Part One – Two Big Surprises
It’s thought that Gordon Brown will have a January reshuffle in anticipation of a 2009 election. We could have a long debate about whether or not there will be an election in 2009 but, regardless, a potential election will be at the forefront of Brown’s (and Mandelson’s) mind when appointing the next batch of Ministers.
A lot has been written about a potential return to the Conservative Shadow Cabinet for one of their dwindling number of ‘big beasts’, Ken Clarke. But nothing has been written about any of the Liberal Democrats’ ‘Big Beasts’, probably because there is a false perception that we don’t have any.
I’m not going to be part of the inevitable whirl of speculation about who Brown will choose but I have a few suggestions for how the Liberal Democrats can make the most of this opportunity to bring back some of our own ‘big beasts’ to the front bench; as well as offering up some surprises for the media (something that can often be difficult with such a small pool of MPs to choose from).
Charles Kennedy and Paddy Ashdown, as two former party leaders, are understandably two of the Lib Dems most recognizable faces, and also two of our most able communicators and politicians. Nick has already shown with Vince Cable that he is able to let others take the limelight and, whilst there are pitfalls in bringing two former leaders back to the front bench, I would argue the potential rewards are much greater.
As a party we sometimes find it difficult to be taken seriously by the media. We have been very much a ‘one man band’ in the last two elections and that is likely to be simply replaced by the two-man band of Nick and Vince at the next election. I would argue that what we really need is 5 or 6 faces in our shadow cabinet that are likeable, preferably recognisable and command respect with the public.
Whilst it’s difficult to make an argument that we will form a government after the next election, we do need to appear ready to do so. With the growing potential of a hung parliament we need the talent at the ready to make people feel their vote isn’t just a protest but is a vote that can create some real change and result in real action.
At the same time, following the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) both parties now have the problem that they can’t hold him to account in the Commons. In the past this position hasn’t been high profile in the Lib Dems anyway because our policy is to abolish BERR. However, appointing Paddy Ashdown to shadow Mandelson would do several things:
1) Bring back one of our biggest beasts to the national stage;
2) Allow us to better hold Mandelson to account in the Lords;
3) Put a more experienced face up against the apparent saviour of the Labour party – Mandelson won’t so easily slap Paddy down as he did George Osborne.
There is a caveat to this. I would also say that Paddy’s role should also include public sector reform. He has done some important work in this area, and whilst it sounds dry I personally hope it will develop as an important pillar of the Lib Dems’ narrative at the next election. This is because it allows us to quite neatly lump the other two parties together as parties who refuse to make the tough decisions to deliver public services for the 21st century. It also opens up the opportunity to attack Labour’s failures in education and the NHS because of their profligate spending on unreformed services, without having to promise substantial tax increases in a recession.
Apart from BERR the Foreign Office is a prime target for exposing the excesses of the civil service and it’s over privileged ‘old boys network’. And PFI, whilst having been expensive and ineffective for the tax-payer, is the gift that keeps on giving politically, as it has created a hundreds of expensive mediocre buildings paid through undeclared debt that will be a noose around our collective necks in the coming recession.
Now to Charles Kennedy. What Gordon Brown was missing when he first took power was a John Prescott figure; the political attack dog that can rally the party’s base and energise its activists. He has now found an unlikely person to take up that mantle in Mandelson and is reaping the benefits. In turn, Cameron has Eric Pickles who is able to fire up the right whilst Cameron is free to ignore him.
Nick doesn’t have anyone like that and Charles is perfect for the role. Giving him the Innovation, Universities and Skills brief would suit Charles skills as a communicator perfectly. Between now and the next election he could travel the UK’s universities, growing our student activist base and helping us to fireproof the seats we won in student areas under his leadership. He would also be the best person to communicate any changes to our tuition fees policy – something that has often been floated and then dropped.
* Letterman is a regular commenter on LDV. He is a politically-restricted party member (hence the pseudonym). Part II – Beyond the Big Beasts – will appear tomorrow on LDV.
10 Comments
“It’s thought that Gordon Brown will have a January reshuffle”
By whom?
Phil Space, by the sounds of it 🙂
There’s always a danger in bringing back “big beasts” in that it can look like the party doesn’t have a big talent base to pull from – that would almost certainly be the press take on any changes within our party. That said, there’s certainly a lot for bringing Charles back and something which Nick has said in the past he’s keen to do, but there remain two questions – has CK really put all his demons to bed, and would the members of the shadow cabinet who spun against him accept him back?
I’d like to see Paddy involved again, but maybe more in a “roving hitter” role than one particular department. Nick has mentioned getting out and meeting people as one of his goals for 2009 – Paddy did this when writing “Beyond Westminster” and maybe could help here? I suspect the BERR issue will be resolved by the Commons allowing Mandelson to take questions in the chamber eventually.
One other suggestion – what about Malcolm Bruce? He gained a lot of credit as Treasury spokesman under Paddy, and has done a lot on select committees more recently on foreign affairs.
“suspect the BERR issue will be resolved by the Commons allowing Mandelson to take questions in the chamber eventually.”
Possibly but this is a huge constitutional step
I think this is a good article and essentially agree that both should be brought back. Clegg, whatever else you think of him, is not a natural ‘attack dog’ and it shows and in the current climate one of those is definatly needed. Kennedy should never have been deposed in the way he was in any case…..
As for Paddy Ashdown I think his return and participation in the shadow cabinet alongside Vince would lend further gravitas
I don’t think Paddy has the appetite anymore for party politics, but would jump at a chance to take on a foreign policy role similar to the one he had in Bosnia.
I do not think that who is on the front bench makes much difference. What the electorate want from us is a compelling set of reasons to vote for us, and that is the challenge the leadership now faces.
I think it makes a big difference who we have on the front bench as these must be the faces and voices who communicate our messages most effectively to the widest audience so we need to display the best of our talent.
I’m less sure that it matters as much what their briefs are (except where it relates to the crisis-hit economy) as so many of our big beasts are multi-talented.
I agree that both Paddy and Charles becoming more involved again would bring a lot, but I’m afraid I don’t see any indication that either would be keen to take up such a role, especially Paddy. And I’m afraid that putting Charles up as an ‘attack dog’ is one of the most surprising characterisations I’ve heard for a while.
If Nick could persuade Ming to take on foreign affairs again, that would be a major coup. Would be a bit surprised if he could, though.
I do not think we should necessarily bring back a ‘big beast’ to match a government appointment. The time may now be ripe for the party to raise the issue of constitutional reform under the blanket of ‘Changing the Way Britain is Governed’ – including removing the power of the Prime Minister to call an election at a time of his own choosing, fixed term parliaments. further Lords reform,party political funding, P.R. Labour and the Tories would be against this. A big beast and communicater such as Charles Kennedy would raise the profile of such a policy and make it much more of an issue when an election is finally called.
As much as I can see the attraction in shadowing Mandelson in the Lords, the fact that the Tories are currently fielding Alan Duncan against him probably means that nobody is going to be all that bothered if we choose to shadow him from the constitutionally correct chamber. I think we’d do better using Paddy in the areas he’s interested in – possibly as Foreign Affairs if we’re not putting Ming in that role.
Thing with “big beasts” is, you have to put them in appropriately “big beast” posts, otherwise it just looks like a publicity stunt. Which isn’t to say we couldn’t put Charles Kennedy in Universities etc (a fine idea), but if so, the party would be mocked for publicising it as a “return of some big beasts”.