Notwithstanding Peter Black's optimism over the Priti Patel affair, the evidence is that codes of conduct have proved not to be as effective as their authors believe. The ministerial code did not deter Patel, nor her leader before her when Johnson resumed writing for the Daily Telegraph without informing the parliamentary watchdog as he should have done.
Codes of conduct can range from the unexceptionable to the all-embracing, even oppressive. However strong they appear to be, there must be cast-iron sanctions for breaching them if they are to be taken seriously. The record of the Johnson government shows that the current ministerial code is about as strong as a pair of paper knickers.
Dismissal is an effective sanction in business. However, if the company's code of conduct is not carefully and reasonably framed, the employer could end up in court or in front of an employment tribunal. Besides, the employer him- or herself must be sure that they have not breached the code!
Codes of conduct promulgated by voluntary organisations are a different matter. One such is that insisted on by the Welsh Liberal Democrats from all their candidates in national elections. There is practically no remedy at law in the event of a dispute between whoever controls the state party and a candidate whom they deem to have transgressed, because, once elected, there is nothing the party can do to stop the new member from serving out their term and therefore there is no immediate financial penalty.
There is, though, at its basest level, the threat of deselection and thus the loss of party backing at the next election. More important in my opinion is the threat of expulsion from the only party whose stated aims match ones own, and from the Liberal Democrat family. All this at the whim of the "state party" (that is, whoever holds executive power in the Welsh Liberal Democrats - in this case - at the time).
I hold the old-fashioned view that the existing approval process, involving face-to-face assessments, is strong enough to make a firm judgment on a candidate's character. Thereafter, he or she should be trusted to conduct themselves appropriately. If I wanted to be a compliant unquestioning cog in a centrally-directed machine, I would have joined the Labour party.
As framed, the code of conduct gives too much scope to the executive to change policy and punish those who do not swing with them. Younger members who I have discussed this with are comfortable with it, seeing it as unexceptionable. I take comfort from the fact that my disquiet is shared by an eminent Liberal who is a strong proponent of the party's ethos of individual liberty. To be sure, there are many "mam and cawl" clauses which one cannot object to - but why is there a need to sign up to them specifically? And surely clause 13, "You must not bring, or risk bringing, the Party into disrepute" is already covered by not only clauses 1 and 2 but ones very membership of the party?
There are more dubious clauses. For instance, "You must give consent to and provide the details necessary for the Party to undertake (or to authorise an approved third party to undertake) an audit of your social media profile when requested." Would you give the keys of your house or car to a stranger? I have a good idea of how far my personal details will go if I share them with those people I know and respect within the local party and region, but what about the people at HQ? There is an even greater risk of data insecurity at election time when young and inexperienced people are drafted in to help.
"You must abide by the Party’s internal selection and election rules, and by any other Code of Conduct that has been signed up to by the Party." Does this bind the candidate to any future changes willy-nilly? The clause is ambiguous.
"If asked by your state party, you must complete a post-election review after each general election, whether or not you stood as a candidate." Unnecessary bureaucracy.
"If asked by your state party, you must agree a Candidate Compact with the local party (or parties) within three months of being selected as the prospective parliamentary candidate for a seat." More bureaucracy, involving not only the candidate but also the local party which could well do without the extra form-filling.
" If elected, and if asked by your state party, you must make a reasonable contribution towards ongoing party activity, which will include a financial element [...]" A system of tithing has been mandated by a Liberal Democrat conference in the past, but was widely ignored. It was, though, fairer in specifying a proportion of an elected person's earnings rather than the ambiguous "reasonable contribution". One man's reasonable amount is another's unbearable imposition. I was happy to give monthly a proportion of my councillor's allowance to the local party, but I am a single man with no longer any family commitments. It would be different for an individual with a young family and a partner who might have to give up a job because of the increased demands on the other's time - or an individual caring for a dependent relative.
"You must appoint an election agent who has been trained and certified by the Party, provided that a suitable person is available and willing to undertake the role." The point has been made that electoral law is changing at an increasing pace and that it is therefore necessary to have a certified trained person in the role. However, there is no substitute for experience and I would rather have an experienced agent who satisfies me that he (or she) has kept up to date with the legal requirements than someone who is merely fresh off a training course. Besides, the clause as worded impies that if no trained agent is available then the candidate must be their own agent, which all the agents manuals I have seen down the years warn against.
One of those fellow-members I discussed the code with advised that it was unenforceable and therefore I should sign it and not worry too much about its proviions. But it goes against the grain to promise something with no intention of fulfilling the promise when it came to the point. We have had a party leader who did that and much harm came to the Lib Dem cause as a result. That raises a question: Nick Clegg and company would have in coalition failed the provisions of the proposed code of conduct and not just over student fees. Would the English party have taken action?
So my future as a parliamentary candidate is in doubt, but as the code does not apply to local elections I propose to put my hat in the ring as a councillor again.
jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjHjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
No comments:
Post a Comment