Lib Dem President Simon Hughes, interviewed for GMTV’s programme on Sunday, has this to say about the party leadership, according to the BBC:
“The leadership is always an issue in all of the parties, we live in a presidential system and therefore the leader has to continually do well and better and he had a good conference,” he said.
“He did a very good speech, it was meant to be the best conference speech he’s made since being leader, and Ming knows that and there’s no sign that he’s not up for that as a task.”
Asked if that meant Sir Menzies had to do better, Mr Hughes said: “Well, of course, because he started, everybody accepts that it wasn’t a great start, that he’s improved considerably.
“This conference speech went really well and he knows all the time that the party has to do better, that’s my job, collectively, and the leader obviously has to do better, get better at getting the message across, better at getting the policy out, better at making sure that out there people understand that Labour and Tory are often the same on policy, we offer a difference.
“Now, he will do that, I’m confident he’ll do that.”
I’m sure he meant well, but I’ve heard more ringing endorsements.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Violent Bonham Carter features on Fake or Fortune?
Have resignations led to a rethink?
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
Stefano Brunesci
Robert Doyle
Peter Martin
Simon
Ben Austin
82 Comments
I promised to keep my mouth shut because of a potential snap election. The election is now, reputedly, 18 months away. Elephants in rooms and cats out of bags come to mind. No leader is bigger than his or her party. No party is more important than the people it seeks to serve. Ming has been and can still be, a great asset to our party and more importantly our country. Please excuse a football metaphor…..a great midfield player doesn’t always perform quite so well when moved to centre forward, but we don’t always know that in advance.
I do not know why LDV has reopened this issue. The leadership has been discussed endlessly. I would remind Lib Dem members who want to be candid, but at the same time not misrepresented in the media that there is a private members forum where you can say what you like.
Linda spot! and Stepehen and others best realise that beofre they lose their seats next May and we become a bigger laughing stock then we are already.
Geoffrey why do we need to hide this away, its a problem, Ming is a problem and if no one at Cowley Street nor on this forum will listen inprivate then what choice do we have left.
After giving 16 years to the party I’ll be damned if I am told to “keep it private” if you guys don’t listen 11% will seem like a cracking result soon. Please tell me that any of you that work would put up at such failure from your Chief Exec or Chairman, if so your companies must be ready for a Northern Rock type meltdown!!
We’ve been here before…’Senior MPs’ give briefings to right wing media; they run a story sending hares running; party members respond and talk up ‘the Leadership’- again! News headlines appear about a leadership crisis!
Lets not be so easily manipulated.
But Meral, perhaps there IS a leadership “issue”, if not a crisis?
I’ve been a member for nearly 30 years, and a councillor for 24, and I feel morale is as low as I’ve seen it.
And I think the style of our leader is an element.
or Merel we could ignore it and hope its all a nightmare…oh hang on it is!!
Meral, it is far more serious than that
In reply to Big Mak. We discussed this before, and everything that needed to be said, whether pro or anti has been said. And it reached a point where nothing new or interesting was being said anymore.
However it is very easy to register for the private member’s blog and debate in there.
Also I recommend writing an email to Ming directly.
That picture of ole Menses Campbell on the 18 Doughty Street ad is an absolute gem. He looks so old! He’s like a sort of political equivalent of Dave Lee Travis – a silly old fool trying to stay relevant to da yoof, when he is in fact older than their grandparents.
He looks like he would smell richly of wee. Has anyone stood downwind of the stupid old goat? Can anyone confirm or deny?
And what is all this crap about how Sir Menses is a “foreign affairs expert”? That’s like saying Steven Hawking is a karate expert or the Pope is a cunnilingus expert.
For Gawd’s sake, just pension the poor old bugger off with a big bag of Werther’s Originals. Get someone good off the front bench to replace him. Like…
…er…
…um…
(tumbleweed blows past…a church bell tolls…)
Big Mak, Linda- my point is, there’s little we can do about this by responding to anonymous briefings. I’d want these so called ‘senior MPs’, to go to Ming and put their grievances to him. If there are enough of them, then they have real options to do something about it. Trouble is, as with CK, they never do. Writing on LDV ain’t gonna change anything- yes I know I’m writing on it too!
@ Geffrey Payne:
Steady on mate. If you’re going to encourage people to email Sir Menses, shouldn’t you warn them not to do so between 2 and 6pm? Computers ping when an email arrives, and if Big Mak’s should arrive between those times, they may spoil Sir Menses’ afternoon nap.
Likewise nobody should email the knackered old bugger between 10am and 1pm either. Morning nap, innit.
The BBC story contains the sentence:
In the GMTV interview, Mr Hughes, whose campaign for the party leadership last year was derailed by revelations about his private life, was asked about the party leadership – which under Lib Dem rules is put to the vote each year at conference.
This is completely untrue. Votes on the party leadership are never held at conference (they are voted on by the whole membership).
This might be a confusion of the rule that there must be a formal leadership election in every Parliament. However this is almost always uncontested (and indeed had already been held and won by the incumbent prior to the resignation by Paddy in 1999 and Charles in 2006).
Meral is not a grivence, is about him. Just one word in an email to him would suffice – LEAVE.
In the current media-generated atmosphere, we are stupid to play into the opposition parties’ hands by rubbishing Ming.
We should be giving time to let things settle down again, see whether Brown’s administration is really imploding and whether Cameron’s new found popularity has any durability.
Don’t be spooked by the volatilty in the polls, just let Ming and the shadow ministers try to get airtime for the Lib Dem viewpoint, and keep up local campaigning which is producing reasonably good results in many local by-elections.
I voted for Ming because of his seriousness, steadfastness, long term commitment to the Liberal cause, and refusal to jump on and off fashionable bandwagons. I still feel he will prove an asset in the long run against gimicky Dave and a Blairless Labour party that’s run out of steam.
So please would the critics button it for a few months. Don’t be fooled by advice from newspaper columnists or anyone else who would never support the Lib Dems whoever is our leader. Let’s see what the polls are like in three or four months time.
As the next general elction won’t be till May 2009 or later, there’s still the opportunity to elect a new leader if Ming has to step down for any reason. And as we are spoilt for choice when considering a successor, just think how divisive a contest might be.
Jo Grimond used to talk about marching towards to the sound of gunfire. It seems too many people are panicking after a few shots have been heard. Ming is suffering just the same sort of poll doldrums and grassroots muttering that all previous leaders had to endure in the first couple of years in office.
The “11%/12% poll” is disastrous and indeed depressing for Lib-Dems, but the one bright note….the shift in voting intentions suggests that the Lib Dems could well hold the balance of power in a hung parliament.
20-25% and a respectable Commons block or 11-13% and the casting votes? Hmmmmm. I think I have just discovered the meaning of the phrase “mixed feelings”.
9. “nothing interesting left to say”….”very easy to register on the private members’ blog”.
On the first point There is more to say on the interesting question of the effect of blogging on party democracy . How in the past we could only write to Cowley St. or LD News, both effective filters for party dissent. Think of how different it would have been during the Paddy/Tony love in. Would Pad have got away with it agaist a blogging membership?
On the second point this site is supposed to be “our place to talk”. But, careful, only trivia, opposition bashing, and other good news. Nothing critical. Heads in the sand folks.
And it is just as likely that the private blog is infiltrated.
We are a bit like the shareholders in a company, although that status doesn’t count the personal commitment, foot slogging, and council hours that may of us have given over many years.
But if we were a company there would be an opportunity at an AGM to register our satisfaction with the Managing Director.
Conference is not a substitute for this. Most of us can no longer afford to go and the great speech is pre written by others.
The Ming camp refer to us as a tiny minority of mentally incapacitated members. So how about putting it to the test with a membership vote of confidence on the second anniversary of the leadership election?
Elizabeth
When I lived in France, I used to go hunting a lot with friends – truffles, not animals. Now, to search for truffles, you use a trained dog or a pig to sniff them out. This works well; the best area to find them is near to Oaks, often a few weeks after a heavy storm with lots of lightening. The only problem is that once the dog or pig gets the smell and starts to root for the truffle, you have the devil’s own job to stop it eating the truffle. You can pull it away as often as you like and it will do everything it can to go back and scrabble in the dirt to reach its target.
Change the words ‘pig’ or ‘dog’ for journalist and you will understand why I tell this tale. Once the pig has got the smell you really can’t divert it’s attention.
The problem with Marke’s scenario is that 11% might give us balance in a hung parliament but our Parliamentary party would be so small that a minority government would be an equally valid scenario.
In any case I think the 11% poll was pretty much a freak – in any case we were polling at a similarly poor level just before and during the 97 election. Though worth remembering that a repeat of the 97 election would see us lose around 25% of our parliamentary party.
I think Hughes should reflect on his own singularly uninspiring term as party president before he goes damning others with faint praise.
Well, seeing as he clearly isn’t going to jump, if people seriously think he should go, there are two major ways to go about it:
1) The “Ben Ramm” method – create some kind of Internet story that the media can latch on to, send the Parliamentary Party in to a spin (though it helps if they’re boiling already, at the moment I detect only a simmer), and have the Parliamentary Party do the deed again.
2) Create an Internet site that explains to ordinary members how to get an EGM called in their local party, and provide a template motion calling for a leadership election. I believe 75 local parties would need to do this to make it happen, though in reality something like 30 would be enough to spark a full-blown leadership crisis.
Hmm, 2 actually looks remarkably like 1. Though it would have to be led by someone of standing in the party.
And on Simon, I have a feeling of deja vu, is this the second time he’s said words to this effect on GMTV?
Elizabeth, spot on!
Great that in our party we do not practice what we so like to preach.
We tell others to be open and democratix while trying to shut down anything againt our leadership incase it gets out. Well tell you what people most out their(98%) don’t give a s*it about what we do, 1% do and hate us and 1% are us who argue like we matter…as it stands we are like a spot on a elephants ass we just don’t matter.
True a new leader would struggle to get us back on track but at least it may stem the tide going so far out that we can never pull it back.
I just wonder if people arguing for Ming as so passionate when we are at 11%, lost hundreds of council seats and the press ignores us what they would do if we got a average leader….probably get rid of him because them like being loosers. Its been so long since we had any real power that it seems that most like the current state we are in, the wollow in it. You wonder why we are a joke to most people, I would start with Ming and work your way down to the majority of the people who defend him.
For those who ignore mw and others please read this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/13/npoll113.xml
yes you can dismiss it but would you if it showed Ming in a favourable light?
If you don’t listen to me or others like me then listen to potential voters…if not we really are a lost case.
You fool. A poll of 1007 people in 112 seats. let’s see, that’s 9.6 people polled in each seat.
You really are as stupid as the Daily Telegraph journalists aren’t you?
Well, Lembit has quit as Welsh Leader, anyway!
Yes, I think it would be worth of its own article in the LDV,
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-news/2007/10/13/opik-to-stand-down-as-welsh-lib-dem-leader-91466-19947259/
Somebody suggested e-mailing Ming.
I did exactly that in March, got the automated acknowledgement, but no answer.
So I e-mailed again after May, got the automated acknowledgement and – eventually – an e-mail from one of his staff saying Ming would respond within a few days.
And then . . . blissful silence.
So, judged on my experience, don’t bother e-mailing Ming . . . .
25. ColinW well nice to see you are hatefull and spitefull as the Daily Mail. Strange how it is you lot find it easy to turn on me but not on a man that has all but ruined our party…nice going!
I don’t like those who aid the enemy. You’re a Tory plant.
Unforuantly for you Colin I am not, Dominic knows me as do you…by my real name and I am not a Tory!
Why is it when says something that anyone on this or any other site that is not the “party line” they must be a plant? Jesus have we come as far as not being able to debate within the party without such mud throwing at each other.
I have a valid opinion, you don’t like it but to say that aids the enemy….I think you will find Ming is doing that very well on his own!
ColinW,
Your assertions (both describing someone as a fool and then as a Tory plant) are fairly ridiculous.
While not entirely sharing the pessimism of Big Mak, the fact remains that a sound survey has been conducted. The Telegraph may have focused on the soundbites, but if you care to look at the full report on CrosbyTextor’s website, you will see a lot that is of value. A market research survey does not need to interview people from every single marginal constituency to create a representative sample of those constituencies. CrosbyTextor clearly show their methodology and also the error and confidence level of the survey.
Although opinion polls are not foolproof, they are getting – generally – ever more accurate.
One opinion poll doesn’t make a summer (errr….mixed metaphor) but this particular one does reveal considerable amounts of useful, qualitative information on what voters think is important and – crucially – also provides a lot of evidence on changes pre- and post- the Conservative conference.
Perhaps before gratuitously slagging people off (making me wonder if maybe **you** are the Tory troll), it might be worth seeking to learn.
It seems to have escaped the attention of the pathological Ming-bashers within this party and elsewhere that Ming has actually done a remarkably good job in his 18 months as leader.
Here is a man who is capable of being prime minister, who can talk about complex issues, and who doesn’t rely on gimmicks and spin.
But the Ming-bashers are just too dim to notice any of this.
Just look at their narrative. All the party’s problems are Ming’s fault. Why? Because he is “too old”, he doesn’t deal in half-baked soundbites, and he doesn’t behave like a vacuous media celebrity.
Is Ming to blame for self-destructing council groups? Is Ming to blame for local activists thinking they know better than Chris Rennard? Is Ming to blame for the intnese media hatred of our party and their worship of the showman, Cameron?
Do the Ming-bashers really think that a change in leadership would make a haporth of difference?
If Plan A is to get rid of Ming and replace him with Clegg or Hunhe, then what is Plan B – what do we do when we have had 6 months of Clegg or Huhne failing to lift the party’s fortunes? Come back Mark Oaten, all is forgiven?
Yes, I am deadly serious. The one spin obsessed pretender to the leadership discovered he had absolutely no support at all.
My message to the Ming-bashers is (1) stop whingeing, (2) pick up the Chris Rennard book, and (3) do something useful for the party.
Ill-informed, ill-considered tilting at Ming in public is (a) encouraging the media to attack us and (b) demoralising members.
I voted for Ming and I would do so again.
Alas Angus, I disagree with everything you’ve written. I spend my life working (very successfully) with the Rennard campaign manual, but it will save far too few of us from disaster if we continue at 11-14% in the polls.
Members are already stupendously demoralised and many I speak to are desperate for Ming to go, including many who voted for him.
It doesn’t need to be like this – after all, it’s not like 1988-90 in any other respect. But much of it *IS* the result of Ming’s terrible performance.
My word how easy it is for those of you who support Ming to call those who do not, fools, Tory plants and dim to name but a few things.
Does it not occur to any of you that we also are as passionate about the party doing well as any of you, if not more so hence the desire to ditch Ming.
The old “get behind the leader or else” is such a clumsy and lazy attatude of people ho really have nothing posative to say about the man so bash those who want rid of him.
Good work people, way it go to being liberal & democratic!
Sorry just to add Angus your point abour “attacks” on Ming demorolising members, how about him staying having the same affect on many more members and the general public(please see polls for last 12 months….)
Kevin wrote: “I spend my life working (very successfully) with the Rennard campaign manual, but it will save far too few of us from disaster if we continue at 11-14% in the polls.”
Did you draw the same inference about the leader when the party achieved similar opinion-poll ratings under Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy? If not, what is your justification for picking on Ming?
Kevin further wrote: “But much of it *IS* the result of Ming’s terrible performance.”
What objective grounds do you have for describing Ming’s performance as “terrible”? Has Ming floundered when asked to describe party policy? Ah, but we’re expected to make excuses for Kennedy while Ming gets blamed for everything.
Big Mak wrote: “My word how easy it is for those of you who support Ming to call those who do not, fools, Tory plants and dim to name but a few things.”
VERY easy, in fact, when your arguments are as poor as your spelling.
I am still waiting for a Ming-basher to answer the question I continue to pose: supposing Ming is ditched and replaced by Clegg, Huhne or A Another, and the party’s opinion-poll ratings fail to improve – what do we do then?
The Ming-bashers are exactly where Cameron, Brown and their media allies want them. They are playing our enemies’ game. Lenin would have called them “useful idiots”.
My plea to the Ming-bashers is as follows: chuck it and chuck it NOW.
I’m trying to remember if it was us or the Tories about whom John Major once said that in a crisis, the troops valiantly form a circle, turn inward and shoot.
Angus thanks for the tip on spelling, I suggest you worry about bigger things such as the laughing stock our party has become.
Yet again cheap pot shots at me and others who are fed up with Ming. Yet again the old line of “but when Paddy or Charlie had these ratings” would a load of crap!
Thing is Angus et al Ming came from a base of 24% Ashdow & Kennedy did not!
As I always say looking back and saying “oh look it could be worse” is not exactly going to get people motivated.
I do agree that both Brown & Cameron had got us where they want, stuck with Ming.
Thats exactly what they want and we keep rooling over and giving them exactly what they ask for. Just read the Tory blogs they love Ming to a man, why the hell do you think that is?!
Angus I am not sure how old you are but I am in my 30’s with a full time job and kids and to put my spare time aside for such a man & people as yourself is madness.
Complain about my spelling all you want mate, but your the joke and so is every other person who really think Ming will lead us to anywhere except being the but of yet more jokes.
Enjoy Ming, they always say a party gets the leader it deserves!!
I do wish the Ming’s apologists would debate without abuse. Three additions today to the LDV dictionary of abuse:
1. “Useful idiots”
I suppose as a scientist my favourite example would be Charles Darwin, regarded by the people
of his generation as an idiot because of their limited understanding of his hypothesis. (And many Americans still don’t get it ! )
2. “Do something useful for the party”
I smile at this when I think of the years of focus-miles, tedious council meetings, paying up for appeals and conferences; it feels like having given up a life for the party.
3. “Playing our enemies’ game”
Surely “political rivals”.
I do actually have some pleasant friends amongst the other parties; it’s just that I have a different philosophy. Very simplistic to talk of enemies.
Elizabeth
Elizabeth you said it better than I. Especially point 2 when you find out many on here talk a good game but often do not play it.
Its sad that because we have a opinion we are called names, would you do the same to someone when canvassing? I think/hope not, but you do to fellow member…nice.
Neither “Big Mak” nor Elizabeth Patterson has answered my question. What do we do if we ditch Ming and the new leader fails to improve opinion-poll ratings? Now, I wonder why that should be? Might it be because they are simply mouthing off without actually having subjected the situation to a serious, in-depth analysis?
And do learn you history, “Bik Mak”. Paddy Ashdown started off from a base of 23%. But that fell to 9% when the Owenites started behaving like you and your fellow Ming-bashers. You say you care about the party, but you are acting as if you wish to destroy it.
Sorry, my name got left off the previous post.
By the way, Big Mak. The 23% obtained in 2005 included left-leaning voters angry about Iraq and students opposed to top-up fees. Take those away, and our support actually fell.
42. Anon.
No, of course we should not have another putsch like the one so badly operated on Charles. In the latter we strayed away from party democracy of one member one vote for our leader.
We had re-elected Charles after the last election, for the present parliament, and by the rules he should have served a full term.
But the parliamentary party subverted the membership vote by a no-confidence vote of their own. A bemused membership was prevented from giving an opinion because Charles was not allowed to stand in a leadership vote.
A very short and very messy leadership election followed in which Ming had the heavy endorsement of most of the party establishment.
It is arguable that our present troubles arise from the way that was all handled.
We certainly should not allow the PP to subvert the rules in the opposite direction to sustain a leader who has perhaps lost the confidence of the party membership. (See Stephen Tall’s site)
MC could put his leadership to a vote of confidence by the membership, as John Major did. Only if he lost would there be a leadership election. But it would settle the question of a “occasional dissidents”
Elizabeth
I have watched this debate without comment mainly because I see it as pointless
So Simon felt it difficult to give Ming unqualified support. That to me says more about Simon’s lack of political acumen than Ming’s abilities. It also begs the question – Is Simon is still bitter about having come last in the Leadership Contest?
I am not a fan of Ming’s and agree with those who are concerned that our Party is losing the confidence of many supporters. I know of at least two constituencies where about 30% of members have not renewed their membership.
It would be wrong to lay all the blame at Ming’s door. The leadership as a whole – and that includes the good Lord Rennard and all the MPs in the sahdow cabinet – have failed us. When Nick Clegg is so openly focussed on posing as the heir apparent to Ming instead of showing loyalty to his leader and the Party – is it any wonder the country is starting to question whether the Lib Dems are really serious about holding the government to account – let alone wishing to be the future government of this country.
Ming should have a radical shadow cabinet re-shuffle and get rid of the elements at the top who are beginning to cost the Party its credility
That would be one in the eye for our so called senior members who cant refrain from anonymously briefing anti Lib Dem Reporters !
“MC could put his leadership to a vote of confidence by the membership, as John Major did.”
Wrong again, Elizabeth. John Major put himself up for re-election to the Conservative Parliamentary Party, knowing full well he would trounce John Redwood. In Major’s case, there were MPs openly attacking his leadership. As far as I am aware, no Lib Dem MP has yet criticised Ming in public.
Generally, the Lib Dem standing in the polls outside elections depends on the mistakes of the other parties, not what the leader does. During an election campaign (with broadcasters having to act impartially)it is a different matter, and that is where Ming will shine; because the electorate will see him as a potential prime minister, something that could never be said of Charles Kennedy.
Our priorities for the moment should be (1) stop the sniping, (2) target ruthlessly (Rennard to the letter), and (3) make it clear to MPs that loose talk in Westminster bars will not be tolerated. Also, let’s have more party discipline in council groups. Every time there is a town hall rout it is because Lib Dems decide to fight each other rather than our opponents.
Sorry, name left off post again.
Anyone intent on blaming Ming for the party’s standing in the opinion polls should recall David Steel, who never tired of reminding us that while he was holed up in a health farm in Hindhead in the 3 months after the 1983 GE his standing in the polls actually went UP!
MING MUST GO, and go now before any further damage is done to the party. Sorry, Ming; I voted for you because of your standing in the party, and for the authority you displayed on Iraq. However, you lack the communication skills and the vitality needed by a leader. This is not about age, but aptitude. Your attempts at creating a youthful image have seriously backfired, and reinforced an old-fashioned, out-of-touch image, not just for yourself, but more importantly for the party: ‘My staff are complaining about 18-hour days.’ Nobody, whatever their age, should be expected to work excessive hours! Why didn’t you tackle the ageism issue head on? It would have earned more public respect.
Kate O’Sullivan:
Ming HAS tackled the ageism head on – at least twice. He says his age WILL be an issue at the next GE because he will make it one. And quite right. Ageist bigotry such as yours is just as unacceptable as racist bigotry and homophobic bigotry.
How has Ming attempted to create a “youthful image”? Oh, I see. By taking his tie off at Conference. Maybe he should dye his hair (like Ronald Reagan) or wear cowboy boots (like Gary Hart).
Angus get a life!
Really I have many more important things in my life then wasting time arguing with you about exact poll ratings, where the votes came from & to and what fools we all are and how you are the only true Lid Dem amongst us.
Tell you what keep Ming and we die as a party, really you do deserve him.
Angus, whatever the rights and wrongs of the different viewpoints on this, people do have a right to disagree with you. Perhaps you should post a last comment in this section summarising your position and leave it at that.
Only 4 weeks ago we were at 20% in the polls and people were saying how brilliant Ming’s speech was. I voted for hom and think he would have come out well in a snap general election. But we have got probably another 18 months to go until the next election and the press will run with this story all the way through to polling day. I’m not sure we can survive that to be honest.
Big Mak wrote: “Really I have many more important things in my life then wasting time arguing with you about exact poll ratings, where the votes came from & to and what fools we all are and how you are the only true Lid Dem amongst us.”
Great! Then the above will be your final contribution on the subject?
By the way, how many of the Ming-bashers posting on this site actually are Lib Dems?
Is Big Mak a Lib Dem, for instance, or a Tory troll masquerading as a Lib Dem?
Anon wrote: “Perhaps you should post a last comment in this section summarising your position and leave it at that.”
I will write whatever I like, provided it is acceptable to the moderator. I don’t take orders from Tory trolls.
The fire has erupted and it seems that any form of critique concerning the leader is met with insult. There is an aboslute reality that we must all face which is the poor poll ratings and the media’s obsession with Ming and the age factor. We must ensure that whilst debate or indeed argument takes place there should be a confirmed position at the end of it.
Central to the survival and growth of the party and broader appeal of liberal democrats is the leader. Sir Ming must either silence the critics and bring the turks into line or leave with grace.
If bloggers, activists and opinion formers are engaging in written/ verbal combat then the parliamentary party, hq, spectators, associations and the general public across the UK must also have their own thoughts.
The underlying feature here is that of serious frustration arising from a lack of progress and direction. Fighting amongst ourselves can be healthy to provoke debate but the blame is with the powers that be and the team that surrounds the leader.
Sir Ming is respectable, honest and knowledgeble but nothing in the presentation of him as a leader reflects any of those qualities. It is easy to blame him but the greater problem revolves around the issues relevent to the media today.
Warrior: 2 questions:-
(1) What is your real name?
(2) Why do you attack Chris Rennard?
Ming is great. He is going to take the Lib Dems to our best ever performance in 2009. Lets have no more attacks on Ming.
( Tories for Ming )
I’m critical of Ming’s leadership of the party.
No, I am not a Tory troll – a google search on Crewe +Gwyn +Liberal will probably clarify that.
It’s not his age.
It’s his style and the shape of the party under his leadership.
And, as far as I am aware, I am not mentally deficient.
“I will write whatever I like, provided it is acceptable to the moderator. I don’t take orders from Tory trolls.”
First of all the fact that I started my comment (51) with the word, “perhaps”, indicates clearly that I was not attempting to issue orders. You have, Angus, mocked others for their poor spelling, perhaps I should mock you for your poor comprehension skills.
I am not a Tory, troll or otherwise. I am a Liberal Democrat member of many years standing. I very much doubt that a Tory would advise you to cool this debate down, which is what I was suggesting. Perhaps your logic skills are lacking too.
Your repeated comments only help to fuel this debate and encourage others to post anti-Ming comments. Is that what you want? Because that is what you are causing to happen. Comments 54 and 56 have been posted because you haven’t shut up – more will undoubtedly follow if you continue to post angry responses to anything critical of Ming.
Now, so you can understand, let me state clearly that this is not an order, it is merely an observation: the more you post, the more anti-Ming comments seem to get posted, ergo perhaps you should engage some logic, stop posting, and what you want (i.e. no more anti-Ming posts and an end to this debate) might actually happen.
No doubt however what will happen is you will post some fuming comment in response. More fool you.
…and from out of the morass will come a true leader to set an example worthy of the name!
Come on everybody – there is a question here that must be faced and must be answered definitively.
It is not precisely about Sir Menzies, but it is about liberal politics and leadership. It is the issue which rove a division through the last liberal government and it remains the problem which confronts any liberal party as it strives to make the break-through from opposition and back into government. It is about how we relate with the public through our ideas and philosophy.
Can liberty must be reconciled with the realities of everyday practical existence? Can freedom take the initiative away from the vacuum and provide a tangible vision? Can we create a turn in opinion without starting to spin? Can we look at out percieved weaknesses and turn them into strengths?
For Ming it is about his age, not his beliefs or principles and nor his abilities. It is also about our society. It is about whether he is the person whom the country can accept as Prime Minister: does British society think it is ok for a man his age to reach office and can we see him continuing to lead us into the future as our rallying figurehead and totem? The same question was asked of women, of catholics, of minorities and of figures stained by previous experience, and will always be asked so that assumptions may be broken and the real benefits of ultimate equality established. So, how open are we? How liberal is good?
Because we are forgetting that all this backbiting isn’t really about him, it is about us as a party and a nation – it is a challenge for our party and we must pass it before we are true candidates for power – and the closer we get to holding national office the more relevant it becomes: do we want to govern?
We must ask ourselves what sacrifices we are prepared to accept in order to get there and what compromises are necessary as the means to the end: are we prepared for government?
We must prove we can set an example worthy of being followed and we shouldn’t be daunted (Ming should use the inspiration of his namesake Campbell-Bannerman) to draw comparisons wherever they apply to show what is possible.
And as for the polls, well, ask yourself how this will change your choices, how they will change you and what difference they make to your complaints and the basis of your criticisms: do we practice what we preach?
Yes, the taking part is as important as the winning, but take one away from the other and we are left with nothing because the two are indivisible linked.
Yes, we want to be good and we want to be in government; yes, we want good government; yes, we think we would be good at government by being good in government.
So, are we resolved? Or not?
ref: Simon Hughes – can always do better, can always do more.
Angus once again anyone that disagrees with your postion “must not be a member or a tory troll”, what an ass you are!
Plenty of people know exactly who I am, accept that I am both a long standing member and still want Ming out.
What a strange world you live in when anyone who disagrees with you can’t be from the party.
Your attarude stinks and while you think you may be defending Ming your probably doing a better job than me turning people off him…who needs enamies with frinds like you Angus!!
1.David Cameron supporters club
2.He is the CEO and must bear responsibility, i presume angus is not your name either
61. I am amazed, but having checked, I find you are indeed a member. So I withdraw my accusation of you being a tory plant. You remain however, an idiot to be posting this sort of unrepresentative crap on a site that you know will be picked up in the media.
I can only presume that as well as being an idiot you are also hoping to be viewed by the media as someone who can be relied on to rubbish the leadership to order, much to the enjoyment of the enemies of Liberalism. So I would add an inflated sense of your own importance to idiocy – I call it Iain Dale-ism. Of course Dale-ism has the other defining characteristic of always being wrong, eg. “I’m definitely going to win North Norfolk. My canvassing shows me well ahead”.
This debate is generating more heat than light, as it has done in previous discussions we have had on this.
Instead of making personal accusations, why can’t both sides accept that their ambitions are for the Liberal Democrats to improve at the next general election?
Some sincerely believe that their ambitions can only be realised if the party stops squabbling about the leadership. Others sincerely believe their ambitions can only be realised if we have a new leadership.
So we have an impasse, and in the debate both sides are talking past each other. This is no doubt entertaining to our opponents and the media.
So what is to be done?
Ming was elected by the membership of the party and is entitled to contest the next general election as our leader and to do so without any public sniping. In public he will say he is totally committed to contesting the next general election as leader of the party.
He is also a Liberal Democrat and he shares our ambitions that we do well at the next general election.
Now if their is a case that it is not in the interests of the party that he leads the Liberal Democrats into the next general election, he will have to listen to that argument and act accordingly.
So whether you are for or against, my advice is that the best thing you can do is contact him my email and let him know what you think. See
http://www.mingcampbell.org.uk/contact/
If you want to take part in a debate on this, there is a very good debate in the private members section where we are not anonymous.
ColinW anyone viewing this forum would obviously be loving your comments. Name calling for someone with an opinion just because you disagree with it.
Get a grip, get a life and get a new line.
You my frined need some serious help, the hatred that spills from you is something that maybe some medacine could control.
Otherwise please do not post back to me again, you really don’t want to get me angry(as the Hulk would say)…and really post something that the press would be interested in. In short if you have nothing civil to say just shut your mouth.
While I’m not one to promote censorship, I still don’t think being thoughtful, careful and considerate in one’s comments is incompatible with a dose of liberal restraint.
Otherwise please do not post back to me again, you really don’t want to get me angry(as the Hulk would say)
hahahahahahaha. Fool.
Or just trying to inject a bit of humor in to the venom you spout…as for being a “fool” defending a leader such as Mind so blindly when he has done so little to move us forward, who is the real fool Colin?
That should have been “Ming” but hey who will notice the difference?!
” Sir Menzies Campbell’s position as Lib Dem leader is “under discussion” his deputy Vincent Cable has told the BBC. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7045251.stm
Well, at least we are second lead on BBC News 24. Presumably if Ming stands down, Vince Cable is no longer Deputy Leader?
Hell has opened its doors !
ColinW, Angus, et al get yourselves on the news and “big up” Ming, go on he’s on his way up, grab on to that star and away you go!
Sounds as though you’ve had one too many, Big Mak.
Now Vince is weighing in. Ming’s office has clearly lost control. Declarations of support are offered with so many provisos and quid pro quo’s that they become meaningless. What is needed is for the entire parliamentary party to sign a letter stating that Ming is their leader and that’s that, or Ming should resign immediately.
What is the matter with these people. Do Simon and Vince actualy think they are helping the party by feeding this frenzy?
Please remember the bitterness and dis-unity caused when CK was “removed” (I never see Ms Tether without thinking of her justifying that!). It will be much worse if Ming (who ought to be entitled to our loyalty as an elected leader getting on with te job) is destroyed before the cameras. I think we can hold the Southern seats even against a strong Tory challenge- but not if we engage in this kind of civil war.
John, you are deluded beyond belief. Worse if Ming goes, onlt if Vince gets the top job!
Mad, mad, mad to think that all is ok.
Yet again I ask when the polls say we are on 24% everyone is sliding off their seats with joy. When we are at 11% everyone calls the polls a joke and that we are still doing well.
Some of you come across so desperate it’s hard to take it in unless I had red it myself.
You assume that changing the leader will produce a bounce automatically. Ask the Tories how much of a boost Haugue/IDS/Howard gave them. Also you assume this type of coup could be bloodless. It will not be. It will be bloody, unpleasant and make us look like opportunists. Ming is entitled to our support (he has earned it for gods sake after all these years) and the alternative of more introspection and another leadership contest is best avoided. Am I alone in questioning the integrity of MPs like Mr Clegg who allow themeselves to be touted and do nothing to deny they covet the leaders job. Dispicable!
I sat ion a traion home to herefordshire last Spriung wsith two strangers. All three of us had been Lib Dem members. The three of us had cancelled our membership. Reason? Ming’s inability to represent our fury at Government policy towards terroism and the Iraq War. I spoke with Ming at a visit to Malvern. He argued that he believed that he had been “most robust”. Robust for God’s sake. What century does he belong to? With whom is he attempting to communicate?
Simon Gandolfi: What is Ming supposed to do? Impersonate George Galloway?
Amazing – this is turning into another media saga, where the true protagonist is the media itself.
If Ming was in the media-defined publicly acceptable age range for a potential Prime Minister there wouldn’t be a story here.
I think I’d prefer it if we returned to picking holes in the real enemies, Brown and Cameron – far more satisfying and much more productive.
Sorry but we need a Leader now and not a Manager. Post the Charles Kennedy dabacle it was the other way round. A Party Leader has to fulfill the role the party needs at the time. Our needs have changed – so must the Leader