Social Liberal Forum left frustrated after attempts to put a debate on a shift in economic policy on agenda are outmanoeuvred
The Liberal Democrat leadership has again outmanoeuvred supporters of a targeted growth stimulus by preventing a general debate on the economy at the party's spring conference.
The steps by the federal party's conference committee to block the debate – which will keep the issue off the conference agenda for at least 12 months – were denounced on Sunday .
A frustrated Prateek Buch, director of the Social Liberal Forum (SLF) pressure group, said: "I cannot understand how a serious party of government can decide, against the democratic will of our members, not to debate the single most important issue that faces our country, if we are unable to discuss a flatlining economy, the biggest issue facing the country?"
The SLF, a left-of-centre pressure group, had first attempted to table a motion for the conference calling for a fiscal stimulus a month ago, but was rebuffed by the federal conference committee on the grounds that it would require a two-hour debate.
In response the SLF submitted a week ago an emergency motion to go forward for a ballot of delegates attending the spring conference in Brighton. A total of nine motions ranging from secret courts, the NHS and the safety of bees had been submitted for two 30-minute slots set aside on Sunday morning.
The SLF emergency motion called for more public investment funded by borrowing, a commitment to build 100,000 houses a year by 2015, increased lending to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) through imposition of net lending targets on semi-state owned banks, a mansion tax and the resistance to pressures to commit to public spending cuts after 2015 election.
The vote would have been a key test of whether the party rank and file was losing faith in the government's austerity programme, and like the business secretary Vince Cable, believed the balance of risk had tilted towards a stimulus.
The federal conference committee agreed on Friday that the SLF motion could go forward but with one unique stipulation – that it had to come top of the ballot since the issues were so important it would require an hour's debate.
It was widely expected that an emergency motion criticising MPs over secret courts would come top of the ballot meaning the SLF motion being kept off the conference floor. Aware of the sensitivities, Cable said he would like the motion debated but refused to say if he would support it if it was cleared for debate.
On Saturday afternoon it was duly announced that the SLF motion had come second behind secret courts, but ahead of another motion on the Leveson report that had come third. On this basis the conference authorities ruled the economic debate could not take place, but Leveson, third past the post, could.
Conference delegates then moved to suspend standing orders to allow a mini-debate on whether to allow 90 minutes for an emergency debate on Sunday. It was claimed that the issues were so vast that representatives would be queuing round the block to join it. Conference voted by 179 to 177 to suspend standing orders, well short of the two-thirds majority required for a suspension to be granted.
As one disgruntled SLF member argued: "We would have won that vote and the leadership know we would have that vote, so for the lack of 30 minutes, we remain wedded to George Osborne's deficit plan."
Buch said: "We hope to return to the matter at our next conference and will seek clarification from conference committee as to the procedural reasons for refusing a debate – lack of time is a poor excuse when we spent 45 minutes on a non-debate about how not to change the party leader."
It is the second time a motion calling for a shift on economic policy has been blocked. At the main conference in the autumn, the conference committee selected an amendment put forward by the Liberal Left pressure group opposing any deficit reduction plan over a more mainstream Keynesian one put forward by the SLF.
The conference committee declared the hardline motion opposing the government's entire economic programme would lead to a clearer debate.