Political

Nice uses of the more relaxed Liberal Democrat campaigning rules

Progressively over the last few years, the campaigning restrictions on Liberal Democrat internal selections – such as for picking our candidates for public election or electing party committees – have been progressively relaxed. I’ve frequently been one of those leading the push for changes as I think more campaigning makes for a healthier party – it makes for a better informed and more engaged membership, which leads to greater support for what the party does and more enthusiastic campaigning for our candidates.

The best rules in the world still require people to make good use of them. So I’m very heartened by some of the initiatives we’re seeing this year as the party both elections federal committees and also selects European Parliament candidates.

Jennie Rigg has been doing some great stuff with the party’s committee elections (in which I’m standing). Over on the public selections front, it’s nice to see questions like this one from Adam Bell being posed and candidates answer.

It’s the sort of thing that used to be massively frowned on by too many in the party, but which I think makes for a much better set of contests.

UPDATE: See also Andy Hinton’s question to Federal Executive candidates – Where do the Federal Executive candidates stand on conference accreditation?

6 responses to “Nice uses of the more relaxed Liberal Democrat campaigning rules”

  1. I agree there are some excellent innovations, and I welcome the relaxation of the rules in all but one area: I am not happy about the increased spending limits for candidates in regional selections like GLA and Euros. A limit of £1300 benefits incumbents and well off candidates to the detriment of those less able to fund themselves or raise money from affluent acquaintances. We know that this is more likely to adversely affect certain categories of candidates, notably those from poorer backgrounds, ethnic minorities and women. Higher spending limits are a step backwards. I know people argue that it enables candidates to demonstrate their fundraising skills, but wouldn't those skills best be deployed raising money for the party in the actual election rather than funding additional mailshots in the selection?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments and data you submit with them will be handled in line with the privacy and moderation policies.