So you might not have noticed, because to say it was beneath the radar is very much an understatement, but our leader reshuffled his top team last week. I only saw one news outlet cover it, Sky News Online. Of course, it happened during Labour Conference so, as ever, the lobby journalists attention was very much elsewhere. But is it just me or does it appear that our whole strategy as a party can be summed up with the phrase ‘under the radar’?
It was suggested to me by someone senior at Conference that it’s the ‘don’t frighten the horses’ strategy, in other words that if we remain beige and inoffensive and don’t really say anything about, well, anything and the Tories continue to implode we’re bound to take scores more Tory seats… right? I don’t know where to start with how complacent, muddled, and wrong-headed such an alleged strategy is. Even assuming it works, if we get scores of MPs elected on the basis that they don’t really believe in anything, how do they then stick up for liberal principles, like being pro immigration and LGBT+ equality, in Parliament and so on? Am I the only person who would rather we elected say 30 MPs who are clear on their liberal principles and policy positions and then can be full-throated in defending liberal values and minority rights in the chamber and on the media? Is just getting more people elected really what we’re here for…or does it actually matter what they stand for/believe in?
Anyway, back to the reshuffle.
It was brought about by resignation from the front bench of party presidential candidate Josh Babarinde, so he could concentrate on his campaign. Ed decided to do a much fuller reshuffle than might have been expected. My friend Max Wilkinson (of which more later in this column) was promoted to be Home Affairs Spokesperson, replacing Lisa Smart who was moved (demoted?) to a Cabinet Office spokesperson role after making herself not exactly wildly popular with much of the membership by suggesting on this very website that maybe we should have a change of heart on Digital ID cards (er, no, we’re liberals and are against that kind of thing!), Joshua Reynolds was promoted to the Investment and Trade brief, Charlie Maynard becomes Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Jess Brown-Fuller took over from Babarinde at Justice, Will Forster is now spokes on Immigration and Asylum (I very much hope he’ll champion as the economic, social and cultural benefit to society it most certainly is), Al Pinkerton moved from Northern Ireland to Europe, he was replaced by Paul Kohler, and Bobby Dean is Shadow Leader of the House of Commons.
Oh and, whilst I’m at it, why oh why is there a London spokesperson (Luke Taylor) when no other English region has its own representative?
And one more change of note. The fantastic Vikki Slade who, by general consensus was doing a fantastic job at local government, was sacked and replaced by Zoe Franklin. Nothing against Zoe who I don’t pretend to know much about but Vikki, as a former Council leader, was a brilliant advocate for local government and against Labour’s wrongheaded reorganisation thereof. So why on earth was she sent to the back benches?
Which brings me to my main point.
A very senior source tells me that Ed puts some of his MPs ‘in the freezer’ if they’re not sufficiently loyal or if they speak out in away which is not to his liking. I’m also told that he is ‘intolerant’ of those who disagree with him. Now, I’m sure Ed and his team would dispute this but, if true, this seems deeply not only disappointing but profoundly illiberal to me. A source tells me ‘only loyalty is rewarded.’. This seems a shabby way for a party leader to behave, if true.
We have a strong team of 72 MPs and whilst, of course, not all can or should be on the front bench, only promoting those you consider to be sufficiently loyal (whatever that means) is a ridiculous way to behave. As I’ve said on the podcast I co-host, whilst Ed’s place in history is secured, he secured our highest number of seats ever in our modern history at last year’s election, it’s my belief that this year’s Conference should mark the beginning of the end of his leadership. For all our sakes.
In praise of Max Wilkinson
As I say I was delighted to see Max Wilkinson promoted to be our Home Affairs spokesperson and was delighted this weekend, in his first comments in the role, standing up for the right to peacefully protest in the face of yet more measures to undermine it from this increasingly authoritarian Labour government. Max has always been friendly to me and encouraging of me in the years I’ve known him and I’ve worked with him on the need to refund the youth service in his previous capacity as our lead on digital, culture, media, and sport. I hope and believe that he’ll stand up for liberal values and principles as a good Lib Dem Home Affairs spokesperson always should.
Best wishes, Max!
This is an ex-party
Those old enough may remember Margaret Thatcher’s ‘this is an ex parrot’ part of her speech to Tory Conference in, I believe, 1990, aimed at the new Lib Dem logo “a bird of some kind,” as she described it. This passage was clearly written for it as Mrs Thatcher didn’t really do humour.
Well, revenge is most certainly a dish best served cold.
Watching some of the coverage of the Tory Conference (I watch it, so you don’t have to), with speeches by supposed ‘Tory heavyweights’ being given to a half empty hall, I can say in all honesty… this is an ex party!
It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people!
* Mathew Hulbert is a former Councillor, is a regular commentator on TV and Radio, and is Co-Host of the Political Frenemies podcast.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
What should the Liberal Democrats stand for?
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
Matt (Bristol)
John Grout
10 Comments
I fully agree that there is little point in getting more MPs elected just becasue they are like the Tories (used to be) but nicer. All our MPs and candidates need to speak up loudly and clearly on our values (especially at the moment on the valuable contributions immigrants make to our society and their and everybody else’s human rights.) I’d also point out that informed commentators such as Ian Dunt (“How Westminster Works and why it Doesn’t”) and Sam Freedman (“Failed State”) explain that one of the weaknesses of your system is “churn”, how ministers (and top civil servants) are moved around before they have time to master their briefs. Surely this also applies to shadow front-benchers. Why was a major reshuffle deemed necessary?.
One thing of note about Zoe Franklin (who is excellent) is that she had a long career first as a councillor and then as a staff member for ALDC.
In the latter role she was brilliantly supportive of the East of England and has continued to work well with ALDC since.
Zoe will make an excellent addition to the frontbench.
“Am I the only person who would rather we elected say 30 MPs who are clear on their liberal principles and policy positions and then can be full-throated in defending liberal values and minority rights in the chamber and on the media” I suspect it really is just you who would adopt such an absurd position. We need plenty of Lib DEm MPs to make the changes to our country that we need – when we form a Government its possibly that all of them may not be totally aligned with what you ( or I for that matter ) believe – but we still need them there , going through the voting lobby to vote for Liberal measures.
The reshuffle BTW wasnt brought about becuase of Josh’s resignation – its been talked about for weeks.
‘liberal principles, like being pro immigration and LGBT+ equality’. I agree that these are liberal principles. There are other liberal principles, that are not only even more important, they are key to benefiting the entire electorate; full transparency & accountability (government ad private sector), limiting monopoly power, elite dominance and the power of the state, localism and ‘subsidiarity’, economic & social freedom, freedom of expression, rule of law and equality before the law, internationalism, constiitutionalism and supremacy of parliament, quality of democracy and war only as a last resort, inter alia.
I would also like to see the party coming across as stronger on liberal principles, but I’d really question Matthew’s concept of ‘liberal principles’. To my mind, liberal principles are about building a democratic and prosperous society in which, as far as possible, everyone is free to build the kind of life they want and to be part of society and their communities. But @Matthew – with your characterisation of ‘liberal principles’ as being, ‘like being pro immigration and LGBT+ equality‘, you seem to have reduced liberalism to being about, supporting certain chosen minority groups, while having nothing to say to the vast majority of people in this country (and the vast majority of voters) who are neither immigrants nor LGBT+. Surely that’s not what you think liberalism is?
“Am I the only person who would rather we elected say 30 MPs who are clear on their liberal principles and policy positions and then can be full-throated in defending liberal values and minority rights in the chamber and on the media?”
I expect that the loss of 42 Lib Dem MPs would receive support from Conservative, Labour etc members and supporters. But not from Liberal Democrats. We only have to look back a whole 6 years when the electorate shared that view rather too enthusiastically at the 2019 General election. It used to be accepted that it was better to have a Liberal or now Liberal Democrat than a Labour or Tory MP. If @Matthew Hulbert can find a more Liberal Party in the UK Parliament then he should let the readers of Liberal Democrat voice know.
“Am I the only person who would rather we elected say 30 MPs who are clear on their liberal principles and policy positions and then can be full-throated in defending liberal values and minority rights in the chamber and on the media”
Right now with the forces of authoritarian reaction roaring so loudly we need as many liberals in Parliament as we can get.
I am completely in agreement with Simon McGrath on this matter. The view expressed by the author is not only absurd, but damaging beyond belief.
While some Lib Dems regard compliance with their views on one or two of our stances on major issues as the touchstone of liberal values, many would put emphasis on a much wider range, understanding that Liberalism is much more than a checklist of slogans. Likewise adherence to support for minorities as if all minority viewpoints are somehow desirable is naive beyond belief.
Putting aside some of the comments which I think boarding on a bit hysteria and overreached; I do agree with Mathew’s point, which is a complaint I often share myself, about if we are lacking in substance within our Party. I do think we need to be that strong liberal voice and make a very strong liberal case on some policy. It can come across as a bit fluffy and uninformed at times.
But @Simon R, I do take issue with your comment having known Mathew personally as he doesn’t just speak on identity politics – he speaks far more on other issues and consistently said we should take up on more bread and butter issues. I do think you have over-generalised his point and their are people who aren’t immigrants or lgbt+ people who care for one thing. My former Tory member Uncle is a straight, white male care about these things and joined the LibDems particularly for those reasons. I wouldn’t wish for my Uncle to see (I assume a member yourself) and think this isn’t liberal things we should not care equally or else he might regret joining.
And I also agree with Mathew regarding the London Spokesperson. No problem having one but at the moment we don’t shadow anyone to dignify having a position but we should have ones for other Regions. It can be done in political parties as Labour has a Minister for Mental Health as a Shadow brief when the Tories had no one in Government.
Nice as it is to have an important role within the Liberal Demicrats, it is just as nice and important to have no role or a less public one. As a MP I imagine it would be nice to just be able serve my constituency and constituents at least for a while, free from the constraints of office.