miss_s_b: (Politics: Democracy)
[personal profile] miss_s_b
Zoe's post on motion selection is now live, so I'm going to follow up my initial post with my thoughts on some (not all) of the actual motions. If I haven't put any comments down on a motion it's just because I would have been pretty happy to see it go on the agenda but did not have any particular passions roused by it. Other committee member's passions are different from mine, and that's as it should be. These are my views, not the views of the committee, and any issues you have with them are with me.
  • Access to Justice for All** is one that did rouse my passions, and I am very glad it made it onto the agenda. I don't think it counts as MHAP because I can see Liberal Reform types arguing against it - as, indeed, a couple of them did at FCC - so I think the debate will be interesting, and I hope this will ultimately pass.

  • Broadcasting Standards for Video Websites came from my own local party, and... would also have caused an interesting debate, if in not quite the same way. But it was probably fair that it fell. I think it would have been difficult to implement, had it passed, which is not necessarily a reason to shy away from a motion (see UBI, below), but...

  • Boycott the world cup was just far too late. Should have come four or five years ago, whenever it was the venue selection happened.

  • Sign the UN Treaty on Nukes. * sigh * Where to start on this one? This is a motion we have seen several times before in various iterations. The submitters of it have been given lots of advice as to how to make it acceptable. They have not taken any of that advice. I'm a passionate unilateralist when it comes to nuclear weapons, and I despair that this motion is the one that keeps getting put before us. It's cloaking its unilateralism behind a smokescreen of multilateralism because it thinks it's clever and it really, really isn't. Please can somebody write something on nuclear non-proliferation I'd be happy to put before conference for next time? Please? We might lose (we probably will - conference splits four ways on nukes) but at least we'd lose honestly.

  • Leaving London: Moving Parliament. While there were some issues with the drafting of this, I loved the sentiment. Sadly, FCC, which meets in London, tends to have a London-heavy membership. Props to the one member of London region who piped up about them having to move parliament anyway because of the refurb, so why not debate this. You're a good egg.

  • Demanding Better Transport for the English Regions. This split almost entirely on London/not-London lines as well***, with predictable results. I'm actually a little annoyed by that. The place we are holding conference is served by the two worst performing rail companies in the country, and it would have been nice to at least acknowledge that on the agenda. Still, Democracy.

  • Towards income security for all. I am very sorry that this motion did not make it onto the agenda, and I voted for it to do so. We were told that UBI will be considered by FPC in their fairer share consultation****, but my suspicion is that they will consider it in the same way they considered it last time - how can we get rid of this troublesome suggestion?***** - rather than actually considering it.
    I do think that at some point we need to get beyond the mentality of having a fully costed programme for government in the pretence that we are going to win a majority at the next election, because that is always used to stop us from considering big questions of principle, and I think that this is a big question of principle that at least merits "should this be an aim to work towards" consideration, rather than being shot down for not being capable of being immediately implemented.

  • Alleviating Poverty in Britain and Restoring British Values. This was an odd fish. It didn't call for anything to be changed in party policy, only for the party to campaign more vigorously on existing policy. Which... lobby FCEC******, don't put it in a conference motion.

  • Completing One Member One Vote. This was called out of order for some drafting issues, but I really liked the sentiment of it, and what it was trying to do - basically that only directly elected members of federal committees would get voting rights, so all the various reps from other committees and HQ appointees would only be able to sit on committees in an advise and observe capacity rather than (as in some cases they do at the moment) forming a majority of the voting members of a committee. I'd like to see a redrafted version of this come back to us.
And now I have lit the blue touchpaper, I am going to retire to a safe distance. I hear New Zealand is nice this time of year...

* legit the bit of this that took longest was deciding the title. The Nightmare Returns? This Time It's Personal? Obvs couldn't be Tokyo Drift because that's for a far later sequel than part 2...
** what I have been thinking of as The Metallica Motion because of this. If anyone wants access to it, I have it on vinyl, but Spotify is a thing too.
*** Even the LR types split regionally on this one
**** there will be a consultation on this at York, to be followed by a paper in the autumn
***** Members of FPC and policy unit may disagree with that characterisation
****** Federal Campaigns and Elections Committee, who steer campaign priorities. You might discover, upon doing a quick google, that this committee is not massively public-facing, and does not have an easy method of contact. A mischievous person might suggest that a question to the federal board report might be in order about that.
Anonymous( )Anonymous This account has disabled anonymous posting.
OpenID( )OpenID You can comment on this post while signed in with an account from many other sites, once you have confirmed your email address. Sign in using OpenID.
Account name:
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.


If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org

Notice: This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.

About This Blog

A picture of me with my mum's dog Pippin

Hello! I'm Jennie (known to many as SB, due to my handle, or The Yorksher Gob because of my old blog's name). This blog is my public face; click here for a list of all the other places you can find me on t'interwebs.


If you like my blog please consider dropping me a tip:

Paypal Donate Button

Buy Me an uncaffeinated beverage (because I'm allergic to coffee) at ko-fi.com


Charities I support:

The Survivors' Trust - donate here
DogsTrust - donate here
CAB - donate here


Creative Commons License
Miss SB by Jennie Rigg is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Based on a work at miss-s-b.dreamwidth.org.

Please note that any and all opinions expressed in this blog are subject to random change at whim my own, and not necessarily representative of my party, or any of the constituent parts thereof (except myself, obviously).

Printed by Dreamwidth Studios, Maryland USA. Promoted by Jennie Rigg, of Brighouse, West Yorkshire.

April 2019

89 1011 121314
15 161718 192021

Style Credit

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios
Page generated Wednesday, April 24th, 2019 02:53 pm

Most Popular Tags