Last night we saw Sir Malcolm Bruce narrowly defeat Lorely Burt for the post of Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons, to give it its full name.
I’ve seen a few posts on social media this morning from people who have never heard of Malcolm. If that’s the case, then I’m glad that they have the chance to get to know him. I can still remember speeches he made over 20 years ago and for me his closing speech at Scottish Conference is always a big treat for me. You get some idea of the man’s priorities from this piece I wrote last year after the dinner celebrating his 30th anniversary as an MP. Malcolm has travelled to some of the poorest places on earth as Chair of the International Development Select Committee. He’s a good, proper, internationalist, humanitarian liberal. His understanding of the dark, illiberal forces at work across the world and the global challenges we face is pretty impressive.
There was a bit of discussion on Facebook last night about whether it was right that the MPs alone should choose the Deputy Leader. Given that it’s such a high profile role these days, should all members not have a say? We have to bear in mind that should the leader be incapacitated for any reason, the Deputy would take over, at least for an interim period. That’s happened twice before in recent history, when Sir Menzies Campbell took over (and then became leader) when Charles Kennedy stepped down, and when Vince Cable took over temporarily when Sir Menzies stepped down. It was during that time that Vince made the famous Stalin to Mr Bean reference at Prime Minister’s Questions. So, the Deputy Leader could be centre stage, speaking for us, at any moment.
On the other hand, the post is technically the Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Party in the Commons. There’s one in the Lords, too. There is an argument that in those circumstances it should be the MPs who choose who represents them to the rest of the party. I’ve also seen it argued that the cost of another all-member ballot would take money away from campaigning.
What do you think?
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
University of Dundee Tower Building #dundeewestend
What is the tipping point in Palestine Action arrests?
"Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned, they therefore do as they like"
expats
Simon McGrath
Andrew Melmoth
ANDERS LARSON
John McHugo
8 Comments
I’m with the ‘leave things as they are’ side on this one. The Deputy Leader position comes with no constitutional role or responsibility, is mirrored by a similar role in the Lords, and only becomes relevant in the event of a change of Leader, and even then only by custom and practice.
I think the other way round, ie that there should be a Parliamentary Leader elected by MPs, and an overall Party leader. I think the current situation in all parties reflects rather a 19th Century view that the concept of Party is one mainly for Parliament. You can see the awkwardness trying to sort out issues like that surrounding Chris Rennard, and especially the issues around Council groups, involving, among others, those who post here.
I suspect like many others, I would much prefer a fresh vote for the Leader.
I am open minded about this and at the end of the day it is Conference that decides. That being said, it is worth mentioning in this debate about the other 2 main parties and their Deputy Leadership processes. The Conservatives appoint their Deputy Leader but Labour do elect their Deputy Leader via their Electoral College. Caron mentions the advantages and disadvantages, rightly so. The pro- argument is legitimacy whereas the con is the cost.
Since the Deputy Leader is a post that is an MP whose duties are carried out in and around the House of Commons, it seems reasonable that he or she is elected there.
That being said, I am pleased to see that the job has gone to my first preference for Leader in 1999! (Charles Kennedy then struck precisely the right note when he started his conference speech: ” I must thank you all who voted for me as Leader, whether as First Preference, Second Preference, Third Preference, Fourth or Fifth.”)
If Malcolm Bruce is Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Party, who is Nick Clegg’s Deputy as Leader of the National Party? It seems that the Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Party fills this role automatically.
All members elect the Party Leader, why not for the Deputy Leader? I accept that it is probably wise that the candidates for Deputy must be MP’s but why can’t the rank & file have some say in the selection?
I think we should, just on the basis that if we claim to be more democratic than the other parties we should aim to demonstrate it as much as possible.
After all, when SMB (!) appears on TV and radio he will invariably be billed as the ‘Deputy Leader’… the fact that he’s one of two is likely to be lost on the majority of the population, and when combined with the succession issue leads me to the position that we should all have a say.
The simple answer to Caron’s question is no, because it really does not matter. What really matters is who is leader of the party. The sooner we all have a vote on who is leader of the party, to replace Clegg, the sooner the party will be able to climb out of the electoral hole that he has dug for the party. We can think about deputy leaders once we have got rid of Clegg and voted in a leader who is interested in success for Liberal Democrats and implementing Liberal Democrat policies rather than accepting crumbs from Cameron’s Tories.