Conference Accreditation - My Response

As I start typing this it's around 45 minutes since I saw a tweet by @caronmlindsay that alerted me to the decision of the Federal Conference Committee (FCC) to pursue a policy of accreditation for this year's autumn conference. Well, I say the Federal Conference Committee but it transpires that they passed the decision on to the Federal Finance and Administration Committee (FFAC), which itself is a sub-committee of the Federal Executive (FE).

The result: the FFAC voted in favour of accreditation with one dissenting voice; step forward Ms Caron Lindsay. 

My first second public reaction was this tweet: 

I haven't been able to leave it at that, though, and so this piece is a direct response to the Lib Dem Voice article co-authored by the chairs of the three committees concerned (Andrew Wiseman, Duncan Greenland and Tim Farron). For background, you can read my previous thoughts here and the original consultation invitation here - I don't intend to rehearse all the arguments against again. Well, not now, anyway... Instead, I wish to make some observations on the article.

The first three paragraphs read well and seem to be a fair summary of the situation. So far so good. If only it had continued in that vein. Sadly, though, not enough thought went into the next paragraph:

However, whilst some of us are willing to risk the possibility of serious harm to ourselves by not following police recommendations to accept accreditation for all conference goers, we accept that we do not have the right to impose this on others who have no choice about attending Conference. This includes the many staff that will be working for the venue, the Conference hotel or for the Party.

Woah There! Quite aside from the fact that the accreditation process comes with very little (i.e. no) evidence it actually makes conference more secure and quite aside from the fact we all take risks every day of our lives, this sentence infers that those against accreditation are happy to play fast and loose with the lives and liberties of others. Rather than acknowledge the principled stand that LIBERAL Democrat party members were taking in resisting this move, the authors (whether intentionally or not) manage to insult those of us who take a contrary view as to the need for this measure.

The next paragraph comments on the financial risks of rejecting Police advice. This is not an area I feel competent to comment on, but you can find comment on it elsewhere. Suffice to say two things: 1) this is mentioned throughout the article but the nature of the risk is neither quantified nor qualified and 2) just as democracy costs, so can principles: sure, the FFAC has specific responsibilities but these aren't divorced from our party constitution and beliefs.

There follows a sentence about the difficult decision the FCC had been faced with in "weighing the opinions of some of our members and Conference against security recommendations, our duty of care, and the practicalities of holding a large, high profile, conference as a party of government." Some? From my viewpoint, the Lib Dem blog- and twitter-spheres were pretty much united in one voice on this. Whilst this may be a self-selecting group of the most vocal amongst us, it is by no means an homogeneous group - so when it speaks with one voice it's probably a fair bet it's speaking for the party at large.

Anyway, it appears that the FCC decided to subcontract the decision to the FFAC, making it (as far as I can tell) a financial rather than a policy decision. As I said above, I don't feel qualified to comment on this area. It may be that, looked at in those terms, the resultant decision was fair enough but hats off (again) to Caron for fighting the Liberal corner.

As many on Twitter, and in the LDV comments section, have observed, the article then proceeds to suggest that accreditation process is unlikely to result in Police recommendations to accredit (m)any people. From memory, I believe two people failed the process last year and one of those decisions was not upheld by the party. In the space of a few paragraphs we go from being told we're risking serious harm to ourselves and those around us to being told that the accreditation process is unlikely to result in accreditation being with-held. Which is it, precisely?

The article ends:

We are aware that this decision will not be an ideal outcome for some of you. It has been very difficult for each of the Committees involved to weigh the opinions of some of our members and Conference against security recommendations, our duty of care, and the practicalities of holding a large, high profile Conference as a party of government. We hope however that this post goes some way to explain the reasons for the decision made.

The first sentence here somewhat understates the case as I've already pointed out. I do, however, accept that this will have been a difficult decision for each of the committees, although I question whether it was appropriate to pass the buck to the FFAC. I'm not convinced, in the end analysis, that the post does go any way to explaining the reasons for the decision made.

Ultimately, this is a disappointing decision made in an unsatisfactory fashion against a backdrop of member (or at least activist) disagreement. All in all, it's an illiberal decision unworthy of a party with our name.

Andrew

Dreams of a LIBERAL Democratic conference

I've never been to a party conference before. The closest I've come is watching proceedings on TV and local party's AGM. The first lacks the atmosphere, the camaraderie, the hustle and bustle, the immediacy and the nights at the bar and the second, well it's a different sort of event altogether!

This year, though, that's all set to change. In September, I'll be packing my bags and heading off to Brighton. I'm really looking forward to it - to meeting new people, many of whom I interact with online. To the big speeches from Nick Clegg, Tim Farron, our various ministers and grandees. To the debates on everything from party bureaucracy to major policy positions. To fringe events where one can feed the mind (and the body). To the conference exhibition and even perhaps Glee Club. OK, maybe not Glee Club but you get the gist... Maybe that night I can explore Brighton as I've never been before - and free time is likely to be extremely limited.

Most of all, I'm looking forward to being part of a conference which will stand up for Liberal values in the U. K. A conference which last year, for example, passed a motion in favour of both Equal Marriage and Equal Civil Partnerships. A conference which democratically makes party policy and isn't afraid to disagree with the leadership, even whilst in coalition government. A conference where any party member can attend, and where any attendee can be a voting rep if selected by their local party. All you need is one of these:

But this is where the dream becomes less real... This year, as last, the Police wish to carry out pre-conference accreditation of attendees. This is said to be essential for security at a time when the party is part of the government. This is said to be necessary over and above physical security checks and scans at the conference venue.

It is also said to be necessary given the chance of an attack like the Brighton bomb of 1984 or the attacks in Norway last year. Quite how a process of accreditation would have stopped either of these acts is not explained - mainly because it wouldn't have. The Brighton bomb attacked a hotel rather than a conference venue and Anders Breivik gained access to Utøya by impersonating a member of the Police.

The article on Lib Dem Voice seeking views on the implementation of accreditation this year also contains this bizarre line:

"Anyone can join the party for as little as £12 and can then attend conference as a party member."

I'm not quite sure what this is driving at - are we selling ourselves too cheaply? Perhaps we should be offering Premier League memberships of £250,000 or more... The fact that the party has membership rates from £6 (for those on benefits, students and the under-26) is something to be proud of. This is a party which believes in providing access to all. It is not a reason to insist on draconian "security" measures.

Only a handful of weeks ago, the Lib Dem blogosphere was united in standing up against plans to extend the amount of information routinely collected and stored by Internet Service Providers so that it could be accessed by the Police and Security Services. One defence of this proposal I heard was that it "should be done, because it can be done". 

It is this mindset which seems to be present in the desire of the Police to put in place accreditation. Evidence of the security benefits of accreditation is slight. Evidence that it can be invasive and discriminatory is rather thicker on the ground.

In a free and fair society, security concerns have to be balanced with individual freedoms. Freedom of assembly is fundamental - as is freedom of expression. We should not be subcontracting decisions about who should attend our party conferences to the state.

The Liberal Democrat constitution begins and ends with these words:

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full.


These are the conditions of liberty and social justice which it is the responsibility of each citizen and the duty of the state to protect and enlarge. The Liberal Democrats consist of women and men working together for the achievement of these aims.

The Federal Conference Committee would do well to remember this, as well as last years motion - which was critical of the process - when they next meet with Sussex Police.

I'm not alone in blogging about this and suspect this is far from over. There are many in the Lib Dem blog and twitter-spheres that are on my list of people I'm looking forward to meeting at conference, including Caron Lindsay, Stephen Glenn and Sarah Brown. I sincerely hope that accreditation doesn't go ahead and that I get to meet all three of them.

Andrew

The Liberal Democrat Fightback: Communication and Action

Since the turn of the year (or, more accurately, since Cameron's Euro non-veto) there has been an increasingly clear Liberal Democratic voice emerging from within Government. The mechanics of a coalition budget have also helped the yellow side of the government in being able to lay out its stall. Differentiating us, our policies and our priorities from our Conservative partners. Not least, of course, our commitment to raising the Income Tax Personal Allowance to £10,000 (and beyond?) by the end of this parliament.

Whilst the economic imperative for coalition government remains, there seems to be more willingness to put through our distinctive point of view. This can only be a good thing as the parties put together a programme for the remainder of this parliament and prepare to fight the 2015 election.

This increasing communication from within the Government and Parliament has been mirrored by a concerted and sustained attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information given to members. As far as I can tell, this is being orchestrated by new Chief Executive Tim Gordon and Internal Communications Manager Helen Duffett. 

Weekly e-mail briefings, more frequent and focused missives from ministers, webinars and tele-conferences are all being used to increase communication between the members and headquarters. Danny Alexander held an online question and answer session on the day after then budget and this week, Jo Swinson has e-mailed with the Local Election Broadcast while Nick Clegg has e-mailed today on the green economy, of which more later.

It's not been entirely straightforward - the recent debacle over proposed extension of police surveillance powers is a case in point. But it's also an example of the new communications strategy being implemented as a two-way street. Bloggers and various prominent/vocal/tech-savvy members had a teleconference with some of Nick Clegg's advisers. I wasn't on that call but I think it's fair to say they were left in no doubt of the views of the grassroots membership. The cause has since been taken up by both Tim Farron, who responded brilliantly to a letter signed by 150+ party members and Jullian Huppert, to whom Nick Clegg has suggested he is happy to defer on these matters.

On that matter, we will have to wait and see what transpires, but there does seem to be signs of a change from the approach taken over tuition fees and the NHS reforms - although neither of those quite united the party in the way Civil Liberties can.

Standing for Liberties and against an extension of the powers given to the Police and Secret Services is one of the key areas in which Lib Dems can differentiate themselves from the more authoritarian parts of the Tory party - and can do so within the terms of the Coalition Agreement. Standing for Liberties within Government could be one of the things that sets us apart from both Labour and Conservative at the next election. I believe if we can point to categorical success in this area there are voters to be gained.

Indeed, thoughts must be turning to that election and what the Liberal Democrat manifesto will be. But for the first time, the party will be getting judged on its record. Not just on one or two issues but on 5 years as a party of government.

Coming back to today's e-mail from Nick Clegg, which was sent on the back of Nick Clegg's speech about the continued importance of environmentalism in straited times - as well as his announcement that fuel companies will be obliged to adviser clients annually of the tariffs which would be cheapest for them - I saw the germs of a narrative which could be exploited over the coming years.

In it, he speaks of the importance of living not just within our economic means but within our environmental means. "That the economic and environmental mantras are the same - waste not, want not." Later, he says:

"We have to stop treating the environment like an afterthought. Instead we will show that consumer interests, business interests and green interests are the same. That is why the environment will be at the heart of everything Liberal Democrats do in government,  why I will be making more speeches on further green issues in coming months and why we will fight to make this the greenest government ever."

I don't think it can be an accident that things highlighted - the importance of economic discipline aligned with business and green interests - are things over which three of the four Lib Dem Secretaries (excluding Nick himself) have responsibility: Danny Alexander as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Vince Cable at Business, Innovation and Skills and Ed Davey, Chris Huhne's successor at the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Whilst there are lots of Lib Dem policies being implemented elsewhere - the pupil premium and equal marriage for example - being able to point to Liberal Democrat Secretaries implementing Liberal Democratic policies could be an important part of our strategy. Of course, it would be great to have a Secretary in one of the big spending departments but we must work with the hand we currently hold... ...at least until any cabinet reshuffle.

It may have taken a couple of years but it finally seems as if the party hierarchy is finally developing a distinctive narrative and working to communicate this to members and beyond. For two years, we've been the butt of many a bitter left-wing comics joke, and suffered a backlash in opinion polls (although not always in actual polls). It's time we started to turn the tide, it's time we started to point to positive successes by identifiable ministers. It's time to lay the groundwork for a positive pitch in 2015 as a real party of government.

Andrew

 

In which I agree with the Coalition for Marriage...

On their website, right above where you can sign their petition supporting "the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others [and] opposing any attempt to redefine it" they have a section of text which says this:

"People should not feel pressurised to go along with same-sex marriage just because of political correctness. They should be free to express their views. The Government will be launching a public consultation on proposals to redefine marriage. This will provide an opportunity for members of the public to make their views known."

I agree. People shouldn't feel pressurised to go along with it, particularly not if that is due to "Political Correctness". People should be free to express their views. The Government is launching a public consultation and there will be a chance for the public - and groups like "C4M" - to make their views known.

So, there you have it, I agree with the Coalition for Marriage... That, though, is pretty much as far as my agreement goes.

Under a headline that says "Marriage is Unique", the coalition then proceed to argue that it is, in fact, common: 

"Throughout history and in virtually all human societies marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman. Marriage reflects the complementary natures of men and women. Although death and divorce may prevent it, the evidence shows that children do best with a married mother and a father."

I don't have enough knowledge to argue whether children do do best in a married household - I believe this is questionable, especially in those households where parents resist divorce for religious or moral reasons, or stay together "for the sake of the children". And I believe that non-married households can also provide good environments for children. I know for a fact, though, that there will be very little data comparing married heterosexual couples with children and married homosexual couples with children and determining whether there is a difference in level of care and love.

Marriage, apparently, reflects the complementary natures of men and women - does this mean that woman are well suited to housework? And do they think that couples in a homosexual relation cannot have complementary natures too... I'd suggest that most relationships, regardless of the gender of the people involved, rely on the parties being complementary.

It is true that in most societies marriage has been between Men and Women but this is a comment on those societies and the historic prejudice against homosexuals rather than on the virtues of heterosexual marriage itself. The argument that this is the way it's always been is an argument for belief in a flat Earth or for the Earth being the centre of the Universe - and it neglects the fact that many societies have arrangements for real, or defacto, polygamy including many of those in the Old Testament.

This appeal to a questionable tradition of monogamous marriage is interesting - as the next section on the website warns of the "profound consequences" of broadening a definition of marriage to same-sex couples is the slippery slope argument. Have a guess where C4M believe we may end up...

"If marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined. People's careers could be harmed, couples seeking to adopt or foster could be excluded, and schools would inevitably have to teach the new definition to children. If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?"

No doubt, if that isn't scary enough, Bestiality and Necrophilia will be hot on it's heals.

I don't understand how broadening the definition and scope of marriage will sideline "traditional marriage". Do they believe that such a move will put off heterosexual couples from getting married themselves? And, whilst it would be sad if people felt they couldn't adopt or foster in such a situation (not sure how or why in this context) or that they couldn't in conscience perform their jobs, this is not a reason for society not change and develop. At the end of the day, this consultation is about Civil Marriage and the council officials responsible need to be able to exercise the law without letting their personal views get in the way - or leave.

Finally, C4M claim that there is "no need to redefine" marriage as:

"Civil partnerships already provide all the legal benefits of marriage so there's no need to redefine marriage. It's not discriminatory to support traditional marriage. Same-sex couples may choose to have a civil partnership but no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us."

Perhaps Civil Partnerships do have all those benefits... but, at the end of the day they are not marriage. No-one has a right to redefine marriage but society does. Those in  favour of this move are not seeking to redefine marriage in any case - merely to open it up to many more people. To change the legal definition, not the institution itself.

So perhaps I don't agree with the Coalition for Marriage after all...

Andrew

You can read a piece by Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister, Lynne Featherstone here and I anticipate returning to this topic soon.

Where I Stand

Every since I was a teenager I've considered myself a Social/Liberal Democrat. 

Growing up in Scotland in the eighties, it is, perhaps, no surprise that I consider myself to be left of centre, although this has always been tempered by a belief in free markets (subject to some limited qualifications). My formative years were also probably responsible for the develpment of my liberal inclinations, albeit in a much more difficult way to quantify.

The Political Compass is a tool which seeks to assess where you stand not just in terms of crude left and right but also plots this in relation to Authoritarian/Libetarian principles. 

Here is where I stand:

You can take the test here. Feel free to report your results below!

Andrew