The Lib Dem conference used to be democratic, a place where policy was made. That is now under threat
The democratic nature of policymaking in the Liberal Democrats, unique among the main parties, is critical to our vitality and one of the main reasons why our activist base is so resilient, despite a lack of press coverage and the unfair voting system. As delegates gather for our annual conference the concern of many has switched from the demand for distinctiveness within the coalition to threats to the ability to make party policy ? and to influence government policy ? through its conference and its elected Federal Policy Committee (FCC).
There is broad acceptance that everything in the coalition agreement ? the good, the bad and the ugly ? must be delivered by the government, and that it contains a significant proportion of Liberal Democrat manifesto commitments. By the same token there is a growing insistence that the government should not go beyond the coalition agreement in delivering Tory policies ? unless these are clearly traded off with new Lib Dem policies, endorsed by the party.
The health and social care bill is a good example of where this has come unstuck. It goes beyond the coalition agreement into many Tory policy areas, and it reneges on the coalition agreement in respect of some Lib Dem policies, such as democratically accountable commissioners. In March, the party accepted that despite the coalition agreement there would indeed be a top-down reorganisation of the NHS and the abolition of primary care trusts, but it didn't agree any other breaches or extensions of the coalition agreement.
In our past, interim policy could be made effectively by parliamentary spokespeople and endorsed by the parliamentary party. This option no longer exists, especially since nearly half the parliamentary party members are on the government payroll or are ministerial aides. That's why passing motions at conference after debate and deliberation, having due regard to the leadership's view, is more important than ever.
There is now a disconnect between conference attendees and the Federal Conference Committee ? an elected body, independent of the leadership, which organises and selects items for debate at the party conference.
Again, health is a good example. Last September Charles West, a retired Shropshire GP, submitted a motion critical of the health white paper. The FCC did not select this motion for debate ? in retrospect clearly an error as it would have prevented the Health bill problems that followed. After the Bill was published, The GP submitted another motion, backed by a record 70 delegates, for the March conference, which criticised many aspects of the bill. The FCC rejected it in favour of one submitted by Paul Burstow, the health minister, and seconded by Richard Kemp, a Liverpool councillor, which did not criticise the bill. Undeterred, West submitted an amendment, with a record number of signatories, which was overwhelmingly backed by the conference.
Being an amendment, it could not set out the full position, so West submitted yet another motion in June for debate this September. This recognised the concessions made in the "listening exercise" but set out some remaining concerns. This motion, with more than 100 supporters, was rejected by the FCC in favour of a Q&A session with the minister and a panel.
West and his many backers submitted an emergency motion last week on the bill ? signed by 217 delegates, a new record. The FCC again rejected his motion in favour of a proposal ? with zero supporting signatories ? for a "topical discussion" with no vote, submitted by his nemesis, Councillor Kemp. West is appealing and more than 430 conference representatives have signalled support for that appeal. The matter may well come to the conference floor tomorrow.
This is important because 16 out of 24 non-payroll English Liberal Democrat MPs either abstained or voted against the government on report stage amendments or third reading of the bill. The House of Lords takes notice of such rebellions when considering its approach to this Bill, and a clear statement of opinion by Liberal Democrats at conference will also send a clear message to the House of Lords that the bill should be brought back to the coalition agreement. Neither I, nor West, despite his bruising experience, has any complaint against Nick Clegg or Paul Burstow in respect of these motions and indeed many delegates are well pleased with the way the Deputy Prime Minister has increasingly identified differences with the Conservatives within the coalition, not least on civil liberties matters in the response to the riots.
Delegates have it in their power to reject what many see as the "Toryisation" of our conference with lots of panel discussions and set-piece speeches. Unlike the other parties we pride ourselves on making our policy by proper debate, not spin doctor dictat, and by saying what we think by counting votes, rather than timing the length of ovations.
Incineration James Beattie The X Factor Theatre Bolton Wanderers Radio 1
No comments:
Post a Comment