Mark Pack from Islington, standing for Federal Board

[cosmolinguist]

What's your name, where are you from, and which committee(s) are you standing for?
Mark Pack from Islington, standing for the Federal Board.

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 standing for the Federal Board for the first time. I have been on Federal Policy Committee (FPC) for the last four years (and, many years ago, was on the Federal Executive for a while as the staff representative).

I am hoping to switch committees so I can help the party get its strategy right - a focus on building up our core vote and providing the resources needed across the party to rebuild our campaign organisation in all types of seats.

I hope to bring to the new role also something I consistently argued for on FPC - often with success with colleagues: more openness in how the party operates, more involvement of party members and more long-term planning.

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?
Only standing for the one.

Are you an active member of any SAOs, and if so which ones?
I frequently help ALDC with training and publications, including the election law handbook and training for people building up their local parties from weak positions.

Although they are not currently SAOs, I'd also mention that I am a member of Liberal Democrats for Electoral Reform, who until relatively recently I've helped with their email communications, and that I also edit, with Candy Piercy, the party's manual for election agents, which is published by the Agents and Organisers Association.

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?
We're the only party that offers a vigorous pro-European position combined with a focus on enabling everyone to have the chances to live their lives however they wish. That means supporting people through their lives, such as with excellent education for all, but also not trying to force people to fit one particular template that a minister in Whitehall has dreamed up.

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?
I'd rather we lived in a world where we didn't need them, but when I look around the room when doing Liberal Democrat work, it is usually dominated by people like me. That's why we need to take action, and that's why I supported extending the diversity rules from gender to covering other diversity strands too.

I hope the new approach will work well in this round of elections - and we should look carefully to see how they work in practice to learn what else we may need to do next, such as to encourage a greater diversity of people to stand for election.

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've been a regular critic of the secrecy rules and - working with others - have secured several successes in this over the years, including moving the amendment with Duncan Brack which triggered the requirement for the new federal committees to have in future explicit rules over what is kept secret and why.

There will always be some necessary secrecy - such as over staffing matters or the results from party market research - but it should only be the minimum necessary.

Members deserve to know what is being done in their name, especially as without knowing what committees get up to, the democracy of committee elections is severely constrained.

I will also continue to communicate regularly members, just as I have done on FPC, such as through my monthly email newsletter www.libdemnewswire.com and through blogging and social media.

As the party has now backed the principle of OMOV, how will you ensure all members are represented, not just those who can afford to go to Conference?
Votes at conference are only the end point of what is often a long proces. It's vital we do more to involve members at all stages of party activity. Simply focusing on conference would miss much of the picture.

For conference itself, we need to keep costs as low as practical and the flow of information (e.g. through webcasts) as good as possible.

There is, however, real value in the ability to debate, craft compromises and react to the viewpoints of others, all of which currently are much easier to do if you are in the same physical location. That means I don't think standard remote voting technology - which strips out all that - would do what we need. I keep an open mind about whether technology can develop in ways that would.

If police accreditation to attend conference was proposed again, would you support or oppose it and why?
I would judge the police's request on its details - the credibility of the security threats / information used to justify the request, the actual benefits that the request would bring and the level of intrusion the request requires. I'd also want to be sure that the party, rather than the police, remain in charge of who gets to come to conference.

What is your view on electoral pacts? Should the party make them, and if so, who with?
There are many issues on which we agree with some people in other parties. The mix of people and parties varies from issue to issue, and the problem with a formal electoral pact is that it forces you to tie up with another party and its manifesto, warts and all.

Informal cooperation is often sensible and effective, and I am happy to see organisations outside of parties mobilise to promote their viewpoints, which may cut across parties too. But a formal pact is not for us.

The list of all candidates who have answered can be found here.