The agenda for Autumn Conference has been online for five days, and has already attracted attention from the media. It is instructive to see which stories are picked up by whom.
The Guardian focuses on the Housing Policy paper under the headline: Liberal Democrats propose major housebuilding programme.
The Independent homes in on the motion proposed by Danny Alexander on ‘Generating Growth and Jobs in a Time of Austerity’: Liberal Democrats slam Osborne over green policies.
Our opposition to airport expansion, and the motion from Watford, are also of interest to the Independent: Lib Dems to oppose South East airport expansion plans. This is also picked up by the BBC, by ITN.
The motion from Dover and Deal calling for a standard 20mph speed limit in residential areas has generated a flurry of articles. The Telegraph, under the headline Liberal Democrats call for 20mph speed limit in residential areas, highlights opposition from the AA. The Mirror, in its article Slash speed limit: Lib Dems to call for all 30mph zones to be cut to 20mph claims that motoring organisations have ‘slammed’ the plans, though it only quotes the AA.
The Telegraph draws attention to the motion titled ‘Good Food Shouldn’t Cost the Earth’ which proposes, amongst many other suggestions, that there should be a consultation on taxing sugary drinks: Tax fizzy drinks to combat childhood obesity, suggest Lib Dems
The Daily Mail, as we all know, tends to interpret any independent thinking on the part of Liberal Democrats as a threat to the Coalition, hence its headline Lib Dems will use conference to attack Tories over secret justice and green policies in move that could widen Coalition rift
It picks three ‘contentious’ issues: a motion calling for the complete ban on secret courts, the elements of Danny Alexander’s motion that focus on green policies and a motion on assisted dying. However it claims that the proposal for a levy on plastic bags (also in the ‘Good Food Shouldn’t Cost the Earth’ motion) follows the paper’s own Banish the Bag campaign.
Inevitably, the motion from Croydon on Lords Reform (or lack of it) features. BBC: Lords U-turn on agenda at Lib Dem party conference
Almost all the media outlets assume, or at least imply, that any motion placed on the agenda will be passed. Liberal Democrats must continue to explain that we are a democratic party and that policy is decided by the members on a free vote. Whilst some of the motions at Brighton restate core Liberal Democrat principles, and are likely to be carried overwhelmingly, most will be subject to amendment and some will be rejected by members.
* Mary Reid is a contributing editor on Lib Dem Voice. She was a councillor in Kingston upon Thames, where she is still very active with the local party, and is the Hon President of Kingston Lib Dems.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The mysterious mole men of New York caught on video
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
Rob Heale
Mick Taylor
Jason Connor
Chloe
17 Comments
“Liberal Democrats must continue to explain that we are a democratic party and that policy is decided by the members on a free vote.”
Just to correct you slightly, Mary. Policy is NOT decided by members. It is decided by Conference delegates, who are a (largely self-selected) sub-set of members. That’s an important distinction.
The AA told Radio 5 they agree with 20mph limits on residential street’s
@Simon Shaw – Are you suggesting that the party conference is undemocratic? If not, what is your point?
It seems conceivable that the food motion could be voted down for specific and general awfulness, and the 20mph motion on the grounds of localism.
@Simon Shaw – OK, I should have written ‘representative members’ rather than ‘the members’.
@Simon Titley
“Simon Shaw – Are you suggesting that the party conference is undemocratic? If not, what is your point?”
My point is that saying that for the Liberal Democrats “policy is decided by the members on a free vote” is not quite correct.
As to whether the Conference is undemocratic or not, I think I would say it is not nearly as democratic as some people like to imagine or claim. On the other hand I am not sure I could suggest a practical, significantly more democratic alternative.
@Mary Reid
“Simon Shaw – OK, I should have written ‘representative members’ rather than ‘the members’”
With that minor modification it becomes correct.
@Simon Shaw – You seem to be challenging the whole idea of representative democracy! But not very well.
So far as party conference is concerned, a strict quota of places for voting representatives is allocated to each local party according to how many members it has. Local parties then elect their conference representatives by STV. Representatives are ‘self-selected’ only if there aren’t enough candidates to trigger an election, but that is not the fault of the candidates. It does not invalidate the conference, any more than a councillor returned unopposed invalidates a local council.
You then admit : “I am not sure I could suggest a practical, significantly more democratic alternative.” If so, why cast aspersions on the conference in the first place? Your whole intervention in this debate has been utterly pointless.
I am a member, but I probably won’t have a vote. For various reasons I cannot often visit my local party, and so don’t get to voice opinions or vote there much . In this modern day and age, is it not possible to arrange a secure online voting system that would allow all members, rather than all representative members, to vote?
Richard, you only have to visit your LP once, at the AGM to get a vote on who your conference reps should be.
@Simon Titley
“Simon Shaw – You seem to be challenging the whole idea of representative democracy! But not very well.”
I’m challenging the “representative democracy” of the Party Conference very well actually – it’s just that you don’t appear to be able to see it.
“So far as party conference is concerned, a strict quota of places for voting representatives is allocated to each local party according to how many members it has. Local parties then elect their conference representatives by STV. Representatives are ‘self-selected’ only if there aren’t enough candidates to trigger an election, but that is not the fault of the candidates.”
I’m seriously surprised you cannot see the flaw in your argument.
Two key questions:
1. What proportion of constituencies do you reckon actually need to hold elections for their Conference representatives? That’s as opposed to “We have 8 places; 5 have said they want to be representatives; is there anyone else interested?”
2. What proportion of constituencies do you reckon cover the costs of attendance of their representatives?
Unless the answer to both questions is “most” there’s a danger that our claimed “democratic Conference” is actually really a self-selecting oligarchy, verging on plutocracy.
@Richard Dean – Your proposal is technically feasible. However, it ignores the fact that conference debates are not simply about voting. There is the debate itself, a deliberative process in which representatives argue and listen without necessarily having a preconceived notion of which way they will vote. There are also often complex votes on separate lines and amendments, which are impossible to vote on sensibly unless you have been following the debate closely.
Confining the vote to voting representatives not only ensures fair representation for each local party, it also ensures that most of those voting have listened to the arguments. An online system would skew voting towards those members willing and able to sit in front of their computers for several hours at a stretch, which, altough in theory open to anyone, is unlikely to produce an outcome more representative than electing strict quotas of voting representatives.
Where we can and should draw in far more members (both online and in person) is via a consultative process before each conference.
@Simon Shaw – So you think the conference is “actually really a self-selecting oligarchy, verging on plutocracy”. What are you smoking?
@Simon Titley
Bearing in mind my full comment was “Unless the answer to both questions is “most” there’s a danger that our claimed “democratic Conference” is actually really a self-selecting oligarchy, verging on plutocracy” I deduce that your answer to one or both of my questions is “relatively few”.
Are you saying you really don’t see the problem with Party Conference delegates “buying” a vote on party policy? In what way is that democratically representative?
In a previous comment you said that “It does not invalidate the conference, any more than a councillor returned unopposed invalidates a local council”. In fact the true comparative would be whether a local council could really be regarded as a representative democracy if councillors (whether returned unopposed or not) were not just unpaid, but actually had to pay a significant sum for the priviledge of being allowed to vote in the Council Chamber.
Online systems exist by which speeches can be streamed live to an udience of thousands, and by which people onlne can participate in debates – LibDems have used such systems for small videopresentations. LDV itself shows that online discussions can be useful and productive,
In quite a few of the debates, I’ll bet many delegate’s minds are more or less made up beforehand – I certainly got that impression from previous voting behaviours on the NHS for instance – so if the membership as a whole is like that then it;s no worse and no better. Actually I think the membership may be a bit better than that.
So I disagree that an online conference system would necessarily be less democratic or less interactive than at present. And online seems so much cheaper.
“LDV itself shows that online discussions can be useful and productive, ”
Oh, let’s not exaggerate.
Conference can be opened so that all member’s have a vote not just reps, in Scotland we did away with them a few years ago and our conference’s work fine.