Liberal Democrat conference and security checks #ldconf

Liberal Democrat Voice at Conference

On Lib Dem Voice: Reportage | Live Twitter Stream | Contribute
On the official party website: Conference home
Watch Live on BBC Parliament

The rolling saga that is security checks for people attending Liberal Democrat conference has generated a lot of heat, some light – and a fair degree of confusion. So this post is my attempt to untangle the main aspects of the story, which really fall into three sections: the principle of the checks, the way the checks have been communicated and the way the checks have in practice been carried out.

In theory, the principle of whether or not the Liberal Democrat conference organisers should have agreed to the police’s request for extra security checks on attendees for the autumn conference is a fairly clear one for people to chew over.

Poor communications

However, it has been muddled by communications that have at times been unclear or even completely absent. From checking with people involved in the last few days, it seems clear to me that the party’s Federal Conference Committee is retaining the final say over who does or does not come to party conference but it’s very easy to understand why many people have come away with a different impression given some of the ways the process has been described up to now. Even the emails sent out after people have been accredited are rather a missed opportunity, as I highlighted a few days ago (though to their credit the conference team are now looking at changing the wording of that email).

What also has not helped is the lack of communication about when people can expect to hear the outcome of their security checks.

The bald numbers don’t sound too bad. As of the Wednesday evening 4,773 had been through the process and accredited. 841 were being processed, with that number expected to fall to under 500 by the end of the weekend. [Update: for more recent figures see here.]

But until you get an email saying you are through or with a query, you have faced silence.

People who registered back in January and whose surnames are low in the alphabet are in the 841 and understandably silence breeds concern, nervousness and lack of confidence in the system. It also has a slightly nasty twist for access to conference, as broadly speaking the later you find out for sure if you can go to conference, the more expensive accommodation or travel is to book. For better off people either you risk it and book in advance or you take the hit of the higher costs. But if you struggle to meet the costs of conference, then you face a tough dilemma.

My guess is that if we’d all been told at what speed the process would work in advance, many people would have been far happier – but we shouldn’t forget the impact on the cost of conference for some people who struggle to afford it.

No-one blocked from attending conference so far

Then there is the question of who has not been approved. There’s been lots of chatter online about various people being rejected for conference. The answer from the Federal Conference Committee’s chair, Andrew Wiseman, when I asked him how many had been rejected however was very clear: “zero”. The point being that some people have been asked to clarify information or submit a different photo, but that this is different from being rejected. Being rejected means you can’t go to conference, end of story; being asked something like to provide a different photo means just that – do that, pass the checks and you can go to conference.

Around 60 people have had their photographs queried and a small number of these cases have attracted a lot of attention online. However, rhe request for a clear and shoulders photograph is nothing new. I’ve been to federal party conferences since spring 1990 and as a result have sitting on the shelf to my left 23 conferences of photo badges, complete with head and shoulders photos on them (and, ahem, varying hairstyles).

So the question for me at least is how many of the 60 or so photographs that have been rejected would have also fallen foul of the party’s previous rules, which have been in place without questioning for more than two decades?

Certainly some. Two examples I’ve been told of are one person who submitted a “head and shoulders” photograph that actually showed two people. It would not have met the party’s old rules. Another was a photo so tiny that it too would have failed the old rules.

There are also signs that not all the photo issues are of this nature. In particular, the conference team has introduced an extra manual check to see if photos can be sorted out (e.g. by cropping) before being rejected. That is a a good move, but suggests that if had been done from the start things would have gone a little better. Callum Leslie’s experience also suggests a fallible system.

(My previous request to people who have had their photos queried to supply copies of the photos so we can all see how reasonable or not the queries are still stands by the way. If you’re in that category please do get in touch and I’ll update this post with any other specific examples.)

Three opportunities to influence the future

So, in conclusion – it is easy to see how the operation and communication of the system could and should have been better.

If you have not yet heard about your own security check, that does not mean anything has gone wrong and you should hear soon. The official expectation from Andrew Wiseman is that “For those who had registered by last Monday and where there are no queries I would expect them to be accredited by next weekend”.

Some of the claims about people being rejected are misleading, both because they have not been blocked from coming to conference, but rather asked to change or add to their application, and also because in at least some cases the people involved submitted photos that would have always been rejected by the party in earlier years.

That still however leaves quite a lot to debate and decide on ahead of future conferences, especially given cases such as Lisa’s (including a comment from Andrew Wiseman in the thread underneath) and the information that Zoe O’Connell secured via a freedom of information request (note how late in the day the police were leaving working out how their system would work). [Update: For more on some of these problems, see here.]

On which point there are three dates to bear in mind:

  • 1pm Monday is the deadline for submitting written questions to the Federal Conference Committee report
  • Saturday 17th, 14:40 is the Conference Committee report to conference
  • Sunday 18th, 09:00 is the debate on a motion about conference accreditation

 

Read more by or more about , , , or .
This entry was posted in Conference and News.
Advert

31 Comments

  • Colin Green 3rd Sep '11 - 4:39pm

    There are 5614 applications for conference?!! I’d better get there early if I want to get in.

  • Simon McGrath 3rd Sep '11 - 5:07pm

    @callum did you fail to read the instructions which said the photo had to be in colour?

  • Sadie Smith 3rd Sep '11 - 5:12pm

    I still don’t see why all the applications done online could not have been started as soon as they were received.
    It would be logical to spend the time on ones which were more fiddly.
    I took my Passport to Sheffield on the off chance it would help with security and never used it.I just queued!
    I am impressed that Mark got different photos accepted and used. I sent fresh photos and had passes with very old photos every time.

  • Question – knowing the increased workload this new system would bring did the federal party increase the number of staff working in the conference office – even roping in volunteers add extra manpower? I suspect not.

  • paul barker 3rd Sep '11 - 10:43pm

    Could I suggest we set up a fund to help any members in difficulty because of this process. Perhaps some of the people who took the original decisions which led to the problems could be asked to contribute.

  • My surname begins with ‘B’ so not sure why I haven’t heard anything yet. My photograph is the same one that I successfully used for a new passport earlier this year. I have been waiting to book train tickets and have seen the prices rise.

    I have also been unable to book my daughter on at the reduced rate as the web site says I must first contact Conference Office, who are not responding.

    This is all just so frustrating.

  • Surely people know by now that pretty much all hotels allow cancellation upto at least 24 hrs before and the major one’s midday on the day of arrival. This negates any worry over booking in advance whilst not knowing whether you have been accredited or not.

  • @Gareth hence my call to use unpaid volunteers. Yes I know many can’t help 9-5 Mon-Fri but any help at any time would surly help in peaks of work. I have never seen an ad in Lib Dem News asking for volunteers to help out at HQ.

  • Clare Blair 4th Sep '11 - 2:22pm

    I think rejected photos really not something any contributor is qualified to judge but is something for FCC not only to explain but to justify. They have done a very poor job at both. Let’s put the blame for this debacle firmly where it lies.

  • Tony Greaves 4th Sep '11 - 4:13pm

    It does all seem to be a complete shambles. I know learn that I can’t just turn up and register as I often do if I decide I can’t keep away in spite of firm resolutions never to go again. I can turn up but will then have to wait 48 hours for a check by GM police.

    So I can wander in and out of the parliamentary estate at will but not a LD conference.

    This whole thing is a disgrace and seems to have been compounded by the kind of inefficiency and incompetence we have come to expect will come out of party HQ from time to time.

    I have two specific questions. What’s this about the party not accepting cheques any more? Surely this is not true?

    And why is this in the hands of Greater Manchester police which is known as one of the least competent forces in the country?

    Tony Greaves

  • Grammar Police 5th Sep '11 - 9:23pm
  • “So I can wander in and out of the parliamentary estate at will but not a LD conference.

    Most of which needs a pass though. Though I do think its a bit silly that people who are security cleared to work in Parliament need a seperate clearance to attend conference.

  • For some reason, perhaps because of my discontent with the party’s direction these days, my comments seem prone to deletion – but isn’t this all symptomatic now of a party which has lost its way so completely that it doesn’t know what it’s doing?

  • Alice Field 7th Sep '11 - 9:56am

    Hm. I’d not even thought about it until now… I just sent the documentation/photo they asked for months ago and assumed it would be ok!

    Cheers for the scaremongering!

  • Richard Hill 12th Sep '11 - 9:10pm

    I’ve had no problems. The information was sent as asked, It did not seem a complicated process. Sat back ,didn’t think about it again and like magic everything required dropped through my door last week. I would like to thank all involved for doing such good work, including the police.
    I wasn’t sure where I was staying but last week looked on laterooms.com and found a 3 star hotel 3.7 miles away for £25 pounds a night. I can’t imagine things going better. Perhaps people should not be looking at the organization perhaps they should be looking at themselves.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarInnocent Bystander 14th Aug - 9:01pm
    "Don’t they see the obvious problem here? I’m not sure they do!" Oftimes I despair of economists. They don't have a problem. Economists are resolutely...
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 14th Aug - 8:37pm
    @ Thomas, "Also, putting neoliberalism and ordoliberalism into the same bracket is false." Ordoliberalism is just the German variant of a more typically Anglo-Saxon neoliberalism....
  • User AvatarArnold Kiel 14th Aug - 8:14pm
    Jeff, Ever heard of the term base-effect? A small amount can easily grow faster than a large one. The large amount still matters more. But...
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 14th Aug - 8:03pm
    @ Thomas, "well, if you boast that you can reduce national debt, you will attract voters." Possibly. But the problem is that the voters tend...
  • User AvatarMark Blackburn 14th Aug - 7:56pm
    Yay! More of the same please. Strong, clear messaging which clearly defines us and our values to the public.
  • User AvatarDavid Allen 14th Aug - 7:54pm
    Katharine "David, sorry you thought my remark sounded snarky. .... but I look forward then to the quiet mass of the people being incredulous about...