A fairly extraordinary press release has been issued by Lembit Opik – one of the three Lib Dems standing for the post of party presidency which will be decided by an all-member ballot within the next few weeks – demanding an end to an alleged “conspiracy” in the party against his candidacy.
I’ll reproduce the whole release below, but here’s the part which will cause some sharp intakes of breath:
If anyone is conspiring against me I ask them to stop … I don’t agree with conspiracies in the Liberal Democrats. That’s why I backed former leader Charles Kennedy to the end – I was appalled by the perceived internal campaign against him. That’s why I defended Ming Campbell up to his moment of resignation, in the face of a whispering campaign against him too. I still refuse to play any part in such negative campaigning.”
Quite why Lembit should feel it’s appropriate to rake over the ashes of the Kennedy and Campbell resignations in a way that paints the party in quite such an unattractive (and, in my view, misleading) light is beyond me. To do so in a campaign for a post which is, above all, about uniting the party and moving it forwards smacks of appallingly poor judgement.
Editor’s note: Lib Dem Voice has volunteered to remain neutral in internal party elections. However, such defensive statements by a candidate which serve only to feed the anti-Lib Dem narrative of much of the media is, I believe, reckless. I hope this is the last we’ll see of it from Lembit’s campaign.
The full press release is below:
ÖPIK OFFERS ‘POSITIVE CAMPAIGNING’ IN RESPONSE TO ‘CONSPIRACY’
Lembit Öpik MP has hit out at the negative campaign allegedly being waged against him by asking the Liberal Democrat membership to ‘change up a gear towards Government’ by backing him for President.
It comes after reports of an organised ‘Stop Öpik’ campaign by his opponents.
Lembit said: “The enemy of the Liberal Democrats is conventionalism and conservatism. Everyone knows I’m neither conventional nor conservative! My national profile and my total adherence to liberal principles means I stand out in a clear and lively way. That’s why I was awarded the GovnetUK Alternative Politician of the year Award this week. That’s why I’m standing for President to breathe the same life and soul into our Party.
“The challenge to the membership is this: if a Lib Dem Party promoting itself in clear, bold, primary colours scares you, then don’t vote for me. But if you dare take our story, our image, and our vision to the citizens in refreshing and colourful, inspired ways, then voting for me is a vote for exactly that approach.
“If anyone is conspiring against me I ask them to stop a moment and consider this. I reach beyond the normal political barricades to real people in real homes living real lives. So we must decide: more of the same or change up a gear towards Government. That’s what this presidential election is about a vote for me is a vote for that ambition. And sure there’s a risk, but there’s a bigger risk if we just carry on doing everything the same way, like we’ve always done. Let’s take the exciting path, the road less travelled. The one which can lead us to Government.”
Lembit added, “I don’t agree with conspiracies in the Liberal Democrats. That’s why I backed former leader Charles Kennedy to the end I was appalled by the perceived internal campaign against him. That’s why I defended Ming Campbell up to his moment of resignation, in the face of a whispering campaign against him too. I still refuse to play any part in such negative campaigning.”
Former Leicester South MP and by-election winner Parmjit Singh Gill said: “The membership know the score, they know Lembit’s record of loyalty to the Party and to its leaders. And they know his faith in positive campaigning, not negative spin. If they agree with Lembit, they know what to do. It’s up to the members to make that choice, but I think in a democratic organisation the members should be in charge. Thats what Lembit thinks and thats the attitude I want from my Party President.”
81 Comments
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I am not part of any conspiracy. I just think a candidate other than Lembit ought to win.
Lembit’s press release strikes me as a lashing out because he doesn’t understand why this is a contest and not a coronation; just as he doesn’t understand how offensive, sexist, and wankerish that Primary Colours shit makes him sound. I hope that people who were planning on voting for him have read this ill-judged, bitter, and desperate attack, and noted the effect that this sort of attitude will have on the presidency should Lembit win.
Still, at least it’s helped me make a decision
* puts a 2 next to Chandila and seals the envelope *
Still voting for Opik. Infact, this probably has secured his vote for me – I fully agreed that the way the party “removed” Kennedy and Campbell was not only undemocratic it was giving out much unneeded bad press. The Stop Opik campagin is blunt and conservative, and plain insulting to the democratic process that this party prides itself on.
“The Stop Opik campagin is blunt and conservative”
You really think there IS one? Cos, you know, I’d like to be introduced to some of them, just to see who they are… I mean, I make no secret of being pro Ros, and being pro-Ros necessitates being anti- the other two candidates, but that’s as far as it goes. There’s been nothing orchestrated to be anti-Lembit that I have seen.
From a purely neutral point – really no axe to grind – I have to say that I have seen a number of anti Opik comments from Lib Dems across the political media – mostly subscibing to a kind of anything but Opik view – which I think is a little unfair – let people make their own minds up. ie keep the arguments political – not personal.
I regret the article in the Sun recently that suggested that Lembit is going to appear in Big Brother, which was a complete lie.
I do not know who was behind that.
I do not know of any other dirty tricks and I hope there are not any.
I do think that Lembit needs to establish himself as a serious politician and not spend so much time publicising what ought to be his private life.
I was pleased to see that he organised a large number of fringe meetings at the last conference on his housing brief, but for some of us at least memories of his extra-Parliamentary activities are too fresh that we would want to support him for this election. It would help if he admitted he made a mistake and apologise. I want to be reassured that Lembit will make headlines for the right reasons, although he now has the added difficulty that I am not sure the media will let him.
However I am not going to agonise over this, as we have an excellent alternative candidate in Ross Scott.
I think that this is very over the top. Lembit is the type of politician who inspires both devotion and condescension. He should realise that it comes with the territory with a public profile like his and start trying to win them over. Considering that the main thrust of people’s hesitancy over Lembit is his lack of judgement, I don’t think that press releases like this help his case.
Can anyone explain to me how the Opik campaign can be described as anything other than “blunt” and “conservative”?
“Primary Colours” is all about being “blunt”. And as for “conservative”… a standard off the shelf website? Election literature based on a standard party template (if I didn’t know better I would have assumed his leaflet had been typeset by Duncan Borrowman)? A strategy entirely focused on the mainstream media and all but ignoring the social media (except, as in the case of his Facebook story, to exploit mainstream media ignorance about social media)?
His campaign is a paragon of conservativism. Frankly, despite my misgivings (and the fact it would be a meaningless gesture), I’d have given Chandila my second preference if I’d seen this press release before posting my vote.
I regret the article in the Sun recently that suggested that Lembit is going to appear in Big Brother, which was a complete lie.
I do not know who was behind that.
The person ultimately behind that story was Lembit himself. He has appeared on Big Brother. He has appeared on I’m a Celebrity. He has appeared on Celebrity Apprentice. If it was such a dirty trick to tell the Sun he was going to appear on CBB (and the source appears to be C4), then why is Lembit standing on a platform that appearing on such programmes is a good thing?
It rang true – so true that his campaign team took twelve hours to issue a rebuttal, presumably because they thought it might have been true as well.
What all that adds up to is not dirty tricks but a systemic problem with his campaign.
I regret the article in the Sun recently that suggested that Lembit is going to appear in Big Brother, which was a complete lie.
I do not know who was behind that.
Did not the Opik denial of this story, when it eventually came, contain the line, “I had been asked to be in it.”
As for taking our party forward, I believe it needs a little professionalism is maintaining an image that can be taken seriously. Sadly Lembit has not managed to maintain that over his own image in recent years so I dare not let him loose with that of my party.
He was not the only one standing by Charles to the end, I covered those events on my blog at the time, and had BBC Scotland on the phone on the morning he resigned looking for balance on a peice they were doing in the dying hours.
I’m sorry but raking over that at a time like this is showing McCain like desperation, send in the lifeboats.
Interesting.
“Neutral website attacks Opik, ridiculing talk of anti-Lembit conspiracies”
As someone who had left the party during the Kennedy era and only rejoined after the leadership campaign in which Campbell was forced to pick up on Huhne’s rhetoric, if Lembit thinks backing a failing leader to the end without any attempt to sort the party out, then if there is some sort of ‘stop Lembit’ campaign I’d like to join it now please.
I like Charles, I thought he was a great leader at first, but the ’05 election campaign was a complete shambles and we now know why–Lembit knew before, and has just said he was tacitly supporting Charles when for his own good he blatently shouldn’t have remained as leader.
I rejoined the party in order to fight for the policies I believe in, the leader and the president are elected by us in order to move that agenda forward. If they fail in that duty, they lose my support.
Simple as.
I was backing Ros because I’ve met her, agree with her and think she’ll do a good job in the internal reorganisation and redirection that is palpably long overdue.
I did think Lembit would’ve done a good job if he won, and agreed with his early statement that either he or Ros would make a great president.
No longer. If he thinks this sort of release is a good idea, then we have to stop him.
CCF: interesting: website which aid it would give three posts to each candidate gives an extra one to one of the candidates when he releases inflammatory press release.
This is all getting rather personal and people should be ashamed about some of the things that are being posted. The bile and vitriol is completely over the top. The release in question was a specific rebuttal issued in response to an article which appeared in Lembit’s local newspaper, the Shropshire Star suggesting there was an undercover campaign against him. Perhaps this so called “neutral” site should be discussing the negative briefings which are clearly going on and what image they are projecting about the Party. Richard Clein, Campaign spokesman for Lembit Opik
James, you wash your mouth out with soap and water now! I would never produce anything that fails to attract the eye to the key points in the way that Lembit’s leaflet does. On the substantive point. One of the most effective ways to negative campaign is to falsely accuse your opponents of negative campaigning. It is a very effective way of getting the sympathy votes of those Daily Mail reading armchair members who maybe would otherwise not have voted. I wish I had seen this before I posted my ballot paper. This grossly misjudged display in public would have promoted Chandila to 2 on my ballot paper.
I don’t have a ballot paper yet. Should they all have been sent out by now?
Richard. When I read the Shropshire Star article last night I was spitting but decided against a post beer blog rant. No newspaper is ‘local’ any more and given your job you will know that getting a story like this in a paper like the Shropshire Star one day is a sure fire way of getting it in the Mail on Sunday a few days later.
Richard Clein wrote:
This is all getting rather personal and people should be ashamed about some of the things that are being posted.
Specific examples?
The bile and vitriol is completely over the top.
Specific examples?
I for one stand by everything I’ve written, but I’m willing to defend my record. That’s what people who hold themselves up to public scrutiny do – they deal with criticism rather than alleging conspiracies.
Richard, you are experienced enough to know what you are doing when you choose to pour poison over troubled waters. You could have issued an “above it all” response – instead you started making grandiose allegations.
Lembit isn’t being stabbed in the back. He’s being stabbed in the front.
Duncan – mea culpa. All I’m saying is the template looks vaguely familiar. The content on the other hand looks awfully familiar…
I almost blogged about the Shropshire Star last night too, Duncan. But decided blog posts at 2.30am was not a sensible move…
As I said on my blog – can we just get back to this being a democratic election, the way we normally do?
The reality is Ros has been carefully campaigning to be President for Months and Lembit has just realised he is about the be humiliated in the vote.
Maybe he cannot see that recent publicity about him in which he cannot claim to have had no input has made ordinary members decide aginst his ‘colourful’ approach to politics.Isnt that a repectable enough view?
As I say…the bottom line is that The Times published this story for the first time a month ago…so why wait until now….to be honest this has made my view of Lembit dimmer not brighter…
For the record, the press release was sent to me by Lembit’s campaign, presumably in my role as editor of LDV, and no mention was made that this was a “specific rebuttal issued in response to an article which appeared in Lembit’s local newspaper, the Shropshire Star” (which I hadn’t come across). And even if it was sent only to one newspaper, that’s not exactly my point.
I thought hard before posting this article on LDV, as I have no axe to grind in the party presidential election, and I am well aware of the site’s commitment to neutrality in internal party elections.
But neutrality doesn’t mean taking a monastic vow of silence. I would have highlighted it if *any* of the candidates had issued a press release attacking the party for whispering campaigns against previous leaders.
cheers, stephen
(Editor, https://www.libdemvoice.org)
When the choice is between (and no offence to Chandila Fernando, or whatever his name, but this truely is a 2-horse race) Lembit and Ros, the winner is clear.
Lembit has completely mishandled his role as a “face” of the Party. Being seen on countless shows as the punchline to every joke, seemingly proud of his bed-hopping reputation, the Segway embarrasment, those damned asteroids and sing-a-longs….
I’d wouldn’t like to be a member under a Opik Presidency. It would be too prone to easy attacks.
Baroness Scott is a far more credible choice. She has spent the last year getting to know the Party across the nation, not appearing as the wayward “wacky liberal” desperate for headlines.
Stephen,
I find that something of a conveinent peg to hang it on to be honest for the reason I mentioned above….the story initially appeared in The Times on September 17th but Opik obviously saw fit to let it ride then in a national newspaper….
Now his campaign is ailing and he looks on course to be defeated it of course suits him to play the victim…or am I being overly cynical??
You’re being overly critical.
There is, infact, no proof to say that Opik will win or lose. There is, infact, no reason to accuse anybody of playing politics. The post on Opik’s website is similar to this but crucially does not include the conspiracy text.
Hell, if we want to get onto stupid people leading political parties, it seems to be sucessfull. Look at Major Johnson.
Huw,
I think the months gap is the glaring reason that at least leaves Opik wide open to the charge of playing politics and, as Stephen points out, it’s reckless politics. This appeared in a national newspaper yet silence…it appears in the Shropshire Star with a significantly less wide readership and suddenly Lembit is blazing against ‘conspiricies’ that don’t exist….
All when people have their ballot papers….how very very handy…
Incidentally, the only reason I am not switching my second preference in light of this is because my areas of disagreement with Fernando are too wide….but I think alot of people will and this will lose Lembit votes…
Lembit has courted media coverage for years in publications such as Hello, Closer and Heat and also pursued television engagements on programmes such as HIGNFY and Celebrity The Apprentice (which although it made me cringe it was to his credit for a very good, charitable cause).
Because he has created a media image which now makes many think of him as a Personality first rather than a serious Politcian he has rather made himself a rod for his own back in terms of what is currently happening. I do feel sorry for him. Many LibDems do feel that his behaviour has discredited him as a serious candidate – but as far as I am aware there is no conspiracy Not even a hint of one.
Lembit’s high profile personal life has made him into something of a love or loathe character amongst those who perhaps don’t know him that well, and sadly for him this means some people are not willing to consider him at all for this role. I am aware of individuals who are taking an “anyone but” stance, but no groups or organisations doing so.
My personal views are pretty well known by people, and I am not supporting Lembit but I would never challenge his commitment or work rate. Many of us supporting other candidates do have a lot of time and respect for him, it is just deeply disappointing that his media profile has damaged his credibility so much and that now press coverage like this is coming out. The last thing anyone wants is for any of the three candidates to emerge from what should be an amicable constructive election looking how John McCain does now.
I really hope that all 3 candidates will try to remain clean and positive in their campaigns during the closing stages and the outcome gives a strong and effective president.
And in a separate note –
James Graham – How VERY dare you. Bah humbug. Mea culpa or not you have just gone right off the Christmas Card list of cards that we never get round to sending……..
Peter Chapman – Campaigning for months? Try YEARS……
I’m certain that Lembit has much to contribute to our party. But people regard him (and I guess he aims for this) as a personality who is fairly well known and NOT as a serious national politician. We don’t want to have to make excuses for Lembit’s “celebrity” involvements. A president like a leader needs to be taken seriously. Would the Presidency be merely used as another rung on the celebrity ladder ? A political party needs to have far greater priority than this. The Party must come first.
There is no conspiracy that we know of just an instictive feeling that Ros more than Lembit will put the party rather than celebrity first.
The idea that this website is nuetral is a joke. I’ve not heard anyone say why they are voting for Ros (and this includes her high profile backers) apart from she listens. The main points are that she has more time on her hands and the president shouldn’t be an MP.
Jennies comments “I can’t speak for anyone else, but I am not part of any conspiracy. I just think a candidate other than Lembit ought to win” sums it up. Basically Ros’s entire campaign is presaged around her not being Lembit. He’s a controversial figure and I’m critical at times but I’m voting for him because he’s at least advocated some policies.
The presidency isn’t a step up for him, it won’t raise his profile amazingly. He’s running because he genuinely believes he can add value for the party which he obviously loves. So, bitchy bloggers – get off his back. We’re all part of the same political family and people are trying to rubbish him.
Well I have to say I don’t know what all the fuss is about. The way I see it there are 3 candidates, two of whom I think are in the race to win.
One of Lembit pledges is that he is loyal to the party. He uses the fact that he was the only MP to stand by Charles Kennedy when the others Muppets in the Westminster bubble were trying to oust Charles. I think this is a legitimate point to make.
It links a promise i.e. I will put the party first and stand up and say when the party is going down the wrong road, to a record that people have seen, just like I did by standing by Charles Kennedy.
The other thing is that although I disagree with most of what Lembit says I know what he stands for. I asked Lembit supporters why they were voting for him at Conference and got a clear understanding – when I asked Ros supporters why they were voting for Ros I got three answers 1. You can’t vote for Lembit. 2 She is a woman and 3 She will have more time for the job as she is not an MP – The third of these I think is a legitimate point the other two are totally irrelevant – I have my ballot paper and if anyone can tell me why I should vote Ros over Lembit please let me know some legitimate reasons because at the moment I am not sure what she stands for and yes I have been on her website.
Not sure we can try to persuade you to vote for Ros on what is meant to be a non-partisan site!!! But there are many more good reasons – why not email her via her site and get some answers? Or check out her blog? Equally compare these to Lembit and Chandila’s sites and see what you think.
And I agree that most of what people have said to you is rubbish, but she does have a clear platform she is standing on, with many positive reasons to support her.
Positive for Ros ‘
1. She has the time to devote to the Presidency – neither has to defend a constituency (nor respond to TV/Celebrity requests!)
2. Ros has extensive local government experience which is invaluable for our promotion as a party.
3. Ros (as is Lembit) is an instinctive Liberal – and can expound in a very effective way.
4. With Gender balance important – it is high time we had a woman at the top !
5. At this time of crisis we need a serious approach to problems.
I don’t know much about Ros Scott but it seems that just like Obama she has very effectively run the only organization that I’ll witness her running in this election and that’s her electioneering machine. Lembit Opik’s by contrast seems to be a bit of a damp squib. So for me the most important thing is that she has demonstrated the ability to organize a large campaign for victory. Isn’t that exactly what we need as a party?
“I’m voting for (Opik) because he’s at least advocated some policies.”
Actually, I don’t think that is a good reason for electing a President. It is a great reason if you are electing a Leader, but that’s an entirely different job.
We don’t want a President who will try to dictate party policy. If a candidate doesn’t sound as if he/she “stands for” a very distinctive political position within the party, then perhaps that’s because that candidate understands what the President’s role should be!
Some more positives for Ros. As I said at http://duncanborrowman.blogspot.com/2008/09/race-to-be-president.html
1. She sees the job as going out to Liberal Democrats across the country and feeding back their concerns to the leadership. Now of course Lembit has said he is going to stand, but as James Graham says, there is no sign yet. But i do remember when he stood against Simon last time his message was that he would spread the word of the leadership to the party. Ros is distinctly bottom up, Lembit last time came across as top down. He may have changed his view, but I have to say this is the sort of thing that is instinctive – you are either a top down person or a bottom up person.
2. Ros sees it as crucial that the President chairs the Federal Executive. What is the point of an all member ballot for someone to spend two years on the rubber chicken circuit? She sees it as a clear responsibility to be the elected representative of the party membership in steering the management of the party – to which she will bring her many years experience as a community activist, councillor, peer, PTA member (stop I am going a bit Sarah Palin there) and in business. – in contrast, at the Liverpool conference Lembit moved a motion that would have stopped the President chairing the Federal Executive, so removing that crucial representation of the party membership at the heart of the party.
Intriguing press release from Lembit.
The bit I find really odd is the use of the term “conspiracy”. I don’t think there is a conspiracy – unless this just means a lot of people working together to try and elect another candidate. But that is a campaign, not a conspiracy – unless there’s a big part of the story I don’t quite get here.
The rest of the general content is in some ways pretty close to the pitch I’d be making if I was advising Lembit’s campaign, although I wouldn’t have used the same wording.
He has spent too much time – just from his own tactical position – running on his record of X years of service and Y miles clocked up on his car rather than portraying himself as the exciting, high profile, risky option for change.
Of course, a good number of members (maybe a majority…maybe even a big majority) may not want such a candidate. They may feel that that they want a safe pair of hands and/or a candidate with the tacit/explicit backing of the so-called party “establishment”. (Not that these are the only reasons for voting for Ros, but any member with such reasons would surely vote for Ros!).
But if that is the prevailing view, Lembit can’t win anyway. He won’t win by just reiterating that he’s been on the FE for a zillion years or conducted a squillion training courses.
In his own electoral interests, he’s better off essentially promising a rollercoaster of a ride, tons of TV airtime and oodles of edge-of-your seat excitement. And arguing that he is the risky option – but that the party has to take risks in the present climate. the Tories ran a “joker” for London mayor and it paid off, he could teh same thing shoudl apply here (although I appreciate the comparisons are far from perfect).
But he hasn’t really built a narrative of “change” v “status quo”, which is one reason why Chandila’s candidacy has excited so much debate and attention.
I have often said that it seems everyone in the party agrees we should take more risks, but when presented with any specific, actual risk we can take, the majority (or a blocking minority) often oppose it.
That’s the sort of “challenge” that Lembit should be laying down. Combined with a bit more clarity about what he would and wouldn’t do as President, rather than what he has done to date. I’m not saying that would mean he should or would win, but it seems to me his only chance.
Dear Mr/Ms Serious for our party
1. I have already said that the issue about her not having a constituency is a real plus for Ros but your comment about people knowing who Lembit is, is just nonsense on stilts
2. Surley we have enough expertise in the party of Local Government being the 2nd largest party of Local government it is in parliament where we really need to move forward – especially now when Labour are in such a mess.
3. Are equal so is not a plus
4. The issue about men vs woman – I could not care less, the best person should get a job not someone because there a man or because there a woman
5. When there was a Leadership crisis Lembit stood up and said what they were doing was wrong.
Thanks you have helped me make my choice.
Regards
Sam
Blogging is a most curious activity. I find it quite disturbing. Call me soft, but I am really unhappy that so many people are so unkind to people who are presumably working towards the same end – that which is flagged on the back of our membership cards!
As blogging seems to be all about people expressing their personal views, it is probably inevitable that feelings run high and things get published from behind the shelter of the monitor screen that would not be said face to face. The problem is that this creates a dynamic that is potentially destructive. Too much opinion and reaction to perceptions of people rather than exploration, understanding and discernment is unbalanced. Understanding is discounted, truth is harder to uncover and compromise, or consensus, on the way forward is harder to reach.
When bloggers/newspapers publish things that are snide, unpleasant innuendo or falsehoods, my temptation is to stay cool, not react, allow the situation to diffuse or be forgotten. But then innuendo and falsehood spreads like a virus, distracting from the the real focus and creating dis-ease. Then it turns up in the Shropshire Star where it can impact close to home and constituency. Spreading innuendo is mischievous, dangerous anti-social and anti-democratic behaviour.
Perhaps if all bloggers (journalists and Presidential campaigners?) would think carefully before writing about what reaction they want to provoke, or what response they want to achieve and – really important – ask themselves if what they intend to write is true, necessary or kind, then we might actually have a dialogue about differences, and foster an image that is more about putting policies and principles first, and less about individuals, prejudice, and apparent scrabbles up a pole.
Most people are turned off Party politics – it in any wonder? Who wants to be in a team that tears people down, rather than builds people up? Who wants to engage in an activity that appears to be about ego, point scoring and personal put down, rather than problem solving? Why can’t we start to model respect for our colleagues, and respect people’s ability to make up their own minds on the evidence they have?
Oh, and can someone (Jennie?) please explain to me, what is sexist about primary colours? I really would like to understand.
Primary, pastel – male, female. I am a feminist, and I don’t make choices on the basis of gender. I like bold primary colours, and subtle pastels. I will choose what/who I think will work best for us in the environment we have to operate in. I will support whoever wins.
Have to answer that because it is based on factual inaccuracy. The Shropshire Star reports were based on an article the The Times so it has nothing to do with blogging.
Well, it will be interested to see how far this anti-Opik sentiment is reflected in the ballot of the party as a whole.
We know the LDV poll of members produced only 10% backing for Opik, but we also know that only about 0.3% of the party’s membership voted in that poll. Despite the overwhelming enthusiasm for her in the “blogosphere”, I’m not convinced it’s entirely in the bag “4 Ros”.
Can I just point out how much I am enjoying this election!
I think all three candidates present a distinctive approach. Taken together they show that we are a broad church of a party and we include all sorts of different people with different approaches to the same problems.
I think Lembit’s outburst shows he really wants to win, which counts as a positive mark, but they way he’s gone about making it leaves me with a doubt about his methods, so ultimately it’s a mixed intervention in the campaign as far as I’m concerned. I think his character will always raise a smile in me, but it will also ensure he gets a mixed reception from the wider audience, so I can’t say I’ve yet made my mind up on him yet.
Lembit definitely needs to find a role he can get his teeth into where he can be an even more positive force for the party, the question for me is whether this is the right one for his particular attributes.
sanbikinoraion: Confusingly, my partner has received ballot papers, but I have not. Clearly this is evidence of a conspiracy to disenfranchise Chandila supporters!
This is a very silly release from Lembit and suggests that he is at best on the defensive and at worst panicking and paranoid.
I have a lot of time for lembit but happen to believe Ros is the better candidate for this role at this time.
I set out my positive reasons here:
http://liberalneil.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-im-4-ros.html
Dave,
It’s really not 🙂
That is the best entry I have ever seen on this blog.
Journalists and crazed single issue folk take note.
I’m voting for Ros because:
she’s been endorsed by many people whom I respect and like such as Shirley Williams and Paddy Ashdown.
Her campaign has been consistent and committed.
She has wide experience, in local government (v. important as our greatest strength, in my opinion) as well as business (which we need more credibility in).
Also, and this is less a positive reason – she is a fresh face on the national stage, she doesn’t bring much baggage to her role.
Lembit, I feel, has had too much averse publicity about him – some justified and encouraged by him, some unjustified. People I know do not think of him as ‘a good MP’, rather, they think as the person who went out with a Cheeky girl. Now it is not a problem to me who he goes out with, that is what the media will focus on. Instead, we need a stable, warm, good communicator who is fresh but has experience and can put across our message.
On Chandila – my ideological differences are too large, and he used odd phrases like “a strong believer in the power of the broadcast media”, which sounds rather beelike to me.
Am I the only one who finds Lembit’s line :-
“there’s a conspiracy against me, but I’m not going to specify its form”
rather reminiscent of the line used against us in byelections of :-
“Lib Dems are running a dirty campaign” (which is never backed up by specific examples) ??
I’ve spent years defending Lembit against his critics, and he has many, many good features – but I’ve voted for Ros.
An internal administrative candidate is ideal in situations where the Party has to review its structures and build its organisation. In the run-up to a General Election, the Party should be looking for an inspirational “personality” who will motivate activists and get publicity for the Party. That is why I will vote for Lembit once I get round to it.
While there is probably not a “conspiracy” against Lembit (apart from the Ros Scott campaign), it is certainly true that a number of opinionated, mouthy bloggers have turned on him in quite an unpleasant way.
The case against Lembit seems to be that he is a flamboyant personality with a flair for self-promotion, rather than a colourless suit. As though larger-than-lifers had no place in politics. Yes they do. They can raise awareness, they can highlight specific issues, and they can make politics more accessible to the apathetic.
I remember Cyril Smith, on the day the October 1974 election was called. He was in the centre of Ormskirk handing out pieces of gingerbread man to children. “The gingerbread man wants you to vote Liberal,” he intoned.
Why do I mention this anecdote?
(1) It was reported on prime-time news. (2) I remember it after 36 years. How many of Ros Scott’s utterances will be recalled in the middle of this century?
Sorry, I have lost my true identity once more!
That would be the October 1974 election where we got creamed, wouldn’t it?
Big problem ! If Lembit really believes that people are conspiring against him how on earth will he be able to deal with these people (let alone lead them in a united party) if he wins the Presidency ?
James Graham wrote:
“That would be the October 1974 election where we got creamed, wouldn’t it?”
The second best Liberal performance since the war (I think).
Question: Would the Liberals have done nearly so well in the early-to-mid-1970s had it not been for the larger-than-life Jeremy Thorpe?
Cyril Smith once said: “What this party needs is a bit of bloody razzamatazz”.
And he had a point. Provided that the razzamatazz is used to promote liberal principles and liberal policies, and it is deployed skilfully, it has the potential to be an invaluable tool.
Sesenco:
You mean like now, with the Bone commission report up for serious review and at least partial implementation? The party structures are in trouble, and have been for a long time, what Nick and Bones are identifying are issues that should’ve been dealt with years ago.
To get the right solutions we need someone that’s good at structures and organisation. We need someone that’s identified there’s an actual problem and seeks to sort things out–Ros has done this (as has Chandila but I’m not as keen on his solutions), whereas Lembit is specifically playing the loyalist, don’t rock the boat, business as usual card. Sorry…
1) We’re always in the run up to a General election, and while I am of the strong opinion that the coming election may be as crucial as 1979 or 1997, I am also of the opinion that it’s the one after that that we need to be really ready for, as I think that may be the most Significant election since 1983, possibly even moreso.
2) The President is part of the party’s public face, but so is the leader, deputy leader and parliamentary team. We need to be putting Vince and Nick front and centre at all points during the next campaign. Besides which, I think Ros is a damn fine public speaker and will undoubtedly be a bloody good media performer as well. Lembit may be good on t’telly, but I don’t think he’s half as good at the background stuff.
The President’s key role is the chairing of the FE. It is palpable that that role is currently not being carried out properly, and Lembit is on record as saying he thinks the President shouldn’t do this.
The President needs to be the person that can, discretely and in private, turn around to the Leader (Clegg) and the Cheif Exec (Rennard) and tell them when they’re wrong. Lembit’s playing the loyalist card shows me that he doesn’t view that as part of the role. I view it as an essential part of the role, and one I’m absolutely sure Ros will be able to do–she’s confirmed to me that she’s prepared to do it when needed when I asked her.
I’m fortunate to have met all three candidates. I like all three candidates. But on his statements and platform, Lembit has lost my support, and will now get my third preference.
On the issues I think matter most, crucially the need to sort the party structure out and ensure the Federal Executive does its job properly, Ros has demonstrated to me an understanding of the issues and a willingness and competence in sorting things out. Ros is getting my first preference for these positive reasons.
I was prepared and happy to give Lembit the benefit of the doubt and hear him out. I’ve done this. During this campaign, he has gone down in my estimation.
I’m 4 Ros. That I’m also against Lembit is entirely down to his behaviour and (lack of) campaign.
The point is Sesenco, we went backward in 10/74, and the deciding factor YOU are citing is Cyril Smith handing out gingerbread to small children. Now, if you ask me Cyril Smith didn’t have very much to do with that either, but nor do I think it contributed much to the popularity outside of Rochdale.
In the last election, the polls suggested that a lot of people who voted for us would not have done so if they had perceived us as having any chance of winning the election. Emphasising the fact that our MPs are a bunch of loveable eccentrics who look at home on daytime television will not exactly improve that standing in my view.
James Graham wrote:
“and the deciding factor YOU are citing is Cyril Smith handing out gingerbread to small children.”
That is not what I said (or at least not what I intended to convey).
The point I was making (but failed to get across in some cases, evidently) is that what Cyril Smith said in Ormskirk that day (something utterly trivial, as it happens) was reported on prime-time TV, and I remember it to this day.
Historically, those Liberals who have been most successful are those who have proved capable of drawing attention to themselves and have found ways of saying things that get people to remember them.
David Penhaligon is a better example than Cyril Smith. His great talent was getting people to listen to him and remember what he said. Something Nick Clegg lacks, I’m sorry to say.
I’m not saying the Parliamentary Party should be a bunch of loveable eccentrics. We need the serious guys and gals too. The Chris Huhnes and the Vince Cables. But we do have to make politics more fun and inject a bit of razzamatazz into an increasingly dull business.
(I’m trying my damndest to remember something Nick Clegg has said. I’m scratching my head and nothing is coming. Oh, and Nick, get rid of that suit just once in a while, please. Or wear a chalk-stripe.)
MatGB:
I do not doubt that Ros Scott is a worthy, admirable and capable lady. I just don’t think she is what’s needed at the moment. You get your structures right AFTER a General Election, not in the run-up period. If our organisation really is such a dog’s breakfast, then we must be asking serious questions of the people who allowed this state of affairs to arise in the first place.
I have to write 500 times: when using a public computer, remember to fill in one’s name and email address.
I’ve just had a look at Ros Scott’s blog, and I have to concede: she isn’t dull.
Like I said before I’m really enjoying this election – it’s just a shame that we can’t combine all the strengths of each individual to form an idealised president!
Having met two of the candidates yesterday I am reassured we have the talent in our party to make a considerable impression going forward because both made strong cases to me for why I should give them their vote (Lembit’s eagerness and enthusiasm was both impressive even if it did take me back a bit!).
It was interesting to press them on some these issues and see how they reacted, so ultimately I’m more undecided than I was before!
Lembit’s conspiracy angle sits well with the refusal to organise official hustings and let members see for themselves that the Baroness ought not to be party president for very obvious reasons which would be exposed in a hustings scenario.
There haven’t been any official ‘central’ hustings in previous Presidential elections either though this time, as with previous elections, various parts of the party have organised their own.
“that the Baroness ought not to be party president for very obvious reasons which would be exposed in a hustings scenario.”
That’s an allegation/innuendo which needs further explanation.
Whether your for or anti Ros she’s a member of the House of Lords, former candidate and party spokesperson on various issues. That makes it pretty clear that she passes the threshold of basic capability to be President and represent that party.
You’ll only find out (what it is) when you meet her in person. Otherwise on paper and from what we already know “Ros [is] a member of the House of Lords, former candidate and party spokesperson on various issues. That makes it pretty clear that she passes the threshold of basic capability to be President and represent that party.”
I for one have met her in person – on several occasions. And she is perfectly engaging and competent.
For reference, Lembit, this is what we call a “smear”.
(by that I wasn’t suggesting that Lembit is “Adrian Pennock” just that this is exactly the sort of thing that Lembit is complaining is being said about him).
This is an absolutley outrageous comment. I have met Ros many many times. In one to one situations, groups, with her speaking to rooms full of people, her answering questions etc and not once has anything been of any concern to me. I suggest you say what you mean, or shut up.
Sorry Adrian – you can’t just make vague innuendos like that. At least not if you want to be taken vaguely seriously.
Lots of people (me included) have met Ros – and long before she thought of running for President. Nothing from meeting her suggested she didn’t have the basic competence to be President rather than your suggestion that there is some personality flaw that should rule her out.
Nor am I “Adrian Pennock”, even though my boss owns Ipswich Town and Welling United is in my constituency!
Pretty bizarre – and elliptical – allegation re: Ros. Why not just spell out what your problem is with her? I went to the Liberty Network hustings and saw all three candidates perform. I really can’t imagine what you’re referring to.
On the hustings point though, I think the party should organise a handful of set piece hustings for a contest like this – maybe 4 of so across the country.
The problem is that not doing so aids the frontrunner really and – a bit like leadership election hustings – its a good trail by ordeal.
I’m voting for Lembit. As much as I like Ros, I think Lembit is the best candidate. He’s done more than most to promote our party and liberal values.
I voted for Lembit. Ros Scott would be a disaster for us. An utterly awful candidate IMHO.
Ros “an utterly awful candidate” ! Come off it Jay Entee. How well do you know Ros ? How do you substantiate your “awful” and “disaster “claims ? As far as I’m concerned such claims have no foundation at all.
I sort of half agree with Richard, there is a lot of stuff expressed with too much vitriol and agression.
But I also think that if you take the unnecessary heat away, the points are fair.
I was in Sheffield yesterday, and thought Ros came over well there too.
Wasn’t too enamoured of Lembit, although I liked him- all his jokes fell flat for me. I’m wondering if I’d already made up my mind before hearing the husting.
However the one candidate who did go up in my estimation was Chandilla. I won’t be voting for him, I don’t even think he’s the second best candidate, but deeply respect him for coming forward in the way he has done.
I’ve moderated some comments in this thread as it looks like one person, sat at one computer, was pretending to be several different people in order to exaggerate the level of support for one of the candidates in this thread.
Seems very reasonable.
But…
Is that in your capacity as an independent moderator of the independent LibDem website, LDV?
Or do you have any professional relationship with anyone running the election?
Or both?
(I have enough respect for Mark P. that I know he can distinguish between the two, and probably balance them properly…am only asking…)
PS.
(For info, the only comments you’ll get from my computer are from my and – very occasionally – the missus…although, that could well be ruled to be two people from only one computer)
Mark W: TBH, Mark P’s left up more comments than I would’ve–getting the notifications, it was bloody obvious they were sockpuppets or astroturfers, you’d have thought by now the people organising this sort of thing would’ve learnt how to make it harder to spot.
The McCain campaign almost managed it, but Lembit’s supporters (that are posting here) don’t seem up to it.
Ah well.
Also went to Sheffield Saturday, and agree with Simon–Chandila gets my 2nd pref for sure now, Lembit was very very strong on the ‘business as usual, there are no problems to solve’ platform, stressing his length of time on FE. I genuinely think he isn’t aware of any actual problems within the party structure. At least Chandila is asking the right questions, even if I’m not as keen on his solutions.
Go Ros.
Mark: it’s a fair point about keeping different roles separate. Moderation was done with LDV hat.
Lembit is wrong to imagine that there is a conspiracy against him :there is no need for one.
I speak as the agent who got more votes for Haringey’s Brian Hayley in the last run-off for Mayor of London than Lembit scored.
Lembit is right to say that conventionality and conservatism are not prime LibDem Presidential qualities.But prudence and continuity are, and he doesn’t offer these . “Alternative Politician of the Year” just about sums it up : Lembit’s poor judgement and knack of alienating large chunks of the public are the very qualities you don’t need in a President. Helpfully, Lembit makes these obvious at every turn.
Sorry, I completely missed 2008 date! Why are we getting this now?