I really never thought I would say that.
They can appear somewhat cliquey – the only Federal Committee to publish its mugshots in the conference agenda (apparently conference representatives aren’t interested in who looks after their interests on the Federal Executive or the Federal Policy Committee).
They can be a bit insensitive: not the cleverest idea to select a business motion which would increase their powers over emergency motions at a time when representatives are feeling restless. And a tad cynical to have it at 0900 on Tuesday morning when many will still be at breakfast. (Yes: I know you will have gone to bed rather late the night before but do please get up and vote against this piece of nonsense).
But the hysteria about their decisions must give cause for alarm in two particular areas: accreditation and the NHS.
FCC has not been as sensitive as it could be in its communications about accreditation. But it has had the guts to submit the new arrangements to conference for debate. No doubt many will get up and say that their civil liberties have been trashed by the ill-disposed antics of West Midlands Police and their FCC lackeys.
The reality, however, is stark: the world turned upside down in 2010. Liberal Democrat cabinet ministers became a reality. Just as real is the desire of some people to do them serious harm. If you don’t believe it then look again at the reception we were blessed with at Sheffield from the public sector unions. Look at the opportunist violence associated with the NUS anti-tuition fees demos. Look also at history, where Cabinet ministers and others have been murdered at a British party conference by terrorist organisations.
Bluntly: no accreditation means no police support. No police support means that we become an uninsurable risk and thus there is no conference at all.
As for the NHS, the anger and manoeuvring are becoming out of all proportion to the issue at hand. The NHS Bill has been changed substantially. Producer interests have expressed themselves satisfied with it (though there is a warning to us here). Nick listened and delivered much.
But a number have felt that there were still issues to be resolved and another highly technical motion has been submitted.
It is unusual for the Party to debate the same issue at successive conferences but a case could be made that things had changed once more.
The deal is that there will be a topical debate without a vote but FCC is accused, in crafting this compromise, of being in the pockets of the Leadership. I suspect the Leadership would say: ‘If only…’
There may well even be an appeal to suspend standing orders this weekend – the ultimate student politics device – which would confirm to the world that the Lib Dems are after all pretty useless at influencing Coalition policy.
Perhaps we all need to maintain a sense of proportion.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Dundee Chess Congress 2024 #dundeewestend
GUEST POST No sign of an end to defections in local government
Monday night is Parish Council night...
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Welsh Labour hospitality row
Peter Martin
Steve Trevethan
Nonconformistradical
Jenny Barnes
Mick Taylor
26 Comments
Hear, hear!
I thought they published their mugshots so that conference reps could recognise them more easily if they wanted to raise something with them about the conference – which is reasonable.
I disagree with you about the NHS motion though. If party members are to have any real influence over coalition policy we will need to debate topical legislation more frequently and in more ‘technical’ detail than previously. That’s the flipside of being in a coalition that so many of our number are uncomfortable with. If FCC and/or the leadership resist this they will turn disagreements into rows.
Sorry Chris but I have to correct you on the issue of the NHS debate or lack thereof. ‘Producer interests’ (by which I assume you mean clinicians and nurses that deliver our healthcare) have absolutely not expressed themselves satisfied with it at all – that is pure unadulterated spin from Mr. Cameron that we would do well to ignore.
Professional bodies, medical practitioners and the public share significant concerns over the nature of the reforms in the Bill and it would be remiss of us to think that the changes made to date are sufficient. Welcome though they are, they fail to address key aspects of the Bill – but of course if we had a proper debate on the matter I’d be able to tell you that in more detail on the Conference floor.
As for your contention of being pretty useless at influencing Coalition policy, I am really rather baffled. What would make us look more useless than demanding specific changes to Coalition legislation, then lying down when these aren’t delivered and waiting for the storm to wash over us?! For us to influence Coalition policy, and to not look useless, we must exercise our democratic right to debate and set our party’s policy direction at conference – if we give up the one thing that makes our party unique we’ll regret it. We are at our most effective when we show both the Tories and the public our distinct approach to policy, not when we cower under the fear of rocking the boat.
Sorry Chris, but it is precisely to maintain a sense of proportion that we need a debate on the NHS reforms – without it we risk losing the bigger picture.
All sensible stuff.
Stand by to be abused!
Btw Liberal Neil is spot on – the motions on the NHS are no more ‘technical’ than those on, say, drugs policy reform or education credit. It is patronising and insulting to conference goers to suggest that they can’t understand the arguments put before them.
Oh, and even if it were the case that the motion was too technical, and that conference would be better off not debating the reforms, why not give conference that very choice?! I faced the same battle with FCC earlier in the year regarding my banking motion (which was, incidentally, passed nearly unanimously) – they argued it would lose in the ballot. what kind of argument is that for not including it in the first place?! If conference decides the motion is too technical and too controversial, fine, so be it – but at least put it on the ballot so we can have our say!
sheesh…
Wise words as always Chris
Chris,
While I appreciate your concern for us poor beleaguered FCCers – I (unusually!) have to take issue with you. On the issue of accreditation, I think that FCC were in a difficult position over insurance, HOWEVER, the argument that you need the kind of police scrutiny we have all now been subject to to keep folk safe is ludicrous! How many times a week do I head into the House of Commons, where there are, arguably, a lot more cabinet ministers around than will be at our conference, and all they want me to do is stand on a little pair of feet, get my mugshot done (and a pretty useless one at that – heavens sending back pix because they were black and white or had a shadow doesn’t compare!), send my bags through the xray machine, maybe get frisked………….and that’s it! Similarly in the airport – ironically I have used former Lib Dem passes as ID when I am flying to Belfast. Do they or parliament need to know my address for the last 3 years, what car I drive, what I had for breakfast? NO!!!!! It is the ring of security you have around the conference centre that is important – heavens – I got my pink fluffy handcuffs confiscated for goodness sake 🙂
And on NHS – I am actually more concerned about the point of principle here. FCC agreed it was an emergency issue but then accepted spoiler tactic to stop conference having a vote. Suspending standing orders is not infantile it is a democratic protection we have the right to use in order to ensure conference retains its sovereignty. I have no doubt that our ministers would far rather conference morphed into the Tory and Labour conferences which are completely undemocratic but avoid the potential for embarrassment. It is our democratic processes that we trumpet as evidence of our uniqueness – if they are not worth defending I don’t know what is?
From my 11 years’ experience on Conference Committee, I do think there are valid reasons for sympathy with Conference Committee. However, Chris is wide of the mark.
At Conference, FCC have to deal with any sort of incident or issue that comes up, from the trivial to the bizarre. They have to keep Conference to order – and to time. When things go seriously wrong – and it sounds as though on-site ‘processing’ will be hideous – they have to front up. They do get collared by all and sundry.
But Chris has it all wrong about accreditation, which is not a physical security measure (and none of the agitators of Sheffield made it into the hall, unless he counts those making awkward points about the NHS.) It is an unnecessary, bureaucratic tool of a database state to which Liberals are opposed.
On the NHS, it appears that ridiculous hoops have been gone through to avoid a vote on the issue, even though it is clear there’s a big will to see a debate, because so many people see it as unfinished business. It is up to Conference to decide, a point Chris acknowledges for the standing order amendment on which he is mostly right, though FCC cannot reject those – like constitutional amendments – for debate. Incidentally the loss of an additional Emergency Motion slot for a voteless debate means that since 2006 we have lost close to 20% of the time used for debating policy motions – and that is *certainly* something for which FCC can be held to account.
sorry chris, but i really disagree with you on the accreditation issue, and am surprised as to how many liberals are accepting it. obviously things have changed now we are in gvt but the ring of steel in sheffield and the metal detectors were perfectly adequate to protect delegates there. how does having a database of names help prevent anything or protect anyone? why did we need this change now? it seems to me to be completely unneccessary and has deterred several ordinary members i know from bothering to attend this year. not only that but fcc appear to be handing the final say to the police, which was certainly not what was initially explained would happen.
Im sorry Chris but ‘murdering politicians’? Are you kidding me?
Dont forget that we had our first main conference in 2010 when we were in government and did NOT have these ridiculous illiberal procedures in place to prevent members from attending conference.
I have absolutely no time for members of the FCC who have done NOTHING to deal with the concerns that i have raised with my particular issues and frankly I am disgusted that the party that fought hard against ID cards has foisted these rules on its own members. Its hypocrisy of the highest order.
But you go and enjoy conference while people like me, hard working activists AND voting members, sit around for the week unable to attend and be part of the democracy this party expects us to sell to the public week in and week out on the doorstep.
The whole thing is ludicrous and frankly, if it wasn’t for that fact that I want to represent the residents in my ward more than sticking it to the party, I would have have left over this. I left Labour in 2005 because of their authoritarian stance on civil liberties – we to head the same way?
Linda, Can you be sure that it wasn’t the style police who confiscated your pink fluffy handcuffs?
I don’t think anyone can claim that “producer interests” (doctors and nurses) are happy with it, beyond GP commissioning (which Lib Dems accept as being in the Coalition agreement). The private provider interest may be happy.
If there is an appeal to conference to have a motion and vote – as is provided for by standing orders – giving sovreignty to Conference then I dont see why that is “student politics”. The far bigger concern is the Tory-isation of Lib Dem confrence where anything critical or controversial gets kept off the agenda and all we have is Q&A and “discussions” rather than debates and votes.
The motion is not technical. If that charge is levelled then there should be a specific example given, otherwsie is comes acrooss as “Lib Dems Conference reps don’t know what they are voting for and are not wise enough to know”.
Gareth & Linda – you may be right that the recommendations of the police are over the top but that of course is not the point. Once they have been made then the FCC has a simple choice between having a conference or not.
Linda – can you confirm that you voted (albeit reluctantly) in favour of the new arrangements as a member of the FCC?
Lisa – you chose not to apply to Confernce becuase they would not accept a cheque.
“Bluntly: no accreditation means no police support. No police support means that we become an uninsurable risk and thus there is no conference at all.”
Oh come on. The police cannot refuse to police the political conference of part the government. These things are the subject of negotiation, and it appears they have not been negotiated very well.
Not to endorse their position, but the argument made by the police and Home Office is that we needed it two years ago but they can’t change the past. This isn’t a new issue, but the other side came back with more ammunition this time.
@Stephen “Oh come on. The police cannot refuse to police the political conference of part the government. These things are the subject of negotiation, and it appears they have not been negotiated very well.”
No one has suggsted the police will not be at the conference if the FCC had rejected their advice. It is that neither the party’s not the venue’s insurance cover would be valid if we ignored their advice. no venue will take us if it means they would not be insured.
Reference please – what’s this about?
Simon,
“No one has suggsted the police will not be at the conference if the FCC had rejected their advice. It is that neither the party’s not the venue’s insurance cover would be valid if we ignored their advice. no venue will take us if it means they would not be insured.”
The argument in Chris White’s piece was ““Bluntly: no accreditation means no police support.”
The ‘insurance’ argument is often used in the public sector, but strangely, does not seem to cause such problems in the private sector. These things can be negotiated. The party is being naive..
Stephen, I’m sorry but you are simply wrong. An insurance company will not pay out if you have ignored police advice on security. for example if we decided not to have security screening.
there would also be the point that if someone was injured after we had ignored police advice they would have other claims against us.
Simon has what evidence exactly to back up his claim about insurance?
Chris White hits the nail on the head. The LibDems have forced substantial compromise out of the Conservatives on the NHS, presumably with our support. Using standing orders in order to force a vote against what has been achieved will give succour to both the Tory right and Labour who will exploit Lib Dem dissent and bickering as a smokescreen to mask their own ineptitude and policy deficit. Those who have served in coalitions or “working arrangements” at local government level know full well that as, generally, minority groups on those authorities, compromise, sometimes even on dearly held principles, is necessary in order to progress.
@dave – i actually know something about it!
If anyone can give a single example of how accreditation subject to police checks makes conference safer i would love to hear them. The physical security checks should keep conference safe there is no need to know the background of all conference attenders.
I was invited to a meet Nick Clegg event recently (I couldn’t go as I was at work) and all i needed to access the event was my membership card. No background check, no criminal record check or anything. I don’t know what physical security was in place at the event but it certainly wasn’t a secret event as it was advertised in an all members mailing in our area although you did have to email to get the specific location of the event. So if members can be trusted to meet the DPM then why can’t we be trusted to attend conference without background checks?
We need to challenge police ‘advice’ on this including our ministers applying pressure to the relevant police chiefs to get this illiberal, unessecary and ineffectual police ‘advice’ altered (its not really advice if you are forced to follow it against your will its then actually an instruction and since when did we put the police in charge of political parties and their conferences?)
The claim would be that it’s a high-profile target – but it’s probably got more to do with being a high-profile police operation, so there’s a lot more scared people in the police who want to engage in an arse-covering exercise.
Now we’re getting closer. This is all politics really.
@Chris, there is so much wrong with your arguments on police vetting, as I hope to demonstrate in the debate on Sunday morning. For now I will just say that no-one is forced to serve on FCC. It is a privilege to serve the party and like all elected people they should remember who put them there. A little more consultation over the last year on vetting. Would have been welcome.
@Simon, you’re wrong. There are many choices between no vetting or no conference.
We need to debate the NHS again. The bill, even as changed, could have terrible effects for the health service, but many of our Parliamentarians are still voting for it. There are strong grounds for another vote:
– The Bill has changed, but is still bad.
– Some of our MPs think that it’s fine in it’s changed form.
– A very large number of party members disagree with those MPs and want to stop them and our Members in the Lords voting for it again.
– Only a fresh vote at conference can send that cear, unambiguous message to our MPs and Lords.