Recent criticism of Ming Campbell over the tactics of Gordon Brown has been unfair.
He should have said “no” immediately we are told by some. Well apart from silly arguments that have been made about it so far, which will soon be forgotten by the electorate, I do not see anything wrong in consulting colleagues first before giving an answer. As Liberals we are opposed to centralised power, so it must be right that Ming consults before deciding?
And I do not see anything wrong in Lib Dem members being advisors to the government. Surely it is in the national interest that they do so?
The article on the BBC website about Shirley Williams I think does credit to the Liberal Democrats.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Chris Cory
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
Richard Good
6 Comments
Well said Geoffrey
I think there is a huge amount wrong with Lib Dem peers agreeing to be ‘independent advisors’ to the Labour government. It sends out all the wrong messages about our independence (particularly after Ming’s clear statements on this), it looks like double-standards and these appointments are already being reported as government appointments by the BBC and others.
When we had the chance to be members of the Butler inquiry, which was in the national interest, we rightly refused to take part. Why is it now ok to support the ‘fag-end’ Labour Government?
Non-participation in Butler was about the remit. We felt strongly it was too narrow. As Shirley has made clear she and her two colleagues are not supporting the government, they are offering advice in highly specific areas. They are not on the government pay roll, there is no collective responsibility (i.e. they are not expected to defend govt policy) and they are free to criticise the government as they see fit. That all sounds pretty reasonable to me.
If these Lib Dem peers “are not on the government pay roll, there is no collective responsibility (i.e. they are not expected to defend govt policy) and they are free to criticise the government as they see fit”, I’m rather unclear as to what their role actually is meant to be. It’s one thing to give advice to the Government – presumably we’d be quite happy if the Government followed our advice in a whole variety of areas – it’s quite another to be formally appointed by Gordon Brown to a specific post.
Whatever the formal position may be, I find it a little difficult to understand how it’s possible to, at the same time, hold a post of official advisor to the government, and be an opposition politician committed to defeating it.
I think Shirley’s helpful article in Lib Dem News makes it clear. She’s the sole UK member on the board of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, so it makes sense for her to advise the Prime Minister of the day. Advice is not the same as joining the Government. As a PPC in a Labour/LibDem marginal, I would be *extremely* reluctant to see us cosying up to a Labour government. Giving advice, while being free to speak and vote as a Lib Dem, is not a problem.
No-one seems to have noticed thus far that Shirley Williams is 11 years OLDER than the iniquitous Mandatory Retirement Age which Brown’s government insists on defending before the European Court of Justice at considerable expense to the UK taxpayer.
She is also 10 years older than Ming Campbell.
At least, in Shirley’s case, the ageist bigots have been chivalrous enough to keep their snide comments to themselves.