Aspects of the recent Party conference in Brighton raise an important question in my mind: what has happened to democratic policy-making in the Liberal Democrats?

When Nick Clegg was leader, he repeatedly distinguished us from Labour and the Conservatives by emphasising how we made policy. Conference, he reminded us, was supreme.

I remember many conferences where that principle was visible in practice. There were robust debates, speakers for and against, amendments carried and defeated, and motions sometimes lost. Conference was not there simply to endorse a predetermined position. Its purpose was to debate and decide.

The contrast with the conference just gone is striking. Every motion debated was approved and, as far as I am aware, so was every amendment.

That should make us ask whether something has changed.

It appears increasingly difficult for a motion, or even an amendment, to reach the agenda unless the Federal Conference Committee has reason to believe the relevant party spokesperson is content for it to be discussed. If that is how the system operates in practice, it creates a formidable barrier for individuals, local parties and affiliated organisations wanting to put forward new or challenging ideas.

The problem does not end with motion selection. At this conference, remarkably few speakers were called to oppose motions or amendments. Many amendments were so uncontroversial they might better have been treated as drafting changes, leaving precious conference time for genuine disagreements.

I find it difficult to believe there were not more members willing to speak against. In at least two debates, I know there were.

There is one area where I believe these problems have become especially apparent. I should declare an interest: I am Secretary of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine.

There has long been substantial concern within the party about the treatment of Palestinians, and previous conference debates have demonstrated strong support for Palestinian rights and justice. Yet getting Palestine onto the conference agenda, through either an ordinary or emergency motion, has proved extraordinarily difficult.

Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine, an affiliated organisation entitled to submit motions and amendments, has repeatedly encountered this problem. Motions have been rejected for differing reasons: that we had not first sought agreement with Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel; that proposals were too broadly drafted; or that an emergency motion’s proposals ought to have been put forward using the ordinary motions procedure.

For the recent conference, we submitted a motion in June. FCC rejected it, citing among its reasons the coincidence of conference with Yom Kippur, meaning some Jewish members might be unable to participate in a debate of particular importance to them. Our drafting was also criticised.

We subsequently submitted an emergency motion after taking considerable advice, including drafting advice from Conference Committee members. Again, it was rejected, this time as “too out of date to provide a good basis for debate”. This was entirely owing to the Government’s announcement of new UK sanctions on settlements on 8th September. In fact, the motion (which can be viewed here) was designed to anticipate and respond to the new measures. Only one line was overtaken by events, and we wrote to FCC immediately following the Government’s announcement to propose a suitable amendment to it. But even the original wording would have sufficed to underpin a debate (the proposer could have easily acknowledged the change in circumstances).

Our concern is that FCC is deciding too restrictively what conference should be allowed to discuss. Particularly for emergency motions, why not give conference representatives greater opportunity to decide, through the ballot, what they want to debate?

Officers of Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine also submitted amendments to the party strategy and international security motions, because we believed both gave insufficient weight to international law and human rights. The amendments were deliberately general rather than Palestine-specific.

Both were rejected. The proposers were encouraged instead to submit speakers’ cards. Neither was called.

Meanwhile, one emergency motion selected for debate was so uncontroversial that an FCC member was reportedly seeking extra speakers because too few people had submitted cards to fill the allotted time. It suggests conference time could have been used for something members genuinely wanted to debate.

The issue is bigger than Palestine.

A democratic conference should sometimes be uncomfortable for the party leadership. It should hear arguments with which spokespeople disagree. Members should be able to challenge established positions and, occasionally, defeat recommendations put before them.

That is not evidence of a party in disarray. It is evidence of democracy working.

Liberalism itself involves reconciling competing objectives. Our constitution speaks of balancing freedom with responsibility. We may agree on the objectives while disagreeing passionately about where the balance should lie. Where better to resolve such disagreements than conference?

If Liberal Democrats genuinely believe conference remains sovereign in determining party policy, our procedures need to reflect that principle.

Perhaps it is time to review conference standing orders, putting much greater emphasis on the democratic rights of members and party organisations to place contentious questions before conference.

Conference should not merely approve policy.

It should have a meaningful role in making it.

* John Kelly is a member of the West Midlands Regional Executive, former Chair of Warwick District Liberal Democrats and Secretary of Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine.