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.
Showing posts with label Federal Finance and Administration Committee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal Finance and Administration Committee. Show all posts
Thursday, 14 January 2016
Tuesday, 22 May 2012
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.
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:
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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)