LibLink: Rennard and Webb in the Saturday papers

A double dose of LibLink love with two pieces to highlight.

First, an op-ed from (Lord) Chris Rennard for The Guardian with a lesson from history for the Liberal Democrats:

[Being in coalition] leaves the Liberal Democrats shaken by the drop in poll support but not entirely surprised by it. My view is that the drop in support should not be regarded as inevitable on polling day in 2015. In December 1996, the Lib Dems were suffering from too close an association with Labour and a poll rating below 10%. Analysis of the new parliamentary boundaries showed that the Lib Dems were down to 18 seats. Ashdown’s profile differentiating ourselves from Labour (and the Conservatives) raised our share of support to 17% by polling day. More significantly, our campaigns in the new constituencies bucked the national swings and resulted in us more than doubling our number of MPs to 46.

You can read Lord Rennard’s full article here. But remember to come back, because there is also Steve Webb’s interview in today’s Telegraph:

Formally, he is Minister of State for Pensions at the Department for Work and Pensions. A better title might be Minister for Huge, Scary Numbers at the Department of Complicated, Important Stuff…

His relentless focus on “facts” may sound Gradgrindesque, but in person, Webb is no desiccated calculating machine. In conversation he is animated and lively, self-deprecating about his own “nerdishness”, and spikier than might be expected of a leading member of the Lib Dem Christian Forum. He is also linked to the Social Liberal Forum, putting him on his party’s Left wing. Perhaps unsurprisingly, some of his spikes are aimed directly at the Conservative Right, especially its increasingly vocal demands to loosen Britain’s ties to the European Union.

You can read the Steve Webb interview here.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in LibLink.
Advert

One Comment

  • Andrew Purches 18th Sep '11 - 6:38pm

    No longer being a subscriber to an ever more expensive Guardian, I have settled for the “I”, and at 20p.a shot and 30p. on Saturday, it is value beyond compare. For once,nay twice, two serious and generous articles concerning Nick Clegg and his leadership of the Liberal Democrats have been published on Friday and Saturday. Both pieces were of the highest journalistic order, and hopefully will have found their way into every conference attendees file. Let us hope such journalism continues to be critically and analytically supportive over the next few months and years, leading up to the next election. For me, the content of these pieces brought me back from the brink of resignation from a party that has in many ways betrayed us at street level, where we are still fighting a losing battle.

    The “I” should be read by everyone.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Judy Abel
    Thank you for all your comments - we had a good debate!...
  • nigel hunter
    You are correct re talking to the young or rather NOT talking enough to them.THEY. They are the future electorate AND possible recruits .MORE effort must be put...
  • Judy Abel
    @Tristan - hedge funds running children’s social care - badly - never mind the children? - (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/02/profiteering-o...
  • Rose Runswick
    @theakes I don't think Zack Polanski has any intention of expanding his base beyond Corbynites, which is no issue for him as in over doubling the membership thr...
  • Tristan Ward
    "This is a powerful condemnation of neoliberalism." No it isn't. As previously noted it is a set of whinges with a certain amount of inaccuracy (*). They ...