In the spirit of closer working between conference and Lib Dem Voice, we were invited to send an observer to the deliberations of the Federal Conference Committee, which meets shortly before Conference.

The Liverpool Arena does have a roof, noted party staff as operation issues began the order of the day. Those who had been onsite for longer reported that the Liverpool Arena staff were helpful, had a can-do attitude, and had worked hard to fix the few problems that had arisen. London Assembly Members will be reassured to hear that they are permitted to use the facilities set aside for Parliamentarians. Taxis have been notified of the times likely to be busiest when queues for the shuttle buses rise; and even as the meeting began, more flags were being deployed to the outside of the building to make it look more “Lib Dem.”

Federal Conference Committee is charged with the day-to-day running of conference and is the final arbiter on what gets discussed. They have been discussing the conference agenda for months. They decide which if any amendments finally see the light of day. They have input on decisions about separate votes. They rule whether emergency motions are genuine emergencies. At their meeting in the conference centre just hours before the first major events take place, they meet with party staff to decide how the rest of us will be spending our next two days. After a brief report on the technical issues, they get stuck into considering amendments.

There has been much toing and froing before even this point. The main items for debate have been known for some time, and amendments have been trickling in from conference representatives. Each amendment is subject to discussion with policy staff, party experts and spokespeople and the results of the deliberation are reported to the meeting. The key problems are not embarrassment, or unwillingness of parliamentarians to consider debating something.

It often seems to come down to whether the words submitted in a rush by activists anxious to meet the deadlines actually end up saying what they think they mean. “The question for us is whether this is worth debating,” one member clarified in a thorny debate on amendment. Is an amendment actually relevant, or does it open a new and different policy avenue? Is it something that should definitely be mentioned in a speech, but doesn’t need to be carved into stone and become party policy until Conference decides otherwise? In one case, it was debated what a representative meant for some ten minutes – because what he had written wasn’t completely clear – until it was finally decided that a committee member should get back to him and tell him what Committee thought he should mean – even if that wasn’t what he said. Ultimately the member could decide not to take the Committee’s advice.

Essentially it all boils down to FCC getting bogged down in semantics so that Conference doesn’t have to.

FCC was remarkably consensual on most items, with relatively few issues going to votes. The entire conference agenda was subject to methodical scrutiny in an orderly 90 minutes. I was assured it doesn’t always happen so quickly. Other meetings in the cycle take whole days.

Deciding whether issues were topical or not took more time than anything else considered. Just how urgent is Heathrow, given that it takes ten years to build a runway? Were some issues, in fact, a question for the EU and not the Lib Dems? Should you talk about school closures (and please the rural contingent) or should you discuss airport expansion (and satisfy the London lot). Should you discuss Israel on a Sabbath? Ultimately, can you do Gaza in 15 minutes? Laughter ensued at a suggestion of cutting the time available to reports from Federal Exec, the Campaign for Gender Balance or the Commons Parliamentary party – until it was hastily clarified that the time could be shortened because of a shortage of tabled questions.

Ultimately, the FCC have a lot of power over the rest of us ordinary conference representatives. They were keen to stress in their invite that they were proud of the way that the committee champions the rights of Conference and that was certainly evident from the meeting I saw. Perhaps it was best summed up in one of the final comments of the afternoon: “If anyone’s speaking to the Parliamentary Party, could someone remind them that MPs wishing to speak must submit Speakers’ Cards – and this year, could they remember to fill them in?” Lib Dem Conference doesn’t call Lib Dem MPs to speak just because they’re MPs. They have to have something germane to say.