My estimable colleague and our Editor-in-Chief, Caron Lindsay, wrote yesterday asking the question, “Is Ed Davey toast?”. And a fine question it is too, although I’m perhaps not the obvious person to answer it.
So, instead, I’m first going to look at the mechanics of it all. With the Parliamentary Party in the Commons due to meet tomorrow, what are the options?
- Charlie Maynard has moved in the confidence that he can secure enough votes to defeat Ed, and Ed knows it. That would potentially trigger Article 18.2(a) of the Federal Constitution:
the Leader asking for an election
- Nobody is really sure, there’s no obvious choice, but there are enough votes to defeat Ed in a confidence vote. That triggers Article 18.2(e)
a vote of no confidence in the Leader being passed by a majority of all Members of the Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons
or, Article 18.2(d)
the receipt by the President of the resignation of the Leader or of a declaration of intent to resign upon the election of a new Leader;
Of course, none of these could happen, but that doesn’t present members from getting involved. Article 18.2(f) allows for a leadership election to be triggered by:
the receipt by the President of a requisition submitted by at least 75 Local Parties (including for this purpose, the Affiliated Organisation or Organisations representing youth and/or students) following the decision of a quorate general meeting
That’s more difficult than it used to be, as the number of Local Parties has shrunk over the years through various mergers and reorganisations on the basis of local government boundaries.
And, despite the conjecture and press speculation, we don’t have a clearcut idea as to where the majority of the Parliamentary Party in the Commons lies. Whilst Politics.co.uk lists eighteen MPs who have publicly announced their support for Ed, that still leaves him potentially short of a majority.
Alright, so much for the mechanics. But let’s assume that Ed is toast. What next?
Are there a collection of viable candidates for the leadership, or a clear “young pretender”?. Personally, I’m not seeing the latter and, viewing the landscape from distant Suffolk, whilst I might have some personal preferences, most of the Parliamentary Party are still pretty raw in terms of experience. That’s not to say that they couldn’t lead the Party, but I’d suggest that the wider Party would want to take a “good look under the bonnet” first.
And what is the Party looking for in a new leader? Policy changes? Not entirely within the control of a leader, although one might choose to emphasise different policy areas. Better media profile? Again, not entirely within the control of any leader – t’was always thus.
So, before anyone gets too excited about the possibility of a new Leader, I would offer the following questions:
- What do we want that is different, and is a leadership change, as opposed to a change of leadership approach, likely to achieve that?
- If there is a possibility that we might go into coalition after the General Election (and I would argue that there is), what skills and experience would be most likely to produce a better outcome than the 2010-15 Coalition did?
I guess that I am, unlike some, more sanguine about the answers to those questions, as I have reconciled myself to being part of the Party’s past than its future. I do care deeply for the party still but, more important, I care that there is a strong liberal political force campaigning for personal freedom within the framework of strong communities. Hopefully, that’s the Liberal Democrats.
* Mark Valladares is the Monday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Caroline Voaden on what Shovegate tells us about Nigel Farage
The historic link of the monarchy to the slave trade
Cllr Kieran Dams, previously with Greens, joins Lib Dems
Oh no, it can't be Christmas already.
David Evans
David Raw
Jonathan Parry
Mick Taylor
16 Comments
Public endorsements do not necessarily reflect the private confidence vote. If eighteen MPs are declared for Ed but a majority is unclear, the parliamentary party’s mood tomorrow will be decisive.
A third question:-
What is the chance of Burnham calling a general election – while we might be in the throes of electing a new leader?
@nonconformistradical – The only people who want a GE now are self-obsessed politicians who are more interested in playing political point scoring games than actually delivering anything that benefits the nation. currently, I put Burnham in the trying to deliver something that benefits the general public camp…
Mark is right to raise questions he does, given I suggest a major problem the party has had is marketing and PR. People have commented on Ed’s capers as he tries to attract any publicity for the party. This absence of branding has permitted Kemi to lump the LibDems in with Labour and for no one to question it.
@ Mark Valladares “That’s more difficult than it used to be, as the number of Local Parties has shrunk over the years through various mergers and reorganisations on the basis of local government boundaries.”
It’s a bit more than just that, Mark. Has anybody got stats on how many local parties in the former counties of Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Staffordshire, Cheshire, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Durham, Northumberland and Cumbria plus Wales and Scotland have fallen into oblivion since 2010 ? I can remember packed out meetings in Huddersfield Town Hall to hear Jo Grimond.
Back in the early sixties LPO would have got my old friend Michael Meadowcroft to sort that out and to revive them. I bet its not happening now.
I don’t think it is a fine question. It wasn’t aimed at Nick Clegg when the party were in coalition and down to 6% in the polls. Us Lib Dems for Change were labelled as ‘traitors’ for signing a petition against Clegg’s leadership. I think it’s designed to provoke a reaction.
Why would Burnham call an election now? I’m preparing for a full length parliament. On that basis I don’t see the need for a new leader today. Ed is a very competent professional. He isn’t a infront of the cameras man. Why do we need one at this moment? As Harold Wilson said “a week is a long time in politics”.
@ Alex B ” He isn’t a in front of the cameras man.”
So was it a stunt double who fell in the water, then ?
Sorry AlexB I disagree. SirEd and/or a senior spokesperson does need to be regularly in front of a camera. There is a battle for attention and a party saying nothing will at best be ignored. Comfortable three party politics is over and we need a leader who has a bit of a street fighter in him. SirEd may now be secure for a year but he must shape up.
Historically leaders of our party and its predecessor had a fairly lenghty tenure in the post war period. Clement Davies eleven years, three General Elections, Jo Grimond eleven years, three General Elections, Jeremy Thorpe nine years, three General Elections, David Steel 12 years, three General Elections, Paddy Ashdown eleven years, two General Elections, Charles Kennedy seven years, two General Elections and Nick Clegg eight years, two General Elections. In the cases of Thorpe and Kennedy they probably would have lasted longer had it not been for issues outside of politics bringing them down.
Following the 2015 hammering we had leadership instability with Tim Farron only lasting two years, same with Vince who given his age was only ever going to be a caretaker leader. Then Jo Swinson followed of course by Ed.
Now we have a parliamentary party of 72 MPs instead of one that barely got into double figures there are a lot more potential aspirants for the top job and more than two years into this parliament most of them have found there feet hence the jockeying for position.
I am not one of those calling for a leadership election now but I am looking for a strategy that takes us beyond being competitive in 100 or so parliamentary constituencies. At the present time I can’t see that.
The present leadership is unable or cannot take us beyond 80 let alone 100
Until recently in party briefings we were asked to take solace from the fact that Ed had the best net favourability rating of all party leaders. Not anymore – he’s now behind both Burnham and Badenoch.
But what should really have us worried is the YouGov issues tracker that tracks how the public views all the partys on various issues.
On the issues of “Which political party would be the best at handling defence and security?” and “Which political party do you think would leave you financially best off if they won the next election?” we rank lowest. EVEN BELOW THE GREENS.
It’s hard to think of issues more fundamental than who do you trust to keep you safe and make you better off, so this really isn’t good enough.
I don’t believe we have the worst *policies* on these issues, so this represents a colossal failure of presentation and delivery. As the most (verging on only) visible Lib Dem, with control over campaign messaging and priorities, Ed must shoulder the responsibility for this.
Something has to change, because we can’t rely on people voting for us to keep the other lot out forever, when the voters trust the other lot more than us on key issues.
@Nick Baird
The other thing about Davey’s popularity ratings as leader is that, yes, he was generally more net popular than Starmer or until recently Badenoch (Farage or Polanski aren’t trying for broad appeal in the first place) … but he always had a lot more “don’t knows” than the other four, and that’s even worse for someone who’s been in the job for seven years.
If Davey did something hypothetical that gained him +10 positive and -15 negative, his net popularity would drop, but it would probably be overall beneficial to both him and the wider party.
Layla Moran.
Alternatively Ed could step down voluntarily, which in my view would be better.
He has had a good long run, leaves on a high, and is not cutting through. I think I’m right in remembering a Conference not so long ago when he actually said publicly that he wanted to be the most boring politician?
We can then go straight to a leadership race and have it done and dusted by Christmas? -ready for Spring Conference and the May ’27 elections whatever/wherever they are/will be (in Hampshire its not at all clear) that’s the earliest possible realistic moment for a snap election.
We have plenty of people to choose from, either new or seasoned. Lack of experience certainly isn’t holding back the other parties, I expect it’s a steep learning curve whoever you are.
Burnham might even offer Ed a job doing the Social Care thing which would probably suit everyone very well, safe pair of hands etc.etc. and he’d probably do it brilliantly.
Me too, Layla Moran!
Layla!