Well there’s a surprise. I had honestly thought that Norman Lamb would stand again to be leader.
This afternoon, though, he has ruled himself out in an article for the Guardian:
I have just fought a gruelling campaign to win my North Norfolk seat. Attempting to win a seat for the Liberal Democrats in an area that voted quite heavily to leave the EU was bound to be a challenge. Not only was the party’s position on Brexit toxic to many erstwhile Liberal Democrat voters in North Norfolk, but I found myself sympathising with those who felt that the party was not listening to them and was treating them with some disdain.
I abstained on article 50 because I felt it was wrong in principle to vote against, given that we had all voted to hold the referendum in the first place. For many in the party that abstention was an act of betrayal. I have been accused of supporting a hard Brexit – the last thing I want – while a Lib Dem source told the London Evening Standard this week that the abstention “looks like he can’t make a tough call”. It is actually quite tough to go against your party, and I did it on a matter of principle.
He’s realised that his position on the EU puts him at odds with a large number of members, especially since so many joined after the EU referendum.
Norman wrote about the sort of politics he wants to pursue:
I want the Liberal Democrats to use our potentially pivotal position in parliament to force cross-party working on the profound challenges we face: not just the Brexit negotiations, but how we secure the future of the NHS and our care system.
If I had decided to run for leader, I would have used my position to champion a different style of politics – rejecting the abuse and aggression that turns so many people off, and instead seeking to build consensus where possible in the national interest. I favour telling it straight, not dissembling – bringing people together rather than dividing them. The public will not forgive the political class if we fail to understand the changed circumstances of a parliament with no majority.
In a powerful section, he wrote about how experience has made him more determined to fight injustice.
Whether it is tenants in tower blocks; people with learning disabilities; workers with no stake in an enterprise watching as the owners of capital take an ever growing percentage of our national income, and their own wages fall; the citizen who feels powerless against remote power, whether at the town hall, Westminster or Brussels – these are the things that drive me on, keep me fighting for justice.
And what about the whistleblower – a constituent of mine – who tried to highlight wrongdoing in our banks but saw his career and his health destroyed as a result, and his concerns ignored for years? Liberals need to make the case for a radical shift of power to the people in all these spheres.
Highlighting climate change, extremism, intergenerational fairness and automation as the great challenges facing us, he concludes:
If the progressive side of politics is to prevail, we can’t just hanker after a better yesterday. We have to win the battle of ideas about how we confront these profound challenges.
All eyes will now be on Ed Davey to see if he will put himself forward. Vince Cable remains the only declared candidate. My sense is that people want to see a proper, inspiring contest, not a coronation of one person. Do you agree?
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A swamp of lies and disinformation
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
Mick Taylor
Peter Martin
Rob Heale
Maat (Bristol)
64 Comments
It’s a shame, Norman would have been my choice precisely for the reasons he’s given for not standing.
Yes .. he would have been my choice as well. I am sick of these unnamed lib dem sources. Grow a backbone and put your name to any quotes. Lamb is exactly the kind of liberal we need at the top.
Lamb was by far and away the best candidate.
Absolutely we need a wide field, this is getting depressing.
The championing of a different type of politics would be more heartwarming if he had not been part of the caricaturing of the “dementia tax”.
Norman is an excellent liberal – that’s not in question. But with half our members having joined us because we are anti Brexit, it would be hard for him to win. I think he has made the right decision but if we followed the ideas in his article and got other parties to take them on, we’d be in a position to offer those who were disaffected enough to vote Leave a radical programme of housebuilding, employment opportunities and a decent living wage which might in turn make Brexit unnecessary.
The problem is that we have 21 months thanks to May’s haste and folly.
I also think that part of our poorer than expected showing at the election was down to the policy position on the EU that we had to adopt because of Norman and Greg. If Tim Farron had said on Day 1: “Right, if I enter Downing Street as PM, first thing I’ll do is revoke Article 50” we might have a good load of the Remainers who voted Labour – whose hard Brexit position was barely mentioned during the campaign.
Norman’s policies he wants to pursue hit the right note. I have not seen anything similar from other candidates/potential candidates. Vince’s statement was about his achievements, though he failed to mention Student Loans which will hit him in the face. I found the statement by Vince disappointing, but Norman’s policies are very relevant.
Having read his article in the Guardian, I now believe that he would have been the perfect leader. I really wish he would have stood, but oh well.
I really like the second referendum on the deal rather than overturning it without another referendum. It is democratic.
The great problem of membership of the EU currently is that if we were running the economy to achieve full employment we would be even a greater draw from depressed areas of the Euro zone. The best solutions to reduce inequalities in the UK are problematic because of our EU membership. We should have recognised this in 2008 and come up with a programme to reform the EU to reduce inequalities across the whole EU. While in government we failed to address the economic and social ills of those who felt fell behind.
Of course, EUworship isn’t compulsory in the Lib Dems.
Is it?
Whatever the result of the leadership campaign, it provides an unrivalled opportunity to explore and discuss different takes on the party’s role and strategy as we take it forward. We should have a debate on the strength of our anti-Brexit stance, a debate on working with others across the political spectrum, and a debate on where we stand on the spectrum between social welfare and economic liberalism – to name but a few.
For those reasons, I’m disappointed that Norman has decided to withdraw, even though, like Caron, I was not expecting to vote for him because of his A50 position.
It may be that whoever stands against Vince Cable will just be ‘going through the motions’ given Vince’s high name recognition and his heavy hints that he’ll stand down once Jo Swinson feels ready to take up the mantle of leader (which by the way worked out well for Gordon Brown, didn’t it?)
But have we no one in the parliamentary party who is passionate enough about their ideas to want to put them forward in a hard-fought leadership contest, however thankless a task it may seem? You don’t become a Lib Dem MP without that kind of fighting spirit – ambition not just for yourself, but for what you believe in.
From what I’ve seen, Ed Davey has some distinctive ideas that will provide for a certain amount of debate should he stand against Vince and he may surprise us with his performance. But I would be pleased to see a third candidate inject some fresh thinking that isn’t mired in the legacy of the Coalition, even if they’re standing as a no-hope candidate who’s in it purely to promote a different vision for the future of the party (and remember how that worked out for Jeremy Corbyn!).
Is the EU perfect, far from it. we should have put forward the case for reform, instead we ran off in a huff convinced others would follow us. Well no one has or looks like they will. We are on our own, friendless and sidelined. The cost of our hissy fit is becoming apparent. I’d like to know if the farmers of Norfolk are having second thoughts, I rather think they are.
“people want to see a proper, inspiring contest, not a coronation of one person”
Yes but people want a range of choices and I don’t know Cable/Davey is that. The removal of Tim has put us in a real bind.
While i obviously respect Norman’s decision, it is disappointing as I think at this point we need the widest possible discussion about the direction of the party. Sometimes 200-1 outsiders become leaders and have very good general election results! In contrast coronations of leaders do not tend to work out well!
My understanding from memory is that Vince was critical of the second referendum policy at least initially.
Clearly a long think about our EU policy is needed.
For me “telling it like it is” is that the leaving the EU will hurt us severely economically. That in turn means greater hardship for the poorer in society. Given that the deal with the EU will be signed off by MPs, it seems democractic that something of such constitutional importance should also be signed of by the public.
While taking a stand on an issue can be difficult so can fence sitting.
On the other hand we need to be wary of just becoming a mirror image Ukip and we should be understand that up to 75% at least at the moment of our fellow citizens are either leavers or accepting of leave.
We also need to find our “mojo” and passion again on the great campaigning causes other than the EU. For me education and health, the enironment and fairness in taxation. The lessons surely of Bernie Sanders, Trump, Corbyn, Macron and Le Pen is that things are different from the 90s and noughties.
Norman is also right to highlight that the EU is a far from perfect institution and may be we have sometimes been too apologetic for it. And obviously it all gets mixed up. I for example support a British governmement but I want to get rid of this particular one and change how it is elected and operates.
I joined the Lib/Dems because of their stance on Brexit and for me it’s not simply the case of throwing overboard my profound view concerning our membership of the EU, to somehow get on board a train going on a magic mystery tour. I am not in the least bit interested being in a political party that serves the whims of the populous on any forgiven day and especially when we are being asked to sign up to a blank piece of paper. Yes, some believe the EU needs to change and I absolutely agree, but that could of been done from within, with a little bit of patience and composure. So, for me, I am relieved that this party won’t be lead by anyone who wants to join those on board the train to a destination, who knows where. Yes, the party can change its stance on any given issue, I for one believe in the power of debate, but at the end of the day one’s fundamental beliefs must determine where one puts their support and Europe is a red line for me and I make no apology for saying so.
Norman would have been a good party leader but he wasn’t my first choice. I like his position on being pro soft brexit. I, like Donald Tusk, dream that we can stay in the EU, but I don’t see how it can be done without dividing the country further than it already is and I see soft brexit has providing most of the benefits.
I think Norman made too much of Tim’s religion during the previous leadership campaign and should have backed airstrikes against ISIS in Syria or at least provided a stronger argument against them.
On inequality he is right that it has gone too far, but many business owners are struggling too so I wouldn’t have painted inequality as being about owners of capital vs the rest.
crewegwyn
“Of course, EUworship isn’t compulsory in the Lib Dems.
Is it?”
It looks it some times, I despair at the way certain decenting opinions are treated. I imagine some who dismiss those they disagree with would nod along to Nick Clegg’s “the country is more devided” concession speach but don’t see a connection.
I should say that I cant imagine circumstances in which I would have voted for Norman as Leader but I would have liked him to stand so that the issues he raises could be fully aired.
Normans article struck me as a bit odd, most of it seemed to be arguments for him standing, with only the 2 paragraphs at the top of the page as a partial explanation for his decision. I am sure he didnt mean the article to sound tetchy & rather self-pitying but thats how it came across to me. I had the feeling that Norman doesnt think that our Party is good enough for him.
On the apparent Coronation, I had much rather that those in favour had argued for it openly from the start, the present method of getting everyone to say they arent standing, (very slowly) is the worst of all worlds. Its very reminiscent of how Brown & May became Leaders of their Parties, do we want to repeat their failures ?
There can be room for difference approaches to how best we deal with the toxic result of the Brexit referendum and so people who think like Norman must continue to be welcome to argue their view within our ranks.
However, like others, I believe our next leader must be resolutely against Brexit.
Eddie Sammon
“Norman made too much of Tim’s religion during the previous leadership campaign”
Did Norman? I genuinely don’t know the details but I often see people smeared for actions that were not theirs.
Even if it was some Lib dems don’t seem to understand there was nothing wrong with asking a question in a leadership campaign that the media would ask later. The problem is no-one in the party machine helped Tim come up with a better answer.
I don’t think the media should have behaved the way they did but while they will behave that way the party should road test their leaders at least that hard.
I agree with Normans comments ref the toxicity of our stance on opposing the 2016 Referendum decision. It shovelled our supporters over to our opponents in the East Midlands. Not for the first time I have to say to my very good friend Caron that I disagree entirely with her stance on this.
Between 2010 to 2015 we became despised by voters and suffered our worst GE result for a century and a half. But you can eventually recover from that. Even worse though is that we became an irrelevant, single issue Party between 2016/2017. Unless we want to sink even further we need to accept reality and start campaigning on issues that concern voters instead of simply refighting the battle we lost in June last year.
Hi PSI, yes I would say he was talking about secular issues much more than anything else and basically pitched the election as secular him vs religious Tim. He didn’t issue any personal attacks though.
Anyway, I still think he would have been a good leader, I’m just saying “not my preferred option”.
I am pleased to see someone speak out and say what many of us know, and more of us know but don’t want to admit.
Our Brexit policy is not only not a vote winner, it is actively a vote loser in many places.
I wish it were different, but putting our head in the sand is no answer.
I have been as critical of certain aspects of the EU as anyone in the Party, notably the creation of the Euro and more recently the stitch-up of the EU Commission presidency between EPP and S&D which led to Juncker getting the job with only 12% of the European electorate voting for his party, the EPP. ALDE, the European Parliament group that includes the Liberal Democrats should have been forceful in criticising this, but remained silent.
Despite this I could never have supported Lamb even if he had stood. He has forgotten that as an MP, he is a representative of his constituency not a delegate and so should have voted against triggering Article 50, in line with Party policy.
Highly relevant twitter trail starts here: https://twitter.com/rolandmcs/status/877924557071556614 from Roland Smith who suggests:
Both Leave and Remain politics suffer from the outsourcing of much of our political functions to the EU that is “UK politics infantilised itself during this process, gradually descending into empty slogan politics & losing respect along the way”
Link this to a new book on Hillary Clinton’s campaign Shattered in which Bill keeps arguing that her campaign’s decision to ‘target’ the core wrong and that it was possible to react out and ride the wave of what people outside the core were complaining about.
We need to do that urgently … Lamb *might* have been a Leader capable of doing that and this statement is an indication of that.
There is a huge opportunity if under a new Leader Lib Dems capitalize on this opportunity being ignored by everyone at present.
We have to do politics is an utterly, totally different way. Have begun to write about how/what’s needed. Hope LDV will publish it.
So, I guess Vince Cable is our next leader then.
I am utterly disappointed Norman is not standing.
This is a very worrying decision.
A number of people seem to want to decide this at the top, yet in favour of a candidate who as much as we might think does not bother the electorate, is more a power in the coalition than most.
I have been a longstanding supporter of Norman Lamb, and , in person as well as in media, he has qualities that are underrated , he is a kind, measured, intelligent , reflective , man and politics has few of those , who also look like the sort of man who you could give a hug to !
I think Sir Ed better stand , or we are about to become a monarchy , great for the country , the training is since birth, not so good for a political party , bounced into these things in weeks !
Some argue that we have to do politics in an utterly different way, what does that actually mean? If people are more willing to compromise than Lamb would have been the right candidate for leader and right for you. . But I have honestly put my cards on the table, compromise regarding Europe is not something I can live with, because to date there is no clear understanding what Brexit even means. No Brexiteer can point out what the promise land will look like down the road because its build on abstract thinking. Norman Lamb abstain from a critical a vote, if he was leader than we as a party would be heading off in another direction which many new members like myself would find unacceptable. Yes, I hear some saying he’s only been a member for a short while, the answer, you invited me in.
I would like to see a contest with someone standing against Vince Cable. That said, the prospect of Ed Davey standing against Vince Cable doesn’t enthuse me either.
I agree with Norman Lamb. I do think we’ve got the stance on Brexit wrong or it could do with tweaking. It’s too rigid. It’s all about the economy as Labour proved and a relatively abstract argument on another referendum just didn’t cut through. Free tuition fees were far more attractive to young voters that Corbyn galvanised. Both the SNP and the Lib Dems faced difficulty developing an alternative message to Labour or were tagged with obsessing over repeated referendums and not saying too much else.
Crucially as The Economist findings demonstrate the bulk of remain voters or the higher remain voting constituencies mostly went in Labour’s favour. Labour supports Brexit. As another poster warned do the Lib Dems want to become a single issue party? I think fighting for the best deal would be a better position but would disappoint a lot of new members undoubtedly. The reality is though that reversing Brexit is a completely unrealistic objective.
Whoever becomes leader I would like to see more emphasis on the economy with more radical ideas. If I’m being honest I can’t see that being something that either Davey or Cable would offer. I remain convinced that Tim Farron is still the best person for the job or was not given adequate time and with Swinson and Lamb both ruling themselves out it just makes the decision to push him out look all the more stupid.
Laurence Cox
“Despite this I could never have supported Lamb even if he had stood. He has forgotten that as an MP, he is a representative of his constituency not a delegate and so should have voted against triggering Article 50, in line with Party policy.”
What you seem to be saying is that it’s wrong for Norman to act as a delegate of his constituents (who you appear to disagree with on Brexit) but it fine for him to be a delegate of the Liberal Democrat Party (who you appear to agree with on Brexit).
In any case reading the quotes from The Guardian article above it is clear that Norman’s position is that it is wrong in principle to vote to hold a referendum then when the vote goes the opposite way to what you want to treat leave voters with disdain and not to listen to them.
Correct call by Norman Lamb. The party has a real choice to make and it ducks it every time. Either we are in favour of the EU or we are in favour of Brexit. During the GE we fudged it – apparently to help Norman- and at every opportunity with the possible exception of 2014,we have played down our EU credentials. So all those who say our pro EU stance hindered our GE campaign, I would point out that most remainers didn’t know our stance and many voted for Hard Brexit Labour believing them to be against it. We now need a leader who will stand up for our European ideals and oppose Brexit and all its works. That person is Ed Davey
Oddly in his statement on his article 50 abstention on his website at
http://www.normanlamb.org.uk/a_statement_on_article_50 he supports the second referendum and trying to stay in the single market.
In contrast Vince was clearly against a second referendum and struggled today on the daily politics when he tried to pretend that he had said something different at an autumn conference fringe meeting. IMHO he would have been better to say his thinking had evolved.
FWIW although a fairly strong remainer i would have voted for article 50 as you can’t as a democrat have a referendum and then not enact that. As a democrat I also support a referendum on the deal as we don’t know whether it will be a hard, medium or soft Brexit.
This is a complete mess, first we have a leader who obsessed on the EU, new members apparently like that.
Then he is ousted in favour of a on the march, move to a new leader who not only was not obsessed with Brexit, but wanted to not oppose it and end freedom of movement , and not have a second referendum.
The candidate who wanted to respect the decision, but offer a referendum on the deal, does not stand, because he is too anti EU for some who cannot support him, even though he was the one pushing the most for the referendum.
Then the really staunch EUrophiles yearn for Sir Ed , not to have the contest we need on a range of topics and the direction of the whole venture, but because he is the , apparently, pro EU candidate!
Says those who know more than me, and perhaps , in common with many, are know alls ?!
I think this party is asking for a new rival in the mainstream centre ground, to shake it out of it’s single issue on the whole increasingly absurd , strategy.
It had such a chance when Corbyn was considered useless and extreme, it blew it against Brexit.
Now Corbyn is considered able and mainstream, the party has blown it in favour of …
Answers on a postcard…
I think Norman was the only game in town , unless someone can convince me we are to unify around a programme for the future not the past !
@Paul Holmes
Brexit is actually the top issue among voters. History shows that it takes time for parties to recover look at Tories and labour after 1997 and 2010. Frankly parties also have to signal that they have learnt the lessons over what made them unpopular. For us this was not brexit but being in coalition with the Tories. 2 years was going to be too short to put that behind us.
80% of our vote was made up of remainers You can argue whether this was good or bad. But it MIGHT well be that our distinctive position on brexit helped us resist a bigger squeeze.
Allied to this was lack of media coverage non-existent in the newspapers and passing on TV. Even the best target seat operation (at best 15% of the country) or social media operation is going to rind it difficult to compete.
@ Lorenzo Cherin
Political parties do have a resilience and also a way of reinventing themselves particular if allowed a proper internal debate and leadership elections. Indeed neither David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn were favourites to win their party leadership but provided the change.their parties needed. You can take any post election year and say that Labour/Conservatives/liberals were finished. Obviously FPTP exaggerates outcomes.
Who in 1966 would have predicted the subsequent 50 years???? Here is to the next 50!!! With probably 2066 seeming as different politically to now as 1916 does to 1966.
I think we have to be very careful about thinking we know what “the people” are thinking, and be even more careful about trying to create policies from that. Theresa May and her inner clique thought they had the mood of the people nailed, but were obviously very wrong.
The real way to respect people is to adopt policies that we as a party genuinely believe in and become very good at explaining why we think that. The overwhelming majority of LibDems think that Brexit would be an unmitigated disaster. Not everyone will agree with us, but we need to tell the truth about what we believe and what actions we would take. That’s the only way to rebuild trust we squandered in the coalition. We have to elect a leader who will campaign strongly for remaining in the EU as part of a powerful vision of how a LibDem government would make the UK much better.
Michael where is your evidence that Brexit is top of voters priorities?
It certainly was not among the extensive canvassing results I took part in collecting and analysing in 2 Constituencies, one Labour facing and one Conservative facing. Other than that it did come up from Remainers and Leavers alike who criticised our stance on opposing the democratic outcome of the 2016 Referendum. For the record I campaigned and voted for Remain in 2016-but we lost. Opinion surveys throughout the last year have shown that at least half the original Remain voters have accepted defeat. The GE result of 2017 shows that most of the rest did not vote for us on the issue of Leave/Remain.
As for taking time to recover could I remind you that we actually moved backwards from an appalling 7.9% in 2015 to an even more appalling 7.4% in 2017. We entered the GE on 10-11% and finished on 7.4%. Two of our successful English MP’s had made their acceptance of the 2016 Referendum clear. Four more won in Scotland where opposing a Second Referendum on Independence (because we liked that result) was a far more important factor than proposing a second Referendum on the EU (because we didn’t like that one!). So that is half our Parliamentary Party who were not a product of the Remain strategy. Worse still did we actually fail to re elect MP’s such as Andrew George and Nick Harvey because of our Remainer strategy?
A serious Political Party has to talk to voters about what concerns them not just bang its head against a brick wall wailing ‘stop the world I want to get off.’
I think this shows good judgment by Norman (save only that he should have made his announcement on Lib Dem Voice!). The reality is that I think he would have struggled as leader because of his constituency being strongly for Brexit.
I agree with Caron that we need a contest and also agree that it should be a much more vigorous test. Sure, speeches and questions from LDs are important but let’s get professional interviewers to give them a dose of what the leader has to deal with.
Caron – If Tim Farron had said on Day 1: “Right, if I enter Downing Street as PM, first thing I’ll do is revoke Article 50”
If you honestly believe that anything said by Tim, which depended on him being Prime Minister, or anywhere near being PM, would have made any difference to anyone, I am afraid that in reality the sum total of people who are with you on that is probably zero, as I am sure even Tim didn’t believe it.
It is far more likely that Paul Holmes is much closer to the mark when he says, “I agree with Norman’s comments ref the toxicity of our stance on opposing the 2016 Referendum decision. It shovelled our supporters over to our opponents” and “we need to accept reality and start campaigning on issues that concern voters instead of simply refighting the battle we lost in June last year.”
Whoever becomes our new leader will have to come up with a better policy on Brexit, as the current one is a proven vote loser, even if many party members think it is great.
By the way, I want to praise Norman’s call for a new kind of politics that rejects abuse, aggression and name-calling. This is a vote swayer and one of the things that turns me away from Labour. Too much name calling of political opponents.
@ Paul Holmes
Lord Ashcroft polling has Brexit has the top issue . clearly this is both pro and anti brexit. 28% against 19% for the NHS in second place.
And clearly our 7.9% in 2015 was not due to our current brexit policy.
It also seems that our rating had gone up from 7% to 10% due to our distinctive position on Brexit and until May called the election we were on course to do well in Manchester Gorton and probably actually the council elections. Building a better opinion poll rating.
Sometimes fence sitting is the right thing to do politically. Sometimes it is not and hurts you more politically than taking one position or another.
I am not sure that remainers are exactly accepting of leaving they still want to remain but it is true that 22% are “brexit resistant”.
Politician (and media) logic is often flawed. Something must be done. This is something. Therefore we must do it. We had policy x. We lost. Therefore policy x is blame.
People vote for many reasons. To very large sections of the electorate we were an irrelevance and moving people to you when you are on about 7% is tough.
It is difficult to persuade people even in target seats that you are relevant and vote for you until you are higher in the opinion polls and you are not higher in the opinion polls until people vote for you…
A classic chicken and egg situation.
A later election would most seen rebuilding of our poll rating with local council and by-election wins.
For me corbyn’s policies on public services and tuition fees were the biggest reason for us losing ground during the campaign. Indeed I would have liked to see a reversion to these policies which we had in the 2000s and when we did rather well. It seems that this helped labour pick up 2%-3% from the greens and 2%-3% from us during the campaign as well as slightly higher amounts from UKiP.
Obviously Brexit has proved an electoral challenge for us along with the coalition and not being squeezed when starting low in the polls.
But we have unfortunately done a pretty good job of shovelling voters to our opponents ourselves through some of the handling of the coalition. Which people like Andrew George fought valiantly against. I would caution against too much “politician logic” over brexit.
So it’ll be Sir Vince versus Sir Ed.
Brilliant! What a great image for a party that is supposed to be against privilege and patronage. I’ve already seen one tweet suggesting they resolve it with a jousting contest!
We members can get lost in the weeds of their brexit nuances, but all the general public will see here is two London-based knights of the establishment, both of whom voted for tuition fees.
PS I have a lot of time for both men, and I think either could be a good leader. But we seriously need to re-assess the image we have constructed since the coalition. We are seen as just another establishment party, something we should never be.
I’m concerned by this section in Norman’s article:
“a new settlement with the EU – one that secures free trade, jobs, security partnerships and our place in the customs union.”
Nothing about the single market or freedom of movement there, which suggests Norman has joined the ‘we must crash the economy to appease racists’ brigade.
@Tom “So it’ll be Sir Vince versus Sir Ed.”
Possibly not after today’s news about Hinkley C, but what strikes me about that sentence is that “Sir X vs. Sir Y” as leader makes the party sound more like a voice for the establishment than one for the people.
There is an MP without a knighthood or damehood with a brave campaigning record who people should be quietly persuading to stand.
Also a tough leadership campaign is important. Frankly the Huhne campaign did reveal all the weaknesses of Clegg which subsequently became apparent and ditto Norman’s campaign against Tim. You don’t need to pay ‘professional’ interviewers to do that.
It is no good getting a leader who can’t run a campaign and perform under pressure their role in that campaign (ie who is good with a shield as well as a sword).
I am a strong Vince Cable supporter – but I do not want a coronation!.. However, Ed Davey would be my lowest rank choice of leader. Genuinely sorry that Norman Lamb is not standing.
When the Global Warming Policy Forum said, “The minister who struck a deal to guarantee the French firm EDF would be paid nearly three times the present wholesale price of electricity to build the Hinkley Point nuclear power station now works for a lobbying firm that advises the energy company……The £18billion deal with EDF to build the power station in Somerset – which would be the most expensive in the world and would generate 6 per cent of Britain’s energy – was described by one energy expert as the ‘worst deal I’ve ever seen’.”
Today’s news about the future of the Hinkley deal appears to confirm this.
If supporting the increase in tuition fees was not bad enough, this will make it even harder for Sir Ed. to convince young and old, anti-establishment, environmentally concerned students and others to vote our way, if Ed becomes our party leader.
There must not be a coronation. There must be a contest with traditional and on line hustings. Candidates must be asked difficult questions on Student Fees and Hinckley Point etc. We do need a candidate with no coalition baggage.
@ John Barrett Spot on, John. I can just hear Andrew Neil, Emily Maitlis or Michael Crick going for the jugular on that as an opening question.
Another inherited problem is the knighthoods issue. Apart from a bit of vanity and getting a decent table in a restaurant, can somebody please tell me what a knighthood’s for ?
“you can’t as a democrat have a referendum and then not enact that”. In Tunbridge Wells the Tory MP campaigned for Remain and said he would continue to do so after the referendum result. He voted for Article 50 and is getting a lot of flak for that.
The address to the electors of Bristol is relevant, and took courage at the time,
“Your representative owes you his judgement too”. Indeed his (or her) judgement is the main reason why we have MPs to consider the massive quantities of detail that we would not have time for.
The economy is usually the main issue in a general election, Labour can call it jobs and unite around that. Cutting ourselves off from our nearest and largest markets would be self harming. Even the hyper-optimists on the Leave side admitted that there could be a bumpy period before the new trade deals start to deliver the improved prosperity they hope for at an undefined time in the future. The future is always uncertain. Both business and trade unions dislike uncertainty, but that is what they are likely to get from the current government.
“There is an MP without a knighthood or damehood with a brave campaigning record who people should be quietly persuading to stand.”
Bill – please don’t be cryptic. If you want to lobby for a candidate, just say so. Making us guess who it might be is not a great way to build momentum.
I hope we have a contest but we can’t make people stand if they don’t want the job. We only have 12 in our pool of potential candidates and they’re ruling themselves out faster than they’re ruling themselves in.
I was very disappointed to hear that Norman has decided not to stand. I voted for him in the 2015 leadership contest, and would have done so again. His article in the Guardian shows the reasons why he is the leader the party needed. He shows a real passion for social justice, which unfortunately the party as a whole recently seems to have lost. It is a very sad reflection on the current state of the party, if an ideal candidate like Norman feels unable to stand
Tribes, policies, government…..
Whether Norman stands for leader or not, his reasoning is well-understood in the party. Tribalism is a problem throughout politics. Recently, certain parties did not have agreed policies but increased the votes of their tribes. Populism exists so get over it.
Meanwhile, we have a better system of selecting policies than most other parties via conferences. Not perfect just better than most. We still must steer using our full membership and/or a range of party leaders – as either rudder or steering wheel. Is there good balance between these two groups?
On EU versus Westminster – which is the more stifling? Too often we forget that Westminster itself is the monumental problem which 2 parties refuse to correct – to make government more representative of tribal voting.
“I am sure he didnt mean the article to sound tetchy & rather self-pitying but thats how it came across to me. I had the feeling that Norman doesnt think that our Party is good enough for him.”
This was my thinking too.
I think Lamb has made the right call.
The analogy would be – what if the Greens had a prominent figure who could put forward a brilliant case in favour of fracking, and was considering standing for the leadership of the Green Party – Should that person go for it? The right answer would be No. If the Greens elected a pro-fracking Leader, that would not be the end of the argument. On the contrary, the Green Party would be continually at odds with its leadership, and the only thing the Greens would be recognised for by the electorate would be continual internal rows!
A leader has to be a unifying figure. This party will not be unified around Brexit with its hard edges to be blurred over by rhetorical sleight-of-hand.
Bill le Breton
“Also a tough leadership campaign is important. Frankly the Huhne campaign did reveal all the weaknesses of Clegg which subsequently became apparent and ditto Norman’s campaign against Tim. You don’t need to pay ‘professional’ interviewers to do that.”
I’ed agree it shouldn’t be required to “pay ‘professional’ interviewers” but diverse challenges including normal hustings could be added too with interviews that try to replicate the hostile environment of an interview situation (perhaps even make some those awkward walking down the street when the occasional passer by throws something in).
It is much easier for members who are very plugged in to get a feel for what is going on so everything should be on line too for the average member.
One method that would help increase the available pool of people to perform these interviews would be if we made more use of recorded interviews in the selection of candidates for constituencies. Start candidates getting used to it early on and we learn who would be useful to the party in circumstances like this.
I wanted Norman because I’m sick and tired to death of all this Anti-EU rhetoric that cost us from getting 15% of the vote and serious seat gains. Staying in the single market is staying in the EU.
I am sorry Norman Lamb is not standing. I had no problem with him and Greg Mulholland abstaining on article 50 – in fact it would have been more sensible for the rest to do so (with the exception of Sarah Olney, who had a mandate to vote against), although our vote against was just about defensible. My view is that the only way you can overturn a referendum is by another referendum (or possibly a general election).
As far as I am aware, had our amendment on another referendum been carried, our MPs would have been whipped to vote FOR Article 50.
The big problem with our position was that the British just don’t like this tedious voting thing much at all, and so there was no enthusiasm for another referendum. So in that sense just being against Leaving might have been better, as Caron says, even though it would have been highly undemocratic… It would have guaranteed a loss in North Norfolk though….
Mosley
No, staying in the Single Market is not staying in the EU, otherwise Norway would be in the EU.
What is more I think we almost certainly WILL be staying in the Single Market for the foreseeable future and the latest public opinion appears to back that.. Support for a transitional deal of Single Market membership and strong support for prioritising trade over immigration..
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/hrngg4b5a8/TimesResults_170622_Trackers_W.pdf
Andrew,
Norway being a part of EEA has to implement all the laws, rules and regulations the EU imposes, without having any say in the matter unlike a full-fledged member states which does. We would be better off staying, and a half in half out approach would be good in the short term but less beneficial than leaving everything in the long term
You can lose one leadership election but not two. Norman is right to not waste his second and last chance on this leadership election. I suspect we won’t have to wait long for the next leadership election and he might be needed.
As we all want a common goal , greater democracy, in our country, how about now we do not so far have another candidate, going for one , not yet considered.
Tom Brake for leader.
The Gary Cooper, factor, quiet , solid , becoming the Clint Eastwood one , he might, “make our day !”
Norman never addressed endemic corruption in Norfolk Police, Tom Brake a far better choice.