I have already touched upon the issue of the declared rules for the internal elections to the Council of Unlock Democracy. At the time, Ros did suggest that I might regret addressing the issue in such a blunt manner and, as usual, she was right.
However, constancy to a set of principles is important too, and my friends will know that I've banged on about internal democracy for many years. To me, it is critical to an informed and participatory society. But I have agreed to disagree with most of my fellow Council members, if only to acknowledge the fact that we all have our own reasons for taking the stances we do.
What I do object to is some of the reactions of individuals. It appears that, to at least one of them, the idea of blogging is cause for ridicule, and that the notion that I might wish to express an opinion other than that of the group is somehow strange. Another has expressed the view that use of social media will discriminate against some candidates and, whilst I entirely see where the view stems from, it does appear to represent an equally valid argument against the use of social media in public elections, surely not a notion most would endorse.
But the final blow to morale was the comments placed on both of my recent blog entries, which were clearly a 'cut and paste' job.
So, to save them the trouble...
"Unlock Democracy's internal election regulations are decided by our members. The rules are designed to provide a level playing field and to prevent wealthier candidates from having too great an advantage. The current rules were set before Facebook and Twitter were in widespread use.
Any member concerned about these rules could have submitted a standing order amendment to our AGM. No-one did so. We are keen to encourage as many members as possible to stand for election. For more details see our website: http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/elections"
There are times for irony, times for sarcasm, and times for despair. And once you've dealt with those, it's time to move on...