On Lib Dem Voice: Reportage | Live Twitter Stream | Contribute
On the official party website: Conference home
Here’s a few highlights from the first day-and-a-bit’s action at Brighton…
Secret courts rouse conference passions – on both sides
It’s no secret that many Lib Dem members are angry with the vast majority of Lib Dem MPs for their decision to over-ride the vote of the party conference last September and approve legislation extending the use of Closed Material Procedures, aka ‘secret courts’. Ming Campbell is one of the few MPs so far publicly to make the case in favour – which he did on LibDemVoice here.
Nick Clegg defended his backing for them in his question-and-answer session at conference this afternoon. The Spectator’s Isabel Hardman captures the mood here: Clegg plays tough guy in shouty Q&A with Lib Dem activists:
… this was a more robust session than usual, with considerably more steam: activists weren’t just anxious and keen to grill their leader, they were grumpy. They were particularly annoyed with the way the Lib Dem leader dealt with their questions about secret courts … One activist grew rather angry as he asked his question. ‘How can we call ourselves a Liberal Democratic party?’ he asked Clegg. Clegg insisted that the party had done everything it could, given the constraints of Coalition. Actually, what activists want is for the party to vote against the second part of the bill, which it hasn’t done. There is only one small stage left in the Bill’s passage through parliament, ping-pong, where the Lords will consider amendments made in the Commons, so that rebellion bird has flown.
Expect more, much more, in this vein tomorrow, as secret courts has been selected as one of the two topics for an emergency debate. Though, as Telegraph blogger Dan Hodges speculates, Nick Clegg might not be so very displeased by that:
Clegg being beaten up by his activists is good fro Clegg. “I took the tough decisions for good of country” is his only narrative now.
— Dan Hodges (@DPJHodges) March 9, 2013
Controversially, a motion on the economy, which came second in the ballot, was demoted by the party’s federal conference committee on the grounds that half an hour would be inadequate to cover the issue. So instead, the Leveson report will be the other topic discussed – which hasn’t pleased all members:
Party talking to itself rather than talking 2 the country rejecting chance 2 debate growth and jobs – I despair #libdemconf
— Linda Jack (@Lindylooz) March 9, 2013
Plan A or Plan V?
After his essay in the New Statesman this week – covered here on LibDemVoice by Bill le Breton – it wasn’t much surprise to hear Vince Cable repeat his message in his Guardian interview today:
“To most people it seems merely common sense that in a crisis where the private sector lacks the confidence to invest, the government should do so: building modern infrastructure or giving councils the freedom to build affordable homes.” Historically, low interest rates mean that government (and local government) can borrow to invest cheaply.”
Other key points are covered well by The Spectator’s Isabel Hardman: Vince Cable: Tory ‘ideologues’ waging ‘jihad’ against public spending.
Both Nick and Vince take a swipe at pensioner perks
First, here’s Vince:
“I have been getting the winter fuel payment for five years, it has been keeping me warm in Twickenham. I actually give it away. If we are in the realm of tough choices, why did we feel this area is a sacred cow?”
And secondly, here’s Nick in his Q&A session with members:
If you want to revisit welfare then let’s at least start with the people at the top. Vince Cable receives a bus pass in Twickenham; he doesn’t feel he needs it. Why are we giving – Vince isn’t a millionaire – but why are we giving these universal no-questions-asked benefits to millionaire pensioners when people on much lower incomes are having their support from the benefits system cut or curtailed. And the Conservatives don’t want to do that. So they don’t even in their great enthusiasm for welfare reform, let’s go after welfare; go after welfare, even when they want to do that they won’t start at the top and work down.
Lib Dems / Tories agree compromise on Labour’s mansion tax ruse
Last month, Ed Miliband announced Labour’s decision to copy the Lib Dems’ tax-cuts-for-low-and-middle-earners policy and to pay for it by copying the Lib Dems’ mansion tax. All very bi-partisan. Labour then reckoned it would be a jolly wheeze to try and split the Coalition parties by tabling a motion in support of the mansion tax. Unsurprisingly, even passionate advocates like Vince can see through such tactics. And according to James Forsyth in The Spectator, the Lib Dems and Tories have worked out a way to ensure honour is satisfied on all sides:
… I understand from a senior coalition source that the two parties have now reached an agreement on how to handle Tuesday’s vote on Labour’s mansion tax motion. The Liberal Democrat leadership has assured their coalition partners that they’ll back a government amendment to it. This amendment will concede that the coalition parties have different views on the issue. The only question now is whether the speaker John Bercow will call it.
‘Lembit motion’ defeated
The so-called ‘Lembit motion’ – an attempt to amend the party’s constitution to make it possible for 10 voting representatives to trigger a motion of no-confidence in the party leader, which was moved by Ed Joyce and Rich Clare, but attributed to Lembit Opik – was overwhelmingly defeated. Apparently fewer than 10 people voted for it, somewhat ironically.
Ashcroft poll shows big Lib Dem losses
Lord Ashcroft has commissioned another of his polls, this time looking at a couple of hundred marginals. The headline finding a snapshot not a prediction) gives Labour an 84-seat majority. Its findings would also see the Lib Dems’ strength more than halved, even despite a considerable incumbency boost from popular sitting MPs, as UK Polling Report’s Anthony Wells notes:
Even with this prompting the poll suggests the Lib Dems will lose around 17 seats to the Conservatives. In seats where they are up against Labour the swing is bigger, the tactical/incumbency boost is smaller, and the Lib Dems face wipeout. Overall, if this poll was reflected at the next general election – still two years away remember- it would leave the Lib Dems with around 25 seats, a very sizeable loss, but not the complete wipeout that some have predicted, feared or hoped for.
A couple of cautionary tweets follow:
Poll says Lib Dems face wipeout at next election (Mar 2013). See also 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1996, 1990, 1989, 1988…
— Stephen Tall (@stephentall) March 9, 2013
Worth remembering that a 2008 marginals poll showed the Tories would win a majority of 146 seats. bit.ly/ZrAB2c
— George Eaton (@georgeeaton) March 9, 2013
And don’t forget to check out Tom Richards’ article about Ashcroft’s findings relating specifically to the Lib Dems here: A rousing campaigning message from Lord Ashcroft (of all people).
Speeches to date:
From Nick Clegg (at the rally), Jo Swinson, Paddy Ashdown and Steve Webb.
You can read the BBC News report (and video clip) of Paddy’s barn-storming speech here: Paddy Ashdown urges Lib Dems to not let power be a ‘blip’.
Great to be back on the Conference platform – I’d forgotten the warmth of a good Lib Dem audience! #LDConf
— Paddy Ashdown (@paddyashdown) March 9, 2013
Chris Huhne lives on
Not only was he praised by Shirley Williams in her speech to the Lib Dem ally last night, but Nick Clegg has also paid tribute today. Here’s the snippet from Andrew Sparrow’s Guardian live-blog:
Whatever is going on with Chris and Vicky [Pryce, Huhne’s ex-wife] … not only was he an outstanding local constituency MP he was also an extremely powerful thinker and indeed an very effective secretary of state. The fact that he has contributed two chapters on very important policies is very good to see. I hope people register that.
Nick was speaking at a fringe event to launch The Green Book, which one of its authors Mike Tuffrey wrote about here on LibDemVoice: The Green Book – new directions for Liberals in government.
* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Rhiannon Leaman appointed Jo Swinson's Chief of Staff
St Briavels Drive resurfacing works - buses diverted
Tuesday reading
Lydiate – Canalside trees gain preservation order
Time for macro economics to get political once more
Toronto Star: Build a Wall? Canada's Response to Trump
matt
Miranda
Nonconformistradical
David Raw
Yeovil Yokel
Geoffrey Dron
9 Comments
The Guardian reports this exchange:
Q: But why are Lib Dem MPs voting for something [secret courts] which is against Lib Dem policy?
Clegg says the party wants to block the secret courts proposal. But he cannot stop parliament voting for that. The Lib Dems only won 57 seats, he says.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/mar/09/lib-dem-spring-conference-clegg-live
Can that really be what Clegg said? If so, can someone explain by what mechanism a policy not in the Coalition Agreement can be adopted as government policy against the wishes of the Lib Dem leadership?
On the point about having only 57 MPs, I believe the arithmetical situation is that the first Labour amendment would have been carried if all the Lib Dem MPs had supported it instead of most of them voting against it. As that was the largest government majority, presumably the same is also true of the other amendments.
“Clegg insisted that the party had done everything it could, given the constraints of Coalition”
So, was Secret Courts in the Coalition Agreement? What exactly are these ‘constraints’?
Can our Party afford to lose people like this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/09/dinah-rose-quits-liberal-democrats
@Chris
Andrew Sparrow’s reporting of Nick Clegg’s answer about the LibDem’s support for secret courts isn’t verbatim.
I attended the Q&A and Clegg said the party had only 8% of MPs…but the gist of your question is correct.
What a lasting tribute to a Liberal leader,’I pushed through secret courts’ to make us all safe.
It will not belong before there is backpeddling on the Human Rights Act, the party leadershipl is aleady changing its tune to the Tory one on overseas aid, guns instead of clean water.
“Clegg says the party wants to block the secret courts proposal.”
I’m confused – so Ming Campbell’s article here defending it as a sadly necessary measure is not at all the view of the leadership then?
If Clegg actually said that then he needs to explain how merrily voting it through third reading is designed to achieve a block.
Vince Cable’s “bus pass” is presumably a London Freedom Pass that was introduced by London government not by national government. In the rest of the country bus passes (often but not always 50%) were introduced by Councils long before they were nationalised (at England/Wales/Scotland level).
The idea that the Freedom Pass in London (and bus passes in the rest of the country) could now be abolished is political nonsense – but it does seem that govenrment ministers of all parties often seem to lose their political common sense. It would also result in the collapse of local bus services in all but major urban areas – Ministers like the rest of us
should be careful what they wish for.
Tony Greaves
“Controversially, a motion on the economy, which came second in the ballot, was demoted by the party’s federal conference committee on the grounds that half an hour would be inadequate to cover the issue. So instead, the Leveson report will be the other topic discussed – which hasn’t pleased all members:”
So in a ballot of 8 possible motions to be put to conference, the one on the economy, (which I understand came second in the ballot) was not chosen – why? Who is running scared here, the Leadership or the Conference Committee?
Oh of course I was forgetting….it’s the economy stupid.
For once I would support the committee. The motion contained a series of controversial propositions, some that I would have supported, others such as the barmy mansion tax that I would not. Vince expressed a similar view (albeit he supports the mansion tax) at the SLF fringe on Friday. Half an hour was simply not enough to debate them all. And there was already a motion on the economy scheduled at 11am.
I’m not sure I buy the intent. The decision that the economy motion would be allotted an hour was pre-announced, it was on the Conference Daily paper for Saturday. It was stated that if the economy motion won the ballot it would get the full hour, and if it came second it would be disregarded. As conspiracies go, that is rather do-or-die.
But if you make undemocratic, opaque decisions like that, then you should expect conspiracy theories. I was surprised to learn that the FCC has such a power – apparently this is not new. Where does it end if you can declare certain topics “too big”? Granted, the SLF motion looked like a strange mix of the woolly and the overly specific, and I would probably have voted it down for that reason alone. But that should be the SLF’s problem. Whatever its faults, it was voted second.