Thank goodness for Peter Riddell, the senior Times political columnist, and one of the few (only?) newspaper journalists who is both watching the Lib Dem leadership contest, and reporting it intelligently. His latest analysis appeared yesterday – do read it in full here, but for those who always skip to the end for the conclusion:
Mr Clegg is still the favourite, but only just, and there is a sense – more a mood – among leading Lib Dems that the contest is tightening and could be close.
The Times also carried interviews-cum-profiles with both candidates, which can be read here (Chris Huhne) and here (Nick Clegg).
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
"The old savage England": D.H. Lawrence visits the Stiperstones
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Henry
Daniel Walker
David Raw
9 Comments
It is impossible to say.
Last time round the party establishment supported Ming Campbell, and that made the difference in the end.
In hindsight of course they made a terrible mistake, but many of those who thought so at the time simply left, and on balance maybe the party establishment is even stronger?
In which case, I suspect Clegg will win easily.
I am not supporting him, but I am confident he will be an improvement and a step forward for the party.
However if you think Vince Cable is doing a good job as leader of the party, then why not vote for someone who knows as much about economics as he does, and vote for Chris Huhne?
“In hindsight of course they made a terrible mistake, but many of those who thought so at the time simply left”
What evidence is there for this? (That lots of people who did not vote for Ming left the party).
Tony Greaves
I too have come round to decide to vote for Chris
My decision is influenced by the fact that Chris has pledged to be bold and radical
I joined the SDP because it promised to break the mould – I read Chri’s promises in much the same way
Pudits have been known to get it wrong before –
Members could easily prove them wong again this time
Is this contest turning into an SDP versus Liberal thing?
4/ No. I was previously in the Liberal party and I do not believe the SDP should ever have been invented in the first place. However that is not to overlook the many talented people the SDP brought into the Liberal Democrats. I know Chris will disagree with me, but that is a debate for another time.
To answer Tony’s point, I can only make a judgement anecdotally. It is hard to come up with statistics that prove anything, so I could be wrong. With Ming as leader, it has become very difficult to recruit new members, as the figures show, but I am optimistic that will now change.
Charlotte – Huhne is getting more support from experienced members of the party, people who were around at the time of the Liberal SDP merger. The interesting thing is that he is getting support from people who were firmly on opposite sides in the merger arguments. So far from this contest turning into an SDP v. Liberal thing, it shows that those divisions are now over.
1 I suspect Ming won because, at the time, he was the best known name to armchair members, having had lots of TV coverage because of Iraq, as well as the establishment backing him.
This time round it is more veenly balanced. Huhne is better known because he stood last time, while Nick has more of the establishment behind him.
Both of them have had a reasonable profile amongst members because of their respective briefs.
Do slogans such as “breaking the mould”, “a new kind of politics”, “a radical agenda” and the like actually resonate with the public? Phrases that might be helpful to LibDem members in summing up why they actively campaign for the party might not be the kind of thing that sways those who haven’t yet voted LibDem.
Many of the public have now heard soundbites by both leadership candidates, and it is clear that neither has grabbed the public imagination. But maybe a passionate firebrand is not what’s required. Perhaps we need a leader in the mould of David Steel, Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy who calmly and patiently explain our ideas without getting involved in the rhetorical hysteria of Labour and Conservative politicians.
Clegg appears impetuous,
moody and easily rattled.
I prefer the more experienced and steadier hand of Chris. I get the feeling that Chris will be more appealing for wavering Tories.