This morning’s Today brings more news on the over-wrought “Lib Dems in cabinet” story we reported from the Guardian.
Lord Ashdown has now said that – as the story about junior jobs was breaking on Wednesday – Brown offered him the post of Northern Ireland Secretary. His response?
I told him that I could not conceivably consider such a position unless my leader told me that he thought it was a good idea and even if he did, I didn’t.
Which is clearly the correct response, and dismisses speculation that the Lib Dem denial left open the possibility of peers joining the cabinet. Like the Greg Dyke fiasco, it seems other parties hope to gain some advantage by publicly making us offers of co-operation.
It seems whatever the Lib Dems do, we get proposals of marriage from both the other parties. How flattering. But neither are right for us. Phil Willis spoke for many of us when he said that,
he believed the offer was “mischief making” by Mr Brown.
He said Sir Menzies had been right to rule out any Lib Dems taking jobs in a Brown Cabinet, saying they were “so fundamentally opposed to so many things the Labour Party is doing”.
The more worrying fallout from the incident is the sniping reported by The Indie this morning. Their own article implies that Brown floated the idea and Ming rejected it immediately. But they are able to hint at the fact it was -on the contrary – on the cards because of the quotes attributed to ‘some of the party’s young high fliers’ in parliament:
Senior Liberal Democrats, including some of the party’s young high fliers, reacted with horror and fury to the news, which dominated two meetings of MPs yesterday.
They protested that a clique of “elderly Scots” – including Sir Menzies and one of his closest aides, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope – had got too close to Mr Brown and the Scottish Labour establishment.
One said: “This report has the distinct ring of truth. Amongst all the smoke there is definitely fire.” Another warned: “We are steaming about it.”
These ‘young high fliers’ would do better not to brief off-the-record. But the incident probably does highlight the need for Ming to show his distance from Brown more. With hung parliament talk in the air, we are inevitably going to be thrust into this difficult position.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
Richard Good
Matt (Bristol)
30 Comments
It seems to me that what this episode has in fact shown is how united we are as a party – I have written more about this here.
I agree. While there are some contradictions in the media speculation, it seems broadly clear that this was never a serious possibility.
Nick Robinson now says, “Team Ming had been talking to Team Brown for some time with Archie Kirkwood and Alastair Darling in the lead. A Lib Dem source close to the negotiations says that many in his party now regard Brown’s approach as either duplicitous or inept. This is met with the insistence that there was a serious attempt to break out of tribal politics.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/
The fact that the offer was for NI secretary shows this was a “joke” offer. It’s a non-job nowadays isn’t it? In fact, I would have thought it ought to be merged with other jobs. I have written more about this here:
http://paulwalter.blogspot.com/2007/06/northern-ireland-secretary-offer-to.html#links
This is the second time that we have refused to play ball with a leader of one of the other two parties and we’ve found ourselves briefed against in the press. I think it’s vital we keep our unity when we are under attack like this – splitting us is exactly what our opponents want. The line that we will not take any ministerial posts in this Brown government is absolutely right and seems to me to be the end of the matter from our side.
This statement worries me: –
“Team Ming had been talking to Team Brown for some time with Archie Kirkwood and Alastair Darling in the lead. A Lib Dem source close to the negotiations says that many in his party now regard Brown’s approach as either duplicitous or inept. This is met with the insistence that there was a serious attempt to break out of tribal politics.”
Why are we even entertaining the idea of being associated with this unpopular Government? We have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose if we are seen to get into bed with Labour. Two years out from a general election any offer to negotiate on jobs within Government should have been refused point-blank.
Ming is far too close to Gord for my liking.
Why are we even entertaining the idea of being associated with this unpopular Government?
So unpopular that the latest polls show it has twice as much support as the Lib Dems?
If you want to be in power you have to compromise. As Bevan said, purists are barren.
Older readers here will remember the disastrous Lib-Lab Pact of 1976-78. I feel sick just thinking about it.
I have little trouble imagining a coalition with either of the other parties – given the right concessions (which are unlikely), but this sort of pact is unimaginable (unless its for Ming to be in the cabinet as First Lord of the Treasury :-p)
I think Ming has played this disastrously. We must make it clear we will not prop up a government in that manner and we will vote along liberal principles not to simply gain ministerial positions.
Tristan – we have made that clear!
Although quotes like this on BBC News don’t help – ‘Sources close to the Lib Dem leader accused supporters of Mr Brown of “trying to stitch us up… dump on us… divide us”.’
I’d hazard a guess (using my cunning brain) that that flustered quote came from someone closely involved in the negotations who is taking the surrounding storm personally. “Sources” shouldn’t be speaking to the press at the moment, there should be an agreed line through the leader’s spokesperson, and everyone else should zip it.
I really hope that ‘sources’ quote wasn’t authorised in advance. It reeks of panic.
As a party we shouldn’t brief anonymously full stop. Make it clear to the press that anyone so doing is not authorised and should be named. Anyone found doing so should be disciplined.
I can’t recall one instance where an anonymous briefing has been reported that was to the Party’s benefit.
The only reason why the Liberal Democrats are not going to do any deals is that they know the political consequences if they side with Labour.
The big winners would be the Conservative party and they would be able to fully use it as a campaigning weapon in Lib Dem-Conservative marginals.
Personally I hope it happens as it would be interesting to find out how the Lib Dem vote would react if it happened.
I look on with interest at the devlopements.
Tristan, it’s bizarre to claim that ‘Ming has played this disastrously’. Party leaders do talk to each other from time to time. Ming and every other Lib Dem from Paddy to Ed to Steve Webb has made it crystal clear we are simply not interested in doing a deal with Labour. ‘Lib Dems unite to spurn approach from Labour’ is not a disaster.
The idea that breifings should never be anonyomous is utterly absurd and facile. This is what the party’s and leader’s press officers are paid to do. (Whether they do it well or not is a different issue – some do and some don’t I guess). But the idea that the PR people need an “authorisation form” before speaking to journalists is utterly insane. The PR people need a brief and need to try to stick to it – just as a lawyer does. But they also need to have proper conversations with journalists, not just issue photocopied statements.
That said, I would be assume the “dirty and underhand” accusation against Brown was signed off at a very high level. It allows the party to attack Brown without the leader being seen to hurl mud. If it wasn’t signed off by top brass, give the employee who said it a very fat pay rise. It has kept us as the top political story of the day. At local level, we fight strong and hard and make fierce accusations against our opponents. This should be no different at national media level. Perhaps some people are so paranoid think Ming Campbell should personally sign off every FOCUS leaflet before distribution. I don’t.
By the way, the same theory goes for senior MPs. You just can’t expect people like Nick Clegg et al to just say “no comment” to every journalist. They are publicly elected politicians for chrissake. In today’s 24 hour news channel world, a self-confident party engages with the media at all levels. If the party or leadership don’t know what they’re doing or saying, that’s a separate issue. But not one that is solved by a control freak approach re: media engagement.
I sometimes think the party panics whenever we are the biggest news story in town. We shouldn’t. Our biggest problem is being ignored.
I sincerely hope that the clear lesson drawn from this episode is that there is less than zero appetite inside the party for any form of formal co-operation with Labour either now or after the election.
None the less I can’t help but feel that there are some figures hovering in the background who hanker for the days of ‘the project’ when talk was of an anti Tory progessive coalition. However, time has moved on – Labour has shown their true colours, ugly, arrogant & authoritarian and we should have nothing to do with them.
Now is not the time for secretive little chats with Gordon – we cannot allow ourselves to be constantly diverted from making our case by stoking media speculation on hypothetical coalitions. As the next election approaches we should be marking out our place on the political battleground – as unequivocably part of the opposition.
Charles, Are you seriously suggesting that when the man who is going to be PM next week phones the LibDem leader and asks for a meeting, that Ming Campbell should say “NO”. That would allow Brown to quite fairly portray the LibDems as total t*ssers in the media. Ming Campbell has done everything right here – and he and the party come out of it well.
Not ALL things were done well.Ming campbell looks like he does not know his own mind . If the lib dems had a policy on coalition then Ming Campbell could have said to Gordon Brown immediately at the meeting “NO THANKS”. The Lib Dems are making it up as they go along – and that surely cant continue
William, I agree that there seem to be a total absence of any guidelines/understandings about when the LDs would accept Cabinet seats or join a coalition as a junior partner. It is odd that it seems to have taken Ming a day or two to reject the offer. If the party keeps ducking the hung Parliament issue, we will be left in this sort of limbo every time the leader meets Brown or Cameron. Far better to lay out the basic terms of engagement PRIOR to any meeting rather than have meetings and then go into a “open ended” huddle with your chief advisers.
“The idea that breifings should never be anonyomous is utterly absurd and facile. This is what the party’s and leader’s press officers are paid to do.”
A briefing done by and attributable to “Ming Campbell’s spokesperson” isn’t an anonymous one though! The person making it is identifiable.
Why is it to the benefit of the party to make a statement when it cannot be identified
That is different from this:
“Senior Liberal Democrats…. One said: “This report has the distinct ring of truth. Amongst all the smoke there is definitely fire.” Another warned: “We are steaming about it.”
That statement could have been made by anyone. Or no-one.
I don’t think the “dirty and underhand” quote hs been attributed to Ming’s spokesman. (if so, this wasn’t put to him in his interview with the BBC this afternoon). Just to a “senior Liberal Democrat source”.
I have sympathy with those who make statements and don’t won’t them to be attributed. This is part and parcel of politics, I’m afraid. There’s no point in policing it – and even if you wanted to, you couldn’t.
S Booth @ 18
I think you miss my point. Of course Ming should continue to talk to Gordon, just as he should talk to Cameron or anyone else.
The issue is whether there should continue to be authorised or unauthorised discussions between senior members of our party and Labour about the prospect of formal co-operation between the parties or indeed members of our party joining a Labour Govt.
The one positive from this sorry episode is, as others have pointed out, the near universal public consensus in the party that cosying up to Brown is a very bad idea. However, the idea that we have come out well of this is I’m sorry a nonsense. We are struggling to get our voice heard and increasingly are only being referred to by the lazier elements of the media in terms of Ming’s leadership or the prospect of coalition. That is very dangerous for us because it will allow cameron to make the running in posing as the only viable alternative to brown & Labour.
“If the lib dems had a policy on coalition then Ming Campbell could have said to Gordon Brown immediately at the meeting “NO THANKS”.”
The policy was clearly outlined by Ming last September in his conference speech. The clairyt of teh united LibDem response flows from that. As the meeting was private I think it is a good reflection on Ming that he asked to sleep on it. It was a bit of a bombshell after all and it wasn’t a straight-forward request, involving as it did two people who have retired from active front-line politics and who have made names for themselves in non-partisan roles (Ashdown and Carlile).
I think Gordon Brown’s motives are not entirely clear, but I for one would not trust them. GB is well known as one of the most tribal of Labour politicians. He is either trying to neutralise us as a Party, or is geniunely worried that he’ll end up with a hung Parliament after the next election, and Ming is someone he knows and trusts. The one positive thing to come out of all this is that Gordon Brown, as an incoming PM, gives the appearance to be taking the Lib Dems seriously as a Party. Enough to offer Paddy Ashdown Northern Ireland. I know this episode has p**sed off Labour activists no end.For us, as the old addage goes – better to be talked about than not!
Clearly there is more to this than meets the eye. Meral is right – GB has been very tribal Labour and he is taking risks with his own side. Since the days of the project in the mid 90s the issue for Labour has always been whether they would realise that they needed to change the voting system to keep the tories out of majority power for most of the 21st century (as they were in te 20th) – NOW is the last moment for them to do this before they lose their majority.
It would clearly enable Brown to draw a line on the past, in a surprise move as he did with the Bank of England. AV on existing constituencies would be very easy to introduce and is the only change that realistically will get through the house of commons (with or without an hung parliament – vested interest is always in a majority – turkeys and Xmas etc). (yes I know its not PR – but what other first step is there?
So the issue for the LDs is are we a party of purity destined for permanent opposition but influence through our position in the 2nd chamber and through having our best policies stolen and implemented by others – or do we have the courage of our convictions to believe we could implement our own policies better if we are in government ourselves.
Radical Liberalism requires real Liberals to be in government – it will not be done by others at 2nd hand. So the issue for me is not whether we go into government – but when and on what terms.
If Brown’s experience of government has taught him that top down statism has failed and that a new settlement is required – then we should be in there making it happen for real, not carping from the sidelines about how they didn’t really ‘get it’.
I think my only issue now is why and how the LibDems were diretcly quoted as saying Brown was “dirty and underhand” but both the leader and deputy leader have denied or dodged this accusation. I don’t think the LibDems are that smart. So it looks like farcical screw up and left hand not knowing or caring what right hand does. Pathetic.
I’d just like to know when/if/how/on what basis we do accept Cabinet seats. Lunatic purists aside (a) we are not going to win the next election (b) we are not going to be the largest party after the next election (c) we may well hold the balance of power after the next election (with less MPs than we have now).
If the “powers that be” can’t answer what we do in (c), I’m deeply uninclined to renew my membership. I’d like it stated frankly, openly and clearly. Not too much to ask for £40 a year I hope.
By the way, if you disagree with the view that we will have less seats after the next GE, don’t argue with me. Just go and make a fortune for yourself on the betting markets. The spead is c. 53 – 56. So if you think we’re going up in seats, now is the time to clear your mortgage.
Ming’s conference speech made clear his tests for Brown. They are a good guide to an post-election scenario as is the behaviour the LibDem leader in Scotland who refused a deal with SNP because it would have meant going back on a election commitment. I think we should stop obsessing on deals and focus on policies and principles, we have plenty of them and they are very clear, unlike with Cameron’s Tory party.
S Booth, 12.25am. I think you are getting over-wrought. Ming and his team have handled this well and the media coverage has been largely positive. Let’s move on.
“Fewer” seats. Not “less”.
Mings views are here:
http://www.mingcampbell.org.uk/2007/06/22/ming-campbell-writes-about-the-gordon-brown-offer/
They seem pretty clear to me – and a lot more forthright about the party’s position and ideology than things Paddy said in 97-98.
Tends to confirm my feeling that Ming played a much more honourable part in the affairs at that time than some others.
Both of which make me a bit happier than I was when these stories first broke!