Follow Up to My Resignation Letter from LDCF

 As I did say at the end of my post of my resignation letter from the LDCF (Liberal Democrat Christian Forum) I did say I would publish a follow up about some of the context before and to answer some the queries that have come up since.

First of all the context.

Last weekend I became aware that the Chair of LDCF has signed an open letter started by Liberal Voice for Women. He had signed it not in a personal capacity as all bar one of the other signaturies had done, but on behalf of the exec of LDCF. The other exception was the Chair of Liberal Voice for Women.

Liberal Voice for Women is a group that is not affiliated to the Liberal Democrats in any way and have been asked to stop using the word Liberal in their title as it is misleading. This, however, does not stop them emailing members of the Liberal Democrats bringing Gender Critical concerns to the fore and sometime leading potentially naive members, councillors, peers and others to be swayed by their argument. Some of whom have later regretted decisions they made supporting the group and have apologised for their action, naivity on the subject and hurt they have caused long standing friends.

The current letter was regarding freedom of speech for the groups LGB Alliance and FiLiA to have stalls at the upcoming Lib Dem Conference. The only people with a right to have stalls at Lib Dem Conference would be the Groups that are made up of Liberal Democrats the groups that represent subsets of our membership. Groups such as LDCF and LGBT+ Lib Dems for example. Other groups, organisations and charities with outside interests will be invited or accepted by the Conference Committee. Some of these are ungoing concerns that share the parties values, other are groups that are relevant to the debate or areas of policy we are focussing on at present. In any event there is finite space for stalls in the exhibition part of conference.

The argument about freedom of speech is one that would sway Liberal Democrats, we love debate especially amongst ourselves. However, with relation to the two organisations in question how do they use the freedom of speech they already have?

Those who support these two organisations use their freedom of speech to spread fear about trans women, never trans men it is interesting to note. They want trans people to use the bathroom of their assigned gender at birth, ie they don't want trans women in women's bathrooms, changing rooms or spaces, but seem to ignore the implication that trans men with their testosterone shots and growing their facial hair would be subject to the same rules and have to be in "women's" spaces. 

They also use their freedom of speech to lambast, copy post, abuse and torment not only trans people but any of us who show support for them. Everytime any of us of LGBT+ Lib Dems twitter account post in support of Trans people we are attacked virolantly.

This letter is asking to allow members of this organisation to operate a stall, to share the same space as LGBT+ members who would have their own stall at Lib Dem Conference. The LGBT+ stall is more than just a stall to promote our organisation it is also a stall that has helped many LGBT+ members of the party feel safe, often for the first time, to talk about their sexuality or gender identity. This safe space would easily be affected by anti-trans groups, who also aren't too keen on trans supportive LGB people or trans inclusive feminists, being set up who knows how far away.

Now when I saw that the Chair of LDCF had signed this letter on behalf of the LDCF Exec I did not accuse the entire Exec of making a misjudgement. I reached out to friends on the Exec of LDCF to get a better picture of what was happening. I was relieved to hear that concerns had been raised by some about taking action as a group to sign this letter. 

There was also an offer to speak to the chair relayed through one of these exec members. As I have a tiring work schedule and other commitments I asked to what end this phone call would have, but heard nothing back through that channel.

Well this morning a statement (since amended slightly) appeared on the LDCF website. The initial wording started with "LDCF unanimously co-signed a letter". I took obvious objection to such wording as I was a member of LDCF and had not given permission for anyone to sign that letter on my behalf as part of LDCF, nor was there any communication with the membership of the whole about such a letter. How this could be unanimous is a party of voting geekery is beyond me.

Clearly as a past member of the LGBT+ Exec, an openly gay three time Westminster Candidate I could not stand by and have myself associated with such a poorly worded statement that seemed to suggest I agreed to such a stance. I announced I would be tendering my resignation forthwith in response to the Twitter post with the statement and drafted the letter.

I said I would publish the letter just over an hour after I submitted the resignation letter. This was to allow peope time to maybe persuade others that the statement should to be taken down from the website before further consideration was given to this matter. When it was still there at 10:30 I hit publish on my accounts.

In the interim I did get question from the LDCF Twitter account, at first anonymously but in a personal capacity. When I enquired who was asking, it was from the Chair. However, when I asked publically if he had reached out the LGBT+ Lib Dems I got the response.

We did reach out to various people including LGBTQ+ in the Party and received no response other than the same ‘they are transphobic’. We have asked very senior people in the Party for their evidence and experience also. Let’s all push now for some clear statements.

So yeah going to the authority on trans issues, being told the organisations in question are transphobic apparently isn't enough clarity. 

I was also asked to share proof that the organisations were transphobic. I face enough of this whenever I do stand up for trans rights, it is an ongoing struggle for many of us on social media. But our party is clear on what constitutes transphobia. But if the chair of any part of our party (and I say this having chaired parts of it myself) can't do some basic research, ask some relevant people and then listen to their answers. Before going ahead and doing something anyway on behalf of that organisation or just exec (not quite clear which, if either), what hope is there?

This is a Saturday I have a two day weekend this week (which only happens 50% of the time). I was hoping for some self care this morning. Thanks to those who have helped provide care to me as I went through this tough time. I may write more on this latter but for now I am taking some time for myself.

Well Being Economics: First Reflections on Jo's FIrst Leader's Speech #JoSwinson #LDConf

The key thing that made me jump out of my seat during Jo Swinson's leader's speech was when she questioned why we measure the state of our country by GDP (Gross Domestic Product). It took me back to one of my first Economics tutorials  a little over 30 years ago.

In that tutorial the tutor said that economics was basically powered by everyone getting out of it what is best for themselves. I questioned that said what about those who were concerned about giving others a fair chance, cared about the environment etc. It will probably not therefore surprise you to know that in my elective courses in my second and third year I focused on Environmental and Developmental Economics along with my third choice European. The fact that after the second year and carried all three on deeper shows you that I have been tuned into this for over 30 years.

As Jo said with the level of well being for our planet and indeed everyone in our society we need to act now. We are in a climate emergency, we need urgent action. We have a President in the White House and another in Brazil who seem to not see the importance and actually don't want others to see this either. But the facts have been there for years and looking at some of my Environmental Economics books from 30 years ago even the predictions then are way sort of the disaster we are in now. 

However, as Jo points out if we have any Brexit, especially if we have a no deal Brexit we will be furiously kicking under the flood waters to keep ourselves afloat without the time, energy or resources to be able to deal with such big issues. We'll be in survival mode, like those developing countries I learnt about 30 years ago, who said they had to follow our path to development burning fossil fuels, massive factories, chopping down their forests. This was because we refused to share with them the benefits their resources had given us in colonial times and they now felt left behind. But that will be the Britain post-Brexit. 

We need to deal with things in the round, in conversation and coalition with other nations to deal with these issues, not heading to isolation behind the hulking, shulking Boris running from people who think differently from him.

We need to act. We need to demand better. We need to do it now.

Extra Night Accomodation - The Lib Dem Conference debacle

So it appears that some people (probably based in the south) have considered that having a full day Saturday and ending Autumn Conference on a Tuesday is going to safe people money on accommodation. As someone who many times has travelled from the northern reaches to the southern coast I beg to disagree.

Travelling from Scotland or locations up north the later start on the Saturday often allowed people the option of travelling on the first train or plane in the morning on the Saturday and if they wanted to getting to those consultative or training sessions that take place on Saturday ahead of the conference rally. Also depending on when our transport could be booked we either left before the leader's speech to head for trains north on the Wednesday or immediately afterwards.

If you are going to make a full day Saturday and a full day Tuesday people coming from further afield are going to have to come down a day early and stay overnight on the Friday and probably are still going to need somewhere to stay on the Tuesday night after a full day thus meaning an EXTRA nights accommodation at GREATER COST. This could actually result in having to take an EXTRA DAY OFF work for those wanting to get to conference from any distance.

Travel on a Friday is often dear than on a Saturday and harder to come by as weekly commuters also are looking for travel option at this time especially in the evening, which is the time that most from the North will probably be hitting London looking to get to those south coast resorts that hold the majority of our Autumn conferences. Of course Northern Liberal Democrats could break their journey here and like the London and southern based Liberal Democrats travel down on Saturday morning when fares are cheaper. But we'd have to find more expensive accommodation for one night in the capital.

Yes the proposals are clearly not to make conference cheaper for delegates outside the London commuter belt, in fact they are bound to make it more expensive for those in the North and Scotland to attend Federal conference and are merely a way to make it cheaper to host but will make it more Southern Centric and less democratic as an upshot.

Reflections on conference from afar

I may not have been in Bournemouth (starting a new job after months of subsidence living) for this Autumn's Liberal Democrat conference. But the bits I saw on TV before heading to work have been encouraging.

On the night after the General Election I wrote:

"I know our party will come back strong again because the essence of what we believe in does bring about fairness and opportunity for everyone. It may be a few election cycles, a few years or even a few months before voters realise this. David Cameron and his unfettered Conservatives could well be the ideal recruiter of people to the Liberal Democrat's way of thinking."

Little did I, nor anyone else envision just what sort of shape that becoming strong again would be. I listened to many of those new members stepping up unto the platform making liberal contributions from the stage in debates. I've seen many of them filling the hall for every session. Although as a constitutional geek I'm sad to yet again have missed a successful  move to next business, I'll be pencilling in 2031 as a conference to remain in the hall at all times.

A few days after the General Election I went on to write:

"Our fight back is important because our core values are important to the general public. I believe they will soon realise this as the Tories start to dismantle freedoms, undo fairness and take people for granted. The very people that Liberal Democrats feel should not be enslaved by ignorance, poverty or conformity."

Therefore the reflection that these two thoughts have become two of the key thoughts of the party, two of the key themes of the leader's speech this afternoon, shows what it means to be liberal to the core. These are the instinctive motives that we wanted to express in our darkest hour in early May. It is what this conference was about and many of the motions reflected our ideals, many of the speeches showed this was deeply felt.

The time is right to stand up and be liberal. There are many out there who are shocked by the attitudes of David Cameron and the swings and roundabouts of the Labour party depending on the nature of the leader. Yet the Liberal Democrats no matter who is in charge are a voice of the people, because the people who make our decision on policy are not those in the Westminster bubble but the people from Cornwall to the Northern Isles, from the Wash to Cardigan Bay and all points in between.

See you all in York in Spring.

Dear Gatwick, Lessons from Lib Dem Conference

Dear Gatwick,

We thank you for your sponsorship, free Wifi* and delicious snacks served up at numerous fringes at Lib Dem Conference but there is something you should really have known before to went to all the bother.

So see us liberals see such major attention grabbing especially at a conference where you are an interested party as treating the electorate. Therefore you are part of the establishment trying to buy our affections. It is something that at times even the leaders of our party attempt and fail to achieve, not because we are a fickle lot, far from it we are a principled lot.

Now we will accept your kind gifts, spending ages tweeting, blogging or whatever with the free wifi. We will gorge on the sumptuous spreads you put out. But even sitting in the conference hall during the debate I heard many people expressing just what I had already worked out, you were trying to bribe us, blindside us and our green credentials and sneak it in.

There was also an amendment which of course had to be laid by our own members which upset the Southern representatives so much they accused the movers, at least in privet if not so overtly from the platform or being fooled that opening up more capacity in the South East would lead to more in the regions, rather than steal whatever non-internal flights looked good and therefore creating even more need for the regions to fly through a gridlocked London-centric hub.

So the lesson dear Gatwick is don't suddenly appear to be interested in us when you have something you want us to do for you. Court us and persuade us if you can, but don't expect us to bow to the might of big business, that is what you probably have managed with our coalition partners but it isn't going to cut the mustard with me and my fellow Lib Dems.

* Which several people have since told me was crap and they reverted to using their own data allowance.

Accreditation or time to move #LDConf into the 21st Century

So various Lib Dem committees say that they just have to allow police accreditation checks to let Liberal Democrat conference to go ahead. Do they have to or can we creatively think our way around this dilemma keep Lib Dem Conference liberal and move it into the 21st century.

Most of us who have working in a modern business environment know all about tele-conferencing. With Skype being readily available and used widely even images can be broadcast to delegates computers wherever they are. Most people have broadband or can gain access to someone who does fairly easily.

So do we actually need to meet in one hall to debate and vote on policy at all?

Speakers cards could be submitted electronically, and the chair and their aide may have to call speakers to stand by slightly early so that their webcam and microphone could be tested before transmission etc. All this could be chaired and managed from Great George Street and the cabinet ministers for their set pieces could either be in London or their constituencies or anywhere else for that matter. Anyone could see the feed an all speakers could speak from the luxury of their front rooms or studies. Think of the ability of those on lower incomes not having to pay for transport, food and accommodation.

Voting could be done electronically, we can already vote for our committee reps online with a unique code.
 If we allow a certain amount of time two to five minutes at a scheduled immovable time for a vote on a motion everyone should be able to vote electronically if they are an elected conference rep. You could even set up options that deal with every eventuality if amendments are accepted or rejected, so these options could all be voted for at the same time as separate votes for you, but confirmed by the system.

Some people will argue that some delegates will not be able to deal with such a change. But they could host younger or IT savvy members of the party for the period of the online conference who could set up and train them in how to use the new technologies.

The only people that would need to know anything about the identities of conference reps would be the party and probably Electoral Reform Services who would be carrying out the voting end of things.

Of course lobby groups would miss out on the chance to lobby us while they wine and feed us. But they could always use the successful conference call systems already utilised and these would not have to be in conference week but whenever they feel able to hold them. Questions could be emailed or texted or even put into Skype of MSN chat or alternatives in to the keynote speakers and the chair could then avoid the sometimes replication or irrelevant question that comes when you take questions from the floor.

Of course training would not be able to be done centrally. But the party is already starting to utilise and roll out some online training. This could also become something that is done on a regional level on specific weekends trainers could offer this to local delegates.

Sadly of course we lose the time networking the bars in the evenings, or over coffee at the conference venues or in the queues to fringe events or whatever. We'd also lose the chance to have a good old sing-a-long at Glee Club whatever our worries or disagreements to bring the conference to a conclusion. We'd miss the chance to go around the stalls in the exhibition, but think of the trees we would save and backs that wouldn't strain from all the freebies and brochures in our suitcases as we head off our separate ways after we've given the leader their standing ovation.

So yes there are some downsides from not having to hire a conference centre to hold a conference, but the business of deciding party policy doesn't have to give in to illiberal approaches to civil liberties. Indeed instead of the slim possibility of some action disrupting a unaccredited conference and costing the party a fortune we could actually save the party and delegates a lot of money year on year by not actually having to travel to one location. And think of the carbon we would be saving! Each rep would only have to offset their computer usage instead of flights, car, train or coach trips.

But we'd miss seeing our family. It is possible but it is a whole lot less sterile so don't give me the argument that this is about cost, that is b___s___ and FFAC know that.

Accreditation need not proven

When we were in opposition we had a leader who said:

"I will refuse to have an ID Card and to have my details put on the Register"

That was a principled stance. Made at a time when some were talking about bringing in compulsory ID Cards. It was a principle of civil liberties and having principles can be costly.

Look at that comment again.

Refuse to have my details put on the register.

Yet yesterday the Liberal Democrat Federal Conference Committee (FCC), announced that after seeking advice from the Federal Finance and Administration Committee (FFAC) that accreditation would take place for this Autumn's conference. This was despite and heated debate and motion passed by conference asking FCC to find alternatives to accreditation at last Autumn's conference.

FCC did 'consult' if you can call a one week deadline during the final month of a strenuous election campaign put out to readers of Liberal Democrat Voice only a consultation. Looking at comments and tweets at the time I know a lot of us went over  the arguments against accreditation once again as it appeared that we had not been listened too on the conference floor.

You see while tuition fees and the NHS can be issues we can devicive there are not issues that are inherently laid out in the preamble of our party constitution. But when it comes to fundamental freedoms that is a different matter. When the only argument being put up against us one of cost not of need. When the arguments for accreditation are rebutted as not reducing the risk but merely to met the demands of the police.

You remember the police who demanded 90 days detention without trial, but we fought them back on that and reversed things even from the 42 days they had already clawed out of Labour. Yes we can and have asked the police to give us reason to sacrifice civil liberties in the past. Some of us are still saying we need to do the same when it comes to our own door with party conference.

This argument from FCC, FFAC and Federal Executive is not proven. It is unsound, illiberal and undemocratic.

When satisfied doesn't tell the whole story #ldconf

At the conference in Birmingham I would say I was satisfied with the way police dealt with security. It may have something to do with being raised in Northern Ireland that I noticed certain things that maybe many of my party colleagues didn't quite see, or maybe didn't quite understand was was going on, such as swabs off various parts of the ICC first thing in the morning, or the odd movement at the edge of my peripheral vision.

Of course while I may have been satisfied with how the security operation went at Birmingham, that has to be taken under advisement. Anyone who saw my only contribution from the stage will know I wasn't that satisfied with procedure before the conference. If you didn't see what I said you can take a look.



 Now from what I understand only 66% were satisfied or higher with security arrangements at conference, from their feed back forms. That does leave 1 not satisfied to a greater or lesser extend to every two above. But also how many of those would normally have been a higher than satisfied rating.

You see security arrangements cover more than merely pre-conference accreditation checks. It also covers the handling of queues, the security on site, the ease of access between sites etc. So a very satisfied can become a satisfied because of a mishandling of one area very easily.

There was a vote at conference, bear in mind this was only of the reps that attended conference, as I mentioned in my speech there are those who were not with us, some refused to seek access to the security zone because of the accreditation process. That vote didn't go the way of what the Lib Dems Federal Conference Committee (FCC) said they 'had' to do. The other speeches pointed out flaws in what the police said they 'had' to do, just in the way that Lib Dem MPs did when the police said they 'had' to have the right to detain for 90 days without trial. Remember that?

Therefore to be asked to give my opinion on accreditation at conference by Andrew Wiseman, chair of FCC yet again seems a bit much. I have already given it three time. First when I noticed a Northern Irish issue with the disclosure of both passport numbers, something that was flippantly ignored. Second when I spoke and conference voted to keep Lib Dem Conference liberal, something that now seems to be ignored, and finally in the comments I made on my conference feed back form.

I am however, now stating why I am opposed to it yet again, for a fourth time.

Sometimes you just have to repeat yourself. But come on FCC I'm not going to let you carry out a neverendum on this issue. We have spoken, we have instructed you to seek a better situation, get on with it. If you cannot watch out for your positions when those conference reps get a chance to elect a new FCC later this tear.

Sometimes I know I have to repeat myself, so today is one of those days.

Has the amendment from the Sheffield Conference in March 2011 been delivered?

Here is something for my fellow Lib Dem Conference Reps to consider before voting on the Emergency Motion debate tomorrow.

Dr Charles West and Dr Evan Harris, who proposed the amendment, report back.

Conference therefore calls on Liberal Democrats in Parliament to amend the Health Bill to provide for:


I) More democratically accountable commissioning.


The Government says:
“Commissioning will now be more democratically accountable. Clinical Commissioning Groups will have to involve Councils’ Health and Wellbeing Boards in commissioning decisions.”
[Source: Government leaflet at Gateshead Conference]

The true position:

• The Bill has had no significant amendments in this area [see Schedule 1, clauses 189-193]
• The Coalition Agreement called for elected members on commissioning bodies. The Bill never permitted this [see Coalition Programme page 24-25]
• The Bill provided that the Health and wellbeing Boards need not have naymore than one or a minority of councillors on them. That has not changed. [Clause 193]
• The only duty on commissioning groups is to consult the HWB on a commissioning plan. If the HWB disagrees it has no power to stop the CCG and there is no statutory right of appeal. [Clause 25, section 14Z12]
• Overview Scrutiny Committees have lost the automatic right to call in a health decision to the Secretary of State so the new NHS would be less democratic than before. [Clause 189]

II) A much greater degree of co-terminosity between local authorities and commissioning areas


The  Government says:
"There is now a clear presumption in favour of co-terminosity . We expect the vast majority of commissioning groups to sit within social care authority boundaries. But where this is not the case, Health and Wellbeing Boards will be able to object to any boundaries that cross social care boundaries."

[Source: Government leaflet at Gateshead Conference, dropping the word “much” from the motion”]

The true position

• There has been no amendment to the Bill and there is no mention in the Bill of co-terminosity [Clause 24]
• There is no statutory right of Health and Wellbing Boards (who could have only one councillor on them) to object to CCG boundaries let alone to veto them. The decision on boundaries is made by the Commissioning Board 9a quango) with no statutory duty to even have regard to HWB's views [Clause 24, ssection 14A & B]
• There is no role for Council's Overview and Scrutiny Committee [Clause 24, section 14A & B]

III) No decision about the spending of NHS funds to be made in private and without proper consultation, as can take place by the proposed GP consortia.

- Delivered

IV) The complete ruling out of any competition based on price to prevent loss-leading corporate providers under-cutting NHS tariffs, and to ensure that healthcare providers 'compete' on quality of care.

- Impossible to deliver. Tariffs cannot reflect the full complexity of services, and EU and UK
competition law will not permit the NHS to ignore price.

V) New private providers to be allowed only where there is no risk of 'cherry-picking' which would destabilise or undermine the existing NHS service relied upon for emergencies and complex cases, and where the needs of equity, research and training are met.

The Government says:

"The tariff will accurately reflect the clinical complexity of the service to stop any new providers from undercutting NHS services. New requirements on transparency for providers will ensure that they are only allowed to refuse patients on clinical grounds*, so they won’t be able to cherry-pick the profitable easy cases"
[Source: Government leaflet at Gateshead Conference]

The true position

• The Sheffield Conference called for a duty on commissioners and Monitor to avoid destabilising existing essential services from the outsourcing of profitable services, such as elective orthopaedics, making a trauma service unviable. Amendments doing this tabled by Andrew George MP were not accepted by the Government
• Refusing patients on "clinical grounds" and getting the same price for the easier clinical cases that are taken is actually the definition of how to "cherry-pick the profitable easy cases" that the motion rejected.

VI) NHS commissioning being retained as a public function in full compliance with the Human Rights Act and Freedom of Information laws, using the skills and experience of existing NHS staff rather than the sub-contracting of commissioning to private companies.


The Government says:
"Commissioning groups will be public bodies, not private organisations, and will be subject to these pieces of legislation. Commissioning decisions will have to be taken in-house by commissioning groups, not outsourced to private companies so it cannot be privatized."
[Source: Government leaflet at Gateshead Conference]

The true position

• There have been no amendments preventing the wholesale privatisation of commissioning work referred to in the Sheffield motion. The original Bill already provided that the final decision be made by the CCG, but the Government's plan is to allow and encourage the outsourcing of commissioning work to private companies, called "commissioning support" companies.
• Designing care pathways and evaluation the quality of rival bids, should not be done by private companies with vester interests which are not subject to FoI or the HRA.
• The spending of £60 Billion of NHS money should remain a public function

VII) The continued separation of the commissioning and provision of services to prevent conflicts of
interests.

The Government says:
"Commissioning Groups will now be required to establish robust procedures to tackle conflicts of interest"
[Source: Government leaflet at Gateshead Conference]

The true position:

• All the Bill now does is to require CCGs to have a register of interests. But there is no sanction against such conflicts unlike in Council. The register doesn't apply to the companies doing "commissioning support".

VIII) An NHS, responsive to patients’ needs, based on co-operation rather than competition, and
which promotes quality and equity not the market.


The Government says:
"Monitor will have a primary duty to promote patient interests rather than to promote competition and can promote co-operation between providers when it is in the interests of patients."
[Source: Government leaflet at Gateshead Conference]

The true position – it's been made worse.

• After the Sheffield motion the Government increase the promotion of the market by commissioners by increasing the duty on commissioning groups and the NHS Commissioning Board to promote patient choice more than to tackle access and health inequalities [Clause 25, section 14S versus amended 14U]
• Monitor's duties are only to prevent anti-competitive behaviour [Clause 61(3)] where it deems this works against the patient interest. An amendment to ensure Monitor had a duty to prevent anti-collaborative behaviour in these circumstances was rejected by the Government. [Amendment 165 Baroness Finlay]
• The part of the Bill [Clause 73] which gives Monitor its enforcement powers omits to do so in respect of integration and co-operation.

Diagnosis: In summary, of the 8 broad (or in some cases narrow) requirements that this conference
passed, at most 3 have been delivered and 5 have clearly not. That is why even the non-political
Royal Colleges, who have read the Bill, are calling for the Bill to be dropped.

Back to me


We are being told that everything that Conference asked for last year has been settled. As you can see above it clearly has not. We do believe in devolving power out to the Trusts but with that we still expect accountability which is clearly missing from what has been done. The Bill still is full of holes and no matter what the Bill with Shirley Williams' name attached says will not save the NHS. Only a rejection of that motion tomorrow stands a chance of doing so.

I'm not Andy Burnham's poddle Nick! #LDConf

I hated to hear our leader say during his Q&A

"We need to say tomorrow we're on Shirley Williams' side & not on Andy Burnham's."

For a start I also hated the fact that one of the two motions on the NHS yesterday bore the subtitle The Shirley William's Motion. I thought as Liberal Democrats that were not in the business of political personality cults, but rather into testing each option on the facts.

The fact that even with Our Shirl on the motion it only won by 29 votes after transfers should tell Nick that it isn't just about Andy Burnham. 280 Liberal Democrats voting reps at conference are not and were not persuaded by the screams of Andy Burnham.

Many of us have been following with forensic scrutiny the coming and goings of every step along the passage of this bill. Even last Spring just after its publication we were ready to tell you and our MPs what to change. Yes Shirley was one of those, but so were all many of medical professionals within our own party. Many of them are still telling us that this Bill needs more time, shouldn't be rushed so that you and David Cameron can conveniently put it into the Queen's Speech. However, it is possible that those that voted a second preference on this weren't aware of the depths of issues and saw the words save, NHS and Shirley Williams all together without a great deal of thought, I've spoken to one voting rep since who did just that.

We're not against reform, we know it is needed. But we're saying you need to stop and think again. If that means dropping the current Bill and rethinking then that is what is needed. We know what was agreed in the Coalition Agreement and this is still going far beyond that.

The Liberal Democrats I know is not about personality. Indeed on occasions as you know Nick, bringing a big name to bear on a vote when conference is in a volatile mood can be the end of what is wanted. So don't tempt us to turn our backs on following Shirley, we might just do that.

So the Lib Dems are not debating Dropping the NHS Bill, but...

Save the NHS - The Shirley Williams Motion 309
Withdrawal of the Health and Social Care Bill 280 after transfers

So the result of the ballot on the emergency motion came as a disappointment to me. The outrage that flowed on Twitter afterwards less so following on from the number of tweets urging conference to drop the bill in the last 24 hours. That was something that as I had access to a left of centre blog with more Labour readers I chose to write about elsewhere.

However, there are a few things to note about that outrage.

Firstly there have been 1,000 amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill. The majority of these have come from Liberal Democrats and not from Labour. So don't believe the lie that Labour did all they could to change this bill.

Last year the Liberal Democrats did pass a motion that had 13 sizeable changes on them to make the Health and Social Care Bill fairer. Of these 6 are now included in the Bill, as demanded by Lib Dem conference last May. So see the Lib Dem activists have been working on getting these changes for over a year, not just the last 24 and not just the fours hours from 9am to 1pm that the Emergency Motion Ballot was open. Indeed Liberal Democrats have been writing to their MPs of ALL parties and yes that does include the Northern Irish parties about making the right changes to this Bill, not just hounding Lib Dem activists for the last 24 hours.

The vote itself was within 30 votes. Yes it was on transfers, but you don't hear any Lib Dems lamenting that the decision is made under AV, only those who were urging us from outside to vote to drop the bill. Some are lamenting the failure of democracy, but Lib Dem party democracy has yet to run its course. Sure the establishment motion with the witty moniker Shirley Williams* has got through but there will still be a vote on that motion, democracy within my party had not ended yet, there will be a debate, there will be a vote. And with less that 30 votes in it when it comes to the emergency motion nobody can tell how it will go once the arguments are laid out (I speak from experience there).

What you may have are people who not knowing the issues fully transferred their second preferences to the issue that bore the name of Shirley, but if the Drop the Bill speaker(s), and there will be at least one, called in the dabate put a strong enough case, there may be swing votes in the hall that reverse the decision of today (again Lib Dem Conference can be a volatile place in this mood).

There have been a number of personal attacks to me on my own Twitter feed. Obviously from people who have no idea of my stance on this matter, even with my current Twibbon. Some saying that MY Voters will never vote for me again. Thankfully I know from the messages (by Twitter or email) that my voters have sent to me over tuition fees, over taxation, over the NHS over the past 21 months that actually my voters, know exactly where I stand on such issues, and more, are would quite happily vote for me again. They also know that I have moved away from Scotland so I may have to find a way to get back.

As for the Lib Dems we will survive. We will continue to fight on. We have brought changes to what a majority Conservative Government would have wanted to do with the NHS, in time people will see that, because their manifesto will take them further along the line, doing the things that Lib Dems in Government have prevented them from doing.

Update BBC New briefly went across the Q&A session with Nick Clegg who said:

"We need to say tomorrow we're on Shirley Williams' side & not on Andy Burnham's."

Seeing as I thought we were an evidence based not a personality based party I find the assumption that the 280 Conference reps who voted to drop the bill are being knocked aside with such a line from the leader. If he hasn't listened to the people, and isn't listening to his own reps so far, we'll have to make him listen in the morning.

* Having seen this tactic used by the SNP in 2007 I'm seriously considering a Constitutional Amendment that no motion entering the emergency ballot can pull on the name recognition of any party member over the substance of the arguments.

The Three Conference Speech Wordle Comparison

So David Cameron has just completed the cycle of leaders' conference speeches. So how do they compare as far as key words go here are the comparative Wordles

Nick Clegg

Main words

• people
• economy
• right
• Labour
• easy
• government
• every

Ed Miliband

Main words

• people
• values
• Britain
• country
• right
• change
• economy
• work

David Cameron

Main words

• people
• country
• get
• know
• back
• economy
• one

Cat on a HRA Tin Roof?

Did you hear the one about Theresa May, the Human Right's Act and the Cat?

Well earlier today the Conservative Home Secretary said in her speech to the Tory faithful.

We all know the stories about the Human Rights Act. The violent drug dealer who cannot be sent home because his daughter – for whom he pays no maintenance – lives here. The robber who cannot be removed because he has a girlfriend. The illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because – and I am not making this up – he had pet a cat.

Only she was kidding them somewhat.

The cat wasn't the reason that the immigrant couldn't be deported but was merely evidence that the immigrant had a relationship of some time standing. Indeed as the Telegraph at the time reported.

As part of the application and as part of the appeal, the couple gave detailed statements of the life they had built together in the UK to show the genuine nature and duration of their relationship. One detail provided, among many, was that they had owned a cat together for some time.

The appeal was successful and when giving the reasons for the success the judge did comment on the couple's cat. It was taken into account as part of the couple's life together. The Home Office asked for the decision to be reconsidered. They argued it should be reconsidered because the decision was wrong in law, and one error they cited was that too much consideration was given to the couple's cat. 

The home secretary mentioned the case in the context of her plans to change the rules to stop convicted criminals resisting deportations on the basis of article 8 – family ties. But the Bolivian man – who has never been named – was not even a convicted criminal.

So not only was the cat only part of circumstantial evidence that the man was in a relationship with another human being, not a feline, but also he wasn't a criminal as the Home Secretary, whose remit includes policing and immigration, almost seemed to imply by adding him to this list.

Indeed the Home Office had failed to carry out its own procedures regarding unmarried partners which is why the cat and the other factors were brought up to show that the relationship status was that of partners not housemates. So British authorities had failed to acknowledge their own procedures in bringing this man before  British judges seeking to expel him.

Ken Clarke has even challenged her that nobody has even been refused deportation purely because they owned a cat. However, May has been back pedaling since she left the stage saying that the fact checking of her speech was done from the press, maybe she puts too much trust in the Daily Mail's reporting of this story. Why not the court papers themselves to which she would have access?

May got a knee jerk reaction to her speech from the conference faithful, just as Nick Clegg gained a great cheer for saying we would not be scrapping the Human Rights Act in his speech at Lib Dem Conference. The difference is that Nick Clegg knows the history of the Human Rights Act, as he demonstrated in his speech, Theresa May was just playing to the crowd.

We are right to stand up for civil liberties. No retreat to the illiberal populism of the Labour years. We are right to insist on keeping the tax system fair. Asking the most of the people who have the most. And we will always defend human rights, at home as well as abroad. The European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act are not, as some would have you believe, foreign impositions. These are British rights, drafted by British lawyers. Forged in the aftermath of the atrocities of the Second World War. Fought for by Winston Churchill. So let me say something really clear about the Human Rights Act. In fact I'll do it in words of one syllable: It is here to stay. Nick Clegg in Birmingham 21 September 

Update The BBC have made it possible download the original judgement here

Notes:

The European Court of Human Rights came into being21 January 1959 by virtue of Article 19 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Convention was founded out of the Council of Europe at the end of World War II.

The Council and what it were seen as required to do were laid out by a speech from Winston Churchill on (fortuitously for my memory my birthday) 19 September, 1946.

In the meantime some cats.

Is Rory Weal really just the son of Baron Hardup?

Was young Rory Weal's hard times a result of the welfare state. Actually his father Jonathan Weal ran an City-based employment agency so his hard times were as a direct result of the banking crisis. If his father had no savings from a quite well paid job that is his fault, many of the poorest on the minimum wage cannot afford to save at all.

He did say that "Two and half years ago the home I lived in since birth was repossessed." That would have been a £950,000 house in Chislehurst (pictured to the right) sold after repossession for only £500,000. Indeed his father apparently owned over £2.25m of property. It was only then then his mother separated from his father. So hardly the poor pressed upon single parent unit that so many who do rely on the Welfare State day in day out, tear in year out. Indeed his mother is now an administrator in a cleaning company in Maidstone. The family home now is described as a modest semi-detached*! Semi-detached many on Income Support cry out, "Luxury!"

He also asked:

"What does [Cameron] advise when I can't afford to go to school in the morning?"

Maybe that would have been the Colfe school in Lee South London where he was a £13,788 a year pupil until the 'upheaval' in his family circumstances. He's now at Oakwood Park Grammar, hardly one of the worse academic locations for the hard put upon Rory to land upon indeed in 2009 100% of its pupils acquired 5 A* GCSE poasses! Rory himself has six A* and four A results in his GSCEs. No doubt he can enjoy the school's rowing club on Monday and Thursdays. Indeed one of the 32 Grammar Schools in Kent which is one location that has maintained selective education.

So the darling bud of Labour conference may well have exaggerated the extend of his hardship and made it look like he was hard done by. However, he has fallen from a great height unlike many who have spent their lives struggling to get unto that first rung.

Maybe young Rory should take heed of some of the advise that Tam Dalyell received from his fellow Labour Etonian when he arrived in the House. "Never be afraid of who you are and don't try and hide it."

Read also Lib Dem Child asks us to Leave Rory Weal Alone

* Value a mere £300,000.

How to summate in a debate #ldconf

Last Sunday morning at about 8:50 I entered the conference hall in Birmingham and was asked by Gareth Epps if I could summate on amendment 2 on the Accreditation for Conference Motion. I did have a card in to speak on the motion, but knew that being asked to do this I would be throwing out a lot of what I had to say and dealing with arguments raised by a lot of people during the debate.

I was shocked by the number of people who said well done, either in person, on twitter or text. Yes my pocket kept vibrating as soon as I sat down after leaving the podium. One thing that even some respected speakers said was how well I had done in raising points from everyone in the debate, and naming them by name, something that Geoff Payne summating on the other amendment failed to do referring only to the first time speaker from Cambridge. On the right is page one of my notes from that morning. Here is what I was doing.

At the top are the main points that I would have made if I were speaking in the motion itself. These were the main points of my speech. One of them the Transgender element was so well covered by Rachel Coleman-Finch (that first time speaker from Cambridge) and Jenny Barnes that I only mentioned them in passing, but the issue that LGBT+ Lib Dems (Delga as was at the time known) had been consulted was something that I did speak on, and got the new less than 14 hour old renamed organisation its first mention from the platform.

As each speaker was called, I took a quick note of their name on the right hand side of the page. Then any point that they made that need commenting on either rebutting or praising was written on the left. There are heiroglyphs and scribbles as I try and link together speakers and create a flow to what I am about to say. If you notice from the top and recall all of my points as intended were raised in my summation of the amendment.

I also over the page have just one comment next to Chris White "being blown to pieces" this made me start with my current party positions as part of the Northern Ireland party. I had to lay out just what authority I had on the terrorism issue. At the point that was brought into the debate with both the speakers before me, my grand opening line got cut and and my speech took on a whole different structure.

These notes are but an aide memoire, most of what had been said was still fresh in my mind. I never even transcribed my speech from BBC iPlayer and it is too late to do so now. But I hope this may be helpful if you ever find yourself required to summate on a motion or an amendment. Although one final word of advise, don't try and do this unless you are able to improvise on the spur of the moment and have some idea where you want to go to anyway.

Update Thanks to Zoe O'Connell I managed to upload the speech unto my YouTube channel so you can watch it there.

Thoughts on first full day of Labour Conference

Something that has struck me from watching the 'debates' at Labour Party conference so far is the anarchy of the system to getting called to speak. If you go with red hair, wear a red tie, jump around, dance in your place you may, or may not, get the eye of the chair.

Now conference halls are big, but a lot of the people called to speak were called seemed to be first time delegates, maybe their had the enthusiasm to dance in place until they got called. As for 'debate' as I use the word advisedly there was very little to it and how can you structure a balanced debate if those who want to appear on TV dressed in red, dance around or do something to get the attention of the chair. It is almost like the X-Factor for politics. It is why I like the fact that at Lib Dem conference we have actual debates and our chairs will balance the arguments by the cards that are put in and the debate covers the aspects that the hall wishes to cover. We also don't leave it down to the best/worst dancers in the hall to have a word.

Then there was all the media hype about Rory Weal a 16 year old delegate. There was comparison of him to a young William Hague. But I wrote earlier in passing about three of the five Lib Dem conference speakers who I could rattle off who were younger this year. Not all of whom were first time speakers either. None of them had to jump up and down to get noticed, all of them offered sensible contributions to debates down the years. yes even though as 14, or 12 have spoken on a number of issues. Speaking on issues like education, drugs, blood ban and sometimes making a difference to party policy as they speak in controversial debates at times.

I appreciate that Rory got up and talked about the Welfare State, threw in a personal anecdote. But it was the sort of speech that was guaranteed to speak to the party faithful. It was in a debate that I believe did lead to a vote, although only to accept a paper, not on forming a policy brought by a local CLP or branch to the floor. That is another difference I have noticed this week. There are these debates, then to close there is a set piece from a front bencher to finish. Most, though not all Lib Dem debates are summed up by ordinary members. Often we have to address disagreements from the floor. Things don't always go through on the nod and indeed this year there were a great number of close votes.

If Labour insists on having people speak in a session in which there is no vote surely it is a conversation and not a debate. If the chair does not know if someone is against what is being said before they step unto the platform how is that a debate. And if you are merely selecting people to speak based on them catching your eye on the floor you will get the TV wannabes and not necessarily those who may have something to add to the 'debate'.

The press and me at Conference #LDConf

I may not have the youngster factor of Alex White, Matt Downey and Maelo Manning (pictured above)* so the chances of me being picked upon by Huw Edwards, or Matthew Paris for a press call or less at Lib Dem Conference. After all I'm another white man, or a certain age in a suit, even though I'm an openly out one (which again ain't that unique at Lib Dem Conf). However, that doesn't mean that I didn't get a few media hits over the week.

First there was my way into the ICC on Saturday I got grabbed by Winkball who were there all week.



Then on my birthday the BBC grabbed me for this piece on their website.

Finally in the queue for the leaders speech I was interviewed by the Time magazine reporter who happened to be in front of me in the queue. There are just a few short words from me in this but still I've gone international.

* Indeed scarily their combined age is less than mine, excluding Huw of course.

It's Friday...it's post conference time

Well the Lib Dem Party conference has been and gone. Sleep deprivation has been restored but the mood in this conference was so great that conference as a whole. Meeting many new friends as well as catching up on old ones, drafting speeches, one that was made and a couple that were not. But here are some of my highlights.

First up is my friend Greg Judge speaking on the Employment Support Allowance and Work Capability Assessments motion.



Now here is a message for Edwin Poots our Northern Irish health minister about blood and science from another friend Chris Ward. Watch out for the test for gayness of blood cells, and yup that is me in the background of the reaction shot.



Now there has been great rejoicing in the press about us attacking our coalition partners in song at Glee Club. But we also attack Labour and make fun of ourselves. Indeed Simon Hughes was on stage leading one of the songs that mocks him during the evening. However, this final clip is a piece of history. The evolution of a glee club song captured on 'smuggled in' hacks camera. The Twelve Days of Coalition has only been around for 2 Glee clubs (Liverpool last Autumn and Sheffield in March) but here you can see it being amended from the floor with amendment one. Amendment 2 adding the word badly came on a second rendition later in the night. And that is what Glee Club is all about, members writing and amending songs in satire. Not only about other parties but about ourselves. Live with it.



Note to Editors: Glee Club is a self deprecation and steam letting off aspect of Liberal and later Liberal Democrat conference

Trains, Planes and Linda Jack #ldconf

I do have some serious postings to write about the Liberal Democrat Liberal Conference but in the meantime here is the tale of Linda Jack and I on our journey from Birmingham to Belfast.

After conference I went to collect my case from Nitenite the hotel I was staying in (all the rooms are windowless but then I was hardly in there). I was heading towards Linda's hotel when she said did I fancy a drink at the Hyatt. So I turned back went back past the Mailbox and made my way back to the Hyatt.

We after a drink with friends headed by Taxi (I know it is not in the title...tough!) via her hotel to New Street Station. Where we ran into Hilary Stephenson from the Campaigns Department in the queue for tickets. As we tried to get unto the 17:33 train to take us to Birmingham International on platform 3A. We must have just missed it leaving, but there was one going at 17:36 from Platform 1A, I proceeded to head in the wrong direction before Linda stopped me. As we were heading down the stairs we came across Adam Stachura the new Scottish Campaigns Director.

So the three of us got unto the train and headed to the Airport. We did our Fast Check Ins then headed off to find the FlyBe package drop, which seems to be at the other end of the airport from the Monorail connection to the train station. Anyway when we got there Adam kindly let us go first as our plane was earlier than his and if there was a rush we'd need to get through quicker.

However, we discovered that Linda's company who had booked the tickets for her had not ticked the baggage option for her. So she was delayed a bit as she then had to pay the surplus charge. Then we headed up for everybody's favourite bit of airport action these days the security scan. Well I've never seen a security scan take so long. All the times I have flown from Belfast (both airports), Edinburgh and Luton in recent days at times far busier than today I have not moved so slowly towards the scanner. There may have been only three teams on, but they were the slowest three teams I have ever experienced. Plus there was room for at least 5 more queues.

It took about 20 minutes for us all to get through the scan. So we carried on through to departures where me and Linda said farewell to Adam as we had to get to Gates 1-20 in about 10 minutes. So off we trundled. Only for there to be shortly thereafter a 10 minute delay displayed on the board, followed by one of a delay to 20:30. That would leave us getting into Belfast at 21:30 so we decided it was time to eat. So we went back into the main departures lounge to get some decent, hot food.

We sat down in Yates and ordered the food, charged up both our iPhones off my Laptop and ate. I'd Foresquared our location and tagged Adam. Who comes by as we are finishing eating shocked to find us. We explained the delay and he said he would carry on window shopping. However, there was there an announcement over the tannoy, the first we'd heard for the Belfast Flight, only this was a last call. We were miles away from the gate area and hadn't finished our drinks. It was only 19:30.

We quickly packed up and started to walk briskly towards the Gates. On the long corridor down to the gates we heard a final call for passengers Glenn and Jack. Then as we got slightly further along one which was even more bitchy say "Final Call for passengers Glenn and Jack you are personally delaying this flight". I had already taken one of Linda's bags and said I would run ahead to ensure that they kept the gate open for us. This I did but the gate was the furthest I had to go. I checked in and told them that Linda was on her way. I asked about the time delay that had suddenly been cancelled without any announcement on the tannoy. I was told that the 20:30 was the time of the later flight so I was mistaken. The later flight is actually at 21:00 so unless it was miraculously half and hour earlier I doubted this.

They then proceeded to tell me to go on and if Linda, who I'd already told them was going as fast as her little legs in heels could manage. So I said, "Then I'll have to leave her back with you." I got a rather nervous, oh from the gate guard. But just about that time Linda had appeared. It was now 19:40 it had taken 10 minutes to get across the airport, at speed.

Thankfully we got unto the plane.

But as I sat down I told about the incident at the desk to the woman sat beside me. She said no it had shown a delay to 20:30, but then only about 19:20 did it call them to the gate but no announcement. Surely if you are going to change an already stated delay of over 90 minutes you should announce a correction over the tannoy not wait until you have to give a final call.

Libby White and the seven terrorism arrests

My first conference as a representative for Northern Ireland may be in Birmingham but this morning it started to feel a lot like being back in Belfast. As I was leaving my hotel to head towards the secure zone there was a report of seven arrested for suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism in the UK.

It feels strange that after yesterday opening my remarks about my forty (almost then) two years association in Northern Ireland that I had never had to be accredited to go shopping behind the security zones, to fly, go to school for a government minister visit etc, that things kicked off last night. Twice there were lock downs the first just affected the conference hotel, the second shut down the entire security zone.

Now I'm the sort of person* who observes things and was noticing heightened police and others presence around the ICC yesterday. It started in the morning, it carried on until I was heading back towards the ICC after 2am when we were in lock down. All through the day I was confident that the police were doing what was needed to maintain our security. Must of my fellow delegates probably didn't notice out of the corner of their eyes some of the stuff that I saw going on. Sure they would have spotted the police marksmen out front, they certainly noticed the erection of the heightened barriers ahead of the the Social Workers little protest. But there were little things that I saw going on that made me feel safe. Even though I don't know it I suspect that the arrests last night were something to do with our presence here.

As all delegates know, there is public access a lot closer to the venue here than in Sheffield, the ring of steel is not physically in place, but the ring of steel is there is very subtle ways. I still disagree that we needed the accreditation process of all conference delegates to the levels we have seen. I think this threat if indeed it was aimed at us was going to be external.

But to all my fellow attendees enjoy conference and don't have nightmares. I certainly won't because I know we're in safe hands.

* Probably has to do with being from Northern Ireland.