From today’s Guardian:
there are now also questions over the fate of the Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Ming Campbell, 66, who has failed to push up his party’s fortunes in the opinion polls in recent months. He was chosen in 2006 to provide a safe pair of hands after Charles Kennedy had to resign – but he also has younger MPs who are keen to take the job. …
One Lib Dem MP said last night: ‘This election decision is going to have big ramifications for us all. We will have to take a good hard look at our own party, now the prospect of an autumn poll has receded, to think about where we want to be in 18 months’ time.’
What does this enigmatic remark mean? Usually I take anonymous comments with a decent pinch of salt – both because they’re cowardly and because I don’t trust news reporters – but this measured comment strikes me as genuine.
It’s inevitable there will be some media speculation about Ming Campbell’s leadership in the media in the days’ ahead. This is for two reasons: (i) the media has been robbed of the election it was keenly anticipating, and will be looking for a new big political story to fill the void; and (ii) if Gordon really is going to play the game long, and delay the election until 2009, then Ming will lack the national stage on which to display his leadership credentials.
One question for the Lib Dems – from members, activists and bloggers through to the Parliamentary party – is how we choose to behave during this period of media scrutiny.
My belief is that the party would be deluded to the point of mental incapacity if it were to attempt to force unwillingly from office a second leader in a row. There will be those who disagree – according to the polls, they are a minority, but they exist – and think Ming is a drag on the national party’s popularity.
It is clear the media could not care less about reporting our policies, even more so with a general election judged to be about 18 months away. The only exposure we can expect in the next few months will be when reporters think they can spin out the ‘Ming in trouble’ line they are so keen to run with. And I am aware that even by writing this posting, broadly supportive of Ming, I am giving the speculation some legs.
We can complain about the unfairness of the media’s bias all we like: but this is the reality.
Another question therefore becomes: what is the party going to do about it? Hope the leadership speculation goes away, or face it head on? Has the time come when Ming should think about ‘doing a John Major’, re-standing for his own job as leader of the Lib Dems?
I don’t know if this would resolve anything (after all, it didn’t help John Major or the Tories very much). But do we – does Ming – want to spend another 18 months having to answer tedious questions from bland journalists about his leadership to the exclusion of having the chance to get Lib Dem policies across to the public?
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Arriving at one of East Finchley's ghost platforms
Matt Sanders selected by Lib Dems for South West Hertfordshire
Chase Park fair photos
A swamp of lies and disinformation
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Nigel Jones
Katharine Pindar
68 Comments
I really think we need to debate this but not on the public forum. I have posted on the members forum.
The subject of leadership (note, not “the leader”) was going to come up in the first of my posts on “revolutionary liberalism” until I got stuck into the Tory tax claims last night. I have a radical idea that I will leave you waiting for…:)
Jockox3. I’d be interested to hear your ideas. I think that we need a liberal (and democratic, for that matter) revolution.
– In a democracy, every vote must count. We need proportional representation
– In a democracy, every vote must be free. We need reform of party funding
– In a democracy, the public need access to rigorous and balanced analysis by the media, not sensationalism.
– In a democracy, we need accountability. We need to apply much stricter standards on what can be said on party leaflets. People can print outright lies and get away with it.
Until we start addressing the above, we’re going to continue to have a political system where only half the population votes, and only 10% of those are the swing voters whose votes get chased.
Campbell needs to focus, fairly ruthlessly on raising his personal popularity relative to Cameron and Brown over the next few months.
http://andymayer.blogspot.com/2007/10/what-to-make-of-polls-and-our-response.html
Evidently what has been tried to date has not been very successful, however he got a good boost from conference and his speech so he clearly not in the IDS territory of being a lost cause.
We are facing serious meltdown and a loss of moral. As as party we have failed to accept the basic reality of modern day politics, brand,messenger and message. We are failing on all counts.
You have to feel a genuine sense of compassion for Sir Ming because he is a nice bloke ! He cannot lead the party and is actually aware of it.
Going forward, it is also time to call the curtain on Chris Rennard as the party needs to be taken seriously and to do this, we must move forward rapidly with new ideas and energy. CEO’s are normally appointed and then replaced on a 5-7 year tenure as by the end of that period they are stale and institutionalised.
In short, just changing the leader will get a snap improvement in the polling rating but will not lead to a significant overhaul of the party. WE need this or we will not go anywhere….
We need a fresh start and a change across the board or the electorate will punish us for failing to hold to account what we believe in and what is wrong with Britain today.
Sir Ming, the time has come, please go gracefully as we need a new leader in the new year.
The petitions are beginning and the fundraising well under way, the option still remains to maintain your dignity and stature.
Chris you have served the party well but no Chief Executive can retain power for over 10 years and not aportion the blame for current failings.
It is a sad time for Liberal democrats that we must again wield the knife but if we dont, the media will.
If senior figures are mature and sensible then we can reach a swift conclusion.
Charles Kennedy will however, have the last laugh.
#3: “People can print outright lies and get away with it.”
No they can’t. Ask Miranda Grell – and she didn’t even print her allegations.
#5: “Chris you have served the party well but no Chief Executive can retain power for over 10 years and not aportion the blame for current failings.”
Chris Rennard has only been Chief Executive for four years.
“Going forward, it is also time to call the curtain on Chris Rennard as the party needs to be taken seriously and to do this, we must move forward rapidly with new ideas and energy.”
Warrior, who are you? A Tory mischief-maker or a raving looney?
This party owes more to Chris Rennard than all three leaders stacked on top of each other. Remember the Greenwich bylection which Chris rescued? Remember Eastbourne? Newbury? Christchurch? And the 1997, 2001 and 2005 General Elections?
Lose Ming AND Chris Rennard, then we really are finished.
Ming when he gets on programs like Question Time, which are unscripted, he goes down well with the audiance in my opinion.
He comes across as a conviction politician rather than as somone who tries to agree with everyone and gets a lot of respect for that.
Unfortunatly only political anoracks watch QT.
In my view Ming need to get more on TV in unscripted programs like the News as this is where he shines
(soory for the bad spilling)
The Warrior?
No doubt his ISP has been carefully recorded. Care to tell us any other pseudonyms originating from the same ISP?
Getting back to the topic:
Ming’s percieved weakness is exaggerated by the depth of talent on his front bench, so if anything this whole thing is more of a veiled compliment.
Anyway it doesn’t really matter who leads us while we remain in opposition because we in the LDs all know we are fighting for the same thing, we are fighting for our liberty and our democracy.
The problem of personality only starts mattering as we approach government.
Ming needs to go – i disagree strongly with Stephen Tall’s comments that anyone who wants to see Ming removed at all costs is ‘deluded to the point of mental incapacity’. In reality, the party has two huge issues that prevent it from getting rid of Ming. The third – the prospect of a general election – has now been removed.
Firstly, we don’t seem to be decisive or hungry enough for power to change leader again.
Secondly, we seem to still be scarred by the damage of the ‘Kennedy Assassination’, wholly illogically in my view. What the party membership do not truly grasp is that Charles Kennedy was a likeable person who was still very popular when he was removed. The same cannot be said for Ming – our vote has been sliding constantly for a while now and he lacks the appeal of other Lib Dems on the front bench. The public will not be particularly sorry to see him go because he is not particularly popular. We therefore will not get nearly as much negative press as some within the party are sure we would.
Leo, you’ve got it exactly the wrong way around. The only reason why we’re talking about getting rid of Ming is because of the “Kennedy Assassination”. In terms of where Ming is at compared to where Kennedy was at the same time in his Leadership, Ming has achieved much more both behind the scenes and in public.
Arguably, we should have given Kennedy a much rougher time than we did. But let’s not over-compensate by turning ourselves into a party that goes around committing regicide every five minutes.
No one has yet articulated how a subsequent new leader would not be even more damaged by the way s/he came to power than the present one is.
The “Ming must go” lobby clearly hasn’t thought through the implications of its arguments.
A second undignified coup and leadership election during this parliament would turn the party into the Northern Rock of British politics.
The party has some fundamental problems but none are Ming’s fault and all would have remained a problem whoever the party chose as leader last year.
For a more detailed analysis, might I humbly recommend my article in the latest edition of Liberator:
http://www.liberator.org.uk/article.asp?id=121804034
“We can complain about the unfairness of the media’s bias all we like: but this is the reality.”
I’m really not sure.
If we take as a starting point that the media’s paradigm is the only one, then yes, this discussion can only be about Ming.
Suppose – just for a moment, forgetting it is impossible – we have the following brief: how to put across a mass-message without using the traditional media, out of the Lib Dem coffers and in a way that successfully communicates policy over personality AND exposes the weaknesses of personality politics AND can overcome apathy. The first party who can think laterally enough to work out a way to do that will reap enormous rewards.
No, sorry, I don’t know the answer, but a la HGGTTG I think I am asking the right question.
It’s policy that matters, we no longer capture the public imagination.
However, the fixed term policy is a step in the right direction. A sensible policy, that the public can see the sense of.
Simon @13: I agree completely, and like the article—I’ve said similar (in briefer form) in the forom awhileback, and concur with John@1 that we should discuss it there.
Alix@14, you’re probably right about the question, suspect you mean HHGTTG or H2G2, and suggest you might like to ask the local membership secretary to get your number so you can join us.
I think debates about removing Ming are futile and damaging—I have a few issues with his style, but it’s nothing that can’t be worked on, and overall feel he’s in a good position and would like him to stay on.
Every Leader has their good points and bad points. Ming is good in a sensible debate; he’s intelligent, principled and would have made a perfect successor to Gladstone. But in an age where we are subjects of the fourth estate, he visibly struggles. Is that enough of a reason to change him? Every leader has his faults. Those of Gordon Brown and David Cameron now have 18 months more to be exposed.
I think a far more important issue is the state of the party itself. I’m afraid I’m with the warrior on this one. The strategy that has been persued since the mid-1990s has run out of steam. I hope, as Chief Executive, that Chris Rennard will realise this for himself and take the appropriate action, but I’m not hopeful. The very structure of the party needs a complete review. The problem is that few people realise how bad things are – which is not to say the Labour and Conservative Parties are in much better nick.
I’ve been impressed with the performance of some of our MP’s, less impressed with others. But I think it’s time the parliamentary party – who presumably have clear diaries from now until November 8th – were kicked out of Westminster and sent out, on the road to help local parties build membership, fundraise, etc. The current strategy turns each MP into a sort of ‘political vampire’ who sucks resources out of the surrounding local parties as we are all asked to rush in to support their re-election and never to propose any policy that might be embarrassing to them (however good it might be for us!). I think from now until Christmas, every MP should be turfed out of Westminster and told to pay their debt back to the party.
Alix, I think what you just described is called Focus.
I’d take issue with the assumption that it is all about policy though. Policies come and go and most of the electorate couldnt name a single policy of any party at a particular moment in time, despite most of them being reasonably firmly attached to one party in their voting habits.
More important are principles (how about “enabling communities to take and use power”); credibility (we can win); and mood (it’s worth voting for us because we are different from the others).
We can all make a difference to how the party performs in these areas.
So long as every floating voter friend of mine I know tells me they feel completely disconnected from the Liberal Democrats because of the leader, I’ll continue to believe he has to go – not quite at all costs… I’m not advocating violence!
Still, with the polls at 11% or wherever they are I’m looking forward to joining the crowd of smart-arses who rush to say “OH! you think this is bad? I remember when we were polling single figures…”
Rob has it right – lots of our potential supporters, especially among the young, are really put off by Ming. A new leader would not quickly solve many of the problems facing the party, but he (sic) would be less crap on the telly and less off-putting to our voters.
Ming has to be made to realise (by being told privately and often) that he must do the decent thing quickly.
Superb piece Stephen which should be debated widely in the private forum. The only two plausible options in my view are either he goes in the next 4 weeks of his own accord or else we batten down the hatches and he leads us into 2009/10. What will be suicidal in my view is another public execution of a leader using the drip, drip, drip of anonymous comments feeding a 24 hour rolling news inferno. If Ming Comes out in the next 4 weeks and says “X, Y and Z are the three reasons I’m leading the party into the next general election” then despite never having voted for him he must have 100% support from everyone. If we allow anonymous briefings to feed the inevitable media speculation then it will feed on its self, it will bring him down in the end and the “Northern Rock” reference above will say it all.
Has the time come when Ming should think about ‘doing a John Major’ . . .
You mean he should shag Edwina Currie? I suppose that would be one way to finish him off.
. . . re-standing for his own job as leader of the Lib Dems?
Ah, I see. The trouble is that I don’t think we can do a John Major in this sense. The system the Conservatives had back then, allowed for a stalking horse candidate to act as the precursor to a second and third round of serious voting. It was the ideal system, in my view, until William Hague got rid of it. But with our arrangements, Huhne and Clegg would be forced to break ranks from the outset; or more likely they wouldn’t, rendering the ensuing contest meaningless.
Not that I believe a word of it, but Martin Baxter tonight has us on Zero Seats for the next election – what pricing ‘targeting’ now?
Focus is emphatically not what I am describing, the chief reasons being:
(1) it’s in traditional format – just putting it online is not the same thing;
(2) no-one outside the Lib Dems has heard of it; and
(3) there is no way on earth to guarantee that anyone more than the party faithful read it. It is not spreading a persuasive message to new audiences, it is reinforcing a status quo message with the same audience.
If Focus was a viable alternative to mass media coverage of the party of the kind I am envisaging, and was enough for us to overcome the Ming-centric problem inherent in mass media reportage, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
I think it’s pretty obvious that the Lib Dem party needs to face up the choice it made during Ming’s leadership election. The deed is done and lynching him now will destroy what little trust the public have left in the party, and that is something the next leader will not be able to undo easily, if at all.
Trust is the only thing that really matters in politics and we squander it at our peril.
The vote for Ming was, I think, a vote that was in the party’s interest at the time – steadying a ship rocked by the trauma of the downfall of Kennedy. The majority wanted the ‘safe pair of hands’ and the ‘experienced parliamentarian.’ Or maybe he was the least worst option compared to the unpredictable and altogether too leftie Hughes and the rather robotic Huhne.
Ming cannot be forced out without taking the whole party with him, and therefore the only choice is for all to get behind the leader and give him the support he needs.
The party and its leader is seen as a metaphor for the people and it’s prime minister. (Note how Brown demonstrates his strength by dominating Labour and Cameron demonstrates his charisma by wowing the Tories). If the Lib Dems don’t trust that Ming is capable and knows what he’s doing then the inevitable message that sends to the public is “you can’t trust Ming.” It also makes the party look exceptionally stupid and throws doubt on their collective judgement skills in picking the guy in the first place.
Ming really needs some help with projecting a positive image that clicks and sticks with people. Surely that’s not beyond the capacity of the party to make that happen?
Ming has been a great president, reforming party structures in a way that the chair of FE should have. But he is years too late as leader, you can’t blame him, you can blame his past health problems.
Yes we can push Liberal values. But pushing them with a leader scoring +ve personal polling will score far more than one with large -ve scores.
Rob says “So long as every floating voter friend of mine I know tells me they feel completely disconnected from the Liberal Democrats because of the leader, I’ll continue to believe he has to go”. It isn’t just the people he talks to – the polls tell the same story.
Sorry this is hidden behind an alias, but it is only MPs who can attack a leader in public and get away with it!
Alix, I think we are at cross purposes. I was being too clique-y in my choice of language.
What I mean by Focus is talking and listening to communities. Usually through the delivery of regular newsletters that take up issues that have a direct impact on people’s lives and help those people to campaign for change.
Focus is very definitely not using the traditional media – you deliver it yourself. That’s different from ‘new’ media but if we limit ourselves to that alone we risk connecting solely with an unrepresentative minority of the electorate (just ask Howard Dean and Ned Lamont).
It (Focus) is recognised and read by hundreds of thousands of ordinary voters around the country and is the main reason we succeed in getting so many councillors elected.
And done properly it is a very effective way of communicating our message because its very existence symbolises a different kind of politics (done badly it is just another pizza delivery leaflet with party policies on).
Now, I grant you, it might seem a puny weapon against the Murdoch press. But maybe we should worry a bit less about them and more about rediscovering our political soul – who knows what strengths would flow from that.
I haven’t had the concept of Focus explained to me this well before, and by your account it certainly meets many of my criteria. Which in itself gives me pause for thought because unfortunately we can’t send you round to explain it to the electorate – I think my reservation about its lack of reach remains.
Fair point re new media. I am not at all wedded to it as a communication tool and I’m using the phrase “traditional media” lazily – what I mean really is the traditional national media pattern whereby we send them press releases, give them reams of information etc and they print stories about Ming. By talking about moving beyond traditional I am trying to conceive of ways to put a mass (and national) message across without national media. That is, not worrying about Murdoch’s empire, but coming up with an alternative to it. And Focus’ strength is in its local application – how can we transcend that and make it bigger, or have it spawn something bigger?
I’m absolutely all for political soul-searching. I wonder if what you see as mutually exclusive things, i.e. soul-searching for the answer, and caring about message, I am more inclined to see as interdependent. Clarity of thought and the ability to communicate the thought well usually go together. One of the strengths that might conceivably flow from a spot of soul-searching is a clear idea of how to tell people about it in a way that transcends media.
If I have any actual ideas I’ll put them on t’forum tomorrow, as granted without my coming up with an example this does all sound pretty woolly.
In my view it is not so much the Leader but clarity of message.
The Party used to be well recognised for the one pence increase in income tax to fund education which was a simple policy illustrating priorities.
That kind of clarity has all been lost in a mass of detailed and complicated policies which are hard to communicate in an effective manner.
I would illustrate this with the following examples. Fairness in tax was simply demonstrated by the increase in the top rate on incomes over £100,000 – yet it was scrapped. Investment in public services was demonstrated by an earmarked specific increase in a particular tax – yet the party now talks about cutting the basic rate of income tax by 4 pence. Something which nobody believes. Green taxes are cited as the source of a lot of the extra income yet people are told don’t worry if you change your behaviour you will not pay them. However if everybody changes behaviour then the income will not be achieved. The Party is supposed to be pro-European yet calls for a referendum on our continued membership! No doubt a wonderfully thought through wheeze to keep party members happy but portrayed as yet another inconsistency. The Party talks about free personal care for the elderly yet imposes charges in local Government. In Scotland having partnered a successful four year Government with Labour the Party jumps into glorious opposition at the first hint of difficulty (even after a reasonable election result). The messages do not stack up.
Where should the Party be in 18 months time. With a clear set of principles illustrated by a short menu of simple policies. The Party did used to have them.
There is little point going through another leadership election until there is some consensus on who should take over. Far too many people want to do it and some of them should be making the personal sacrifice of ruling themselves out and looking to form that consensus.
Our leader is a decent human being but will never connect with the electorate.
I wonder if what you see as mutually exclusive things, i.e. soul-searching for the answer, and caring about message, I am more inclined to see as interdependent.
– didnt mean to create that impression, I agree both are important and linked. The only answer I can think of is to be distinctive. We are at our best and our most successful when we take a genuinely liberal stand issues like civil liberties, migration etc.
Transcendental media, now there’s a concept I might need more sleep to get to grips with… 🙂
13. “A second undignifies leadership coup….”
It doesn’t have to be that way. The parliamentary party acted as men in white coats, in deciding collectively that Charles must go; and then preceeded to screw up the process so that everyone including we bemused grass roots had to suffer the humiliation.
Now, in one bold move Ming could reverse our lack of newscover by elegantly announcing his wish to stand down following the postponement of the GE until 2009. We could then have a very prolonged leadership election covering six months in which our policies are debated by the several candidates including one woman. This would carry us a good way towards the GE of 2009.
I would like it to be Huhne,Clegg, Laws and Featherstone/Teather who take this on.
I might then be able to revive the loyalty and enthusiasm that I have lost since the Charles debacle. We must be progressive and vigorously different from blue or red. Our next leader must do for us what Alex Salmond has done for the SNP.
Elizabeth.
Folks, I really think we should have this debate in the members forum. Remember there are a whole bunch of Tories reading this with glee.
Or, in some cases, writing it with glee.
Here we go again. The anti-Ming brigade whingeing and groaning. All of whom speak exclusively for fellow members and voters, naturally.
Ming is here to stay. He was elected by the members and he will continue leading the Party through the next General Election. He isn’t going to step aside just because Elizabeth Patterson tells him to. Get used to it.
Even if we did have a General Election on 8th November, I suspect we would have ended up with a net gain of seats – provided everyone adhered to the Rennard formula.
MPs (and everyone else) should get out there and work in target seats. The Ming-bashers have had their say ad nauseam. No-one is listening. I wonder why?
33. And I am sure there are tory and labour sleepers on our members’ forum. The strap line for Lib Dem Voice boldly claims it as “our place to talk”
Perhaps this should be rephrased as “the on-line version of Lib Dem News”, ie no criticism.
Neither am I impressed by the “tory glee” concept.
If the latter cannot eliminate us, then they will want us to do reasonably well, just as we need them to do reasonably well to prevent labour from getting an overall majority. It is all relative in a three party situation.
I make no apology for suggesting that it might be more rewarding to have our leadership contest before the GE where it will generate publicity rather than after the GE when the media will preoccupied with the new government.
Ming always says “and into the next parliament..”. But my understanding is that we have to have a leadership election after a general election.
This is what was so galling about the Charles debacle. He had been re-elected unopposed in 2005 only a few months before it was found that he had an intolerable long standing drink problem!
Are we suggesting that Ming, pushing 70, will be elected unopposed in 2009?
The only point I am making is that it may be more rewarding to play this card before 2009 rather than after.
Elizabeth
You should never write anything on the internet that you wouldn’t be comfortable having your opponents read, whether on a public blog or a private forum.
If people think they can be more free and frank on a private forum, they are utter fools. Our opponents have no doubt already infiltrated it. That’s politics.
If you aren’t comfortable about raising a point here, you should restrict your comments to talking to individuals in person.
“Are we suggesting that Ming, pushing 70, will be elected unopposed in 2009?”
Wittingly, or unwittingly, Elizabeth Patterson has shown her hand – as an AGEIST.
Remind me, Elizabeth. How old was Ronald Reagan when he was first elected President of the United States?
Ming Campbell is the same age as Alex Ferguson. I don’t think there are many on here (or indeed swivel eyed young Tories) who would dare to say Fergie was too old. Perhaps Ming should take to smaking David Beckham in the face as a way of ending talk about his age. I’d pay to watch…
James, it was small cliques talking privately that got us in this mess in the first place; I remember voting Kennedy in as leader – I don’t remember voting him out. And I’m tired, as an ordinary member, of being told what I should and shouldn’t think and what I should and shouldn’t say. Tens of thousands of our members have got so tired of it, they have simply dropped out altogether. As for my opponents, I think they are doing just fine at the moment without our help. But never mind, the powers that be will do it all behind closed doors or the electronic equivalent reinforcing once again the impression of our remaining members that the party is only interested in them as a source of funds and unpaid labour in target seats. We (and by we I mean all parties) have got so scared of the media, we are no longer capable of debating with and gaining the respect of the electorate, because we shy away from any controversy, any debate. We are supposed to be a community party, with strong grass roots. That means talking to the electorate, openly and freely, listening to their views and attempting to address their concerns. Once again, I’ll say it, get our 60+ MP’s out of the Westminster Village for three months. Assign three local parties to each of them and tell them to come back with at least 100 new members, fundraising in place and improved delivery networks. Assign Party Staff to help them.
The leadership is the least important matter facing us and Ming and his ‘mingions’ are as good as we would be likely to get after a bruising leadership contest. The challenge is now to rebuild the party.
The Tories have bucked this challenge – Ashcroft is creating a culture where money is King and Ashcroft the Kingmaker and perhaps the only piece of marxist dogma left in New Labour is it’s elitist ‘cadre’ party mentality.
We need to build up new ways of becoming a mass political movement in a new age. I some good ideas of how to do it – would anyone care to listen?
Hey why the panic?
Do local elections & Parlimentary By-elections show collapse?
We have put in place a radicial/green set of policies – I feel we now have the vision (& not the drift under Kennedy).
I trust Ming to do what is best for the Party – including staying or going.
“If people think they can be more free and frank on a private forum, they are utter fools. Our opponents have no doubt already infiltrated it. That’s politics.”
James, I regret very much having to say this to someone whose writing I admire (and if you want to hit back, this isn’t the thread for it, so email me) but there is an abrasiveness and an insider-flavoured smugness about this comment that I think is better suited to bashing more deserving people (that is, people who deserve to be bashed) on your blog. I am continually struck on LDV by the number of activists who seem happy to turn off ordinary punters for the sake of winning a point. It is counterproductive. You are rightly valued as an opinion former for your forthrightness, but I suggest that forthrightness does not have to be at the expense of basic good manners. You wouldn’t talk to someone on a doorstep like that, why are you doing it here?
On a lighter note, I asked her indoors where we want to be in 18 months time.
I’m told “Barbados”.
So I’m “an utter fool” and “deluded to the point of mental incapacity”, perhaps I should resign my council seat or are these the qualifications….
James (comment 37), I totally agree. I have never logged on to the “private” forum, and I’m not going to either. So it’s a great place to go should anyone wish to slag me off for any reason!
The fact that this has generated over 45 responses implies there is cause for concern. Nobody wants to see any form of self inflicted pain but we cannot escape the reality that presents itself. The picture is not good and if we are going to continue with what we have then there has to be a marked difference in the performance of our leader. The answer lies in the monkeys that advise him as frankly someone of his standing should not trying to look cool but modern and friendly.
Fighting amongst ourselves or worrying about who sees what great liberal democrat thinking.. i doubt.
We are a party that allows any of us to express themselves in a way that if the other two did, they would self destruct.
If we look closely at where we are in the political spectrum and our influence on the national agenda it leads to the conclusion that it is not what we say but how we say it. Our party structure needs aggressive change, strong leadership and a hunger to be a real political force. An independent chain of shopkeepers sharing war stories takes you so far but when we will go to become the household name !
Political parties are always faced with the burden of position and the danger of posturing for it… We have great policies, great ideas and win seats with military campaigning but our methods, clothes and achievements are being overpowered by our opponents.
It is no longer acceptable to believe that power will descend on us through an act of the almighty or by 2075 but reality is such that our place in politics must be as a party who could govern.
Our goals and ambitions must be drawn to towards this or the purpose of liberal democracy will be lost on a strategy of simply tinkering at the sidelines.
The conservative party cannot have our debate or innovation because it requires the party to engage wth itself. They cannot as disagreement is serviced with explusion or isolation.
We need to wake up to the reality of a lame duck PM and an opposition leader who is living on borrowed time. The next 18 months could be more critical than we imagine and an ideal opportunity to destroy the tory agenda. To do this will take more than a change of leader it requires a transformation of our party and indeed the thinking that goes behind it.
Angus, you sir must realise that hiding behind false realities in politics will only mean that the eventual fall is far greater !
If you think this is mischief or crazy behaviour then you are mistaken, dark forces will encircle you..
Ah, but unlike you, Mr Warrior, I don’t hide behind a false NAME.
Look, chaps, the simple reality is this: the party has been experiencing a downwards slide in the polls, poor performances at local elections, and a severe lack of discernable principles since Ming took over, and we must now replace him in the window available to us.
The Tories were not punished by the electorate for getting rid of Ian Duncan Smith because he was interminably boring and the public had no real interest in or sympathy with him. The reason getting rid of Kennedy was so much worse for us is twofold: firstly, he was much more popular among our voters when he was ejected and secondly, the party did not act decisively enough to oust him.
We must show a hunger for power and a dissatisfaction with anything less than the best or else the public will continue to perceive us as they currently do: indecisive and not prepared for government.
We have a window of about 2 months, during which Ming must go. If we do not get rid of him, we will go into the next election on the defensive, seeking damage limitation. For an opposition party, that is wholly unacceptable. Our membership does not have high enough standards or expectations of the leadership.
Warrior, sorry, but I’m getting irritated now. I keep gamely trying to focus on what you’re saying, but your sentence structure is fractured and your meaning facile. If you are not, as has been suggested, a Tory troll, you are at least a follower of the paintball school of communication which is nearly as annoying.
Clearly (1) you are anti-Ming (why not just say so in heaven’s name, like Leo @ 49 does? I may not agree with him, but in the words of Bill Bryson I defend to the death his right to be a complete arsehole 😉 )
(2) “We are a party that allows any of us to express themselves in a way that if the other two did, they would self destruct.”
Well, I should damn well hope so! Anyone should be allowed to express themselves in any way they wish. Political parties are absolutely pointless without individual powers of expression. That’s what makes the other two such utter wastes of space for anyone who wants to make a genuine difference.
(3) many of the 45+ responses you cite have been completely off-topic, something I was guiltily aware of @ 14. There are issues here that need airing (chiefly to do with communication, to my way of thinking) but they have got little to do with the party leadership.
If you have a worthwhile point to make, threatening other posters with “dark forces” is not going to advance it. Make more sense, please.
Returning to the topic in question, perhaps writing to, say, 10,000 members who have not renewed their membership in the past couple of years, asking them why, might be a worthwhile exercise.
Finally, someone willing to look at the wood from the trees, well done Martin..
There is a second tier of people to ask, they are the key donors to the party.
These are the “mega” donors who deal directly with the treasurers office and Liberty Network.
Liberty Network had 150 plus members who give a minimum of £1000 each but now they have only 39 active members.
The garden party normally has over 140 people this year it had just under 20 !
It is the message, messenger and how we are perceived ! Denying it, is insulting to anyone’s intelligence.
We have a major wake up call, communication is central to the leadership as if it is not,then the only hope is that we say nothing as that might be better than the poll rating we are getting now.
Martin Land @51 – Given the average age of the party’s membership, I recommend that anyone wishing to contact the 10,000 lapsed members should employ the services of a medium.
To be honest, I think Ming is the ideal capable deputy leader who rose too high.
I respect him but I think it’s time that he accepted the fact that the media and a large part of public opinion has not warmed to him. That fact has become very apparent after 18 months.
I don’t think that is fair on the guy but life isn’t fair.
He should go now, and give his successor between 18 months and 2 1/2 years to get bedded in and improve things.
Simon @ 53. Sorry, Simon, but in my group of constituencies, we have some pretty good membership secretaries, ones who actually take the lists from Cowley Street and go out and try to renew lapsed members. True, we lose some to the grim reaper, but nonetheless, until 18 months ago the membership picture looked pretty good. In my own constituency, between 2001 and 2006 membership nearly doubled but it’s slipping now and elsewhere I told it’s slipping much more quickly. And I think we need to look at why; and then task action to cure it. Please look at my previous posts on this thread. We need to get our Peers, MPs, MEPs and party staff out ‘on the road’ in a planned attack to build membership, delivery networks and funds in, say, 120 seats, below our target seats – perhaps in clusters around them? In my region we have MPs who live cheek by jowl with constituencies with less than 50 members; councils with no councillors. I appreciate targeting. I just think it’s gone too far and unless we make a real effort to build resources across the board, one of these days the call will go out for all and sundry to rush to the target seats and no one will – because there will be no one left!
You talked @ 40, Martin, of developing ways of becoming a mass political movement in a new age. So it seems to me that you have two (linked) interests, the immediate preservation of the party in your locality qua 55, and a wider take on how we move forward with mass communications. The former includes targetting of lapsed memberships, the latter includes practical doorstep recruitment by MPs, MEPs etc – and is there more?
Lot’s more Alix, but I’m not sure anyone is listening. I’m trying some experiments this winter in my neck of the woods; if it works, I’ll try to find someone who does. Initial indications are promising.
Could one of you chaps up at LDV Command please help me with stats before my brain turns to mush? I make it 28 posters in total on this thread, of which 7 wanted Ming to go, of which 2 were anonymous. Is that right? I am just interested in the “swamped” comment from the Telegraph (and also in the way that they quote one poster, the verbose and unwieldy Warrior, as two different people. And on that subject, did that poster’s email address end in telegraph.co.uk at all?)
Martin, I think there are a few of us out here who’re interested in your thoughts . . .
58
Way to go, Alix!
Gosh! 60 posts already!
Where do we want (the party) to be in 18 months?
Dynamic, progressing, with a clarity of message and purpose.
Can that be achieved with the current leader?
On the evidence of the last 18 months, my view would be ….. No.
Should we have a new leader?
In my view ….. Yes.
Can I just say that as a Liberal Democrat for some years now, I really believe it’s time for a change. The defenstration that took place with Charles was unhelpful and I think we suffered as a party from it, but simply because that felt messy and unclean doesnt mean that we should hold back from a period of necessary self-examination and even the possible leadership contest that might follow.
It was unpleasant last time, but can you imagine the political interest of a competition between Huhne, Clegg and maybe someone like David Laws. The discussions would be intellectual and would really deliver a sense of direction for the party that at present I feel we lack. Sure we’ve unveiled some good policies and yes that matters, but the sense of ideology or purpose underpinning those escapes me somewhat and that can hardly be a good thing? Before I get some come-back about how its about Liberal values etc etc. I am more than aware of that, but we’re not articulating the instinctive difference between us and the others. I’m sorry Ming, but to my mind it’s important to step aside and allow us to seize the opportunity that 18 months with a new, charistmatic and youthful leader can deliver.
I think you really have to replace Ming or you are electorally doomed.
Time is pressing. There is a real danger that a significant number of LibDem MPs will lose their seats across Southern England.
The issue is three-fold.
1) In the superficial media-commentator led news agenda, the Ming is too old/too incompetent/too out of touch narrative is now fully bedded in and you will not be able to break it. Its too late. Hard fact. Whether you like it or not. Ming is a busted flush as far as the media is concerned. This is seriously damaging to your electoral prospects
2) You are not distinctive. With the two other parties dancing on a pin-head policy-wise you are left at the side of the dance-floor with no-one listening to you. It isn’t because you have nothing to say, it’s because it isn’t distinctive from the other two parties. Given your usual lack of media attention to compound the issue, no-one knows what you stand for. I’m a political anorak and would find it difficult to describe any of your policy positions.
3) And finally to hit a man when he’s down. The terms of public debate are moving sharply against you, or more importantly your public perception.
Whether it is true or not, you are seen as a party of high taxation, high levels of public spending and producer capture (e.g allowing healthcare professionals autonomy in running the NHS).
Public debate is now moving against this. After 10 years of New Labour and truly epic levels of tax n’ spend we still have people dying of hospital acquired infection in the NHS, truly awful educational standards and 5.4 Million people living in state financed poverty and unemployment hidden as incapacity. Public spending is now at such a high level that it will shortly breach the 600Bn level pa. Amazingly it is almost at the level wherby if public spending was cut to the 2002-3 fy level, we could abolish personal taxation!
Do you feel our public services are significantly better than they were in 2003? No neither do I.
The point I’m making is that the LibDems seem to stand for more of the same. NuLabs great spending experiment has failed, but the public perception is you want to reinforce this failure. Public debate is now tentatively moving to be around significant reform of public services, tax cutting and reducing the size of the (massive) state, stoked by a media that judges New Labour badly and wants a competition at the next election. This debate may (will?) mark the end of New Labour, if you are on the wrong side of it as public perception would have you, the tsunami will take you as well.
It is unlikely that I’ll vote LibDem at the next election, but I wish you well because we do need a distinctive voice in politics. Sadly a voice that under Ming, you are not providing.
PS Simon Huhges was awful on Question Time last night. Never allow him near a TV camera.
Eh? I’m no fan of Hughes, but I thought he was great last night.
The only way anyone will get public support is to do away with “party leaders” and replace them with a proper genuine democratic steering committee who are guided by what the population actually want rather than “what the party wants”.
The last twenty years have been proof that democracy is dead in this country (and Europe) and the “man in the street” will not support Big Brother no matter what colour his rossette.
We need leaders.
Unless I’m a Christmas Tree, and I’m not, we have a lot of astroturfing going on here trying to create/exploit the telegraph article.
Expect further developments shortly.