I know all the attention is on the Leadership at the moment, but I think it’s worth considering the Deputy Leadership, particularly as our 8 MPs will be discussing this tomorrow night. My guess is that they just won’t bother electing a deputy at this point before we have a leader. That would certainly be the sensible thing to do. However, I think that we should do something different.
The Deputy Leader is, in fact, “The Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons.” This post is only referred to in passing in Article 9 of the Federal Constitution:
- The Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons shall consist of all Members of that House in receipt of the Party’s whip. Its Leader shall be the Leader of the Party elected as provided in Article 10. It shall be entitled to make such regulations (not being inconsistent with this Constitution) as it thinks fit for the conduct of its own proceedings. In particular, these regulations shall make provision for a Chief Whip and, if thought fit, a Deputy Leader of such Parliamentary Party.
I think we should open up the post of Deputy Leader to a much wider pool. Peers, MSPs, AMs, London Assembly Members, MEPs, Mayors and Councillors should be able to stand with the electorate being that whole group of people. There are two reasons for that.
First of all, it makes us less Westminster-centric and shows that we value all the levels of government equally, as ends in themselves.
Secondly, it might well give us a more diverse leadership team. Our Commons party is all-male, all-white and are pretty much all around the same age.
Brake: May 1962
Carmichael: July 1965
Clegg: January 1967
Farron: May 1970
Lamb: September 1957
Mulholland: August 1970
Pugh: June 1948
Williams: March 1966
I have to say I got the shock of my life when I realised that Tom Brake was 53. I had him down as early 40s. All but one of them were born within a 13 year period, and 3 of them within 18 months of each other.
It still breaks my heart, by the way, to be able to find and type that information out so quickly.
Doesn’t it make a whole load of sense to have a Deputy Leader with different experience? I think it probably needs to be someone who is elected at some level, but I’m open to persuasion on that one. It’s a different role to the party president, who is there to advocate for the members. The Deputy Leader role would be another voice representing us in the media. There may be no guarantee of diversity, but at least there’s a chance of it.
If this were to become a reality, then there would need to be a constitutional amendment to that effect.
What do you think? Is it worth pursuing?
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
DarwIN Shrewsbury Festival, February 2025
Well, that's one way to report an opinion poll - The Week in Polls
Pruning the money tree
Milnbank Road of old #dundeewestend
Mark Valladares
Margaret
John Walller
Peter Davies
David Allen
36 Comments
One factor to bear in mind is that we will have no backbenchers in the Parliamentary Party. Each one will have to take on some kind of portfolio…
Interesting argument and if this is adopted then the entire membership should vote for the Deputy Leader
Spot on.
Personally, I think it should be a open contest. Makes things more interesting. I do agree with you Caron, it does need to be open with respect of other people within the party from Councillors to MP’s. We are liberal after all. We should open to different things/people and as we are the very opposite to the other party’s we should include Councillors, AMs, MSP, MEPs, etc.
Tessa Munt? She and John Hemming worked tirelessly on the CSA Investigation- we have no LD there which deeply concerns me.
John Hemming has been commended for his honesty and accuracy?
If an existing ‘title’ is required Caroline Pidgeon as she has proved herself on GLA?
Kirsty Williams for Deputy Leader.
Totally agree. A party seeking to be known for championing diversity can’t be top heavy with middle class, middle aged white dudes. It just wouldn’t make sense.
Totally agree with you on some part Caron. What about former Councillors to Peers? If they wouldn’t be included, that wouldn’t come across as being fair *underline the fairness*. As Norman Lamb has publicly stated he will run for the Leadership and Tim Farron has gained a lot of support to stand as well, if Farron wins, then maybe Norman could be Deputy.
Given the essential role that the Peers will play in the years ahead, I would say one from the upper chamber would make sense . It also shares the workload from the Commons, as they will already be spread thin.
Go for it. It’s a great idea!
Sounds like a good idea to me, as to the electorate, its too late to have an all-member vote included with The Leader election & any extra vote would cost £60,000 plus.
Actually the paragraph quoted from the Constitution doesnt seem to say that a Deputy Leader has to BE an MP, only that the MPs choose who it is. Perhaps they cpould choose a non MP without changing the constitution & thus much sooner ?
Caron I agree the principle but would limit it to ELECTED members of the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies and make it a woman only short list. That should start a discussion.
Definitely with you on this Caron.
What are your thoughts on delaying the leadership election until after Conference? There’s a strong thread on here in favour of doing this. I would rather delay until afterwards. Presenting a new leader at the end of the Parliamentary term risks – and I mean risks, not definitely will happen – us turning Conference into a “Look, we’re new now” show and of us not learning everything we should. I remember the Tory ’97 conference which, although hilarious for me to watch, isn’t something I want us to go through.
Don’t you think we’d be better off using Conference to have the full and open discussion about who and where we are? There can be no better test of who is really up to the job of leading us than to see which of our candidates emerges from Conference best.
FOR tuition fees: Brake, Carmichael, Clegg, Lamb
AGAINST tuition fees: Farron, Mulholland, Pugh, Williams
@James: The debate about where and who we are will continue for a long time – we need to basically re-organise the whole party and that’ll take years, not months. Rightly or wrongly, the media takes a leader seriously and if we don’t have one, we don’t get in the debate about what’s going on in the country. This horrible government is going to do some really horrendous things in fairly short order. We have to oppose them.
For that reason, I think that we should elect the leader quickly. Going through a conference without a leader would make us look ridiculous. And I think we are capable of not looking like the Tories in 1997. We are way too honest for that. It wouldn’t work if we tried to pretend we were something we aren’t.
Lib Dems have more influence now in the House of Lords than the Commons, surely it makes more sense to draw from that cohort? Also, they are more likely to be in London to do a media round if needs be, access to HQ etc. But obviously Lords don’t get paid so would money be made available to them? Hmmm, maybe I’m over thinking it.
It’s a pity that Sal Brinton cannot be Caretaker Leader as the most senior person still in post. The fact that we would then have all-female party leaders except for Cameron, albeit for a short time, would be a bonus 🙂
Caron,
A variation on your table to indicate the schools attended by our MPs.
Today there are likely to be more Etonians in The Cabinet than we have MPs in The Commons, but our group of 8 have a good spread of educational backgrounds, more in line with the general population. No girls school unfortunately.
Brake: May 1962: Lycee International, France
Carmichael: July 1965: Islay High School, Aberdeen.
Clegg: January 1967: Westminster, in the borough of Westminster
Farron: May 1970: Lostock Hall High School, Preston, Lancashire.
Lamb: September 1957: George Abbott School, Guildford, Surrey.
Mulholland: August 1970: St Ambrose College, Altrincham, Cheshire.
Pugh: June 1948: Maidstone Grammar School, Kent.
Williams: March 1966: Richard Hale School, Hertford.
I agree, and that we should all have a vote, but you throw away one of your most important points in your last line:
“I think we should open up the post of Deputy Leader to a much wider pool… it might well give us a more diverse leadership team.”
In effect we have two Deputy Leaders – the named one at the moment is failing in its only real job, and only real reason to be an MP: fill in if the Leader falls under a bus.
The one who acts more as spokesperson is the President.
At each Presidential election, I describe the two jobs as the Deputy Leader in the Commons and the deputy Leader in the country / party.
Wouldn’t it be wise to make that distinction more formal and write it into the job description of the President? Because all that widening the franchise for the Commons Deputy does, otherwise, is ‘elect a more senior version of the President’ rather than a different post.
And following on from Phyllis, above: in the absence of a Deputy Leader, Sal *is* the de facto acting Leader. The Constitution may not say so explicitly, but that’s the reality. Another reason to give the two roles parity.
Anyone up for writing constitutional amendments to that effect? I’m open to it.
Mental Health an issue which touched the nation. John Hemming has said be would back Norman. I agree. But that is leader, not deputy.
I think we already have a leader in the House of Lords. What we need are strong voices that will be heard because their views already command respect.
Negative voices for many months have sneered that nobody is listening, missing the irony that they appeared to consider themselves as nobodies. Sadly, we will face a reality in which we are literally ignored. Those who have been swept along by the ‘treacherous LDs’ Labour led propaganda and who advocate a scorched earth approach in which anyone associated with the coalition should be persona non grata condemn the party to being treated by the media as less than an irrelevance. The reality is that it is the voices of experience who will as former ministers get something of a hearing
Those that think that policies on tuition fees and council house benefits from 2011 will be major issues in 2020 must have exceedingly benign expectations for the new Tory government. Just where do they think the cuts wll fall?
Martin
all the MPs were supporters of the coalition. That will be forgotten eventually
But if we elect Lamb then every time he goes on Question Time and makes a promise there will be choruses of “what about the pledge?” We just cannot risk that. Any recovery will be snuffed out…
goid idea!
I would go slightly more limited than Caron’s proposal and open up the position and electorate for it to Peers as well as MPs. Which would give us a much wider and more diverse field of candidates whilst still keeping it a Westminster Politician which I think is needed if we are to use the Deputy Leader as a second media presence (Think how the SNP used Sturgeon for years when she was Deputy SNP Leader not just Salmond to build up her profile and ensure they did not look a one man band)
Given that we only have eight MPs left, they could all get titles:
*Leader
*Deputy Leader
*Assistant Deputy Leader
*Sub-assistant Deputy Leader
*Adjutant to the sub-assistant Deputy Leader
*Lieutenant adjutant to the sub-assistant Deputy Leader
*Ancillary lieutenant adjutant to the sub-assistant Deputy Leader
*Lord President of the Paperclip Jar
Having a Deputy Leader in the Commons makes sense, as there will always be times when the the Leader there is not around, so a clear deputy in the Commons is needed.
The President’s job is to do with the wider party, but it has been used in the past (and may again) as a stepping stone to the leadership. On the whole, having both a strong leader in the Commons and a strong president, is a good thing.
In the present circumstances, the President is acting as leader and also proceeding to a prompt leadership election.
The only constitutional issue I have is whether this is in the constitution as a list of (even temporary) succession.
The US constitution has such a list for when both the President and the Vice-President are unable to continue, as Gerald Ford showed.
I am uneasy about trying to separate our 8 MPs into sheep and goats on any issue, whether left and right or tuition fees or not. I will be voting on the pitch they make during the election.
On the tuition fees, it was quite clear that at the time that an MP with a government job was expected to vote with the government. I think the only one who succeeded in obfuscating this was Chris Huhne, who had a more important engagement in Cancun at the time.
I have two ideas on how we could take this forward. (But on a general thought, I think we need to review all the structures of the party from the bottom up, not just change everything piecemeal)
First, we could borrow an idea from the Greens and have two deputy leaders (who must be of different genders) elected by the membership – that could be voted for by all members and candidates could be anybody, or limited to those in an elected position.
Second, we could look at a system of regional leaders, given that we no longer have the MPs across the country to represent us in the media. Just as Scotland and Wales have their own leaders, so should each of the English regions, elected directly by the membership, with that person standing up for the party in that area, and all of then working together with the federal leader.
I totally agre with opening up the prospects of the deputy leader being from the wider membership.
What we need to do is to radically rethink how we can resore our liberal values and to do so we need all the help we can. The more people to do that the better!
Given we have 8 MPs, do we need a Deputy Leader at all?
We need a Leader and a (Chief) Whip because of the way the Commons functions, but we don’t need a DL. Making the President the effective DL would make sense (and get around to doing that officially when we can sort the constitution out).
We also need all the MPs to get out and make some noise, which will mean being parliamentary spokesperson for something, but they should each be asked to come up with and lead an issue-based campaign. Something that can inspire members and supporters across the country, with an MP to lead it and promote it in Parliament.
(I can’t remember what my log in details are, but would like to reassure people I am still a member)
May I ask how far down the chain, nominations could be from (i.e as a community councillor from Wales could someone nominate me?)
I agree with other comments here about opening this up even wider to all members. Plenty of incredibly talented former MP’s who it would be a crying shame to discount at this point.
I agree with Nick Barlow – OMOV-elected regional leaders for regional parties.
But I would also remove the requirement for the overall federal leader to be an MP, just to be an elected representative. We are in new times, and not being in the HoC didn’t seem to do Sturgeon any harm, and Natalie Bennett’s lack of impact was not linked to not being an MP.
I would retain an MP group leader in the HoC elected by the MPs though, who would be deputy leader in the HoC when the federal leader was there too.
Good article Caron. Great comments.
How Liberal are we if we maintain this hierarchy for Deputy Leader?
Afterall, the Greens have a leader who is not a PM!