Paul: I’m sorry that was your first experience. I would say that some of the conferences in recent years sound far worse than anything we ever had during my time. The reason, for example, we introduced a rule that constitutional amendments would have to go through two consecutive conferences was to discourage people from submitting constitutional amendments (some people seemed - and continue - to consider it their personal role in life to submit vast swathes of amendments every six months). We did, I admit, never envisage anyone would be mad enough to try and hold two conferences over a single weekend in order to get around that rule.

But ultimately, ALL conferences are bad first experiences because generally conferences of youth organisations are awful, cliquey, factional, petty things. I’m not aware of a single exception to that rule. My first LDYS conference - which involved Phil Jones (now Taylor - who you may have seen embroiled in the Peter Hain funding row) trying to win the election for Chair just so he could defect to the Labour Party in as high profile and as damaging a way to the party as possible - was particularly fraught. My experience then, and since, is that the “trendies” were just as guilty of making the event an unwelcoming place as those unhip souls who thought that working to agreed sets of rules and taking things seriously was important.

I can guarantee that Liberal Youth will continue to have tiresome debates at its conferences - that’s youth politics for you. The trick is not to keep trying to reform them (although I still think you only need one a year - you can have another weekend for doing other things - and a recognition of the limits of the organisation’s ability to do policy would be nice) but to provide better jumping on points. That was the thinking behind Activate, the Involve “open days” we set up and Westminster Day (to a lesser extent). It was the thinking behind the Liberal Youth launch on Tuesday.

Andy: say what you like about me, but please stop trying to perpetuate this lie that I am criticising Liberal Youth or the launch event on Tuesday. I’m not. I don’t see what is wrong with highlighting what has gone wrong in the past and urging them not to repeat those mistakes. Just because my analysis differs from yours it doesn’t make it any less valid.

The newly relaunched organisation strikes me as engaging, fun and outward-looking. Whether or not that contrasts or compares favourably with any year of LDYS is not something I can comment on. All I can say is I’ve had many positive experiences engaging with the people involved, as I hope have you.

My first LDYS conference was like a duller, more austere version of James Joyce’s schooldays. I do hope no future members have a similar experience.

Whoever the new chair is I suggest go for a drink/food with a few people tell em your ideas and see what they think. Never did me any harm, in fact I even made some pretty good friends out of it. James and Andy included, tho I’ve always thought it would be so much more fun if I armed you both with some sort of weaponary before you starting arguing.

Well, no, because, you’re quite right. That was “Bah, damn, you’re quite right.” Steady on, old bean.

But on the matter of making the organisation more social rather than campaign oriented? It’s the biggest single quandary a political youth wing has and they are doomed to always get the balance wrong to some degree. If the organisation isn’t “fun” no one will get involved. But if the organisation isn’t campaigning (and that doesn’t mean campaigning for the party necessarily - much of the campaigning we did in the late nineties was focused on campaigning within the party) then there is no point to it.

Alix: I have to admit I did think of you when I typed that (not that I was referring to you - you weren’t in LDYS). We’re just going to have to agree to disagree here. The bottom line is though that female participation has dropped in LDYS to a staggering degree over the last decade and that can’t be healthy.

Andy: Okay, I have to admit you hit a raw nerve. My two years as LDYS Communications Officer was both the best and worst time of my life. Low pay (below minimum wage if you consider I regularly clocked 60-70 hour weeks and didn’t take TOIL), zero on the job training, even less appreciation (spending the last nine months of my job awaiting a disciplinary hearing on trumped up charges because the then-President couldn’t be arsed to carry out his responsibilities was not fun), and after all that I’m being labelled as a poster child for what was wrong with the organisation. I’ll happily admit to making mistakes but it was a tough gig and I think I just about kept the ball rolling.

And who am I getting this shit from? Someone who, at the time that I was actively involved in LDYS, was spending his time doing the hokey-kokey within the Conservative Party and thus, frankly, has absolutely no idea or firsthand experience about what he is talking about. You never set foot in a conference I organised - fact. I know we have our disagreements but that was a low blow, even by your standards.

I tried my hand at snarkiness and failed miserably, so perhaps a simple “fuck you” will suffice?

It has to be said that LDYS always did best when it had a good, well-organised branch structure. With the biggest (and, indeed, the only) party group on Reading University campus, and I have to say a group way bigger than when you and I were involved, we reckon here that we’re doing our bit.

It has to be said that active student branches were probably easier when students had more time to be active and less time spent offsetting their debts. Organising a movement is hard work. That’s why the Westminster Day-type events were always well worth doing, as well as the kind of events like Tuesday. (Sorry I wasn’t there, was busy campaigning)

But also the branches need to have connection with the centre. I’m not sure that LDYS conferences in recent years, which seem pretty similar to those I organised and turned up to, are the best attraction. Talking to members, not just male ones, is a good start to find out what people want, and how to make it more representative.

I reckon I came close towards both Andy’s and your nemeses………. In truth both are needed, as well as people being interested and engaged in the whole of party politics, for Liberal youth (and Liberal Youth) to make the maximum impact.