According to the proposed Liberal National Party Constitution “No Member shall make any statement or comment, either on or off the record, to any journalist or media organisation about the affairs of the party without the prior approval of the State President or the State Director”. So my informants are getting in first.
I have two documents that just fell off the back of the proverbial bus. The first summarises some key points of the proposed constitution, and the second gives some arguments against it, including answers to some of the questions that commenters on this blog have been asking about branch stacking.
Not my analysis, so I may have some comments on it later.
May 30, 2008 | Graham
Internal criticism of the Liberal National Party Constitution
4 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Graham:
Not sure; don’t have a copy handy …. but wasn’t there a regulation similar to that in the regulations and orders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union? 🙂
So – if you want to start off a brand-new political organization, one that meets the needs of voters interested in keeping free enterprise strong …. you kick off by reinforcing the old saying “Any fool can make a rule”.
Surely they must be kidding.
I thought spirited debate – whether behind closed doors or in the news media – was the life-blood of a vigorous political party.
Comment by Graham Bell — May 30, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
Some comments on those comments:
1. “It will also allow for rampant branch stacking, whereby power of the party could be assumed with as little as 10% of the party membership.”
Contrast the current situation where Ryan for example with its 1000 members has 100 delegates to convention (or a quarter of Convention delegates in one FEC!)
How is the present Liberal arrangement not favourable to branch stacking and the traditional last minute member transfers to extract maximum delegate entitlements?
2. The current Liberal 6 from the floor and VP arrangements are a joke. These elected positions are responsible for nothing in reality and are just added numbers to State Council. Getting rid of them removes the associated hype at State Convention for factional tickets and the like.
3. The Nats will not overwhelmingly control the regional chairs. On my estimation the Libs will control 6-7 of the 10.
4. “this greatly diminishes the power of party branches, by taking away their right to elect delegates…branches will essentially become ‘social clubs’.”
Actually branches should be focused on helping candidates win elections. The new arrangement ensures every branch is represented, and is the same as the current Senate preselection process which nobody seems to mind.
5. Senator Trood is grandfathered into the next Senate vacancy on the following half-election. So in effect he has longer grandfathering benefit than anyone else.
6. Whats wrong with being required to be in the FEC/SEC where you reside? That’s called grass roots politics!
Comment by Doug — May 30, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
Am I wrong or is regular blogger “Doug”, none other than Doug Young who will be contesting one of the 6-from-the-floor spots on the Spence-Santoro Ticket this weekend at Liberal Party Convention?
He certainly seems to spout the Spence-Santoro line whenever he responds to one of Graham’s posts and he certinaly knows all too much to be an average punter.
Comment by ConcernedLiberal — May 30, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
yes, someone with an alternative view. how offensive… how… factional.
kiddies in a home day care centre would be more organised than the Liberal factions.
Comment by Doug — May 30, 2008 @ 6:34 pm