Lib Dems love their leaders

Last night, a post from Stephen about our current survey degenerated in the comments to a rather ill-tempered argument about whether Clegg should be proposing now to cut taxes in general when he didn’t mention that he wanted to when standing for the leadership.

All that aside, the key interesting thing the comments generated from my point of view was the following list of times when Lib Dem leaders wanted one thing and Conference sent them packing.

1994 – party debates motion on setting up a Royal Commission to review drugs policy. Motion carried, despite clear steer from leadership. Ashdown storms off stage.

1994 – Party supports minimum wage despite Alex Carlile stating that the entire parliamentary party supported an alternative option

1996 – Student finance policy heavily amended despite opposition of Education Spokesman

1998 – party front bench argues for abandonment of minimum wage policy (also adopted in 1994). Defeated.

1999 – motion on HE policy calling for benefits to be restored to students. Passed. Both members of front bench education team speak against it in the debate.

2006 – party debates policy on taxation. Proposal to abandon line on a 50p rate on incomes above £100,000 passed – endorsed by leadership. Big debate. Broad consensus that the party had had a proper debate and that people had voted on the principle, not out of some craven desire to keep the party happy.

2006 – party throws out local government paper.

2007 – party rejects proposal for Community Land Auctions despite clear steer.

Did we really go five years without disagreeing with the leader?

It is a useful reminder that – results of our other poll notwithstanding – the party conference is one of the best things about being the Lib Dems.  It is our real opportunity to hold our leadership and parliamentarians to account.

With thanks to James Graham and Hwyel Morgan for, er, doing most of the work on this posting.

Read more by .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

6 Comments

  • Simon Titley 8th Sep '08 - 7:47pm

    James – Here we go again.

    For the record, it is not Liberator’s line that party leaders “should adopt a Trappist vow of silence until after conference”. It is Liberator’s line that significant changes in party policy should be debated openly and agreed by the party.

    Apart from being more democratic, open and honest debate has two other advantages. It swings the party behind a new policy. And the process of debate achieves clarity, which is essential if a policy is to be newsworthy or any use as a campaign tool.

    The way the new tax policy has been slipped into ‘Make it Happen’ is not a satisfactory way to change policy. It suggests the promoters of this policy have little confidence in their ability to win arguments.

    If you can’t convince your own party through open debate, what chance do you have with the electorate?

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarStuart 27th May - 7:09am
    "Funny they only painted the doors of asylum seekers red then, Stuart. They'd been painting those doors red for 20 years - long before any...
  • User AvatarPeter Davies 27th May - 6:42am
    It's also worth pointing out that if students received £3000 CI and took out £3000 less each year in loans then much of that would...
  • User AvatarJohn Bennett 27th May - 6:37am
    Houses? Thousands are being built in the Romsey, Winchester, Eastleigh, area (remember those names from happier days). They are springing up with little or no...
  • User AvatarPeter Davies 27th May - 5:40am
    There are several groups you have missed: Those with private investment incomes: these may be early retired or just rich. Those receiving Family Credit. Single...
  • User AvatarLorenzo Cherin 27th May - 3:35am
    Matthew Huntbach Unfortunately you do not seem to understand , I am defending the Liberal parties of the developing world being keener on more unregulated...
  • User AvatarPhil Wainewright 27th May - 12:12am
    Thank you Katherine for a bit of honest passion. It's a welcome antidote to the evidence-based pragmatism that LibDems feel obliged to practise. For goodness...