I and 46 Council Leaders and Deputy Leaders have just written (see text of letter below) to Federal Conference Committee Char, Nick Da Costa and Party President, Mark Pack to raise our concerns about the lack of a main speaking slot for a local government representative at this year’s Federal Conference.
Local government is the only part of the party currently in power and we felt it was essential to speak up on behalf of the more than 3,200 Liberal Democrat councillors across the UK who are delivering for their communities every single day.
Between us, our councils are responsible for more than £17 billion of public spending. From social care to housing, from climate action to local transport we are leading and implementing Liberal Democrat values where they matter most: in people’s day-to-day lives.
We now have 76 Liberal Democrat council leaders across the UK; that’s more than the number of Liberal Democrat MPs. And yet, this year’s conference agenda does not include a prominent platform slot for any of them. That is deeply disappointing.
We’re proud of our 72 MPs and rightly so. But we cannot forget that when the party was reduced to just 8 MPs in 2015, it was local councillors who kept the Liberal Democrats alive. We delivered services, campaigned hard and we’re the foundation of rebuilding our party from the ground up.
The fact that 35 of our current MPs have a background in local government is no coincidence.
Local government also played a vital role in last year’s General Election. Not just on the doorstep, but financially through the tithing scheme (something which seems to be optional for our Members of Parliament!). Our councillors raised over £3 million to support local and national campaigns. That funding made a real difference, and the party’s financial position would be far weaker without it.
We’ve seen the responses on social media including Nick Da Costa’s comments about some local government presence in the auditorium. While we appreciate that the brilliant Millie Earl will open conference alongside Vikki Slade MP and that there will be a session on taking on Reform involving a council leader, these moments do not carry the weight or visibility of a proper keynote speech.
In previous years I have had the pleasure of giving a keynote speech on behalf of local government, and our leader in Hull Mike Ross addressed conference as the regional mayoral candidate more recently, I was struck by how many councillors and activists told me they appreciated seeing local government given real prominence on the main stage at conference.
The opening slot, for example, is often missed by attendees and is still seen by many as ceremonial rather than political.
This is not just about a single conference slot. It is about ensuring that local government is given the respect and recognition it has earned within the party. We had hoped it would no longer be necessary to keep making this case. But it clearly is.
Previous conferences have included keynote speeches from council leaders. So why not this one?
We welcome Nick’s offer to meet and will take that up. But we need to be honest this cannot keep happening. Local government delivers for the party. It deserves a proper voice at Federal Conference and throughout the party’s decision-making structures.
Let’s make sure our councillors, the people delivering Liberal Democrat values in power today are heard and recognised.
Text of the Letter:
Dear Nick and Mark
We are writing on behalf of Liberal Democrat councillors in England and Wales. Our councillors in administration are responsible for delivering essential services worth over £17 billion to millions of people.
Across the UK, we now have more than 3,200 hundred principal councillors. They are ambassadors for the party, showing every day, how Liberal Democrats make a difference in local communities.
Local government is the only part of the party currently in power. In England and Wales alone, we have 76 council leaders, that’s more council leaders than there are Liberal Democrat MPs.
It is therefore deeply disappointing that this year’s Federal Conference agenda includes no main speaking slot for a council leader or local government voice.
We are proud of our 72 MPs. But when the party was reduced to just 8 MPs in 2015, it was our councillors who kept the Liberal Democrats alive. Delivering services, campaigning, and starting to rebuild. It is no coincidence that 35 of our current MPs have a background in local government, we kickstarted the party’s fightback.
In last year’s General Election, councillors played a key role. On the doorstep and by raising over three million pounds through the tithing scheme. The party’s finances would be in a much weaker place without that support.
We have seen Nick Da Costa’s Facebook comments about local government presence in the auditorium. We appreciate Millie Earl will open conference alongside Vikki Slade MP and that a council leader will join a session on tackling Reform. But these do not carry the weight or visibility of a keynote speech. The opening slot is often missed and seen as ceremonial rather than political.
We had hoped it would no longer be necessary to explain the importance of local government to the party but when instances like this occur clearly that is not the case. Previous conferences have included keynote speeches from council leaders, so why not this time?
We welcome Nick’s offer to meet and will take it up. But we must be clear: this cannot continue. Our contribution to the party, both financial and practical, must be properly recognised and respected.
Kind regards
Councillor Joe Harris
Leader of the Lib Dem Group at the LGACouncillor Heather Kidd
Chair – ALDC
* Joe Harris is Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group at the Local Government Association and Leader of Cotswold District Council.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
Reform makes first gain from Conservatives in this by-election cycle
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Iain Donaldson
Jennie
Simon
Geoff Reid
Peter Martin
21 Comments
I have some sympathy for this, even if it does feel a little “precious”. However I would counter that platform speeches are by far the least interesting part of Conference! I would far rather attend something practical and useful like a session on fighting ReformUK (led by prominent councillors) than a platitudinal set piece speech 🙂
One of the many blunders made by the Clegg coterie in 2010 was waving aside LibDem councillors with experience of governing in coalition and living to tell the tale. Yes, LibDem councillors matter. They matter a lot.
Symbolism matters, and hurt feelings shouldn’t be waved aside as “precious”.
It would have been sensible to think “What would make these people feel valued?” just as it would have been sensible to say “This is how we are proposing to respond to this Tory wrecking amendment; Christine Jardine, are you comfortable with that?”
I would love to listen at our conference to Joe Harris and others of our zcouncil leaders telling us what they think about Labour’s Devolution Bill – all of its 300 pages, which look to me like a further reduction in local democracy, with’single tier’ Councils subordinated to ‘strategic’ combined authorities, with mayors telling them what to do, and central government in control overall.
As so often, William is spot on in his observations. Personally, after 9 years as an MP and 18 years as a Cllr, I think Conference should hear an explanation as to why our MP’s do not seem to have opposed Labour’s anti Devolution Bill. This stark reduction in local democracy is diametrically opposed to what used to be our principles on devolution and community empowerment.
As for the initial point of the article, Conference should indeed be hearing from those who run 76 Councils and £17 Billion of public expenditure. After the Thornhill Report many promises were made that Cllrs would be supported and valued in their own right and not just where they were stepping stones to Parliamentary seats.
Of course Lib Dem councillors should be represented by a keynote speaker at conference. Within the limits of council decision making these people achieve more than our MPs, making changes that quickly affect people’s lives. To boost our feelings in difficult times and to make the media and general public aware of the good use of power that Lib-Dems achieve is surely a key element in our campaigning.
Maybe Ed can include this as a major part of his speech BUT not with platitudes but with specific examples of what Lib-Dem councils and their leaders have done since coming to power. We need this kind of publicity nationally and urgently; can’t the conference committee see this?
As you would expect, I welcome this intervention now. But I’m really not sure Nick should be the target of this criticism – councillors and council leaders not being celebrated at conference is just a symptom of the lack of centering of local govt within our party.
HQ sends out regular emails to all members with information provided by the parliamentary party on the achievements of our parliamentarians. Has the LGA sought to put together content on the achievements of our local council base and ask HQ to send this to all of our members on a regular basis?
FCC has many different parts of the party competing for slots at conference – both speaking and policy motions. Did the LGA leadership do anything before conference to ask for a speaking slot, or to try to get policy that is relevant to local government onto the agenda? Of the 39 movers and summators of motions listed in the agenda, only 4 are councillors, whilst 22 are MP’s. What work has the LGA done with FPC to encourage our party to develop policies that our council leaders can actually implement with the power they have.
“Has the LGA sought to put together content on the achievements of our local council base and ask HQ to send this to all of our members on a regular basis?”
That’s a good idea
Councillors pay a tithe to their local Party. Do MPs do the same and if not why not?
Hi Joe,
Hope you’re well, and thanks for sharing this. Just wanted to check you received my response to this email I sent to you on Thursday.
All the best
Nick
Really frustrating for FCC that all this noise has started AFTER the agenda was put together and published. Nick, FCC and the team spend hours putting the agenda together and can only work with what they are given. No requests or proposals for keynote speeches or any other auditorium content came from the LGA, ALDC or any council leaders vs plenty from the parliamentary teams.
You yourself had a keynote speech at Autumn conference 2024 Joe Harris so you know there is a platform available.
I know Nick reached out last week with an offer of an urgent meeting to resolve your concerns and I hope you’ve taken him up on that.
Nick da Costa – I’m sure we’d all like to see the email exchange here, in the spirit of transparent decision-making.
David – in answer to your question, very few MPs pay the tithe. Neither do Welsh councillors outside a bare handful of councils.
Many senior and wealthy MPs – for example the Honourable Member for a certain city in the former county of Avon – have always refused point blank to pay on the basis they can’t afford it, despite being millionaires on paper. A binding motion to conference feels in order – we can then put that £650,000 to good use developing the party outside of target seats.
And just for th record: most LibDem peers pay a monthly contribution to the costs of the parliamentary staff, which enables us to employ more people and so mount beter-informed campaigns.
I was told of The Plan in the 90s.
Activists. Councillors. a council group.
Local power, a PPC. Get them elected.
Build the Westminster Party, government.
For a councillor, the Coalition had a
vivid visual metaphor.
When I was a councillor (for 22 years in 2 periods), I had to sign an undertaking to pay a tithe if elected before I was approved as a candidate. Why does this not apply to all councillors, MPs, AMs, MSPs and if not why not?
@Mick Taylor – local parties are being asked to include tithing for councillors in their constitutions. It does need some nuancing though. Some councillors are totally dependent on their allowances, both backbenchers at the basic rate and also those on responsibility allowances (like the Leader) whose responsibilities are full time. Actual allowances do vary from Council to Council so some adjustment may need to be made to make it work and there should be a get-out option for those struggling financially.
I’d be inclined to go the other way and question the basis for tithing. A system that basically says, We’ll only let you stand as a candidate if you promise to give us some of your income after you’re elected would seem to most voters like borderline corruption. Especially when the money in question is coming from their council taxes and effectively being taken by political parties! After all, we’ve rightly objected to Reform trying to use council funds to pay for political advisers. Is a political party taking money that is supposed to be to pay for councillors to do their jobs really that different?
Aside from the ethics of it, I’m pretty sure Labour operates a similar scheme and I’m guessing the Tories may well do too. Considering they have more councillors (and MPs) then we do so, and therefore stand to benefit more from any tithing system, maybe our interests would be better served by kicking up a fuss about tithing with the aim of making it political impossible for any party to enforce it.
@Simon R – it costs money to get elected. Leaflets need to be designed and printed, social media campaigns need to be paid for, local parties need to pay HQ for access to online systems, larger local parties may have an office and staff to pay etc.
So who pays? Individual councillors could all pay for their leaflets to be printed themselves for instance, but it makes much more sense and is much more cost effective for all councillors in a group to club together to do it. And the best and fairest way to fund that is via a tithe. There is nothing corrupt about funding your own campaign.
Corruption is more likely when *someone else* is funding your campaign….
AFAIK all local parties operate a hardship scheme for councillors who are struggling financially to pay a lower (or zero) amount.
I was quite shocked to find out that the same isn’t required of our MPs.
@ Nick Baird “AFAIK all local parties operate a hardship scheme for councillors who are struggling financially to pay a lower (or zero) amount”.
I’m afraid that is not the case , Nick. I know of several cases where candidates (some elected, some not) paid the costs of their election out of their own pocket. This is not surprising given the consequences of the patchwork nature of local parties now that “we are the party of middle England”.
This is not just a practical issue, but also an ethical matter which the party nationally (throughout the UK) needs to sort out.
The value of tithing is that it allows the Council Group (or the local party) to develop new areas by funding the production of leaflets. When I was a councillor back in the 1990s we had a voluntary tithing approach where the money went to the Council group (it helped that the leadership of the Council group and the local party were essentially the same people). Anyone who could not afford to tithe, which included those on means-tested benefits where their Councillor’s allowance reduced their benefits, could apply in confidence to the Group Whip not to tithe. In effect, only the Group Whip (and the Group Treasurer because they dealt with the Group’s bank account) knew who was and was not tithing. The rest of the Group only knew the total amount of tithing. This system worked very well. It helped that most Councillors could afford to tithe, but I can understand that Councillors who could afford to tithe but refused to do so led to the proposal to make tithing compulsory. As far as MPs are concerned, I would rather see a commitment on them to visit local parties’ social events in constituencies where we do not have the MP. In the past, we benefited greatly from Vince Cable’s attendance at our main social events; but not all MPs with constituencies nearby have shown a similar approach (we did get Olly Glover for our recent barbecue and Sarah Green for our last AGM, so thanks to both).
@SimonR. Do you really want to stop groups all over the country having political assistants to do the bureaucracy, research and find information for their council groups to operate at maximum effectiveness?
Reform are doing nothing new in this respect and are offering a similar service to opposition groups. So, I for one, am not criticising Reform from doing what a large number of councils of all political shades do already.
The logic of tithes is that councillors owe their position, largely, to being members of the party, who – maybe apart from some identified by David Raw – actually pay the expenses of election campaigns. To pay 10% of their councillor allowances to go towards continuing campaigns and future re-election campaigns is really not a big ask. And unless our councillors decide not to claim allowances (and very few can afford to do that) then the money is already spent and how it is used is surely up to the recipients and not the council.
Your suggestions would mean we would be hobbled in getting our message across, whilst the other parties would not be.
No moral high ground here, just a stupid proposal that will hold the party and council groups back