It’s 10 am on Sunday morning as I write this. I’ve already been to an 8am consultation session, of which more later.  So far my Conference has been everything I’ve wanted it to be – a wonderful catch-up with friends, meeting lots of new people and playing shops at the stalls with the enthusiasm of a 5 year old in a room full of lollipops.

I arrived from drizzly Scotland to the warm, sunny and temperate climes of the south coast on Friday morning. I had planned an afternoon on the beach but then remembered that there is a hop-on, hop-bus tour that goes from West Cliff Road. My friend came with me. We “hopped off” in the very chic Sandbanks, home to Harry Redknapp and a Rick Stein restaurant.

We had the most delicious smoked salmon sandwich I have ever had in my life at the Jazz Cafe. Perfect sunshine, right next to a golden beach and lovely wine. What more could you want? Though the inevitable happened – Scottish person steps into the sunshine for 5 minutes and turns into a lobster. My nose will be peeling by Tuesday no doubt.

The bus tour is really interesting if you fancy a break from Conference and you can also get to Sandbanks on the 50 bus.

Saturday started with Vikki Slade MP and Cllr Millie Earl, her successor as leader of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council opening Conference.

The following report back session from Federal Conference Committee and Federal Policy Committee annoyed me slightly. There were many questions listed in Conference Extra but they only got to 2 of them. There could have been more time for answers if the Committee Chairs had spoken for less time. Something to think about for the future?

Then came the thing that I had been worrying most about. A constitutional amendment proposed by members of a fringe anti-trans group to limit the quota places in Federal Committee elections to what they refer to “biological” and women and erasing the provision for non binary people completely.

It’s worth mentioning that this motion only appeared on the agenda because it had to. Constitutional amendments have to be taken, even if they are dreadful. The Federal Conference Committee can simply reject policy motions that are inaccurate wrong, but they don’t have that power with constitutional amendments.

This fringe group  tried this once before, in York a couple of years ago. Conference voted overwhelmingly then to Move to Next Business, something that had happened only once before in living memory on a motion to give the leader a veto on policy voted for by Conference.

This party is one which relishes arguments and disagreements. We like nothing better than to have a vigorous, robust debate and then all go to the pub afterwards. I remember back in 2016 when I proposed the motion which introduced all women-shortlists for parliamentary selections, I did so with the heartbreaking knowledge that one of my most beloved friends would leave the party if it succeeded. We never had a cross word about it between ourselves and, ultimately, thankfully, she stayed. But, again we were in the pub together hours afterwards.

During the coalition years, Liberal Reform and the Social Liberal Forum would kick lumps out of each others’ arguments on economic policy and there was, shall we say, not a lot of love lost. However, when Nick Clegg supported the Conservative plans to have secret courts in civil proceedings, those warriors united to fight those plans.

But there are some things that are irreconcilable, not just on the issues themselves, but in the way that they are argued. This fringe group’s attitude to trans people is both disrespectful and cruel. The very least, the most basic courtesy, you can expect is that people respect who you are and they can’t do that. No matter how protected you think your belief is, there is no excuse for such intense hostility.

These people have the freedom to express their views openly and they frequently do to national media. We don’t have to give them a platform for them to misgender and demean trans people from the stage, which they can then circulate on social media.

A Move Next Business motion requires 2/3 of those present (and voting online) to agree. It’s deliberately a very high threshold. Every party member could have taken part in this vote if they had wanted to. And the result was very clear. As Lucas North, who proposed the MNB said:

“The motion in front of us is a sham,” they said.

“It misrepresents the legal position, it runs contrary to our values, it seeks to put us at odds with our longstanding support for LGBT+ people.”

Although North said members “could simply vote this down”, they suggested ditching the motion entirely was more appropriate so conference was not “used to legitimise bigotry in the name of a small and extremist faction”.

I’ve put the speech that I would have made against F4 below so you can see what I would have said.

“Ocean going nonsense”

I was up before 8 this morning to attend a consultation session chaired by Home Affairs Spokesperson Lisa Smart on the thorny issue of digital ID. She wrote for us recently about the subject and you can see the strong views that article generated.

8 am on the morning after the Disco does not bode well for attendance, but the room was absolutely packed. I was there almost on time but I couldn’t get a seat.

It was very much a consultation, though. Lisa and Victoria Collins both listened much, much more than they spoke. There were lots of incredibly thoughtful contributions. Some people showed off their German and Estonian IDs and expressed the view that it was inevitable that this would happen here. People were concerned about the competence of Government to deliver such a project, and its potential £11-19 billion cost for what benefit exactly?  Obvious worries about  how data could be lost and how stop and search could be abused to require anyone not white to show their ID at will, and the effect on trans people were raised. The alteration of the relationship between citizen and state was also brought up – as liberals we believe that the latter is meant to serve the former.

But it was Alistair Carmichael who made the most memorable contribution of the day. It reminded me of the olden days where Paddy Ashdown would make some robust and pithy observation in a room where he thought there might be a journalist present. Regarding the inevitability of digital ID, he said:

If I have to bark at the tide on this, I will bark at the fucking tide.

He went on to dismiss the idea as “ocean-going nonsense.”

Lisa said that events might move quickly and we might not get a Conference vote on this issue before the party had to take a stance, but that she had lots to think about from the consultation.

I haven’t even mentioned the Disco yet. Anyway, below is the speech I would have made yesterday.

The speech I would have made against F4

Conference

The Supreme Court judgement has made not one woman, trans or not, safer. Yet the extreme way it has been interpreted by some makes the lives of trans people intolerable.

Scottish feminist organisation Engender, of which I am a member, expressed its concern

For us, the Equality Act represents the floor and not the ceiling of what we need to achieve on equality as a society. Any backsliding should be of concern to everyone that stands against discrimination and oppression in all its forms.

Generations of feminists have fought against women being defined by our reproductive function and bodies.

What does a liberal party do when the law appears to  throw us a curveball?

What does a party that champions and celebrates, with joy, the right of everyone to live freely as their authentic self do when a marginalised group of people finds itself in danger of losing the most basic of freedoms?

Do we amend our constitution to throw that said marginalised group of people under the bus? Do we write in a rule that flies in the face of everything we stand for, and contradicts the noble ideas in our preamble?

Conference, I hope you say a big no to that one

Do we allow a small anti trans group to set our narrative on this? They do not speak for women

Again, I hope you say a big no to that one. Do not be deceived. There are other options.

So what do we do?

The legal environment around this is uncertain and this judgement will certainly be challenged. It would be irresponsibly premature to change our constitution, especially in a way that throws our trans and non binary sisters and siblings under the bus.

So where does this leave our internal elections?

It is up to the Returning Officer to conduct our elections in a way that is legally compliant, and based on sound, independent legal advice and make a ruling about what, if anything, needs to be done.

Whatever happens, we need to send a very strong statement that we support our colleagues, our friends, our family members, our loved ones in the trans community

and that we will fight with all we have for their rights to be retained and enhanced.

That we will argue for the law to be changed so that they can live their lives in dignity.

And we will not give up until the job is done. Because we know how it goes if one marginalised group loses its rights.

Being an ally is easy in the good times. But it’s not all about cuddling crocheted beasties, having fun at Pride dressed in glitter and sparkle. Though these things are important in keeping us going.

We’ve got to be there when regression and repression is not just a threat but a reality.

This party was there for gay people when being gay was illegal.

This party was there for gay people during the horrid times of AIDS

This party was there standing against Section 28 which traumatised so many of my generation and our leader was a key voice in putting an end to it.

This party will be there for the trans and non binary people of this country until they are again free to be who they are, as we stated so clearly and joyously in Spring.

Let’s reject this regressive, unnecessary proposal with spirit and passion.

That, Conference, is what a liberal party should do.

* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social