Skip to main content

Who heard the evidence on Trident?

I have a couple of quibbles with Linda Jack's post (21st March) which asked whether FPC's authority would have been undermined if the Trident motion had been defeated. The quibbles are with the suggestion that FPC, having heard all the evidence, had come up with the motion.
First, the FPC did not hear all the evidence. It did not hear any of the evidence. The Trident Working Group (an ad hoc sub-committee of FPC), or rather those members of it that turned up to evidence sessions, heard the evidence. What the FPC heard was a presentation from the majority of the Working Group, and a presentation from me on behalf of the minority. (The terms majority and minority have no democratic significance as most of the Working Group were picked by the Chair, not elected.) Both presentations were backed up by written reports which came to radically different conclusions.
Secondly FPC did not "come up with" the motion, though it tweaked the phrasing a bit. Nor, oddly enough, did the Working Group. The motion in its essentials was circulated to the Working Group by email and its authors were not named. It did not, in my view, reflect the weight of the evidence that had been received by the Working Group. So whose authority would have been undermined if the motion had been lost?
Influence has shifted away from FPC towards the Parliamentary Party. A significant milestone in this process was the merging of the Policy and Campaigns units. One consequence is that the short term concerns of our Parliamentarians in the Palace of Westminster play a bigger role in policymaking than previously. Is this essential to electoral success? Maybe. Does it result in better policies? In a hundred years who will care who said what to whom across those benches? Will anyone?


Linda said…
Fair comment Jo.
Jo Hayes said…
I have received this comment from Greg Simpson:

"It was the Policy Unit and the Research unit (not the Campaigns unit) that were merged in May 2006. The Campaigns Unit remains in Cowley Street.
The new Policy and Research Unit is co funded by POLD and the Federal Party. It includes a Policy Projects Team which services working groups and Federal Committees and an Advisers Unit which works on a portfolio basis to the Shadow Cabinet and Parliamentary Party. The Advisers Unit also produces warfare, briefings and campaigns material for use by the party at large which is distributed via the Political Communications Unit which is also based in Cowley Street. Most of the material produced by the Advisers Unit can be found on the Lib Dem Extranet which is the resource for all members who sign up.
We should also remember that the membership of the working group and its set up, its timescales and working plans were approved by the FPC as body at various stages in the process - Not just picked by the Chair as you set out. The mandate of the working group is derived from the FPC in its oversight role."

Popular posts from this blog

My #Remainer's Diary Day 300: constitutional crisis is coming

My #Remainer's Diary Day 300: I mull over a joint statement from the First Ministers of Wales and Scotland, Carwyn Jones and Nicola Sturgeon about the repeal bill. It says: “We have... put forward constructive proposals about how we can deliver an outcome which will protect the interests of all the nations in the UK, safeguard our economies and respect devolution.  “Regrettably, the bill does not do this. Instead, it is a naked power grab, an attack on the founding principles of devolution and could destabilise our economies.”  So a constitutional crisis that was latent ever since 23rd June 2016 is due to be thrashed out in Westminster debates.  A spokeswoman for the Maybot said she was not aware of a contingency plan for what might happen if Scotland or Wales refused legislative consent.  That is apart from the rows there will be about the bill's Henry VIII clause powers and putting human rights in doubt.  As the clock ticks, businesses act to protect themselves.  EasyJet announced…

My Remainer's Diary Day 299

For 298 days I have kept my #Remainer's Diary on Facebook. Two nights ago my FB account became inaccessible without explanation. So I'm back on Blogger.
Diary Day 299: the UK's Office of Budget Responsibility published its first Fiscal Risks Report, a 312-page tome, in accordance with a requirement introduced by Parliament in October 2015 that the OBR must produce a fiscal risks report at least once every two years. It is freely downloadable by anyone.  Fiscal is a fancy word for pertaining to government finances. Derivation: 16th century, from Latin fiscālis concerning the state treasury, from fiscus public money, the public purse. It is about government income and spending.  The Fiscal Risks Report refers to a wide range of "fiscal pressures", and says that the risks posed by Brexit "do not supplant the possible shocks and likely pressures that we have already discussed, but they could affect the likelihood and impact of many of them."  It states that imp…

Iran: the minority that will not let go

I am thinking about places in the world where women are oppressed. Iran for example. There, I gather, militia roam the streets intimidating and attacking women who behave or dress in ways of which they disapprove. In my country, such militia would be arrested and tried for public order offences. It is not that the British have no opinions about what is acceptable dress or behaviour in public and what is not. Of course we have opinions. But individuals behave in a way that is their own choice, provided that it does not contravene a specific law, and it may be a poor choice, but it is the individual's and not imposed. Live and let live, and mind your own business, are mottos here. And gangs who roam the streets trying to impose their own ideas on others tend to get arrested.
So what essentially is different about Iranians? I suspect, nothing is. A minority of society suppose they have a superior social and ethical code but that is normal in any society. The trouble is th…