And the motion, now lacking lines 74-76 (or was it 72-76?) was then passed.
The official motion won the hearts and / or heads of the conference.
I understand that the Parliamentary Party were whipped to vote against the amendment, which given the tight majority may upset some delegates.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Tom Arms’ World Review (Tom Arms)
Observations of an Expat: Gaza (Tom Arms)
The Lib Dem strategy review (Rob Blackie)
Our voting system isn’t just unfair. It’s becoming dangerous. (Roz Savage MP)
Andy Burnham’s transport record: Who benefits and who gets left behind? (Iain Donaldson)
Jana 
David Ford 
David S 
Paul R 
Daniel Walker 
Brexit: The Uncivil War - the TV drama with Benedict Cumberbatch
A power vacuum?
HMO plan for Market Harborough's Bottom Club
I am liberal, woke and proud of it. We should all accept such descriptions with pride
10 Comments
I can live with that – remove 50% of nukes now and delay a descision until later.
It’s fence sitting with the fence leaning over onto the disarmament side.
When we have to dicuss this again I will be asking for the other 50% to go.
Lloyd
the Parliamentary Party were whipped to vote against the amendment
Erm. If that was the case, the whips aren’t very good. Either that or the awkward squad reacted badly to an attempt to whip them.
The counted vote meant representatives had to have their hands in the air for a long time, letting us have a good look around and see who was voting for what.
I saw a number of MPs voting on either side of the argument. Some even spoke for it.
Ming’s reaction to the debate is up on the party’s website
I’m writing this on the train back to London so the info may not be good – I’ve chatted to a couple of people who were in the hall for the vote and they reckon abour four or five of our MPs voted with the amendment. But in the end I think most people will agree that it was probably Ming’s own speech that won it for the official motion. Nice oratory. Good to see a bit of passion.
I’m not predisposed to like Ming very much or agree with him on this issue – but that speech was the best thing I’ve ever seen him do; I was greatly impressed.
Had I been in Harrogate I would not have been whipped on the vote. MPs were voting both ways anyway. I happen to support party policy on this.
But did any front bench MPs vote against the Campbell line? Whatver the rights adn wrongs of the issue, the way it was done is a disgrace to a supposedly democratic party.
Tony Greaves
The Parliamentary Party was not whipped; the Shadow Cabinet was whipped to vote against the amendment – though that was on the “collective responsibility” rule; it appears that they are whipped on all votes.
I don’t think it was Ming that won the argument – I think it was Nick Harvey’s point that we had to vote on the amendment in front of us, not the one the movers wish they’d written. A lot of people I spoke to afterwards had certainly been swayed by that, as was I in fact. Head over heart, I’m afraid.
It was precisely 40 votes not “roughly”. 414 for amendment #2 (amendment #1 in favour of a Euro-bomb was heavily defeated) and 454 for the main motion.
At least 5 MPs are known to have voted for the amendment, with 2 speaking for it in the debate.