To comment on the performance of the leader of a political party – a person at the top of their game – requires gravitas, oodles of political knowledge and skill, and a good few decades experience of politics under your belt.
I have none of these things, so as I look back on Menzies Campbell’s first year as Liberal Democrat leader I can write only from the perspective of a party foot-soldier. What follows are my personal reflections on the leadership, and what it means to me – I don’t expect or consider it to have any particular weight.
First, to put this whole thing in context – how important is the leader to me personally, as a party supporter? Day to day – not very. Our paths aren’t likely to cross any time soon, and the only time I much care what he says or does is when I’m watching the TV news, or when there’s a major debate in Parliament.
Standing at the side of a conference room in Local Government House a year ago, it all seemed much more important – and personal. I’d supported one of Menzies Campbell’s rivals. A party activist sidled up to me. “Do you know who’s won?” he asked “Yep”, “And?”, “No great surprise” …… “Oh no, not MING?”.
And so it went throughout the day – ‘Ming? Really?’ Privately, never said aloud, I was expecting Chris Huhne to squeak through. On the day the result was declared I was disheartened, but I set about doing my volunteer duty on the party’s website – scrubbing out pictures of Charles Kennedy, airbrushing in Menzies Campbell. It took months for Menzies Campbell to win me, a pretty regular joe-soap supporter, around. There was no road to Damascus moment – what won it for me was the delivery of much needed stability to the party. For a short while I was grateful to him for bringing an end to a turbulent period. Now a year has passed since he was elected, and my less grateful mind is preoccupied with a different thought – “is that everything you’ve got?”
Party stalwarts and Campbell backers often deflect criticism of the leader by saying ‘look at the polls’ – Ming is riding higher than either Kennedy or Ashdown were in their first year. This is part fact, part spin – yes, we’ve generally hovered around 20%, but Menzies Campbell didn’t deliver the party a 20% average poll rating – Charles Kennedy did. Menzies Campbell can claim credit for stopping the party from falling back post-Kennedy, but progress in the opinion polls appears to have stalled.
It strikes me that in politics stalling isn’t an option – the political landscape is reasonably fluid. You’re either moving forwards, or moving backwards. I’m concerned that slowly, very slowly, we may find ourselves in reverse gear as time passes.
A student friend of a friend took me aside in a pub a few months ago demanding to know why the Lib Dems had stopped fighting for students. She was joined by another, and then another, all saying the same thing. Were we now in favour of top up fees? Why had the Lib Dems abandoned students?
As a party we haven’t gone soft on tuition fees or top up fees, but these three students were looking at the old bloke wearing the expensive suits and thinking – “how can he possibly understand the financial struggle I’m going through?” I considered giving them a high-minded lecture on ageism, but chickened out and let it pass, aside from some reassurances that though our leader may have changed, our policies for students hadn’t.
Presentation matters to the student audience more than most. Some of our seats depend on a solid student vote. Though not a student, I’m a young guy and when I hear Menzies Campbell refer to “motor cars” and the “Hiyse of Commons”, despite my better judgment I am instinctively turned off what follows.
What he lacks in presentation, Menzies Campbell has made up for it in his revolutionary change of the party’s structures and operations. Writing two weeks ago in the Spectator, the Conservative MP Michael Gove said:
“The pity is that the Liberal Democrats, having once enjoyed a reputation for innovation and creativity, should have embarked, under Ming, on the policy equivalent of a long mid-afternoon snooze. The Lib Dems were once the party you went to for environmental dynamism, but just as the nation has woken up to the scale of the crisis, it’s the Conservatives who are displaying the boldest and most creative thinking in this area.”
If Gove seriously believes this, he is deluded. While the Tories have launched an impressive series of taskforces, taken a lot of expert evidence, and reached out to specialists outside of politics in a way that has won them many friends, it remains the case that at the centre of Cameron’s Conservatives is a policy vacuum. The Liberal Democrats continue to be the one party in British politics with a rounded set of thoroughly considered policies, endorsed by its party members. Other parties may not like our policies, but our policy making process is the envy of the grassroots members of the Tories and Labour.
While we have many impressive policy papers, our policy is poorly articulated. There is no strong narrative, no coherent theme that I no of – and no passion. In the great lasagne of British political policy (warning, crap analogy in process) we are all meat with no presentational top layer – and certainly no sprig of parsley.
The Tories have sussed out something crucial. Marketing works. We may abhor it, we may wish it wasn’t true, but there are, in my view, millions of swing voters in Britain prepared to vote for the party with the coolest advertising, sexiest / homeliest leader – and the party that seems “new”. Commercial marketers know that one great way of boosting product sales of an ageing product is to slap ‘new! improved!’ on the front. New Labour did it in 1997. The Conservatives may not have changed their name, but they’re still facing the public with a ‘new improved Cameron recipe!’ label on the cover – the packaging may hide the same old product, but who’s to know until after polling day?
I admire Menzies Campbell’s ambition and his courage. I know it’s a job I couldn’t do – and wouldn’t want to. The only mandate I have to comment on his performance is as a card-carrying party member who doesn’t want to see my party take a whipping in the next national general election.
Menzies Campbell has united his troops operationally, but we’re not yet fully sold on his leadership in the long-term. The Huhneites are still Huhneites. The Hughesites are still Hughesites. Though not expecting a leadership contest any time soon, many people already know who they’ll support next time round given the chance.
Perhaps the greatest injustice of Menzies Campbell’s leadership is that the team he’s put in place around him is so strong – but to date he appears to be the weak link. He has yet to convincingly make his mark as a leader of the Liberal movement. We began to see some teeth with the Saudi arms deal, but that was many months in to his leadership – and he’s running out of time. The party won’t wait forever for his full abilities to be unleashed.
I suspect Menzies Campbell knows that the only person who can take the decision to fully unleash his skills is Menzies Campbell. All that’s left is for the man himself to look in a mirror, and make a decision – does he have the energy and the enthusiasm to set aside his cautious nature, as he has done over Iraq troop withdrawal, again and again? Does he have another 200% to give during an election? If he does, then let’s see it.
One year on, Menzies Campbell has consolidated the party’s position, and to an extent his own. He has succeeded in what he very publicly set out to do – steadying the ship. But in the elections in May, in a new Prime Minister, in Trident, in nuclear power, in Iraq, Iran and more he faces a series of hurdles that he has to leap with Olympic vigor. One year from now we’ll know for sure whether he’ll lead us in to the next General Election or not.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Tristan Ward
cim
Tim Boura
Jenny Barnes
16 Comments
I didn’t vote for Campbell and I am very disappointed in him (see last night’s QT). I, like you, thought Huhne may *just* do it. Unless Campbell improves – and that includes policy development as well as presentation – in the next year then I won’t be active next time around. If he can’t do it in two years then I can see myself voting tactically for Cameron. Sorry LibDems, we had the chance of a winner and we chose Campbell instead.
I didn’t vote for Ming either, indeed was active in the Chris Huhne campaign, but I’m not stupid enough to be thowing my toys out of the pram and threatening to vote tactically for some Tory git. get real H-lad, you’re either a Lib Dem or not.
I rarely agree with a Lib Dem – but I have to say your analysis is, I believe, very fair.
I watched QT last night – between those pink screens – and I think it encapsulated Ming’s problems. He has much to say, and he is fair and reasonable, but that don’t win votes in the beauty parade of Westminster.
I think the Lib Dems did miss a chance and have moved from being a radical, innovative party to being seen as a party that is just against things. Equally, as your MPs have sought to make the party mainstream they have taken away your very electoral appeal. Whether you agree with Cameron or not, he has managed to take the environmental debate away from the Lib Dems and the Lib Dems bleating about that fact will be as successful as it was for the Conservatives claiming that New labour had stolen the Conservatives clothes. Successful companies, like parties, are not about the boring details of the policies, voters do not have time for that, but about the vision and mood music the party portrays. The Lib Dems have lost that vision and mood music.
What is also interesting is the parallel I now draw from your leadership election to that of the coming Labour one and the earlier Conservative one. The Tory leadership campaign set the party alight and put them in the front line. They had a choice between age and experience or youth and freshness. Surprisingly the elderly membership went for youth, recognising that they needed to honour the past but look to the future. Tory opponents like to spread how the grass roots are unhappy with Cameron, but they are not really – they like winning too much.
The Lib Dems were stabilising the party after their scandals and the young Turks of the Lib Dems knew they were unlikely to win in that environment. Campbell was bound to win because he definitely DID NOT have skeletons in the cupboard.
Now we come to Labour, mired in scandal, like the Lib Dems, whilst they choose their next leader. They can vote for Gordon, potentially damaged if the economy goes pear shaped, and suffering from a charisma by pass. Or, they could go for Milliband; young, fresh, articulate and coming from a renowned political family of the left.
Who are they going to go for? Gordon.
I am afraid the Lib Dems will lose seats in the next election – to deny that is not real. They may well do better in the SW than some expect but they will lose a lot of ground in the wealthier parts of London and the South East. Even with personal votes places like Richmond, Sutton and Kingston are bound to go.
The question is would Ming not being their make a difference? Who knows? Maybe it is the electoral cycle that is against you. All parties suffer from it but the effects can be worse when you are the third party.
I guess the first real test for you will be the English elections in may. I discount the Scottish elections, seeing as Ming is an elderly patrician Scot who might well appeal up there.
Even though I could never support you I sympathise with your problems.
H-Lad is obviously a Tory. No sign of postings in the members-only section.
So Gordon Greige. Perhaps you would like to enlighten us on these wonderful Green policies of the Tory party?
That’s the point ColinW. Mood music wins – not detailed policies. Only you, me those politico’s interested care about the detail.
Can anyone normal member of the public tell you ANYTHING that Labour was going to do in 1997? Their most famous policy – freeing the Bank of England – they did not not announce until after the election! They won because they were just different, they caught the mood and told us things could only get better. The Lib Dems won in Tory seats because “they were different, caught the mood and told us things could only get better.” Now the Conservatives have occupied that ground and the Lib Dems need to move fast into Labour territory for fear they will end up in a worse position than they are now – and that would be genuinely sad for them.
Gordon Greige says:-
“Now we come to Labour, mired in scandal, like the Lib Dems, whilst they choose their next leader”
Eh? Are Gordon Greige and I living on the same planet?
How were the Liberal Democrats “mired in scandal” this time last year?
“I am afraid the Lib Dems will lose seats in the next election – to deny that is not real.”
Like Elijah and Isaiah before him, Gordon Greige is a prophet. He can foretell the future, and does so with breathtaking confidence. Sorry, Mr Greige, the decision is for the electorate. Not you, not the media pundits. My guess as to what will happen in the future is just as good (or bad) as yours.
The whole tone of Gordon Greige’s contribution is that policies and values are nothing, “mood music” (ie, lazy impressions conjured up by the media) are everything. If this is true, it is terrible news for democracy. It means that elections will always be fixed in advance by the string-pullers, whose ability to manipulate the electorate can never be broken.
The Liberal Democrats were offered an image-over-substance politician and rejected him very decisively. You may think we would be better off with Mark Oaten, Gordon Greige, but the vast majority of Liberal Democrats would beg to differ.
Mired in scandal? … Well Charles Kennedy was forced out because of a drink problem that he had repeatedly denied, Mark Oaten was found to have used a male prostitute which made a nice contrast to the stock footage of him sitting round the brekfast table as a family man, and Simon Hughes was outed which would have been fine had he not said in an interview the preious week that he was still looking fo the right woman.
I think it’s fair to say that in the eyes of the public you were having scandal problem
Rob,
interesting article – and i actually qute liked your lasagne anaolgy (i finish this blog entry with an equally cringeworthy one!)
anyway, as a shameless plug i wrote a piece focussing on the challenge ahead for Ming (and dwelled less on the past year – which you should be able to click through to here – http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/olly_kendall/2007/02/its_distinctiveness_stupid_the.html
I actually think he’s done OK. sure – a few hiccups at PMQs (that many, including myself have been critical of) is just about the worst that can be said. 2006 was an ingloroius year for the party and Ming has come out of it ok. people like our brave green tax switch – obivously May’s elections will determine just how much. and i think people will, as the lib dems get more coverage towards election times, start to warm to the guy, for the very reason that he’s not heavily media spun.
i think it will be really tough as we’re squeezed by cameron and brown and don’t have the media potential and resources to always defend ourselves but i think ming and the great team around him are probably up to it.
if nothing else us lib dems are good at playing the long game. but to end with a terrible analogy, i think we’ve got to half time 1-0 down after scroing an own goal. captain kennedy was taken off due to ill health, ming replaced him and has got the defense sorted out. now we need to get an equaliser.
…a multi-billionaire american financial backer wouldn’t be bad either.
Olly
So NoID speaks for the public. Not only do Conservatives foretell the future, they embody the public mood, it seems.
None of the things NoID mentions amounts to the Party being “mired in scandal”. At least, not in my estimation.
Have any of the people NoID mentions taken bribes from property developers, sold honours, obstructed police investigations of gangsters, handed out contracts to their own companies, taken the country into an illegal war on the basis of deliberate deceptions, etc, etc?
Now, those are the sort of things I call scandals.
Perhaps NoID would prefer us to focus on what MPs do in bed, so we miss the big picture.
I’d agree they don’t amount to much in the way of scandal. But then most political scandals don’t really. Basically it boiled down to Lib Dem politicians being portrayed in the media like other politicians are. One could argue that it was mark of the Party’s success that anyone cared enough to report it.
I do think it can be classified as scandal because all three incidents involved a certain amount of lying – however understandable in each circumstance.
So the mythical Olly Kendall actually outs himself. As a Lib Dem. On a Lib Dem website!
Funny, we thought he was just some jumped-up researcher obsessed with the old Oaten dogma of the party having a ‘Clause 4 moment’, but who had not done anything as raw as actually fight elections.
My doubts about Ming were perfectly illustrated (I was a Huhney) by an interview ten days ago at the launch of our Welsh Assembly campaign.
Challenged that the Lib Dems’ role was simply to prop up a larger party he began his reply with:
“I’m too long in the tooth . . .”
To follow up an earlier football analogy –
Campbell, 5 (o.g.)
Gwyn
Lib Dem member, cllr, parly cand, const chair etc etc etc
I don’t know Daniel Bowen. I do know Olly Kendall – as a very hard working campaigner who has helped us many times in Islington.
Dear Daniel Bowen,
I am slightly mystified by your sarcastic remarks about Olly Kendall ( dated March 5th). I think anyone who knows Mr Kendall well, either professionally or personally, will know that he is an open, honest person, and certainly not one to cloak himself or back away from involvement in any ‘raw’ political activity such as campaigning. His work ethic is excellent, and whether you agree with some of his views or not, I believe that he has worked very hard for the party, and given the chance will continue to step up to any challenge. To call him a ‘jumped-up researcher’ or to intimate that he is a shadowy ‘mythical’ figure is unfair and also inaccurate. If your comments are borne from disagreement with his work for Mark Oaten or any of his journalistic articles, I think it would be far more constructive to debate/discuss these ( and/or other) issues directly rather than take the approach you took in your posting a few weeks ago.
Yours sincerely, Stuart
Back to the actual thread, I was discussing the leadership with a fellow activist (who’d backed Huhne) at the weekend, and with a group of Islington Lib Dems last night. All expressed appreciation of the way Ming has handled potentially difficult situations within the party and admiration for his track record. But all are now expressing disappointment with Ming’s image and profile – particularly in areas where we are challenging Labour. It will be interesting to see how May’s election results pan out. I’m still getting a lot of nostalgia & affection for CK on the doorsteps.