Comments on: Ten comments on Saturday at party conference

By: John Brace

John Brace — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:59:03 +0000

As one of the men who asked (and tabled questions) I did suggest that my wife do so. She declined the offer though. Not all the questioners (looking over the whole of conference) were male. In fact there was a string of females asking questions at one stage.

“8. There was a welcome flicker of extra interest in using the party’s internal systems of democracy with a big increase in the number of questions asked on federal committee reports. ”

Well anything is better than the zero questions usually asked (when people have gone to so much trouble to write the reports). However on the Saturday at least I was asked to keep it as brief as possible because of concerns expressed to me by the one in black boots, which led to that session finishing ten minutes ahead of time as having received such a request I didn’t ask supplementary questions to a series of questions.

Out of the questions in Conference Daily, more were submitted, some were ruled out of order. In other cases the person chairing had to select only one or two to ask. As it’s a written report, often the Chair’s introduction of the speaker can be longer than presenting the report!

By: Simon McGrath

Simon McGrath — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 13:03:05 +0000

Interesting point about all the questions being from men. Presumably after yesterday’s diversity motion in future there will be a quota for questions from men, women, ethnic minorities, lbgt …….

By: Tom Papworth

Tom Papworth — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 09:19:40 +0000

@Keith: “As a sympathetic outsider looking in, it all seems a little parochial.”

What? Spring Conference? Surely not!

By: Keith Browning

Keith Browning — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 22:09:53 +0000

No mention anywhere of Libya, Japan, tsunami and what seems like impendingarmageddon, with the world economy on a knife-edge and could be pushed over the precipice by these events.

As a sympathetic outsider looking in, it all seems a little parochial.

By: Mark Pack

Mark Pack — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 21:55:43 +0000

Cheltenham Robin: Thanks; now sorted.

By: Lib Dem Titanic

Lib Dem Titanic — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 21:13:10 +0000

Wait till May Tim and all will become clear.

By: Tim13

Tim13 — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 20:49:42 +0000

Thought you meant big C Conservative, Lib Dem Titanic (is it the party sinking, or complacency?)

By: Martin Land

Martin Land — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 20:42:11 +0000

Re 9: Hidden Chocolate Bars?

By: Maria M

Maria M — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 20:36:04 +0000

I wonder whether the growing influence of the SLF will trigger other groups to organise? I wonder whether the newer members who have joined recently are really reflected in the conference voting reps? It will be interesting to watch…

By: Lib Dem Titanic

Lib Dem Titanic — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 20:17:37 +0000

No mention of the ‘somewhat important’ May Elections and AV vote yet.

The big C word springs to mind again.

(Complaceny. Get your mind out of the gutter. )

By: Cheltenham Robin

Cheltenham Robin — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 19:41:58 +0000

Mark

The link to your question doesn’t appear to work.

By: Chris Squire

Chris Squire — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 19:23:06 +0000

' . . The Social Liberal Forum (SLF) is growing quickly in influence in the party, . . ': this is the most significant development, I think. Paving the way for an election pact with Labour in 2015, perhaps?

By: Rupert Moss-Eccardt

Rupert Moss-Eccardt — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 19:13:34 +0000

Mark Pack _is_ Snake Pliskin!

By: Alex Foster

Alex Foster — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 19:06:03 +0000

Re: 9 – alien implant?