Lib Dems set to spar over arcane rule row
The closest thing the Liberal Democrat spring conference normally has to fireworks is the falafel stand running out of stock or the shenanigans at its closing 'Glee Club' – a bawdy karaoke party featuring 'hilarious' spoof songs about rival politicians.
But that may change this weekend as the party spars in the spa town of Harrogate. Just eight months after winning 72 seats in the general election it has decided to plunge itself into a divisive and entirely arcane row about how parliamentary candidates in England are selected.
Presently the English section of the party decides on the rules and processes for selecting candidates in England. But under an amendment to be presented to the party's spring conference on Saturday by former leader Tim Farron, this role would be transferred to the federal party on the basis that 'the party body responsible for running general election campaigns should also be responsible for the candidate process, just as is already the case for Holyrood and Senedd elections as well as local elections'.
Which all sounds incredibly dull, but is precisely the sort of thing which gets Lib Dem activists up in the morning. Opponents mutter darkly that Farron's amendment is numbered 'F10', with one member writing on the Liberal Democrat Voice forum: 'The F10 function key on my keyboard serves as a mute button. And that, unfortunately, is what the F10 motion up for a vote this Saturday in Harrogate would also do: mute the voices of all those that want to be able to choose their candidate for Parliament in their hometown.'
The changes have the support of the top of the party, having been recommended by a review of last year's general election chaired by Farron himself. That said that 'major changes are needed to our Westminster candidate processes in order for us to better support candidates and win more elections'. But it has sparked fury among many lay members, who have compared it with a similarly centrally imposed control of candidates and diversity drive carried out by the Conservatives which gave them, er, Priti Patel, Nadine Dorries, Chris Pincher and Kwasi Kwarteng.
Still, it's nice to see that with the planet burning and on the brink of potential global war, the Lib Dems have their priorities straight. The eyes of the world will be on Harrogate this Saturday!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Glasgow sidelined by Labour Spending Review, says Aitken
In a letter seen by The Herald, the SNP councillor warned that Ms Reeves's review is a 'retrograde step' for regional devolution in Scotland, and risks 'disempowering' Glasgow. READ MORE: Although the Treasury confirmed a £160 million Investment Zone in the Glasgow City Region and £20 million for Trailblazer Communities, Councillor Aitken said this fell far short of the funding deals being rolled out to five English Mayoral Strategic Authorities. The Spending Review included detailed commitments to expand integrated settlements for English city regions. Rahcel Reeves delivering the spending review (Image: House of Commons/PA Wire) Instead of applying for individual grants through competitive bidding processes, these areas receive a single, flexible pot of long-term funding, allowing Mayors greater autonomy in making their own investment decisions. This integrated funding grants local control over budgets for areas such as housing, skills, and transport. Following the Spending Review, these settlements are being expanded to include London, the North East, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and Liverpool City Region. These will join existing arrangements in Greater Manchester and the West Midlands, meaning nearly 40% of England's population will now have local control over this unified funding for growth and public services. Glasgow will instead be forced to enter what one council source described as a 'beauty contest' and need to bid for cash — similar to the process under the last Tory government, which Labour criticised in opposition. Councillor Aitken told Mr Murray: 'It is clear from the Spending Review that the UK Government recognises the best way to support economic growth of English City Regions is through an integrated settlement, allowing places the ability to make their own investment decisions. 'And yet Glasgow City Region, which is larger in population, size of economy, opportunity and need than most of the Mayoral Combined Authorities, is reduced to simply administering programmes on behalf of UK Government as if it were a small local authority.' She added: 'The empowerment of our comparator city regions in England and the disempowerment of Glasgow City Region threatens all of the progress we have made. We have a shared priority of growing Scotland's economy and ensuring our people reap the benefits of that. 'We cannot grow Scotland's economy without growing Glasgow's economy — and yet yesterday's budget will not contribute to that growth and will cause us to fall behind our English counterparts.' Council insiders told The Herald the lack of progress had come as a surprise, particularly given the constructive tone of recent discussions with the UK Government. Cllr Aitken and Kevin Rush talking to Newsquest's Stewart Paterson in February (Image: Gordon Terris) In February, Councillor Aitken and Glasgow's head of regional economic growth, Kevin Rush, told The Herald the city was 'ready to go' on a bespoke devolution deal. The model would mirror Greater Manchester or the West Midlands — with a 'single pot' of funding and the ability to make investment decisions locally. They said the structures were already in place and that Glasgow was managing numerous major UK Government-backed programmes, including the City Deal, Innovation Accelerator, Investment Zone, Shared Prosperity Fund, 5G Region, and Clyde Mission. The Treasury did reaffirm its commitment to the Glasgow Investment Zone — which it says could unlock £1.7 billion in private investment and create up to 18,000 jobs — and praised the region's potential in advanced manufacturing. READ MORE: But Councillor Aitken said that without control over wider investment decisions, Glasgow's economic future would remain constrained by short-term funding rounds and top-down allocations. She told The Herald: 'If anyone thought locking Glasgow and other Scottish cities out of investment talks last year was a simple oversight, this Spending Review risks creating the impression that the UK Government has now decided it is prepared to let our city regions be left behind. 'That is incredibly frustrating, at a time when we have been working closely with the Secretary of State, Deputy First Minister and officials from governments in Edinburgh and London to develop a positive, deliverable proposition for a devolution deal that would allow us to build on our strong record for innovation, unlock investment opportunities and grow the Scottish economy. 'Despite all of that, it appears the voice of Scotland's cities has not been heard around the Cabinet table." 'We are not asking for anything difficult," she added, "just a level playing field." In her Spending Review, Ms Reeves confirmed that the Scottish Government is set to receive an average of £50.9 billion per year between 2026–27 and 2028–29, representing its largest settlement in real terms since devolution. A UK Government spokesperson said: "Glasgow City Region is at the heart of our Plan for Growth in Scotland. "We are delivering more than £663m funding for the region including an Investment Zone focussed on developing advanced manufacturing and a strategic partnership with the National Wealth Fund. "Further plans will be set out, including the city's important role in the Industrial Strategy. "Devolution within Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Government but, building on the success of city and growth deals, we will work with them to help to ensure places like Glasgow City Region have the tools they need to deliver change and unlock the same levels of growth as their English counterparts like Greater Manchester."
Powys County Times
9 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Farming unions raise concerns over Wales' bluetongue stance
FARMING unions have expressed 'disappointment' and 'concern' at the Welsh Government's decision not to impose restrictions on livestock movement amid the spread of the bluetongue virus. Multiple outbreaks in England saw the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) announce last month that the restricted zone for bluetongue will be extended to cover all of England from July 1. Farmers will be able to move animals within England without a bluetongue licence or test but with Wales not imposing restrictions having not seen a confirmed case, limits are to be placed on moving livestock from England. Cattle, sheep and goats will need to test negative for the potentially fatal disease before they can be transported across the border. This led to the Royal Welsh Agricultural Society (RWAS) announcing this week that English and Scottish livestock exhibitors will not be allowed to compete at this year's Royal Welsh Show in July. Farming organisations in Wales had urged Deputy First Minister Huw Irranca-Davies to align with England to prevent restrictions on livestock movements. However, the cabinet secretary for rural affairs, said his decision was made in an 'attempt to hold back the disease for as long as we can', adding he could not 'in all conscience invite bluetongue into Wales' by aligning with England. A specific movement licence will be administered by the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), while England's focus will shift to encouraging uptake of new vaccines which alleviate the symptoms. 'The current RZ approach in England has helped keep bluetongue away from the Welsh border," Mr Irranca-Davies said. "I regret the current RZ cannot be maintained but understand the reasons behind its expansion to the whole of England. 'In practical terms, it means we will lose the security of having a two-county buffer between potentially infected livestock in England and the Welsh border. This change increases the risk of disease incursion into Wales.' NFU Cymru has expressed concern at the cost and practicality of these controls. 'There are many unknowns about how BTV-3 could impact our herds and flocks across Wales and Welsh farmers are extremely worried about the threat of the spread of the disease,' said NFU Cymru president Aled Jones. 'However, we have significant concerns about the lack of resources and capacity within the laboratories and APHA to deliver against the potential demand for each and every animal to be tested and licensed, given the significant amount of stock that move across the border from England to Wales for management, welfare and trading purposes. 'We understand that going forward the costs of testing will be borne by the farmer, which will cause a huge increase to the cost of trading.' FUW president Ian Rickman called the non-alignment a 'disappointment to the industry'. 'As farmers our first instinct is to keep any disease out, but in order to maintain economic stability within the industry, the FUW has repeatedly lobbied the Welsh Government to simultaneously align with the changes proposed in England, as the sheer number of cross-border holdings and trading activity will be vastly disrupted with this policy decision. 'Meanwhile, midges that carry and spread the virus would not respect any such boundaries. 'DEFRA's decision will inevitably bring disease to the Welsh-English border and places both the Welsh Government and the wider industry in an impossible situation. 'However, given this 'when' not 'if' circumstance of bluetongue encroachment into Wales, the FUW believes enforcing a border between Wales and England is both a futile endeavour and wholly impractical.'
North Wales Chronicle
10 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Ban on advertising and safeguard for child patients added to Assisted Dying Bill
The new parts to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill were voted in on Friday as a second day of debate on various amendments came to a close. It is expected the next major vote on the overall Bill could take place next Friday, which could see it either fall or pass through to the Lords. Impassioned debate heard the Bill described by Conservative MP Kieran Mullan as a 'deeply consequential and highly contentious piece of legislation for our society'. He argued not enough time has been allocated for debate on such a divisive issue, but health minister Stephen Kinnock said there had been more than 90 hours of parliamentary time spent so far, and more than 500 amendments had been considered at committee stage earlier this year. On Friday a majority of MPs approve a new clause, tabled by Labour MP Dame Meg Hillier, to ensure medics cannot raise the topic of assisted dying with under-18s. Her separate amendment to prevent health workers from bringing up the issue with adults patients before they have raised it was voted down. The amendment on child patients was hailed as a 'first major Commons defeat' by opposition campaigners Care Not Killing which welcomed 'MPs removing the ability of doctors to raise unprompted assisted suicide with children'. A group of Labour MPs opposed to the proposed legislation called it an '11th hour rejection of the claims made about the safety of this Bill' which 'proves that confidence is slipping away from it'. They also cautioned that MPs might not have a copy of the final Bill by the time they vote 'on this life and death issue' next week, as some outstanding amendments will still be being considered on Friday morning. A ban on advertising assisted dying should the Bill pass into law has also been approved. An amendment, by fellow Labour MP Paul Waugh, to limit exceptions on that ban did not pass. He said the ban as it stands has 'unspecified exceptions, which could make the ban itself worthless', warning online harms from ads about assisted dying on TikTok 'could be a reality without the tighter safeguards in my amendment'. A number of other amendments were passed, including a provision for assisted dying deaths to not automatically be referred to a coroner and around the regulation of substances for use in assisted dying. Other issues debated included an amendment requiring the Health Secretary to publish an assessment of the availability, quality and distribution of palliative and end-of-life care one year after the Bill passing into law. Pledging her support for the amendment, which was tabled by Liberal Democrat Munira Wilson, Kim Leadbeater said MPs should not have to choose between supporting assisted dying or palliative care as it is not an 'either/or' conversation for dying people. She said palliative care and assisted dying 'can and do work side by side to give terminally-ill patients the care and choice they deserve in their final days', and urged MPs to support 'all options available to terminally ill people'. Ms Wilson's amendment is supported by Marie Curie, which said it is 'desperately needed as the end-of-life care system is in crisis, with huge gaps in services and a lack of NHS leadership on this vital part of our health and care system'. It is expected that amendment could be voted on next Friday. One MP, who became emotional as she recalled the death of her husband who she said had been 'in extreme pain' with terminal cancer, urged her colleagues to 'mind our language' after words like 'murder' were used. Liberal Democrat MP Caroline Voaden, whose husband died of oesophageal cancer, said it is 'so wrong' to use such language. She said: 'This is about helping people die in a civilised way and helping their families not go through a horrendous experience of watching a loved one die in agony.' The beginning of Friday's session saw MPs add a new opt-out clause to the Bill. The amendment, meaning no person including all health and social care professionals, can be obliged to take part in assisted dying had been debated and approved last month, but has now been formally added to the Bill. The Bill passed second reading stage by a majority of 55 during a historic vote in November which saw MPs support the principle of assisted dying. Demonstrators both for and against a change in the law once again gathered outside Parliament to make their views known on the Bill. Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying which is in favour of a change in the law, said: 'Our country is closer than ever before to the safe, compassionate, and tightly regulated assisted dying law that so many people want, from all walks of life and every part of the country.' But former MP Caroline Ansell, from Christian Action Research and Education (Care), which opposes assisted dying, urged parliamentarians to vote against the Bill. She said: 'It is irredeemably flawed in principle and in detail. Parliament should close the door to assisted suicide and focus on truly compassionate and life-affirming forms of support.' As it stands, the proposed legislation would allow terminally-ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill and any amendments, meaning they vote according to their conscience rather than along party lines.
