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.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A pair of Liberal Democrat by-election wins
Labour to shun pacts with Greens
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a man falling off a paddleboard - for ever
Delivering in Whickham
Jason Connor
Geoffrey Payne
Alex Macfie
Ruth Bright
Steve Trevethan
16 Comments
Is this a(nother) sign of a Leadership retreating to a bunker ?
On the question of what Conference should be talking about – is there any chance of The Party discussing Coalition with Labour before We have to, when we have the space to think ?
My bet is that we will get an Emergency Conference where the only choices are to go along with The Leadership or destroy it in front of The World’s cameras, no choice at all in fact.
Fully agree.
Perhaps we should submit a motion to Congress proposing changes…..
John Kelly,
At our Spring 2023 Conference my local party submitted an amendment to Standing Orders (https://www.libdems.org.uk/conference/motions/spring-2023/f7). It set out eight valid reasons for a motion to be rejected and proposed a ballot of Conference delegates to determine which of those not selected because of time would be discussed as we do with emergency motions.
I remember many speakers stating that delegates would not have the time to consider these motions and we should leave it up to those we elect to FCC to do it, as they will read the motions. Also I believe they are given advice on the motions from our spokespersons on whether to accept them or not.
Another objection was that people might join the party, submit a motion, register for Conference and outnumber true liberals to get selected a motion which is against our principles if the ballot takes place before the majority of Conference goers have registered.
Maybe this should be re-submitted for next Autumn’s conference where there a greater number of debates. I recall some people complaining in the past that at Spring Conference there were too many constitutional amendments and amendments to Standing Orders and we discussed too few policy motions.
Conference debates have rarely excited me, for the numbingly bureaucratic reasons you lay out. My last conference was indeed Spring 2023.
That LDFP should be turned down because LDFI had not “first sought agreement with Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel” is extraordinary, let alone the idea that a religious festival should affect who/what/when we should debate.
LDFI & LDFP should agree to meet, preferably online, with advance notice of a mutually agreed agenda. Our need to harmonise, and perhaps even agree, would be of profound significance.
I totted up that it cost me over £1000 to attend the 2025 Autumn Conference in Bournemouth. That and the trend for uncontroversial motions in the chamber were the two main factors why I chose not to come in 2026. Judging by the tone of Conference emails, FCC judges a high motion pass rate as an indicator of success – but I would argue the opposite should be true, for a party where Conference is truly how members make policy. The orchestrated unanimity of recent Lib Dem Conferences is more reminiscent of the Russian Duma than a chamber of true debate.
This and Roderick Lynch’s recent article regarding federal conference are music to my ears.
We pride ourselves on being a party where members decide policy but in reality that is not the case. You only get to vote at conference if you can afford to attend and even if that is the case you don’t get to decide which motions are debated!
The way to fix the latter is an amemdment to standing orders that place every motion submitted onto the agenda and then gives conference a vote on which ones will be debated in a priorities ballot.
That way conference decides on what it will discuss not the FCC.
Are there any stats about how geographically representative the attendees were of the whole of the Uk, not just the bit at the bottom end of it.
John Kelly makes two important points. Party Conference is clearly over managed, and membership democracy is the regrettable victim. Time for a change. Secondly the regular discrimination (and I use that term deliberately) against debate on Palestine is frankly a scandal for a Party which prides itself on freedom of speech. Those who control Conference agendas should be reconsider or be replaced. How we behave of course reflects our values.
A good article which highlights the problem with conference. It’s increasingly unaffordable for many, who are excluded from policy development.
John is right to highlight that motions on such an important issue such as Palestine/Gaza, even with the recent announcement by the government seem to be routinely rejected. Lib Dem friends of Palestine, a growing & active AO with a significant membership cannot realistically have agreement with Lib Dem Friends of Israel before submitting motions, for the simple reason we support party policy agreed in 2021, for sanctions on trade with illegal settlements on the West Bank (now the governments position), and they don’t.
The FCC has, for whatever reason, stopped having controversial motions on the conference agenda.
I can remember, in the past, huge differences of opinion (for example about the Lansley Health reforms or going further back on whether we should have devolution to England or the English regions). As the debates took place, one could sense the delegates being swayed one way and then the other and one never knew the outcome until the counted vote took place.
Despite claims to the contrary by the bigger and better bombs brigade, we have never debated, far less agreed a unilateral disarmament motion and pacifists like me have never been given the opportunity to put our case. Perhaps FCC and the party leadership fear that if we were ever given the choice, we might make the ‘wrong’ decision.
Actually, I think that it’s the fear that we might actually agree to something radical, that our timid leadership fear would upset ‘Middle England’ that now prevents us having even mildly controversial debates.
Prove me wrong FCC. Next Autumn let’s have difficult and controversial motions to discuss that actually raise passions and allow for real choices in policy. Mind, I’ll believe it when I see it…
There was one controversial debate , with a certain speakers speech being viewed over 650k times & retweeted by that leader of the opposition itself. That’s the piers of social media these days
All this is very interesting. I have dipped in, remotely, but found it rather boring. Now I know why.
I left Labour due to its dictatorial processes under Starmer. I was told the Lib Dems are different, I never realised that when it comes to Palestine – all parties are a different shade of grey – maybe not the Greens under Polanski, but all the others. The one difference is that Labour/Conservatives manage once in a while to win a general election and it’s too early to see if Reform can.
A worrying article by John Kelly, and yes, all good points.
Also Mick Taylor reminds me how time after time the late Kevin White tried to get motions on the agenda, drawn up with the support of others with Lib Dems against Trident. it was one excuse after another.
The Ed dropped his own bombshell in his spring conference speech about nuclear weapons, that we are not allowed to debate.
The other very serious issues about conference policy making are:
1. Unless an outside serious and unexpected emergency, the leader or any other MP does not announce a new policy at conference.
2. Bite sized summaries of decisions are done (could be a deciding factor as to what will actually happen to a motion if agreed, is this done by movers or party HQ).
3. Parliamentarians actually use policy agreed in their contributions in parliament.
Conference stopped being supreme the day Ed Davey became leader. Conference had voted (albeit with provisos on timing) to rejoin the EU. Just about Ed’s first press announcement said the LibDems were not a rejoin party (pretty sure that was not part of his campaign to be elected leader). A huge strategic error which is only slowly being rectified. Labour will probably end up owning that at the next election
Simon Lytton. Thanks for pointing out the issue with the expense of going to conferences. I have given up on York and Brighton is now so expensive and shabby. Bournemouth is the only one really open to me now. To top that I paid as a full voting member, and due to the lack of any decent debates, I did not use my vote nor put in a speaker’s card. Basically, as a volunteer like most of us are, we are expected to pay for the privilege of working hard and giving time. In the past I did speak and vote and felt that I could make a difference. As long as Ed is most likely found serving fish and chips, in a speed boat or picking litter on the beach, rather than attending events that could give decent publicity and help us at the next election, then conference becomes just a luxury many cannot afford.