AFTER 27 YEARS of attending Tory conferences as clapping fodder, I was in for the shock of my life in Brighton yesterday as I learnt the first law of a real participatory democratic conference – they’re almost as boring and deadly dull as the undemocratic Conservatives. BUSINESS LEADERS havestepped up demands for a cut in interest rates and a devaluation of the pound, to prevent a recession. “Six months ago, it was just the manufacturing sector saying that the high interest rate and the strong pound were causing pain. It is now becoming increasingly clear that there is a slowdown across the board,” Sir Clive Thompson, president of the Confederation of British Industry, told a conference fringe meeting.
Sir Clive argued that interest rates could be cut in spite of the turmoil in markets in Asia, Russia and Latin America.In today’s debate on the economy, Liberal Democratsare expected to argue, as some union leaders did last week, that tax increases could have been used by the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, to damp down demand to allow interest rates to be cut.The party’s motion calls for action to allow the introduction of the single European currency; increases in VAT thresholds for small and medium firms; and a “fairer” tax system phasing out tax reliefs and imposing more taxes on pollution.. We shall continue to argue the case for an open and accessible Parliament, with proper public participation and consultation,” he added.Scotland’s Parliament would make a real difference if it created a climate where young people wanted to stay on in Scotland, and succeed, he said..

LABOUR AND the Scottish National Party were accused at the conference of having “betrayed” the spirit of the referendum on devolution as parties gear up for Scotland’s first parliamentary elections next year. Jim Wallace, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, accused both parties of “trading insults” and “slugging it out” on a daily basis, in scenes reminiscent of the “worst of Westminster”. He said: “Well might the people feel the spirit of the referendum has been betrayed by both these parties.”
He stressed that co-operation must be the rule, not the exception, if people were to have faith in the new Parliament. “Too many people, from Easterhouse to Easter Ross, feel that today’s politics are irrelevant to their everyday lives … Surely that freedom is an important liberal principle,” one party member said.Baroness Ludford warned that the taxing of child benefits for some families would end the principle of universality, and would create a two-tier system of welfare.”We should maintain it as an untaxed and un-means-tested benefit. I do not want to pick up Peter Lilley’s and Harriet Harman’s rejected policies.”She warned that such taxing of benefits would undermine the “hard fought for” independence of women and result in a “bureaucratic hassle”.However, defending the proposals, Willy Goodhardt, a former member of the party’s federal policy committee, argued that people would not always be able to rely on their children’s willingness to pay for their pensions.”We do have to take into account demographic changes There is an urgent need for reform,” he said..

Nearly 80 per cent of activists at a debate endorsed the leadership motion to shake up social security provision. Under the plans, a second compulsory pension, initially set at the same rate as the current compulsory Serps contribution, would be introduced to tackle the “threat of a pensions time bomb”.
In a further move, there would be a doubling of Child Benefit for the youngest child in any family with a child under five, funded by taxing benefits for higher-rate tax payers. And the troubled Child Support Agency would be abolished.Professor Steven Webb, pensions spokesman, said: “If we do not act now, we will have to reap the harvest of the pensioner poverty time bomb.” But delegates warned they would be giving Tony Blair a “blank cheque” for pension reform.Havard Hughes, a councillor from Brent, said: “Are we abolishing our principles, only to give Tony Blair and his cronies an easier ride? Why is there such need for radical change? Could this policy proposal not just be a flight of fancy?”And what is this element of compulsion? Are people going to be sent to prison, or will Paddy Ashdown come after people with a stick?”Others lamented there was no accountability for private companies to invest the pensions in an ethical way.”A compulsory second pension would end our freedom to invest where we like. We are not their lapdogs, we are not their poodles,” he said to loud applause.. RADICAL PROPOSALS to reform the welfare state, including compulsory second pensions and the taxing of child benefit, were overwhelmingly endorsed by the conference, in spite of fierce protests that they went against the very principles of the Liberal Democrat Party. …Q Although you were allowed to – the thing with Frank Carter was that they were afraid he would tell Vernon Jordan? Is that what they expressed to you?A Right.Q Sounds as though they were actively discouraging you from talking to an attorney.A .. From Frank Carter, who was my only attorney at that point. Mr Hughes said Mr Blair’s response to the Jenkins Commission was the “big test” of the policy of constructive opposition.”I think there have been occasions in the past when we have wobbled and been tempted to water down what we said in order to keep the Government happy.

Mr Hughes, the party’s health spokesman, and Charles Ken-nedy, its agriculture spokes-man, said that co-operation should be strictly limited to constitutional reform.If the Prime Minister refused to back a proportional voting system, the Lib Dems should pull out of the cabinet committee on the constitution and abandon any form of support for the Government, they said.Mr Hughes and Mr Kennedy caught the mood of the conference at a packed fringe meeting when they attacked Labour for abandoning the poor and warned their leader not to ape government policy. Voters would elect 500 constituency MPs, who would be “topped up” by about another 100 chosen to reflect each party’s proportion of the total vote in each area. However, there are growing doubts in the Cabinet that Mr Blair will put the Jenkins plan to a referendum in this Parliament.”There is no guarantee we will find time for it,” one minister said last night. “We have a heavy constitutional programme and this will have to take its place in the queue.

A referendum might not be something you would risk shortly before a general election.”It is understood that Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, and Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, want Mr Blair to shelve the referendum until the next Parliament. They argue that this would give the Government time to see how different PR systems operate in upcoming elections for the European Parliament, the Scottish and Welsh assemblies and the London mayor and assembly.The Cabinet rift compounds the internal rebellion facing Mr Ashdown, who was given a stern warning by his party yesterday that his strategy of close co-operation with Mr Blair risked turning the Lib Dems into “Labour’s lapdogs”.Criticism of Mr Ashdown’s policy of “constructive opposition” dominated the second day of the conference as Simon Hughes MP delivered a withering attack on the idea of “cosying up” to Labour. Mr Blair is considering their call as he searches for a policy that will unite his Cabinet, which is divided over electoral reform.The Prime Minister is expected to back next month’s report by a commission chaired by Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, the Lib Dem peer, for general elections to be fought under the “alternative vote plus” system. At yesterday’s Liberal Democrat conference in Brighton, Paddy Ashdown was warned that he will have to break off his close links with the Government if Mr Blair fails to deliver on PR.
It has emerged that senior ministers opposed to PR are demanding the referendum be delayed.