This blog is closed and has moved to http://Charlottegore.com. See you there!
I now break my silence on the Lib Dem Presidential Election.I can appreciate that Ros is the solid, sensible choice here. I can. She's worked very hard to win the Presidency (I do not remember a time when I did not see 'I'm 4 Ros' buttons on every other Lib Dem blog) .
But, I am sad to say that despite the recommendation of twinkle toes and the entire Lib Dem blogosphere, I'm not wholeheartedly 4 Ros, no matter how much I like her as a person. I hope she beats Lembit, but at the same time I'm not convinced that anyone outside the inner party machine will notice a difference between her time in charge and Simon's before her.
Then there's Lembit. Christ. Lembit's pitch appears to be, "with a better official title, I can get more air time, and people like me, so.. yes. Primary colours!" Essentially it is about promoting our party's answer to Boris Johnson (which may or may not be an insult) to somewhere he can act as a legitimate spokesperson for the party.
I'm distinctly unimpressed.
Then there's Chandila Fernando, who's been getting up blogger's noses for various policies he has, and these strange things called, 'ideas' and bizarrely all these strange opinions on our party and things it needs to do to improve. He comes from the world of 'business' and is interested in 'marketing' and 'communications' He says things like 'our image is tired and dated'. Cripes. This guy makes me look like I have both sandals and a beard. He's a complete nightmare, going against the cuddly riso-graph world of Focus leaflets and endearing amaturishness.
So, of course, being the habitual pain in the arse that I am, I'm chuffed to bits he's standing. The man appears to be fearless, willing to go against party convention and that I respect.
It is extremely unlikely that Chandila can win this election but he has managed to get an email sent out to every single member telling them that we, the party, need to sort ourselves out and he's right. We can and must do better if we want to survive The Great Squeeze that is coming.
If nothing else he should have opened member's minds to what is possible in this role, and how we should demand MORE of these official position holders.
It would be a shame to dismiss his ideas just because we want someone else to win, or because he was late putting up his website.
I feel like, with my opinions and beliefs, my chances of winning any popularity contests amongst Lib Dem activists and bloggers are... low. So, perhaps this is why I have a soft spot for the 'underdog' here. To see someone like Chandila stick their neck on the block, to not simply hide in the shadows and feel ashamed of holding often challenging opinions... well this gives me hope for the future of our party, and my future within it.
This blog is closed and has moved to http://Charlottegore.com. See you there!
Posts
4 comments:
I am glad he is standing but he's getting trashed because his ideas are flawed and wrong so why we should endear him to us just because he is gutsy is beyond me...
If the ideas were good, actually showed some sign of being in the right direction then hey he'd have my vote but err they arent so he wont...
At least he's getting certain issues out there.
granted which I give him due credit for....the problem with his ideas are what you see as his assets...maybe yes it is shaking up ameuteurishness but replacing it with facile talk of 'sexing things up' isnt the way to go....there isnt an awful amount of politics there and is far too much 'marketing'...
he wants to take the party away from its members as well which i dont agree with....
I made this point in other comments but I'll repeat it here.
The destination is determined by the route got there.
On this I think Chandila is mistaken in believing the job of the President is in contributing to the policy direction of the party, rather than in facilitating communication between all the different opinions.
However, that said, I also think his participation in the election has enlivened the debate about the proper role of our president and is making an invaluable contribution to the election process by ensuring a real choice in offered (contrast with what happened after Ming's or Brown's coronations).
Chandila's policy-based platform is top-down in method, and yet, while some of these ideas could do us much good, because he would be led into attempts to impose his preferred outcomes I think this would prove counterproductive as it contravenes my firm belief that the way you mix the cake changes the way it bakes.
If he were to stand for one of the committees I would vote for him, but as he is standing for president I cannot.
I can't stress this point about outcomes enough. While I may agree with either of you about what you say, I still reserve the right to disagree with it until the death or we have reached a satisfactory synthesis of our ideas (whichever comes first).
Post a Comment