But I can’t get away from the structures being imprisoning rather than facilitating. We actually tend to elect figureheads rather than empower people. The Leader of the party, for example, doesn’t appear to ahve much formal power at all (although clearly has oodles of soft and “moral” power).

You might be right about bypassing the party entirely being a smart route to get things done. The problem is that in my case (and yours too, I guess), I wouldn’t just be “open” to the “charge of wanting to pull the party in on direction”, it would be a completely true charge. ….

The problem is, anyone setting something like that up would be open to the charge of wanting to pull the party in one direction or another. A Mark Littlewood-run group would be very different from a James Graham-run group, certainly. I think the solution is not one group but several, and a bit of creative competition.

I think we - and indeed Bones - agree that we need to do more in terms of developing relationships with our supporters (even if I see that as a way of recruiting more members and you want a common category of “registered supporter”). The fundamental issue is why this hasn’t happened, since the party has periodically agreed this would be a Good Thing for a decade now. And yes, I accept that software isn’t the only issue (even if a lack of the right software is stopping us from getting started). From my perspective as a former FE member, the fundamental reason is that the party at the top is allergic to progress chasing and does everything it can to avoid being forced to implement agreed business plans. The truly disappointing aspect about Bones is that it doesn’t get this, instead blaming the whole problem on the FE trying to micro-manage (if only!). The COG isn’t going to solve this I’m afraid, quite the opposite I suspect.

On the software package stuff:

I think the point is that the problem at present is really one of structure and prioritisation. You can register as a supporter on the party website, but you’re not really driven to it. The “let’s knock on a million doors” campaign is not geared to getting people to sign up as registered supporters, just to listening to the electorate. I think our PPBs still tend to sign off with a request to join the party rather than register as a supporter. There’s also no real quid pro quo. What you get more being a supporter is some email spam, basically. We should build in a consultative role as soon as possible (this wouldn’t need any constitutional change as far as I know). Obviously, the databse package is important - and coudl be where the whole scheme falls over - but a crucially important thing is the salience accorded the project, how the federal party works with local parties, what the “offer” is to those intending to become supporters.

I don’t think this falls into the “something must be done” trap, it is an outline of how we should change our terms of engagement. I also don’t think we should be scared of experimenting in some areas (I’m not sure the Tory open primaries worked, but I was impressed that they tried). The fall of in membership is so sharp that searching for a solution - although not any solution - is understandable, indeed vital.

You raise the costs issue, and that’s why such a system would need to be trialled. There are costs of mailing people who have yet to give us money - but potentially direct financial (as well as other) benefits too. NO2ID, for example, is rolling this out. And keeping a check on which postcodes yield most return etc (although entrirely for reasons of fund-raising not for reasons of enfranchisement).

All I can give you is impressions, not least based on your own version of events (on which note, it will be available in all good bookshops in time for Christmas!), but I certainly think that more work should have been done in developing support within the grassroots of both Labour and the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems in particular, where walking away from democratic renewal at the time. Chris Rennard had had his victory and was determined to get the party to drop its theme about “sorting out the mess in politics” (ironically this is the only slogan I can remember from the 1997 Lib Dem campaign). Ashdown was obsessed with his tea-and-crumpets with Blair approach. Kennedy after him was shy of the debate at all. Meanwhile, the only organisation within the Lib Dems arguing for any of Charter’s agenda was DAGGER, which increasingly became dominated by STV fundamentalists who were (and are) disinterested in generating enthusiasm for democratic reform within the party. If Charter had looked towards supporting a better resourced campaign within the Lib Dems (and Labour) you might have found the trend towards dropping the idea from the party’s core themes would have had greater resistence.

From a democratic reformer’s perspective, the Lib Dem’s 2001 manifesto was weak and while the 2005 manifesto was stronger, it got essentially dumped in favour of the appalling “ten point plan” devised by the Campaigns Department a couple of months before the election. That plan contained nothing on democratic reform; worse it contained no analysis about how the Iraq invasion was allowed to happen and how such a travesty should never be allowed to happen again (the best we could do is point out we voted against the war - not good enough).

I am one of those awkward buggers who believes that the Lib Dem’s 2005 election campaign was an enormous wasted opportunity that we have been paying for ever since. I know that puts in a minority amongst the Kennedy hagiographers. But, and again with the benefit of hindsight, it was the pro-democratic reform movement’s failure too as it failed to ensure that the one party in a position to talk about reform immediately after the Iraq war was instead putting all its faith in the idea that people will vote Lib Dem because Kennedy looks like a good bloke to share a pint with.

It would also be nice for the pro-democracy movement within Labour to have something to say these days other than vague speculation about the likelihood of Gordon Brown sneaking AV onto the statute books in secret.

I’ll keep out of the main one and not be drawn into giving the Lib Dems advice despite your generous invitation Mark.

On Charter 88 I was a distant member of the Executive in 1997 keeping out of things. There was an honourable policy of making it a priority to influence the Labour government who were planning Scottish, Welsh and London legislation as well as the Human Rights Act. But the Blair team did not want to be influenced by Charter 88! A defeat took place.

I can see now that a switch to a membership organisation, looking away from the a focus on the government towards a focus on supporters, would have been a way of consolidating what had been achieved. However, the question remains what would have been the strategy? The organisation’s method should have been different but means are also governed by ends - they relate to each other. It would have meant saying to local groups and individuals, “Become a member of Charter 88 in order to…. for X years until…. “. I am genuinely interested in the answer.

I’m not a software expert, but this really, really, really and truly isn’t the main problem!

Three “reallys” - you must be right then. Is it too much to ask why?

I’m not denying there may well be an attitudinal problem somewhere, but it is one of the main problems identified in Bones. It was also one of the main problems identified in the 1998 strategic review. Buying the right software is a major headache, organisations often buy the wrong package and then spend years trying to make it work to justify the expense. It certainly seems to be case here, based on talking to membership officers and Cowley Street staff.

Sadly, until you have the right package in place a lot of staff time and energy is spent running just to stand still. Even if Fernando got his way and the party agreed to abandon the membership model, it would still be one of the biggest obstacles he would face. You aren’t telling me why I’m wrong, just implying I must be a fool for saying so. That’s framing, not rebuttal.

Unfortunately, you then run into a whole load of misfired rebuttals. The “How liberal are the LibDems” list is NOT a purity list. It is explicitly and honestly not that.

I thought you didn’t like me laying into Liberal Vision documents? Don’t tempt me.

You also said: “You are simply wrong to imagine that the ask for a political party should be easier than it is for a pressure group.” When did I say this? What tosh.

Erm, you wrote: “For groups like NO2ID or Charter 88 or Liberty, it’s hard to frame the “ask” (other than “give us cash, we kick ass”). But for political parties, it should be much easier.”

Sorry Mark, but if you’re going to accuse me of misrepresenting you, you’re going to have to do a lot better than that. I was barely paraphrasing.

You also said: “In terms of political parties squaring the circle of being able to communicate with supporters regardless of whether they pay their way or not, the only solution that would take a massive chunk out of the campaigns budget would be state funding.”

But - thnakfully - you’re probably wrong too. I think that a supporters’ database would subsidise campaigning work, not soak cash from it. And that would be a crucial test of its success.

I don’t think you’re even bothering to write what I say now. I have not and never will argue against having a supporters network - indeed I have repeatedly argued for the exact opposite - merely that it should complement not replace membership. And yes indeed, a supporters network would pay for itself, but only if things like direct mail are based on targeting people likely to pay up rather than simply to everyone who gives us permission to contact them. The formula is different for email, but then so is the response rate (dramatically so). Sending out 100,000 emails is not the same thing as engaging with 100,000. If you want to do the latter in a meaningful way, it costs money.

God, it is hugely depressing to hear one of the nation’s leading democracy campaigners defend the status quo and rattle off a list of reasons as to why things can’t be done.

Ooh, who needs arguments when you have framing! Since you use that phrase to describe me twice in a single comment, maybe you should acknowledge I might know what I’m talking about. I haven’t heard from you or Fernando any details whatsoever about how this idea might genuinely increase engagement or participation. All I’ve heard is a rather simple argument that membership has been in long term decline, therefore it is a busted flush, therefore we must do something different, a registered supporters scheme is something different, therefore it must be done.

It would be nice if long term trends were irreversible in the way you suggest as I wouldn’t now be enjoying the delights of negative equity, but we’ll leave that to one side. Fundamentally though, you are arguing for a system that would change the relationship of the average party member from a stakeholder to a supplicant. You are proposing a wholesale shift from passive support to active support. It may well lead to greater numbers “engaged” but only in a superficial way.

I’ve made that point on several occasions now and it is at the very core of my argument, but you haven’t chosen to rebut it. I would therefore respectively suggest that getting pious about my apparently poor democratic instincts isn’t really a winning strategy.

By the way, I also support state funding of political parties and have always done so. This is only a personal view - and gets me into a lot of hot water with hard-core libertarians - but it remains my position nonetheless.

Good for you. Not exactly “radical” or opposing the “status quo” though is it?