Charles Kennedy’s team has put together a video of pictures from his 32 years as an MP. When I first watched it the other day, It actually made me cry. That’s not just because it scares me to be old enough to remember things that happened three decades ago. It was quite something for me, growing up in Caithness, to have someone just 7 years older than me elected in the next constituency.
During the 1984 European election campaign, Charles Kennedy, Alan Beith and Bob Maclennan held a public meeting in Wick to support Russell Johnston’s campaign for the European Parliament. As the youngest member of the local SDP by some margin, I was invited to deliver the Vote of Thanks at the end of this meeting. It was one of my first ever public speeches and one which is probably not worth remembering. Before the meeting I was invited to High Tea at a local hotel with all the speakers. All my contemporaries at that time were mad on Wham, but I was completely starstruck by Russell and Charles.That was the same campaign I got into big trouble for inadvertently propping up a Russell leaflet on my windowsill. My parents were none too impressed when they discovered it after about a week of it being there. Funnily enough, my nephew tried the same trick (sadly for a different party) recently with similar results.
Before we went to the meeting, Charles went to make a phone call. He dropped the money he was going to feed into the call box and uttered a profanity that I would these days consider really tame. My naive 16 year old self was actually shocked to hear an MP using such language. Anyway, I’m blaming Charles for my descent into bad language.
Seriously, Charles has shown real political courage through the years, from backing merger of the SDP and Liberals in the 80s to taking the massive risk of opposing the Iraq war as leader.
Charles’ instincts on Labour’s illiberal and authoritarian approach to terrorism were bang on. This is from his last Conference speech as leader in 2005, on Labour’s anti-terror proposals including 90 day detention:
That’s a prison sentence by any other name. This party will oppose any blanket extension of custody powers. This proposal undermines our most basic rights and eats into our most cherished freedoms. If we undermine the foundations of our legal system then we let the terrorists win.
There is always a temptation for governments. See a problem and announce a quick fix. Labour’s gut reaction is to chase a headline. Where as I said earlier, leadership has to be about judgement. New law must be law which works – not a raft of unnecessary measures which simply sound tough.
He has continued to be the voice of reason on Europe and in the referendum took a much more reasonable tone than many. When Charles speaks, people still listen. Enjoy this video and if you feel so motivated, donate to his campaign appeal. Somebody has told me they can’t see the video. If you have similar problems, it’s on his Facebook page and you can view it here.
Over the last thirty years, Charles has stood up and worked hard for the Highlands time and time again. Watch the video to find out more:
Posted by Charles Kennedy on Thursday, 16 April 2015
* 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
Back on the campaign trail
1963: London's summer of the Hoverbus
Have resignations led to a rethink?
Steve J Smith
nigel hunter
Chloe
Abrial Jerram
80 Comments
Would the LibDems have supported tripling tuition fees, secret courts, bedroom tax and stood by while IDS took welfare cuts to extremes if he was still leader – I somehow doubt it. One of the few LibDems I would like to see hold their seat – a class act.
If you think the current welfare cuts are extreme, wait until you see the next £12bn, including withdrawal of support from mentally ill claimants who refuse treatment or (given the way sanctions work) forget to take their treatment.
On second thoughts, don’t bother waiting, just do everything you can to stop it happening!
Sadly Charles Kennedy’s opposition to the Coalition took no meaningful practical form.
That being the case, it is unlikely that he will hold on.
What sort of meaningful form did you mean? I mean he has defied the whip to vote against things like tuition fees & welfare reform.
An honest politician who’s leadership convinced me to vote Lib Dem for the first time. The current leader is, in my opinion, not in the same league…. I hope he keeps his seat, if I had a chance to vote for him I would most certainly do so.
malc 19th Apr ’15 – 9:12am
“…Would the LibDems have supported tripling tuition fees, secret courts, bedroom tax and stood by while IDS took welfare cuts to extremes if he was still leader – I somehow doubt it. ”
Good point, Malc. One for Liberal Democrats to keep in mind for this time next month.
Steve, there is a lot you can do to help Charles’ campaign – making a donation, or phone calls, for example. If you are able, please think about doing so.
@ Malc
No….because with Charles as leader we did and would never have got anywhere near actual power.
So your list would be a mile longer under a majority Tory government. Charles is a top guy, personable, passionate and a true gent, but while we were great in opposition that would always be the way with Charles.
Now we have according to an independent review had 75% of our 2010 manifesto enacted….sorry that’s more than we could have dreament of pre 2010 and maybe instead of people continually pointing out the few negatives we look at the many, many positives…..although that may be to easy and simple for some who’s mindset will always be in opposition mode and never actually want to in the sometimes messy world of power.
Even Tim Farron admits better to be in and doing what we can than out and doing bugger all…I’m paraphrasing but that was his overall point.
Maybe you could find a Labour voter in Charles’ seat to swap your vote with, Steve.
BigMak
I disagree totally. The LibDems would have won at least as many seats in 2010 with CK as leader and then could have joined with Labour and formed the coalition so many of us wanted. I don’t think he would have even considered forming a government with the Tories.
@Phillip Thomas
That would be dishonest, at the moment I teeter between Lib Dem and deliberately spoilt ballot…I will consider donating to Charles though Caron..
BigMak 19th Apr ’15 – 9:46am……..Now we have according to an independent review had 75% of our 2010 manifesto enacted….
And that attitude, dear reader, is why the party is in the situation that it is…
Slightly off topic, but too many people see disagreeing with the leadership’s management of the coalition with disagreeing with the necessity of it. I think it was the only realistic option but it was managed badly. That bad management started with not insisting personal pledges could be kept (Charles kept his) and continued with Lib Dem Ministers too often enthusiastically supporting Tory measures. I hope lessons have been learnt, but personally I believe a change of leadership is needed.
BigMak 19th Apr ’15 – 9:46am
“….@ Malc
No….because with Charles as leader we did and would never have got anywhere near actual power.”
BigMak,
Under Charles Kennedy there were 62 Liberal Democrat MPs elected in 2005.
Under the traditional laws of arithmetic that is a greater number than those elected under Clegg in 2010.
How does that tie up with your re-writing of history? Or are you confident like Nick Clegg that in the 2015 General Election there will be at least 124 Liberal Democrat MPs elected?
(Clegg promised a doubling of the Charles Kennedy result in 2005)
BigMac – Sadly the argument using the 75% of the manifesto delivered as a measure of our success has been comprehensively debunked many times since it came out. No-one supporting it has been able to provide any analysis to show how the 75% was measured, how important the 75% done was compared to the 25% not done, nor how important the 75% in the manifesto was compared to the many things the Conservatives got that were nowhere in our manifesto and never would have been. It’s a bit like looking at a picture of beautiful Lib Dem yellow sunflowers and concentrating solely on the signature Vincent, which is very good. However, the picture has sadly been kept too close to a nasty blue picture and the colour has totally been destroyed.
I think we would all have been very happy if Charles had been involved in coalition negotiations in 2005 – after Iraq, it was our best chance in years of being involved in government. We didn’t put a foot wrong and we still couldn’t manage it.
Can we all just stop looking at what might have been. It wasn’t to be, sadly.
+1 for basically everything Caron has said!
Charles is facing the fight of his life against a well-funded SNP banker and international financier from Edinburgh and a typically thuggish SNP campaign.
Charles has been a superb champion for the Highlands for over 30 years. His constituents and our party need him back in Parliament so if you can’t make the long trip north to help on the ground please do as Caron suggests and donate to his campaign fund:
https://ldrossskyeandl.nationbuilder.com/donate
And Caron, if we look at what might be, better the House of Commons for having Charlie Kennedy in it- lets hope he retains his seat and can provide wise counsel in the bitter days to come.
Steve way, agree absolutely with you re management – my mother is from coalition-heavy Austria, and we’ve been surprised these 5 long years that the LDs hadn’t grasped the junior party rule – always clear water between you and the larger shark or you get torn to pieces.
Andrew S – It started with Nick and his negotiating team swallowing Cabinet Collective Responsibility hook, line and sinker at the start. Then go into the Rose Garden and look like a Tory and sound like a Tory. From then on Nick, regrettably, refused to take advice from those with experience and instead relied solely on his closest acolytes who didn’t have the depth of understanding or the bottle to disagree with him anyway. A self inflicted tragedy, and sadly one that will take a very long time to unravel.
Malc the Lib Dems couldn’t really join with Labour in 2010 because Labour didn’t have enough seats! Plus I think Labour had been in government for too long and needed a few years in opposition to sort themselves out. The critical mistake the Lib Dems made in coalition negotiations with the Tories was not demanding complete control of several government departments which would have made credit easier to claim.
I don’t think a coalition with Labour would be a dream come true either it would be an eletoral nightmare as well. Go back and look at the Ashcroft polls for all of your held seats (particularly those in the south) and look at preferred government outcome. You will see the amount of people wanting a Conservative government or a Con/Lib coalition far outweighs those wanting some kind of Labour government which is about as popular in seats like North Cornwall, North Devon ect. as cholera. A Lab/Lib coalition may well lead to near electoral wipeout in the Southern regions.
JJ 19th Apr ’15 – 2:11pm …….I don’t think a coalition with Labour would be a dream come true either it would be an eletoral nightmare as well….
So that’s a coalition with Conservatives and Labour ruled out….What is your vision of the future for the party?
Steve Way. Ok, well, make up your mind to actually vote rather than spoiling your ballot paper and you can honestly say to a Labour voter “I will vote Labour in X if you vote Lib Dem in Ross, Skye, and Lochaber”. It isn’t as if you’re on oath to the Returning Officer to vote for the party you truly support.
Of course, if X happens to be a Lib Dem seat this might not be a good plan!
@ BigMak
“No….because with Charles as leader we did and would never have got anywhere near actual power.”
Which leader increased our number of MPs from 52 to 62?
Which leader decreased our MPs from 62 to 57?
When Charles was leader we gained seats, when Nick Clegg was leader we lost seats. It would therefore be logical to believe that if Charles had been leader in 2010 we would have had more than 57 MPs and so would still have been able to join a coalition government.
@ malc
“could have joined with Labour and formed the coalition so many of us wanted.”
I disagree even if we had won enough seats (65) to take a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition to say 323 (which I think is a majority because Senn Fein’s five MPs don’t take their seats) it would still have been right to go into coalition with the Conservatives because Labour lost the general election (much like in February 1974 when the Tories lost).
I’ve always liked Charles Kennedy. I really hope he holds his seat. I might be utterly disenchanted with the Liberal Democrats as a party – but I think he, at least, is an honourable man.
Andrew S – Let’s be honest. Nick Clegg’s leadership over the last seven years has been a continuing disaster for Liberal Democracy. All that is different this time is that it is MPs who are taking the big hit. Since Nick became leader in 2008, we have lost nearly half of our councillors, two thirds of our MSPs; and in 2014 all but one of our MEPs. He should have gone then.
Effectively he has led us back to where we were back in the early 1980s. Twenty five years of hard work squandered in five. We are now trying to salvage as much as we can from the wreckage so that we have something to build on. The entire party knows Nick’s handling of coalition has been appalling, but many have been in denial. 2014 was the big chance to do something about it, but sadly none of the MPs were prepared to rock the boat anything like enough. Now it is their turn.
Good luck to Charles Kennedy in the fight to retain his seat. I hope very much that he holds.
His political instincts and whole approach to politics has appealed to the electorate in the past and will do so again. He is a politician who can look you in the eye and he comes across as genuine and honest when you meet him. We need him back in the Commons.
All the best to his campaign.
Good luck Charles such a pity your leadership was brought down and our wing of the party did not better cover from the Cleggites. Looking forward to a time when we try and rebuild the broad coalition within our party which rallied 20+% around Liberal Democracy.
Good Luck Charles. This party does not deserve you. When you needed help, you were knifed by activists who have now moved on to other pastures. We not only need you back in the Commons, but at the top of our party.
@ Malc so you would have preferred them to go with the party that crashed the economy and who had fewer seats with a PM who was disliked and not trusted?? Because of your(and others) left leaning views from the old SDP/Alliance days….so instead of looking what actually happened numbers wise its basically going back to what those of you on the left of the party wanted as some splendid center/left love in instead of the reality which was after 13 years Labour loosing trust and not being given the mandate you wanted to prop that lot, led by Balls and Milabland up??!! I suppose you could go down the road that now everything would be all good and they would not have stitched us up any more than the Tories?? Its a lovely thought but completely missed the point that a lot of Labour MPs detest us as much if not more than the Tories….and on the ground that’s even more so….so lets not kid ourselves that a deal with Labour in 2010 would have been any better.
@ JohnTilley/Michael BG
Again you draw a conclusion its a straight line….we lost 5 seats(sorry not down to Nick but to late switchers and many the very same students who didn’t bother to vote or went back to Labour) and you are concluding the CK would have held or done better depending on the campaign we had. Just think if we didn’t get the bounce to 23%(which vote share was higher then CK, and that we lost seats shows the faults of the voting system NOT Nick) we may have lost share AND seats and been down even further, you cant conclude that CK would have done better as the only outcome. As above even if CK did as well or better does that mean we should have propped up a government that had brought the country to its knees with a PM that was a busted flush?! It seems that some on here, and within the party/those who voted for us, didn’t care about anything other than this apparent “progressive” alliance with the most un-progressive, authoritarian, war mongering, economy crashing party in the land in Labour….all was forgiven in a blink of an eye just so some could lets not kid ourselves re-live the days of the SDP. How people forget just what the Labour party had become, how completely disgraceful it had become, how it had lost its heart & soul, but still people would forgive anything to get in to bed with them because of the pathological hatred of the Tories. That is exactly what Mandelson and others thought as well, they relied on us hating the Tories so much we would drop our pants at the first chance to jump in to bed with them, no matter what the price. That we didnt, that we helped kick that tiered, criminal and frankly disgraced government out is one of the prouder moments in our history….did CK and a million others of us march against the Iraq war because of a Tory or Labour government? Did we get ID cards scrapped because of a Labour government? Did we fight against(and yes then drop) a policy of tuition fess introduced by a Labour government? The list goes on and n and on of what 13 years of that bunch did to the country,leading to the crash in 07/08….and yet we hug them close like they are long lost friends??!! Why because we used to be closer to them on the political spectrum….Id say wake up, that was then this is now and as much as many of you despise the Tories(and rightly in some cases) many also despise Labour and the consent barrage of verbal bullying that sometimes goes on that we are, must be and never will be anything other than a centre-left part wedded to that lot is frankly not just short sighted but offensive.
@ David Evans
Again you let your hatred for the Tories outshine the fact that we actually got to temper what they did and also enact some of our manifesto, be that 75%(which Ed Davey stuck to yesterday on Sunday Politics) would you rather have done 0% and stood in your ivory tower proud but with no one listening to you, or climbed down for a little, compromised and got 75%(or at least a chunk, we can argue exact figures) Tim Farron as I said summed it up, better to be in and do something than out and see none of what we want enacted. That the reality, but again we seem to have the mind set we would rather have a lovely document that will never see the light of day in becoming law or compromising(and sorry is that not what we all do every day of our lives to some extent?) and getting some of our policies on to the statute books. Stepehen Tall in his latest article basically said better to have the manifesto we do then one that (while we may all want it in our hearts) of radical ideas that would never be acted on.
It seems we are all rational, practical, reasonable people in our day to day and all lose that ability when it comes to our politics….and most of it is the irrational, gut hatred of one party or another and not for the interest of the country or our fellow citizen…. and that selfishness will do us no good….the “I want” and “only id I get this” and “I wont play with you” attitude is all very well, but in politics as in life rarely makes us anything but bystanders while others do we just sit, shout and watch….morals intact, but frankly completely ignored(again)
We are seeing the unionist vote in Scotland split three ways allowing the separatist votes to win seat after seat. Unless there is a concerted / secret agreement by LibDems, Labour and Conservative to vote tactically, Scotland will be disproportionately represented by the SNP whose sole aim is to bankrupt the UK and then leave
@Big Mak – *APPLAUSE*
I agree with everything you’ve just said, brother.
@ TCO….most kind and thank you…brother!
@BigMak
Everything you said but for labour change to Tories. You seem to hate Labour exactly in the same way you accuse others of Tory hating. Fact is we were strong when both wings of our once great party respected each other and worked together. Clegg’s divisive and partisan leadership has excluded social liberals and set us against each other. We need a broad church and balanced policy. For what’s worth I wouldn’t rule out another coalition with the Conservatives but the terms would need to be tougher and include a veto on a EU referendum, a no to big cuts (and a new plan on HS2 and Tuition fees) Labour could be an equally good option same terms but also a veto on anti business and high borrowing.
Ah Rabih, Don’t let the lack of facts get in the way of your chosen hobbyhorse. Exactly where do you see me hating the Tories? You must work harder on this aspect of your posts. Facts do help.
The rest of your post totally ignores what I have said, so I will treat it with the disdain it deserves.
@Jonathan I agree that both wings of the party need to work together. The problem is that the social liberal wing was used to having its way for decades and resented their loss of privilege when Clegg took the party slightly towards the centre.
like any privileged group suffering a loss of power and prestige it has fought tooth and nail to preserve it, loudly decrying the betrayal and entryist economic liberals as they see them. They would not accept That there were alternative views to their orthodoxy and have threatened to ostracise and expel us for our heresy.
The party hasn’t been moved slightly towards the centre, it has been moved past the centre and to the right, so that official party stances are now more right wing than the old left wing Tory ones.
@ Jomathan Pile….you see you’ve not pinned me right, I have disdain for both in equal measure. The Tories for when i grew up in the early/mid 80s and Labour the 97-2010 lot.
What I don’t understand is the utter unadulterated hatred for the Tories from a certain wing of the party is not matched in any way, shape or form from the other wing of the party toward Labour. Its almost as if a complete red mist(forgive the pun) descends when those over to the left/social democrat wing of the party talk about the Tories that doesn’t exist for us on the Liberal/orange book wing. People seem to lose all reason, whats funnt is those say in their teens or 20s that have only known a Labour or Coalition government spouting venom at the Tories having never tasted them properly because of what Nick saved them from in 2010.
I agree I could/would/have worked with both parties and as with you would have conditions for both, but the yearning, the almost uninhabited draw to wok with Labour with those on the left of the party is pretty distasteful and embarrassing.
@ David Evans, thats lovely don’t engae that always does the trick, job done, cheers.
@Philip Thomas I think again thats a matter of opinion, if you look at many sites and read many books we were until Nick took over further left than New Labour, which to me makes no sense for a centrist Liberal party. If you think we are further right than old left wing Tories such as Ken Clark than I am surprised, very. Obviously the whole political spectrum changes over time, what was left, right or otherwise shifts with time, but I hardly think that.
@TCO again(and this is getting embarrassing) I could not agree more!! When I joined the party in 1990 and up until 2008 I was always made to feel like that heretic you speak of. That finally we achieved in my eyes a true center ground was very pleasing….but then came the abuse, the hatred, the venom I would only have though possible from other parties, but from within. The social democrats losing a grip of that power was possibly the nastiest most vicious outpouring toward the leadership and members from the economic liberal wing of the party Ive ever encountered. Those from outside the party that thought we are nice & cuddly soon saw that the party could/would bear its teeth, on its own if it felt threatend from within.
And still it continues, still we get that Nick has betrayed the party, that Tim Farron will save us all and the CK was some kind of mythical figure….although we still got no closer to power with him(lovely man that he is on a personal level)
So when Nick does go be that in weeks, months or years the left will want their man in and all will be lovely and perfect in their world….but Id lay good money on us being back in the political wilderness….liked but ignored and laughed at. I suppose that what some would call success.
Well, the truth is that I have moved significantly to the left, but I still sometimes think of myself as a “wet”…
Yes, I guess we are to the left of Ken Clarke in at least his current incarnation. Although I think back in the Thatcher/Major years Ken Clarke was part of a government with a non-crippled legal aid system, just to take one example.
@Rab. An old Liberal I respect greatly said we don’t get the leaders we deserve; they’re far better than that.
Could I remind those saying we could/should have had a coalition with Labour in 2010 that several of their front bench (Ed Balls was one, i believe) were publicly saying that it was time for them to go into opposition, at the very moment when Gordon Brown was trying to put together such a coalition? So we couldn’t have formed a coalition with Labour and others because Labour didn’t want to.
@Jane, Balls was saving his long term political future by disassociating himself from anything to with the mess he’d created
@Rabbi. Sadly you still have no facts, just putting words in other people’s mouths. If you can’t defend it, don’t say it.
@ Philip
Actually I think Ken Clarke is an interesting case of someone who has held very much the same views for 35 years. He once observed that his opinions had been ‘constant as the northern star’ while his political opponents and colleagues had performed all sorts of somersaults and sought new ideological sustenance in various quarters.
Indeed, Clarke has been nothing if not consistent in his mix of ‘dry’ economic sympathies (unlike the Tory ‘wets’ he supported Geoffrey Howe’s austere tax-raising 1981 Budget, and as Chancellor in the 1990s he raised taxes and curbed spending); a preference for tight fiscal policy but low interest rates and a competitive exchange rate (chiming with the interests of his Midlands manufacturing base); support for the welfare state but also for public service reform (witness his ministerial combat with public sector unions); liberal views on subjects like immigration, human rights and penal policy; reflexive support for the EU and the agenda of mainstream centre-right parties like Germany’s Christian Democrats; distaste for what he regards as ‘populism’; lack of party tribalism, etc.
Much of that is to his credit, in my view, as is the fact that (unlike so many of his younger counterparts in all parties) he comes across as a human being with a sense of proportion and an understanding of real life. The flipside of such unwavering consistency is perhaps a lack of curiosity as to whether any of his long-held views might benefit from modification… But even when he is stubborn and loftily dismissive of arguments from those he sees as rather eccentric (mainly lefties and eurosceptics), it is hard not to like someone so good-humoured and devoid of the pious self-regard that is the stock-in-trade of so many MPs.
Yeah, I guess using “wet” as a synonym for “Clarkeite” is not sensible.
Jane, in case you meant me, I do not think we should have had a coalition with Labour in 2010- the numbers were against it and the deal the Tories offered just about acceptable, although it seems to have become worse as time wore on…
BigMak 20th Apr ’15 – 9:43am
From the comments under “@ JohnTilley/Michael BG” you seem to be under the impression that I wanted us to go into government with the Labour Party after the 2010 election. In the same piece that I commented on your comments I commented on those of malc, where I said that even if we had 8 MP more than we in fact had we couldn’t have gone into coalition with Labour. I remember some voters in Hampshire phoning me after the last general election, thinking it was the phone number of a Liberal Democrat office, and I defended our decision to go into coalition with the Conservatives.
@ Rabih Makki (Are you the same person as BigMak?)
It is wrong to assume that all who you see as on the left of party want to only work with the Labour Party. When you list the things that you opposed that the Labour government did those who you call on the left wing of the party opposed them too. (You shouldn’t call those on the left Social Democrats in case Matthew Huntbach posts a history lesson for you.) I remember when Ken Clerk was seen as on the right of the Tory party.
The Liberal Party was really only a centralist party for a few bleak years after the Second World War for the rest of its history has been a liberal party that puts the interests of all the people first. In the nineteenth century the Tories were the party of the landowners and the Liberal Party was the party for everyone else and kept giving the vote to more and more people. (It could be said they were “left” wing.) Some of them would have called themselves Radicals and they were not centralists.
The Liberal Party was often seen as being a centralist party and when I was a child I held that view. However once I joined the Liberal Democrats I really discovered what liberalism meant and it has nothing to do with being in the centre. It has a district vision of the society it wishes to create and it isn’t just splitting the difference between other parties.
I think Clarke was right and the Wets were wrong about the 1981 Budget, although the scale of the tax increases was necessitated by the Thatcher government’s failure to control public spending in its first year, and by the need to get interest rates and sterling down to a more tolerable level. As so often in British economic policy, the journey to the eventual destination could have been less hair-raising, with less need for heroics, had the genies (in this case inflationary psychology and excessive government borrowing) been kept in the bottle to begin with. But these were problems with roots long in the past, only temporarily abated under IMF supervision in 1976-78.
The Tory Wets, who had much the same economic policy as the SDP in 1981-83, offered much hand-wringing but short-term palliatives rather plausible solutions. They slowly disappeared not just because Thatcherism made a hostile takeover of a traditionally non-ideological, even anti-intellectual party; but because their remedies to the most pressing problems of the time – the twin evils of inflation and unemployment – had been discredited by experience.
The broader tradition of ‘one nation Toryism’ to which Clarke belongs – not so closely tied to a kind of vulgar Keynesianism in economics as the Wets – survived for some time and still has a few representatives in the press like Matthew Parris and perhaps Peter Oborne. But it does seem to be an increasingly endangered species in the parliamentary Conservative Party. Both the ‘one’ aspect and the ‘nation’ (in the sense of the nation-state of the UK) are increasingly expendable it seems.
@Michael BG
Well, if support for giving the vote to more and more people is a mark of a Liberal, my belief in extending the franchise to all legal residents must count for something (no taxation without representation etc).
@Alex I was born in 1982 so I don’t have much memory of the economic policy options in 1981- the Ken Clarke I remember was the 1990s Chancellor, the disastrous leadership bid in 1997 (teaming up with Redwood!) and the leadership bid in 2001 when I voted for him- after which I left that party and (a little later) joined this one. One Nation Tories like Damian Green and Dominic Grieve have been ruthless purged from the ranks of ministerial Tories, replaced with open Europhobes like Philip Hammond. If things go the way I hope, there should be a very interesting Conservative leadership election…
About 33% of the electorate votes for the Tories. Even under STV, that is a lot of seats. It needs to be at least plausible that we could do a deal with them, or our negotiation position with the other parties is weakened. Unfortunately in their current ideological extremism no deal is realistically possible. They need at the very least to accept the constitutionality of the Human Rights Act (or we’re all going to lose our human rights when they finally get back into majority power/coalition with another extremist party). They’re not going to change things unless they lose- come second in terms of seats or worse. So yes, our allies of convenience at this election are the Labour Party.
@Philip you make the common mistake of assuming that post STV Tories will be the same as pre STV. FPTP encourages very broad coalitions between people who often have little in common. With STV we would see a big realignment to probably 5 or 6 roughly even sized parties.
OK. On that argument, we need STV as soon as possible so as to confine the anti-human rights wing of the Tory party to its own little faction.
And to get STV as soon as possible, well, you don’t vote for Tories if you need electoral reform.
@ Big Mak AKA Rabih Makki
Certainly one wing of the party has found some synergy with many Labour views on social justice etc, and certainly many economic liberals like yourself find no problem with many Tory views on free markets etc but the point is we have been in coalition with the tories for 5 difficult years and my wing of the party has all things said been incredibly silent and loyal despite the daily self loathing at having to work with the tories, especially when they have got their way over things like bedroom tax, benefit cuts etc. There has been a fair degree of intolerance and name calling on both sides ( I had quite a few verbal brickbats thrown my way in the summer when I called for a change in leader) . The party needs to work together in a spirit of liberal mutual respect and tolerance and this can only come from a leadership which demonstrates balance and respect. I welcome your membership of our party, though we may disagree. I hope you do the same for me.
@ David Evans, no never put words in to peoples mouths and more than capable of defending my position….I see you didn’t take up my challenge, telling, but not surprising, oh well
@Michael GB(yes same person, forgot to sign in at first!) I agree the left/right thing can be a little old hat and have little meaning. While I agree pre Labour the Libs would have be to what is now the left but when Labour came in and stole a march on us on that front we were pushed in to the center as that was the only place available. I know we can float between the two and to me thats exactly it, we are a progressive, radical party that picks from both wings and none and makes it its own. However for the majority of the 80s/90s we swung very much to the left, left of Labour to “outflank them” but it didn’t work. Now Im not proposing we swing to the right at all, but lets cut our own path and not be obsessed as some are in the party with hovering up those on the left like they are our long lost brothers/sisters…thats what really grates.
However I describe the left of the party it still stands that it has less to do with Liberalism and more to do with social democracy and for me that will always be the issue. The hatred of Nick, no matter the coalition was apparent from 2007, they never gave him a chance. That those of us on the other wing did get behind people like Paddy and CK shows at least we gave those guys a chance and properly backed them, with Nick the campaign to get him out started the day he won the leadership….and I think no matter how many denials there are on here thats pretty much fact.
Is there such a thing as a ‘perfect” leader, no, never will be but can we at ;east shoe a little loyalty and hold our nerve, publicly calling for our leaders head for years and through an election campaign plays to the galleries and red tops but does us no good.
@ Philip
I am two years older than you then. For my sins I have studied that period in some depth and I find economic history probably more illuminating than economic theory. I also remember that strange Clarke/Redwood leadership bid in ’97.
“…there should be a very interesting Conservative leadership election…”
Indeed. Thinking of those the media (and indeed David Cameron) have anointed as the main contenders – Osborne, May, Boris – it would be interesting to see how they would position themselves in terms of their pitch. On the face of it Boris would be the one with the most liberal instincts but would trim to appeal to the internal party electorate. I also think there would be a young challenger like Sajid Javid.
On the point about the Human Rights Act, clearly this is a touchstone issue for Lib Dems but I haven’t seen much evidence the public feels the same way. So in the event that they lose the election I don’t see the Tories alighting on that as a key reason for their defeat. I agree it is symptomatic of wider shifts in the currents of opinion within the party though. This comes back to a point I have made before, namely that there are a number of issues which Lib Dems take to be evidence of right-wing ideological extremism on which the Tory position (rightly or wrongly) is much closer to where public opinion is. I’m thinking welfare caps, immigration, green levies, law and order etc. Where they are out of kilter with the public is in their attitude to the top end of the income/wealth scale not the lower end and not social issues or ‘bread and butter’ issues like household energy costs.
Hmm, well I think that the Conservatives have alienated a great many lawyers (though, strangely, not all). Not just right-wing Liberal Democrats like me, but lawyers whose natural instincts would be Conservative. This is partly due to the Legal Aid cuts and attacks on judicial review- the Human Rights Act perhaps concerns me particularly as an immigration lawyer. The appointment of a non-lawyer as Lord Chancellor is symbolic of the contempt in which the Tory party holds our profession (of course, this contempt is shared by a section of the public). How many of those lawyers are participating actively in the campaign against them I do not know. Of course, they are not a significant proportion of the electorate in themselves…
@ Philip Thomas
I think you could have been called a “wet” in 1979. I think you should try to see yourself as mainstream liberal and not on the right of the party. I have read lots of your recent posts and you just don’t come over as on the right wing.
@ Rabih Makki
From Grimond to Ashdown and Kennedy we saw ourselves as on the left as an alternative to the Conservatives and Labour. From Palmerston to Lloyd George we saw ourselves as THE alternative to the Conservatives.
When David Steel was leader of the Liberal Party the majority of the party were social liberals with a small section that was more right wing around the leader. The SDP was never a socialist party and many of its members were well to the right of those in the Liberal Party. In 1988 the party felt to me quite right wing and dominated by ex-SDP members. Paddy was of course a social liberal, but the president was an ex-SDP member. In the late 1980’s and early 1990 I felt that a small number of ring wing Liberals and ex-SDP members were dominate. However with the name change to Liberal Democrat it was easier to be identified as liberal and in my experience those ex-SDP members became to accept that Liberalism and not Social Democracy was our philosophical base. It should be remembered that Paddy often talked of equal-distance between Labour and the Conservative. It is therefore wrong to think that those in the party who you say are on the left of the party are Social Democrats because the majority were never Social Democrats and have always been Social Liberals. The Social Liberal tradition goes back beyond the founding of the Liberal Party in 1859.
When the Orange book was published the debate in the party changed. There appeared a group who said they were liberals but believed that the free market and competition will always be the best option. Some of these people were not really liberals but were libertarians and didn’t believe in using the power of the government to increase the liberty and freedom of individuals. They called themselves the inheritors of the liberal tradition. These are reasons why the debate became more polarised.
Philip: Agreed that the Tories have alienated a high proportion of the subset of voters who are lawyers!
I said they are out of kilter with public opinion on attitudes to the top end of the income/wealth scale, but in fact I should qualify that statement. The public backs things like the mansion tax but also overwhelmingly approves of the Tory proposal to lift the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million (71% approval according to the BBC). That was certainly the case when Osborne first proposed it back in 2008 but I thought the changed economic climate might have shifted opinion on this: apparently not. Basically most people like policies which allow capital (especially property) to be accumulated or passed on within families, and distinguish between this and mega concentrations of wealth. The most popular of all the policies surveyed was the increase in the income tax personal allowance to £12,500 proposed by both the Tories and Lib Dems (89% support).
Sorry “small number of right wing Liberals and ex-SDP members” not “small number of ring wing Liberals and ex-SDP members”
@Jonathan @Rab
Gents its good to see some positive debate and tolerance of other positions. The point Rab makes is a pertinent one – there is a feeling on the right of the party that when majority view was against us and the party went leftwards, we dug in and stuck with the programme. When the pendulum swing the other way, the reverse has not been true. As Rab says, many were out gunning for Nick from day one.
There are several posters to the site who accuse economic liberals of not belonging in the party / being crypto-Tories.
What I know and I’m sure Rab does is we *know* we are not Conservatives. We grew up in the 80s and we’re aware of what that meant. However we have to deal with the hands we are given and for all their faults one thing Conservatives do tend to be familiar with is how to do business when business is required. It doesn’t mean we have to be best friends but anyone who works knows that sometimes in order to get things done you need to work with people you don’t necessarily like.
Demonising people as “evil” (and yes we do get plenty of posters who talk about “evil Tory cuts” / “evil Tories”) is simplistic and highly illiberal. Pinning a label on someone and using it to define everything about them is not why I am a Liberal.
@ Muchael BG
“Some of these people were not really liberals but were libertarians and didn’t believe in using the power of the government to increase the liberty and freedom of individuals.”
I must have read a different Orange Book from you. None of the authors questioned the government’s role in ensuring access to high-quality public services and expanding individual opportunity.
They sometimes suggested different means by which those ends could be best achieved, which variously involved use of market mechanisms (eg emissions trading in Susan Kramer’s chapter on environmental policy), greater devolution of power within the public sector (Ed Davey’s chapter), a reallocation of powers between the nation-state and the supranational EU including the repatriation of social and employment legislation to member states (Nick Clegg’s chapter), and so on. Even the controversial David Laws chapter on healthcare was about delivery (a continental-style social insurance model) not the scope of public provision.
There was an emphasis on greater individual participation and responsibility particularly in Paul Marshall’s chapter on pension reform, which proposed a ‘second pillar’ based on compulsory savings and raising the state pension age in line with rising life expectancy. There was also a rather paternalistic chapter by Steve Webb and Jo Holland on family policy (developing themes being pursued by New Labour at the time like citizenship classes and parenting orders).
The chapter that was perhaps strongest on the desirability of the government doing less in certain areas, of ceasing to do things altogether (in industrial policy) and taking a more proportionate approach to regulation etc was penned by that arch right-winger… Vince Cable, who advocated scrapping the DTI and tearing down trade barriers. He also argued that, so far as public service reform was concerned, “the vision should be one in which a mixture of public sector, private and mutually owned enterprises compete to provide mainstream services”.
Sorry, Michael BG (my typo)
@Alex Sabine its interesting how few people who bandy the term “Orange Booker” around have actually read it. My biggest take away from reading it was that it was a challenge to accepting the status, and a call to get people thinking about, and trying, alternative approaches. And if that’s not radical, what is?
*accepting the status quo*
It’s also interesting that there wasn’t a chapter on education.
TCO: Agreed, although to a large extent it was challenging the party status quo (ie Lib Dem policy in the early 2000s) rather than offering particularly radical solutions to national problems. In advocating a plurality of providers in public services Cable was basically seeking to align Lib Dem policy with the reality of what had already happened under the Thatcher, Major and Blair governments (and indeed under a number of Lib Dem-controlled councils).
The clear exception in terms of radicalism was Laws’s chapter and I guess Cable’s was a partial exception in that he was arguing for a disengagement of the state from industrial policy (in terms of subsidies, tax breaks, what he called ‘deregulating the regulatory state’ etc) in a way that a pro-business interventionist Tory like Michael Heseltine would never have supported and that a perpetual tinkerer like Gordon Brown was never likely to carry out.
Yes, the lack of a chapter on education was a striking omission, especially given its importance to all strands of Lib Dem thinking. I suspect it was seen as too much of a hot potato given the behind-the-scenes disagreements over issues like tuition fees and city academies. By all accounts Laws’s health scheme was ‘sprung’ on some of the other contributors.
@ Michael BG ….again I appreciate the history and yes I am aware of that, i think in any party of any colour or leaning you will have a variety of opinion, that is political life. What myself and others like TCO quite rightly point out is that when the party, in any manifestation leans more one way or another most of us just get on and do the best we can, we back the leader, the party and as much as possible(and at least in public) the policy. What we don’t do is jump on forums, social media or even publicly denounce and hammer the leader as TCO states from day one. This shows a clear agenda as not only is it illiberal but totally unjustified. It smack s of “this is my party and how dare you change it” this attitude permeates through the party, its very unpleasant and sometimes down right nasty.
Those of us that are economic or slightly to the right of what is perceived as the” traditional” wing of the party are vilified, harassed, called names(As TCO points out the way that Tory is spat out of people mouths still now is quite breathtaking as a way of an insult…and frankly disgraceful) and very much kept from the levers of power both locally and until a few years back nationally as well.
The “orange bookers” were from all wings of the party not just Vince but also Steve Webb and while not all they wrote did I agree with or all their conclusions I but in to it certainly challenged the parties comfortably plodding along as it was.
This is now used as an “insult” within the party, like we are lepers or worse, and this from a supposed bunch of liberal and democrat souls….but when challenged the true nature is frightening from some. This name calling of “Tory boy” or “dirty ornage booker” is not just old school yard bullying, but shows that instead of a proper argument we are sneered at and not challenged on an intellectual or cerebral level.
I would welcome that, but name calling and cold shoulders just **** me off, although not always to my face(I’m a big lad) Ive heard it and read it and it does our party no favors and shows like any bully in any situation that people have lost the argument and resort to this.
I think post election there will be a lot of soul searching within the party, whatever the result, even if its better than we hope/pray for. thats all good, and that makes perfect sense after 5 years in government…and even if we are in government again in some way it should happen. However the conversation should descend as it did for over two decades in to one section of the party (metaphorically) trying to wipe out the other. We are to small a party, to small a core(as others have pointed out our core vote is much smaller than the bigger two) so turning in on each other will only help others, be that the other parties, the press or any other detractors.
it would be nice to think we could and in fact should be accommodated no matter what direction the party decides to take and who its leader. Would I vote for Tim Farron(or others from the left of the party), maybe, he’s not my bag as such but you know what I wouldn’t campaign against him from day one, its not my nature and its just small minded & pathetic.
Would I prefer another leader(if Nick were to go) from the same leaning as him, yes, but I will back, support and fight for whoever that may be….can all of you really say the same…and before you answer maybe look back at your historical posts!
@ TCO could not agree more with your final statement about demonising any person or party, it does us no good, makes us look small minded, weak and afraid. Not only is illiberal but just so utterly simplistic….just as when the red tops lump all Muslims in together as one mass, like every Muslim likes each other or thinks the same. We dont stand for that but when we talk about our political opponents it seems fine to use these simplistic and rather childish labels.
This is all good when at Uni maybe, the good old NUS do rather love that type of thing, but their thuggish mentality seems to permeate far to far in to later life for some.
That we also seem to just gun for the Tories while Labour are seen as “not that nice…but ok” again belies the reality and lets them off for some of the truly horrific things they did between 97-10.
Sure we all have Tory friends or even family, would we really call them these names to their face? label them as such for a political belief? think that says a lot more about the people that act that way then the people they pin it on.
Rabhi you say “This name calling of “Tory boy” or “dirty ornage booker” is not just old school yard bullying, but shows that instead of a proper argument we are sneered at and not challenged on an intellectual or cerebral level.” But a search on LDV finds no references ever to the phrase to “dirty orange booker” at all nor to “dirty ornage booker” for those with finger trouble. Are you just inventing statements to whip up some sort of hysteria? I think we all should know.
Apologies, it should be Rabih, noy Rabhi.
@David some recent threads have seen the phrase “Orange Booker” used in a disparaging way.
I don’t have the facilities to search but the gist was no orange booker could support the preamble hence was not a proper Liberal.
@David you should know by now any post making reference to someone else’s typo will contain one itself 🙂
@ David Evans
I haven’t seen that particular example of name-calling but there have been plenty of references to ‘entryists’, ‘market fundamentalists’, ‘extreme free-market types’, ‘extreme right-wing ideologues’, ‘Ayn Rand sympathisers’ etc etc and when milder epithets are thrown in the other direction (say ‘soft-left social democrat’ or ‘producer-oriented’ or whatever) there follows much tut-tutting, accusations of extremism and history lessons about what it means to be a mainstream liberal and why it is a misreading of history to think the Liberals were ever a party that supported free trade and open markets as well as freedom in other spheres.
Often there is a rather parochial assumption that ‘liberal’ means only what certain Liberal Democrats define it to be – rather than, say, other Lib Dems with different shades of opinion, or the large proportion of the British public who think of themselves as liberal but don’t identify with the Lib Dems, or magazines like the Economist which most people in most places around the world would describe as ‘liberal’ in a generally accepted sense at least as much as the Guardian can be called liberal, or what political historians or philosophers would define as the liberal tradition.
Of course it would be unfair to paint all those who dislike the influence of so-called Orange Book ideas (which, as I showed above, is a rather mixed bag, so I’m using it as a portmanteau term for a move in the direction of economic liberalism and/or the political centre rather than left-of-Labour) as intolerant of those expressing such views. Many I have debated with here on LDV are courteous and constructive and at least engage with the arguments. They are also sincere and passionate in their own views, and frustrated by the electoral plight of the Lib Dems, and it is understandable that occasionally this should bubble over. But I do recognise the tendency cited by Rabih and TCO to dismiss by way of labelling and pigeon-holing those whose views are seen as heretical.
That’s just my perspective and it’s inevitably biased and subjective. One thing’s for sure: the tenor of debate in this forum is a model of civility compared to the kind of thing you can find by a cursory glance through the comments sections of the newspaper websites…
@ Alex Sabine
“None of the authors questioned the government’s role in ensuring access to high-quality public services and expanding individual opportunity.”
Firstly I am sorry I have given you (and others maybe) the impression that the “some of these people” meant I was talking exclusively about the authors of the Orange Book.
Secondly there is a difference in your sentence and mine – “and expanding individual opportunity” verses “using the power of the government to increase the liberty and freedom of individuals.” Expanding opportunity does not necessary equal increasing liberty and freedom for everyone, but it can do it for some.
@ Rabih Makki
To be called a Tory is not a nice thing, but there is a reason. It seems to me that the reason why a party member might be called a Tory would be because the person calling them that believes that they have views that a Tory held in the past. This is likely to be a reflection of the change in the Conservative Party over the last 40 years. There might be other issues as well.
This situation seems to have become worse over the years and I wonder if this is because some people have said that those on the left should leave the party if they are not happy with us being in coalition as well as the claim that their view of liberalism was in some way better. I don’t recall any calls before 2010 that any right wing members of the Liberal Democrats should leave the party.
However I disagree with you about dissent in the party. Liberals have always been those who wish to make known that they disagree particularly with the leadership, because they reject the idea that the leader should decide on where we are going. This is likely to go back to our view of humanity and our trust in democracy and mistrust of monarchs and oligarchies. (I recall that Paddy Ashdown when leader received a lot of criticism from party members.)
@ Michael BG, not sure being called a Tory, socialist or any other political persuasion should ever be used as an insult or put down, its rather lazy, untrue and says a lot more about the person wielding the insult that the person receiving it.
Yes you can say someone is more inclined one way or another politically but that the very word Tory is now so toxic as to be used as an insult is not our issue, but that it is used for anyone that doesn’t blindly follow those from a certain part of the Liberator front of the party is pretty distasteful.
It has as you point out become worse as many on here, at conference and in general try in there eyes to “save” the party or wrestle it back to what they think it should sit….totally forgetting thats what they want and its doesn’t mean its right(nor wrong) but should be debated and talked about and not enforced yet again by a powerful clique that want to run the party in their image as their personal play thing.
Lets hope whatever May 8th brings there isn’t a bloodbath of sorts within the party with those on the left using that as an opportunity to drive out, or at least make to feel very unwelcome, those who don’t agree with them on everything. I fear it will happen, I fear the smug smiles are building on their faces, I fear the “told you so” will be used to justify everything that comes and I fear that while we may bounce back in the polls we will become irrelevant and forgot again as the “nice but totally unelectable party’ ….2 weeks to go, lets see if my fears are borne out.
No response to my question from Rabih, but a couple from his best mate TCO which bypass the point. So I repeat my question to Rabih “Are you just inventing statements to whip up some sort of hysteria? I think we all should know.”
@MichaelBG ” I don’t recall any calls before 2010 that any right wing members of the Liberal Democrats should leave the party.”
There’s a simple reason for that. Prior to 2010 the “right” (lazy shorthand which I don’t subscribe to) were not perceived as a threat because the more left of centre world view and party members prevailed. That situation reversed with the election of Clegg – because the certainties, power and influence of the “left” had been usurped (in their view), and like any group used to power, prestige, privilege and patronage they have fought bitterly to take it back.
@ David Evans I have replied but every time my comment is not posted…suffice to say this is not the only forum that those comments are leveled at me and others and also face to face….bottom line you’re wrong and if ever I have the misfortune of bumping in to you I will tell you that to your face.
The last real leader of the LibDems. I could have voted for you as regards broad politics but as a supporter of Independence that was to big a gap.
I hope you enjoy your forthcoming “retirement” and that is said with genuine best wishes and a gentle mock from an SNP member 🙂
You have to pick a side and fight for it!
All, first I want to apologise if I upset or offended anyone, not my intention.
I called Caron yesterday to chat and have apologised directly to her and do so again here publically for taking up her time and energy when in the middle of a hard fought election.
She and many others rightly say we have much more important things to do at the moment and she is correct, I have “pledged” to respect that wish to keep things civil and without personal attacks or assumptions.
I would say David Evans that saying you have made no such assumptions is breath taking…you should be a politician!
Without getting in to it again calling me a “keyboard warrior” without knowing or having the first clue about what I have and continue to do for the party is an assumption. As is dismissing me and others as “Tories” just because we don’t agree with you and you outlook….again not just an assumption but wrong, rude and untrue.
I would suggest that post-election some of us on here meet face to face and discuss in a friendly atmosphere be it in London or at conference in Bournemouth, we may never be chums but we are members of the same party so let’s at least understand each other and work for OUR party and not just our self-interest.
So that’s my public apology which in unconditional and my public olive branch to meet and resolve things if we can.
Look forward to some positive replies….or at least replied which don’t take about Carn’s or anyone else’s time havimng to moderate us. Thanks.