Liberty Alone

I’m concerned that you feel that way. Personally I think we get it more now because we seem to be more of a voice in the party. And also what is more annoying than “vitriolic” is when people seem to think they know better than onesself about what one’s label ought to mean.

I think few people actually understand that the sort of radical liberalism we’re on about is actually “of the left” if one wants to use those quaint almost meaningless terms.

What I depair of most though, is a tendency of many, not just in our party (though I would hope that with our tradition including the names you mention above our’s would know better), to have a very negative view of humans’ propensity to care. Even Objectivists believe in a caring humanity, even if they believe it stems from rational egoism rather than altruism.

Personally, not only do I think that Mill would have trouble today in the party, but that he would be utterly appalled that the tyranny of the minority (never mind majority) has had a grip in this land for many decades now.

David Hume said that there may come a time when people decide by common consent that the system of the time was broken beyond reasonable repair and that we should not be so precious about the institutions we have if they are not being conducive to the “perfect commonwealth”. I believe we are at that point, perhaps have been for a long time, but that modern technological advances now make it much more possible to create a more human scale different system.

I guess what might be more important is to convince others that the system is so broken before trying to persuade them of alternatives. There again, the first question is usually “what would you do differently then”.

I tend to agree with Neil – I don’t find them so much “attacks” but I do find my forehead frequently bleeding from the roughness of my brick wall with a particular type of correspondent that appears almost wilfully to not want to respect a valid opinion.

The one that gets me most is the accusation that has been levelled many a time now to the effect that “if you don’t believe in what Ronald Reagan said you can’t be a Libertarian”. It’s kind of like me saying to them if you don’t believe in “survival of the fittest” you can’t be a Liberal. There seems no attempt to understand that, just as within the party, there are a wide range of opinions the can go under the banners of “classical liberal”, “economic liberal”, “libertarian/anarchist” and so on.

And especially that because of the mechanisms we believe will enhance both social, political and economic liberalism, we are in fact working to the agenda of corporatists, oligarchs and autocrats.

If Liberal Vision are a secret faction, they’ve really screwed up considering the amount of publicity they have received!

They are secret because they deny they are a faction…thats why i use the term secret…

All this “secret faction” stuff being bandied about by Darrell is pretty laughable. The “secret” part especially….

It is hard to see how we could have been more transparent or more public.

The accusation of political dishonesty is just mud slinging.

It’s about as ridiculous as someone criticising me because Liberal Vision “had an agenda”. Politics is about having an agenda for goodness sake.

Mature political parties bring together people with wide and diverse views united by some broad, over-arching principles. They don’t always agree on everything.

Examples within the LibDems include – as far as I’m aware – Liberal Vision, the Beveridge Group (who want the party to take a more redistributionist and more public service-orientated approach), the Green LibDems (I assume they want the party to be greener), Liberal CND (who disagree with the party’s stance on nukes) and sundry others I’ve forgotten.

There are a ton of such groups in Labour and the Tories too – the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform, for example, the Conservative Group for Europe etc etc.

None of this is evidence of political dishonesty, although people are free to agree or disagree, support or criticise, the stance of any particular group.

To suggest the very existence of such groups is politically dishonest or subversive in some way is very strange indeed.

(P.S. Jock – I don’t run the LV membership list, but our first mailing is due to go out in a couple of weeks time.)

We’re an internal campaign group. Progressive Vision is a think tank and LV is affiliated to it.

We’re only a “faction” if you use the word to describe any group of people within any political party who get together in any sort of way as a “faction” too.

I think that is too wide a use of the term. Especially as the term – as used in modern political discourse – is usually taken to imply ill intent or self-serving motives. But if you do want to apply it to Liberal Vision, then it applies to Liberal CND, the Beveridge Group etc etc etc as well. The usually accepted term is “ginger group”. But I guess opponents of such groups like to characterise them as cliques, factions, conspiracies etc., to try and imply that their motives are oblique and dubious.

The key point that you seem to be trying to make about secrecy and political dishonesty is just wrong. We could hardly be clearer, more transparent, more direct or more public about what we believe and support.

Well, depends what you mean by “internal”. We don’t check off names against the membership database. We can’t. The self-denying ordinance is that you must be a supporter of the party.

If, for example, someone said “I always vote Liberal Democrat, I agree with Liberal Vision’s stance of low tax, small government and more personal freedom, but won’t formally join the party until it pledges to lift the smoking ban”, we would admit such a person into membership. I’m not aware of anyone having done this, but I wouldn’t have a problem with someone doing so.

We’re internal in the sense that supporters of other parties (or true “independents”) are not welcome to join. And we’re also internal in that our principal focus is to change the Liberal Democrats as a precursor to changing the outside world.

To be honest, Darrell, I think your accusations are, at best, nit-picking and desperate and, at worst, acts of bad faith.

With Liberal Vision, what you see is what you get. We are LibDems who want the party to adopt low tax, small government and more personal freedom as three key pillars of the party’s platform.

It’s not a conspiracy, a clique or a plot. It’s a bunch of people arguing for their own ideas and beliefs. I can’t work out what is supposed to be so dubious, malevolent or dishonest about that.

Mark: The ginger groups do not organise around policy in the way you do. Groups like ALTER, Green Lib Dems and so forth have a clear membership system and, more importantly, internal elections for their leadership and policy positions.

Does Liberal Vision intend to hold open internal elections for its leadership?

Until you do the rest of us are going to keep on throwing stones.

Stephen;

Multiculturalism – see it as limited and as having problems that need to be addressed don’t think the state should as such ‘legislate for it’ as ‘legislate to enable it’.

Immigration – I’m with Tinter would love open borders to be a party policy but it isnt sadly.

EU – As Tinter said plenty of debate but generally im hugley in favour of it.

Selection in schools – Again with Tinter, personally i’m against it.

BBC – It’s not as biased as paranoid Tories think.

NHS – Yep its a great thing :) as was said you’d be hard pushed to find many people in any party who think it isn’t…

Only the government – Nope don’t believe that but as was said it’s a straw man….

Am agreeing with Tinter a fair bit here but he also makes a fair point about LV. Why should a group that is not democratically accountable to it’s own members, by admission a ‘benign dictatorship’ be trusted…

Mark,

Well it wasnt Duncan’s but Wikipedia’s defition and I think as a commonly accepted one for political discourse it is very fine and workable. You see what intrigues me is wondering why you wont accept what you obviously are, why you feel the term ‘faction’ is a loaded one.

Why is it not ‘useful’?? Is it because LV would be a bit less non-threatening if it was to accurately self-describe itself?? You are trying to change party policy, you are running candidates (Fernando is your candidate whether you admit it or not), you are acrtively recruiting your own independant membership, seems a pretty handy description of factional behaviour to me.

They would help LV be allowing anybody who *says* they support the Liberal Democrats to have a say over party policy. You can then get all your non-Lib Dem members ‘in on the act’. Handy that isnt it for an organsation you can join by *saying* you support the Liberal Democrats. You want to subvert the constitution so your own clique, your own ‘benign dictatorship’ can get it’s own way.

Mark: I note your distinct faliure to answer my question.

Do you intend to hold elections for liberal visions leadership? Do you intend to move it towards a model that possesses internal democracy?

If not then accusations of it being run as a clique are, basically, correct. I personally don’t have any great problem with you organising as a policy faction, but don’t expect anyone to have much time for your commentary on democratic processes if they aren’t good enough to employ yourself.

As I’ve already said, LV’s link (as a sunsidiary of) Progressive Vision (the self-described) ‘think tank’ has a policy platform infinitely closer to the UK Libertarian Party than mainstream Liberal Democrat opinion.

LV’s ‘factional’ approach and the seperate policy platform of
PV remind me very much of Militant’s benevolent engagement and ‘entryism’ into the Labour party of the 1980s. In my view ‘Benign dictatorship’ seems entirely incompatible with liberal democracy.

Mark,

Accusations which as Tinter notes are ‘basically correct’ given the way you organise. I have no problem with you organising as a policy faction which is something I have said time and time again. What I do have a problem with is your cloak and dagger smoke and mirrors denials that this is what you actually are.

No, 400 people couldnt take over the party but if Fernandos constitutional changes were accepted you wouldnt need 400 Lib Dem’s, Liberal Vision could just recruit anybody they pleased and subvert the process; just get them to say they support the Lib Dems and it’s done.

But Darrell, if you are indifferent on the definition, why press the point? It’s like getting into an argument over my height or eye colour or something. It’s either an important accusation or it’s not.

If it’s not, drop it. Life’s too short.

If it is, then let’s parcel out what’s at stake here – and this seems to be accusations of secrecy and dishonesty, which I think I’ve rebutted.

People sometimes to use particular words to suit their overall view of something rather than really being concerned about semantics. I don’t know why you have a problem with calling LV a ginger group. I suspect it’s because you’re hostile to it (as is your right) and words like “faction”, “clique”, “cohort” or whatever suit you in conveying a negative or malign view of Liberal Vision.

On the sign-up of registered supporters, I agree that we would need to put in place some mechanism to ensure good faith. But please don’t believe LV could sign up thousands of people anymore than anyone else could. We’re about as big as a single, medium-sized constituency party.

Mark, you have a fairly full platform of policys you intend to advocate for. Thats the mark of a faction, not a ginger group (which usually do little in terms of solid policy work). I realise you are trying to avoid the word like dynamite, but the facts stand.

Meanwhile, a benign dictatorship is basically a clique. I mean, what else do we want to call it? You are running it and picking who does what. Cliquey, yes?

I have no problem with internal factions. Indeed, I think a degree of factionalisation is inevitable in any reasonably large democratic structure. However, I expect two things of factions. First, that they are open not secret, which Liberal Vision probably meets.

Second, that they are democratic, so that any member can expect to enter and have an equal say in the running of the group. If it does not meet that criteria then it becomes open to leadership from the top and runs counter to democracy. The issue isn’t that it gives you a mandate- its that you can be removed.

I have no problem with you organising or signing up members. Indeed, to those that do I must ask why you think a group doing so would be so long as they are valid members of the party? Would you prefer they just circulated their views to each other informally, making it hard to tell who is doing what and exclusionary to the newly involved?

The issue is that there is no democratic accountability or firm grassroot involvement, and that it is basically a group that will further what Mark Littlewood decides to push. That kind of organisation is not an acceptable part of any internal democracy.

Tinter,

Just to try and develop my defence of LV’s internal democracy a bit more.

Do you consider, say, Centre Forum is “not an acceptable part of any internal democracy”? They have a pretty wide policy platform too.

I’m not sure that you’re right that LV will “further what Mark Littlewood decides to push”. In practice, I’m hugely reliant on numerous others to get anything done.

But even if I do have a pretty big say in LV’s actions (which I do), so what?

Presumably, you think that a federal rep can – as an individual – stand up at conference and argue their case.

Is it also okay for this rep to work with someone else to draft an amendment or help write their conference speech? Or to work with others to design and hand out leaflets to promote this speech/amendment? Or to run a fringe meeting to discuss the content of the speech or amendment? When do they have to start holding elections for the position of “leaflet designer”, “speech writer”, “events organiser” etc?

This is all LV is doing. When are we under some obligation to stop being an informal bunch of like-minded people who meet down the pub and work together and instead all submit ourselves to some formal LV AGM?

This is the wikipedia definition of ginger group:

“A ginger group is a group within, for example, a political party seeking to inspire the rest with its own enthusiasm and activity.

A ginger group is a formal or informal grouping of people within a larger organisation that actively works for more radical change to the policies, practices or office-holders of the organisation, while still supporting the goals of the organisation.”

Seems to sum up LV perfectly, so that’s the definition I’m sticking to!

There’s nothing “shadowy” about the relationship with PV, it’s in black and white on the website! We’re a subsidiary of PV, but under no obligation to agree with specific PV policies. We do support the PV preamble/mission statement though, which you can read on PV’s website.

Darrell,

The definition of ginger group explicitly includes formal or informal groups. Maybe you misread the previous post.

It seems plain that you have virtually no grasp of how LV actually works.

Informal groups can have members and leadership.

LV doesn’t have any staff.

Is the distinction you’re trying to draw that if we charge a membership fee then we need to hold elections for “events manager”, “chair” etc? But if not, we don’t?

I’d say LV is basically an informal group, on balance (it has no constitution or statutes and operates on informally arrived at consensus amongst its active supporters). But I don’t much mind which.

Interns or staff? I don’t see the point you’re making. Interns are volunteers. If we had more money, we’d probably recruit staff. That would make us more effective, but wouldn’t fundamentally change anything about our aims and purposes really.

We are NOT open to any non-LibDems, but (just like any other group), we don’t have 100% security. Anyone found not to be a LibDem member or supporter will be immediately expelled. That’s about as “internal” as we – or anyone else – can really make it. We’re also insulated against infiltration because we aren’t democratic. If a bunch of Nazis or communists secretly sign up, they won’t have any power anyway.

I suppose we do some work “outside of the organisation” in the strictly limited sense of the word. E.g. if I appear on Radio 5, then I suppose I’m working with the BBC. But the definition of ginger group can’t possibly be intended to exclude organisations who ever appear on the media or ever talk to or engage with non-party people or organisations. The definition is about purpose. Our purpose is to change the LibDems.

By the way, you undermine your own rather pedantic case for the word “faction” as this clearly implies and involves being internal or a subset of a wider group.

I don’t agree that internal democracy is a necessary requirement of membership. Its clear what terms people are joining LV on. If they don’t like them, they don’t have to give us £20.

Having an independent and unaccountable structure (which we do) is nothing to do with being factional. As I say, you’d have to credit endless organisations as being factions on the basis of your (shifting) definition. CentreForum certainly fits the bill, would you agree? It even has staff! (although why you consider this relevant is utterly beyond me).

Some of your language is truly odd. “You even admit you’d have your own staff if you could afford it”. Err, yes. What sort of smoking gun is that? Having staff is an aspiration (not a very realistic one at present) – not an “admission”

The reason I reject the term “faction” is its negative connotations – which according to wikipedia means a group “with opprobrious sense, conveying the imputation of selfish or mischievous ends or turbulent or unscrupulous methods….In plain English this is a group that pursues self interest at the expense of the common good.”.

Ginger group is a more objective term, which I suspect is why you wish to avoid using it.

Also, we do not “openly invite anyone to join”. Where on Earth did you get that from?

Quite the opposite is true. We say you must be a LibDem member or supporter and, if the latter, we’d encourage you to become a full member of the party. Same deal that the party itself offers on the official website.

I don’t know why you’re so concerned about infiltration of LV from UKLP or the Liberal Party. Such people could probably join the LibDems too without anyone noticing. Why they would want to join LV is beyond me though. They don’t get any membership rights within LV, so they would just be giving cash to an organisation that is opposed to the parties they support. As I say, though, if it came to light that any LV member or supporter was not a LibDem, they’d be expelled on the spot.

Some major differences with Militant. Their tactics were, by recollection, horrifically dubious (threats of violence, financial corruption, dubious funding sources from enemy states etc). LV just won’t operate in this fashion.

It was also open to question whether they agreed with Labour’s core principles, whereas LV supports the LibDem statement of beliefs. They were expelled when Labour decided Militant was not philosophically compatible with Labour. Nick Clegg has said that libertarians are welcome in the LibDems, and LV isn’t even libertarian in any literal sense.

Why compare us to Militant? Why not compare us to the Conservative Group for Europe? LibDem CND? The Tory Reform Group? CentreForum etc?

Again, it smacks of just trying to imply negative or dubious motives on our part without any evidence. You want to be able to say “Liberal Vision is a faction that is like Militant Tendency” not because this is an accurate or balanced way to describe us, but because it casts us in a bad light.

It’s ridiculous. It’s like a senior Tory trying to get Nick Clegg to admit that the Liberal Democrats are “a small party with no chance of winning the next election”. And then accusing Nick of being deceitful or disingenuous if he doesn’t agree to sign up to these form of words.

Why not just say “I disagree with Liberal Vision. I don’t like their ideas for the party. But just like loads of ginger groups in loads of parties, they have the right to argue for them.”

We can then spend our time discussing the big issues of substance rather than these ridiculous semantic points.

Your definition of faction does not match that of the Oxford English dictionary.

As I said, the reason I reject the term is because the OED says the term implies acting “with opprobrious sense, conveying the imputation of selfish or mischievous ends or turbulent or unscrupulous methods”.

I didn’t use the term “cute and cuddly” to describe LV. I don’t think we’re either (certainly hope not!)

the first sentence of your second paragraph doesn’t make sense. So I can’t respond to it.

I reject the accusation of pretense. It’s all very up front and there for all to see.

Amongst your litany of accusations is that we are obviously “secret” because we don’t accept we’re a “faction”. Bizarre.

Do you think Centre Forum is “faction”?

Mark,

Changed from Wiki to the OED now. I used the term cute n cuddly to describe why you choose ‘ginger group’ over faction – because it sounds better and therefore presents your politics in a more palatable light.

In answer to your specific question I would say no; Centre Forum actually is a think-tank. It doesnt have as its stated aim the achivement of power in or shaping the direction of a specific party does it.

Mark,

I havent got time this morning to write the lengthy reply that your response deserves (job interview) but I will say two things; I am not the only Lib Dem who has concerns about LV and feels like I do that you organise as a factional platform, that much is quite clear from responses on here and on my blog. Furthermore when has Centre Forum stood it’s own candidates for a prominent party position like President??

Also, the other issue is progressive vision. It should be obvious that claims of entryism were bound to occur. You have a group that advocates to multiple parties. Then you start a, lets go with organised internal group, in one of those parties with a membership restriction to that party.

It should be no suprise that people might think PV could be used to attract people from other parties to LV. Personally this does not especially panic me since I don’t really see it happening in significant numbers. Also, if they became sincerly committed to LD’s thats fine, if they don’t then we have processes to be rid of them. Though if those objectivist types that hang around UKIP joined I cannot say I would be thrilled!

So once again not a personal problem Mark, but it is slightly worrying and you should not be suprised you are reciving this criticism.

They have become a meritocracy and meritocracy is the antithesis of liberalism.

Tinter – I just don’t know where your view that “factions” are fine but must be democratic comes from. I don’t accept that the title applies to LV, but even if I did, it is a very idiosyncratic political theory to insist upon internal democracy on the part of some groups but not others.

Highly expensive, big business-financed, lobbying efforts are made to influence party policies. Why be so relaxed by the lack of democracy here, but so insistent that LV or LibDem CND need to have elections? It smacks of pedantry.

My point about the comparison with Centre Forum was to show how the goalposts seem to have been shifting so much with regard to the criticisms of LV (I’m amalgamating the criticisms, there so much on the web about all this, that I can’t individualise every reply). First, it’s that we’re secret. Then that we’re a faction. Then that we don’t admit we’re a faction. Then that we don’t hold internal elections. Then that we have a “shadowy” relationship with PV. Then that PV includes people who aren’t Liberal Democrats. And so it goes on.

Darrell’s last response was “aaahh…but CF is a charity and they haven’t run candidates in internal elections” (although Paul Marshall has run for the peers panel once, if not twice I believe…more power to his elbow, I say).

This can’t constitute a serious distinction.

Of course, every group is in some way unique, but these are just not meaningful distinctions.

Affiliation to a cross-party group is also an irrelevance too (the Liberal Democrat European Group is/was affiliated to the European Movement, who had an active Conservative as its full-time Director).

I am waiting for the next argument to be that CF is a “centre” whereas LV is putting forward a “vision” or something equally bizarre. Or that Centre Forum has the letter “C” in its name, whereas LV doesn’t.

There are all sorts of oddities about Tinter’s insistence on internal democracy. Where does it start and end? Could LV’s members elect me chairman for life? Or do the elections need to be annual? What would the procedures be for a vote of no confidence? How often does the committee need to meet? What happens if a decision needs to be made between meetings? Who decides e.g. the title of the next LV fringe meeting or the content of its next leaflet? The chair? The committee? Or a one-member-one-vote decision by all the members?

I can only conclude that there is some off-the-peg constitutional structure that you think should be adopted by all such groups. That’s a very strange position indeed.

But I think we need to get away from the view that legitimate authority and political activity is predicated on an election involving those that donate money to a particular group.

No one is obliged to support or join Liberal Vision. No one has to come to any of our meetings. No one has to read any of our leaflets or listen to any of our arguments. No media outlet is under any obligation to give us any coverage whatsoever.

I think these are the things that mean we are essentially tested “meritocratically”. In some ways, our biggest failure would to be ignored. We seem to have avoided falling at that hurdle, at least!

I stick to my view that it is deeply odd – and not remotely intellectually justifiable – to believe that all internal groups should run as democracies.

It’s up to them.

There are dining clubs exclusively for LibDems for heaven’s sake, do these need democratic elections? Perhaps have their seating plan determined by an STV ballot of all members?

The reason I ask for the precise rules you prescribe, is it truly strange to pronounce on what sort of structures privately run organisations should have (other than that they must act within the law, of course). Given you are suggesting an obligation on LV’s part to adopt a particular form of behaviour, it is reasonable to ask precisely what this form of behaviour is.

You don’t argue WHY we should be democratic, just that we should be. And your final sentence implies that an organisation cannot have merit unless it signs up to your code.

Nor is it remotely clear why this applies to internal groups alone. Is it right that if LV had a token member who wasn’t a paid-up LibDem, we shouldn’t be bound by your strictures?

The strangest thing is that getting Liberal Vision’s present membership voting for me to have untrammelled internal power for – say – a five year or ten year term of office would suddenly assuage all your concerns.

Truly odd. Especially as you don’t believe in any sanction (apart from your own personal disapproval).

I know of no coherent political theory – or indeed practice – upon which your opinions could possibly be based.

The answer to your first question about dining clubs is – in at least one case, YES and YES.

But the oddity of your position is that you attach some sort of special treatment to groups which both (a) seek to influence party policy AND (b) have members.

I’m afraid you still haven’t really mustered anything that amounts to an argument here.

For example, are groups that seek to promote the long-term or short-term position of particular people also subject to internal democracy? E.g. the “I’m4Ros” campaign? Or a grouping that aids and assists a particular MP in an attempt to help them become leader at a future date? What about groups that might seek to alter the party’s rules and procedures rather than its policy?

Your case doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny at all. It’s just a personal peccadillo or idiosyncracy. There’s no problem with this as such – it just means that what you argue for is about as coherent and relevant as saying that you think internal groups should hand out A4 rather than A5 leaflets or should use brighter colours in their logos.

The world doesn’t split into the sort of neat pigeon holes that you seem to believe exist (or want to exist).

There just aren’t crystal clear distinctions between “formal” and “informal” groups, those that have “members” and those that don’t, those that allow non-LibDem members and don’t, those that wish to “influence” policy and don’t. Things are much, much greyer, fuzzier and patchier than this in the real world.

So, what you say isn’t so much controversial as just plain weird.

You could, I suppose draw up a lengthy list of arbitrary criteria, which by some (un)remarkable coincidence, defines Liberal Vision as requiring “internal democracy” but NOT e.g. Centre Forum, Liberal CND, Green LibDems, Unlock Democracy, the European Movement, the Liberator Collective, the Im4Ros campaign etc. But it would be a pointless and petty exercise.

The incoherence of your case becomes plain when you say:

“I have already discussed why they should be democratic. Factions are useful where they reflect the membership and are led by it; where they provide an addition to the internal structures of the party. That is, that they can make clearer divisions and help members engage in substantive policy issues. I don’t think that will occur unless the factions have an internal democracy and debate; just as it can only occur in the party so long as there is internal democracy and debate there. Is this such a controversial point to you?”

Putting aside my insistence on defining LV as an internal group, the case you put here involves numerous enormous leaps of faith and/or logic.

It isn’t obvious what you mean by “reflecting” the membership. Does a group of more than two people getting together to do something “reflect” the membership?

Why do they need to be “led” by the membership and what does this mean? (actually, a lot of the more interesting internal debates are triggered by outside forces – e.g. the media or – in the last 24 hours or so – by Policy Exchange’s interaction with Nick Clegg).

They are useful if they are “additions to the internal structures”. But that doesn’t imply democracy. Internal magazines, web forums etc would also fit this category.

You then just assert that you “don’t think” this will apply unless the groups are democratic, but again don’t really say why.

You may well be confusing the party’s own internal democracy with those groups and people who are simply contributing to the internal party debate.

One very good reason why groups like LV specifically don’t need to be democratic is because the party is.

By way of analogy, the same applies to the wider political system. I’m not overly bothered about whether, say, the Conservative Party is internally democratic – I’m more interested in the democratic processes it needs to submit itself to.

A good example – of another internal LD matter – would be the leaflet handed out at Bournemouth arguing for and supporting the Harris-Holmes amendment on taxation. I disagree with its contents, but I couldn’t give a fig whether it was written or printed “democratically” or “non-democratically” or by a “democratic” or “non-democratic” faction. I don’t even care if it was written and distributed by non-LibDems. It’s a contribution to debate. Take it or leave it.

You seem much more concerned about form than about substance. And when asked to spell out the precise form of rules that you think groups such as LV should adopt, you become remarkably vague. Elections need to be “reasonably” often because “that’s the whole point”. And “electing a dictator…isn’t great but would be an improvement”.

You are so confused and vague at this point that it is almost impossible to work out what you do think – if anything. I can only derive that you want all internal groups to be as democratic as possible? Elections twice a year are okay, once a year pretty good, every six months better still?

I think you might also be unclear in your own mind about an efficient and wise way to run an internal group, on the one hand, and what moral/legal obligations such groups should be under regarding their structure, on the other.

If I don’t listen to or engage or involve Liberal Vision members….If I don’t devolve tasks and responsibilities… If I pig-headedly out-trump any idea put forward by any other LV member…then I’m probably not running the group very effectively. It MIGHT be that in some circumstances, internal democracy is the most “efficient” way to run a group and get the most out of it. But that’s a tactical, managerial consideration, not a “should”.