That’s what it’s looking like with the news that Steve Webb will not be entering the contest to become the next leader of the Liberal Democrats, but instead backing Nick Clegg. (Although John Hemming has also declared, currently it looks unlikely he will reach the required seven nominations by MPs.)
From what I understand, the following MPs have definitely declared for Chris Huhne, who launched his leadership bid yesterday: Lynne Featherstone, Tom Brake, Sandra Gidley, Martin Horwood and David Howarth (and also Lord Oakeshott).
Nick Clegg, who will officially declare tomorrow, is backed by Steve, Ed Davey and Sarah Teather, as well as by Lord Ashdown (and doubtless others, these are just the ones I’ve read about).
It would, of course, be wrong for any of our MPs to stand if they did not actually want to do the job. Nonetheless, I suspect a lot of members (and I’m one of them) will be disappointed that the contest looks, as it stands, like it will be a two-horse race.
The Parliamentary party has a highly talented front-bench, with qualified female and male candidates representing the broad range of liberal values which underpin our party.
This was our opportunity to show the breadth as well as the depth that the Liberal Democrats have to offer the country. It was also the chance for some of our MPs to prove their mettle, either putting down a marker for the future, or making their bid for a senior role in the next Lib Dem shadow cabinet. It’s a shame that it seems no one else is yet prepared to grasp the nettle.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
No Christmas lights in Church Street, Market Harborough, this year
'No deal' planning starts here
Buzzy bee illustrations can't distract from the cruelty of universal credit
Twelve Angels Weeping, by Dave Rudden
Council finances 2: what does the money get spent on? Part 1: capital
Is scientific knowledge about cancer controversial?
ALDE Resolution on Saudi Arabia
Shropshire in crisis: Health special measures and service cuts, future could be "Armageddon" - is it safe to live in Shropshire?
Brexit: what is next for the Left? More complicated even than it sounds
Remembrance Day Parade
Lorenzo Cherin
CJ
frankie
marcstevens
David Warren
Martin
62 Comments
I’m a party member and a two horse race seems fine to me.
If someone can sit on Hemming and take his ridiculous proposal to stand away, it would make a lot of people much happier!
It will be a great shame and potentially divisive if it is a head-to-head between Nick and Chris.
One of the factors undermining Ming throughout his leadership was the feeling that the membership didnt get the choice it wanted in the election.
So, come on MPs, screw your courage to the sticking place and stand.
“If someone can sit on Hemming and take his ridiculous proposal to stand away, it would make a lot of people much happier!”
Not sure anyone has been able to stop John doing something he’s decided to do. One of the things I like about him even if he does engage in full on windmill tilting at times. It’s a good thing the Parliamentary Party is big enough to have some mavericks.
But you are LibDems. Surely it is always a ‘two horse race’?
“It’s a shame that it seems no one else is yet prepared to grasp the nettle.”
Sad indeed. But might it be the case that only the toughest and most determined is prepared to subject themselves to the daily barrage of abuse and vilification that the media dumped on Ming Campbell?
The defining characteristic of the party in its recent past has been our opposition to the war in Iraq. We defied the media, the neocons, Bush and Cheney, almost the entire political and economic establishment to do what we knew was right.
For those who say all political parties are the same, are all things to all men, and exist only to protect elites, we can riposte that the Liberal Democrats are not like that – we opposed the war in Iraq.
I hope our reputation as a courageous party of principle will not be lost in the current Gadarene rush to grovel to the media.
PS: Mark Oaten has also come out in favour of Nick Clegg.
I don’t think two candidates with something different to offer is a disaster by any means. A third candidate, possibly female, could lead to a very interesting contest.
It’s a two horse race – only Nick Clegg can win here!
“PS: Mark Oaten has also come out in favour of Nick Clegg.”
I think they were probably trying to keep that one quiet though!
Its quite clear, and it has been for some time, that Chris and Nick are without doubt the most capable and able leaders in waiting we have. A straight fight between the two of them is what is needed – another candidate will be caught napping quite frankly.
Hemming’s “candidacy” in 2005 was mildly amusing, this time it is just annoying – go away John.
Mark Oaten supports Clegg, see here:
“Fellow Liberal Democrat Mark Oaten mirrored Mrs Gidley’s words of praise but said he would back the party’s home affairs spokesman Nick Clegg in the event of a leadership battle.”
(Not sure if it’s a good thing for Clegg, though.)
BTW, could the title b seen as homophobic? Simon Hughes has been accused of homophobic campaigning because he used that expression in the Bermondsey by-elections.
As long as Lembit supports Chris Huhne…
Personally I think this shows the growing professionalism and seriousness of the party. There is no credible prospect, bar an unlikely implosion of both campaigns, of anyone other than Clegg or Huhne winning the leadership.
In this instance there is also no need for an interesting outsider to use the race to position themselves for a better job in the Shadow Cabinet. All of the leading likelies are well respected and will get serious jobs whoever wins.
Running for any other reason, other than seriously wanting to win on an angle not obvious to most members and the serious press, would be an exercise in tokenism and frankly make us look like a student union, not a political party interested in power.
Anyone think the Labour Deputy Leadership race made them look good?
Interestingly the future Nick-Chris race I believe was first proposed by Rachel Slyvester September 18th 2004 in the Daily Telegraph in an article entitled “Daring duo mount a challenge to the sandal brigade”. Already making the Blair-Brown analogy
The speculation about this momment has built incrementally since then.
Unlike Blair-Brown, we’re now going to get that question resolved democratically. No bottler-Huhne here, no question about whether Clegg will look good on the surface and fade during a sustained a tough 6 week campaign that in many respects mirrors the life-cycle of a general election.
That means whoever wins, the party will be much stronger, much more serious, and much more ready for the next election.
Good thing surely?
13 – There is no credible prospect, bar an unlikely implosion of both campaigns, of anyone other than Clegg or Huhne winning the leadership.
But Andy – the same thing would have been said at this stage of the last campaign about Ming and Simon.
Chris is a serious and credible candidate now precisely because he made a brave (and at the time some would have said foolhardy) choice in 2006. Why shouldn’t the same be true of another candidate in 2007?
– (David) Laws supports Clegg in leadership contest
– (Jeremy) Browne backs Clegg in leadership battle
“Anyone think the Labour Deputy Leadership race made them look good?”
It’s pretty much unquestionable that running enhanced John Cruddas’ standing and contributed to putting the issue of housing supply much more front & centre in Labour priorities.
14 – Steve
They were actually saying it would be a Ming coronation. Simon’s bid was considered by the press to be about as serious as Mark Oaten’s, perhaps less so given Mark had at least a couple of Times journos onside as old friends. Simon’s most high profile endorsement was Peter Tatchell.
Chris was the sole ‘new broom’ candidate when he declared, the others having done a deal to back Ming. In that respect and in respect that I already rated him as a serious figure and campaigner I found his result unsurprising.
Was it the right thing to do… well I’m not sure about that… Chris has gambled on building his credibility and publicity in the wider party at the expense of his relationships with the young turk MPs who I suspect will fairly consistently back Nick Clegg or neither.
Steve Webb’s endorsement for example should have gone to Chris in respect of political ideas.
Turning the question around a bit can you identify good examples of ‘running to raise the flag’ that have been successful in respect of subsequent events?
Just to put the cat amongst the pigeons – how about a bring back Charles campaign?
I’m still hoping that Julia Goldsworthy will reconsider …in the meantime I now need to decide who I don’t want – having got it wrong everytime since Paddy, I need to use my ‘kiss of death’ vote wisely……
16 – Hywel… and John Cruddas is now Minister for…?
The housing point in respect of internal Labour priorities is valid I agree, but I certainly don’t want our leadership election to become a similar festival for publicity-seeking single-issue pressure group agendas, it’s about who leads our party.
Given that its looking increasingly unlikely that a woman will enter the race, I think at the very least we should ensure that we have a female Deputy Leader candidate, and more women in high profile positions.
The other main parties have sussed out that 52% of the electorate are women.
17 – in the period after Ming’s PMQs’ slip-up, and before his press outing, Simon was pretty much the favourite. It was his handling of The Sun’s outing of his bisexuality which pretty much torpedoed his campaign (plus the lingering doubts from his failed mayoral campaign).
There’s little doubt that Chris’s candidacy dramatically raised the profile of green policies within the party, paving the way for the Green Tax Switch. Maybe that would have happened anyway, but I doubt it, at least not with the same degree of gusto.
The result of the 1999 leadership election reflected almost exactly the extent to which the various candidates were known to members.
So Malcolm Bruce, who had hardly any endorsements, actually did better than Jackie Ballard, who had many (including much of the party’s municipal left).
2005 broke that trend. Simon Hughes should have come second. He was better known than Chris Huhne, and actually had more endorsements than either Ming or Chris. The only explanation that comes to mind is Simon’s maladroit handling of the impertinent media questions about his sexual orientation.
The media has already decided the outcome of the present contest, ofcourse. But past performance does not necessarily indicate that they are right. Nick Clegg is a blank face even to me, while Chris Huhne made himself a household name (to members at least) by standing in 2005.
I was sorry to read Paddy’s article in the Guardian, using his elder statesman role to endorse NC before he has even declared himself a candidate!
And with no reference to the one declared candidate. What a dreadful snub to CH.
And put in typically eloquent and impetuous, extravagant Paddy language, ie Clegg is essential to party survival!
Fortunately as an old party member I can recall similar mistakes in Paddy’s judgement.
There was of course the misjudgement of the Blair relationship, but I also remember times at conference when Paddy would appear on the platform to try to swing the vote. On THE NAME, he joined the platform to hold up his card for “Democrats”, but this was turned down. He also tried to swing a drugs debate because he feared what the tabloids would say if we took a progressive line; instead he personally was panned by the tabloids for wanting to stifle debate .
I was totally devoted to Paddy while he was leader but I deplore the unfairness of him trying to swing the vote again.
It is supposed to be one member one vote, not one ex-leader, many votes.
Elizabeth
Not that I would ever argue for a woman just because she’s a woman – I still think there would be enormous advantages.
At a purely superficial ‘image’ level – where is the advantage of us electing a ‘Dave II’ when he in turn was presented as a ‘Tony II’?
On top of that – what I have seen of Julia Goldsworthy makes me think there is more I want to know. A campaign for and by her presents the chances for us to consider an alternative to what the press are telling us we have to chose from.
I wonder is there enough support / interest in her for a campaign to encourage her to stand?
I saw Diana Wallis MEP on YTV also come out for Nick Clegg.
I’m still hoping that Julia Goldsworthy will reconsider.
Aren’t we all?
Have you told her Laurence? Maybe if enough of us do….?
“ie Clegg is essential to party survival!”
I haven’t seen the Grauniad this morning, so have denied myself the pleasure of Lord Ashdown telling me how to exercise my vote.
The above quote (if real) is hyperbolic tosh of the most egregious kind, and frankly insults members’ intelligence.
No one man is essential to the party’s survival – except perhaps Chris Rennard. How Nick Clegg falls into this exalted category eludes me entirely.
Paddy Ashdown these days talks and acts like a paid-up neocon. What are Nicks’s views on US foreign policy, may I be forward enough to ask? I think he should tell us as a matter of urgency – strapped to a polygraph.
I doubt that Julia Goldsworthy will change her mind. According to The Independent Clegg “was collecting a string of influential backers yesterday, including Sir Menzies’ chief of staff Ed Davey, David Laws, the schools spokesman, Norman Lamb, the health spokesman, Alistair Carmichael and Julia Goldsworthy. Phil Willis, the former education spokesman, was also said to be backing Mr Clegg.”
Angus 29. Calm down, mate.
I don’t think that many could credibly suggest that someone other than Chris or Nick could win this race. I’d also suggest that the vast majority of the party would pick one or the other as our best potential leader – they’ve been pretty obviously far ahead of the rest of our other front bench talent for some time now.
So I’d agree with Andy – I know it’s Lib Dem tradition to want a wider range of candidates and to want someone with two X chromasomes, but really this is about picking our future leader and it makes sense that only people who have a shot at it stand.
Webb could have been an exception as it’s vaguely possible that he could have somehow captured the imagination of the party, but for reasons known to himself he’s ruled himself out. I think the issues that he raised could have been interesting, but hopefully now we’re not going to face the tedious “I’m more left-wing than you are” nonsense that we sometimes let the media push us into.
We know that Nick and Clegg aren’t miles apart politically, so it’s going to be good to use the next 2 months for the membership to really get to see their abilities in communicating their messages and indeed to understand their different visions for what the party should be.
31) “We know that Nick and Clegg aren’t miles apart politically”
Well spotted Peter
Paddy says that Clegg is essential to the party’s survival. I would probably say that the next leader, full stop, is essential.
It’s hard to underestimate the danger of the current squeeze we’re facing. I get the impression that the MPs are very serious about doing everything they to professionalise the image of the party and leave nothing to chance.
Webb’s decision is a huge blow for Huhne. In all likelihood Webb voters would have put Huhne as their second preference and this could easily have tipped the balance in what I expect will be a very close contest.
I’ll vote for the candidate with the most chance of appealing to people beyond the party. Huhne’s campaign already looks very activist focused. It remains to be seen how good a campaigner Nick can actually be. He’s got the ‘buzz’ but can he deliver on all this promise? Is he actually a leader?
22 Stephen, I think your expansion of the argument invalidates your original thesis at 14.
Meral – quite right about remembering the 52%. The irony is that the very day he fell on his sword Ming was going to propose action on a report which highlights the need for us to support female candidates with young children.
Andy – as the self-styled Southwark/Sarf London blogger I would have expected you to know a bit more about Simon’s leadership bid last time. He was clearly seen as a front-runner at the beginning. Lots of key people endorsed him including Steve Webb.
As an outside (supporter, not party member), in their current areas of responsibility I have read some good stuff from Chris Huhne but not so from Nick. So I echo ‘Is he actually a leader?’
34 – erm , how?
Ming and Simon were the initial runaway favourites in Jan ’06. It was when Simon’s campaign hit the rocks that Chris’s really gained momentum.
If my memory serves me right, Steve, we were half expecting a Campbell coronation, and were unsure if Simon was going to put himself forward.
Chris made a late decision, and won much support because he was so forthright and specific about policy – and demonstrated rather more oomph than the other candidates.
I don’t think anyone expected Simon to win – though I was, personally, rather surprised that he came third.
Stephen, you said “But Andy – the same thing would have been said at this stage of the last campaign about Ming and Simon.”
But your post at 22 says that
“in the period after Ming’s PMQs’ slip-up, and before his press outing, Simon was pretty much the favourite. It was his handling of The Sun’s outing of his bisexuality which pretty much torpedoed his campaign”
Thus you accept that Simon´s campaign did “implode”. The implosion of one campaign was enough for Chris to come second, but not to leapfrog Ming. So I don´t really see where you are disagreeing with Andy at 14.
Personally I think Steve might just have come second even without a major implosion of one of the other campaigns. He could have done it by being stronger in the hustings (but it would need to be televised).
Still not sure where the conflict in those statements is…? Start of the ’06 campaign, the clear favourites were Ming and Simon – just as today they are Nick and Chris.
My disagreement with Andy (such as it is) is that alternative candidates could easily transform the race in the same way Chris helped to do so last time. (And without needing either of the other two campaigns to implode along the way.)
Ok. so we have another public execution of a leader in order to have the exciting choice of (a) last times runner up (b) the guy who couldn’t be bothered to stand last time.
If only I had the web skills to launch a “Draft Julia” site or must we resort to a “bring back charlie” campaign?
40 We´ll discuss it over a pint sometime (mine, as you never drink).
David 41 – If only I had the skills I’d launch a “Daft Hemming” site.
35 Ruth and 37 Stephen. I agree Hughes had a ten-day run of good headlines between the 15th of January when he went briefly ahead on one set of bookies odds through to the 25th where, after Mark Oaten had withdrawn he was ahead in an interesting but meaningless to the outcome ICM poll of non-members based on ‘likeability’ criteria. Revelations then broke on the 26th.
But Ruth, he was certainly not clearly ahead from the beginning…
Prior to the 15th it was Ming and after that it tended to be Ming or Huhne ahead by some distance.
The only sure(ish) test we have of the potential outcome is the (I think) 3 YouGov polls of actual party members one prior and two during the campaign. All three gave Simon no chance. Unfortunately none happened during ten-day peak of his good headlines.
For example…
Jan 7th Telegraph headline
“Sir Menzies is clear favourite to take over”
You Gov, same article: “The survey shows Sir Menzies winning 49 per cent support, Mr Hughes 21 per cent and Mr Oaten 14 per cent”
Jan 9th Guardian “Lib Dem leadership: Campbell ‘almost certain’ to win: Simon Hughes and Mark Oaten seen as possible challengers”
Jan 12th Independent “Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrats’ president, is expected to join the race today to succeed Charles Kennedy as party leader. But a survey of all the 62 Liberal Democrat MPs by The Independent shows that Sir Menzies Campbell, the bookmakers’ favourite, enjoys the overwhelming backing of the party’s representatives at Westminster. Twenty-six MPs said they would support Sir Menzies, with six opting for Mr Hughes, although that is likely to rise today.”
etc. etc.
Pretty good timeline…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_events_in_the_Liberal_Democrats_leadership_election,_2006
I think John Hemming should be given a chance to be on the hustings stand, if only because he has chutzpah. And it will also give someone a chance to talk about “Hemmings leaping over the cliff”.
I just find the whole thing so depressing. We should be having a debate about the future of the party with at least 4 or 5 candidates pitching in and giving us ideas; different viewpoints. People like Steve Webb, Susan Kramer, perhaps even Charles Kennedy. What have we got? Two Cameron Clones, with interchangeable careers, who even went to the same school. What choice, what joy!
YouGov poll in Sunday Times 12/02/06 had Simon on 34%, Ming on 21% and Huhne on 13%.
IT’S A 2 COLOUR HORSE:
SEE – http://doughty.gdbtv.com/player.php?h=8e0cc3ba35357a9f2ccc998869611804
47 – Ruth
You mean in the article entitled “Campbell is people’s choice for Lib Dems” where Campbell led amongst the general public and Hughes led amongst people defined as “Lib Dem supporters”, which was not, as it turned out a particularly good bellweather for the way the members actually voted, and would have greatly underestimated Chris Huhne’s support given his lower public profile going into the race.
Meral (21) – you are so right!!!
And Peter (31), it’s not just about choosing a leader though, is it? This is a fantastic opportunity to put our talented and able women frontbenchers on a platform, that the media might just take some notice of. Which might help convince 52% of the country that we, as a party, value the contribution of women. Even if the women on that shortlist don’t end up winning, we will gain as a party.
Because at the moment, mostly, we look like a party that really only wants white, middle class men and that, is losing us votes and support.
Now that Julia has ruled herself out and backed another candidate (Nick Clegg) she’s never going to be able to change her mind but I think it is a shame. Like her, I’m a great fan of Nick’s but if she had stood, I could have got really excited!!
(Actually, i’m quite excited about it all anyway).
I’m very disappointed that Steve Webb has chosen not to stand. I think its a great mistake, as he did stand a chance of winning and he would have been an excellent leader.
I am also disappointed that no women are standing. Lynne Featherstone in particular would have made a fine leader.
The media largely destroyed Ming and is already laying out the perameters of the coming contest.COME ON WAKE UP its not about the economy stupid, its about telegenics.
In my view without a radical departure from what the media expects and wants, the squeeze will continue, millions will be left disenfranchised and the WHOLE party will eventually implode.
Certainly this is an opportunity which progressive liberalism cannot afford to lose or let itself be bullied ….this is the defining time of Liberal Democracy for a generation …. let us not allow the media define it for us…hasnt it done enough damage already?????
I think it is easy to forget that in a ‘snap’ leadership election there is very little time for anyone, other than the obvious front-runners, to build a campaign infrastructure. For example each candidate can spend up to £50 000 during the campaign. That is a lot of money to raise from a standing start. I suspect a lot of our front benchers would have been put off by that fact more than whether they could raise seven MP nominations.
[email protected] It’s my understanding Cruddas was offered a job and turned one down, my info may be wrong but IIRC the source at the time was good (I forget who).
As for a successful stalking horse/setting out stall for next time candidate? How about Margaret Thatcher? Hurd in ’90 can only really be seen as a ‘give me a job’ candidacy. Can’t be bothered to go through Labour elections as well, but people do it. Good idea? Think not, but, well, they do it.
I’m still undecided as to whether we’d benefit from Julia running, I think we would–I could even make a case for her being a good choice as leader as well, but I won’t, younger than me is Just Wrong–at least for a few more years.
Mindstar at 52 – I couldn’t agree more about Steve Webb. How can we persuade him to reconsider? If it is indeed money as suggested, I am sure radical Lib Dems could dip into their pockets to ensure a campaign.
55. I think Steve Webb’s decision not to stand was probably motivated more by the effect he thought it would have on his family than on fundraising considerations. And I also suspect that he thought he couldn’t win, making it not worth the hassle.
I’m really upset that it seems the leadership contest has already been stitched up. I wonder what Webb’s price for not standing was? Clegg will be delighted.
Ruth & Jo, seems its always down to the few women who blog on this site to point out the obvious!
I really don’t want to hear the tired arguments about tokenist women anymore! No-one’s ever suggested that.
Stands to reason, the fewer women entering Parliament, the smaller the pool from which a potential leadership candidate can emerge.
I agree about Julia, though I don’t know a lot about her. I think she’s certainly tipped as a future leader, with more experience under her belt. She should certainly be ensured a higher profile.
There is a “More than a two-horse race” group on Facebook which now has 125 members after less than 48 hours including several councillors, PPC’s and at least one MP. A letter was sent to the parliamentary party and that is on the page too.
Have a look and feel free to join and add your name: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5719982943&ref=mf
I think we have seen the early stages of an STV election having taken place before the votes are cast with candidates that were always going to struggle against the leaders throwing their weight behind the top 2. OK maybe the members should have been involved in this process but personally I am cool with this as the good/bad publicity externally we can gain during the selection is probably at least important as the internal party debate. Clegg and Huhne are both respected heavyweight characters and it will be difficult for the press to have the kind of feeding frenzy of last time. The Ballard/Rendel/Oaten type of candidacy, with no hope of victory, only adds an illusion of choice, whilst doing nothing for overall party image and very little for the career prospects of the candidates themselves. Re: Julia’s backing of Clegg – a shrewd judgement I would say and puts her in a strong position to be (an excellent) first Lib or LD female leader – next time.
I am in the unusual position that I was a pupil at the same school as both Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne, and would thus be almost equally pleased if either was elected Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party.
What is worth stressing is that although Westminster School is no doubt a school for “posh” boys, whatever that may mean, its Central London location and its mixed intake of boarders and day pupils has historically made its old pupils rather more streetwise and in tune with the currents of contemporary political thought than the old pupils of such rural seminaries as Eton and Winchester.
It is no accident that over the last half century former Westminster pupils have sat in Labour cabinets (Tony Benn, Ruth Kelly) as well as in Conservative cabinets (Robert Carr, Nicholas Edwards, Nigel Lawson, Lord Havers), and that two other former Westminster pupils (Lords Rea and Byers) led the Liberal Party in the House of Lords consecutively between 1955 and 1984.