![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cosmolinguistWhat's your name, where are you from, and which committee(s) are you standing for? Hi I'm Jeremy Hargreaves, from London, and I'm standing only for the Federal Policy Committee.
Are you standing for the first time or restanding? If first time what new thing do you bring that nobody else could; if restanding, what about your record are you most proud of that you think should make us vote you back in?
I'm currently a member of FPC. Two things I'm passionate about and so have pushed in my time on the committee recently, are involving more party members, and how we protect our liberties in the modern world.
On the first, I recently set up FPC's Facebook page to encourage further open discussion between committee members and other party members, and I've just produced a full guide to the intricacies of how the party makes policy, so everyone can see it. When I've chaired FPC policy working groups I've made sure we've done masses of consultation - from online discussions, webinars, and questionnaires, to sessions at federal and regional conferences, with local parties, and publishing consultation papers. And over the years I've pushed any number of reforms to the policy process to make it more accessible.
On the second, I got FPC to set up a working group about a year ago, to look at the balance between security and liberty. I was then on the group, which Brian Paddick led brilliantly, and I'm very proud of the policy, Safe and Free, which sets out a good liberal approach to ensuring we are exactly safe and free. I was particularly pleased to have had a strong hand in developing the policy to abolish the highly divisive and ineffective 'Prevent' strategy.
Are you standing for any other committees, if so which ones; and if elected to more than one how do you plan to divide your time?
I only ever stand for the FPC!
Are you an active member of any SAOs, and if so which ones?
I'm a former Chair of the Lib Dem European Group (LDEG) and am highly passionate about ensuring we continue to play a leading role in Europe. I've been a member of lots of party groups over the years, from EMLD to the Lib Dem History Group: I'm currently working with the excellent new Lib Dem Health & Social Care Association, and a member of Rights-Liberties-Justice.
If someone asked you on the doorstep, the hustings or on TV to sum up in one or two sentences what the Lib Dems, uniquely, stand for – and then why anyone should vote for us – what are your answers?
The economic, security and environmental challenges facing the world are as serious as they have ever been. Many countries - including Britain and the US - are responding by looking inwards and closing down to the outside world. Liberal Democrats need to how why how we will all only safer, freer, fairer and more prosperous if we are open to the world.
What is your view on diversity quotas for committees? Should they be extended to cover more than just gender, scrapped totally, kept as is or something else?
This question was written before the rules changed this year! They now do cover other characteristics.
I think it's sad that we have to have quotas, but the truth is that over many many years, other attempts to improve our balance have failed. So for the moment we have to have them.
Personally I think the quotas are on the high side: with 80% of the gender composition of committees pre-set (40% male and 40% female) we are almost at the point (not quite) where party members have no discretion at all to select members of committees on the candidates whose views they agree with. I'd like to see party members being trusted more on this - but I recognise that we do need for the moment we do need the principle of quotas.
Secrecy rules prevent the party knowing what committees are doing. What will you do to communicate with members; and in what circumstances is confidentiality justified?
I don't really agree with this: I've had quite a lot of experience on federal committees and although there certainly have been occasions when confidentiality has been needed, this is almost always only for a short period while communications are carried out, and is not true for the vast majority of things they discuss.
Members of federal committees can do lots to talk about - and most importantly, seek views - on what their committees are doing. For example, just last week I reported on one discussion in a policy working group I'm part of and sought views on it, and we had a good discussion on Facebook. I'm sure I'm not supposed to say this, but I do also wonder how much detailed information party members really actually want. How many of those who complain that they don't know what, say, the FPC is doing because it's a secret, actually read the reports that FPC already publishes to conference every six months, which sets this out pretty fully? But we can always do more!
If you had the power to do so unilaterally, what one party (not government) policy would you change, and what would you change it to?
I don't really understand why we wouldn't just abolish Right to Buy. It destroys the stock of social housing, and turns getting a Council house into a game of roulette: if you can then buy it through Right to Buy then you gain a massive publicly-funded capital asset at a substantial discount which you can then sell on; but the consequence is that many more people who actually need rented Council housing have no hope of ever getting it.
What is your view on electoral pacts? Should the party make them, and if so, who with?
We are an independent party and will remain so. There's no reason however we can't work with those we agree with on some issues - such as we are on Brexit. We also seem to be collaborating with the Greens on some specific issues, such as in Richmond Park. But if this question is about whether would back the Tories or Labour to be in government - it's difficult to see at the moment that the leadership of either of them have much of a shared approach with us.
The list of all candidates who have answered can be found here.
Are you standing for the first time or restanding? If first time what new thing do you bring that nobody else could; if restanding, what about your record are you most proud of that you think should make us vote you back in?
I'm currently a member of FPC. Two things I'm passionate about and so have pushed in my time on the committee recently, are involving more party members, and how we protect our liberties in the modern world.
On the first, I recently set up FPC's Facebook page to encourage further open discussion between committee members and other party members, and I've just produced a full guide to the intricacies of how the party makes policy, so everyone can see it. When I've chaired FPC policy working groups I've made sure we've done masses of consultation - from online discussions, webinars, and questionnaires, to sessions at federal and regional conferences, with local parties, and publishing consultation papers. And over the years I've pushed any number of reforms to the policy process to make it more accessible.
On the second, I got FPC to set up a working group about a year ago, to look at the balance between security and liberty. I was then on the group, which Brian Paddick led brilliantly, and I'm very proud of the policy, Safe and Free, which sets out a good liberal approach to ensuring we are exactly safe and free. I was particularly pleased to have had a strong hand in developing the policy to abolish the highly divisive and ineffective 'Prevent' strategy.
Are you standing for any other committees, if so which ones; and if elected to more than one how do you plan to divide your time?
I only ever stand for the FPC!
Are you an active member of any SAOs, and if so which ones?
I'm a former Chair of the Lib Dem European Group (LDEG) and am highly passionate about ensuring we continue to play a leading role in Europe. I've been a member of lots of party groups over the years, from EMLD to the Lib Dem History Group: I'm currently working with the excellent new Lib Dem Health & Social Care Association, and a member of Rights-Liberties-Justice.
If someone asked you on the doorstep, the hustings or on TV to sum up in one or two sentences what the Lib Dems, uniquely, stand for – and then why anyone should vote for us – what are your answers?
The economic, security and environmental challenges facing the world are as serious as they have ever been. Many countries - including Britain and the US - are responding by looking inwards and closing down to the outside world. Liberal Democrats need to how why how we will all only safer, freer, fairer and more prosperous if we are open to the world.
What is your view on diversity quotas for committees? Should they be extended to cover more than just gender, scrapped totally, kept as is or something else?
This question was written before the rules changed this year! They now do cover other characteristics.
I think it's sad that we have to have quotas, but the truth is that over many many years, other attempts to improve our balance have failed. So for the moment we have to have them.
Personally I think the quotas are on the high side: with 80% of the gender composition of committees pre-set (40% male and 40% female) we are almost at the point (not quite) where party members have no discretion at all to select members of committees on the candidates whose views they agree with. I'd like to see party members being trusted more on this - but I recognise that we do need for the moment we do need the principle of quotas.
Secrecy rules prevent the party knowing what committees are doing. What will you do to communicate with members; and in what circumstances is confidentiality justified?
I don't really agree with this: I've had quite a lot of experience on federal committees and although there certainly have been occasions when confidentiality has been needed, this is almost always only for a short period while communications are carried out, and is not true for the vast majority of things they discuss.
Members of federal committees can do lots to talk about - and most importantly, seek views - on what their committees are doing. For example, just last week I reported on one discussion in a policy working group I'm part of and sought views on it, and we had a good discussion on Facebook. I'm sure I'm not supposed to say this, but I do also wonder how much detailed information party members really actually want. How many of those who complain that they don't know what, say, the FPC is doing because it's a secret, actually read the reports that FPC already publishes to conference every six months, which sets this out pretty fully? But we can always do more!
If you had the power to do so unilaterally, what one party (not government) policy would you change, and what would you change it to?
I don't really understand why we wouldn't just abolish Right to Buy. It destroys the stock of social housing, and turns getting a Council house into a game of roulette: if you can then buy it through Right to Buy then you gain a massive publicly-funded capital asset at a substantial discount which you can then sell on; but the consequence is that many more people who actually need rented Council housing have no hope of ever getting it.
What is your view on electoral pacts? Should the party make them, and if so, who with?
We are an independent party and will remain so. There's no reason however we can't work with those we agree with on some issues - such as we are on Brexit. We also seem to be collaborating with the Greens on some specific issues, such as in Richmond Park. But if this question is about whether would back the Tories or Labour to be in government - it's difficult to see at the moment that the leadership of either of them have much of a shared approach with us.
The list of all candidates who have answered can be found here.