In today’s Guardian, Paddy Ashdown responds to Matthew Oakeshott’s call upon party members to consider replacing Nick Clegg as Leader in typically direct style;
All party dissidents, minor or not, suddenly find themselves welcome on every front page and in every news studio. Opinion pollsters, out of business during the dead days of summer, suddenly find themselves able to use a late August poll to predict the outcome of an election still three years away. I remember one in 1995, two years from the election in which the Liberal Democrats doubled their seats, which had me losing my seat in Yeovil. Charles Kennedy was told the same in 2001, two years before he led us to our greatest ever score of elected MPs.
calling upon the party to concentrate on making the coalition work under Clegg’s leadership, before concluding;
None of this will be achieved by being distracted by mid-term summer polls, passing newspaper comments, or short-term personal manoeuvring. The right thing for Liberal Democrats to do now is to continue to do what we have done so well so far. Concentrate on the job we set our hands to under Clegg’s leadership. Nothing else.
You might ask the question, “Wouldn’t it have been better just to let the matter blow over, rather than fuelling the debate?”, but I guess that we might have to see if the Bank Holiday might draw the momentum out of this one…
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The mysterious mole men of New York caught on video
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
Jason Connor
Mick Taylor
Chloe
theakes
Kira Collins
38 Comments
I don’t understand… Mark, the Bank Hol is over, it’s September tomorrow.
Airing discontent over Nick Clegg ‘s leadership in public is a gift to our enemies . Undecided floating voters will turn away from supporting us and even our own members could lose heart. Furthermore what is the point when there is no obvious replacement waiting in the wings who is capable of doing a better job?
Perhaps he could show a little leadership and come out against the additional £10bn of welfare cuts that Osborne is now pushing for (to pay for tax cuts to Tory supporters as a pre-election bribe?) – and by all reports Danny Alexander is doing little to resist. Would seem only fair given than Osborne slapped down his emergency wealth tax proposal pdq. If not one really needs to ask what Clegg is there for.
Tim,
Can’t imagine what came over me there. However, as a standing reminder that I have my moments, I think that I’ll leave it there for all to see… 🙂
Now that the coalition agreement has been broken by the Tories, there is no formal agreement between the coalition partners. That means the Lib Dems are effectively in a Confidence and Supply arrangement with the Tories, with a lot more freedom to differentiate themselves. They must use it.
First and foremost the country has the wrong economic policy. We need coordinated fiscal and monetary stimulus directed at getting this country back to work and back on track.
The present leadership pins us to this folly, pins us to Conservative economics (which is why Cameron is now protecting Clegg as both his political and his economic shield) and prevents the Liberal Democrats articulating the necessary alternative from within Government..
The appointment of David Laws to the Cabinet Office with responsibility for the leader’s personal economic policy reinforces this situation which is deeply damaging to the country and especially to young people faced with a life-time of unemployment.
The leader himself is deeply damaged electorally and an obstacle to our distinctive policies receiving even a hearing.
For the 3.5 million voters that we have lost in the last two years he is the prime reason for their disaffection and continuing withdrawal of support.
The leader’s strategy of jettisoning this large swathe of supporters and activists in pursuit of a new core vote is totally discredited.
The existence of a viable Party of Liberal Democrats is essential for out country in what Paddy admits is an existential crisis.
Clegg did not hesitate in the past when he concluded that a leader was a liability. Nor should he now.
In looking at Paddy’s article and considering the background to it, it does seem to me that Lib Dems expressing differences of opinion should consider properly what are the appropriate forums for such discussions. There are clear lessons from history about how the Labour Party suffered from being divided in the early 1980s, as did the ‘Alliance’ in the late 80s and the Tories in the 1990s. Whist there must be room for dissent and debate, parties publicly quarrelling do not win public respect.
So we can reply on you sorting this mess out in private?
“… mid-term summer polls …”
It’s very strange that Paddy Ashdown seems unaware that the Lib Dem poll rating has been essentially unchanged for well over a year and a half now – Winter, Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter again, Spring again, Summer again – and so on …
The Labour Party did suffer from being divided in the early 1980s, but it suffered more seriously from clinging to discredited dogmatic Clause 4 socialist policies which voters did not trust. Blair, whatever else one thinks of him, put that right. He did not do it, and could not have done it, simply by bending the right ears behind closed doors. He did it by mounting a spirited and courageous public campaign to win hearts and minds. Although his target audience were his party members, he would not have carried conviction with them had he spoken only at party gatherings. He had to clearly demonstrate that his ideas had traction with the wider public, and that a major change was needed to win back lost support.
We are in an analogous position today.
I think Nick Clegg’s job is safe for one very simple reason. No wants he job. No one wants to have to sit at the table with David Cameron and George Osborne and negotiate what the government does next. If I was in Nick’s position my position would be “not one more penny” to come from the welfare budget. That would probably bring down the Coalition and I for one would be happy. But who would have the nerve to do that in the Parliamentary party?
Nick’s job is safe, because he is the best person for the job… it time some of our critical friends accepted that and started making constructive comments.
@ Bill le Breton
As, no doubt, someone seen as an enemy of the Party – now that it is clear Osborne’s financial strategy has failed, my genuine concern, amongst others, is that the Tories are held to account and prevented from signing any more dubious long-term contracts, that tie the hands of an incoming administration.
This can only be done by either a strong Lib/Dem leader or an end to the Coalition – the latter seems preferable.
Paddy is wrong, IMO. The prime accountability of Clegg and the LDs is to those who would support them.
Clegg et al have supported down very badly on a number of issues. The reality is that the LDs are not moderating Tory behaviour and have no power or influence worth mentioning, yet they give this wretched excuse for Tory government the majority it needs to stay in power.
Clegg should be thinking about what is left of his political integrity and should end the coalition. He should do it now, while there is still a country left to save…by the time Cameron is done, we will be back to Lords and serfs in a kleptocratic plutocracy.
If he doesn’t do it, the LDs will be consigned to another epoch as “the other” party.
Clegg is toast and we are in trouble…..Time for a Cable/Farron team.
Chris R – I agree. But where is the private forum for party members to discuss such things – particularly where significant figures are present? The forums on here have their use but I think there is only one MP, no members of the FE and no senior party staff who make use of them for two-way communication.
One of the criticisms I made of your time as party Chief Exec was the way in which Cix was allowed to whither as a secure forum for discussions within the party. Having that forum was invaluable during the “joint statement” row and certainly helped keep a lid on that!
@Chris Rennard.
Unfortunately it is Paddy’s intervention today that has made this more of a “row in public”. Many members of the public have not heard of Lord Oakeshott but everyone knows Paddy and the intervention enables this to be pushed up the news in a way which I suspect you would not have wanted to see.
@Polly
“Clegg should be thinking about what is left of his political integrity and should end the coalition. He should do it now, while there is still a country left to save…by the time Cameron is done, we will be back to Lords and serfs in a kleptocratic plutocracy.”
I am always attracted to a truth expressed with an economy of words!
This is why I love politics, two people who say the same thing are presented as disagreeing in order to stir up a news-worthy controversy during silly season. All publicity is good publicity, I guess.
Yes, the position of leadership should be properly considered. Then members may actually remember it’s what WE do that matters in community politics, not what HE or SHE does. Outcomes are the product of actions, not intentions or opinions.
As a democratic party we are the leader, and our official leader is simply our Prime-Ministerial candidate acting within the constraints of the situation.
Changing our PM-candidate won’t change the situation; changing our press team may change how the situation is presented; only changing our attitude will rouse our fortune. And that is down to each of us, not anyone else.
Is it conference yet?
“As a democratic party we are the leader [sic], and our official leader is simply our Prime-Ministerial candidate …”
I think the bizarre statements the loyalists feel compelled to come out in the current situation with are as revealing in their way as the attacks on Clegg from the other side.
Chris Rennard: with great respect, the alternative is silence. Agreeing with the current leadership and silence look the same from the outside. Surely you of all people must realise that we would not be in this position if the leadership were pursuing the policies we instinctively believe in, rather than acting as a human shield for Tory attacks on the poor. The suggestion that Laws might come back as well makes it look even more like the “conservative” wing of the party are ignoring the feelings of those with more social conscience.
I do not expect the next phase will be comfortable, nor will it endear us to voters. But it is essential if we are to cast off the Emperor’s New Clothes and get back to protecting those who need protection and reflating the economy.
I thought Paddy’s very elegant response to the mischievous articles by Peter Kellner/Martin Kettle was entirely appropriate.
The Kellner article was no surprise; Peter Kellner, President of You Gov and Labour to the core; his article showed that he was trying to unsettle us and hasten our ruin.
The daily drip of You Gov voting intentions is unsettling for some LDs ; even Matthew Oakshott seems to have lost his nerve.
But forget You Gov and have faith in the gold standard of polling, ICM. If they were showing us at 10% one might be bit worried.
Here are several reasons why I am not worried:
First: You Gov cannot be taken seriously. I was a a member of You Gov for over two years and during that time was only once asked about my voting intentions.
You Gov is a self-selected pool composed of people who opt to join; it is not a random and balanced population sample; In joining, a member gives a personal profile; puzzled that I was never asked about my voting intentions I changed my profile to be a Sun reader instead of Independent, and after that change I was asked once about voting intention.
You Gov is sampling the same set of people every time from the same database and are therefore likely to get the same results.
Second: The evidence from council by-elections is that we are holding up, and in some places even gaining the odd seat. My personal interpretation of the large May losses, is that they were inevitable once we were in Government. We have made the transition from being almost entirely a party of Local Government; remember how our tiny parliamentary party used to brag about how many councillors we had? Would Nick’s critics rather be a party of Local Government with no real powers, or a party with some national powers?
Third: Most of our 7 million votes were in seats where we were second or third; so they really don’t count for seats, as a Recent Rallings and Thresher (I think) report showed. They are sadly really wasted votes. So long as we ruthlessly target our winnable seats in by-election style with effort and resources, we can hold them. Voting intention figures assume a uniform swing, and it will not be a uniform swing.
As for the Cable/ Farron alternative! I could write another essay on that. One has no political gravitas, although a good rabble rouser. The other is too blunt, lacking the diplomatic skills that Nick has had to employ in steering us through this minefield, and perhaps a touch of vanity that might be his undoing..
@Chris
I’m far from being a leadership loyalist, as my comment indicates. Party leadership is, and should be, irrelevant if you take responsibility for your own decisions. People who do strike their own path, those who don’t follow left and right.
@Growler
tha alternative is not silence, the alternative is to take responsibility for your own action and inaction. Stop blaming others for your own failure to make or stand by your choices.
Clearly there are still many who feel a leader should be a dictator, but Clegg is a LibDem, he is a democrat – for better and worse, he represents.
Changing the faces never changes the situation if the philosophy stays the same.
@Paddy Ashdown:
” All party dissidents, minor or not, suddenly find themselves welcome on every front page and in every news studio. ”
But Matthew Oakshott is not a dissident, As the Lib Dem Voice survey shows, he is basically mainstream. If you include members who have left, he would be ‘majority’.
As Chris Rennard points out, this is not a sensible place to have this debate but it will end up being had here if people insist upon pushing one side of a schism here and pretending it is ‘the obvious percieved wisdom’.
@Paddy Ashdown:
” The right thing for Liberal Democrats to do now is to continue to do what we have done so well so far. ”
Unfortunately, Paddy, we shall run out of Council seats to lose soon.
“I’m far from being a leadership loyalist, as my comment indicates.”
Does it? Your point seems to be that the whole party – not Nick Clegg – is to blame for the its current predicament. What could please the leadership more than that message?
Are you really under the impression that the party’s actions in government have been determined democratically by its membership as a whole? I really do find that an astonishing viewpoint.
My worry is that the thinking within the Government is that because the deficit is now growing rather than shrinking the view is that we need even more of the same medicine – hence Clegg calling for emergency tax rises and Osborne calling for a further £10bn of welfare cuts while Danny nods his head at the same meeting. This stupid nonsense has to stop – you need to get growth if you want to reduce the deficit. The LibDems have a duty to scupper this idiocy before it goes any further, if only to honour past Liberals such as Keynes and Beveridge. If you don’t please be absolutely sure that the electorate will scupper the LibDems and return you to the days of pointless irrelevance that you enjoyed under Ashdown and Rennard.
@ toryboys – “Perhaps he could show a little leadership and come out against the additional £10bn of welfare cuts that Osborne is now pushing for”
Would you feel differently if those £10b extra welfare cuts were used to fund infrastructure spending instead?
Would you feel differently if those £10b extra welfare cuts were used to fund infrastructure spending instead?
Not a lot – what the economy needs now is a much bigger overall stimulus and I can think of others who might better fund infrastructure spending than the less well off on benefits.
tbngu
The days of “pointless irrelevance” you refer to (Ashdown himself refers to the asterisk used to show no detectable support for the SLDs!) were because of the split with Owen and aftermath of same. Many people worked hard and were motivated to ensure our party survived. This is not necessarily so now!
Surely the problem as far as public perception is concerned, nobody is sure what the “job” is. If you give power to a larger party that directly conflicts with many of the policies you espoused at the last election (and continue to support, whilst still banging on about conflicting policies, i.e. tax rises for the rich) then don’t expect points for “finishing the job”.
I think the fundamental problem of Ashdown’s comment about ‘letting Clegg finish the job’ is that most people – Lib Dem members included – have little idea what that ‘job’ is and what success might look like:
http://livingonwords.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/clegg-supporters-circle-wagons.html
I’m not a huge fan of Mr Clegg, bur for me he is not the problem.
I just find it pretty hard to imagine a world in which the Lib Dems gain the respect of voters by keeping the Likes of Micheal Gove and George Osborne in power. People do not like being skint or being told that their kids aren’t bright enough for higher education. Worse. the likely outcome of a reshuffle is that the few Conservatives I do have a modicum of respect for are likely to be replaced by those favoured by the press and the grass roots of their party, whilst the Lib Dems will be further sidestepped. .
Much as I respect Paddy Ashdown and can see where he’s coming from in party political terms, I can’t see what this government is getting right enough to support. The welfare reforms are ugly, the education policy is a mess, the plans for the NHS look awful and the economy seems to get worse by the day. Sure, it unfair to blame Clegg for this, but I really do not like the politics of the coalition.
I think Clegg is the problem.
Clegg forever comes out on stage and trumpets “alleged” Liberal Democrat successes,
But when reality bites and he stops huffing and puffing, the truth finally dawns, that he has spluttered a load of meaningless cack.
I thought ending Child Detention was supposed to be one of Cleggs major achievements, and yet figures released show that detention has not been stopped at all, Some children being held in detention for days on end.
If that’s a show of Clegg’s great Success, then my god you guy’s are in trouble
If this was a deliberate bit of kite-flying, the timing is extremely odd. Most Liberal Democrat critics of and sceptics about Nick Clegg would want to see what he said at the conference and consider it. In fact, it’s likely to mute criticism at the conference.
Glenn. I think you sum up accurately the opinion of many (millions ?) of LibDem current and ex- supporters – “The welfare reforms are ugly, the education policy is a mess, the plans for the NHS look awful and the economy seems to get worse by the day”. It is the politics of this coalition that looks, to many of us, so dreadful. I believe that on all of these issues a different leader could have given the Tories a much tougher time. The trouble is that Nick Clegg seemed idealogically comfortable with most of the Tory policies. Peter Kellner seems to suggest that it was inevitable that many LIbDem “protest” voter (temporarilly abandoning Laboour) would be lost after the election. I think those voters could have been held onto; it was the awful LibDem politics and actions that ensured the loss of such voters.
I think that one would be quite foolish to make changes anyway before the election. I don’t understand why there is attitude, that one person is to blame. After the news this evening, I feel perhaps we have turned a corner. Build homes look for investment, and try turning things around. The partnership between the parties has come this far. I hope we now see what has been promised put into a action.
Repeat: as a liberal and democratic party the leadership is less important than the membership.
If you think answers are imposed from the top down, rather than developed from the bottom up, then you are looking at the subject through a conservative hierachic prism and your preferred answer is anti-LibDem.
I don’t agree with Clegg on many things, but criticising him without offering workable solutions is unhelpful to what the party wants to achieve.
@ Oranjepan: “I don’t agree with Clegg on many things, but criticising him without offering workable solutions is unhelpful to what the party wants to achieve.”
I think whatever the Lib-dems wish to achieve, if it’s not total anihilation, they had better start by dumping clegg. He is in no way part of any sensible ‘workable solution’.