Will we have three new faces next time?
August 31st, 2005
It could be all change at the next election
The focus of British political gamblers over the months since the General Election has been on the next Conservative leader. There is a market on the next Labour leader (and the deputy too), along with betting on when Tony Blair will resign as Prime Minister and Labour leader.
There is no market as yet on the Liberal Democrat leadership, where there are two interesting questions: when will Charles Kennedy go, and who will replace him?
Though the next General Election will certainly see a new Conservative leader, and Tony Blair is very likely to have stepped down, it’s an open question whether Kennedy will still be at the head of the Lib Dems in 2009 or 2010. After winning the best third-party result in 70 years, he is hardly disqualified from fighting a third election. However, having been an MP since the age of 23, and with a young family, he may decide not to continue beyond, say, the conclusion of the party’s policy review.
With many political journalists not well-connected (or just not very interested) in Liberal Democrat circles, reading what press coverage there is of a potential leadership contest often gives a misleading impression of the likely candidates. Unlikely to be in serious contention, for instance, are party president Simon Hughes (a popular figure within the party but not seen as focused and organised enough for the leadership), treasury spokesman Vincent Cable, deputy leader Menzies Campbell (at 62 and 64 respectively, not regarded as long-term choices), or home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten (though often promoted by the press as the leader of the party’s right, he is seen across the ideological range as having quite shallow roots in the party).
More likely contenders would be work and pensions spokesman David Laws from the right of the party, trade and industry spokesman Norman Lamb from the centre-right, and education spokesman Edward Davey from the centre-left – if there were to be a leadership election during this parliament. On the other hand, some in the party – even if they are not Kennedy fans – will be taking into their calculations the calibre of the Liberal Democrat MPs newly elected this year. Fans of Nick Clegg or Susan Kramer would probably prefer a leadership vacancy to be deferred until after the next election, rather than see their favourites have to sit it out as first-term MPs.
Even with the date of a leadership change uncertain, this would be an interesting market for betting – both on the date of the change and on who the next leader will be. During the last parliament, Betfair had a market on which combination of Blair, Duncan-Smith and Kennedy would still be leaders at the 2005 General Election. Once a new Tory leader has been elected, this would be a good one to have back.
Philip Grant
Guest editor
Mike Smithson is on holiday until 5th September.
MessageSpace Advertising
Kennedy has one thing on his side - he is just about the only ginger- haired politician to have conquered male pattern baldness.
Maybe he could share with us how he manages to have an advancing, not receding, hair-line.
Not another toupee-wearer, surely not?
1 - well, I have a non-receding head of ginger hair, though my years are tenderer than CK’s.
I’m sure someone will have some “before and after” photos though.
Davey is clever and ruthless and also seems to me to possess a nasty streak (though I guess that’s something only political hacks notice).
Davey also seems to me to be more than simply a “left of centre” LibDem, his contributions to “the Orange Book” and his previous policy statements, suggest to me that he’s fairly pragmatic and pretty much a part of the “Tough Liberalism Faction” (I may be the only person who though so, but that was a darn good little phrase IMHO) within the party.
Most importantly Davey, from speaking with LibDems, seems well thought of and to have successfully cultivated a broad base of support amongst the party rank and file, especially during his time as local government spokesman.
3 - I agree, terms like “centre-left” are always a simplification. I wouldn’t have a problem with him as leader.
Ken Clarke, meanwhile, seems to have conquered “going grey” something which afflicts just about everyone in their 60s.
“On the other hand, some in the party – even if they are not Kennedy fans – will be taking into their calculations the calibre of the Liberal Democrat MPs newly elected this year”
Is the calibre of newly elected libdem MPs so good? Afterall many of them seem “untested”. You’ve a couple of new MPs who certainly will become “big names” (ex. Nick Clegg), but the two main other parties elected some strong new names too. So at the end I don’t think that Libdem’s new intake is better than Labour’s and tory’s one.
Interesting. Davey is certainly not “centre left”. I think he is pragmatic, but he also has the killer instinct. He is also very bright- as is David Laws. In fact, if you also consider Chris Huhne, Nick Clegg and Susan Kramer, the calibre of these people is extremely high. All are very well educated, most are multi lingual- in several languages, rather than the schoolboy French that TB sometimes employs. All have been successful in other fields. Laws made his first million before he was 30- he was head of currency trading at BZW. Chris Huhne is an ex-economics editor on The Economist, Susan Kramer was a banker with Citigroup. These are all people who are meritocrats- and all of them could get a real job in the real world.
Andrea
Clegg is a very clever and very savvy guy and a much needed adition to the parliamentary LibDems, beyond him, I agree their are a number of new MPs who seem to have potential but that’s all we can gauge this soon into this parliament, its just to early to say IMHO.
8. Chris Huhne is another one who could become someone important (if he’ll keep his seat).
I like Lynne Featherstone.
Then the Libdems have all these young girls who are really untested.
7. Having a strong career outside the political arena doesn’t guarantee that someone will be a good politician too.
James O [7] wrote Chris Huhne, Nick Clegg and Susan Kramer…
are multi lingual- in several languages - unlike John Prescott, who is multi-lingual in English.
I dread to think what Susan Kramer would sound like speaking French. Her voice is hard enough to take in English.
5 - Baldie, the Newsnight piece on the Tory leadership last week showed footage of KC in 1997; then 56 he sported a most luxuriant, jet-black Eton sweep which he kept brushing back out of his eyes. Tory hair if ever I saw it!
Interesting thread. A few comments.
First things first. Charles Kennedy is the most successful 3rd party Leader in 80 years - he has twice increased his party’s tally of votes & seats. He will decide himself when he goes, if he wants a 3rd election campiagn there is no-one who will stop him. However, like Phil I have my doubts that he will. He’s always been a fully paid -up member of the human race, he has a lovely young wife and a new born child. The choice will be his to make in the next year or two.
I think Phil has slightly conused who is likely to run with who is likely to win.
I cannot conceive of circumstances in which Simon Hughes won’t run. He’s just like Ken Clarke, he wants it so much he can taste it. He would also have a lot of support - the perception that he is unfocussed & disorganised is one among activists & hacks not one in the wider party base. That all said I don’t think he would win, again like Clarke his supporters are keen but they are limited to no more than a 3rd of the party.- - he would find it hard to build a winning coalition.
Oaten is also very likely to run if there is a vacancy this Parliament. Again I think the perception of him as having shallow roots is an activist one not one among the armchair members who actually vote in the leadership. Remember, the activists base is about 10% of the membership but there is a 60% turnout in the leadership election. The bulk of the membership is in the Home Counties and metropolitan suburbs I suspect that Oaten’s “nice young man” image would rather appeal to that kind of party member. Could he win? I not sure, he has some “rightwing” baggage but he would I suspect have the support of the party bigwigs like Ming Campbell & Vince Cable, as well as the figures around Kennedy.
I’m surprised you have Norman Lamb as a likely candidate agree I that he is bright & ambitious, but he has virtually no profile, even within the party - he is also markedly Eurosceptic, something which could be problematic for him. I can’t see him standing & certainly not winning in this Parliament.
I think you are right about Laws & Davey standing.
Laws will stand as the standard bearer of Orange Book Liberalism, he is excellent, exceptionally bright & talented, he also has the necessary ruthless streak but he’s not got the necessary warmth to win a LibDem leadership contest.
Davey would be a real contender, if Hughes didnt stand I think he’d be the favourte. Ben’s first posting is very perceptive - he has very carefully positioned himself in both camps of the policy debate & could easily become a comp-romise candidate. however, his natural base in on the “centre-left” of the party, exactly where Hughe’s draws his support. If Hughes were to stand Davey would be squeezed out, however if Hughes were not in the race then Davey wouldn’t suffer from the same glass ceiling & would have a good chance of taking the prize.
There is also the possibility that Lembit Opik would stand as the champion of the tax & spend left. Though given the scale of his defeat by Huges in the race to be Party President he may think twice.
So likely contenders in this Parliament are Hughes, Oaten, Laws & Davey.
There’s another scenario for this Parliament as well. That Kennedy decides to go in the last year of the Parliament in 2008 and thats we do a “Howard” and someone like Ming Campbell is elected unopposed. very unlikely indeed but not totally beyond the realms of possibility.
13 - “I think Phil has slightly conused who is likely to run with who is likely to win.”
I did say serious contention
I think of all the “Stop A.N. Other” campaigns, Oaten would draw the biggest one.
I know at least 3 activists in Somerset who would actually quit the party completely if Oaten won- he really is disliked by alot of people, not trusted due to his lack of history in the party and disliked because of his right wing record. It would be bad for party unity if that happened.
I agree with the comments on Davey- he has a great deal of support where I live, and it isn’t even near London. He is seen as a good speaker and nice person, with good liberal credentials and a stunning win against the tories under his belt.
Lamb has no profile at all, but is also seen by MPs and politicians (as Nick has pointed out several times) as a real nice guy. But nobody even knows he exists!
Local guy Laws- I will reserve judgement, but I see little support at this stage. He is seen as a bit of a tory.
Thats just the view talking to various people down here in Somerset- but they are the people who will vote.
13 - Bullseye, a very thoughful post and up to your usual standard. Where I would not exactly take issue with you, but perhaps draw different conclusions, is in your analysis that “Laws lacks the necessary warmth”.
Taking your deabtes about the nature and size of the party membership who constitute the electorate, I would argue that Laws has exactly same attributes as Oaten. From the relatively uncommitted party member’s POV, he is the same sort of “nice young man” as the Shadow Home Secretary, and probably only suffers in that he hasn’t had the same level of TV exposure as MO. DL’s recent appearances on Question Time and Any Questions marked him as articulate and intelligent, and if he’s shrewd he will be trying to get himself onto these sorts of Middle England programmes in the next couple of years to up his recognition factor with the punters.
if Kennedy stays for a third election things could look very different. For one thing I think there is a high possibility that we will have a hung Parliament, in which case I dont see Kennedy stepping down very soon at all.
If there is a majority Govt though I suspect he would go quickly and the race to succeed would be interesting.
I think its highly likely that there would be single “centre-right” candidate, either Oaten, Clegg or Huhne. Hughes would be out of the running leaving the way open for davey, however Kramer could also run again drawing from much the same pool of supporters. Again Lembit Opik could be a potential runner from the left.
Just to answer Andrea’s point @ 6 about whether the new LDs are all that good. I think you are right they match the new intake of Tories & Labour, who both have some very impressive new MPs. However, you have to understand what a seismic shift that represents - before 1997, the LibDems Parliamentary Party, with a few honourable exceptions, often looked like a collection of “super-councillors”, people who had been elected not because they were talented politicians but because they had delivered vast numbers of leaflets & campaigned hard locally to defend the local hospital/school/post offices (delete as appropriate). As a result the party was never really very serious about power & never really taken very seriously by the electorate.
That has now fundamentally changed, and the new breed of LibDem MP is bright, energetic and most importantly political. they are unlikely to be content sittinga roun for the next 30 years watching other people take decisions.
While I’m at it I will also mention 3 young MPs who are likely to make a big mark, not in this Parliament & maybe not in the next, but will be major players a decade from now.
Sarah Teather, who people know from her Brent East victory, bright, ambitious, represents the centre of gravity in party thinking and extremely popular. Already in the Shadow Cabinet she’ll grow in influence & ability.
Tim Farron, the new MP for Westmoreland, a future champion of the left, fiery, funny, very intelligent and wants to go all the way. One of the party’s best speakers and well connected on the party’s radical leftwing.
Jeremy Brown - the new MP for Taunton. A sort of proto-Paddy Ashdown. Former Comms Director for the party. Very sharp, clear headed, likely to become the acceptable face of the party’s cente right.
Tabman,
Thanks for the comment. I suspect the more Laws appears on TV the more people will reach the conclusion that his is quite brilliant but a little too cold a fish to lead the party.
James I’m always amazed by people who say they will leave the party if X becomes leader, personally I love my party warts & all & whoever was leader would stand my ground & argue for what I believe. Oaten represents an important strand of thinking in the party, and was brave enough to call for rethinking tax & spend policies when no-one else was - are we really saying there is no room for people who speak their mind & campaign for a more traditionally liberal apporach to economics in our party?
17 Bullseye. Despite her excellent results in Brent East, Sarah Teather is lightweight. Her performances in the Commons are shambolic and she clearly hasn’t mastered her brief. Frankly she’s more a candidate for the chop not advancement !
Jack W
I think that’s quite unfair actually. Sarah isnt yet a fluent Commons performer, but she is an exceptional platform speaker. She is also very bright - she does though still need to grow politically which I think she will continue to now that she has the next 4 years secure.
Ed Davey Leader with Chris Huhne as Shadow Chancellor and Mig as Deputy Leader is my current dream ticket. Hughes will run but won’t win. When does Paddy get back from Bosnia to become Leader in the Lords?
Young ‘uns Jo Swinson (youngest MP) is very highly regarded by all who know her.
Swinson vs. Teather in the late 2010s?
Hughes as leader sounds as if it could be a huge mistake. Would he know where to lead the party?
21 Bullseye. To say Sarah Teather “isn’t yet a fluent Commons performer” is to say that Dennis Skinner isn’t yet The Queen’s Lord Chamberlain. I haven’t seen Teather platform speaking, but her Commons and media performances are desperate. It’s a harsh analysis, but if you are in the big league, you can’t expect your opponents or the wider public to wait until you get you game together. She’s clearly been over-promoted and CK would have done better to let her establish her position more slowly. An error in judgement from CK in my view.
Jack W I agree full heart with your analysis with Miss Teather, he tongue incident was gringe worthy especially when she lectures about politicians being immature.
On Chris Huhne Bob, don’t be to sure he only narrowly got in and I know Connor Burns, he is out to take that seat. He has the capital to nuture the seat too. I don’t believe Huhne is all that popular too, especially when he said he had sold his flat in London. One of my London tory friends I went to uni with stayed outside his flat and took photos of him entering his flat, after hids news night appearance, crouched in the feteal position trying to avoid the photo. It would have been better for him to have admitted defeat on that one and given a cheeky smile and wave.
24 - I may be wrong, but I thought that the boundary review helped the Lib Dems in both Eastleigh and Romsey and should make both seats more secure rather than tight marginals.
Conor Burns, has twice failed to win Eastleigh despite his capital, the last time despite the sitting MP retiring. I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one.
You maybe right Lennon old chap, I don’t remeber reading it though on Mr wells excellent site. However i think the liberals will find it hard to compete on fund wise against Mr Burns. Not only has he got his own funds he has a large amount of rich friends willing to pump money into the cause.
It could be an interesting one if it happens in this Parliament - although I still think the chance of that remains below 50%.
Last time around, there were two contenders who were big beasts who had been around for many years and had a pretty high profile nationally let alone among armchair and active members. Presuming neither Cable nor Campbell stand (and that is not an entirely safe presumption) that will mean that arguably two of the three MPs with the highest public profile are out of the frame. The third remains Hughes who would be a strong contender but vulnerable to the argument that he is too left wing and a man who has had his chance.
Anyone else would have to emerge from a pack of people without a high public (or even armchair membership) profile. Before any Tories comment on this, ask yourselves how many people would be able to pick David Cameron out from a police line-up six months ago (had he been in one - this is not coded gossip!).
In that context, a lot will depend on how any campaign develops, who endorses whom and what the papers of choice among armchair members say. That will be very different from last time when there was a clear choice between two big players (the rest were also-rans before the race even started). Figures like Clegg, Lamb and Davey who all remain only vaguely known - if at all - among the armchair membership let alone the wider public have every chance against people like Laws and Oaten. Laws and Oaten have a slightly higher profile but are still not household names and, in my view, neither has the appeal in a strictly presentational and overall warmth sense of any of the three other names mentioned.
I am impressed by overall quality which would be on offer even though I am disappointed that we have some very able people who have not achieved a higher profile to date. Certainly, almost any field you care to mention compares favourably overall in terms of talent with previous contests.
27 - good to see that Democracy is alive and well, and that you can no longer buy yourself a seat in parliament! Perhaps it’s this Mr Burns?
[13] I think that Simon Hughes, Mark Oaten or Lembit just don’t have quit the same oomph as Ed Davey does. Also Ming is on the LEFT of the party- do not be fooled by his Jermyn Street suits- he is NOT on the right at all- much closer to “The Project” than anyone- result of Glasgow Uni days with John Smith, Donald Dewer etc.- Scots lawyers all.
As far as the ideological identification of the various candidates, the likely candidates this Parliament:
David Laws (39)- one of the original Orange Book Liberals- close to Paul Marshall and centre for reform. Economically and Socially Liberal. Very bright (also rich), but also personally a shy person- may not want leadership.
Mark Oaten (41)- a campaigner rather than an ideologue- orginator of “tough Liberalism”- Ambitious, but seen as somewhat unscrupulous- carries his ex-SDP credentials a little brashly.
Simon Hughes (54)- Evangelical Anglican- a little preachy and didactic in manner, politically (and personally) brave- clearly the Left wing candidate. Too prolix in speech to inspire.
Lembit Opik (40)- has struggled to be regarded as a heavyweight. Guilty of some misjudgements- getting Paul Marsden to defect (!!). Unclear ideological profile- liked, but not taken seriously.
Edward Davey (39)- Pragmatic and Centrist (and newly married). Very close to centre of gravity of the party- bright (first class honours degree from Oxford)- great campaigner- also wants the job. Got to be favourite for the moment.
I might have included the cerebral and thougthful Dr Evan Harris (39) as a contender from the left, but the tragic illness of his girlfriend precludes his entry. So Paul Holmes (47) would probably be the statist left wing candidate, although he may struggle to find support amongst MPs.
Matthew Taylor (42) has a lot of experience, and is ambitious, but has become unpopular with colleagues- hence his ejection from Parliamentary Party Chair. Seen as arrogant- hard to come back from this.
Next Parliament:
Nick Clegg (37)- while MPs do not want a first term MP as leader, they might make an exception for Clegg or Huhne, who have both served in the European Parliament. Clegg is charismatic, handsome and clever. Very bright indeed. Much more Orange Book than Project. Speaks five languages.
Chris Huhne (51)- Also super-bright- something of the Senior Common Room about him- 1st in PPE from Oxford- former economics journalist with Guardian, Indy and The Economist. Also more Orange Book
Susan Kramer - ex Citibank banker, but is much more on the Green wing of the party. Seen as a good campaigner on local issues- was an effective candidate for mayor of London four years ago- yet to establish national profile.
Jeremy Browne (35) (son of Our Man in Copenhagen)- seen as Ashdown manque, but actually began political life as Alan Beith’s bag man- less technocratic- Nottingham rather than Oxbridge.
Tim Farron (35)- perennial lakeland campaigner, only successful decapitator- likable but seen as a little shallow and needs to develop gravitas.
Sarah Teather (31) would stand if Susan Kramer did not, but is still probably too young to be leader.
Re: 13 & 15: Once again, a little mischief-making on this site. As an LD member, I’m more than happy for CK to go on as long as he wishes. If he chooses to step down next year, then I think some of the names being put forward are too inexperienced to be serious runners.
I think the next leader will come from the 1997 intake rather than anyone later. My personal preferences (in descending order) are Andrew George, Paul Burstow, Ed Davey, Mark Oaten. To be fair, I’ve nothing against them but George has a laid-back style and charm that would look good against a beleaguered Prime Minister and a Tory leader, who, if Davis, would be whingeing and moaning all the time.
Tabman he is not buying his way into the seat, he does not bribe his electorate. Honestly you say one of the problem we torys had is we did not nuture our constituencies and you libs did, when some one in the tory party does make a sacrifice with his own money to nuture his constituency you accuse him of buying his seat, well how about the money thrown in to win cheadle for Mark Hunter, or your scottish Lord who sits in the commons, or did they just win there. you should be flattered we are copying your tactics, but with decent printing and a few ideas of our own. Plus it helped he was known as being helpful helping people who declared themselves as sympathisers of other parties.
Mr Penketh calm down! Re-read your postings - what you appeared to be saying is that it is Burn’s funds that will win him the seat. Make no mistake the LibDems will plugh money into keeping Huhne in the Commons.
JAmes & James O - great posts - agree with virtually all of it. James O though - I’m not sure about your definitions of leftwing, Ming was always one of the strongest supporters of liberalfuture & orange book thinking - equally I think you’ll fin that many of those who supported the “project” under Ashdown are also sympathetic to Orange Bookery nowadays.
equally important as getting rid of Kennedy would be a clear out of some of the complacent top party officials.
equally important as getting rid of Kennedy would be a clear out of some of the complacent top party officials.
Am I the only one who like Lynne Featherstone?
Simon Hughes seems one of the most underused front-benchers. He seems very little present in the press.
You need money to run an effect campaign, Huhne may be exceptionally clever but he is not the most personable chap in the world and he didn’t know I was a tory. i was in a pub on my own with my girlfriend waiting for my tory friends, when I met him. Considering I could have been an electorate he could have been more talkative and personable I felt like I was chatting to my old headmistress. it’s not just money what they need over there its a personality
33 - I agree. It is often forgotten that “The Project” was not just about locking the Tories out and making this the “progressive century” - it was also about locking the door to the Labour left. It therefore had appeal to those broadly on the right. It floundered on the fact that the New Labour win was so massive that there was no need to look outside the Labour Party to form that progressive consensus. I like Ming but he may well now accept that he and Ashdown flogged that particular dead horse for too long and that Kennedy’s judgement on it was spot on.
32 - Calm down, dear! (Thansk Bullseye
) Exactly as Bullseye said, your post is ambiguous and I fully realise that (Thatcher’s government excepted 
) the elctorate are not bribable.
O/T Completely, but I notice that the most recent Poll on the German elections shows CDU-CSU at 42% and FDP at 7% - is this a rogue poll or is Merkel really in danger of not quite making it? Also - in this instance any chance of a CDU-CSU, FDP, Green coalition in order to avoid a ‘grand coalition’?
39 Tabman. “… the electorate are not bribeable.”
It seems to me that the big names with the public and therefore presumably the membership are Simon Hughes and Ming Campbell. From what posters are saying they would both stand if the leadership were up for grabs in this Parliament.
As far as Ming is concerned surely his age, like Ken Clarke, could be an advantage as well as a disadvantage because it would mean he could be supported by those who would see him as a short term leader, i.e. the leadership would likely be up for grabs again in the next Parliament.
As far Simon Hughes is concerned surely a contest between Simon Hughes and a largely unknown opponent would be no contest?
I wonder whether Kennedy has any preferences as to who his successor should be? He could influence matters somewhat by raising the profile of a preferred candidate. Who gets to decide who goes on the TV as party spokesman anyway?
37 - I suspect Burns has missed his best chance of winning with the change of Lib Dem candidate. That is not to say he has missed his only chance, and there are examples of people missing their best chance and going on to win. But I would not bet against Huhne at this stage. The money at Burns’ disposal is a red herring because it does not distinguish his next run from his previous runs - he had a big cash advantage on two previous occasions and lost both times.
40 - That poll would probably see her home after you take into account the fact that fringe candidates will fall short of the 5% threshold so 49% of the vote probably means more than 50% of the seats. She might well not make it though - in which case all bets are off on coalitions.
40. Lennon, that pollster (Emnid) has been consistent in showing a much close situation than some other pollsters.
i except your point James, But in 2001 we made little or no headway on practically every seat we lost in 97, never mind seats lost before 97. Connor was also fighting a rear guard action in 2001, to try and stop votes hemroging from nonstop lib campaign since the lib was elected. they had published regular News letter since being elected. When Conor came aboard he found the local association had done liittle in campaign. He succesfully stopped a dramatic loss to the liberals in 2001. In 2005 we did aim to win and we were narrawly pipped at the post. Huhne is nowhere near as personable as his predecessor was. I think it will make for an interesting fight
sorry James should read accept. my collegue just pointed that one out
Interesting thread. I think it shows that there is a potential field with much more to offer than in the past. It also demonstrates that the party would be well-served by a continuing Kennedy leadership while this talent matured and went some way to building the public recognition that Hughes, Campbell, and perhaps Oaten have.
Comments on Oaten’s roots and history in the party are ill-informed. Now in his 40s, Mark stood for Parliament (for the Lib Dems) when he was still in his 20s, in Watford, where he was already a local councillor. Several current Lib Dem MPs weren’t even party members at the time.
It seems that some of the Libdem future stars (according to this thread) are in marginal seats: Chris Huhne,Jeremy Browne and Tim Farron.
Could it be that their career will be slowed by the fact that they’ve to take care of their constituency more than others?
Having a front bench job in Labour Party or in the Conservative Party immediatly raises your profile, while many Libdem’s frontbenchers remain pretty anonymous(and so they’ve still to work hard in their constituency).
47 - I don’t think anyone was saying Oaten is some sort of carpetbagger who just floated into a safe seat - he has a long party history and won a very long-shot seat in 1997. However, he is not widely seen in the party as “the activists’ choice” whether that is fair or not. Actually, I tend to think being “the activists’ choice” is a pretty good reason to be suspicious of somebody - IDS and Michael Foot could both lay claim to that mantle in their time.
45 - Clearly any seat with a three figure majority is worth watching and we can at least agree it will be interesting even if we disagree on the more likely outcome!
Definately will be interesting ols chap James
Definately will be interesting old chap James
48 - It would be an error in my view to stand for the leadership without a pretty solid majority. Two failed contenders last time (Rendel and Ballard) are now ex-MPs - not wholly because they stood but I doubt it helped. However, Browne and Farron are very capable but also very much “for the future” and may well have safer seats by the time they rise up the ranks seriously. I would back Browne in particular to “Do a Davey” or “Do a Lamb” in 2009 as Taunton is demographically good and he is very able - I have heard less about Farron and his seat but such reports as I have are quite good. Only Huhne could have a meteoric rise pre-2009 due to his past as an MEP but from his perspective I think it would be a mistake as he has time on his side (and Mr Penketh/Mr Burns on his back - for now!).
Clearly for many Lib Dem the vexatious issue of parliamentary seats could be a problem at the next GE, though it is far too early too tell? Certainly someone like KC could turn a number of LD seats Blue again such as perhaps my native seat (Richmond Park and Susan Kramer). None the less the Lib Dems seem to like picking pragmatists so someone like Davey probably has a strong shot at the leadership.
On this topic of talented new MP’s I wonder who party supporters would pick out as the one’s to watch amongst new Labour and Tory MP’s? Being a Tory I would suggest that 2 to watch are Ed Vaizey (v.good communication skills), Theresa Villiers (female and previous parliamentary experience in Brussels) both of whom have the ability to advance very quickly in the party.
Very hard to see anyone beating Simon Hughes. He’s so much better known than everyone else in the party, and has been a senior figure in the party for aeons.
Hughes to win clearly if there’s a leadership election in this Parliament. Of course, that might be a reason for Kennedy to hang on until a member of the new generation can take over after the next election, at which point, half a dozen candidates suggest themselves (but surely not Sarah Teather).
53.”On this topic of talented new MP’s I wonder who party supporters would pick out as the one’s to watch amongst new Labour and Tory MP’s? Being a Tory I would suggest that 2 to watch are Ed Vaizey (v.good communication skills), Theresa Villiers (female and previous parliamentary experience in Brussels) both of whom have the ability to advance very quickly in the party. ”
Not a supporters of any party, but between the tories I would suggest Nick Herbert too and between the new Labour MPs the obvious choice is Ed Balls.
One factor that’s not been mentioned is how will the LibDem’s fair in 2009 (?) or at least how well/badly will they be positioned for a contest in 2009/10?
Without Iraq as a factor and facing Brown as Labour leader, it is highly likely that they will no longer have the protest, anti-war, anti-Blair vote at their disposal as they did in May.
It is also likely that under Davis, Cameron or Clark the LibDems would no longer be the only major party to articulate a clear, socially liberal alternative to some of Labour’s more authoritarian polices… indeed all the leading Tory candidates would be likely to push their party in a more libertarian direction when it comes to social issues.
So without the Iraq factor, with a consolidated Labour base under Brown and with the Tory party likely to shift to harrying the government from a more libertarian angle on some issues… what is there for the LibDems.
I don’t doubt that marginal CON/LD and LAB/LD seats could see fierce campaigns, but with little to distinguish them and with the political tide potentially running against them, how can the LDs hope for any significant expansion? indeed it is very likely that a revving Tory party would be well placed to pick off another string of LibDem held seats as they did in May, only this time there would not be easy pickings from Labour to compensate.
If this scenario, the LibDem being squeezed by both major parties, where to come to pass, what impact would it have on any leadership race?
56 - Ben, one point of fact - I don’t think the Libertarian and socially liberal are necessarilly the same thing, athough its often down to a matter of degree. For example, philosophically I can see (Libertarian) opposition to ID cards going hand in hand with (socially authoritarian) tighter immigration policy (although some might argue whether the two can go hand in hand in practice).
30.”Edward Davey (39)- Pragmatic and Centrist (and newly married). ”
Did he marry Justine McGuinness (the candidate in Dorset West), right?
56.”Without Iraq as a factor and facing Brown as Labour leader, it is highly likely that they will no longer have the protest, anti-war, anti-Blair vote at their disposal as they did in May.”
Ben, don’t understimate the chances that there’ll be something to protest against. It’s easy for voters to find something to be upset about.
However I agree that the Libdems could risk to be squeezed if Labour and the tories will be neck to neck in the polls. The likely scenario is that they’ll be squeezed again in seats where they’re in a distant third place. In already Libdem held seats they could benefit from more tactical vote if the two main party are neck to neck.
“Did he marry Justine McGuinness (the candidate in Dorset West), right?”
No - she’s Neil Stockley’s partner, I think.
IIRC Ed married Emily Gasson who was also a candidate somewhere in that neck of the woods - might have been Dorest N.
59. yes, you’re right. He married Emily Gasson. She was up in Dorset North.
I made a bit of confusion with all those Libdem Dorset ladies!
Ben,
I remember how my Labour friends (and much of the media) were convinced in 1997 that the number of Libdem MPs wouyld be halved because Blair had stolen our raison d’etre. Of course we doubled our seats….
You are allowing your innate optimism that Labour will be refreshed & re-invigorated by Brown to cloud your judgement. There will ofcourse be a Brown bounce but we don’t know how long it will last or even when it will take place. If Brown takes over in 2007 he could be in a weaker position to fighjt the election than if he takes over in 2008.
Also don’t forget that the people who shifted to the LDs fro Labour came from laregly 3 groups - Muslims, students, and ex Tories who switched from Major to Blair in 97. 10 of the 12 LD gains from Labour were seats the Tories held in the 1980’s or 1990’s.
None of these groups are especially susceptible to Brown’s rather austere charms, though of couse he is more likely to stop any drift among labour core working class white & black vote.
As for a tory squeeze, its quite possible that a more socially liberal Tory leader would pose a threat to a number of LD seats. The new Leader needs to attract back some of those who have abandoned the party and rebuild an electoral coalition that reaches beyond their core vote. Clarke might be able to do that, cameron is making some of the right noises (but then so did hague & even IDS) but Davis doesn’t yet show any signs of even wanting to try.
[56] Labour and, even more, the Tories seem to beleive that it is only a matter of time before the Lib Dems can be squeezed and “their” voters return to their “Natural Party”. Well, in the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davis “They would, wouldn’t they”. Yes, it willl probably be true that the Tories will have a better leader and Labour will not be bogged down in the war next time. However I think that there are various long term social and demographic trends that will make it very hard to Labour or Tories to build (or retain) a new majority. The electorate has lost its previous tribal loyalities, and is more willing to experiment with new brands. In Scotland, the Conservative brand seems almost unsellable- while weakness in Labour does not seem to be moving to the SNP and the Looney Tunes have collapsed. It is therefore more likely that Lib Dems will gain than lose in Scotland next time. The North also sees the Tories not doing well- and there are several straight fights between Lib Dems and Labour, although with Labour still well ahead at present. The East and West Midlands are weaker, since Tories stronger. The South West is still a Lib Dem heartland- with prospects of gains outnumbering prospects of losses. South East- lost ground versus the Tories in 2005- but still well entrenched in key areas- as Rik knows to his cost. East Anglia- Tory heartland still. Th Lib Dems will be spending the coming conference season looking at what worked and what did not, and please bear in mind that the party is stilll as well funded as I can ever remember- optimism goes with Lib Dem territory, but is probably a more rational position at this point in the electoral cycle, than it has ever been.
However there are key weaknesses- and major parts of Cowley street are obviously amongst them. The difference is that the Tories have process meetings and screaming matches, and Lib Dems try to analyse rationally (he says smugly). There are lessons to learn, BUT- we have an average quality of new intake MPs that is much higher than the Tories- notwithstanding Vaizey or Gove- and we have a policy direction of social and economic Liberalism that looks to be more attractive to the electorate next time too. I think the Lib Dems are philosophical about the 2005 result, but remain quite hopeful for the future- with reasonable justification too.
So, I do not expect a leadership election, the party is in good shape, the policy debates are thoughtful and interesting. People have learned tthe value of costed programmes- and the value of political, social and economic Liberalism.
25/27.
There are boundary changes in both Eastleigh and Romsey, but neither make a huge difference. The Eastleigh changes are quite minor, and the majority will remain much the same. There are larger changes in Romsey, but the Lib Dem majority will not increase that much. My notional figures have a LD majority of about 450 in Romsey & Southampton North.
Phil - I think your “he is hardly disqualified from fighting a second election” should read “third election”. Which adds to the point. I do have a suspicion that CK might be tempted to bow out at the end of the policy review - but it’s no more than a funny feeling in my waters and I will keep taking the antibiotics.
54 - Not so sure Hughes would get it as Kennedy himself may be inclined to support a stop Hughes movement. Also, Hughes was “the activists’ choice” in 1999 but was damaged by a frankly disappointing mayoral campaign. There are also MPs who supported him last time but have since drifted elsewhere - parallels with Ken Clarke perhaps?
63 - Thanks Anthony, much appreciated - obviously closer than I was expecting, although presumably the new Romsey seat now has a slightly larger Labour vote to be squeezed having taken in a couple of the Southampton wards.
64 - “Phil - I think your “he is hardly disqualified from fighting a second election” should read “third election”.”
Oops! I’ve changed it now. I think my brain must have decided “third party” and “third election” couldn’t both be right
61.”ex Tories who switched from Major to Blair in 97. 10 of the 12 LD gains from Labour were seats the Tories held in the 1980’s or 1990’s.”
The fact that the majority of Libdem gains from Labour where once tory held seats don’t mean that this year’s switchers are former Major’s voters. Those seats had a less big labour majority than seats held by labour in the 80’s too; so it’s predictable that they were the first to fall.
Don’t forget that many of them (Cambridge, Birmingham Yardley, Cardiff Central, Withington, Hornsey) voted for Kinnock’s Labour, so they won’t have many problems to vote for Brown’s labour.
Labour shouldn’t think that those voters will automatically come back to them, but the Libdems shouldn’t take the victory for granted.
61 Bullseye. Interesting posts on this thread. I’ve been assuming, like Ben at 56, that anti-war former labour voters will revert to type next time once the iraq issue has gone away. (Assuming, of course that it has). And that tactical anti-tory voting may also feature more strongly once the tories are perceived to be in with a chance. If, as you say, the Lab-Lib switchers were mainly students, muslims and former tory voters then this logic is at least partially undermined. What’s that assertion based on?
64 - James, bow out as party leader, or as an MP too (at the end of this parliament)?
[64] taking a break after a boozy lunch- my birthday, and a big number change (Oh No!). It is a very moot point as to how long CK wants to continue. Remember the leader of the Lib Dems does not have an extra salary (like the “Leader of her Majesty’s Opposition” does), so must subsist on an backbenchers salary plus whatever the party can stump up for his office. Charles has managed pretty well, but with baby Donald newly arrived, and the prospect of others in the future, he will be thinking with some envy of the cash that Ken Clarke (KC as opposed to CK) has managed to salt away. 10 years was enough for Steelie and Ashdown- but then, they were a little older. My feeling is that Charles will stay- after all what does he do next? Steel went for the Convention, and then the Parliament in Scotland, and Ashdown went to Bosnia- Charles might do well on TV, but he is more of a political animal than he appears- and there is a real chance that the political deadlock that has kept the Lib Dems locked out might just break next time- and it would be worth the wait, if that were to happen.
67 - Andrea, I only speak from knowledge of South Manchester, but there have been massive demographic changes in Withington since 1987, which has been replicated in most cities in the UK. The electorate of 2005 is a markedly differnt beast to that of 1987 - there are far more single-occupancy professional households. The same effect has taken place in central Manchester (where there are IIRC approx 20,000 residents compared to 2,000 15 years ago), and we are just starting to get a knock-on effect as desirable areas move slowly out. I don’t know which constituency Whalley Range is in, but this area has a good stock of C19th century housing ripe for gentrification, for example.
70 - Happy birthday James. 30 already?
69 - I haven’t really thought of whether, were he to go, he would also go as an MP. He could easily earn a crust in broadcasting like Portillo (not just of the light entertainment variety - I remember he did some fairly serious radio talks in his 1990s wilderness years). Those Famous Grouse adverts are also getting a bit tired…
Hmm hmm… 30, round the neck, I think…
73 - if he continues as an MP he is resigned to spending half the week away from his family (be they based in Scotland or London) - which he may want to do, or he may not.
70 James O. I assure you CK has made a fair few quid on the media circuit over the years. “Champagne Charlie” isn’t entirely apocryphal, although he’s not our Ken’s league.
FWIW I see no prospect of CK bowing out this side of the election , so the aspirants have plenty of time to sell their wares to the party and wider electorate.
My choices after the estimiable Viscount Thurso would be:
1. Ed Davey
2. Evan Harris ………
5,358368. Mark Oaten, but only if I emigrate to my Scottish estates.
71.” only speak from knowledge of South Manchester, but there have been massive demographic changes in Withington since 1987, which has been replicated in most cities in the UK. ”
but those people (labour voters in 1987 and 1992) should have gone somewhere? In other seats probably, but in almost every seats there was a swing from Lab to Libdems. Or maybe they’re all in Oldham East (considering the result there).
73. A career in broadcasting could be a possibility. His answer to a question about what he’ll done if not re-elected was “When I get the chance I love to write, so I think probably something within the realms of journalism or literature. Some form of teaching or lecturing also appeals.
”
Who will Kennedy version of Portillo’s Diane Abbott? Maybe Clare Short!
James O
I have been on two management commitees, one being a marginal which we won (Northampton South) and one a no hoper this time round(Bury South). On Both of these I found no slanging matches a number of times at Northampton & Bury there were strong disagreements, but they were resolved respectively. Just like they were in the ops room in my old ship. Remember a lot of the commitee members of tory associations have military connections, and attempt to run the election as a battle, admittably the past 3 elections the troops have been weary, and seemed to have battle fatigue, however, signs seem to be picking up at the moment.
“Arh S/Lt Penketh, for the carefree days of a Junior officer and all that carefree Optimism of the future.” my old C.o they sure drank it out me me though
76 - Jack, as a self confessed ex-Tory/Labour-voting Lib Dem hater, what possible interest (outside of betting on the outcome) would you have in who were to lead us?
77 - Andrea, I suspect many of them have gone to Care Homes or the great electoral register in the sky.
Re 71 very true Tabman. I’ll race you to get the first leaflets in. My theropist works in Whalley range, I remember it as a small child pity such lovely looking buildings can be kept in such a state of disrepair
79 - Probably about the same interest as you do in who leads the Tories…
81 - actually, Lennon, living in Rushcliffe I probably have more interest in that matter than most on this site
79/81 Tabman/Lennon. You should have realised by now I’m a sucker for lost causes !
80 - race you to buy up the more likely looking properties
82 - Ok, very fair point - but you see what I meant!
82. Why? Will you change your vote if Clarke will become leader? I doubt it.
83 - that explains your interest in KC then
Its a shame his middle name is Harry rather than Frederick …
86 - Andrea (i) I have an interest as a consitutent and (ii) as an activist for a rival party I have an interest in the strategy and tactics of the next election campaign, both of which whill be altered were he to lead the Tories (which I don’t find very likely).
Tabman I studied under a labour Government theres no way I could afford a house at the mo. Mind you I could buy a dodgy one and wait for the gentrification to take place. Do it up sell it and buy the nice one next door.
88.”as an activist for a rival party I have an interest in the strategy and tactics of the next election campaign”
well, you won’t win Rushcliffe anyway. The only strategy you could use to win Rushcliffe is trying to convince Clarke to defect.
89 - or you could go for the “alternative free market” approach and use it for nefarious purposes, like many in the area
as a get-rich-quick scheme. High risk, though.
OTOH if it had been a Tory government you wouldn’t have gone to Unviersity at all
90 well, you won’t win Rushcliffe anyway. The only strategy you could use to win Rushcliffe is trying to convince Clarke to defect. Is that a challenge?
92. Maybe
After Brian Sedgemore nothing is impossible…. pay attention or you’ll risk to be in the same party of Clare Short next time.
87.” Its a shame his middle name is Harry rather than Frederick … ”
talking about MPs middle names, Gordon is acutally Brown’s middle name.
Tory’s extended the right to uni. so every time I say i went to Manchester. Everyone goes ‘what Man Met’. The shame of it.
87 Tabman. As manager of JOCKS I’m a re-born, temporary, un-paid, almost, nearly, well nigh, possible and potential Conservative voter again. I couldn’t be clearer than that.
On the other hand the Lib Dems are the Tim Henman of politics - flattering to deceive and then get dumped out before the final - and now you Lib Dems are asking for new balls ! Umpire please.
93 - a lot will depend upon the outcome of the next couple of months for Rushcliffe politics. That notwithstanding, a Clarke-led party will require a different strategic approach from Labour and the Tories (self evidently).
94 - Stuart, you and Rik could form a self-help group for ex-military, ex-Poly-turned-Univ Tory candidates
95 - Jack, as you’re a resident of Snalbans, being a Tory voter goes with the territory - I would expect nothing less. Lapsed, schmapsed!
95 - I’d be tempted to argue that the Liberals are the English cricket team of the political world… Great in the late 1800’s but then in the wilderness for years, battered by all-comers. Enjoying the best sustained resurgance forever at present and looking forward to glorious summers of permanent dominance over the respective landscapes!
97 - yes, we’re about 5 years behind Vaughan’s lot
But who are our Hussain, Vaughan, Flintoff and Giles?
96. At local level yes, but at GE level the outcome will probably be always the same.
Sir Macolm Rifkind has openend his campaign. However he will surely pull out before a vote to avoid humiliatition. See http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/PA_NEWA22926881125489712A00?source=PA%20Feed
96 Tabman. Almost two-thirds of St Albans voters don’t vote Tory … What about Rushcliffe ??? Yes I thought so …. a half ! Naughty, naughty Tabman …. a bit of barchartism there
99 - that’s what they said in Withington, Romsey, Bath …
The question, Andrea, is if KC calls it quits if he fails to win the leadership in order to concentrate on spending BAT’s money, there will be a new candidate.
With regrad to the comments about Oaten being in the party a long time- that may be true, but he apparently said in an interview that it was relativly recently (long after joining) that he realised he was a real liberal, which doesn’t instantly bring around the Lib Dem activists.
Regarding some of the mentioned candidates, couldn’t there be a problem (not within the party but from the press etc and public) with their private lives. I know that one is known to have several skeletons in their closet, which some in the press know about, and one or two are very quiet on the relationships front. I am not saying they shouldn’t be leader because of this, but as a party which is becoming increasingly high profile, and therefore more under attack, it could cause problems.
102. Tabman, confess: you’re planning to try to be selected in order to face the new tory candidate and win the seat with the biggest swing of the night in 2009!
98 - Well here goes… If Kennedy is Hussein (leading out of the wilderness and providing a solid background for the next captain to really take off from); Flintoff, someone whos been around for a while, that the public gets behind and is a bit of an all-rounder - but wont ever become captain as he’s not thoughtful enough - Simon Hughes. Giles - the elderly stalwart of the team that nobody notices but does a great holding job - Ming Campbell. Vaughen - the hero that steps forward, is thoughtful but very keen and clearly most importantly hails from Sheffield… Nick Clegg!
102 Tabman. Just for the sake of arguement, and it’s heresy to say so, but if the Tories are the stupid party and fail for the third time to elect our Ken as leader, why not stay in the HoC and promote BAT and take the dosh ….. Father of the House eventually, sneering gloriously from the backbenches as in 2017 the Tories select another loser to take on PM Milliband.
103 Tim. I don’t know who you mean …. not !! Language Timothy.
103. If John Hemmings will run for the leadership, The Daily Mail and The Sun will run shocked articles at least 4 days a week.
101 - but Jack, you fit the Tory demographic to a T.
104 - that Tory candidate will, of course, be Richard Willis, and would mean the electorate would be wondering whether to replace one overweight, ex-Cambridge, professional, socially-liberal, vaguely pro-EU MP with another, or go with a Tory
Fortunately (for the elctorate) that remains an academic choice whilst Mrs Tabman rules the roost!
105 - brilliant
106 - a kind of Ted Heath for our times? “He will not be missed …” etc etc
103 - “an interview that it was relativly recently (long after joining) that he realised he was a real liberal”
Not just long after joining: some years after entering Parliament.
103 - they could give DD a run for his money, then
109.”that Tory candidate will, of course, be Richard Willis”
In this case I bet you’ll have lots of fun during the campaign.
[110] What did Mark Oaten think he was before he discovered he was a liberal?
[105] I don’t see how you can accuse an age-group County chess champion of not being thoughtful… and Ashley Giles is 32 - Lennon, you’ll really cheer up James O like that
110 - IIRC the interview was for Jon Harris’ book So now who do we vote for?, and it said that Oaten was in the SDP (and a councillor?) before the merger and indicated that his enthusiasm for Liberalism emerged around 2001.
13 - a Social Democrat, presumaby (much like Rik …
)
114 - see here:
In spring 2004, I met Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat MP for Winchester since 1997, the party’s home affairs spokesman, who featured in an Observer list of 80 “prodigiously talented young people who will shape our lives in the early 21st century”. If that suggests a swashbuckling young radical, that didn’t turn out to be quite the case. Oaten was more Charlie Brown than Che Guevara. More importantly, as one of the founders of the Peel Group, an organisation set up to enhance the party’s appeal to wavering Tories, he is widely seen as one of the key figures in the party’s tumble to the right.
Sitting in a parliamentary cafe, we began talking about his membership of the nascent SDP as a first-time voter repulsed by Thatcherism, but almost as alienated by the Labour party: “And then,” he said, “this new modern party comes along that has its own credit cards, that has rather nice logos, that has a modern, professional media launch.” He now sounded positively evangelical. “They’re wearing suits. They’re driving round in Volvos. It’s claret and chips. It was different, exciting, dynamic.”
The next bit was startling. “I only really got a philosophical belief about three years ago,” he admitted.
116 Tabman. Yuk !! I’m not sure even my Scottish estates would be far enough away if Oaten was leader.
117 - you could join Jim Davidson in Bahrain. The kilt might get a bit itchy in the 40+ heat though. And it would be harder to make your BBC tete-a-tetes. That apart, aren’t the oilocracies crying out for some Jacobite Common Sense?
116. ““And then,” he said, “this new modern party comes along that has its own credit cards, that has rather nice logos, that has a modern, professional media launch.” He now sounded positively evangelical. “They’re wearing suits. They’re driving round in Volvos. It’s claret and chips”
I’m astonished by those very deep reasons to join a party. He must be a man of true principles.
Which other (Lib Dem) MPs were ex-SDP, which were ex-Liberal and which neither? I know Evan Harris and Mike Hancock were SDP and are very differently placed on the spectrum from Oaten. Kennedy was of course SDP (Owen blames him for striking the killer blow I think). Cable was presumably SDP. Most of the South West crowd were surely Liberal, as was Hughes. Not sure any clear patterns emerge though - the political landscape has moved on as have individuals.
116 - That last quote is indeed startling. We all develop our ideas but the idea that he only thought to think about it at all four years in to being an MP is a bit shocking (and a bit amusing). Of the figures seen as “controversial right wingers” by the activists I have to say I prefer Laws who has very evidently thought hard about his philosophical position even though some in the party don’t like it.
How many LibDem MPs can seriously say they have a strong ideology or philosophy?
For over 20 decades the party has been consciously eschewing an ideology. In fact our campaigining has been ruthlessly pragmatic, although opposing any change to any public service ever is effective in winning elections on the ground it is not a philosophy!
The fact that one of our brightest MPs has forced himself to go through the process of thinking through his political beliefs and then nailing his colours to the mast is something to be welcomed. I only wish some of the rest of them would.
120. Jenny Tonge was a liberal.
118 Tabman. I fear there are few Stuarts in the House of Faud. Indeed a kilted Jack W on a mission in Riyahd might get my credentials seized and my diplomatic immunity cut off . Ouch !
121.”How many LibDem MPs can seriously say they have a strong ideology or philosophy? ”
and is this a good thing? What is a purpose of a party without a common ideology and its own philosophy? To put people together to win an election and then what?
121 - True enough - better to think about it late than not at all. But he didn’t say he hadn’t thought deeply about it before 2001, he said, “I only really got a philosophical belief about three years ago.” which you have to admit is startling. It may have been a slip of the tongue, but that merely raises a different question mark over him. Oaten is a very bright man, is one of the MPs closest to my own views and correct on positioning the party more appropriately. I can’t quite shake off my own doubts about him - although nor do I understand the antipathy towards him from a small minority of activists.
james @ 120
I wouldn’t take John Harris’s “quotes” as absolute verbatim gospel. They sound like the highly edited & selected words of someone who had already written their story before bothering to turn up for the interview
124 Andrea. That’s a tricky question for the LibDems. You are very naugthy to ask them !!
124 - and is this a good thing? What is a purpose of a party without a common ideology and its own philosophy? To put people together to win an election and then what?
Andrea - it served the Tories very well until Lady Thatcher came along; then they got all idealogical and have lost the last three elections. But I take your point.
126 Bullseye. Are you suggesting skullduggery from the esteemed and noble ranks of our journalists. What a shocking accusation.
129 - you’ll have to get a second opinion from your contacts at the St Albans Gazette. That cat rescued by firemen was a well-known troublemaker and serving under an ASBO at the time.
130 Tabman. I never touch that rag “The St.Albans Gazette” . All those disgaceful page 3 bird watchers and their ti*s not to mention the debauchery of the jam making circle - lord only knows what they do with those kilner jars, elastic bands and saucypans.
126 - Again true enough. I will maintain an open - if somewhat narrow - mind on the matter and will return to my former policy of only trusting the journalistic integrity of the late Hunter S Thompson/Raoul Duke.
130. Other main news from “The St Albans Gazette”:
1) An old woman fell from the stairs of the local conservtaive association. The libdem’s group leader asked for a full inquiry to see if all security standard were matched.
2) Residents of the Batchwood ward fill a compliant to the police for having received too many “winning here” placrd in the last week.
3) A dog accused by residents to make too much noises has been outed as a Respect voters.
4) A local resident hospitalized for addiction to political betting website
133 Andrea. The strange thing is that one of the four is closer to the truth than you might ever believe ….. and it’s not the obvious one
133 - unfortunately the subject matter of this story is tragic, but the fact that she was drinking at the Cock Inn is bizarre … I had to check it wasn’t dated April 1st.
If not stated then their allegiance is unknown or were neither.
Liberal:-
Norman Baker
Alan Beith
Malcolm Bruce
Colin Breed
Ming Campbell
Ed Davey
Tim Farron
Don Foster
Nick Harvey
David Heath
John Hemming
Paul Holmes
Martin Horwood
David Howarth
Simon Hughes
Paul Keetch
Norman Lamb
Michael Moore
John Pugh
Paul Rowen
Adrian Sanders
Andrew Stunnell
Matthew Taylor
John Thurso
Mark Williams
Phil Willis
Richard Younger-Ross
SDP:-
Tom Brake
Paul Burstow
Vince Cable
Mike Hancock
Evan Harris
Chris Huhne
Charles Kennedy
Mark Oaten
Alan Reid
Bob Russell
Robert Smith
Roger Williams
Quite an eclectic bunch!
134. Jack, I’m surprised you were able to understand it with all those spelling mistakes (when I type too fast, I accidentally invert letters).
The obvious one is number 2!
Interesting, Doug. The only unifying theme appears to be all the South West MPs (so far as you have been able to ascertain) were Liberal. Although Andrew George was Mebyon Kernow!
Re Vince Cable - he was in the same Labour Party branch as I was in the mid-1970s and campaigned for a “No” vote in the Euro-referendum of that year. Has anyone ever seen him smile?
138 - plus all the Golden Triangle MPs were ex-SDP (Brake, Burstow, Cable) - Rik should have kept his membership up, and he’d have been an MP by now!
140 - All that claret and chips played havoc with his system, I hear. The sweet sherry and saveloy favoured by his new party are much more to his taste. Still, I would like to have heard his touching tribute from the green benches when Lord Jenkins finally went the way of all flesh.
141 - I thought they were all hidden?
As our Liberal friends have so kindly given advice on our leadership succession, let me repay the favour.
1. Please choose Sarah Teather. Please, please, please. I can’t think of another potential candidate that would lose you more seats than her. Actually I can … Susan Kramer or Paul Keetch.
2. It depends on who you want to appeal to. If you are trying to erode into the Conservative vote still further then it has to be Mark Oaten. He is about the only one who sounds credible enough to appeal to our voters.
3. If you want to take off Labour voters then go for Simon Hughes. You will lose more seats to a rejuvinated opposition, but will be well placed to pick up lots of urban constituencies, especially in the northern cities.
4. My personal favourites Lembit, the guy from Lewes and the good Viscount are, alas, non-runners.
5. David Laws is probably the best all-round bet, but as has been said previously may shun the publicity.
5. Most of the others, I’m afraid, have even less profile than the PPS to the Junior Minister for Paperclips. And that’s to me as a political hack, let alone the population. And if there’s one thing Charlie boy has proved is that profile is everything.
I am a LIb Dem, and I agree 100% about Teather. She really is a terrible speaker, and quite antisocial to many Lib Dems. I don’t often talk LD MPs down, but just because she won a by-election, she isn’t automatically front bench material- just look at our good friend Parmjit Singh Gill.
If they really want a good female frontbench spokesman, how about Susan Kramer or Annette Brooke (who is only no2 in education, despite a very good election result).
Andrea @ 124,
Had you bothered to read the rest of my post you would have noticed that I was saying that it definitely isnt a good thing.
Britain has a long tradition of having non-ideological party’s, certainly in the post-war period before Thatcher you could argue that the Tories were the non-ideological party par-excellence. Nowadays Blair has occupied much of that territory.
The problem with LibDems is that the Alliance’s success in the 1980’s, on which the new party was founded in 1988, was built on opposition to the extremes of Bennite/Footite Labour & Thtacherite Tories. It was not based on a clear philosophical stance.
That is not to say that there is no ideological basis to the party, it is clearly liberal, however it does mean that that ideology has been heavily diluted. The combination of the Alliance’s deliberate rejection of ideology & the success of populist local campaigning has meant that we have often ended up as I have previously described us as looking like a “residents’ association with a social conscience” and with MPs who are not particularly ideological.
145.”
Andrea @ 124,
Had you bothered to read the rest of my post you would have noticed that I was saying that it definitely isnt a good thing.”
well, I actually read the rest of your post and I failed to see where you say it’s not a good thing. Unless the key to understand it is in the word “eschewing”: I don’t know the meaning of the word (and my dictionary too).
Then I was asking for someone else opinions too.
Now I thank you for your replay @145.
146 Andrea. Sometimes the Lib Dems get a little tetchy - it’s all that over analysing of bar charts and phrasing of “focus” leaflets. Don’t take it to heart - they’ll be “winning your heart here” at a street near you soon !
147. Jack, I haven’t taken it to heart. Infact I’m already producing a “winning here” leaflet for Chiantishire!
Andrea,
I guess I’m a little too touchy on that one.All 3 of our major parties are ideologically loose coalitions, which is why our politics is dso dominated by discussions of splits within them.
The LibDem have been an anti-ideological party for a good while. While there has been no ideology as such,it does have clear liberal values and instincts, and indeed Charles Kennedy has been the archetypical pragmatic, centre-left no-ideolgue that is typical of the traditinal LibDem. However, liberal instincts haven’t always been strong enough to save it from flabby thinking and an over reliance on tax & spend rhetoric.
However the party is now beginning to change. The debate over the Orange Book marks the return of ideology, its uncomfortable for a lot of people who have made their mark but condemning ideology as the work of the devil to suddenly be asked to re-embrace one, but bit by bit the party is slowly adjusting to being a modern liberal party in policy terms as well as instinctive values. the policy review which the party is now beginning will be key to deciding whether it will rediscover its traditional liberal ideological roots.
148 Andrea. You have to be wary of the Lib Dems. One whiff of a by election win and they’ll toss you aside like a empty chianti bottle. They’ll toy with your emotions and come the count at the Alban Arena you’ll be attended to in a very horizontal fashion. I hope you don’t smoke
Laws, Clegg and Huhne appeal. The likes of Evan Harris, Simon Hughes and Tim Farron would be rather stuck in a Brown Labour govt. No reform of the public services and pile more taxes in? Eschew economics completely? It would all be rather regretable.
Davey has been doingt he rubber chicken circuit of talking at constituency dinners for quite some time and has been quite assiduous of courting both the activists and opinion-makers (being seen as Orange Book, but also the activists’ mate). His ambitious annoys me, but Lib dem activists can be quite innocent.
Hughes is a busted flush, but still briefs against Charles so must think that he has a chance if CK goes sooner rather than letting Clegg/Huhne build up a profile.
Of the new intake- Browne seems good, and Huhne and Clegg are very impressive. Fallon seems to just repeat fashionable dogma (’fair trade’[sic] for example featured in his maiden speech. Yuk!) Teather’s soundbite replies grate and Swinson is intellectually lightweight.
149.”All 3 of our major parties are ideologically loose coalitions, which is why our politics is dso dominated by discussions of splits within them.”
Your politics is dominated by discussions of splits within parties, mine is dominated by splits within them!
Thanks for your insightful replay.
150. I really doubt they’ll be able to win a by-election in Chiantishire
In those areas voters could be scared by the Orange Book, they would probably prefer Red Ken.
The Lib Dems will be too busy being the “surreal alternative”. Until they have national policies they will never be seen as an alternative!
FWIW, I think CK has well earned the right to continue as leader… when he took over only 6 years ago, I think all LDs would have settled for 62 MPs and poll ratings c.23%. I also think he’s likely to continue - if he’d been trying to ease an orderly succession, I suspect he’d have promoted more of the star-newcomers (Clegg, Huhne, Kramer) to shadow cabinet positions to gain more exposure.
As it stands, I think Simon Hughes would still be front-runner in any contest held in the next couple of years (he stormed the presidency). And I’m not sure that would be CK’s preferred outcome. Simon has huge star quality, is perceptively intelligent, and really thinks about issues - but he can be a tad excitable.
Of the next generation, other than the 3 young turks mentioned:
Oaten is too divisive (and will have, at some stage, to explain whether that Harris quote is accurate or not - I choked on my wholegrain muesli when I read it);
Laws is deeply impressive, but may be the LDs’ David Willetts;
and I’ll raise a voice here for Michael Moore (the Scottish one), who was a star turn during Ming’s illness, but has been too little seen since.
Norman Lamb’s name continually comes up, but I’m afraid I’ve still never heard him speak, or read an article by him.
Michael Moore MP is rather good actually, and deserves a higher profile than he has at the moment although he must curse that ’socialist weasal’ from over the pond!
All these talks about the political stars of the future prompt me a question: who, in the 1997 new labour intake, was tipped for a great career, but at the end he/she hasn’t reached the expectations?
Sorry to have missed this debate today but the sunshine called and won .
A couple of small points .
48 - Any prospective future leader need not worry too much about whether their seat is marginal or nor . Experience for the last 30 plus years shows that being leader of one of the major parties adds 5,000 plus voters to your pre leader total .
56 - Ben , I have said it before and will say it again , it is a myth that many voters changed their votes solely or even mainly because of Iraq . Outside the Muslim community it was a factor that may have reinforced peoples decision not to vote Labour but rarely the primary reason .
157.”Any prospective future leader need not worry too much about whether their seat is marginal or nor . Experience for the last 30 plus years shows that being leader of one of the major parties adds 5,000 plus voters to your pre leader total .”
but being a frontbench doesn’t neccesarely add you more voters. And it’s difficult to go directly from the backbenches to the leadership.
I suppose that front-brenchers have less time to nurse their constituency than backbanchers (maybe it’s a wrong supposition) and being a labour or tory frontbencher raises your profile (TV appearance,…), while being a libdem frontbencher doesn’t guarantee exposure.
148 - Andrea, I have a pet theory that I want you to help me test.
How, in your experience, do gay men who are in denial of that fact behave? Do they tend to be overly macho, and possibly tell homophobic jokes, for example?
30. James O, many happy returns. Can’t agree with you that Susan Kramer was “an effective candidate for mayor of London”. Finishing in fourth place with less than 12% of the vote, both Tories and Labour would take comfort from some more effective Lib Dem campaigns like that one.
136. Doug, thanks for the provenance of the Lib Dem MPs. Any idea how many of the ex-SDPs are also ex-Labour? Mike Hancock obviously, and Vince Cable as Innocent Abroad has intimated. Any others, or are they all of the “claret, chips and Volvos” generation?
Regarding the Oaten quote, IIRC the interviews John Harris did for his book were recorded by the BBC for a Newsnight piece, so the evidence is probably out there somewhere!
149. Bullseye, be careful what you wish for. A more ideological Lib Dem party (assuming that the ideology is Liberalism rather than Social Democracy) could find itself inhabiting the same wilderness as the Liberals did in the 1950s. To take a position similar to the FDP in Germany or the PDs in Ireland for an FPTP election could lead to a wipeout.
159 - sorry, Andrea - how rude of me - I should have said please
159- yes, Tabman. There’re closest gay who behave in that way. They usually express their supposed attraction for girls very loudly.
When I was younger (15-16 years old), I think that I’ve luaghed to some homophobic joke only to show that I wasn’t “one of them” (it’s not something I’m really proud of and then I had probably laughed in a very camp way, so not achieving my purpose :/) ).
They don’t all behave in this way, but I think there’s a good proportion of them who act in this way.
Could I ask you why this question?
162 - I have this theory that Jack is actually a closet Lib Dem!
Look at the parallels:
- all this macho posturing about previously voting Tory and having a Jacobite party
- all his anti Lib Dem jokes, of which we have 147 and 150 are examples on this thread, but sundry others about Tofu, lentils, beards, sandals etc etc
The man is a Lib Dem in deep, deep denial ….
[163] Oh, we’re all in deep denial about something
“Humankind cannot bear too much reality” - T S Eliot
160 - A tad harsh on Susan Kramer… she finished 1% behind the official Labour candidate, and gained almost 30% of 2nd preferences (over 400,000 votes). From a standing start as a complete unknown that was no mean achievement.
163 - it’s always the ones who laugh loudest at the tofu jokes… but really Jack, it’s nothing to be ashamed of. We’ll be gentle at your first party meeting.
163. Tabman, a new social category: closet Libdems!
Matthew Parris will soon out some closet Libdems live on TV and Edwina Currie will start to campaign to protect Libdems in denial (and to fight libdemphobia), while Michael Howard will propose Section 28 (”local authorities should not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of Libdems as a pretended political party or ideology!)
167 - Andrea, he’s not even around to respond - he must be secretly delivering Focuses.
What do you think Peter Tatchel will do?
164. No, I’m not …
168.”What do you think Peter Tatchel will do? ”
He’ll lead the campaign to low the age of consent for the Libdems (the tories will try to raise the age of consent for Libdems supporters to prevent them to produce other little pervert libdems).
However the big question is what does Peter Tatchel do to live? I’m not joking, but this man seems not to have a job in real life.
170 - I suppose he makes a bit of money from journalism, but I don’t think he’s very well off.
167/168 Andrea/Tabman. Sorry, I’ve been in the closet after we had a wonderful curry ……
http://www.rayig.com/picture/funnypic1/picture/after_curry_toilet_roll_copy.jpg
171. but he isn’t in poor conditions either. He seems to run a decent life without working.
Ok, he writes a couple of article in Gay Times or Pink Paper and he’s still probably getting royalties from his books. I’m starting to think he’s a rich boyfriend or something of that sort.
160 - Bob Russell was also ex-Labour. I think CK also flirted with the Labour Party when at university.
170 raise it to 65, presumably.
173,”he’s a rich boyfriend ”
he has, not he’s.
175. The tory modernisers will ask to raise it to 65, while Ann Widdecombe and Edward Leigh to 80.
165. Stephen, I think at the time I was hoping she would beat Dobbo and make Blair’s humiliation complete, so maybe a bit harsh as you say. But that voice…she really needs some dis-elocution lessons.
174. Thanks Dean, it does seem that the ex-Labour component of the Lib Dems is almost extinct.
177 - well, I’m not sure I should bring the example of Mrs T into it, but the voice can be worked on…
171.”I suppose he makes a bit of money from journalism”
BV, I’ve made a fast search through google and I think you’re right: it seems he writes many newspapers articles (more than I expected).
163/168 - Tabman - priceless - I notice he hasn’t denied it!
181 - though I think Simon is still - in true Ken Clarke fashion - the man to beat, as you say, I’d be a trifle surprised if Matthew became Deputy. In any case, the No 2 position is (I think) decided by the P’mentary Party rather than by members.
Incidentally, activists - as with all parties - are a small proportion of total membership. Simon was, I’m sure, the activists’ choice in ‘99, but didn’t (quite) get it.
Btw, are there any other PB.com-ers who, like me, voted in the Labour leadership contest in ‘94 (for Blair), then the LDs’ in ‘99 (for Rendel)?
177 - In the Commons, yes. However, they are rather more numerous in the Lords, Lorcan.
On the subject of Mr. Tatchell, I remember reading a newspaper article some time ago describing his lifestyle as terribly ascetic.
Apparently he doesn’t drink or smoke or take other pleasures. He eats only fresh fruit and vegetables that he buys on a daily basis from a local market.
No idea how true that article was, but if so it would explain how he manages to live on the earnings from the occasional column in low-circulation publications.
Re: ‘122. Jenny Tonge was a liberal.’ Still is. A leader in the Lords, the real check on the Executive in today’s Britain, has much to recommend it; who would be her Deputy in the Commons?
If it helps with an honest view from the other pew… Matthew Taylor seems a nasty piece of work from what I have seen of him, all snide comment that wins us votes every time he is let out of his box, and Oaten appears to be in the wrong party, more authoritarian right wing NuLab than anything else, surely. Teather is rather the school prefect caught on film picking her nose after handing out detentions for others doing the same, and Simon Hughes is the Vicar of Dibley on speed.
These are the potential leaders us Tories would fear, sorry, like most. A little extras help to ensure we take charge of those ministerial limos and red boxes.
B2W @ 186
Thanks for the insightful & balanced contribution. We missed you all day.
re 136 Paul Holmes is ex-SDP
180 Vino. Sorry I can’t come out to play until later, I delivering foc.. I’m having an extremely important business meeting at the Alban Arena
24. Sorry to go back to the beginning but the assumption that tories will field same candidate in Eastleigh seems to be way off the mark. Suspect they and the ex-candidate will be looking for something new next time around
Swinson is intellectually lightweight.
I don’t think anyone who knows Jo Swinson, or saw her run her own campaign earlier this year virtually single handed, would describe her as that. What she hasn’t yet done is find her own distinctive voice on national issues - as opposed to local ones - but give her time and she will.
186 - B2W, as a Tory Doyen, what do you make of the TRG? Are they yesterday’s men or the coming thing?
192 - Tabmann I’m not convinced any of the groups like TRG or CWf have much sway within the party. They seem to me to be more like debating groups for likeminded people.
As for B2W thoughts on the LD leadership (and apologies for dissenting from the common theme that all LD MP’s are universally excellent and talented individuals) I would prefer to have Simon Hughes as leader. Would probably help pick up a few more urban seats but I don’t think he would go down so well in the more rural formaly Conservative seats. I saw that Michael Moore also got a mention. He used to be my constituency MP and I akways thought he was pretty good. OTOH his result in 2005 was the worst by some distance for a sitting Scottish LD MP.
max - thanks. CWF - Conservative Way Forward? Is there a listing of Tory ginger groups and their political leanigns (and MP supporters) anywhere, eg Bow, no- Turning Back, Cornerstone etc etc? I remember reading a paper on Anthony Wells’ site that classified Tory MPs by their voting record on a 3-part scale as socially Liberal or socially Conservative.
Presumably you support Hughes because you think (as a left-leaning candidate) he’ll allow Tory wins from the LDs and LD wins from Labour?
I can’t think of anywhre you’d get a list like that. Some of the sites mention supporters but nothing that comprehensive. Even some of the contributers to the TRG magazine aren’t members themselves.
As for Simon Hughes. Its mostly because of his political leanings but also because of the way he comes accross on TV. He always seems earnest enough but doesn’t come over as a great communicator. I don’t personally think CK will be challenged anytime soon. He’s increased the number of LD MP’s two elections running and I don’t see what he’s really done wrong.
Max, I have to say I was surpried at some of Edward Leigh’s cohort, not a few of whom were 30-something members of the new intake. Ed Vaizey they most certainly weren’t. IIRC the TRG were supposedly left-leaning and pro-Europe (for Tories), so peresumably sit quite far out of the party’s centre of gravity? Isn’t Clarke their president?
193 - As I understand it, Michael Moore’s seat was severely chopped up in the boundary changes and it was much more a successor seat to Archy Kirkwood’s old seat than his own. Given Kirkwood had presumably built up a very decent personal vote over many years in a small-ish rural seat, I doubt anything can be read into it.
Moore struggled to hold David Steel’s old seat when he inherited it in 1997 but enjoyed a big swing when he bedded in by 2001. This time around the majority fell from the notional 2001 level without coming close to the danger-zone he inhabited in 1997.
All parties have a habit of struggling in seats on change of MP - possibly the Lib Dems more than most because of campaign style (they tend to play up the personality cult a bit much). On the plus side, there tends to be a sizeable swing back after an initial scare - Laws was run surprisingly close in 2001 succeeding Ashdown but romped home this year.
Yes but the seat contained a substantial amount of Michael Moore’s old seat and their hadn’t been similar swings in Rox and Berwickshire at Holyrood level when Archie Kirkwood hadn’t been the candidate. Both Borders seats will be interesting in 2007 (especially Roxburgh and Berwickshire)
Apologies if Holmes was in the wrong pile. Kennedy, Russell, Hancock and Cable were all card carrying members of the Labour party at some point to a great (Hancock) or lesser (Kennedy) extent.
One thing not talked of so far are different camps and factions in the Parliamentary party and I think you really need to understand those when working out who will stand or likely to be the next leader. I believe the party can be divided into the following five camps:-
(1) the Kennedy clan (Alexander, Goldsworthy, Hunter, Keetch, Kennedy, Lamb, Moore, Smith, Stunell, Taylor, Teather, Webb) A mixture of some of the very new MPs and some of the more long established. This somewhat centrist group main opponents come from what I rather unfairly call…
(2) the Simon Hughes “lunatic fringe” which take a more leftist and traditional social liberal approach (Baker, Foster, Harris, Harvey, Hemming, Opik, Rowan, Swinson, Willis, Younger-Ross) However, the Kennedy group are never really threatened by that Hughes group because there are too many egos and personalities at play in the Hughes group to unite behind Simon or another (as shown by the Presidential election last year) Below these two competing factions are the…
(3) Orangebooker/neoliberals (Browne, Cable, Clegg, Davey, Huhne, Laws, Oaten) who are countered by the more activist based and further to the left than Hughes group…
(4) Beveridge group (Barrett, Carmichael, Farron, Holmes, Pugh) and at odds with all these four groups is a rather strong…
(5) Womens lobby (Brooke, Burt, Gidley, Kramer, Willott)
The last leadership election very loosely had a candidate from each of these wings (save maybe the Orangebookers though does Malcolm Bruce predate them?) There are some who don’t really fit into a patricular camp or are two new to assess at this stage where they fall.
199 - I think John Hemming has enough of a sense of humour to laugh at being placed on the “lunatic fringe”. He may not be an Orange Booker but he isn’t on the left.
In the 1999 contest I think you are right in suggesting that Malcolm Bruce was closest to representing the strand of liberalism that, say, David Laws does.
199 - Doug, a very interesting analysis that appears to be observed from close quarters
- I note that many of those tipped as future leaders and/or of greater than average intellect are in the Orange Book camp; could the two be related?
Doug - an interesting characterisation with quite a lot of truth in it, I suspect. I would perhaps quibble on the idea that there are Kennedy-ites in the same way as Brown-ites and Blair-ites. Lamb for example is a loyalist but backed Hughes in 1999 as an old friend but is centre right and quite a good mate of Laws (hence he is sometimes spoken of as a credible compromise candidate with right-ish instincts and no enemies - although there is clearly a national profile issue as others have said).
Kennedy leads from the centre and you can argue whether that is sensible or whether he does it too much. He deliberately gives all groups something to play for - and not only because they include individuals who need to be kept sweet. There are plenty of loyalists but I am not sure they make up a separate group as such.
202.-”in the same way as Brown-ites and Blair-ites”
but how many in the Labour group are real “Brown-ites” or real “Blair-ites” and not simply “loyalists” (now loyal to Blair and tomorrow loyal to Brown if he’ll become PM)?
203 - There are some “socialism is what a Labour government does” types and there are plenty of Blairites who will mourn Blair’s passing but serve Brown reasonably cheerfully. But Blair was always a figure who was in Labour but not of Labour - he felt Labour needed radical internal reform and could then act as a vehicle for progressives from all sorts of party (or non-party) backgrounds. Some Labour MPs loyally went along with this but a lot were and are genuinely zealous Blairites. Brown is a more traditional figure - by no means a left winger but very much a party man in the footsteps of his mentor, Smith. In that sense, they represent very different approaches to politics and some different policies too.
Kennedy is not like that. He didn’t set out with a mission to reform his party (which he did not see as a flawed brand like Labour in the early 90s). He has a build, strengthen and balance approach. He did abandon The Project - but in the end The Project was so damaged by then that the potential Project candidates (particularly Campbell and Harvey) didn’t think it was worth standing. Hence, I cannot see there is a Kennedy-ite group as such and don’t really see that as a bad thing.
I think James’s crtique of Doug’s analysis is spot on - there are loyalist rather than Kennedyites. For instance I am an ideological Orange Booker but I’m fiercely loyal to a Leader who I think has done a very good job.
Doug, I would disagree with some of your definitions - and who you place where - Nick Harvey is pretty much an Orange Booker while willis is certainly not a follower of Hughes. None-the-less I think your basic point is sound. As for most other LibDem MPs I think they are excatl the sort of non-ideological pragmatic centre-leftists we weere discussin yesterday.
The 2nd group are always the hardest to characterise. I suppose I am trying to club together those that cannot be branded as loyalists (though not necessarily disloyal) but do not either fit into any of the other camps.
The fact that they can’t organise themselves into any particular camp or group prevents anyone I mention in that strand ever becoming leader. This combines those in favour of the project (Foster, Harvey, Opik) and those against (Willis, Hughes) which I do not see as an issue that divides people into different groups anymore.
In a sense I think this group have had their day and Ashdown was the man most likely to unite them. The centrist pragmatic Kennedy clan obviously hold the crown at the moment (and I would no way call them Kennedyites!) and when his tenure ends I see that this group will be as equally disperate as the “lunatic fringe” in Kennedy’s aftermath.
So I see the real battle now for the party moving between groups 3, 4 and 5 for the future and the most likely next leader coming from someone in group 3. 4 have yet to come up with a articulate account of what they stand for so for certainly have the advantage at the moment and 5 is a group that may within time disintegrate if things become more polarised between 3 and 4.
With all due respect to those in your groups 4 and 5, Doug, none of them are potential leaders for one moment (some would say with the exception of Kramer - but I wouldn’t). There is a rather obvious contender in group 2 (the clue is in the label) and a couple of prospects in group 1 (though I remain sceptical about its existence). My feeling about group 4 is that they would be unlikely to come up with a single candidate.
207 - Sorry, last reference to group 4 should refer to group 3 Orange-bookers.
208 - And the reference to not being able to come up with “a single candidate” means there would be several rather than none! Lesson - proof read!
209 - But if they didn’t have a single candidate would that prevent them from winning?
210 - Not in terms of the voting system used by the Lib Dems (no split vote problem in the strictly statistical sense) but it could lead to a serious loss of momentum for all group 3 candidates.
If they were able to put up just one candidate, that candidate would have behind them a formidable coalition of some of the best minds in the party presenting a cogent “all the liberalisms” (economic as well as social, personal and political) argument.
If several stand, all that stuff is lost, and it is just Clegg, Laws, Oaten and whoever else fancies a go saying quite similar things but with varying degrees of whiteness of smile. All the distinctiveness, clarity of vision and momentum would be lost. They would risk being gobbled up by Hughes as a well known name or by a unity/compromise candidate.
Also organisationally, Orange Bookers would campaign for their own candidate - people wouldn’t credibly go around saying “I think you should vote Laws and if not him then Oaten and if not him then Huhne and if not him then…”
James - interesting points. To be honest I think Oaten would be the weak link in this. For example, I think people like Laws and Huhne would be savvy enough to accept that if Clegg was seen as the right man at that time to articulate their form of liberalism they would bow out in favour but I can’t see Oaten doing that.
I had heard that about Oaten from others but do not know what he would do. I suppose you cannot afford to say, “I’d like to stand unless anyone else would prefer to do it” because it invites the response “yes, I would - step aside”. He may surprise us by weighing it up and deciding not to stand (if indeed he does lack the support) when the time comes. Oaten is clearly very ambitious, but perhaps not to the level of self delusion as some people apparently think.
I think with Oaten its not self-delusion. Rightly or wrongly, he just attributes himself to being able to bring over a few wettish Tories to the Party who may think it odd if he didn’t stand. I think of the Orange book brigade he is the only one who has an actual core group of supporters but would not necessarily be the best or most likely one from that lot to lead the party.
I suppose the strength of the LibDems lies in their very weakness: there may be rivalries and even feuds within the parliamentary party, but, since it’s often considered irrelevant or nearly so, journalists don’t (yet) write pages about them. I’d never heard any of the above gossip before (though it doesn’t surprise me); so the chances are that the public won’t be put off voting for the party by its in-fighting. I think it’s worth pointing out in Kennedy’s favour that, under his leadership, the party has, from a previously unimaginable *high* in 1997, twice increased i) its votes, ii) its share of the vote, iii) its seats, and iv) its second places (up c80 in the last GE alone). Those of historical turn of mind may look back a century and conclude that, should Kennedy go under a bus, Campbell-without-Bannerman is the man to get them through the next election — and then retire; but I can’t see Kennedy going yet even if some try to push him.
While Nick Palmer is away (for I don’t want to embarrass him), what are the prospects of the whip being given (back) not to Galloway, which I’d think impossible, but to Law? Nick conspicuously didn’t mention him; yet Labour seem to be doing everything they can to continue to alienate him and his supporters and sympathizers. However, I speak from a distance; maybe someone who knows the Valleys can comment
I’d just like to say that James & Doug have had the most intelligent & well informed discussion on the working of the LibDems I’ve seen on this site or indeed anywhere.
Great postings lads!
215. Re Peter Law
I could see Labour accepting him back (a la Ken Livingstone), but I’m not sure that the government could count on him in critical votes. He seems politically nearer the Campaign Group and the usual rebels than to New Labour.
Coming rather late to this thread it is amusing to see how little people in the Lib Dems as well as outside know about the parliamentary party.
The overall position of an awful lot of Lib Dem MPs, particularly the new intake, is that Kennedy added nothing at all to the recent election campaign except clawing his way back from the awful booboo on the Local Income Tax and smiling a lot. This was seen in the massive vote for Paul Holmes as parliamentary party chair against Matthew Taylor, which was as much to do with balking against a somewhat dictatorial stance from the leader as a statement about the gravity of young Matthew. The campaign strategy was set by people other than kennedy and the target seats were won by the campaign department and the teams in the constituencies concerned, not by the leadership. A few of the ‘nearly won’ candidates might well feel a bit more dynamic leadership might have got them home this time, possibly their best bet for a while to get their feet under the Westminster table.
The ‘man in a pub’ charm has a glass ceiling basically - it stops people from veering away from you if they have already been attracted, say by a local dynamic campaign or candidate.
The trouble with all leadership challenges (except Thatcher-Heath!) is that general ‘conservative’ wisdom says that the first to break ranks and openly challenge the incumbent doesn’t win eventually because they are seen as disloyal. Thus the need for a ’stalking horse’. Could such a person emerge at Blackpool?
As for who will win eventually, the idea of David Laws is quite ridiculous, despite his money and ‘intellectual’credentials. I will not say how he comes over on TV other than among close friends. He makes Sara Teather seem heavyweight and Lynne Featherstone seem deep-voiced. He is seen as a ’splitter’ of the party even by some who are rightish in posture. Charlie Brown is indeed an initial front-runner since he has done a lot of the rubber chicken circuit, but like Lembit there is no beef.
Clegg or Davey, unless Webb can do a much better job than Malcolm Bruce did last time of projecting the ‘third way’. Hughes makes those who worked for him last time despair - he left it far too late to start to campaign seriously.
Why not bring back Paddy?
215 - Pob…ev , The trouble with Nulab as with any government is that they hate to admit to making a mistake or doing a U Turn on policy which they would have to do to on all female short lists to make peace with Law . It is one thing for TB to say after the GE that we have listened and learnt in general terms but quite another to reverse policies on issues such as Tuition Fees and Iraq when you have a macho politician’s we don’t make mistakes philosophy .
219, Mark Senior, how do you dare only to think that Blair could make mistakes? He’s naturally infallible.
He said he has listed and learned, but not what he has learned. Maybe he thinks that voters in seats with lots of students wanted more Tuition Fees! The top 3 seats in terms of student population are already fell to the Libdems, if he’ll work hard the rest could fall the next time in big swings too.
136 - Doug
A couple of surprises for me on your list, but only one error (I think):I believe that Paul Holmes was previously SDP.
Vince Cable, incidentally, has reverted to his original position. He was in the Liberal Club at University, before joining LAbour and then the SDP.
Norman Lamb may not have a national profile yet due to the fact that he concentrated on getting re-elected in what was a very marginal seat. Now with a majority of over 10,000 votes I guess you’ll start to see much more of him. He is my local MP and a more highly regarded MP you will not find. It think the turnout here was 73% and the Tory vote collapsed. If he can start to get across nationally even half as well as he has locally, people will soon start to take notice.
This is a very interesting thread, I spent hours to read it. Now I have some kind of picture of most LD MPs (I already had a picture of many, but now I have a picture of most.) Could somebody please tell also, to which “camps” the following three MPs do belong: Paul Keetch, Adrian Sanders, Robert Smith.
223 - I think it’s fair to say Adrian Sanders is on the left of the party - former ALDC worker, about to have a pamphlet published by Liberator. Keetch did well to hold his seat this time and is somewhat marginal. Sir Bob Smith is a patrician but not a toff, rural, Scottish and canny.
The key question in all this is when will Kennedy go? The setting out of several policy and other reviews isn’t the mark of a man heading for the out door. For those of us who hate Oaten and think Hughes is just too flakey to be a leader, that’s no bad thing.
Some above have put Ed Davey on the centre-right. I think that’s way off. Economically he sits on the fence. In terms of real politics he’s really sharp - but reminds me to a certain extent of Nick Harvey’s position in the last leadership election.
I suspect the next few years will see a distinct sharpening of the ’social liberal’ school to counterbalance the Laws tendency. Expect some sharp rows and some rises to prominence from previously unheard-of MPs. Greg Mulholland is someone I rate.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Adrian Sanders is not at all ‘left’ (except on a few issues) at all. He is a very canny man with a lot of appeal to Tories, amusing 1-to-1 but no great speaker. Sir Bob is indeed a pretty sharp cookie. Paul Keetch is widely regarded as a pratt but got re-elected when arguably he shouldn’t, so he can’t be that hopeless.
Norman Lamb’s huge personal surge this time round cannot be discounted. Probably rules him out as a stalking horse if he really wants to be leader. Shame. Who WILL put head over the parapet?
218 - I think Zebidee’s point was very well made until his last statement. There is a very good reason why Paddy can’t be brought back - he is a Peer and party constitution dictates the leader to be a member of the House of Commons I believe. As yet Life Peers cannot disclaim their Peerages.
223 - In terms of Sanders, Smith and Keetch’s positioning I would have said Keetch was firmly in the Kennedy camp. He was a strong supporter of his initial leadership campaign but the fact that he held a quite major portfolio despite a marginal seat in the run up to the General Election only to lose it on his reelection highlights a falling out of favour with the leadership. Smith, as Deputy Whip, I would say was firmly in the Kennedy lot too and with his new responsibilities as Energy spokesman will be an interesting one to see if he attacks the traditional Green wing of the party and favour some kind of new nuclear build. Stunell would never have done that but I feel Smith may have the nerve to! Sanders is pretty well non-descript. If my memory serves me right he was one of the two MPs who backed David Rendel for leader in 1999. He is not imersed in any particular camp. The same can be said for people like Hancock and Russell.
218 - I think Zebidee’s point was very well made until his last statement. There is a very good reason why Paddy can’t be brought back - he is a Peer and party constitution dictates the leader to be a member of the House of Commons I believe. As yet Life Peers cannot disclaim their Peerages.
223 - In terms of Sanders, Smith and Keetch’s positioning I would have said Keetch was firmly in the Kennedy camp. He was a strong supporter of his initial leadership campaign but the fact that he held a quite major portfolio despite a marginal seat in the run up to the General Election only to lose it on his reelection highlights a falling out of favour with the leadership. Smith, as Deputy Whip, I would say was firmly in the Kennedy lot too and with his new responsibilities as Energy spokesman will be an interesting one to see if he attacks the traditional Green wing of the party and favour some kind of new nuclear build. Stunell would never have done that but I feel Smith may have the nerve to! Sanders is pretty well non-descript. If my memory serves me right he was one of the two MPs who backed David Rendel for leader in 1999. He is not imersed in any particular camp. The same can be said for people like Hancock and Russell.
Thanks, but I was kind of thinking where these three MPs are positioned in regard to the “tax and spend social democracy” versus “orange book market liberalism”. As James pointed out, the very existense of the “Kennedy camp” is arguable.
Or rather, one could argue that the camps based on ideological differences and camps based on loyalty to a certain person are overlapping. A person could belong at the same time either to Doug’s camp 1) or 2) and either to camp 3) or 4) (supposing that camp 2) is based on loyalty to Simon Hughes, though I doubt that many MPs would belong both to camps 2) and 3).) Likewise, a female member of any other camp could also belong to camp 5).
As we have have many times seen, loyalty to another person doesn’t necessary mean, that one shares his political views. For instance in the Conservative Party Ann Widdecombe supports Ken Clarke for leader, but at least I fail to see that their political ideals would be very close to the other.
Therefore MPs could be separately be grouped accroding to their allegiances and according to their ideological differences.
I have tried to group the LD MPs according to their ideological differences. I then got the following camps, but I’m still unable to place all LD MPs to one of them:
Orange Bookers / Market Liberals:
Jeremy Browne, Malcolm Bruce, Vincent Cable, Menzies Campbell, Nick Clegg, Nick Harvey, Christopher Huhne, Norman Lamb, David Laws, Michael Moore, Mark Oaten
Beveridge Group / Tax & Spend
Norman Baker, John Barrett, Tom Brake, Annette Brooke, Alistair Carmichael, Tim Farron, Don Foster, Mike Hancock, Evan Harris, Paul Holmes, Simon Hughes, Lembit Opik, John Pugh, Paul Rowen, Bob Russell, Matthew Taylor, John Thurso, Phil Willis, Richard Younger-Ross
Undogmatic Centre
Danny Alexander, Alan Beith, Lorely Burt, Edward Davey, Lynne Featherstone, Sandra Gidley, David Heath, Charles Kennedy, Susan Kramer, Alan Reid, Andrew Stunell, Sarah Teather, Mark Williams, Roger Williams, Stephen Williams, Jenny Willott
Social Conservatives
Colin Breed, John Hemming, Steve Webb
As you can see, there are many MPs I couldn’t place to any camp, and some of them are probably in the wrong camp, as I have only little information about their views. Edward Davey, Susan Kramer and Steve Webb were also contributors to the Orange book, but I thought they might still fit better to another camp. Perhaps a fifth camp could be the Green Lib Dems, but I have no idea who would belong there.
228.”Social Conservatives
Colin Breed, John Hemming, Steve Webb”
What has done John Hemming to be considered a socially conservative?
“Edward Davey, Susan Kramer and Steve Webb were also contributors to the Orange book, but I thought they might still fit better to another camp.”
I might shift Kramer further towards your first group. But the point is quite correct that all contributors to the Orange Book are not of the same ideology.
229, Andrea, as I said, I have little information about some of these MPs (especially of the newly elected ones), and I’m well aware that Hemming have acted less conservatively (as have many people, who have first judged the deeds of other people), but I have read several people claiming that his opinions are socially conservative. That is of course only second-hand information, and it could always be wrong, which would mean that I have put him in the wrong camp, but I didn’t have any other information according to which I could have placed him elsewhere.
238 - Another brave and interesting effort. The obvious litmus test is Orange Book-style economic liberalism, but beyond that it is rather difficult and even within that there are shades of grey. I suspect most of the “undogmatic centre” could be put into one or other of the “tax and spend” or “Orange Book” groups if push came to shove. As Phil says, Kramer is probably Orange Book on balance, as is Heath and Stunnell and Bristol’s Williams bat for the other side (as it were). Not sure Webb and Breed share much other than being committed Christians (Webb a regular church-goer and Breed a Methodist lay preacher) - I doubt Breed contributes that much to Webb’s learned papers on the future of the welfare state.
I suppose you really need an axis for each of social, economic, personal and political liberalism. The economic one would show the broadest range from say Hancock to Laws, with others more closely packed (albeit with outliers like Breed on the personal liberalism axis). I am not sure there would be the same degree of clustering as you may find if you did similar things for other parties.
232 I Wonder about that: How about Jeremy Corbyn vis-a-vis David Blunkett and Andrew Rossindell and for instance Tim Yeo.
All parties are big tents nowadays, with members with apparantly conflicting opinions and positions.
Probably you are right, I should have placed Kramer in the first group, but I wasn’t entirely sure about it.
“Social conservatives” have in common only the fact that they are socially conservative. Breed voted against the of the age of consent for homosexuals and heterosexuals, and Webb’s contribution (about family politics) to the Orange Book seemed to have a kind of authoritarian tone. I thought that social conservatism within Lib Dems was such a distinctive feature, that it earned its own camp, though luckily this camp is relatively small.
Did you mean, that Heath and Stunnell could be counted part of the Orange Book camp, or that Stunnell and Bristol’s Williams could be counted to the Tax & Spend camp?
“Breed voted against the of the age of consent for homosexuals and heterosexuals” ought to be “Breed voted against the equalisation of the age of consent for homosexuals and heterosexuals”
BTW, James, how would you place Sanders, Smith and Keetch?
231-234. I don’t know very much about Hemmings’ views, but I read an article about him welcoming the registration of same-sex couples in Birmingham. He represented the Libdems at the “Birmingham Gay Question Time” (the infamous one where the UKIP candidate was taken away by the police): I suppose that the Libdems wouldn’t send a socially conservative candidate to a meeting organized by gay activists.
I think Curious has just about got it right in his categories & who he puts where.
The striking thing when you list them is that you have 11 Orange Bookers & only 19 Beveridge groupies, infact I would say that Matthew Taylor, Don Foster & Phil Willis are much more a undogmatic centrists, which makes it 11/16 & as others have said Kramer (and possibly Davey)is fairly close to being an O/B which would make it 13/16.
I think that gives the lie to the idea that the party is a tax & spend basket case.
It’s a pretty even balance, roughly 25% of the party being on the right & another 25% on the left with the rest broadly in the unideological centre. And certainly if you look at the intellectual momentum it is with the Orange Bookers, rather thean the Beveridgites.
Incidentally, does any else think its pretty amazing that supporters of tax & spend policies have adopted the name of Beveridge - the liberal who advocated a welfare state financed by insurance rather than tax? Perhaps they’ve just never read any of his work!
237 - he’s said he favours a “tougher” line on crime than the national party takes; though I can’t find the quote now. You can be a social conservative in some ways but not others, of course.
232.”I am not sure there would be the same degree of clustering as you may find if you did similar things for other parties. ”
James, I think that if you do it for Labour, you’ll find many of them too: blairites (Reid, Jowell, Milburn,…), soft blairites (loyal blairites who won’t kill themself once Blair will be gone), brownites (Nick Brown, Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper,…), soft brownites, hard-left (Corbyn,Alan Simpson,Marshall-Andrews,…), soft-left (Cook, DObson), authoritarians (Blunkett), socially conservatives (Ruth Kelly,Joe Benton), blair-hater (Glenda Jackson), rebels, soft-rebels, loyalists, Clare Short (she’s a group on her own).
239. It depends from what definition of “socially conservatism” you use. Using this definition, Hemming won’t probably be a socially conservative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism
I would consider him an authoritarian.
240 - “I would consider him an authoritarian.” Probably only measured on a Lib Dem scale! He has been strongly against ID cards, on the other hand. Social conservative (a term which I have applied to him before) was probably a misleading description though, I accept.
241. “He has been strongly against ID cards, on the other hand”
You’re right. I’ve forgotten to enter in a British perceptive: I was thinking as an Italian who has lived all his life with an ID card with no problems (and with no political party to oppose it), but our ID cards are different.
242 - one of Hemming’s good points on that is “it’s not about the ID card, it’s about the ID register”, which sums up the concerns of opponents quite well I think.
243. Is the ID register a database with all the info about British citizens contained in the ID card?
244 - yes, and one particular point of controversy is that the ID card data includes other identification numbers. So through someone’s record in the register, you could access an awful lot of information about them.
245. You’re making me wonder where the info contained in my ID card go. The good thing is that our ID cards include pointless info, so even if someone could access them, no secrets will be revealed. I don’t know if we’ve a database too (the state already have the most important info).
238, Bullseye, you are right, the tax & spend tendency doesn’t have the upper hand of the parliamentary party, but lets not forget that I wasn’t able to place 13 MPs (Paul Burstow, Andrew George, Julia Goldsworthy, Martin Horwood, David Howarth, Mark Hunter, Paul Keetch, John Leech, Greg Mulholland, Dan Rogerson, Adrian Sanders, Robert Smith and Jo Swinson) to any of these camps. They could still tilt the balance in the favour of any of these camps, though I have the feeling that most of them would belong to the “Undogmatic Centre”.
It would be interesting to see how the parliamentary party of the Lib Dems is divided, so could somebody please help placing these 13 MPs in the camps?
If we take into the consideration the improvements suggested by James, Bullseye, Andrea and Book Value, the Orange Bookers / Market Liberals camp would now have 13-14 MPs (depending on whether James meant that Stunell belongs to the Orange Bookers or to the Beveridgers. I still didn’t include Davey into this number, because earlier in this thread it was told, that he tries to place himself into both camps, but I counted Heath instead); the Beveridge Group / Tax & Spend camp would have 17-18 MPs (again depending on whether James meant that Stunell belongs to the Orange Bookers or to the Beveridgers. I counted Stephen Williams into this camp, but Taylor, Foster and Willis into the Undogmatic Centre); the Undogmatic Centre camp would have 16 MPs; and the Social Conservatives / Authoritarians camp 2 MPs.
How would this change if the remaining 13 MPs will be distributed into these camps?
247. Out of curiosity, the 5 Libdem MPs defeated belonged to which group?
They were:-Sue Doughty (Guildford)
-Matthew Green (Ludlow)
-David Rendel (Newbury)
-Brian Cotter (Weston-Super-Mare)
-Parmjit Singh Gill (Leicester South)
Green was part of the Orange Book group,right? The others?
Re 228. I know Norman Lamb well and would not describe him as an Orange Booker.
This trying to sort Lib Dem MPs into various camps is utter nonsense and fails to understand the drivers behind Liberal ideology.
It is nothing to do with left/right economic or social liberal/conservatives - Liberalism is to do with how power is to be used and controlled. Not just power in relation to government but that of business NGOs etc.
The state can often be an aid to empowering the citizen - eg compulsory education (a Liberal ideal), but it can at the same time be a hinderance (ID cards). A welfare state is a Liberal ideal, but not a Brownite nanny state.
It is far too simplistic to try and set up Lib Dem MPs into various camps based on a basically Marxist/Conservative left right spectrum.
The only MPs that are easy to characterise are basically the maverick west countrymen, thankfully reduced by two after the Tory victories in W Devon and Weston (not that David Walter would have been a maverick westcountry man - which is probably why he lost).
Dan, you have of course right to your opinion, but at least let others have their fun.
If you want to discuss about the liberal ideology, it actually doesn’t reside in its true form in any political party, as parties are inherently illiberal organisations, as an essential part of a structurally illiberal society.
As Ludwig von Mises said in his book “Liberalism”, “There can be no more grievous misunderstanding of the meaning and nature of liberalism than to think that it would be possible to secure the victory of liberal ideas by resorting to the methods employed today by the other political parties. …
All modern political parties and all modern party ideologies originated as a reaction on the part of special group interests fighting for a privileged status against liberalism. …
To understand the true character of all these parties, one must keep in mind the fact that they were originally formed solely as a defense of special privileges against the teachings of liberalism. Their party doctrines are not, like those of liberalism, the political application of a comprehensive, carefully thought-out theory of society. The political ideology of liberalism was derived from a fundamental system of ideas that had first been developed as a scientific theory without any thought of its political significance. In contradistinction to this, the special rights and privileges sought by the antiliberal parties were, from the very outset, already realized in existing social institutions, and it was in justification of the latter that one undertook subsequently to elaborate an ideology, a task that was generally treated as a matter of little moment that could easily be disposed of with a few brief words. Farm groups think it sufficient to point out the indispensability of agriculture. The trade unions appeal to the indispensability of labor. The parties of the middle class cite the importance of the existence of a social stratum that represents the golden mean. It seems to trouble them little that such appeals contribute nothing to province the necessity or even the advantageousness to the general public of the special privileges they are striving for, the groups that they desire to win over will follow them in any case, and as for the others, every attempt at recruiting supporters from their ranks would be futile.
Thus, all these modern parties of special interests, no matter how far apart their goals may diverge or how violently they may contend against one another, form a united front in the battle against liberalism. In the eyes of all of them, the principle of liberalism that the rightly understood interests of all men are, in the long run, compatible is like a red cloth waved in front of a bull. As they see it, there are irreconcilable conflicts of interests that can be settled only by the victory of one faction over the others, to the advantage of the former and the disadvantage of the latter. Liberalism, these parties assert, is not what it pretends to be. It too is nothing but a party program seeking to champion the special interests of a particular group, the bourgeoisie, i.e., the capitalists and entrepreneurs, against the interests of all other groups. …
The modern parties of special interests declare quite frankly and unequivocally, from the very outset, that the aim of their policy is the creation of special privileges for a particular group. Agrarian parties strive for protective tariffs and other advantages (e.g., subsidies) for farmers; civil service parties aim at securing privileges for bureaucrats; regional parties are dedicated to gaining special advantages for the inhabitants of a certain region. All these parties evidently seek nothing but the advantage of a single group in society, without consideration of the whole of society or of all other groups, however much they may seek to palliate their procedure by declaring that the welfare of the whole of society can be achieved only by furthering the interests of agriculture, the civil service, etc. Indeed, their exclusive concern with but a single segment of society and their labors and endeavors on its behalf alone have become increasingly obvious and more cynical with the passage of the years. When the modern antiliberal movements were still in their infancy, they had to be more circumspect in regard to such matters, because the Generation that had been reared on the liberal philosophy had learned to look upon the undisguised advocacy of the special interests of various groups as antisocial. …
This is one of the two fundamental weaknesses of all parties aiming at privileges on behalf of special interests. On the one hand, they are obliged to rely on only a small group, because privileges cease to be privileges when they are granted to the majority; but, on the other hand, it is only in their guise as the champions and representatives of the majority that they have any prospect of realizing their demands. The fact that many parties in different countries have sometimes succeeded in overcoming this difficulty in carrying on their propaganda and have managed to imbue each social stratum or group with the conviction that its members may expect special advantages from the triumph of the party speaks only for the diplomatic and tactical skill of the leadership and for the want of judgment and the political immaturity of the voting masses. It by no means proves that a real solution of the problem is, in fact, possible. Of course, one can simultaneously promise city-dwellers cheaper bread and farmers higher prices for grain, but one cannot keep both promises at the same time. It is easy enough to promise one group that one will support an increase in certain government expenditures without a corresponding reduction in other government expenditures, and at the same time hold out to another group the prospect of lower taxes; but one cannot keep both these promises at the same time either. The technique of these parties is based on the division of society into producers and consumers. They are also wont to make use of the usual hypostasis of the state in questions of fiscal policy that enables them to advocate new expenditures to be paid out of the public treasury without any particular concern on their part over how such expenses are to be defrayed, and at the same time to complain about the heavy burden of taxes.
The other basic defect of these parties is that the demands they raise for each particular group are limitless. There is, in their eyes, only one limit to the quantity to be demanded: the resistance put up by the other side. This is entirely in keeping with their character as parties striving for privileges on behalf of special interests. Yet parties that follow no definite program, but come into conflict in the pursuit of unlimited desires for privileges on behalf of some and for legal disabilities for others, must bring about the destruction of every political system. People have been coming to recognize this ever more clearly and have begun to speak of a crisis of the modern state and of a crisis of the parliamentary system. In reality, what is involved is a crisis of the ideologies of the modern parties of special interests.”
(You can read the full text here: http://www.vonmises.org/liberal/ch4sec2.asp )
However, unlike Mises, I see liberal parties necessary, because I wouldn’t dare to leave the whole political scene, structurally illiberal though it is, to the opponents of liberalism. What is sad is that too often even the members of liberal parties (who aren’t automatically liberal despite their membership in a liberal party) have forgotten what liberalism really is about, and have begun to demand special privileges to one or another interest group. But in a Western political system as it is, I don’t see any other possibility to fight back than through a political party. Think tanks are important too, though.
As I see it, trying to sort Lib Dem MPs into various camps is meaningful. Some of them might understand the true meaning of liberalism better than others do, and how many of them do understand it is important regarding the future policy of the party. You can draw your own conclusions about who are those who have a better understanding about liberalism and who are those who haven’t.
Now, if you excuse us, maybe we can continue trying to sort Lib Dem MPs into various camps? You aren’t obliged to participate if you don’t want to.
It is interesting finding this thread. For those who are bothered my own perspective is that one of the roles of the state is to ensure a rule of law. This may require action against individuals who have contravened those laws for the purpose of protecting weaker people from the physically strong. I also take the view that human behaviour is essentially habitual and ideally, therefore, people should develop habits which involve respecting others.
That is not strictly a “socially conservative” position. I don’t think it would be an appropriate description for my views and attitudes.
Excellent to have another MP on the site John. Without being too indiscreet, what’s your opinion of Doug’s description of the parliamentary LDs in 199?
252 - I stand corrected.
Maybe I should have placed all the Lib Dem MPs about whom I wasn’t certain in the “Social Conservatives” camp, and by know they would have all protested and pronounced their true position.;-)
253 - This is essentially a public site. I should not, therefore, comment about other Lib Dem MPs other than in relation to matters that are already in the public domain.
I did find it an interesting message as with the other attempts much that they were wrong as far as I am concerned.
One of the things that people often miss is that different MPs have a different range of experiences. This does have some impact on their viewpoints. It also means, however, that their viewpoints can change as they get more experience.