The following is a version of a speech I gave last Wednesday evening (17th Nov) to East Lothian Lib Dems AGM. It’s referred to as the “Convenor’s Report”. I should point out I didn’t read this as it’s written, I had a copy to refer to. The bits in square brackets are the bits I remember skipping, the ones in curly brackets the bits I remember saying ‘off the cuff”. Normally when you write these things and give them to others you add “check against delivery”. Only people who were there would be able to do that.
When elected as Convenor last year the main theme I said to the committee that I wanted to do was “change”.
Now change means different things to different people and most take it negatively. They usually think, “I’m not going to like this”. [That’s a negative perspective.] But, in my working life, if things didn’t change, I’d have no work to do. The team I was in had to look at change differently, in fact we were encouraged to look on it as a positive thing. It was an opportunity, a chance to improve our skills, show our worth, take initiatives and develop [individually and collectively]. Change was to be welcomed.
By stating I wanted to “change” things it meant I was hoping that others would view it in a positive light too. By doing away with sub-committees people would be freed up to get on with actually doing things rather than sit in meetings talking; they would be freer to take the initiative on things. Reducing the frequency of main committee meetings meant we would meet only when there was something to discuss. [I’m not certain everyone on the committee grasped the opportunities that were available to them. As I said at the start, some people are afraid of “change”.]
So, what else “changed” during the year past?
Well, we had a Westminster election where, for the only time I can remember, the local party were asked to do something different. That was adopt Berwickshire! We were to take over all campaigning – canvassing, delivery of literature, eve of poll stuff, posters on lamp-posts, polling day knock-ups etc. But to do that would have meant no activity in East Lothian at all. The Committee decided not to do this but encouraged those that wanted to, to help out in that area as and when they could, and some of us did.
Also during that campaign were some TV debates. The first of these was a Chancellor’s Debate {on Channel 4} which was then followed by three Leader’s Debates on prime time TV, one on each of the three main channels but re-broadcast at other times on BBC Parliament. [And there were other televised debates, town hall debates, and other Q & A sessions that the party leaders held all broadcast or re-broadcast on BBC Parliament.] Of course the first one, we all remember, brought out the catch-phrase of the campaign – “I agree with Nick” – which had to be used that way without alteration to be effective. That first debate brought about a big increase in our polling status. Suddenly, we were first or second in the polls. The big question was, “could we capitalise on this?” As it turned out, no we couldn’t. Instead of the hoped for 100 MPs we fell back. But, there was one place where change didn’t happen, where people were “fearties” – Scotland – there was no change here compared to 2005.
But the result of the election meant that Labour couldn’t form a government. The Tories couldn’t form a majority one either. So we have something that hasn’t happened at Westminster for many years – a coalition government, formed by the Tories with us. I remember being asked about the deal shortly after it was first released and saying I was “overwhelmingly enthusiastic”. Despite the voting system we ended up with something I believe should be standard: coalition government. I believe that all elections should be held under STV in multi-member constituencies – there’s still work to be done on that. A natural by-product of that is for a coalition of some description to be formed. It appeared however, that several members of the on-line community have failed to appreciate that the party’s main plank on voting reform – STV – means forming a coalition should be the norm. Many forget that coalitions are formed on a regular basis at Council level in England. So, I welcome what has happened at Westminster, it won’t be easy, mistakes will be made, [communication about how influential the party has been, is being, is very important]. {I hesitate to use the words pledge and promise but I hope new Party President Tim Farron is able to do what he said he would and improve the communication to tell us what is being achieved}. That communication isn’t working yet but then, it took time to work at Holyrood too after 1999.
Are there any other changes to mention?
Well, there’s the Holyrood elections next year. These will be conducted on new boundaries meaning the local party will be fighting on four fronts. These boundaries are of course very much a numbers game. I find it a bit rich of MPs complaining about the Voting Reform and Boundaries Bill currently going through at Westminster “capping” the number of MPs. That’s exactly what MPs did when they passed the Scotland Act 1998 – they capped the number of MSPs and not just at the overall level but capped them at constituency and AMS numbers too. That’s why I say voting reform should still be a main plank of our campaigning. {For example, merge East Lothian, Midlothian and Borders Council areas into one constituency and elect 6 MSPs, if there’s a big change in population from one constituency to another, you don’t redraw the boundaries, you increase or decrease the number of MSPs elected from each constituency. You could also of course, make the Westminster boundaries the same and reduce the number of local authorities to match these as well.} Let’s get multi-member constituencies elected by STV and do away with these unfair and unnecessary boundary reviews!
What it means for us is campaigning for two constituency seats: a smaller East Lothian and a new Midlothian North and Musselburgh one. That means two regional campaigns as well: South of Scotland and Lothians. That will put a strain on our resources both financial and people. And that’s why I believe we can’t run county-wide campaigns any more. We need to identify 10-14k D&Ps in an 18 month period prior to any election to stand a chance of winning, we’ll be lucky to get that volume of door knocking done for the Council elections in 2012 never mind by next May. And to find 10-14k means you have to knock on twice, thrice or, that number of doors. That’s why I believe we need to work at a much lower level, not ward but polling district. [Build up activity from there and set realistic targets that are achievable on that basis.] That’s the emphasis that’s in our Development Plan.
There one final change I want to mention. I’m standing down from the main committee. I’ve been on it for 19 years. It’s too long. You can end getting negative: “tried that before, didn’t work then, won’t work now”. I believe there should be a limit on the number of years anyone serves on a committee -10 years – before being obliged to stand down for a year or two and then come back refreshed. It doesn’t mean you’re lost to the local party. You can carry on working in some capacity. [It encourages new blood on to the committee.]
Thank You.
Speech to Local Party AGM
The following is a version of a speech I gave last Wednesday evening (17th Nov) to East Lothian Lib Dems AGM. It’s referred to as the “Convenor’s Report”. I should point out I didn’t read this as it’s written, I had a copy to refer to. The bits in square brackets are the bits I remember skipping, the ones in curly brackets the bits I remember saying ‘off the cuff”. Normally when you write these things and give them to others you add “check against delivery”. Only people who were there would be able to do that.
When elected as Convenor last year the main theme I said to the committee that I wanted to do was “change”.
Now change means different things to different people and most take it negatively. They usually think, “I’m not going to like this”. [That’s a negative perspective.] But, in my working life, if things didn’t change, I’d have no work to do. The team I was in had to look at change differently, in fact we were encouraged to look on it as a positive thing. It was an opportunity, a chance to improve our skills, show our worth, take initiatives and develop [individually and collectively]. Change was to be welcomed.
By stating I wanted to “change” things it meant I was hoping that others would view it in a positive light too. By doing away with sub-committees people would be freed up to get on with actually doing things rather than sit in meetings talking; they would be freer to take the initiative on things. Reducing the frequency of main committee meetings meant we would meet only when there was something to discuss. [I’m not certain everyone on the committee grasped the opportunities that were available to them. As I said at the start, some people are afraid of “change”.]
So, what else “changed” during the year past?
Well, we had a Westminster election where, for the only time I can remember, the local party were asked to do something different. That was adopt Berwickshire! We were to take over all campaigning – canvassing, delivery of literature, eve of poll stuff, posters on lamp-posts, polling day knock-ups etc. But to do that would have meant no activity in East Lothian at all. The Committee decided not to do this but encouraged those that wanted to, to help out in that area as and when they could, and some of us did.
Also during that campaign were some TV debates. The first of these was a Chancellor’s Debate {on Channel 4} which was then followed by three Leader’s Debates on prime time TV, one on each of the three main channels but re-broadcast at other times on BBC Parliament. [And there were other televised debates, town hall debates, and other Q & A sessions that the party leaders held all broadcast or re-broadcast on BBC Parliament.] Of course the first one, we all remember, brought out the catch-phrase of the campaign – “I agree with Nick” – which had to be used that way without alteration to be effective. That first debate brought about a big increase in our polling status. Suddenly, we were first or second in the polls. The big question was, “could we capitalise on this?” As it turned out, no we couldn’t. Instead of the hoped for 100 MPs we fell back. But, there was one place where change didn’t happen, where people were “fearties” – Scotland – there was no change here compared to 2005.
But the result of the election meant that Labour couldn’t form a government. The Tories couldn’t form a majority one either. So we have something that hasn’t happened at Westminster for many years – a coalition government, formed by the Tories with us. I remember being asked about the deal shortly after it was first released and saying I was “overwhelmingly enthusiastic”. Despite the voting system we ended up with something I believe should be standard: coalition government. I believe that all elections should be held under STV in multi-member constituencies – there’s still work to be done on that. A natural by-product of that is for a coalition of some description to be formed. It appeared however, that several members of the on-line community have failed to appreciate that the party’s main plank on voting reform – STV – means forming a coalition should be the norm. Many forget that coalitions are formed on a regular basis at Council level in England. So, I welcome what has happened at Westminster, it won’t be easy, mistakes will be made, [communication about how influential the party has been, is being, is very important]. {I hesitate to use the words pledge and promise but I hope new Party President Tim Farron is able to do what he said he would and improve the communication to tell us what is being achieved}. That communication isn’t working yet but then, it took time to work at Holyrood too after 1999.
Are there any other changes to mention?
Well, there’s the Holyrood elections next year. These will be conducted on new boundaries meaning the local party will be fighting on four fronts. These boundaries are of course very much a numbers game. I find it a bit rich of MPs complaining about the Voting Reform and Boundaries Bill currently going through at Westminster “capping” the number of MPs. That’s exactly what MPs did when they passed the Scotland Act 1998 – they capped the number of MSPs and not just at the overall level but capped them at constituency and AMS numbers too. That’s why I say voting reform should still be a main plank of our campaigning. {For example, merge East Lothian, Midlothian and Borders Council areas into one constituency and elect 6 MSPs, if there’s a big change in population from one constituency to another, you don’t redraw the boundaries, you increase or decrease the number of MSPs elected from each constituency. You could also of course, make the Westminster boundaries the same and reduce the number of local authorities to match these as well.} Let’s get multi-member constituencies elected by STV and do away with these unfair and unnecessary boundary reviews!
What it means for us is campaigning for two constituency seats: a smaller East Lothian and a new Midlothian North and Musselburgh one. That means two regional campaigns as well: South of Scotland and Lothians. That will put a strain on our resources both financial and people. And that’s why I believe we can’t run county-wide campaigns any more. We need to identify 10-14k D&Ps in an 18 month period prior to any election to stand a chance of winning, we’ll be lucky to get that volume of door knocking done for the Council elections in 2012 never mind by next May. And to find 10-14k means you have to knock on twice, thrice or, that number of doors. That’s why I believe we need to work at a much lower level, not ward but polling district. [Build up activity from there and set realistic targets that are achievable on that basis.] That’s the emphasis that’s in our Development Plan.
There one final change I want to mention. I’m standing down from the main committee. I’ve been on it for 19 years. It’s too long. You can end getting negative: “tried that before, didn’t work then, won’t work now”. I believe there should be a limit on the number of years anyone serves on a committee -10 years – before being obliged to stand down for a year or two and then come back refreshed. It doesn’t mean you’re lost to the local party. You can carry on working in some capacity. [It encourages new blood on to the committee.]
Thank You.