I shouldn’t be writing this really.

Occasionally I get asked to write a bit for Comment is Free, which is all very fine and splendid because I actually get paid real money for it, and one of those occasions was yesterday. Could I do a little piece on last night’s rally? And about how, you know, whether Clegg seems to be in trouble with the membership over Make it Happen, and how they respond to him? Because, you know, that’s what the talk in all the bars is all about, right?

Sigh. There’s just no way out of a prepared meedja script, is there. The conference rally was actually based around the themes of civil liberties and devolution, rather as you might expect for a party which is, er, liberal and democratic. So while on one level it is tempting to spend 500 words pointing out that a dog remains a dog no matter how often and how loudly journalists insist it is a cat and getting paid to do that, actually I’m going to talk to you about Private Finance Initiatives instead.

The motion moved by Our Vince this morning was essentially to ensure that PFI was only used where it offered better value for money, and ensure this value was monitored by the NAO, plus various measures to make the bidding system more efficient and ensure the expenditure doesn’t slip off government accounts.

It was heartening, watching that debate. It was what a Liberal Democrat conference is all about. One speaker after another with a varying set of shrewd, informed, passionately convinced but balanced views on a subject which tends to send many individuals in the other two parties into instant dogmatic screech mode. The hall was fairly full, given the early hour and the crushed state of the bars last night, and far, far more people wanted to speak than there were slots available. Public financing is plainly something a lot of members care deeply about, but not in such a way that it affects their critical judgement.

A few brief flavours of argument (and I paraphrase heavily, with apologies):

– Supporting the motion, Gordon Willey mentioned the highly variable results of different projects depending on how their PFI contracts were negotiated. The classic examples are the London Underground, a disastrous contract, counterbalanced by the successful (but expensive) Docklands Light Railway concession – contrasting histories which ought to be swiftly rubbed in the face of those who are unshakeably attached to one “side” of the private/public financing debate or the other. There are, in fact, as many sides as there are contracts. The key part of the motion, in Gordon’s view, was the wording which underlined that PFI shouldn’t be applied inappropriately. There were projects for which is simply doesn’t offer the best value for money.

– Geoff Seeff, PPC for Chingford & Woodford Green and an adviser on PFI, condemned the motion for sloppy wording. He also suggested that examples of shocking expenditure under particular public operations (or any flavour of public and private were all meaningless without knowledge of the context and circumstances. He preferred Public Private Partnership schemes on the basis that the risk was “more evenly spread”.

– Fred MacIntosh talked about the tram system being built in Edinburgh – not through PFI – and suggested that PFI wasn’t suitable for transport projects. He talked about the “package” nature of PFI contracts which could render badly negotiated ones too limiting. The designer, operator and constructor of a particular service are all essentially negotiated at once, which makes the system appropriate for some projects and not others. This echoed a point made by an earlier speaker (whose name I didn’t catch, sorry) who used the useful analogy of building a house. You’d consult an architect about the design, speak to a bank about mortgaging and then to a builder about the actual works – and you wouldn’t try to do all these things simultaneously.

– Ann Gallup, who I gather was the former head of the party’s London Fire and Rescue Committee, supporting the motion, recalled being one of the few supportive voices of PFI last time the topic was debated at conference five years ago, when the text of the motion was very much opposed to PFI. She is still supportive now, suggesting that PFI works very well for the London fire service.

– Chris White, speaking in support, summed up my feeling when he said the whole subject was beset by dogma and spin. He reiterated the point made by other speakers that there were good PFI schemes and bad PFI schemes – no one overall rule should apply. He urged conference to support the motion on the basis that PFI was here to stay – it just needs to be managed and monitored correctly.

Duly carried and the party news item is here.