a full range of opinions.

Conference goers I should warn you that blonde-ist attitudes are not acceptable within the Liberal Democrats.

Blogging Conference 08: The Liberal Democrats and the voters fringe

Radio 4's World at One programme ran a fringe on Sunday evening looking at the attitudes of those who vote for the Liberal Democrats and the consequences of these for the Party.

Chaired by Martha Kearney the fringe was presented with data on voter attitudes from Ipsos MORI. Then Chief Executive of the RSA and former New Labour insider Mathew Taylor and Chris Huhne MP discussed the findings.

The main theme that came out of the data was that what people want is contradictory. They hold several incompatible opinions on an issue at the same time. For example, wanting both better public services but wanting to pay less tax. People's personal experience of public services is often better than their perception of how good they are in the country as a whole.

Liberal Democrat voters do tend to be more concerned about environmental issues but they are unlikely to have actually taken action to do anything about it at a personal level. The most important issues were the economy, health care, education and crime. But also taxation is becoming a stronger concern.

One interesting statistic that would be challenging for the Party is that 55% of Liberal Democrat voters are in favour of 42 days detention. Although there was some discussion about how this would be dependent on how the question was framed.

There is also the postcode lottery issue. People say that they want more local control but they also want public services to be the same everywhere.

The theme of the discussion section of the fringe seemed to be the conclusion that the problem is the voters! These contradictory attitudes of the public make it difficult for politicians to take decisions and retain public support. The response should be greater leadership on difficult issues. Politicians should make more effort to explain and educate. It is not that we can "change the government and everything will be OK....we need to change the people".

Finally, I want to repeat the joke about sociologists that Mathew Taylor told:

"What do you get when you cross a mafia boss with a sociologist - someone who makes you an offer you can't understand."

Blogging Conference 08: Sunday

Sunday started slowly and with a screw up. I wanted to see the new leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, Tavish Scott MSP, give his speech, but because I mixed up the time I missed it. Something to catch up with online.

At lunchtime I was being an uber-geek. Sitting in for the AGM of Liberal Democrats Online. This was a really positive meeting but one which made what some would think of as a rather odd decision. More on this at another time. I was one of the founder members of LDO, so, after a period of non-involvement, it was nice to rejoin its executive committee.

I was in the hall for the Q&A with the Leader. On the tax issue he didn't really deal with the contradictions between his interviews that had so annoyed me last week. But it was a good confident performance with some great lines. The Cameron as cuddly toy line and his description of trickle down economics are two that I hope to use when I get an opportunity.

The crime debate was a good one if a somewhat frustrating one. Much of the debate was almost a copy of the debate we had at the Spring conference over the policy of establishing separately elected health boards to run the NHS instead of passing responsibility to local councils, except this time it was directly elected police authorities. I was on the side of the losing argument in both cases and am concerned that our approach to local government is becoming confused and disjointed. I was annoyed at repeated references to councils being responsible for "political interference". One persons "political interference" is another persons "democratic accountability".

In the evening I was at the Radio 4 fringe on "the Lib Dems and the voters" where polling data from Ipsos MORI formed the basis for a very interesting discussion. More on this in another post.

Then on to the LGLC Next Generation reception to catch up with colleagues from cohorts 1 and 2 and meet the new cohort 3. Then, as is traditional the bar and, after a lengthy interval, bed.

Blogging Conference 08: Saturday Night

Well I've managed better than last time with a burst of activity on Saturday, but I am struggling to find the time to blog properly. But it is Tuesday morning and I have decided to miss the delights of the transport debate and catch up.

So thinking back to what seems like an age ago but was only Saturday evening and the well attended East of England reception. I rather got the impression that a stray supporter of Lembit for President who had wandered into this meeting would have been at some risk of being strung up. Ros Scott is from the East, lives in Suffolk, and has many supporters from the region. So it appears that the East "is 4 Ros" and it was somewhat assumed that everyone there would be too.

In the speeches Andrew Duff MEP was, naturally, concerned with the need to campaign properly for next year's European Elections and that means spending money on it. The Bones Commission's report on party reform suggests reducing the expected funding. Bob Russell MP made it clear that he was the "senior" MP in the region. Oh, and unlike the London Region Reception you didn't need an invite to get in.

Then on to the Blog of the Year Awards ceremony. An excellent and typically raucous event which has now become a proper awards ceremony after controversy led to protesters picketing the meeting, if in a somewhat cuddly manner. Three richly deserved awards for Alix Mortimer, who is the brightest star in the Lib Dem blogging firmament, was I think justice done.

Then, as is traditional the bar and, after a lengthy interval, bed.

Blogging Conference 08: The Security Debate

This was I thought a very good quality debate that ranged widely across issues that impact on international security. The motion was moved by our foreign affairs spokesperson Ed Davey MP and summated by the very impressive Dr Julie Smith. Speakers raised concerns about role that Europe plays in our security and our role in Europe, the problems of an aggressive Russia, and the importance of energy security. But the two main themes were Trident and Afghanistan.

Trident

Given the prominence that the Lib Dem policy towards the renewal of Trident had during last year's leadership election campaign it was inevitable that we would have to return to debating the issue. We did this today as the new security policy contains wording that both sides in this particular argument seem to have felt comfortable in signing up to. Our position is now:

"building on previous Liberal Democrat policy, including conference motion The Future of Britain’s Nuclear Deterrent (March 2007), that Britain should:....Fulfill its obligation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to negotiate in good faith towards nuclear disarmament through:

i) A major reduction of its nuclear arsenal by approximately 50%, retaining no more than 100 warheads, with each Trident submarine carrying no more than 24 warheads when on deterrence patrol.
ii) Announcing its willingness to renounce the Trident system and any successor by agreement at the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty review

.....Place its nuclear deterrent under international inspection and work towards a joint negotiating position with France at the review conference."

Afghanistan

East of England European candidate Linda Jack proposed a separate vote on the wording relating to the British commitment to Afghanistan making the case that it was an intervention that had failed and that British troops should be withdrawn.

The most powerfully expressed defence of Britain's role in Afghanistan came from Bob Russell MP who has visited the country several times. However, the argument that I most agreed with was from William Wallace who argued that because of the way Britain is connected with the rest of the world "Afghanistan is not distant" and that continuing our commitment to that country is "vital for Britain's security". So I was pleased that conference voted overwhelmingly to continue our support for British involvement in Afghanistan.

Blogging Conference 08: Saturday

Here I am in Bournemouth for the Liberal Democrat Conference hoping to do a better job of blogging during the week than I did last time.

I've taken a rather relaxed approach so far. Having been later in the bar last night than I had intend this morning was rather slow and mainly concerned with a bit of shopping. A pleasant wander around the town in the sunshine. However, I've spent this afternoon in the main hall listening to the debates and speeches.

I was disappointed that the motion "Giving Citizens a Voice in Parliament" didn't get through unamended with the radical, but I thought wholly laudable, idea of "a people’s veto" being voted out. An example of conference being a little too cautious.

The debate on the security policy paper I will deal with in a separate post. As will be obvious from this blog I am a bit of a Party organisation nerd, but even I draw the line at staying for the debate on standing orders so I have nothing to report back on about that.

I did seek our work and pensions spokesperson Jenny Willott MP give a very good speech. I particularly liked the line she used, when talking about the failings of the Tory approach to support for the vulnerable, saying;

"even under Cameron, Conservative means conservative"

Another good line from this afternoon was David Grace in the security debate. Pointing out that the policy paper included the line "Our response to radical ideologies should be a mix of firm defence of our values combined with a willingness to talk" he reminded conference that;

"liberalism is a radical ideology"

This evening I'm looking forward catching up with people at the East of England region's reception and of course the Blog of the Year Awards Ceremony.

Maybe Olly Kendall was right after all - just not in the way he intended

I wrote the post, Olly Kendall gets it wrong, last Tuesday mainly because his discussion of the "radicalism-versus-responsibility agenda" pushed a number of my buttons about how I believe the Liberal Democrats need to go about their business. My, slightly more aggressive in tone than I had intended, choice of title seems to have propelled it into this weeks LDV Golden Dozen.

My argument was that we need to be radical and distinctive and shouldn't be afraid to be seen as going beyond the mainstream, and that this should apply to economic policy as much as it should to other areas of policy. However, in arguing that we "don’t need to be 'responsible'", I was emphatically not arguing that we should be free to talk nonsense. Yet that appears to be what the Party has been doing with regards to tax policy last weekend.

I have supported Nick Clegg's recent repositioning of the Party regarding taxation for two reasons. First, in the current economic and political climate it makes sense to emphasis old fashioned liberal ideas of thrift and value for money. It puts us in the same place as a huge part of the electorate are. Second, the actual proposals, as I understood them, meant tax cuts for the poorest and so are fully in-line with our progressive instincts and objectives. So I thought it was a good move. One that carries with it some risks - but I thought our arguments for how we would pay for these tax cuts were, just about, convincing enough.

However, the Leader's apparent attempt to go further in his interview with the Sunday Telegraph would have, if he hadn't later rolled back in his interview on the Westminster Hour, been much more problematic.

While I do not believe it is worthwhile the Liberal Democrats striving too strenuously to become "the party of credibility on the economy", what we do say, especially about tax, has to be consistent, thought-out, realistic and, yes, credible. So maybe, as Olly says, the challenge for Clegg at the forthcoming conference really is "Reconciling this radicalism-versus-responsibility agenda and communicating it effectively" - its just the audience that will need to be convinced will be in the hall and not outside.

Bones: Management, Governance and the COG

I am back to bother you with my thoughts on the report of the Bones Commission. I now want to tackle what has proven to be the most controversial aspect of the report. The creation of the Chief Officers Group or COG.

The difference between management and governance

In looking at the COG and assessing whether it will work as a useful reform to the organisation of the Liberal Democrats and be of benefit to the Party we need to have some kind of framework of understanding of how organisations like the Party should be run. It is important to establish that there is a difference between management and governance. Management is the supervision of the activities that an organisation does to achieve its objectives. Governance is deciding what those objectives are and making sure that they further the interests of those who "own" the organisation.

The neatest description of the difference between management and governance that I've found on the web is;

"Governance is about having the right policy and procedures in place to ensure the right things are done. Management is about doing the things right."

For small organisations with simple objectives the practical difference between the two can be slight. But in the commercial world issues around corporate governance and its relationship with management are a hot topic. As a councillor I've seen the differences between governance and management play out in the different and sometimes conflicting roles of the member as opposed to that of the chief executive and other senior officers. However, whatever the nature, purpose or size of an organisation it seems to me natural that it will get itself into trouble if it confuses the two functions and fails to pay proper attention to one or the other. Good governance is as important as good management.

Does Bones get it?

So how good are the Liberal Democrats at doing both the governance and management functions within our organisation? Well, the obvious answer is not as good as we should be.

Having never been a Party employee or significantly involved at Federal level I tend to be cautious about commenting on how good our management is. Yet I am sure there are things we can do to improve. However, I have argued before that we have had significant failings in the way that governance has been conducted and have been particularly critical of the performance of the Federal Executive and the position of Party President. I have said that we have;

"significant structural weakness within the organisation of the Liberal Democrats. At the heart of the party there is an absence of effective organisational leadership."

One of the very welcome aspects of the Bones report is that it both recognises the difference between the governance and management functions and is critical of the Party for failing to get this right.

Firstly it says;

"In the vast majority of voluntary organisations in the UK there is an established difference in role between the top governance body, the volunteer organisation and the professionals they employ."

It then recognises that the Party's Constitution "reflects this as a principle" but is greatly concerned that in practice there is a great deal of confusion leading to "accusations of a lack of transparency for key decisions" and "a confusion between the role of democracy vs. that of party leadership vs. that of management of the party’s resources".

This analysis is sound. Bones recognises that there is confusion within the Party structures between the different Party bodies and the management and governance functions. It recognises that this has led to a lack of transparency in decision making and is a key cause of many of our problems. In this sense I am very glad that Bones "gets it".

To address this problem it then goes on to outline a series of reforms to the internal structures and procedures of the Party. There is much here that I agree with. It calls for a much more professional approach to resource allocation, better management and better treatment of Party staff at all levels, a greater role for the regions, a more proactive support for potential areas of growth, and a more focused and centrally directed approach to campaigning. Much of this is frankly long overdue. In demanding a significant sharpening up of the Party's ability to do things, what the report scarily calls our "execution capability", I am fully behind it.

However, the positive ideas in the report that I feel comfortable endorsing are by and large about improving the management of the Party. Those ideas that are about improving the governance of the Party, which are much fewer in number, are at best weak and at worst positively damaging. This is where the Chief Officers Group comes in.

The Chief Officers Group

One thing that I learnt from the reading the full report that I had not previously been aware of is that the Chief Officers Group already exists within the Party structures. This was a surprise as I have never heard of it before. To be fair the report itself admits that "the current mandate of this group is unclear and its existence not widely known".

However, the Bones report recommends that this obscure body is transformed into the most important body within the Party structures. It is to hoover up powers from the Federal Finance and Administration Committee, POLD, the Federal Executive and Federal Conference Committee, and the English Council. The COG will also assert control over the State and Regional Parties.

This is how the COG is described in the executive summary of the report;

"This group will act as a Management Board for the party and will bring together all the key stakeholders and leaders in the party. It will be the role of COG to set the party’s budget and strategy and for ensuring its successful implementation. This will require a number of delegations from existing committees of some of their authorities and budget setting powers; in return these committees will be able to approve and scrutinise the decisions that are being taken by the COG."

Lets look at that in detail. It is to be a management board so is presumably to be concerned with management. Yet it is to be a representative body bringing together all the key stakeholders and leaders in the Party so is presumably to have a governance function. It will set the party’s budget and strategy - is that a management or governance function or both? And then be responsible for ensuring its successful implementation - again is that a management or governance function?

Then there is the relationship that the COG has with the existing Party bodies established in our constitution. It may be that I have been made cynical by 5 years as a local councillor but when someone says that you will be allowed to "approve and scrutinise" decisions I become suspicious that I am being asked to be a rubber stamp. I find "scrutiny" of limited value without the power to make and enforce real decisions and "approval" of other people's decisions pointless without the ability to develop and choose alternative options.

Appendix 3 of the full report describes the COG thus;

"The Chief Officers Group is charged with the management of the Party, which means among other things, that it is responsible for determining the Party’s overall objectives and strategy, as well as ensuring delivery of results."

It does the management of the Party but also does the "determining" of our objectives and strategy. This is not "implementing" objectives established elsewhere, such as by Conference or the constitutionally charged Federal Executive. So is the COG playing a role in management, or in governance, or in both.

In short it seems to me that rather than clarifying the role of the different Party bodies, making clearer the distinction between governance and management, and making decision-making more transparent, the creation of the COG will have exactly the opposite effect.

Will the COG work?

Then there is the question of whether the COG will actually be effective in achieving its stated aims. The model of the Party that the COG seems to fit in with is one of a leadership, supported by professional staff, at the centre and then a mass of members and supporters out in the country. However, this is an unrealistic model. Many of those who would be classed as "staff" in another type of organisation are actually volunteers who give up far more time than the odd evening. The middle ground of the activist appears to be left out.

Bones has very little to say about the role of the "activist", which is I believe a different one to that of the "volunteer". We do rely on supporters to donate money and deliver leaflets but we also rely on activists to organise campaigning, raise funds, train other activists, manage the candidate approval process, and a myriad of other tasks that make up the Party. We will not reform our organisation or achieve the change we need to reach our goals if we do not engage and convince our activists. I don't really see how the COG helps us do this.

I have written before that the Liberal Democrats are not Microsoft. You can't just issue a memo and expect the organisation to leap into action and that applies whether the memo is written by the COG or anyone else.

If we are to move towards a more directed, and indeed more centralised, structure for the management of our campaigning, which is probably the right approach, we also have to recognise that this makes it more important that we strengthen the democratic accountability of the Party through its governance structures. Failure to do so will mean that the new way of doing business will by many be seen as illegitimate and constantly challenged. The Bones Report is very good at arguing for the more directed management approach, but fails to deal with the issues of governance.

It is only half the answer.

Should we work with or against the Constitution

I think part of Bones' failure to come up with a holistic solution to the problem it correctly identifies is in its confused attitude to the Constitution of the Liberal Democrats.

It states that its remit is to propose changes "within the context of the current constitution". It is quite clear in saying that it is not a constitutional review. Yet the creation of the COG shows that it is straining against the current provisions of the Constitution. The way the COG is envisioned suggests a real potential to actually subvert the Constitution. It then goes on to say that there may be a need for constitutional changes in the future.

I find it surprising for a Party that talks and thinks so much about constitutional reform nationally we are so bad at talking properly about our own constitutional arrangements. If there are people who want to argue that our current constitution is broken then they should do so openly and suggests reforms. Adding new structures to try and work round it will only lead to confusion and conflict. We need to work with the grain of what we have got and not against.

In conclusion I want to return to the point I was making back in April about the role of the Party President but to put it in a wider context. We need to reform the way the Party is run but we do not need to rewrite the Constitution or add new bodies to the Party structure. What we need to do is to make the existing structures work properly.

We can start by getting the Party President to actually fulfil the role set out for it in the Constitution and by getting the Federal Executive to actually do the job it is supposed to do.

Bones: Should we challenge its assumptions?

The ideas and recommendations for changes to how the Liberal Democrats are organised and run contained in the Bones report are clearly built around the aim of achieving greater electoral success at Westminster. The remit of the Bones Commission was to develop and recommend changes to the Liberal Democrats in order to achieve what the report calls "the MP goal". This is the target of winning 200 Westminster seats over two elections established by our Leader, Nick Clegg MP.

As a result of this it makes the all too common mistake of seeing community politics as purely a campaigning technique rather than the wider approach to politics that its originators intended. It seems to talk about local government in the context of getting more MPs and does not seem to want to acknowledge that Liberal Democrat achievement in local government can be an end in itself.

It attempts no real discussion of whether it is worth attempting to build and strengthen a wider "liberal movement" and what actions could be taken to do this. It is silent on the consequences for the Liberal Democrats of devolution within the UK and the role of Liberal Democrats in the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, or indeed on the GLA. And it says very little about the development of liberal ideas, the strengthening of liberal analysis of the challenges facing the UK, or indeed the Party's internal policy development process.

It wants to reorganise the Party so that all the activities we undertake are focused on the objective of getting more MPs elected.

In short, the whole approach that Bones takes is based on the assumption that the purpose of the Liberal Democrats is to get Liberal Democrat MPs elected to Westminster. Other possible purposes for the existence of the Liberal Democrats are not considered.

Some may say; "So what - that is how it should be".

So let me be clear, I am not saying that this approach is necessarily wrong. It is entirely legitimate to argue that all other objectives should be ignored in favour of the objective of Westminster success. It is a matter of judgement and choice.

There is a very strong argument that it is the right choice.

What I do want to question is whether the Party as a whole has actually made this choice.

Before we go too far along with implementing the recommendations of the Bones Commission ought we not to check that everyone is happy that "the MP goal" is the goal that we have all agreed upon? I'm not sure we've actually been asked.

Bones: The full skeleton

I've now got to the end of reading the full report of the Bones Commission. Doing so has confirmed my view that the "executive summary" was not really an executive summary. Fortunately seeing the full text has not significantly altered my view of the Commission's findings, so I won't have to do too much revising of my articles. It is a better report in full though. I am more positive about it than I was. Yet, what I see as the flaws also come out stronger.

Now I've read the full report I can now start publishing here what I've written. But before I do so here are some further juicy bits that I've spotted in the full report that I didn't see in the executive summary:

• A new organisation for Liberal Democrats who have moved abroad
• Local parties to be encouraged to merge along local authority boundaries
• Prizes for those who help at by-elections
• No to moving Party HQ out of Cowley St. (at least until the lease runs out in 2016)
• The establishment of a Liberal Democrat Staff Association
• A replacement for EARS is to be found, but until then EARS to be given free to all local parties
• Federal Spring Conference to become an English Conference

Gnawing away

I spent quite a lot of time on Wednesday writing up my thoughts on the recommendations in the executive summary of the Bones Report for a series of articles to go up on this blog. No sooner had I finished however than I discovered, via this, that the full report was now available for Party members.

While of course the release of the full report is welcome - it is about time - at that particular moment it did result in me letting out a low moan and holding my head in my hands. I now have to read the report, I'm about half way through, and go back and revise those articles.

One of the problems I find with this blogging lark is that the world refuses to slow down to a pace where I can comfortably write about it.

Bones: What is in the report?

Having given my initial reaction to the Bones Report and highlighted some of the juicy bits - it is now time to have a look at the detail of the report.

I say "report" (and will use that term throughout this article), but we should keep reminding ourselves that what we have is not the full report but an executive summary of the full report. However, it is worth reading in full. Those of you who haven't yet done so - don't worry - I've read it for you!

But before we get into picking over the bones of .. er .. Bones, first a comment on the style in which the report is written.

One of the problems I have with this "executive summary" of the Bones Report is that it is not an executive summary. It does not condense the full report down to a easily digestible run through of its key points, highlighting the main conclusions, and clearly indicating what further action is needed. It leaves an awful lot of what, we can only assume, is in the full contents of the report a mystery. The detail of the specific proposals, rather than being clarified, are left opaque. It reads more like an introduction than a proper executive summary, and not a particularly well written one at that.

When you get in some consultants to write a report you expect it to be written to some extent in consultant speak. I've seen some very bad examples in my time as a councillor. Yet the Liberal Democrats are a political and campaigning organisation and I would of thought we could have expected a higher standard and more attention to plain English than what we get here. I am not sure I want to be part of an organisation that wants to improve its "execution capability". One particular aspect of the way the report is written is that it constantly talks of "principles" when it means no such thing.

OK, those quibbles aside, here is a look at the report section by section:

Introduction/Building on a History of Success/The Challenge

The first few chapters of the summary report set out that the objective is to recommend changes to our organisation in order to achieve what it calls "the MP goal". The target of winning 200 Westminster seats over two elections established by Nick Clegg. In doing so it identifies the categories of key seats and target seats. The report is clearly built around the aim of achieving greater electoral success at Westminster.

It is careful not to criticise the past and argues that the Party should be aiming for success on "an altogether more significant scale". It also recognises the pressing need for far greater funding for the Party.

Achieving coherence, alignment and focused resources

This section of the paper is probably the most important. However, I also found it to be the section with the least clarity and the most difficult to follow.

This confusion is helped by the fact that this section clearly displays the confused attitude to the Constitution of the Liberal Democrats that has been evident throughout the Bones commission process. It states that it is not a constitutional review and is not interested in making changes to the Constitution. But its conclusions logically imply a criticism of the adequacy of the current constitution and even, I believe, in some cases subvert it. It then goes on to say that there may be a need for constitutional changes in the future. To say the least, as a report to the Party of constitutional reform, this is not very coherent.

The main purpose of this section is to call for clarity and simplification within the organisation of the Liberal Democrats. It wants the roles of the different party bodies to be more clearly defined and for decision making to be more transparent. I know very few party members who would disagree with those sentiments. However, I detect in the language with which these arguments are put a concern over the impact of various turf wars, particularly over resources, within the central party.

A key theme of this section is to argue for greater central control over resources. It clearly advocates a shift in decision making over financial resources to the centre. A change in the balance between local parties and the Federal Party, although how this is to be done is not spelt out in detail.

It also argues for a more coherent management of party staff. Although it doesn't appear to say this explicitly, I take this to include MPs staff as well. Another key theme in this section is that it sees a greater and more proactive role for the regions of the Party. On fundraising it calls for a "radical overhaul" over our approach, although how this is to be done is not detailed. It also introduces the idea of external scrutiny in order to maintain ethical standards.

Finally, this section introduces the idea of the Chief Officers Group (COG). This has probably been so far the most controversial element of Bones and has generated a lot of comment. I have a number of serious issues with both the idea and the way it has been implemented which I discuss in a future post. However, here I want to point out that in many ways the introduction of the COG directly contradicts many of things that this section argues for. While Bones wants a simpler organisation, a clarity of roles, and transparency of decision making I suspect that the COG will end up providing the opposite.

Building a network party not just a membership party

This section focuses on our need to better support and value the people that make up the Party. This is a necessary and unarguable objective, but it is one that the Party has too often only paid lip service to. So I hope that in this area the ideas in Bones Report brings a new impetus to making the Party take seriously the need to look after our members and supporters.

It argues that we need to develop a better membership package with a greater range of benefits. Alongside this it makes some fairly specific recommendations about the need for an increase in the minimum membership fee. I know that some people have some strong and long standing objections to such a move, but I believe Bones is right in this being something that we do need to look at again.

It argues that we should treat our volunteers better and that we should work with a wider conception of who are people are and embrace the idea of the "supporter". The Party should have better ways for working with those who support us but do not wish to go as far as party membership.

The concept this section introduces of developing a "network party" is an interesting one, but not an idea that I felt was sufficiently explored. It does talk about us developing our "engagement capability" yet I wasn't left feeling entirely clear about what they meant by this.

It does argue for the creation of a Technology Board which I think is an interesting idea and one that should be looked at further. The Liberal Democrats have a record of being innovative with technology. But this has tended to take place over the years in a rather haphazard manner, something I've seen with my past involvement with Liberal Democrats Online. There could be some real potential benefits in formalising the importance of technical innovation within the Party structure in this manner.

One aspect that I give an unqualified welcome to is the proposal that all elected Liberal Democrats should tithe to the Party. It is common practice in the most successful of our council groups for councillors to pay a regular amount of money from their allowances into Party coffers. However, foolishly there are too many council groups who do not do this. Ensuring that this practice happens across the Party is extremely sensible.

Reaching out beyond our traditional support

For many this will be the real heart of the report as it is here that Bones deals with the adjustment of our targeting strategy. I won't say too much about this as it is a big topic on its own and better dealt with elsewhere. However, I do think what Bones says about this issue is a sensible approach to a critical change that the Party needs to make.

This section also tackles a number of other issues related to winning new support to the Liberal Democrat cause. I strongly welcome the emphasis placed on supporting local leadership of campaigning. Bones rightly says the "key to success is identifying someone with leadership skills who wants to do something locally". Bones appears to argue for a more "hands-on" role in the development of seats and campaigning capacity by the central party. If the sensible ideas, like the creation of a Federal "roving campaign team", are taken up we will see a welcome, and in many places sorely needed, pro-active approach to working with the grass roots helping them to campaign better.

There is some discussion of the need for a new style of communication but it doesn't give details of what is meant by this. It also suggests possible changes to conference but again doesn't say what these are. I also found the remarks made about targeting the youth vote extremely unclear. It welcomes the creation of Liberal Youth but then it seems to suggest giving up on the youth vote as a possible source of new voters because "the youth vote will not vote, or if it does will look for parties of protest". I may have misunderstood what they mean, but in this case I think that is the fault of the authors rather than my capacity to grasp these things.

This section also deals with what they call the "diversity agenda". Their suggestion that because of our limited resources attempts to improve diversity within the Liberal Democrats should focus only on the diversity of our candidates and that we should not do any work on other areas. They are quite strong on this point saying "if what is proposed isn't directly achieving the candidate goals, don't do it." I happen to think this is wrong headed on a number of levels but at least, unlike the point above, they are clear about what they mean. It is here that they propose the £10k 'diversity premium' for seats that select a BME candidate.

Redefining Community Politics

This section makes the elementary, if all too common within the Liberal Democrats, mistake of seeing community politics as purely a campaigning technique rather than the wider approach to politics that its originators intended. It also makes the allied mistake of seeing community politics as synonymous with local government, and then compounds this by only really talking about local government in the context of getting more MPs. It is disappointing that the authors do not appear to be aware of the wider concept of community politics or want to acknowledge that Liberal Democrat achievement in local government can be an end in itself.

However, it does say a number things about local government that are spot on. In particular I would strongly support the sentiments expressed in the following passage;

"Where we have resisted and held control is where we have had councils who have actively applied our political values and philosophy and who have created a coherent political movement at a local level. Where we fall victim and lose is where we fail to differentiate ourselves and look just like the others, where candidates are put up who are not aligned to our values and where once in office we have little vision and become managerial rather than political leaders."

In response to this it argues for a number of measures that we should welcome. Its talk of wanting to strengthen the capabilities of local politicians, to support and work with the leaders of Liberal Democrat run councils better, and improving local government candidate selection and discipline is right but yet again the report lacks details. I particularly liked its emphasis on spreading best practice both to council groups and to the campaigning activities of local parties.

Widening and deepening the candidate pool

I am choosing not to go into the section looking at parliamentary candidates in much detail as I think others are better placed to discuss this aspect. However, it is notable that Bones places an emphasis on getting more flexibility in to the candidate system for "outstanding candidates". My reading of the proposals as a whole gave me an impression that if they were implemented we would end up with what would be in effect a Liberal Democrat version of the Tory 'A' list system. I am not strongly against such an idea, it has its merits, but it will need to be thoroughly debated within the Party before such a system is adopted.

Investing in leadership, candidate and execution capability

Other than introducing me to the jargon that is "execution capability" the main idea in this section is the use of a "leadership academy" to take control of an improved training and development programme. While I am not entirely sure about this model, I think a greater emphasis on training is right. However, again the report displays a bias towards parliamentary candidates. I agree that the training of PPCs is of critical importance but I do not know whether or not it is in our candidates or in other areas where we have the greatest skills gaps.

Building a 21st Century Political Movement

While this section has a suitably bold title I did think that the report had a rather limited view of what a "movement" actually is. As the report has no real discussion of how to go about building a wider liberal movement it would have been wiser to talk more accurately about a campaigning political organisation. Here it talks of the need to win the "air war" as well as the "ground war". It calls for the Party to develop greater clarity in its message but doesn't really say how this should be done. Again this section lacks specific details, an exception being the welcome proposal for an enhanced network of regional press officers managed centrally.

Conclusion

I am not sure that the "conclusion" actually is much of a conclusion. I found the way it is written raised as many questions as it answered. For example there is the following;

"What holds us back is not our policies, nor our values. It is our structures, our culture and our decision-making processes."

As a statement that has a degree of rhetorical power, and a significant element of truth, but is it entirely true? Discuss.

So, that was a quick run through of what the report says, at least from my perspective. Yet, I've only really scratched the surface of the many issues and questions that Bones raises. My thoughts on some of these aspects to come in future posts.

Just to clarify...

Olly Kendall is a former deputy of press and briefings for Lib Dem MP Charles Kennedy and writes for Comment is free. He is a man.

Olly Grender is a former Director of Communications for the Liberal Democrats and appears regularly on Newsnight. She is a woman.

I do hope that helps. ;-)

Olly Kendall gets it wrong

I haven't seen anyone else comment on this article, 'The Lib Dems: trying to do too much?', by former Charles Kennedy staffer Olly Kendall from Comment is free on Sunday. So I will.

Kendall argues that given current circumstances Nick Clegg and the Party have a difficult task ahead in balancing being seen as a radical voice on civil liberties with the need to appear serious and credible in terms of the economy. We need to reconcile what he calls the "radicalism-versus-responsibility agenda" and find ways to communicate it that do not put off potential voters. He says;

"Taking radical and distinctive policy positions and finding neat, edgy ways to communicate them should be applauded, but this is a time when the party desperately needs to be seen as responsible and competent on economic issues."

I'm sorry, but in my view, he couldn't be more wrong.

So often the outcome we get when those who call for the Liberal Democrats to "be responsible" get their way is that we end up saying nothing of any interest. In our two party system being responsible almost inevitably ends up with us being ignored.

We need to be as radical on the economy as we are on civil liberties, energy policy, environmentalism or anything else. As economic issues become more and more central to the concerns of voters we need to establish economic policies that are distinctive and contrast with the consensus held by the other two main parties. Yes, this means taking some risks and will result in us being called "irresponsible" by commentators and opponents, but it needs to be done if we are to set the agenda.

It wasn't long ago that Vince Cable was being accused of irresponsibility for arguing for the nationalisation of Northern Rock. Do we think he should have listened and dropped that policy?

We don't need to be "responsible" - we need to be liberal and we need to be right.