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.

Share This

Rob Fenwick posted an article about the websites of the various Lib Dem GLA wannabes on Lib Dem Voice. It’s worth reading, and Rob has included his working so you don’t have to take his view at face value.

Nasser Butt’s website came bottom. Not entirely surprising since, apart from anything else, pretty much all the buttons on it come up with the response ‘not available at this present time’. Not exactly impressive. What did tickle me about this site is the bizarre heading on the welcome page:

Welcome to my online presence

It’s like he’s in the room with me!

As for how I’ll vote? I’m not at all sure yet. I’m torn between voting entirely on politically correct lines on the basis that the more diverse a group of people we have at the top of the list in terms of gender and ethnicity, the better it is for the party from a branding perspective, and the argument that if the biggest morons in the party get onto the GLA, they will be out of everyone else’s hair for four years. Either way, that doesn’t look good for sensible, white male candidates and it is sad that after 7 years of the GLA, I still can’t treat it as seriously as I would a Parliamentary or even local council selection. But then, I’ve written about this before.

Share This