A majority of voting representatives backed the official Trident motion at conference, and it has also received some positive reception in the Lib Dem blogosphere.
However, while the media have been busying themselves with their made-up story about future coalitions, some questions are also being asked about the mechanics of how the Trident motion was won.
Writing on his blog, Alex Foster says:
I’m not sure, however, I buy the theory that it was Ming that swung it. No, that was shadowy strong-arm tactics. Key PPCs got phonecalls from high-ups. Local party chairs (like me) got a lobbying pack we were supposed to give to our conference reps posted out to us, but those on the other side of the argument were denied first the opportunity, then the data list to send the mailing themselves. Lots of the parliamentary party were brought to wave their voting cards. All of that adds up to more than the 40 votes that swung the argument.
Commenting on this blog, Lord Greaves said:
Whatver the rights adn wrongs of the issue, the way it was done is a disgrace to a supposedly democratic party.
In the debate itself, Phil Willis MP accused the movers of the motion of “pure misrepresentation” of amendment two.
At the heart of the conern is a technical question about use of resources.
- The party’s membership lists were used to send a mailshot to all local party chairs, and it isn’t clear who paid for the mailing. It also seems that the movers of amendment two were denied the right to do the same.
- Leaflets were distributed on the day of the debate which attacked amendment two head on – again it is unclear when they were produced, and who paid for them.
- The parliamentary party were possibly whipped, or at the least strongly encouraged to (in the words of one MP’s researcher) “back Ming”.
Crucially, it must be stressed that the debate itself was handled fairly – the disposition of the speakers reflected the balance of speakers cards filed for or against. The chair of the session acted properly in calling for a row by row count of votes.
It is also important to note that the movers of amendment two had just as much right as the movers of the original motion to produce literature – and they did, funded out of their own pockets. However, questions remain over whether it was right for a membership list to be released to the movers of the unamended motion and also who printed, distributed, and paid for their literature. The Federal Policy Committee and the parliamentarians charged with moving motions on their behalf have a right to try and convince the party’s membership to vote for their policies – but there should be very clear rules about which official party resources they are able to avail themselves of as they do so.
There must be a level playing field in our policy making – pitching an organised and well resourced machine against ad-hoc coalitions of members is unfair, and could end up undermining the unique policy-making conference of which we so proudly boast.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Lib Dems are reviewing policy and strategy says PoliticsHome
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Neil Hickman
Alex Macfie
Tom Walker
paul barker
16 Comments
It was David Grace wot swung it for me with his appalling Liberator article
Rob,
You are quite right. Frankly the releasse of names and addresses of party chairs could well be in breach of the Data Protection Act. It leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. I am disappointed that Claire (above) was swung by an article she regarded as appalling (regardless of how appalling she found it) there was a good debate in the hall and however appalled she was I would have hoped she would have made the decision based on the debate and the evidence.
Unfortunately, if there were breaches, a lot of the complaints come from the ‘usual suspects’ who routinely make allegations like this when they lose the vote.
It was the same with the tax vote, some people are still going on about foul play, and they raise the same questions now.
Is that symptomatic of foul play on the part of the party leadership or sore losers in a part of the party?
Sticking my neck out here, and taking some blame, with just 40 votes in could we (those backing them amendment) have worked harder and better.
To which the simple answer is yes.
Colin
Tony Greaves unhappy?!
Shock Horror
I suspect there probably were at least 20 people in the hall whose votes were swung by Ming’s intervention.
I also think that with the benefit of hindsight, the amendment made a tactical error in removing the immediate 50 per cent cut in Trident, allowing its opponents to portray it (wrongly) as wanting to keep Trident for 20 years with no reductions in the interim.
I have to say that I doubt that much of the pre-conference lobbying made very much difference, but there are questions which need to be asked about the role of party and parliamentary staff in in internal party debates, particularly if such staff are funded by taxpayers’ money.
Its also worth remembering that Dr. Ann Morrision of Birmingham actually brought up some of these issues in the debate and was very well recieved. I would hope that this would result in the ‘leadership’ also reviewing their position.
Colin
http://www.colin-ross.org.uk
I am quite clear that Ming swung the vote. As to the “whipping” allegation, it hardly squares with John Barrett’s speech.
Ok I wasn’t particularly keen on some of the motion as passed but lets look at some of the alleged “dodgy tactics”:
*Key PPCs got phonecalls from high-ups.
*Phil Willis MP accused the movers of the motion of “pure misrepresentation” of amendment two.
*Leaflets were distributed on the day of the debate which attacked amendment two head on
*The parliamentary party were possibly whipped, or at the least strongly encouraged to (in the words of one MP’s researcher) “back Ming”.
If people say that this was unfair (and it’s notable that Colin Ross isn’t among them) I’m tempted to say “ahh diddums – nasty people going out and campaigning like that!”. None of those four are massively different from tactics I’ve used for LDYS mortions in the past – Whipping of MPs has gone on for years and seems to have been rather unsuccessful this time!
There were similar complaints from pro women-only shortlists people after the debate and vote in 2001. We’re a campaigning party, if people campaign effectively for a particular position and persuade people to support it then that’s a good thing (even when you end up on the wrong side!)
The one possible issue is the sending of material to local party chairs (not IMO a breach of the DPA). However I’ve not heard a credible report that a request was made and denied for a similar facility for the supporters of the amendment. In any case something similar could have been done to membership secretaries from publically available information.
Set the Trident debate aside for a second – the issue is simply this: is it fair that one side has to campaign in its own time with its own money, building contact databases up itself, while the other ‘side’ uses tax payers money to pay people to work in party time using databases that can give them the information they need in minutes, rather than days?
However I’ve not heard a credible report that a request was made and denied for a similar facility for the supporters of the amendment.
I was sure I had heard that, but I cannot now recall where.
Hello again, The only bit I consider unfair is the mailing labels that were provided.
I can confirm labels were requested by those behind Amendment Two and that request was denied.
Colin
http://www.colin-ross.org.uk
As a ‘key PPC’ I was phoned up and asked my views (which were pro-amendment 2). No attempt was made to persuade me to change them, beyond what everyone seems to have had by email.
Islington Lib Dems debated the issue at our AGM in November – and came out 2:1 against renewing Trident. With the motion & amendment published, and as the newly-selected PPC, I re-consulted members by email. The responses were 3:1 against renewing Trident! So I voted for amendment 2 with a clear conscience.
And with a few (predictable) exceptions, I am pleased by the quality of the debate and the postive unacrimonious mood of conference following it.
I have no problem with leading members in a campaigning party campaigning.
I do think there is an issue about one-sided access to mailing lists eg of party chairs and I hope that will be pursued. It does seem to me that if being used to lobby for one position on an issue – bearing in mind that it is conference that decides which is the ‘official’ position – it should be available on equal terms to the other side(s).
I don’t extend that to the email lists however – I expect those to be propaganda from the leadership (that’s not intended to be disparaging) and take them as such.
While I’m about it, I think it’s daft to believe
a) anyone capable of winnnig a key seat selection/fighting a key seat is likely to be swayed by one lowkey phone call from a colleague
b) that it’s wrong for party members to take into account the position of the leader(ship) when forming their views on an issue
c) that it’s a good thing for the leadership to be defeated: that would not stop me (and did not in this case) voting as I see fit, but I don’t actively seek or welcome such defeats
d) that for anti-establishment motions/amendments to win the day through campaigns and debate is always a sign of the vibrant health of our party yet for establishment ones to win is a sign of some dodgy fix.
We should have more respect for each other than that!
But then I think Princess Diana died because she was travelling in a speeding car without wearing a seat belt. So what do I know….:-)
I don’t think this sort of lobbying swings many, if any, people, but I do think it promotes turnout. And a high turnout is probably bad for supporters of amendment 2, whether they match the leadership’s level of campaigning or not.
“particularly if such staff are funded by taxpayers’ money.”
That money is partly for “policy development” – if anything, it’s more appropriate if they are pushing one position than if federal party staff funded by members are.
One problem with giving the same access to the proposers of amendment 2 would be that the conference committee didn’t (and this is my understanding) formally accept the amendment until the Friday of conference.
Rob – “Set the Trident debate aside for a second – the issue is simply this…”
I think there are a number of points raised there:
Money and resources – That will always be the case in the MPs will have access to staff etc to do this sort of thing even if they do it in their own time etc. Debatable point about whether Parliamentary staff could/should be required to do such things.
The use of taxpayers money. I would expect that a mailshot about party policy development to not be paid for by “taxpayers”. The exception to that is that if it is regarded as a legitimate use of PDF money (and maybe it can the requirements are pretty wide!) than that should go equally for alternative points of view in a debate leading to a policy.
Databases – completely wrong that one side of an argument should be able to use party information to put its case.
Basically the Parliamentary party will have greater resources and muscle to deploy to win internal policy arguments – and I don’t see that ever changing from being the case.