PoliticsHome.com reports:
Simon Hughes already has the firm commitment of 30 of the 57 Liberal Democrat MPs that they will vote for him to be Deputy Leader of the party in the vote on 9th June, his spokesman has told PoliticsHome today. …
Only some of the MPs have publicly declared their support for Mr Hughes, which the spokesman explains as follows: “We haven’t had that many people coming out publicly … because many of them are senior party officials, government officials and they don’t want to be seen to be supporting anyone at this stage.”
So is there any chance they are wrong? How confident are they?
“Well, there are people as well who said ‘we’ll probably support you’ and we haven’t included them, so we are fairly 100% certain that those (30) people will vote for us.”
The Simon Hughes for Deputy Leadership campaign today announced the public support of three more MPs. Paul Burstow, David Ward and the new Scotland secretary, Michael Moore, have all thrown their weight behind Mr Hughes.
Update: Team Hughes have just been on the phone to the Voice noting that the comments given to PoliticsHome weren’t intended for publication (which probably explains the “fairly 100% certain” quote), and stressing that though they are very hopeful of winning, they are certainly not wanting to sound in any way triumphalist.
17 Comments
What does “fairly 100% certain” mean?
Well I’m fairly 100% he’ll win too đ Oh and I’m fairly 100% sure I’ll have a bit to say at next week’s FPC. Oh and I’m fairly 100% sure there’ll be tears before bedtime before the end of the coalition………..
Is it a secret ballot?
Fairly slightly perhaps probably definitely certain?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Deweytruman12.jpg
đ
“noting that the comments given to PoliticsHome werenât intended for publication”
What other reason is there for a politician to give a comment to a political news website?
So, off the record, Team Hughes are triumphalist but for the record they aren’t? Who is doing his PR?
If so: GOOD stuff.
Time for the majority of ‘social liberals’/ ‘Beveridge Liberals’ and ‘social democrats’ to have a clear bulwark against the minority opinion within the LDâs that is ‘orange bookism’/ ’19th century classical liberalism’.
SH winning the DL will- inevitably- be very good for LDâs politics specifcally and wider centre left politics more generally.
@ROB SHEFFIELD
“Time for the majority of âsocial liberalsâ/ âBeveridge Liberalsâ and âsocial democratsâ to have a clear bulwark against the minority opinion within the LDâs that is âorange bookismâ/ â19th century classical liberalismâ”
I’m confused Rob, as a Labour supporter, how you come to that conclusion?
Ryan M
What conclusion !?
Neil: yes.
@Rob
That the so-called “Orange Bookers” are a minority in the party.
“I’m fairly 100% sure” that I disagree with Linda Jack.
Actually, having seen and heard her at the NEC, you can delete the “fairly”.
Ryan M – how do you know that “Orange Bookers” are in a minority?
Since when was this contest about social Liberals vs economic Liberals? In case people haven’t noticed both Simon and Tim are fairly firm left of centre social Liberals. Both are members of the Beveridge group. Simon Hughes is a good guy but its time for the new wave of MPs to be given a chance. Incidentally, I do wonder if some of the people who spot on about “orange bookers” have actually ever read it. If there is an Orange Book movement, it would be a fairly odd one as many of the contributors went off in different directions. The dividing line in our party is very artificial. I remember being at a fringe event with David Laws and Evan Harris and they were falling over each other to agree on every issue.
Simon Hughes is a great guy, but I really think that Tim Farrron would be the best man for the job, and the best at engaging with the grassroots and the public at large.
Ryan M
You really think the Cleggy tendency is the majority ? I don’t think so.
@Rob
What makes you think so? My local home party very much is the Orange book mold, and returns a Liberal Democrat MP in that vein also.
Methinks you generalize far too much.