The BBC website gives us the low-down on the various ins and outs of the minor shadow cabinet reshuffle and a new entrant to the Lib Dem presidential race:
Lembit Opik is standing down as Liberal Democrat housing spokesman to concentrate on his campaign to succeed Simon Hughes as the party’s president. A Lib Dem spokesman said the MP for Montgomeryshire was facing two rivals in the presidency election – Baroness Scott and Chandila Fernando.
The housing portfolio will now be overseen by local government spokeswoman Julia Goldsworthy. Voting for Lib Dem president ends on 7 November, with a result the next week.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
There really is no getting out of this fiscal corner
Former sheriff candidate to face trial for allegedly registering cats to vote
Our West End ward surgeries #dundeewestend
Reform u-turn after tasting reality of power
Peter Martin
Craig Levene
David Evans
Simon R
61 Comments
It’s Chamali Fernando. Personally I think the Baroness has this in the bag.
I am putting all my weight behind Ros. She has the vision, credibility, and approach to really help the Presidency become relevant again.
I am not sure who Chamali Fernando is, so cannot comment.
The candidacy of Lembit Opik is his own choice, and I know he has his supporters, but I just hope that the Party membership at large see him for the loose cannon he really is.
Ros4President 😀
It’s not Chamali – it’s Chandila, her brother (!)
As I’ve reported on my blog, I’m a tad surprised by this as it seems quite a gamble.
“I am not sure who Chamali Fernando is, so cannot comment.”
Mark Littlewood’s candidate I think. I apologise if I am mistaken.
Apologies, my mistake. Chamali has some profile from her attempt to be the mayoral candidate. I don’t think Chandila is known beyond a small part of North london.
Is Chamali likely to find enought people to nominate him?
Chandila is the Director of Liberal Vision, Mark Littlewood’s group. http://www.liberal-vision.org/general/aboutus.htm
I presume that as nominations closed at noon today he has got enough nominators.
From Chandila’s biog:-
“A seasoned campaigner over successive elections who was formally a Conservative but left when Michael Howard became leader.”
So Hague, IDS and the 90’s Government were left wing enough for you?!
So Chandila Fernando is standing for President of the party just 5 years after leaving the Tories
In marked contrast to some previous internal elections, this is possibly one of the easiest voting decisions EVER
Isn’t it a bit odd having the committee elections close on 5th Novmber and the presidential one on the 7th?
Lembit has to win this or his career is finished. And he knows it.
Manj wrote:
“In marked contrast to some previous internal elections, this is possibly one of the easiest voting decisions EVER”
Really? For my part, I only actually know anything about one of the three candidates. How would the fact that Lembit has a habit of making a fool of himself in public compel me to vote for people who are completely unknown to me?
It is possible to argue (and I hesitate to do so myself) that someone capable of attracting publicity (even the wrong sort of publicity) is just the guy (or gal) we need as President.
BTW, how appalling that Julia Goldsworthy is rewarded for her full-frontal assault on human rights and demonisation of young people by getting the housing portfolio! Or is this a poisoned chalice? I do sincerely hope so.
Let us think about Lembit as president.
Each and every tabloid newspaper will trot out the usual stuff;
*Choosing and dumping one celeb
*Choosing and showing off a failed singer and her twin sister
*Appearing on a celeb show which featured a man playing a piano with his penis
*Being photographed looking like a gnome in a funny hat
*Leaving Conference on a Segway
Need I go on?
He is not kmown as an MP. He is regarded as something of an oddity.
Sesenco: Yes. The Newsnight Luntz session showed that when we get our message across, the people love it. Our ONLY serious problem is that we cant get heard. Therefore, anyone who helps us get heard moves us forward. The presidency should be used as another voice to get heard – we need every serious position to be used for that.
That’s why Ipik Opik. 😉
Jo Grimmond said that part of the job of leading the third party was to be a ‘performing seal’. You might not like Lembit, but he reaches out to people in ways that most politicians never would.
We all have a better idea of where Lembit stands in politics, while the only thing I really know about Ros is that she has nice badges
I’m one of Lembit’s fiercest critics, but I’ve decided tonight to endorse him. My reasons can be read on my blog, New Model Army.
http://cromwellcountry.blogspot.com/
I like Lembit personally. I met him once and he was very polite and seemed interested in what I was saying, which in essence was totally boring.
However, I don’t believe he would be a good President because whilst he is a good communicator, the media would focus on his personal life, whether or not Lembit wants them to. That’s not what the President should in the spotlight for.
Sesenco: Yes, it really is that easy. It’s sad that I’ll vote for Ros purely by the process of elimination, but really, if it comes down to her, Littlewood’s recent Tory deserter, or Lembit, there’s little other option. It’s my belief that the majority of people in this country have a negative opinion of Lembit. Clearly this isn’t based on anything other than hunch, but I don’t subscribe to the idea that any publicity is good publicity. We need also to be taken seriously, not as a non-serious, lightweight party. I too found Lembit to be very approachable when I met him, and I recognise his talent, especially with recruiting members, BUT, Lembit, I feel, would be the wrong choice. Chances are he wouldn’t be a disaster and would take the role seriously… but I just worry that he has already alienated too large a portion of the public and media. His reputation has been formed, and this will be very difficult to ever undo
There’s a housing crisis in this country, particularly (but not exclusively)in the shortage of social housing to rent (that’s code for what used to be called council housing). Now Lembit’s gone its a mistake to make this very important portfolio a part time position. We should appoint someone with a passion for the subject – Paul Holmes.
I am undecided as yet. I like Lembit and am tempted to “pick” him but only if he convinces me he will give it his all.
I don’t know Ros and feel that many of her campaign supporters are ABLs (Anyone but Lembit) rather than really being 4 her. That said I’m not against voting for her. It would be a good idea to have a woman in such a position.
The other candidate seems like an irrelevance. I do think its a shame a distinguished older politician like Phil Willis or Alan Beith didn’t go for it.
The presidency seems an odd post. A lot of it seems internal and about morale boosting, which Simon Hughes seems good at. How much has the presidency been used to get us extra media attention in the past (which would be lembits forte I would imagine)?
I am dissappointed that people in this thread are all too eager to write off a candidate in an election simply because they are a defector from the tories.
We are all absolutely delighted to welcome such defectors, telling the press that they have ‘seen the light’ and abandoned the ‘nasty party’. Yet when it somes to them working in our party, too many people are happy to throw their former guise back at them.
Ihe real issue with Fernando is that, like many other tory defectors, he seems to retain a strange fascination with them; Obsessing over the party’s contest with them, not focussing on our real objectives of winning wider support and taking Liberalism forward.
Personally, I am undecided about the presidency, but moreover, I am puzzled about the level of competition for a post I have never quite seen the appeal of.
Lembit is a laughing stock whilst Chandila is a looney libertarian.
Ros on the other hand has a terrific record in local government and the confidence of the whole party.
Could there ever be an easier decision to make?
I’d be surprised if Chandila Fernando is actually standing – I think this may be a case of chinese whispers after a rather off-the-wall comment made by a third party at Conference
Well, from the comments in this thread it seems that a year of hard campaigning and traipsing round the country meeting lots of people hasn’t been enough to get even activists to have “heard of” Ros… What more does she need to do, guys?
I gather that Chandila does stand properly nominated.
He is not “my” candidate neither is he a “loony libertarian”.
I seriously hope people will stop worrying about ex-Tories joining the LibDems and start focusing on ex-LibDems voting Tory.
From what I have seen of Chandila’s proposals, they look pretty damned good.
I seriously hope that he and his platform are treated on their merits and are not prejudiced by his “failure” to be a parliamentarian by the age of 30.
Ros Scott has a record of hard work for the party which can’t be doubted.
There is no reason why Lembit should be different as president than he has been as housing spokeman, i.e. not very good at all.
The trouble with being director of “Liberal Vision” is the line it was peddling at conference – tax cuts for the rich, wasn’t very liberal. The other part of the “Liberal Vision” message – loony liberatianism and hostility to the “nanny state” was equally illiberal.
The two papers “Liberal Vision” produced were full of errors and naff methodology.
I’ve no problem with anyone being an ex-tory though.
As long as they are an EX-tory
Baronness Ros Scott has not yet used her existing political platform to develop a public profile.
I don’t think a PUBLIC profile is necessarily a good thing for the president to have. They need to be known among the members, certainly, but why do they need to be high on the radar of the great unwashed? Genuine question, I’d like to know why people think this is important.
I wonder what the people of Montgomeryshire think of Lembit’s decision to stand. I know that the recent survey indicated that he would hold his seat, but I’d have thought that it would be better for him to concentrate on that rather than President, which will take him all over the country. I’m not sure that members of the Commons should stand for President.
And to be honest, what public profile does Lembit have apart from his private life, segways and asteroids?
The main role of the party president appears to be twofold -(1) chairing the FE and (2) internal grassroots motivation.
Lembit’s experience on the FE is invaluable, as testified by the fact that some of his most significant endorsements come from current or past members of that body and he remains one of the few inspirational speakers we have in this party. Therefore, it appears to be a no brainer to vote for anybody other than Lembit!
He may be a bit of a loose cannon and an eccentric, but of all parties the Lib Dems should embrace nonconformity and realise the credibility of the party is not determind by just one person. We display our own insecurity and lack of confidence in the party leadership if we opt for a “safe pair of hands” instead of the best qualified person for the job.
We as a party are surely bigger than that.
You don’t think people voting for Lembit are voting for a safe pair of hands?
I’d also argue vociferously that Ros is at least the equal of Lembit in terms of qualification for the post.
The other part of the “Liberal Vision” message – loony liberatianism and hostility to the “nanny state” was equally illiberal.
Pray tell what is “loony” or even “libertarian” about Liberal Vision? Stringing together, as so many do, the words “loony” and “libertarian” strikes be as akin to calling your own brother a c**t.
It just shows to me at least that a. such people do not really understand libertarianism, or b. they aren’t terribly liberal themselves if they think the non-economic side of libertarianism is “loony”.
It’s about Liberty, stupid, as someone didn’t quite once say.
“I am putting all my weight behind Ros. She has the vision, credibility, and approach to really help the Presidency become relevant again.”
People say this – Ros’s campaign is pretty light on firm proposals as she’s not yet published her manifesto and the only thing I’ve been directed to as regards a platform is something she wrote for Liberator.
That was OK as far as it went and I’m generally inclined to voting for her. But so far her campaign has been (1) visit lots of places and (2) get lots of people to say they’ll vote for her – because errrm lots of people are saying they’ll vote for her. Great campaigning but not really setting out a compelling vision of what she wants to do as President.
Last time I went for ABL the result – “you get Hoynes – sorry Hughes”
“Lembit has to win this or his career is finished.”
What rot. Losing might crush his stated ambition, but it might also focus his mind on doing something productive, for a change.
Oh, and I love the idea of Holmes for Housing!
People will vote for Lembit for a variety of reasons. Whether a candidate is a safe pair of hands should not be a determining factor in such an election. We have made that mistake in the recent past and should not allow our judgment to get clouded in that way again. For what its worth, Lembit’s loyalty to the four party leaders he has served under is second to none. I doubt we have a less Machiavellian politician in either House.
Without wanting to take too many leaves out of opponents book, at least the Tories had the nerve to allow one of their more colourful and maverick politicians the opportunity to fly their flag in the most public way and it did them no harm in then end by winning the significant victory that was the 2008 London mayoral contest.
Lonny Liberatianism is when you refuse to acknowledge that the activities of one person can impinge on and conflict with the activities of others. Liberalism is about debating and managing that conflict.
Liberal Voice believes – “adults have the right to make their own lifestyle choices, even if these decisions cause them serious harm. We do not believe that it is the role of politicians to dictate to people what to eat or drink, or in what quantities.”
But of course being drunk for example impinges on other people – though costs for policing, hospital admissions, vandalism and street cleaning.
Losing all your money at a super casino is not really about “trusting people to make informed choices and permit them learn from their own mistakes”.
Saying people have choices, e.g. they can choose to work in a smoking bar – without acknowledging the limits on those choices is not Liberal either.
“Ros’s campaign is pretty light on firm proposals as she’s not yet published her manifesto”
In fairness the following has just popped up on Lib Dem Blogs 🙂
http://baronessrosscott.blogspot.com/2008/09/manifesto-for-party-president.html
Picking up on a couple of points…
To those who say that Chandila may not actually be a candidate, he is.
With regard to Mark Littlewood’s comment about him not being a parliamentarian – actually that reads like an attempt at a negative sideswipe against the other two. Though I do think the president should not be an MP, and that is where I will end my negatives on Lembit.
On the lack of a manifesto for Ros, well I see she now has one on her website (and she did say it would be published now, after all ballot papers aren’t even printed yet!) but I do recommend going to her blog posting first http://baronessrosscott.blogspot.com/2008/09/manifesto-for-party-president.html
Personally I have known Ros since long before she got her peergage. My reasons for supporting her are positive reasons from numerous dealings with her when Eastern region was part of my patch in Cowley Street and also because of the discussions with her since which have shown a strong determination to listen to local parties and members and to want to do something about some of the common frustrations.
I don’t know any serious Libertarian who refuses “to acknowledge that the activities of one person can impinge on and conflict with the activities of others”.
The only difference between what you seem to refer to as “liberal” and the Libertarian position, is that the Libertarian believes it is through personal responsibility for one’s own actions that this conflict is best managed. It does not, for example, stop a community defending itself against aggressive drunks with policing. Indeed one would imagine that the punishments for abusing your freedoms to the point of license and harm of others may be all the harsher in a Libertarian community.
I don’t think it is liberal, for example, for the state to decide what level of discomfort someone inflicts on another by abusing their freedoms should be “permissible” and at what point you stop law abiding people doing something that doesn’t harm others just because a few do abuse it and harm others.
I happen to disagree with Mark Littlewoodd about “super casinos” because it is gross protectionism. If a community wants to host a casino it should be allowed to decide that for itself, not the state take bids from competing cities and competing US billionaires in some kind of dating game. Protectionism is a worse breach to me of liberalism than is not being able to gamble.
On your point about working in what some might call unpleasant environments, of course in the case of the smoking ban, even Sir Richard Peto says it makes no difference to the actual health outcomes of non-smokers. The only difference it really makes is if the ban prompts existing smokers to give up. In our hurry to ban things we did not listen to that kind of advice. However that’s not really the main point about libertarianism and the smoking ban – it is corporate welfare, protectionism and monpoly that creates a situation where the worker cannot negotiate proper reward for their labour from the state protected capitalist. Of course it should be a choice of where to work, but it should also be a choice in which the worker, if he or she wishes, is able to make greater demands for working in “dangerous environments” with a chance of those demands being met (that is all part of “voluntary co-operation”).
That is not done through the sort of state regulation we have now – which entrenches capital’s advantage. And is inherently illiberal. Our party forebears knew this. Over the past century we have drifted away from that, to our political disadvantage.
And, of course, the smoking ban, where it relates to private property, is a gross invasion of the right to do what you want with your own property. One has to question which is worse, in liberal terms – something that Richard Peto says does little harm in any case, or something that appears to give the state further rights over private property.
We should embrace tories coming to us especially after Dave launched the new conservative website http://www.LibDems4Cameron.co.uk
“But of course being drunk for example impinges on other people – though [sic] costs for policing, hospital admissions, vandalism and street cleaning.”
Violence, ill-behaviour, vandalism and throwing up in the street cause those impingements – not drinking. The offending person’s drinking might be a precursor to some of those actions, in which case the offending person must take responsibility. The offender should thus be targetted, not the alcohol. A majority of people are more than capable of drinking (in some cases, a lot) without affecting anyone else whatsoever.
Mark is right about us focusing on Lib Dem supporters switching to the Tories. I think about it a great deal. I always come up with the answer that being distinctive will win us votes off the Tories, not being more like the Tories. If you are competing against Coca Cola you don’t start making Lib Dem Cola, people will buy the real thing. You invent Dr Pepper.
On the issue of years in parliament. My main reasons for backing Ros are the reasons she got the peerage in the first place, not that she is a peer. And my main reason for opposing Lembit is because I don’t think an MP can do the job properly as well as fulfill their other responsibilities. I am a great fan of Simon and have known him since 1983, but I think he did a far worse job as president than Diana or Navnit, and that is down to the pressures of juggling the competing demands on his time. On Chandila. I don’t care that he is an ex-Tory, I know his father from Leicester and it doesn’t give me a problem, but I do care that he represnts a strand of thought in the party that I disagree with (even though the president has no say on policy) and I do care that I don’t think he has the background of party knowledge that both Ros and Lembit have that I think is essential to the job.
> I don’t know any serious Libertarian
Well none of them are serious, because it an incoherent philosophy.
>it is corporate welfare, protectionism and monpoly that creates a situation where the worker cannot negotiate proper reward for their labour from the state protected capitalist.
LOL, send the kids back down the mines, it’s only a lifestyle choice.
Dear All,
Just so that you know, Ros has now, as promised, published her manifesto…
Great debating points you make there, “mouse”! Worthy of winning the argument I’d say.
Thanks for playing, your ignorance is for all to see.
Dear All,
Whilst the debate on the merits or otherwise of libertarianism is interesting, we’re in danger of straying away from the topic towards a series of abusive comments and rebuttals. Helpful to those trying to find out about the merits or otherwise of the candidates? I think not…
Actually, Mark, if people are making a decision on a candidate based on their gross misunderstanding of libertarian philosophy (though I still suggest that Liberal Vision is explicitly not a libertarian lobby group whatever people say on here) then that is part of the debate about the candidates.
However, I will state my current preference.
I’d prefer to write in someone like Sandi Toksvik, or Claire Rayner or Brian Eno – in other words I’d really rather the President was about as far away from the entrenched sel-absorbtion of the Westmonster Village as humanly possible in a political party.
I am always suspicious however, whatever the rights and wrongs of hi policy platform, of people with such a short history of the party running for such an office so will not be supporting Chandila.
On the fedw occasions I have felt a need however to email all our MPs and many of our peers, one person alone has always given me the courtesy of a reply – Lembit.
I accept that it’s not necessarily the role of the party president to be visible in public and that can help to confuse the perception of the leadership (I am sure I’ve heard people on the doorstep thinking that Simon was our leader because they had heard him described as our “president”), but equally I think that the mass of our ordinary members and supporters will appreciate more someone they know of and feel approachable and human.
Not that Ros, I am sure, fails any of these tests, and I’m not entirely decided yet, but it looks like it will be Lembit for me personally.
There is a context here.
As I understand it, Chandila and Chamali’s father was a member of the SDP (a parliamentary candidate in 83 and 87) who followed Lord Owen into the Blues. He subsequently left and then later joined the Lib Dems.
I would imagine Chandila’s defection follows a similar pattern.
I know Chamali quite well and have met the family – all perfectly good people.
I have already declared my support for another candidate but nevertheless I wish Chandila well. I have always felt that a contest that is wider than Lembit vs. “Whoever isn’t Lembit” was the best way for there to be an actual debate on the job of the President and if nothing else (and I hope he uses the platform for other things) Chandila’s candidacy will ensure that.
Jock,
Indeed, although until Chandila explains why he is running, what he proposes to do and how he will achieve it, conjecture will fill the vacuum.
Whether or not he is a libertarian will, I suspect, have little impact on his credibility as a Presidential candidate given the defined role as it currently exists.
However, we shall, as they say, see…
Public Profile
Jennie, with respect Ros herself in her own manifesto recognises the need “to be a key external face of the Party with the media, with communities, business and interest groups, potential supporters and with the international community.”
Oh dear.
Apple Blossom,
A selective, edited quote doesn’t exactly help.
If you had included the beginning of the paragraph, which indicates that “the President is”, and the subsequent paragraph, where Ros indicates her qualifications, it might have been more informative… and accurate…
However, don’t take my word for it, read the manifesto at http://www.im4ros.com/manifesto...
…and in the interests of fairness, Lembit’s manifesto can be found at:
http://www.lembit4president.co.uk/pages/manifesto.html
Mark, somehow your link got mangled and I got an apache error message when I clicked it, so repeated here:
http://www.im4ros.com/manifesto.jsp
This comment also serves as a subscription for me, but some of you might be interested in Jennie’s post and the ongoing comments at Liberal Conspiracy as well, rather than repeating myself my view on the role of the President (and thus why I’m backing Ros) are also there:
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/09/25/lib-dem-party-presidency-three-to-choose-from/#comment-21480
I’ll be very interested in hearing what Chandila has to say about why he’s running; preferential system, gotta give the 2nd pref somewhere and Lembit’s fine, but I really want someone with the nous to tell the noble lord Rennard when he’s wrong (because everyone’s human) and while I know Ros’ll do that I don’t feel Lembit is as able.
As one of the candiates is linked with Liberal Vision, what Liberal Vision says on its website is entirely relevant, especially when the said candidates own website in not informative.
I notice that Liberal Vision has no qualms about saying whether they cosnider MPs to be liberal or not, so I hope they don’t mind if others have no qualms about indictating whether bits of Liberal Vision are liberal or not.
If Jock wants to hurl abuse at me, people can judge for themsleves.
Mouse/Jock,
In which case, fire at will (not Howells, might I emphasise…)!
Can we cut out the personal abuse though? Attacking each other’s ideas is part of the cut and thrust of debate, personal attacks go beyond what some of us are comfortable with…
Shut it beardy 😉
Apple Blossom: I’m not disputing that lots of people think it’s an important part of the presidency, but re-asserting that doesn’t answer my question as to why…
I don’t think any of the candidates are going to thank their supporters for being personally vituperative about the others.
With this Presidential contest we are somewhat blessed by the result not being obvious and with each of the candidates being good eggs while representing very different things.
On sheer hard work and seriousness Baroness Scott surely deserves to win. If you believe the role of the party President is to go around the country rallying the troops and making people, paritcularly volunteers and activists feel good about being a Liberal Democrat she’s surely the best candidate. She’ll almost certainly run the best campaign as well.
If conversely you believe that the main role of the President is to get us in the media and raise our profile, making the public interested in us, then Lembit has the best case. I can’t agree with people who criticise him for his Hello-magazine lifestyle, he has a depth of seriousness behind the fun-loving facade, was an excellent BERR spokesperson, and normal people actually read and like Hello magazine…
Chandila is probably not I suspect, running with a great expectation of success, but he is raising the profile of his point of view… and I might add, in bringing out the less pleasant and irrational side of people who disagree with that point of view, raising it rather well. I suspect if he does win he’d be a rather exciting President.
I’m glad that Chandila is standing.
It means that I can now vote for Lembit – AS MY THIRD PREFERENCE.
Thanks, Mark, but I’ve decided to respond to the more obvious criticisms of libertarianism mentioned on here in a blog post.