Susan Kramer has set up a fascinating ‘What if?’ today, with her revelation on the BBC London Politics Show that she wishes she had contested last year’s Liberal Democrat leadership election – as a job-share with one of her fellow female MPs:

I actually feel quite guilty because, you know, we had a leadership election in my political party, and what I should have done, and dammit, I didn’t, was get together with another woman and the two of us put together a joint thing. … I thought about it too late. You look at the job and think ‘Who on Earth wants to give their life to this particular role and give up family?’ Well, we should have done it, as a joint thing, that’s the answer, and set an example.

It’s a fascinating thought – for example, would a Kramer-Goldsworthy ‘dream ticket’ have swept to one side the ambitions of either Nick Clegg (supported by Julia Goldsworthy) or Chris Huhne (supported by Susan Kramer)? It would certainly have transformed the race.

But would it have, could it have, worked? After all, our party has recent history of a job-share in the leadership; and the ‘Two Davids’ model isn’t, I suspect, one which we’d wish to repeat. Now, of course Messrs Owen and Steel were from two distinct, though often overlapping, political traditions: social democracy and liberalism. Susan and her running mate would doubtless have been much more in harmony.

Even so, practical problems would have remained. The macho political media would have been absolutely desperate to drive a wedge between the two leaders, to show how impossible a job-share at the top really is.

And, I have to say, my personal experience of seeing job-shares at the very top of organisations is not wholly positive. Different leadership styles can result in mixed messages. Accountability is not always as clear and transparent as when one person is full-time. Work-load is as often duplicated as shared.

But am I being old-fashioned: is my response that of a bloke without family responsibilities?

Well, here’s your chance to have your say in our new poll: “Do you think a party political leadership can work as a job-share?” Yes or No? See the right-hand column of this page to vote.

Result of last poll:

We asked: “Were Lib Dem MPs right to walk out of the House of Commons [last week] in protest at the refusal to debate the party proposal for an ‘EU – in or out’ referendum?”

By a fairly overwhelming 2-1 majority you backed the Parliamentary Party’s stance:
• Yes – 218 (67% of all votes)
• No – 107 (33%)
Total Votes: 325, Poll duration: 26th February – 2nd March

In the two hours since LDV posted Newsflash: Lib Dems walk out of House of Commons – in protest at the Deputy Speaker’s refusal to allow a vote on the party’s proposal there should be a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty - the debate has raged in the comments thread: did our MPs do us proud by showing their anger at the denial of such an important issue being debated and voted on; or was it juvenile gesture politics designed to distract from the opposition of the likes of David Heath to the party line?

Well, here’s your chance to make your feelings clear – an LDV poll asking: “Were Lib Dem MPs right to walk out of the House of Commons in protest at the refusal to debate the party proposal for an ‘EU – in or out’ referendum?” Simple question, simple answer: yes or no. You can vote using the poll displayed in the right-hand column.

My view? Well, of course this was grandstanding politics: I’d be amazed (and disappointed) if the tactics weren’t discussed in advance. So what? Does any Lib Dem – do any of our critics – imagine that the party’s views would have been reported if our MPs had just sat there in stony-faced silence? Would that have somehow sent a dignified message? Or would it simply have been ignored by everyone?

It is clearly absurd that the Lib Dems should not be free to have debated in Parliament whether there should be a referendum on the UK’s continuing membership of the EU. For what it’s worth, I think the party has been mistaken to oppose a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, especially given we championed a referendum on Maastricht in the teeth of Tory opposition in 1993.

But I find Tory attacks on the Lib Dem stance hard to take seriously… If it were the Tory party putting forward the proposal for an ‘in or out’ EU referendum, their members would be ecstatic. And if Parliament’s arcane procedures barred them from having such a proposal discussed, the right-wing blogosphere would have exploded by now in self-righteous indignation.

Read more »

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has sparked controversy with his lecture yesterday arguing that the adoption of some parts of Sharia law in the UK is “unavoidable”:

it might be possible to think in terms of … a scheme in which individuals retain the liberty to choose the jurisdiction under which they will seek to resolve certain carefully specified matters, so that ‘power-holders are forced to compete for the loyalty of their shared constituents’. This may include aspects of marital law, the regulation of financial transactions and authorised structures of mediation and conflict resolution … a universalist Enlightenment system has to weigh the possible consequences of ghettoising and effectively disenfranchising a minority, at real cost to overall social cohesion and creativity. … But if what we want socially is a pattern of relations in which a plurality of divers and overlapping affiliations work for a common good, and in which groups of serious and profound conviction are not systematically faced with the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty, it seems unavoidable.“

The media reaction has been trenchant (The Sun: What a Burkha!) certainly more so than Dr Williams’ often opaque views on this issue. Lib Dem blogger of the year James Graham has taken him to task here: Does Rowan Williams have any more idea of what he’s going on about than I do. Fellow bogger Brian Sloan meanwhile has written In Defence of Dr Williams.

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has released a statement arguing the Archbishop is wrong:

Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our society together. We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another. There is a huge difference between respecting people’s right to follow their own beliefs and allowing them to excuse themselves from the rule of law.”

What do you think? LDV’s poll is now open (right-hand clumn), asking the simple Yes/No question: Is the Archbishop of Canterbury right to say that adoption of Sharia law is unavoidable?

Results of last poll:

LDV readers are Obama-maniacs, with two-thirds of you backing Barack to become the first black President of the USA, ahead of the first woman (Hillary Clinton), the oldest ever incoming President (McCain), and the first ever Mormon (Mitt Romney). Here’s what you told us:

Who do you want to be the next President of the USA?

• Sen. Barack Obama (Dem): 65% (215)
• Sen. Hillary Clinton (Dem): 26% (86)
• Sen. John McCain (GOP): 8% (28)
• Gov. Mitt Romney (GOP): 1% (2)

Total Votes: 331; Polling: 31st January – 8th February

And then there were four… As we approach Super Tuesday on 5th February, when over 20 states vote in their primaries, it’s clear there are two two-horse races for the Democrat and Republican presidential nominations. So when better than now to ask: who would you prefer to see occupy the White House in a year’s time?

Here are your four choices:

Sen. Hillary Clinton (Dem)
Sen. John McCain (GOP)
Sen. Barack Obama (Dem)
Gov. Mitt Romney (GOP)

Eyes right to cast your ballot. If you want a helping hand, there are a couple of quizzes you can take to match you up with the Presidential candidate who most closely matches your views on a range of issues. In both cases, it turned out I should support Mike Gravel, the 77 year-old former Democratic senator for Alaska: an interesting guy. He is, technically at least, now the only other Democratic candidate in the race – but as he polled 0.14% in the New Hampshire primary, a late surge seems a tad unlikely.

Incidentally, about a month ago, LDV hit upon the cunning, if perhaps over-ambitious, idea of putting six questions to each of the seven main Presidential candidates – the four above, plus Democrat John Edwards, and Republicans Rudy Guiliani and Mike Huckabee - to see if they’d respond at all, and, if they did, what their answers would be.

Our questions were as follows:

- Do you believe it’s now time to set a framework for the withdrawal of US and British forces from Iraq?
- Do you think there is any more a ’special relationship’ between the US and United Kingdom?
- What do you think is the greatest threat to future well-being and prosperity in the UK and US?
- What role do you see for the United Nations during your presidency?
- How big a threat do you believe global warming to be?
- How would you respond if a US citizen were indicted for war crimes in the International Criminal Court?

Interestingly, only Clinton’s and Obama’s sites were set up to allow/encourage media inquiries from abroad. Edwards’ and McCain’s contact forms didn’t allow for enquiries from anyone outside the USA (so I lied, and said I was from Moody, Alabama). Guiliani and Huckabee both provided catch-all email addresses, while Romney’s contact-me form permitted only 100 words - which meant half the last question was missed off.

And what was the net result of all this net questioning?

Well, I’ve been subscribed to Obama’s and Edwards’ email distribution lists. The only candidate who responded at all personally was Mitt Romney – by copying ‘n’ pasting his key campaign themes. So I’m afraid there’s no EXCLUSIVE interviews with the Presidential hopefuls to be had here folks. Maybe in 2012…

For the last fortnight, we’ve had a poll running asking, “How many days should we permit detention without charge?”

In total, 69% of you reckoned this should be 14 days or fewer, compared with Labour’s full-throated support for 42 days to deal with “hypothetical” situations.

Here are the results in full:
• 14 days, as before Blair: 37% (165)
• Fewer than 14 days: 32% (144)
• 28 days, as Blair got: 19% (85)
• 90 days, as proposed by Blair: 9% (40 votes)
• 42 days, as proposed by Brown: 3% (13)
Total Votes: 447. 12th-31st January, 2008

Here’s what Nick Clegg has to say about extending the period of detention without charge:

The obsession with 42 days is undermining, not supporting, the battle against terrorism. Ministers are taking their reliance on hypothetical examples to new lengths as they attempt to cover up for the complete lack of genuine evidence for such a move. Gordon Brown himself says that the key objective in combating terrorism is winning over hearts and minds. How can he possibly then justify a measure like extending pre-charge detention which will do so much to alienate people?”

Amidst all the excitement of the poll for Liberal Voice of the Year 2007 - have you voted yet? - LDV clean forgot to post the results of our earlier readers’ survey, which ran over the New Year.

We asked you: “Do you think the British monarchy should be retained or abolished?”

You told us, albeit by a slender majority, that you’re monarchists at heart. Here’s the full breakdown:

Retain the monarchy: 43% (148)
Abolish it: 40% (140)
Utterly indifferent: 17% (59)
Total Votes: 347

I’ll admit I’m a tad surprised, though perhaps that’s because I’m an instinctive republican who finds it hard to square meritocratic liberalism with hereditary rule. But I’m also a democrat - of course - and if republicanism can’t convince even a majority of readers of a liberal website of its merits that suggests to me it’s time has not yet arrived.

The poll for Liberal Voice of the Year 2007 will soon be going live - but, in the interregnum, we thought we’d ask that timeless classic: do you think the British monarchy should be abolished?

The hook to hang the question on is provided by the news that 78% of British people want the monarchy to be retained, according to a poll by Gfk NOP commissioned by historian Professor Peter Hennessy, a guest editor of BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:

Some 78% of respondents agreed that Britain should still have a royal family and 19% disagreed. Asked if the monarchy should end when Queen Elizabeth dies, 68% disagreed and 28% agreed. … When asked if there will be a monarchy in 30 years’ time, 80% said yes and 15% said no. … Meanwhile, a separate poll has suggested that most young people would keep the monarchy, despite more than half saying the royals do not provide value for money. Nearly 70% of 18 to 24-year-olds would keep the royals and overall only 16% of people would vote for a republic.

But do you agree? You can vote now: eyes-right for our poll.

Here are the results of the last poll, started at the beginning of December, which asked: where on the political spectrum would you like the Liberal Democrats to be?

Here’s what you said (in order):

A socially liberal and economically liberal party: 35% (255 votes)
A socially liberal and economically left-of-centre party: 30% (222)
A socially liberal and economically centrist party: 26% (189)
A socially conservative and economically left-of-centre party: 4% (30)
A socially conservative and economically liberal party 3% (23)
A socially conservative and economically centrist party: 2% (13)
Total Votes: 732

This was one of the questions asked by YouGov in the party members’ poll commissioned by Sky News. I suspect I wasn’t alone in finding it hard to answer, as none of the eight choices on offer included the word ‘liberal’, a striking omission when surveying members of the Liberal Democrats. Instead, answers ranged from ‘very left-wing’ to ‘very right-wing’. (Click on the image to see my screen-shot.)

It seems appropriate, then, to ask the question in a slightly more sophisticated way than YouGov attempted… So the options you can plump for in this poll - see the right-hand column - are:

* A socially liberal and economically liberal party
* A socially liberal and economically centrist party
* A socially liberal and economically left-of-centre party
* A socially conservative and economically liberal party
* A socially conservative and economically centrist party
* A socially conservative and economically left-of-centre party

Of course the terminology will mean different things to different people. I’m interpreting the definitions in a fairly conventional way: a social liberal thinks the state has no business interfering in citizens’ private lives; a social conservative thinks society will be stronger if it does.

An economic liberal will seek to minimise the role of the state in the delivery of public services; an economic centrist will favour more pragmatic case-by-case solutions; and an economic left-of-centre voter is likely to believe the state (whether by local or central means) is key to the delivery of public services.

Feel free to argue against those interpretations in the comments box. But I hope at least you’ll feel a bit more comfortable opting for one of those six definitions than I was when I looked at YouGov’s forced-choice question.

(For the record, in the end I opted for ‘Centre’ in the YouGov poll - not because I think that’s an accurate description of my liberal views, but because I reckoned the only point of the question was to try and manufacture an artificial ‘Lib Dem members are split between right and left’ story.)

The final results have been tallied in our old poll asking, ‘Of those MPs who’ve ruled themselves out of standing for the party leadership, who would you have voted for given the chance?’

Over 800 LDV readers answered, and in the end Charles Kennedy just nosed in front, edging out Julia Goldsworthy by five votes. And just 17 votes separated the next three impossibles, David Laws, Steve Webb and Vince Cable. Now imagine if they, plus Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne, had been standing…? That would have been a fascinating contest.

• Charles Kennedy: 18% (148)
• Julia Goldsworthy: 17% (143)
• David Laws: 14% (116)
• Steve Webb: 14% (113)
• Vince Cable: 12% (99)
• Lynne Featherstone: 9% (71)
• Ed Davey: 6% (49)
• Simon Hughes: 5% (42)
• Susan Kramer: 4% (29)
• John Hemming: 2% (18)
Total Votes : 828

A new poll is coming to LDV: who are your favourite, and least favourite, non-Lib Dem bloggers. Nominations are now open, so please feel free to use the comments thread. (Self-nomination is allowed, Iain.)

There’s still chance, by the way, to vote in the LDV poll asking who you would have voted for, given the chance, among those Lib Dem MPs who ruled themselves out of the leadership race. Eyes right, if you’ve not yet cast your ballot.

Julia Goldsworthy and Charles Kennedy are currently neck-and-neck, with David Laws and Steve Webb not far behind. (I have to say I think Vince’s acting leader performance merits a little more than the 6% he’s currently showing…)

Barring something remarkable taking place between now and close of nominations, the coming leadership campaign will be a two-horse race between Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne.

A number of potential candidates have ruled themselves out of the race despite messages of support from many party members. So the new poll question is simple:

“Of those MPs who’ve ruled themselves out of standing, who would you have voted for given the chance?”

- Vince Cable
- Ed Davey
- Lynne Featherstone
- Julia Goldsworthy
- John Hemming
- Simon Hughes
- Charles Kennedy
- Susan Kramer
- David Laws
- Steve Webb

Feel free to mount a write-in campaign for any MPs you feel have been unjustly ignored.

Here’s the results of the previous poll, which asked: “Who do you think gave Ming Campbell the final push?”

1. The media: 35% (126)
2. The ‘young turks’: 23% (82)
3. Ming himself: 23% (81)
4. The polls: 13% (45)
5. Brown and Cameron: 4% (15)
6. The bloggers: 3% (9)

(Total Votes : 358)

Well, the newspaper front pages assert there’s no doubt who is responsible for the downfall of Ming Campbell: Lib Dem ‘plotters’. Which coming from newspapers which have constantly pilloried Ming simply for being in his 60s, and have blown up his light-hearted asides as gaffes, seems to me like breathtaking hypocrisy.

But over to you: who do you think gave Ming the final push? Was it:

- The media;
- The ‘young turks’;
- The bloggers;
- Ming himself;
- The polls;
- Brown and Cameron?

To vote, see the poll in the right-hand column.
Read more »

All week the Torygraph has been running a series listing the top 100 people ‘on the right’ in British politics - it included two Lib Dem MPs as well as the Director of Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti.

The list’s publication prompts the question: who would feature among the 100 most influential liberals in the UK?

Clearly, the leading lights of the Liberal Democrats - spokespersons in the Parliamentary party - would feature prominently, together with Lib Dem leaders of some of our larger Councils.

But who else? Who in the world of politics, business, think tanks, trade unions, the media, pressure groups, writers, celebrities, and so on would feature on your list?

Over to you…

Time for a new poll, wethinks. After a few days by the seaside the key question is: who had the brightest Brighton?

Here are the candidates:

Ming Campbell: swatted away the media-induced leadership speculation with a stirring end-of-conference speech;

Nick Clegg: cannily steered through a potentially controversial motion proposing a selective amnesty for illegal immigrants, but then allowed the media to whip up yet another fake frenzy by admitting he’d probably stand for the leadership next time.

Lady Elspeth: the Lib Dems’ very own Cherie - “I don’t know whether you are being helpful or not,” was her rebuke to Nick Clegg. “I’m trying to be,” came the slightly embarrassed reply.

Lynne Featherstone: speeches to fringe after fringe, all lovingly documented on her website. And, besides, no Lib Dem poll is complete without Lynne appearing on it.

Chris Huhne: never put a foot wrong, and not a hair out of place. His presence at a fringe meeting on waste strategy attracted a packed audience, testimony to his appeal to activists.

Sarah Teather: for the admirable candour of her remarks: “I’m just the higher education spokeswoman, no one tells me anything,” she told the BBC. And at a Channel 4 / Hansard fringe she bitterly wryly noted the absence of, erm, dating opportunities for single women; helps to be a single man, allegedly.

Eyes right to vote. And if you don’t like the options, use the comments section to organise a write-in campaign.

We asked:
Should the Liberal Democrats back demands for a referendum on the European Union reform treaty?

You said:
Yes - 54% (85)
No - 37% (57)
Don’t know yet - 9% (14)
Total Votes : 156

This poll is now closed. A new poll will shortly go live inviting LDV readers to vote for one of the short-listed blogs in the ‘Best designed’ category of this year’s Liberal Democrat Blog of the Year awards.

There’s speculation in today’s Telegraph that the Lib Dems might back calls from the Tories, and from some 120 Labour rebels, for a referendum on the European Union reform treaty:

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Lib Dem leader, refused yesterday to rule out backing a referendum before a Commons scrutiny of the treaty proposals. Even though he said his personal view was that it was not necessary this time, he added: “I don’t think you can make a final decision on that until we see what the final document looks like.”

A senior party source later disclosed that younger Lib Dem MPs have privately urged Sir Menzies to abandon the party’s traditionally pro-EU stance and stop “taking the flak” for defending Brussels. The move reflects mounting concern that the Conservative Party under David Cameron would combine Eurosceptic policies with a broader appeal to unseat southern-based Lib Dem MPs at the next election.

What do you think? Should the Lib Dems support the demands for a referendum - after all, we were the only mainstream party to call for one to validate the Maastricht Treaty - or would this simply be pandering to a Eurosceptic media, exploiting issues too technical to be decided by a simple Yes/No vote?

A new poll is open - see the right-hand column - which poses just such a question… your chance to vote on whether we should have a vote.

The results of our latest poll are in, and it seems almost 70% of Lib Dem Voice readers reckon there will be a general election within the next year or so.

We asked: “When do you think the next general election will be?”

You said:
* 2007: 19% (40)
* 2008: 50% (103)
* 2009: 27% (56)
* 2010: 4% (9)
Total Votes: 208

In which case, go back to your constituencies and prepare to campaign.

Easier to ask than answer. But vote away - pick your option on the right.

After yesterday’s brief flutter of excitement - when Ed Davey hinted Lembit Öpik might consider running as the Lib Dems’ London mayoral candidate - it seems we’re as we were, Lembit having ruled himself out.

So, over to you - which of the following do you want to be our mayoral hopeful? (And, yes, I know a couple of these have said they won’t stand, but, frankly, no such poll would be complete without Greg, Simon, or indeed Lembit, in the mix.)

Your 10 choices are:

Paul Burstow MP
Lord Navnit Dholakia
Greg Dyke
Lynne Featherstone MP
Simon Hughes MP
Susan Kramer MP
Lembit Öpik
Brian Paddick
Sarah Teather MP
A N Other

To vote, look at the poll to the right.

If you want to mount a write-in campaign, use the comments section.

UPDATE: This poll is now over. Results here.