I've made a point of staying out of YL elections, since I don't have the energy for the sniping that comes with the territory and frankly I'm not pretentious enough to think anyone gives a damn what I think, but I regret to inform you that I have Thoughts. Buckle up.

The Rebuild YL slate's stated aims convey a disappointing lack not only of the diplomacy necessary when wanting to run a 5,000+ member internal party org, but frankly, for a "hey we're radical and better than that bastard old guard" campaign, of ambition.

That's not to say I think they're all wrong. I *do* think that YL conferences can be a policy wonkfest - nobody cares what we think about foreign affairs, folks - not the fault of any individual, but an internal culture thing, and I'm pleased to see intent to shake that up.

I do *not* think that the way to do that is to scrap the whole damn thing, have a token online conference, and turn YL into a glorified Spirited Discussions fund. We have considerable say in the direction of the party, and I worry that this approach puts that at risk.

Social connections in politics are important. As I've no doubt those running the slate know, people may join societies for the extra nuanced policy, but they stay because they make friends. We are already staring a retention crisis down the barrel.

Democratising to branch chairs is a noble idea in theory, but the reality is that we've tried to reach out to them repeatedly and many of them just... aren't that fussed. What happens if you give them that power, and they decide they'd rather focus on their patch?

And while I dislike airing dirty laundry, the "insider culture" co-opted one of the members of this slate and went to great pains to support them and make them feel welcome as they took on a job at an unenviable time. They have our gratitude for that.

I also have to raise an eyebrow somewhat at bemoaning the inaccessible internal YL culture whilst... running a slate composed primarily of attendees of one of the most privileged institutions in British society. I'm strongly pro-more accessibility, but glass houses and all that.

When juggling co-chair and party staffer, whenever I mentioned YL I would get a polite roll of the eyes from my colleagues. It has taken considerable work from myself and other individuals to *begin* to address that - we have a reputation that this slate plays into, not against.

I also note the repeated public airings of grievances to outlets such as LDV, rather than bringing them to us first to discuss. Between Forum and emails, we're really not hard to reach, and it feels like manoeuvring that may well come back to haunt you, should you be successful.

That is to say - you catch more flies with honey than vinegar in the Lib Dems. You will not bring Federal Board round to your way of thinking by leaking everything that happened in a meeting that you didn't like to Guido immediately after. Diplomacy is absolutely key.

I'll happily admit I'd been mulling over a rerun for chair myself, before accepting that I just could not do that to myself at this moment in time. YL *does* need a shakeup, but that needs to be done with great care and patience; not riding in and slagging off your predecessors.

If they win I will of course accept that and work earnestly with my successor so they can hit the ground running (pun workshopping included). I'm getting too old for petty feuds. But as someone who's been there, done that, I have serious concerns about the proposed approach.

If anyone from this slate wants to reach out and discuss any of this privately I am more than happy to do so. My issues are with the direction and not the people, several of whom I have found engaging and switched on when I've had the pleasure of speaking to them.

I gave YL my time because I believe in its potential to give the next generation of liberals a voice. I still believe in that and I'm sure they do too. I've just got the advantage of having been around the block a bit and knowing what will and won't work.

Okay, I'll pipe down.

to summarise