Trident.......Loos Rule and what really happened at FPC

I've decided to come up with my own rule in response to Chatham, whoever he is (and it must have been a he, lets face it!) My rule says, that we are all adults, despite, in my case I have to admit, the odd bit of evidence to the contrary. Also, those of us who are in the party, are, I trust, all Liberal Democrats. Now, how we interpret our Liberal Democraticness, may, it has to be said, on occasions, differ. But, in the midst of any differing, my rule says, lets not lose sight of what unites us, even though we may be in for a bumpy few days debating what divides us.

Alex Wilcock has suggested that those of us who were at FPC give our views about what happened. Well here goes. The first time we had a presentation about Trident and were warned not to speak to the press about it, I think may have been my first meeting. No proposal, just facts, were presented. Fine so far. We were invited to ask questions, but not to express opinions. In between times, Ming came out with what was to be the majority position from the working group. That was the first we knew of it. At the next meeting, at which Ming was not present, concerns were expressed about the process and it was agreed that a paper would come back to a future FPC for discussion (watch this space?!)

It was at the following meeting, when the majority and minority report were presented, that David Grace, as a member of the working group was present. At that meeting, still being a little green around the gills, or should that be behind the ears(??!!)...oh no that's wet........... I have to say I was struck by the pomposity of some contributors to the debate. Describing the majority motion as "responsible" immediately casts aspersions on the "irresponsible" minority motion. What frankly scared me rigid was the idea, expressed by some, that this was the compromise position.........time will tell, but I fear that those taking this view will sadly be proved totally wrong and misguided. For me it was the perching precariously on the fence position.

Following the meeting, one of my fellow FPCers, for whom I have a great deal of time, tried to explain to me the benefits of compromise. As someone who was used to having to negotiate and compromise he felt this was a noble endeavour. Actually, as someone who has negotiated and compromised at a national level on behalf of my trade union, I think I may have a little experience in this field too..........and my view is very clear. There are some things we can compromise on (let's say percentage pay increase this year) and there are some things we cannot compromise on (let's say..........reintroduction of the death penalty). For me and I am sure, many others, Trident is in the "I can't compromise" bracket. Now, my motivation for taking that position may be different from others and for those who take the "lets take a decision not to take a decision" view, they may be equally convinced that what they are doing is the right thing to do. But, they need to understand, for those of us for whom subscribing to a position which trumpets saving the planet whilst hanging on to the very thing that is designed to destroy it, there is no wriggle room whatsoever!

And so to the thorny business of Mr Chatham. As I have said before, no one should ever assume.........I asked the question about FPC precisely because I had never been given any terms of reference which spelt out the terms of engagement, I actually asked a parliamentary member of FPC who also wasn't clear. I know for a fact that David Grace respected the Chatham House Rule regarding the working party because he discussed it with me with regard to one of the senior witnesses. And that makes sense. We cannot ask people to come and speak frankly to working groups without a degree of anonymity. However, FPC is an elected body of our party - accountable to the members who put their trust in us to represent them. As I have made clear, I would not report what individuals had said (unless I had their permission), but without a clear statement to the contrary I can understand why David felt he was at liberty to do so.

So, please, can we move on? To those on FPC who were named I would say, yes, challenge David and or Liberator if you were misquoted, or believed you should not have been quoted at all, but please remember your first accountability is to the members who elected you. Did you really say anything you would be ashamed to say to them, or will not say if you speak in Harrogate? Yes, lets be clear about the terms of reference of FPC, but lets also not forget our alleged liberal principles............or am I being unreasonable?!