Scottish Lib Dem Conference

[AUFC90]

You can decide for yourself due to my contributions to the site whether you THINK I am a banned poster. Not really sure why that would matter.

The fact is, I've been reading the site for a few months, mainly the politics forum, and today decided to contribute.

Fair enough.

[Rubic Pube]

Fair enough.

Thanks, if I can say, some of your contributions are good reading and you appear to be pretty well informed.

[Scary Bear]

They were told prior to it the costs would be met! Excessive? Not really it's a major event of a party in government, so full security cordon, there would have to be 24/7 CBRN, public order, firearms, dogs, traffic and then the conventional cops necessary to man the cordon, control room staff logistical staff. It's pretty involved. Not sure I'm allowed to post numbers etc so I'll err on the side of caution but let's just say it's not just two guys on the door?

Aye, but did they let on that it would be a kick in the arse off a million quid?

I suppose you either over prepare and are seen as being over the top or under prepare and something goes wrong and you're seen as negligent.

[speckled tangerine]

The hall where this is happening usually does small functions. The Lib-dems will probably get lobbed out for a wedding and some delegate who's wandered back from the bogs will think that a random best mans speech about handjobs off Dutch hookers is a new policy.

[Rubic Pube]

I may vote Lib Dem if that is policy.

Not really.

[~~~]

[Antlion]

ImageUploadedByPie & Bovril1445699785.894303.jpg

Oh wow.

[Ad Lib]

Had a bit of a fight with the party leadership over the Federalism motion. The more radical wing tried to get a more robust motion forward but Conference Committee rejected it. We tried to amend it to be more conciliatory to the SNP and to get us properly to define federalism and find practical routes to overcoming obstacles like the Barnett formula. Conference Committee rejected it.

I called for Conference to refer it back and do some proper work on a draft codified constitution. They narrowly refused to do that on the floor but a lot closer than we thought it would be. Then voted against the motion for its lack of ambition and it's unnecessary Nat-bashing. But it passed.

Bit pissed off all round.

[AUFC90]

The Lib Dems are shit, an intelligent guy such as yourself should realise this by now.

[Antlion]

Had a bit of a fight with the party leadership over the Federalism motion. The more radical wing tried to get a more robust motion forward but Conference Committee rejected it. We tried to amend it to be more conciliatory to the SNP and to get us properly to define federalism and find practical routes to overcoming obstacles like the Barnett formula. Conference Committee rejected it.

I called for Conference to refer it back and do some proper work on a draft codified constitution. They narrowly refused to do that on the floor but a lot closer than we thought it would be. Then voted against the motion for its lack of ambition and it's unnecessary Nat-bashing. But it passed.

Bit pissed off all round.

Thanks for this! The Lib Dem attitude to federalism is something that really interests me (we've discussed it before) as I've been incredibly disappointed in their lacklustre approach to what would be a major, attractive constitutional change (if people believed in their serious contemplation of it).

[~~~]

Trying to have his cake and eat it?

[invergowrie arab]

Rennie can f**k off with his nation divided pish.

If some arsehole from Fife has fallen out with her daughter because of the referendum I think having an engaged informed electorate and an explosion of grassroots activism in and out of party politics trumps that a bit.

[capybara]

Willie Rennie primed for the big kick off

The bridge will see him off.

[~~~]

Rennie can f**k off with his nation divided pish.

If some arsehole from Fife has fallen out with her daughter because of the referendum I think having an engaged informed electorate and an explosion of grassroots activism in and out of party politics trumps that a bit.

Aye, apparently we are a divided nation who is also a one party state.

[Antlion]

Rennie can f**k off with his nation divided pish.

If some arsehole from Fife has fallen out with her daughter because of the referendum I think having an engaged informed electorate and an explosion of grassroots activism in and out of party politics trumps that a bit.

Whenever you see the "nation divided" line (or variations thereon), question just what the speaker must feel they've lost from the death of unthinking, unquestioning, pro-union groupthink on the part of the Scottish electorate.

In the little oddity Rennie's case, it seems to be his party's future.

[Ad Lib]

Wonder if they'll pay the security costs this year?

Police Scofland:

"It has been reported in the media that there is an outstanding invoice of £800,000 for this conference; however, this is factually incorrect. No invoice for the policing costs of the conference was ever generated and the Liberal Democrats did not enter into any arrangement with Police Scotland to provide policing."

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ps800000_liberal_democrat_bill_o?unfold=1

[Ad Lib]

Yeh you also miss the part in the freedom of info request where the government that the Lib Dems were part of informed them that policing costs would be met by the home office.

At no point does the Freedom of Information Request state that the UK Government said that policing costs would be met by the Home Office.

It is quite clear. Costs incurred by the political party organisers would be covered by the Home Office, but any costs to Police Scotland would be met by the Scottish Government, because the funds from which they would ordinarily reimburse policing costs for Conferences was a ringfenced fund applicable to the budget for policing in England and Wales.

On 21st February 2013 Assistant Chief Constable Higgins chaired a meeting with the Liberal Democrat conference organiser, conference chair and representatives from the Home Office where he sought clarity on who would be meeting the policing costs for the 2013 Liberal Democrat national party conference 2013. At that time Mr Higgins set out his clear expectation that Police Scotland should not be financially disadvantaged as a result of a political party holding a private event in Scotland and that he was seeking funding from either the Home Office or the conference organisers themselves for the cost of policing the conference.

The outcome being that the costs to the Liberal Democrat Party of the security measures within the Conference Security Plan were fully met by the Home Office; the costs to Police Scotland were not.

Further, if the conference had taken place in England or Wales 85% of all the policing costs would have been met by the Home Office (Crime and Policing Group) from their Special Grants budget, but as the conference took place in Scotland these grants were not available from the Home Office. Representation was made directly to the Home Office by Police Scotland and Mr Kenny MacAskill MSP, Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Justice, without success.

The Home Secretary, Rt Hon Theresa May MP, replied to Mr MacAskill confirming that any costs falling to the Liberal Democrat Party as a result of the security measures would be reimbursed by the Home Office. It was her firm view that if Police Scotland required any financial assistance to help with the policing of this event then this should be met by the Scottish Government.

Finally, subsequent communication resulted in the Home Office agreeing to contribute £15,000 to cover the costs of accreditation associated with the event and the remainder of the costs were absorbed by Police Scotland.

You can question the fairness of the non-applicability of the Special Grants budget to UK-wide activities held in the jurisdiction of Police Scotland, but it is abundantly clear that at no point whatsoever did the Liberal Democrats or the UK Government of which they were a part undertake to cover the costs of Police Scotland.

[strichener]

At no point does the Freedom of Information Request state that the UK Government said that policing costs would be met by the Home Office.

It is quite clear. Costs incurred by the political party organisers would be covered by the Home Office, but any costs to Police Scotland would be met by the Scottish Government, because the funds from which they would ordinarily reimburse policing costs for Conferences was a ringfenced fund applicable to the budget for policing in England and Wales.

You can question the fairness of the non-applicability of the Special Grants budget to UK-wide activities held in the jurisdiction of Police Scotland, but it is abundantly clear that at no point whatsoever did the Liberal Democrats or the UK Government of which they were a part undertake to cover the costs of Police Scotland.

You cannot really question the fairness at all. It is unquestionably unfair.

However for someone arhuing anout the government providing 150k for TITP. To suggest that Police Scotland or the SG should be on tge hook for a private event is clearly hypocritical.

This is just another example of the UK government screwing over the Scottish Taxpayer. An FOI to the home office on the Special Grant fund would probably gind that this is not included in Barnett.

[Ad Lib]

You cannot really question the fairness at all. It is unquestionably unfair.

However for someone arhuing anout the government providing 150k for TITP. To suggest that Police Scotland or the SG should be on tge hook for a private event is clearly hypocritical.

This is just another example of the UK government screwing over the Scottish Taxpayer. An FOI to the home office on the Special Grant fund would probably gind that this is not included in Barnett.

I didn't say that they should be on the hook. I said that it was incorrect to state that the Lib Dems had an invoice for it, unpaid or otherwise, or that the Home Office ever undertook to pay Police Scotland's costs. No more; no less.

Political party conferences for all UK parties, including the SNP, are eligible for Home Office financial support towards security costs. Whether you think this is justified is a completely fair question. I think there's an arguable case to be made for some support given the importance of party conferences in advancing the ideas and debate in our democracy free from things like sabotage or terrorism. Political parties are not for-profit organisations and we shouldn't cripple smaller ones with security costs largely related to externally imposed constraints by government and police, unconnected to the participants in the event themselves and rather to members of the public or criminals attempting to distrupt them.

Even if you take this purely as a question of public events, profit or non-profit-making, look at the precedent for football policing. Clubs are held liable for provision of police support within the boundary of their stadium, but are not liable for the decisions of the local police to assign patrols to the vicinity of the stadium.

This is obviously very different from policing and security or government support for TITP, where you have a profit-making organisation inviting the drunk and the stoned to a field in the middle of nowhere.

I would definitely suggest you FOI the Home Office about the Special Grant fund.

[Mr Rational]

Political parties are not for-profit organisations and we shouldn't cripple smaller ones.

Oh how the mighty have fallen....