On Monday night, Lib Dem Voice e-mailed party members signed up to our Forum asking a number of questions about the current state of British politics, including the reshuffle. On Tuesday morning Nick Clegg decided to spike our guns by announcing a mini-reshuffle of the Lib Dem shadow cabinet. The survey’s still live for those who haven’t yet completed it, but we thought it was worth reporting the results of what our survey found now before it goes even more stale. To date, 168 of you have completed it, for which many thanks.
First off we asked for your reaction to the news which shocked Westminster late last week, Gordon Brown’s decision to bring back Peter Mandelson to the cabinet: Do you think this showed Gordon Brown as a strong Prime Minister able to forgive his enemies for the sake of good government, or as a party leader desperate to shore up his position but which will ultimately back-fire?
Here’s what you told us:
> A strong Prime Minister – 27%
> A weak party leader – 50%
> Don’t know / No opinion – 23%
We received various comments in response to this question – intriguingly, and entirely unprompted by the wording of the question, a significant number used the word ‘desperate’ to describe the Prime Minister’s actions.
Onto the Lib Dems – LDV asked: Do you think Nick Clegg should now reshuffle the Lib Dem front-bench in response to the changes to the Cabinet?
You told us:
> Yes, it’s time for a reshuffle – 35%
> No, he should stick with the current shadow cabinet for now – 47%
> Don’t know / No opinion – 18%
So, a majority of you were quite happy to stick with what the party had; though a few comments mentioned the need to fill the gaps in Housing (left semi-vacant by Lembit Opik’s resignation to campaign for the party presidency) and the newly-created department for Climate Change and Energy.
Particular kudos to some partially-fulfilled prescience goes to this comment: “Main players fine, but vacancies at Justice and Housing need to be filled, plus there’s the new department for Energy and Climate Change. Give that to Steve Webb, and bring back Tim Farron at Defra. Either Bring back Heath at Justice or give it to Simon Hughes, Andrew George at Housing, with Andrew Stunell going to help Webb on Energy. I’d also appoint Ed Davey as head of the General Election campaign team now, and give him a long run-up with the job. This would allow Charles Kennedy to return to the Front bench as Shadow Foreign Secretary.”
Which segways us neatly into our next question: There has been talk in Conservative circles of their need to bring back some of their so-called ‘Big Beasts’ to give the party increased gravitas in the current political climate. How important do you think this argument is for the Lib Dems?
Here’s what you told us:
> 51% – Important – we need our highest-profile MPs on the front-bench now more than ever to gain media attention
> 39% – Unimportant – it is time to develop the next generation of talented MPs and increase their national profile
> 11% – Don’t know / No opinion
And finally, for today, we turned to Fantasy Reshuffle, and asked: Which of the following individuals not currently on the front-bench would you like to see return to the Lib Dem shadow cabinet?
Here’s the percentage figures of those who thought the following should return to the Lib Dem front bench:
Charles Kennedy – 70%
Sir Menzies Campbell – 61%
Lord (Paddy) Ashdown – 57%
Jo Swinson – 52%
Tim Farron – 49%
Evan Harris – 48%
Baroness (Shirley) Williams – 43%
David Heath – 33%
Paul Holmes – 27%
Malcolm Bruce – 22%
Alistair Carmichael – 17%
Alan Beith – 16%
An intriguing set of results. Perhaps unsurprisingly the three most recent former party leaders, all of whom have high profiles – Kennedy, Campbell and Ashdown – head the pack. But Jo Swinson, again ignored by yesterday’s reshuffle, polls very highly, with over 50% of LDV party members urging her return.
Of the three Lisbon treaty rebels brought back in yesterday’s reshuffle, Tim Farron polls best (49%), followed by David Heath (33%), with Alistair Carmichael trailing with 17%. It’s interesting to note that two thorns in the side of the party leadership – Evan Harris (49%) and Paul Holmes (27%), who moved opposition to Make it Happen’s tax-cutting agenda at this year’s conference – are scored markedly differently.
And that’s your lot for today. More survey results later in the week.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A swamp of lies and disinformation
The mysterious mole men of New York caught on video
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Peter Martin
Rob Heale
Maat (Bristol)
Mick Taylor
Jason Connor
53 Comments
It’d be great to have Ming, Charles and Paddy back in a reshuffle prior to the election.
You didn’t include questions about whether people would like to bring back Grimond, Asquith, Gladstone, or Palmerston.
They would have been rapturoursly popular as well.
Ming Campbell should certainly return as Shadow Foreign Secretary. He excelled when he held this portfolio previously, and is vastly more knowledgeable on this subject than Ed Davey (an economist, not a foreign affairs specialist).
Evan Harris has a habit of damaging the Party every time he opens his mouth (eg, defending Roy Meadow and David Southall on Newsnight, and generally treating people with whom he disagrees as ignorant halfwits), so he is best kept out of sight.
As for Julia Goldsworthy, a reshuffle is required even if its only purpose is simply to get rid of her. The Shadow Cabinet is for liberals, not those who wish to extinguish freedom.
We are blessed with a wealth of talent so bringing back the eminently capable ‘Big Three’ may not be the best course of action. It seems eminently sensible to allow our less high profile but equally able MPs the opportunity to develop.
Contrast our MPs with the Tories, then laugh derisively.
I doubt Ming would want to serve in a Shadow Cabinet any time soon and St Paddy has surely moved on from such pursuits by now. It would certainly be good to get Charles Kennedy back but what role could be best fill?
Finally, anyone who doubts the considerable abilities of Julia Goldsworthy really has lost the plot completely.
“As for Julia Goldsworthy, a reshuffle is required even if its only purpose is simply to get rid of her. The Shadow Cabinet is for liberals, not those who wish to extinguish freedom.”
What’s this nonsense all about? Julia is doing well as CLG spokesperson.
Tony Greaves
Tony Greaves wrote:
“What’s this nonsense all about?”
She is in favour of martial law for under 16s.
Wit and Wisdom wrote:
“Finally, anyone who doubts the considerable abilities of Julia Goldsworthy really has lost the plot completely.”
Considerable abilities can be used for evil as well as good purposes.
Those who have “lost the plot” are those who consider it acceptable to have someone who favours martial law for under 16s serving in the Shadow Cabinet.
Perhaps Sesenco needs to get a room to retire to.
Wit and (un)Wisdom clearly doesn’t want to address the issue.
Now, why should that be?
Julia Goldsworthy is in favour of curfews for under 17 year olds, which is gross invasion of peolpes’ rights. Her views hardy fit with our pro civil rights narrative.
Well, you clearly have an axe to grind with the good MP but you don’t seem to want to elaborate on it. It would be churlish of me to seek to draw this out of you unbidden. Whatever the issue it does not appear to have got any attention anywhere else so it must be irrelevant to the general discourse.
I would hope we can avoid simple insults though.
Now its clear from a quick Google search: Julia Goldsworthy’s support for a voluntary scheme in her constituency aimed at reducing anti-social behaviour and protecting young people themselves is deemed as supporting ‘martial law’?
Now, I may be wrong – I happily admit that I often am – but I don’t recall the Pinochet years in Chile as being ‘voluntary’. Similarly, the rule of the Generals in Burma is, to the best of my knowledge, not ‘voluntary’.
I am lucky to live in a very safe part of the country with the lowest level of crime anywhere but people here still have concerns about young people and anti-social behaviour – rightly or wrongly. There are three ways to address such issues: (i) ignore the concerns of residents and hope they go away – bad politics (ii) a formal clampdown on people deemed to be a nuisance – bad civil rights (iii) introduce voluntary schemes in areas where there is considered to be a problem with the intention of working with parents and the police to reduce the fear of ASB and the prospects of young people being unfairly singled out by police. Common sense.
Now which is preferable – and which is in any way equivalent to ‘martial law’?
Now, what was the point of the post again? Ah yes, our Julia would make an excellent shadow minister, whatever she did.
Teenage curfews may not be “martial law” but they certainly are illiberal. I can understand why people are narked with her about it; it is an extraordinary thing for a Lib Dem MP to support.
The scheme in Redruth is entirely about good community policing – all good Lib Dem stuff – and nothing to do with martial law for under 16s. It’s just unfortunate that the local police officer wanted to call it a “voluntary curfew.” Understandably this has coloured the way in which the press has reported it, but I have always been clear that I support community policing, but have never said that a “curfew” for young people is a good thing – either for Redruth or the rest of the country.
It strikes me as an excellent, legislation-free way to soothe people’s fears. And its voluntary – that’s the key.
The August curfew in Redruth was not “voluntary”. The Police were given the power to remove people from public places who had committed no crime. That is martial law. And that is something no liberal can support.
Julia Goldsworthy compounded her mischief by claiming that young people should be banned from public places at night because some people find their presence imtimidating. Many people find the presence of black people in public places after dark intimidating. Is Julia Goldsworthy also in favour of curfews for blacks?
Julia Goldsworthy has pandered to youth-hating sentiment. Is that any less morally reprehensible than pandering to racist sentiment?
Sesenco: ‘The August curfew in Redruth was not “voluntary”.’
and you know this because: you live in redruth and saw it firsthand , or you read reports in the media?
Just asking!
It would be useful if Julia could go into more detail about the scheme – which I’ve had various stories of.
I do think it’s an odd thing for a liberal MP to support but comparing her/the scheme to Pinochet is ridiculously over the top and does nothing to encourage a sensible debate.
“Is Julia Goldsworthy also in favour of curfews for blacks?”
Is this a rational debate when such phrases are being bandied about?
A voluntary curfew? What happens to under 16 year olds found in public places after 9pm?
Please note that I have not compared Julia Goldsworthy with General Pinochet. Julia Goldsworthy is a very mionor cog in this. She has responded to local agitation by crossing a line that no Liberal Democrat should. The curfew agenda is actually directed from Washington (like our foreign policy). Julia Goldsworthy is simply being used (as are her constituents).
Wit and Wisdom, if you want a rational debate, then try to be rational yourself. Do not argue that black is really white, or at least pale grey, as you try to do above.
Julia Goldsworthy has given legitimacy to deeply unpleasant attitudes held by many of her constituents. Is there a significant moral difference between hatred of young people and hatred of blacks? Wit and Wisdom clearly thinks there is. If so, what is it?
The initiative was developed by the local beat officer and residents’ association. It was presented as an alternative to the dispersal order that had been issued last year, and was primarily intended to encourage parents to be more aware of their responsibilities.
There were reports of very young children being around very late at night, which raised understandable concern about their safety. “Operation Goodnight” did not involve police officers using any additional powers to those they have already. It was simply a case of officers asking children if their parents knew where they were, and offering them a lift home if they needed one. Anecdotally it seems to have the support of the local community and many young people in particular, who said that they felt much safer.
The pilot has now ended and Devon and Cornwall Police are undertaking a survey as to its effectiveness. My view is that we should support communities in developing solutions to their own problems – which is exactly what has happened in this case. However, the language used has been very emotive, which unfortunately has limited the extent of sensible discussion.
““Operation Goodnight” did not involve police officers using any additional powers to those they have already. It was simply a case of officers asking children if their parents knew where they were, and offering them a lift home if they needed one.”
I’d be interested to know how this is illiberal, Sesenco. If anything, it sounds like good police practice.
I think that Clegg should appoint Charles, Paddy etc. as key regional campaigners – Paddy for the South West, Charles for Scotland etc.
Sesenco – ATEOTD children are by very definition not adults and need the protection of the community. You can’t apply the same Liberal standards in all cases when we are talking about children.
“Is there a significant moral difference between hatred of young people and hatred of blacks?
Once again, when such comments are used in relation to Julia G, I’d say the argument is lost by those spouting such obvious nonsense.
Thomas Hemsley wrote:
“I’d be interested to know how this is illiberal, Sesenco. If anything, it sounds like good police practice.”
Right. Let’s start from the premise that we are living on the same planet. A couple of burly coppers pull up in a squad car and ask a 15 year-old, going about his/her lawful business, what he/she is doing there. How is the 15 year-old going to feel? Is this not going to make him/her afraid to be going about his lawful buisness in that area? Does this not resemble the kind of harassment that used to me meted out to young West Indians in Britxon prior to 1981? Why shouldn’t young Cornish people be in public places at night?
A “voluntary” curfew? I guess this is something along the lines of “voluntary” ID cards and David Owen’s “voluntary” forced labour.
Existing Police powers? Yes, the Police already do have the powers to impose curfews on young people under 16. It was precisely these powers that were used in Redruth.
I will ignore the latest comment from Wit and Wisdom and address Steve Travis.
In Redruth, “children” meant everyone under the age of 16. What possible objection could any rational person have to a 15 year-old being in a public place after 9.00pm? You might object to that 15 year-old being there if he/she were breaking the law. But the same would apply to an adult breaking the law.
The first curfew law (introduced by Straw) was restricted to those aged under 9. As it never had been usual for under 9s to frequent public places at night, the law appeared to be addressing a problem that didn’t exist. And unsurprisingly, no child curfew order was ever imposed under that statute.
In reality, the first curfew law was a stalking horse for the second curfew law (introduced by Clarke), which applies to under 16s. This is clearly a stalking horse, too. Vaz and his Home Affairs Select Committee is demanding a blanket nationwide curfew for all under 18s (which can only be enforced by microchipping, incidentally).
The blanket under-18s curfew law will itself be a stalking horse for a curfew for adults. That is the endgame. That is why the Americans told the Blair government to introduce these laws in the first place.
The more you can neutralise the opposition (and this thread shows how successful Cheney has been), then the process is so much easier.
Wit and Wisdom and his ilk are in a state of deep denial. They are incapable of seeing what stares them in the face.
Interesting how you chose to ignore comments that criticised you.
It also seems you didn’t read what Ms Goldsworthy said – “It was simply a case of officers asking children if their parents knew where they were, and offering them a lift home if they needed one.” – how is that illiberal?
Thomas Hemlsey:
I will ignore arguments of the “if X says so, therefore it must be true” kind. If that is the most effective criticism I am ever going to encounter then frankly I have nothing to fear from anbody.
Secondly, the curfew was not voluntary. The Police had the power to remove under 16s from public places at their discretion. The local Police Chief told the Guardian that the powers would be exercised irrespective of the reason given by the young people for their being in the public place.
If that isn’t martial law, then I don’t know what is.
Liberal Democrats should be fighting for the rights of the young people, not the amour propre of an errant Lib Dem MP.
There is a strong suggestion of paranoia leaking out. It is remarkable to think that Devon and Cornwall Police are agents of the CIA and that the frontline against freedom is on the mean streets of Redruth but there might be a book or TV series in there somewhere.
I think you need to remember that compromise is needed. It was an alternative to the indiscriminate dispersal order, which banned every young person from an area (or that is my understanding). This merely offers lifts home and asks young people whether their parents know where they are.
I fear that Sesenco is heading for the role of “swivel-eyed monomaniac” as seen on Question Time i.e. any subject reverts to his/her pet obsession.
Now that he’s explained that the youth dispersal initiative (temporary) in Redruth was in fact the work of Dick Cheney, then all is clear …………
Wit and Wisdom, your ignorance amazes me. Both curfew laws (the ones promoted by Straw and Clarke) were based on practice in the United States. Vaz and the Home Affairs Select Committee base their proposal on a scheme in New York.
So check your facts before you accuse people of paranoia.
Then go back to sleep.
Crewegwyn, the same remarks apply to you as apply to Wit and Wisdom. Check your facts before you start throwing mud around. Straw, Clarke and Vaz have all admitted in public statements that their proposals were based on practice in the United States of America.
You lose the argument, so what do you do – throw personal insults around. Pathetic!
BTW. Who told Blair to declare war on Iraq? Not that nice Mr Cheney, surely? No, no. To say such a thing would be “paranoid”.
Certain people rqeuire fresh air, I feel.
BTW, Crewegwyn. I have never been on “Question Time”, either as a panellist or in the audience. And I don’t have swivel eyes. Wrong right the way down the line.
Who is telling us to have ID cards, 42 days detention, satellite surveillance of motor vehicles, blanket email eavesdropping, etc, etc? No, it couldn’t possibly be those lovely Americans, now could it?
Is my “pet obsesseion” human rights? I hope so.
Senseco, I hear where your coming from.
BUT,
I think it is less than liberal to be so dogmatic about your liberalism that you start to be resistant to good sense.
Yes, I’m against martial law too, but I think you are exaggerating to suggest Julia Goldsworthy is in favour of it, even though the evidence suggests otherwise. And in exaggerating I don’t think you are helping your cause, which (I fear I presume arrogance to say so) is one we all share.
I support your principled stance, but I oppose your specific attack in practice.
We should be making a virtue of necessity and explain the limitations of contrariness, so I feel it is unfortunate that while Julia Golsworthy is technically correct in this instance the political point has yet to be clearly and sufficiently demarkated to show the lines between principle and policy and the characteristics of any circumstances in which they must be crossed.
Perhaps we should look at ‘sunset-clauses’ and at the processes of democratic accountability (elections for Police chiefs etc) in this context – we have much to say on these and other issues, but I think we are missing the opportunity to explain our arguments in more detail and win greater support for them.
We don’t have to fight – there is another way!
I think the question of whether there was a genuine problem in Redruth or simply a problem perceived by the residents is relevant. Young people have been demonised in recent times and although there clearly are places where groups of young people pose a genuine threat to the liberties of others in the community there are also many situations where a threat is perceived incorrectly. At one public meeting on my estate a few years ago someone got up and said quite seriously that the situation there was worse than Beirut (the civil war was in progress at the time). My daughter has frequently been on the receiving end of harassment by the police for the ‘crime’ of sitting around in a public open space with a group of other teenagers. Perhaps they leave a bit of litter and drink a few cans of lager, but they are not a threat to the well-being of the community.
Again, I think you need to look at compromise, between what benefits the public (and whilst not a majority of young people are intimidating, a majority are intimidated) and what does not tar all young people with the same brush. As a young person, I am sick of being patronised or demonised by the press – yet, I believe, that the system in Redruth was preferential to the alternatives.
Sesenco, you may have something of a point, but, I’m afraid you have given us all an object lesson on how not to make it. Now, if I could drag us back to the “topic” – I wonder if Charles, Ming and Paddy would really feel comfortable on today’s front bench? Remember Charles’s famous response to the Orange Book, that Britain didn’t need a third conservative party?
But then I think you also have to look at his recent statements of support and the fact that we really aren’t (except, perhaps, in the case of this unpleasant free schools idea) pursuing the Orange Book.
Sesenco,
Your paranoia now seems to be preventing you from even undetstanding LDV posts !!!
Thomas Hemsley: Well, it’s hardly surprising to see public statements of support, especially from a politician who still wants to prove his reliability to his party. We may not yet be replacing the NHS with social insurance, but we intend to make cuts, while also making it easier for the rich to buy their own drugs when the NHS does not. And of course, we are going to cut taxes in a recession, just when the Government’s income sources are drying up anyway!
“I think you also have to look at his recent statements of support”
The BBC interview I saw during the conference was very much directed towards holding the leadership to the [wholly dishonest] rhetoric about helping the poor that was used to sell the policy of cuts in spending and taxes.
But I wonder whether anyone still finds the idea of cutting overall taxation remotely credible, after the events of the past few weeks?
To be fair, I suppose it’s essentially bad luck that what might otherwise have been a reasonably plausible lie on Clegg’s part has turned into something that no one in their right mind would believe in a million years.
I’m not sure I agree with Julia on policing in Redruth, but she certainly isn’t an illiberal person.
One thing I would have liked Nick to have done would have been to promote more women to the front line. I think that our women MPs are generally exceptional and that there is also a strong case for trying to put forward a less white, male dominated top table of spokesmen.
I don’t favour formal positive discrimination, but I do think that the women in the parliamentary party have been under-promoted.
Julia, in particular, combines an excellent grasp of policy with superb presence on television. She should definitely be one of the party’s leading faces in the next general election campaign.
Let’s recapitulate.
The Police in Redruth used their statutory powers to impose a curfew on young people aged under 16 in a designated part of the town for the month of August. The local Police chief told the Guardian newspaper that all persons aged under 16 would be removed from public places by force, irrespective of their reasons for being there. By necessary implication, the police officer in question stated that his officers would defy a decision of the High Court which had held that the power to remove young people could only be exercised with objective justification.
There is no doubt that the Redruth curfew was not “voluntary”, was policed in a blanket fashion, and was very probably illegal. It was martial law by another name.
The media reported that Julia Goldsworthy (1) gave her backing to this curfew, and (2) stated that young people should be removed from public places after dark because some people find them intimidating.
If Julia Goldsworthy actually did do either of those things, then there should be no place for her on the Lib Dem Front Bench.
Unfortunately, I do not have in front of me the verbatim transcripts of what she actually did say. Only what the press reported her as having done and said.
The bottom line is that freedom of movement is a fundamental human right which should be restricted only in truly exceptional circumstances. I hope all Lib Dems will concur with that.
I disagree with those who say that I have put my case badly. I have stated the facts, I have explained why we should be disturbed by those facts. I have set the wider context (why we should all be worried). And I have forced Julia Goldsworthy to defend herself. Not a bad presentation, then.
BTW, there has always been a crime of public nuisance, plus a Public Order Act, both of which are more than sufficient to deal with people making a nuisance of themselves in public at night.
Let’s recapitulate.
No, let’s not. YAAAAWWWWN!!!!
David Allen: “We may not yet be replacing the NHS with social insurance,”
And the other countries in the world with a system like the NHS are … ?
Doesn’t that laissez-faire free-market paragon Sweden, have a system of medical insurance? And aren’t their health outcomes better than ours?
We should be interested in outcomes not some dogmatic slavish adherence to particular delivery mechanisms.
Of course you disagree with them, because saying someone supports martial law (when they don’t) is both incorrect and unjust, and you are understandably ashamed.
I agree with Oranjepan when he/she (sorry about that) says that it is less than liberal to be dogmatic. You have to compromise in situations like this. And in this case, the compromise is between the voluntary curfew (and I’ve yet to see any conclusive evidence that it is not voluntary, and constitutes martial law – you haven’t given us any evidence to support your theory that it was ‘blanket’) and mandatory and universal dispersal orders.
You might want to look at a local news story to get a feel for what opinion on the ground was:
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/westbriton/Curfew-kids/article-203746-detail/article.html
Thomas Hemsley wrote:
“Of course you disagree with them, because saying someone supports martial law (when they don’t) is both incorrect and unjust, and you are understandably ashamed.”
I am not remotely ashamed about anything. I am very, very proud. Yes, proud to have stood up for human rights. A pity more members don’t do the same. Then we really would be a liberal party.
What I have said is neither incorrect nor unjust. It is the plain, unalloyed truth.
“You have to compromise in situations like this.”
No you don’t. You hold the line on a fundamental issue of principle.
“and I’ve yet to see any conclusive evidence that it is not voluntary”
The Police chief who authorised the curfew said that it would apply to any young person found in a public place after 9.00pm irrespective of what he or she was doing there. He said that even those coming home from band practice would be removed (a reference to the decision of the High Court which held that the removal of young people without cause was ultra vires).
Check your facts, Mr Hemsley, before you make an even bigger ass of yourself.
Sorry, I am not “Anonymous”, I am Sesenco.
I am Brian, and so’s my wife!
Is this still going on?
The following link to the website of Liberty indicates that “blanket” curfews are unlawful.
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2006/curfew-case-judgment.shtml
The Police cannot remove young people without objective justification. That is not what our legislators intended, of course, so thank goodness for the judges.
If the media reports are correct, the Redruth curfew was unlawful.
Vaz’s Home Affairs Select Committee proposal would make it a crime for anyone under the age of 18 to be in a public place after 9.00pm, be it the Centre of Birmingham or the Ardnamurchan Peninsula. Brown’s office said they would consider pilots (which would require primary legislation).
For my part, I think it requires a pretty hefty justification for policemen to demand of anyone why they are present in a particular public place. “Mind your own bloody business” is the answer that springs to mind.