Well, we’re about to test that maxim again in November. After all our hard work bringing out MPs to 72, I can’t help but feel we should be on Santa’s good list when it comes to electing the next Lib Dem President.
So, what do we need that next president to be?
Well history has broadly divided the legacies into 3 groups. The great orators who fire members up (Farron). The administrators who get things done (Pack) and the non-existent at best. The first two certainly have had their advantages at various points in our history.
Tim Farron largely kept us going during the coalition years. Whilst I’m sure Pack supporters would say his overhaul of Party structures has streamlined us and helped us win the seats we did at the General Election.
So, which now? Neither. We need to break the mould and brace against our biggest weakness. The complacent leadership of the Parliamentary Party.
Our leadership, whilst successful, have in my opinion failed to adapt to party growth. Ed Davey at times feels isolated in the “bunker” and small-c conservative. As we lose ground to UKIP V.2… and now probably the Corbyn Experiment “your party.”
We as a party have become cowed to a point where we’re too afraid to vote against Conservative amendments in legislation in case we offend people. When one of our most talented and reliable MPs Christine Jardine voted against a cruel and horrible Tory amendment insulting people with Mental Health difficulties, she was summarily dismissed with nothing but contempt. I’m aware too of other MPs who have voted for good Conservative motions who match our own values and goals and have been disciplined by the whips too. We’re trying to have our cake and eat it. We need to vote for what’s good, vote down what’s bad and build cross-party alliances. Work with those we can and achieve things in Parliament. 72 is a nice number, but it’s also not enough. We shouldn’t isolate ourselves.
We need someone whose first instinct isn’t just to appeal only to middle class voters in the south of England. Who can see bigger and broader.
Someone who will take on stale thinking. Push boundaries. We need someone who isn’t afraid to be radical and test out new strategies. Someone who won’t be cowed by institutional pressure. A radical loudmouth would help us stand out again.
I am normally with people who say this can’t be an MP, but in this case, I think it must probably an MP. Someone who can see the party’s parliamentary failures and push back hard on them, who can arm themselves somewhat against the pedantic and single-minded whip.
But this also can’t be an MP who is clearly in the in crowd. Someone with a portfolio position. Whose position is owed to generous Federal campaign funding. Who already had endorsements lined up from leaders and high-profile members of the in crowd before the contest even kicked off.
Who then? I don’t know yet. But for now, I’m calling on all the radical loudmouths to consider standing.
I’m holding out for my hero, and I hope they are holding a nomination form.
* Andrew Emmerson is a Liberal Democrat member based in Shetland.



6 Comments
I think it’s a shame Sal Brinton doesn’t get a mention in your rundown of recent Presidents – she did an absolutely phenomenal job of helping steer the ship through the dark post-Coalition days and the repeated membership surges that helped spark the ensuing revival, as well as ensuring we have no organisational quarter to people who do share our values. She had much of the zeal and forthrightness you rightly called for in the next President, too. So whoever Mark’s successor is (and I think Mark’s been good, to be clear), we could do much worse than another Sal.
Speaking of radical loudmouths… we are mobilising.
https://radicalassociation.org/
I admire Josh Barbarinder greatly. My strong sense is that our MPs – especially the 57 new ones – have a big enough job on representing their constituencies and really shouldn’t be taking on a crucial and very time consuming role running the party.
Let all our MPs devote their time to making sure they re-elected in 2029 and bring a lot more MPs with them.
We need a President who is not a parliamentarian, because it requires a full time commitment. It is simply not something that can be an add-on to a full time parliamentary role.
I would strongly urge Josh to think again. Meantime who should we be persuading to take on the really important role of running the party as President?
@MickTaylor
If the President is to be a full time commitment then perhaps it’s time to pay a salary for the role.
Strongly agree with @Mick Taylor. I have been saying the same of some facebook pages. Josh is brilliant, no doubt, but as an MP he needs to concentrate on constituency and also use his considerable talents for getting legislation enacted, and changes we all need.
(sorry to who was hoping to take his place as brilliant justice spokes).
Also there will be a vacuum on the more detailed admin based work Mark Pack has been doing – who will zoom in to fill that?
@David Warren. The job of President has grown from a largely figurehead role to a very busy job. The only people who can do it now either have an adequate wage coming in AND the spare time to do the job or are retired and have an adequate pension. So, I agree with you that an allowance or salary should be paid.
@Suzanne Fletcher is quite correct. There will be a need for someone else to do all the nitty gritty work that Sal and Mark did. With all the best will in the world, an MP will simply not have to time to do the work the job now entails.