I’ve been hard on Nick Clegg on this blog, mainly because I’ve struggled to find anything of substance that he has said or written during this campaign.
Thankfully, I now find myself in the position of endorsing something he has called for. To wit:
‘My approach isn’t about women-only shortlists or about A-lists. It isn’t about imposing candidates on local parties or picking winners. My approach is about nurturing talent. I will set up a Liberal Democrat academy to support, train and encourage candidates and aspiring candidates at all levels.
‘I will personally devote my time and energy to raising substantially more money for our diversity fund and will extend its scope.
‘But I believe this is our last chance to do it the purely liberal way, without any positive discrimination written into the rules. If, in two General Elections’ time, we have not sorted this out once and for all, we will have no choice but to consider positive discrimination. I want to discuss with other party leaders the possibility of allowing positive discrimination in the future.’
It remains to be seen how exactly this academy will be funded or will operate, but to an extent that is beside the point. Clegg is not only suggesting a positive way forward, he’s locking himself into a process that would result in the party adopting positive discrimination if we fail to meet our own targets.
Finally. Something of substance that isn’t merely flattering internal party prejudices. I agree with him; diversity is important enough of an issue for us to be prepared to adopt positive discrimination if all else fails. We can’t keep bucking the issue. But that does mean doing all that we can to make our preferred alternatives work in the first place. And that means cash – significantly more than we’ve been prepared to spend on diversity thus far – every penny of which the Campaigns Department will argue would be better spent on target seats (I know – I’ve sat in those negotiations). Both Kennedy and Campbell always liked to say what an important issue this is, but given the choice between diversity and defying Lord Rennard, they consistently chose the path of least resistance. In Campbell’s case last autumn, that meant a significant cut in the already underfunded Campaign for Gender Balance grant – the one part of the party’s diversity strategy that has a proven track record.
So it is odd that he chooses to end this piece with a quote from the current Party President – a man who has always talked the talk on this issue but repeatedly buckled under pressure. We must fervently hope and pray that Clegg doesn’t choose him to be the person to head up this academy project idea; otherwise we are all but guaranteed all BME shortlists in 6-7 years time.
Is that the best Clegg has got? I have been bitterly disappointed with both candidates’ reluctance to set out a clear direction for the Lib Dems in terms of a policy agenda. The leadership contest is giving the Lib Dems some much-needed press coverage but they’re not using it very well.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
Yes this is a good initiative – and as a Huhne supporter I hope that whoever the winner is carries through something like this.
I have been thinking about a ‘Liberal College’ for some time in a more general sense – maybe we could draw on the great expertise in the Party to produce and present radical new material. In my small way (as an ex-Open University lecturer) I may have some ideas – what about you?
Well, I would certainly hope that an academy/college would eventually be far wider than just candidates, but you have to start somewhere. It is entirely in line with my Community Politics essay which I posted last week (a point on which new Clogger David Boyle might want to comment on since I was effectively endorsing his view).