How the British media lies about Europe

Richard Corbett has posted about British press and BBC coverage of a newish building in Brussels. It's a small story but symptomatic of the distortions of our xenophobic media.

While I'm here, may I also pour some cold water on the Eurosceptics' glee at Greece's problems, which of course they blame on the Euro. Greece's problems are endemic and caused by overspending and inefficient tax-gathering. Without the Euro they would have been thrown into the arms of the IMF much earlier. Oh, and by the way, this is not the end of the Euro, it is not even the beginning of the end, it is merely the end of the beginning.

Labour should hire capital

That's "labour" at the beginning of a sentence not "Labour", the party which did nothing - that's right, absolutely zilch - to advance industrial democracy in 13 years in power. Birkdale Focus reviews "Unfinished Business", Matt Cole's biography of Richard Wainwright.

Time for Liberals to remember what they are for and to tell everyone else. But who's going to tell Clegg and Alexander ? As Birkdale Focus says, "...there is no adequate champion of them that is heard in remote and secure corridors where the leadership dwells where only those who agree gain ready access."

Reforming the Lords

I am pessimistic about Lords reform. The coalition agreement only commits the government to bring forward proposals. The massed ranks of Tory backwoodsmen with the vociferous support of the old Labour dinosaurs (I see Betty Boothroyd has joined their ranks)are digging in to oppose reform and shamefully there are even Liberal Democrat peers (step forward David Steel) who will vote with them. It was heartening then to read Paddy Ashdown's speech. kindly circulated by Keynesian Liberal.

One hundred years after a Liberal government began to reform the Lords, the work remains unfinished. If their lordships refuse to go quietly, then the government must use the Parliament Act. It's high time we became a democracy and no more talk of grandfathering, letting them all stay until they die. No along with Cromwell let us say, "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

Motion on conference accreditation

As this is really a matter for Lib Dem members only, I'll keep it short. If you are a conference representative and are against the accreditation measures set up for our autumn conference contact me to get the text of my motion on the subject.

We're all Social Liberals now

According to David Howarth's excellent essay in Reinventing the State we are all - even David Laws - Social Liberals now. David Hall-Matthews, Chair of the Social Liberal Forum, echoed Howarth's view when summing up the SLF conference. The SLF is not a movement on the fringe of the Liberal Democrats, it is the mainstream of the party. Nor are Social Liberals the same thing as Social Democrats, as Matt Chorley seems to think in today's Independent on Sunday. Labour's Neal Lawson from Compass, who would hardly identify themselves with the SDP as they try to win their party back from its Blairite ways, seemed to think that Social Liberals have a lot in common with Liberal Socialists and therefore invited us all to join Compass. As far as I could see, only Richard Grayson is interested in this invitation and he's already joined.

Nevertheless, it is important to answer Liberal England's question: "What is the difference between a social liberal and a social democrat?". Even if it is clear to us it's not to the outside world who read journalists like Chorley, who lazily retold the old jokes about sandals and beards. Perhaps Will Hutton gave the best answer. He told us we are in the middle of a financial crisis not at the end of it. The cause he labelled as "rank bad capitalism" and the two possible responses are socialism and managing capitalism. The latter he identified as our approach based upon the ideas of T.H.Green, L.T.Hobhouse, Maynard Keynes and William Beveridge. He spelled out for us the dangers of the Greek crisis for British banks and hence the British economy. The UK has lent over £1 trillion to European banks and governments. We cannot stand aside with Tory disdain from what goes on in Europe. Chorley thinks Evan Harris was the star of the show. I think it was Will Hutton.

Ed Randall tried to compress an entire year's economics course into twenty minutes, singling out in particular the work of Japanese economist Koo. He left even those of us with Economics degrees gasping with incomprehension - "Koo...err...lummy". I'm sure the graphs were meant to help but there was only time to peer at them in hope. Ed argued that our economic policy should halt and reverse social inequalities, protect the environment and end the depradations of big finance. He was the warm-up man for Vince Cable and then sat shaking his head in disagreement as Vince delivered his usual avuncular performance. His theme was that the overriding priority is to rebalance the British economy which has become over-dependent on the financial sector with UK banks worth roughly four times the GDP. Vince claimed that government policies on apprenticeships, regional development and the green deal were starting to address the problem. He argued that the coalition was working for reform of the banking system, responsible capitalism and progressive taxation. The audience sympathetic to his professed views remained dubious about what the Tories would let him do.

There were many other thought-provoking contributions. Prateek Buch spoke great sense but I agreed so much that I wrote nothing down ! Evan Harris said some interesting things but his eyes are unsettling. Somehow even when agreeing with him, I found myself unsettled. Four of us interviewed him at lunchtime - more later. Simon Hebditch and others looked for links between the Big Society and Community Politics but failed to find them. Simon Hughes went on and on , enjoying himself and making endless last points.

I feared when I saw the agenda that there were too many speakers and the rest of us would be confined to short questions. That isn't how Liberals work. Most contributions from the floor were not mere questions. Nearly everyone accepted the need for the coalition; many supported the deficit reduction plan whilst others advanced plans B and C. Two great Liberal chestnuts re-emerged to applause: industrial democracy and land value taxation. We are not the Independent's pissed-off-looking guerillas nor are we socialist-lite, we are Social Liberals with a coherent philosophical pedigree and a determination to remind the world what our party is for. Exercises such as blocking Tory health reforms will not be enough to establish a separate Liberal identity. Our identity cannot just be as the people who put the brakes on the Tories. We have to show the country what we would do if we held the steering wheel.

A bit more BBC poison

I confess I am NOT a fan of Danny Alexander, so I was ready to believe the BBC's quick summary of his remarks about Public Sector Pension Reform. In their headline news it sounded like old-fashioned union-bashing. Then I read the actual article on LibDem Voice and came away with a very different impression. I know politicians have to be aware of how they will be reported when they choose their words, but wouldn't it help if the media also chose a little more scrupulously. More light and less heat please, BBC !

BBC poisons the national conversation

"The style of debate practised by the Today programme poisons discourse in this country. An arena where there are no positions possible except diametrically opposed ones, where nuance is not permitted, where politicians are forced into defensive positions of utter banality...none of it is any good for the national conversation." So wrote Graham Linehan in his blog.

For those of us whose blood pressure rises as we shout at Radio 4 in the morning, Graham Linehan's point is well made, although I noticed that as usual the self righteous BBC producer refused to admit the need to change anything when questioned on FeedBack

Balls !

Ed Balls has called for a temporary reduction in the rate of VAT to boost the economy. What is it with Labour and the VAT rate ? Is there sound evidence that the last temporary drop had a great effect ? I remain convinced that the best way to boost the economy is to build more houses, particularly low cost ones. This would create work for people who spend most of their incomes and therefore would have a good multiplier effect. It would provide much-needed housing. The government could stimulate the process through action on the banks' failure to lend to anyone without a 20% deposit.

No, Nick ! I don't agree with you.

Liberal democrats have always called for parliamentary reform. Now we're in government, what's the score ?
1. Electoral reform: AV lost, PR forgotten
2. House of Lords reform: unlikely to overcome opposition of Tory, Labour and half of LD peers.
3. Err, that's it.

The price for this immense cock-up is a reduction in parliamentary constituencies accompanied by a massive redrawing of boundaries which will focus chiefly on size and ignore any idea of community, cost the Liberal Democrats 14 seats and provide regular opportunities for gerrymandering every few years. Meanwhile the UK's bloated executive will remain the same size and the whips will dominate the House of Commons even more.

All Cretans are liars !

Not perhaps what Patrick Leigh Fermor would have said but he would have recognised the paradoxical saying of Epimenides the Cretan two and a half millenia before he was born. Reflecting on this road sign, I realised that it is the same paradox. The sign says "Sign not in use" which means that we cannot take the message on the sign to be true, in which case the sign is in use which means that we can use it, which means that "Sign not in use" is true which means...and so on. Who would have thought it, a Cretan in the Highways Department !

Give us a sign, O Lord !

I swear there is one like this on the A303. I can only suppose it's a public sector job creation scheme.

The reality about Labour's inflated image

Thanks to Richard Morris for pointing this out.

A new report shows the effects of inflation hit poor people hardest. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that the poorest had seen inflation of 4.3% between 2008-10, compared to 2.7% for the rich. The Director of the IFS Paul Johnson told Today: "The less well off spend more of their money as a proportion of their total budgets on things like food and fuel than the better off households. Food and fuel – by which I mean gas and electricity – have risen in price quite a lot more quickly than other things."

Note the dates. Well, as we know, New Labour was always "incredibly relaxed" about the very rich. Just a pity they were equally relaxed about the very poor.

That's fifteen minutes I'll never get back

Just gritted my teeth and registered for Liberal Democrat Federal Conference, resenting every moment wasted !!! My first objection was that I had to tick the box saying I agreed with the terms and conditions, which I don't and which I will fight tooth and nail, so I lied ! Having already given my first name, I did not think it necessary to fill in the next box entitled "Commonly used first name" but the program forced me back to the same question, so I typed "Disgruntled" which I shall be using commonly if this bloody nonsense continues.

Patrick Leigh Fermor dead

I was talking about this man only last week, not really sure if he was still alive and now he has died. In March 2009 the BBC4 showed an episode of the series Traveller's Century sadly not available now. A journalist followed Leigh Fermor's 1930s journey across Europe but also told the story of his wartime adventures and finally interviewed him. The most extraordinary part of the programme was an excerpt from Greek television's version of "This is your life" in which Leigh Fermor met not only his old Cretan resistance friends but also the German general they kidnapped. The story was immortalised in Stanley Moss's book and the Powell and Pressburger film Ill met by moonlight. The Independent Review of the programme is interesting.

The Old Inn at Stein, Isle of Skye

Craig Murray's current visit to Doune reminds me of my own visit to the Old Inn at Stein. We were having dinner when an American tourist came in and demanded coffee. The busy waitress said she was sorry but they were in the middle of serving dinner. The American expecting instant gratification of his wishes came straight back with, "Don't you serve after-dinner coffee ?". The waitress now flustered as well as busy replied, "Ye..es but you haven't had dinner.". The American expostulated and left in a huff. What the girl had meant was that she would be serving coffee later but right then she was busy serving main courses. A few minutes later, the chef appeared from the kitchen, shock of red hair, large straggly red beard and (I may have imagined this) a meat cleaver in his hand. "Look", he said, waving the cleaver "We'd like to serve him coffee. We would, but there's nae but the two of us here. If he comes back later we'll give him a coffee.". Of course, he did come back later (there's nowhere else in Stein) and the landlord bought him a drink and he bought the landlord a drink and they ended up singing in the ceilidh together.

I liked that the chef (almost certainly a merchant seaman on leave) cared that the customers should not think the place unwelcoming and that the American learned that Skye is not Times Square and is indeed a lot friendlier.

The landlord led off the singing with "I'm a man you don't meet every day". This turned out to be true. A year later I visited the Old Inn and asked after him. "Oh, the police came up from England and took him back" they told me. I won't name the Liberal Democrat MP who quarreled with the same man and had to sleep in his car.

Police accreditation - the answers ?

Andrew Wiseman has been kind enough to send me answers to my long list of questions. There is one outstanding point. People keep claiming that conference standing orders provide a power to exclude people. I can find no such power. Paragraph 6.2 provides for an appeal if the Chief Steward excludes you but without giving him explicit power to do so or setting out grounds for such a decision. That just leaves Public Order legislation which I believe relates to the behaviour of people at conference, NOT to any pre-emptive ban. Here are the questions again with Andrew's answers in italics.


Police accreditation for Liberal Democrat Conferences

A. Questions re data protection
1. Why do the police require passport, driving licence or NI number ? What will they do with the information ? What are the checks they will carry out ? What sources of information will our identities be checked against ? Will these include CRB, County Court judgements, credit reference agencies, Sex Offenders List, anti-terrorist intelligence obtained through interception of signals or undercover officers or word of mouth from informers ? Has FCC asked these questions yet ?

The checks are carried out firstly to ensure the person registering are who they say they are ie someone is not registering under a false name. We have been advised that one way of them doing this is by checking passport or driving licence details. This is because of the checks that are carried out before either are issued. If no such details are available they look at other information to verify the persons identity. The next stage is to decide whether the person poses a significant risk to conference and those attending conference. This is a risk assessment looking at criminal records and other information..

The fact that someone has a criminal record is not a bar, similarly the fact they have been on a picket line, protest etc is not a problem. It comes back to that test of posing a significant risk to conference. By way of example this could be terrorism or one of the known individuals to the police who they believe are a serious threat to certain individuals within the party (a fixated person).

2. What arrangements, if any, has FCC made for people who have none of these items ? Will they be able to attend ?

This is something that we have been assured the police are use to dealing with. They can accept banks statements, registration on the electoral role etc. I attended one of the other parties conference last year with someone who didn’t have the usual information (they do not have a UK passport or driving licence) and they got accredited on site very quickly.

3. What arrangements has FCC made for people whose identities have changed in some way, e.g. transgender people ?

I am in discussions with DELGA, a number of transgender people and the police to work out a system that they are comfortable with. The police have dealt with similar cases with the other parties but we want to go for a slightly different approach that our reps will be more comfortable with.

4. If an elected representative is unable or refuses to provide this information, will they be able to attend ?

Given the wide range of data that is acceptable if they do not have a passport or driving licence which can be provided before conference or, if really necessary at conference there should be no reason for someone not being able to provide the information.

5. Why do the police need to retain the information after they have carried out their checks ? Did FCC consult anyone else in the party to see if they would object to such retention ? Did FCC consider making arrangements to allow members to provide the information on condition that it is not retained ? If such an arrangement happens now, what guarantees will there be that the information has been deleted ?

The police have confirmed that any member that wants their data deleted can have it deleted.

6. How many organisations will actually hold the data ? Just Manchester Police or West Midlands Police or the Home Office or ACPO ? What about the contractors who collect and pass the information to the police ?

The data is held by Greater Manchester Police. They run the accreditation of all the party conferences. The local force (in our case West Midlands) ‘contract’ with GMP to carry out the checks.

7. Section IV of the Data Protection Act has exemptions for various purposes including crime and tax. Has FCC enquired of the police whether they would wish to use the information provided by members, for any of these exempted purposes ?

We have asked .The conference accreditation system is a stand alone system that is not accessed for any other reason than the accreditation to attend party conference (any of the three main parties). Data can be deleted if requested after conference.


B. Questions re excluding representatives from conference

1. Did FCC or anyone negotiating on behalf of the party raise with the police or the Home Office the provisions of our constitution ?

We did raise this with the police (and Home Office). It is because of the unique position of our members and conference that many of the procedures have been put in place.


2. Has FCC established what information the police will give to the party to back up any recommendation to exclude someone from attending conference ? The police are unlikely to disclose information obtained through secret surveillance or intelligence sources. In that situation how will FCC “approach any such decision seriously” ?

There have been discussions over this. Where ever possible they will advise us, this is subject to data protection laws and security considerations. Often the information is in the public domain and can be pointed out to us. Other information may be disclosed subject to confidentiality. We have made it clear that we need to be satisfied. We have offered to take the advice of certain members of the party that have the highest level of security clearance and to whom the police could disclose some information to. Much depends on the nature of the reasons for the potential exclusion.

3. If a member learns that FCC has excluded him or her form attending conference (without of course any constitutional power to do such a thing), what reason will be given and what, if any, appeal process will be available ? How can a member appeal against an allegation if the police will not tell the party what it is ?

An appeal process has been set up. The first stage will be for the person to speak to a senior police officer That will enable any clarifications to be mad and will enable the police to reconsider their recommendation. If that is not successful it will come to myself and the Chief Exec. From there it will go to a full meeting of FCC.


4. Does FCC have a timetable for the accreditation process ? When will the police give their advice ? When will FCC consider it ? When would an excluded person have a chance to appeal ?

As soon as the person registers on the party website the police will start the accreditation process. Thye work through them one by one. As soon as there is a problem we will be advised. They will not save them up. We will deal with the issues as soon as they arise.

5. Has FCC or anyone negotiating on behalf of the party actually asked either the venue or the insurers whether they would refuse us if we did not accept any particular point of police advice or has this possibility been assumed ?

This has been discussed. Advice has also been taken from our insurance advisors. We are continuing the discussions to try and get us into the best position possible.

Vince Cable and the end of innocence

"As much as I ever did, more than I ever did, I believe in Liberalism. But there was a rosy time of innocence when I believed in Liberals." wrote G K Chesterton.

After Vince Cable today tried to threaten the trade unions with the possibility of tougher laws to prevent strikes, I recalled what Chesterton wrote. That's not why we wanted a Liberal government, Vince. Then I recalled, of course, Vince isn't a Liberal. He came to the Liberal Democrats from Labour via the Social Democrats. It's not Vince's first mistake in government. The mantle of wisdom which descended on Vince so quickly in opposition has blown away as quickly in office. I remember something else which Chesterton said:“When a politician is in opposition he is an expert on the means to some end; and when he is in office he is an expert on the obstacles to it.”

Will this do ?

Liberal Democrat HQ wants a new photo from me for conference. It must be colour, light background, neutral expression, head and shoulders etc. I'm thinking of sending this snap from the Guardian of me at Sheffield, not actually bombing anyone when they took it.

How do you contact the Leader of the Liberal Democrats ?

As a party member I have recently tried to contact some of our ministers in their roles as our party's leading spokespeople. It's not easy. Their published contact details invite you to contact them either as a minister (in which case of course a civil servant drafts the response) or as your constituency MP (I live in Yeovil and my MP is not a spokesman). For example, here's Nick Clegg's details:

If you are contacting Nick as Deputy Prime Minister, please write to him at the Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall, London, SW1A 2AS or via this contact form: www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/contact-deputy-prime-minister.

If you are a constituent of Nick's in Sheffield Hallam, please write to him at 85 Nethergreen Road, Sheffield S11 7EH or contact him via this contact form: www.nickclegg.org.uk/ncorguk_contact.aspx

I know the LibDem ministers have a hell of job with not enough political staff, but then I didn't negotiate the details of the coalition agreement, which failed to address the issue. I hope they won't forget their party in the maelstrom of government and constituency business. We've had a year of people forgetting who the Liberal Democrats are and what we stand for.

Responsibility to Protect

I see the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) as a useful development of international law and I recently defended British action in Libya as an example of it. I admit that it may not be but I still believe the doctrine is a good one. Craig Murray has written an excellent article for the Independent about Libya and the coalition government's approach to foreign policy. The question is whether the Liberal Democrats are making any difference to foreign policy. Any evidence that we are ?

For more information on RtoP, go here and for NGO support for RtoP here.

My recommendations on Police Accreditation

Police accreditation for Liberal Democrat Conferences
1. Summary
Two problems: data protection and selection of representatives other than by local parties.
Andrew Wiseman’s response inadequate. Fundamental issues for Liberals, not mere concern.
Questions for FCC now and, if unanswered, at conference.
Recommended actions:
1) Members provide ID info now on explicit condition of guaranteed deletion not retention.
2) FCC arrange such guarantees.
3) FCC arrange offsite facilities for representatives excluded from main building.
4) MPs raise questions of Home Office re conduct of police re party conferences.

2. Introduction
The introduction of this procedure raises two sets of problems, the first about data protection and the second about the interference of the state in party democracy. The first concerns all members who attend conference, the second only elected representatives. Andrew Wiseman, Chair of Federal Conference Committee, claims that the committee was very reluctant to increase security but it appears that most members of the committee were not involved in negotiations with the police, nor necessarily fully informed about them and in the end nor did they challenge the new requirements. It is only now that party members have learned what FCC has agreed to that Andrew is considering any changes. These issues are not just “some concerns” a phrase beloved of civil servants and junior ministers playing down a problem, they are bloody great breaches of liberal principle and Liberal Democrat party democracy. I suggest questions to be put to FCC now and at conference if not answered satisfactorily now.

3. Data Protection
The guidelines say that this information will then be passed onto Manchester Police who are operating the checks on behalf of West Midlands Police. The information will be retained and/or passed to other police forces in the future to assist with the accreditation of subsequent political conferences only. Details of the data stored may be obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act.

3.1 Questions to FCC
1. Why do the police require passport, driving licence or NI number ? What will they do with the information ? What are the checks they will carry out ? What sources of information will our identities be checked against ? Will these include CRB, County Court judgements, credit reference agencies, Sex Offenders List, anti-terrorist intelligence obtained through interception of signals or undercover officers or word of mouth from informers ? Has FCC asked these questions yet ?
2. What arrangements, if any, has FCC made for people who have none of these items ? Will they be able to attend ?
3. What arrangements has FCC made for people whose identities have changed in some way, e.g. transgender people ?
4. If an elected representative is unable or refuses to provide this information, will they be able to attend ?
5. Why do the police need to retain the information after they have carried out their checks ? Did FCC consult anyone else in the party to see if they would object to such retention ? Did FCC consider making arrangements to allow members to provide the information on condition that it is not retained ? If such an arrangement happens now, what guarantees will there be that the information has been deleted ?
6. How many organisations will actually hold the data ? Just Manchester Police or West Midlands Police or the Home Office or ACPO ? Is Events Force a separate organisation able to see and hold the data ?
7. Section IV of the Data Protection Act has exemptions for various purposes including crime and tax. Has FCC enquired of the police whether they would wish to use the information provided by members, for any of these exempted purposes ?

3.2 Recommendation:
Members wishing to go to the Autumn Conference should not withhold the identity information on this occasion as we then risk having a conference composed only of people who don’t care about the issue. Instead, we should provide the information on the explicit understanding that it is for one time only and must be deleted after checks have been carried out. FCC should negotiate with the police to ensure that there are guarantees for members who make this stipulation.

4. Selection of representatives at conference

4.1 Andrew Wiseman’s response
This is a more serious matter. Andrew Wiseman maintains that Liberal Democrats remain in control of the conference. He says “There has been some suggestion that this means the police will decide who can come to conference. This is absolutely not the case as the final decision will rest with the party.” He adds, “Can I guarantee now, in advance that whatever information is given us, we would never agree that a particular individual would pose such a severe personal security threat that for the safety of all our conference goers they should be excluded? Of course not – and I can just about conceive of circumstances in which there was very strong evidence relating to an individual that we might feel we had to take that view. But I think it unlikely this will happen, and you know how seriously we will approach any such decision.” Perhaps Andrew can tell me where the party's constitution provides for FCC or anyone else to override the choice of local parties.

4.2 The insurance and venue argument
An FCC member has told me that the police insist upon this accreditation procedure and that if we refuse to follow police advice, we could lose our Public Liability Insurance or be refused admission by the venue. These are serious points but they need testing. They do perhaps give the lie to the idea that we remain in control of our conference. If in fact either venue managers or insurers would refuse us if we refused to exclude an individual on police advice, then we need to take up the issue in parliament because we cannot accept a situation where an organ of the state decides who may attend any party conference. Meanwhile, we have a problem for our Autumn Conference this year and must work out how an elected representative could take part if excluded from the building.

4.3 The Party Constitution
Just for the record, our party constitution says:
Article 6: The Federal Conference
6.1 The conference will consist of
(a) Representatives of Local Parties...
6.3 Representatives of Local Parties shall be elected by all members of the Local Party concerned...

6.3a provides for circumstances when a representative shall cease to hold office. Strangely, it does NOT say when the Manchester Police advise against, nor even when Andrew Wiseman “might feel we had to take that view”.

4.4 Questions
1. Did FCC or anyone negotiating on behalf of the party raise with the police or the Home Office the provisions of our constitution ?
2. Has FCC established what information the police will give to the party to back up any recommendation to exclude someone from attending conference ? The police are unlikely to disclose information obtained through secret surveillance or intelligence sources. In that situation how will FCC “approach any such decision seriously” ?
3. If a member learns that FCC has excluded him or her form attending conference (without of course any constitutional power to do such a thing), what reason will be given and what, if any, appeal process will be available ? How can a member appeal against an allegation if the police will not tell the party what it is ?
4. Does FCC have a timetable for the accreditation process ? When will the police give their advice ? When will FCC consider it ? When would an excluded person have a chance to appeal ?
5. Has FCC or anyone negotiating on behalf of the party actually asked either the venue or the insurers whether they would refuse us if we did not accept any particular point of police advice or has this possibility been assumed ?

4.5 Recommendation:
FCC must make preparations to allow any elected representative excluded on police advice to participate fully in the conference. This should include provision of a video link to the chamber permitting any such person to listen to debates, to put in a speaker’s card and speak if called and to vote and have their vote counted.

Some may argue that this is an absurd amount of work but it would enable us to respect our own constitution whilst coping with police advice, venue and insurance problems. Given that Andrew Wiseman and others regard the eventuality of someone being excluded as unlikely, they should be able to make provisional arrangements which result in little or no cost to the party.

Police can veto who goes to Lib Dem Conference ?!!?

Today I received a message from Liberal Democrat HQ telling me that I must supply my passport (or other ID) details if I want to attend party conference. Guidelines on the website make it clear that the information will be passed to the police. They also make it clear that I may be refused "accreditation" presumably on police advice. There is nothing in our party constitution about accreditation. Local parties elect representatives and there is no power for the party nationally to choose which of these may attend. We must fight this illiberal procedure which is against what we stand for and our constitution.

Extracts from the website
"...all applicants will be required to complete a more comprehensive security pass application. These details will be passed onto the police to carry out their own accreditation procedures. Please note that Police Accreditation will be carried out by Greater Manchester Police on behalf of West Midlands Police.

In the unlikely event that your accreditation is unsuccessful, you will be issued a full refund of your registration fees. The Liberal Democrats will not accept liability for any additional costs incurred by the applicant."

"The submission of the application form does not confer any right upon the applicant to attend the conference and the Liberal Democrats reserve the right to refuse admission.
Your data will be stored in the Liberal Democrats secure conference registration system and will be made available for future conferences to speed up your registration process, in addition to keeping you updated on Party conferences. It may also be used for anonymous statistical analysis.
The information supplied by you will be provided to the relevant Constabulary for storage on a computer system in connection with the policing arrangements for the Party Conference. The information will be retained and/or passed to other police forces in the future to assist with the accreditation of subsequent political conferences only. Details of the data stored may be obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act.
The Liberal Democrats and police will comply with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 at all times with regards to any of your data held.
"

Extracts from Liberal Democrat Federal Constitution

Article 6: The Federal Conference
6.1 The conference will consist of
(a) Representatives of Local Parties...
6.3 Representatives of Local Parties shall be elected by all members of the Local Party concerned...