Leadership: it isn't just the responsibility of the leader

I have to admit that I've watched the events of the past few days with increasing despair.

I'll be honest, I didn't vote for Ming as my first choice (he got my second preference). Naturally, I thought that my choice (Chris Huhne) was better, but I accepted the verdict of the membership as I had in the past (in fairness, having voted for Beith against Ashdown and Rendel against Kennedy, I had little choice!). Like many non-Parliamentarians or denizens of Cowley Street, I had no knowledge of Charles Kennedy's drinking problems, and was surprised by the rapidity with which he was removed, even if the execution was sloppy - we're nice people, or is that simply an excuse for not being very good?

And here we are again. The Press have decided that Ming is wounded, and fatally so, on the basis of a very selective sampling of individual bloggers, regardless of their relative credibility. It might not be so bad but for the comments of anonymous senior Liberal Democrat insiders, whoever they may be, whether or not they actually exist.

In an ideal world, the Chair of the Parliamentary Party in the Commons (in this instance, Paul Holmes), our Leader in the Lords (Tom McNally) and the President (as representative of the wider membership) would take soundings, form and agree a conclusion, and go to the Leader with either a declaration of loyalty or a pearl-handled revolver. Unfortunately, this can't happen as Simon Hughes has a clear conflict of interest.

So how does the membership have its say, or who can speak for it? And that is our problem. We have no effective mouthpiece for our views, either pro or anti-Ming, and into this vacuum step the not-so-massed ranks of Liberal Democrat bloggers, compounded by the general fecklessness of journalists, so many of whom seek a story, any story, as long as it causes debate, even where it doesn't exist.

Perhaps the Chairs of the English, Welsh and Scottish State Parties could step blinking into the sunlight? It is a lot to ask of Brian Orrell, Rob Humphreys and AN Other (I can't locate the Chair/Convenor of the Scottish Executive Committee, even on their website), and given that, in the case of Brian, they can't claim a broad mandate - he's elected by the members of English Council, a group notable only for its usual lack of competition for membership - it perhaps is a step too far for them to be asked to take.

I've urged for a degree of restraint, or at least, that people consider the likelihood of their comments being interpreted in a manner not wholly compatible with their actual intent, but have realised that in a Party which treasures the individual, any hope that we could coalesce around an agreed stance is pretty futile and, frankly, not entirely liberal.

So let's either do the deed, or accept what we have, a perfectly decent man who cares deeply for his nation, his Party and our cause. But dithering makes us look weak, and occupies too many of the best and brightest minds of our Party in a doomed exercise in damage limitation, both personal and corporate. If Ming has the support of the two Parliamentary Parties, they should be able to demonstrate it soon enough.

Leaving it to Ming to "do the honourable thing" is a cop-out. He wanted to be Leader, I can't imagine that he doesn't want the job now, and asking him to be altruistic asks far too much of any man. Very few people are capable of making an entirely objective evaluation of their own performance, especially when it comes to deciding upon their own 'political mortality'. Allow him his dignity, he's done plenty enough for liberal democracy to merit it.

But for the benefit of any journalists who might be reading this, you'll notice that I'm not calling for a particular decision, just that a decision be made. In a crisis, whether real or imagined, kudos goes to the person who makes a decision, justifies it and sticks with it...

Ming Campbell: does being a Liberal Democrat mean never having to accept the result?

As Conference arrives, and the background rumbling for and against Ming Campbell’s leadership continues, I am moved to think about what I want from the Party leadership and, equally important, from my fellow activists (the Daily Telegraph called me an activist, and who am I to doubt them?). Now don’t get me wrong, this won’t be an attack or defence of the reign of Ming the Merciless, or of any named individual, more a reflection on the hows, whys and wherefores of ‘power’.

I didn’t vote for Ming, opting instead to support Chris Huhne. I thought that he demonstrated a greater sense of radicalism – and don’t let those on the ‘left’ of our Party fool anyone that they have the copyright on that word – and would argue cogently for a coherent philosophy. I didn’t mind Ming particularly, felt that he would be a safe pair of hands, and accordingly gave him my second preference as an insurance policy. And so Ming won, having convinced armchair members that, after the convulsions of the Kennedy ‘assassination’, his measured approach was what the Party needed. I was disappointed, but the members had spoken, and as any good democrat should, I accepted the outcome.

Since then, the mutterings have started, less surprisingly, from some of those who voted for Chris or for Simon Hughes, and then, less edifyingly, from some who voted for Ming, and seem to be surprised that, having voted for a safe pair of hands, that is exactly what they got. However, regardless of the background for their dissatisfaction, I am puzzled by the public vitriol with which the debate has been carried out, the defensiveness with which we’ve handled external criticism, and the apparent lack of political nous from some elements of our ranks.

The Conservatives have been quite aggressive in their condemnation of Ming, and have picked on him for his age, his relative docility and approach to Prime Ministers’ Questions. It may not be rocket science but why are we surprised? They don’t like us, they never have done, and they never will. And frankly, given our glee at the increasing signs of dissent on ConservativeHome and the like, why do we think that our own displays of dissent don’t bring joy to the hearts of Conservatives?

Yes, be unhappy with Ming all you like, but try to do so within the context in which he was elected. The membership wanted an Edinburgh lawyer with a safe pair of hands, and that is what they got. To then demand that he demonstrate flair, adventure and radicalism seems grossly unfair, even if that is what you wanted in the first place. Having your own public platform, and having a blog linked to the Aggregator gives you exactly that, obliges one to demonstrate a degree of restraint. As a rule (not unfailingly adhered to, I confess), I tend to think about the impact on external, i.e. non-Liberal Democrat, readers, especially in terms of how my words might be interpreted.

And naturally, for the 99%+ of Liberal Democrats who don’t blog, or at least if they do, don’t blog for a ‘mass’ audience, the frustration when one of our number get picked up by the wider media in a negative light is huge. For example, my fellow colleagues fighting the Stonebridge by-election would be highly unimpressed if I made a public statement condemning the Council Group, and not unreasonably so. In fact, many senior Liberal Democrats think that what we do is indulgent and a use of time better spent on winning elections.

So, what do I want from a leader? Well, I want to be inspired, whether by his/her rhetoric or by their example. I want them to be able to articulate what we stand for with conviction and consistency. I don’t want them to get too involved in the machinery of the Party’s internal workings – we have a President and a Chief Executive for that – although encouragement for the bureaucracy to reflect the Party’s core philosophy would be nice. In turn, the Party has to develop and, more importantly, consistently express those themes best designed to attract voters to liberal democracy. It isn’t just about the leader, you know, it’s about what he/she is able to say.

And next time we have to elect a leader, think about what you want from him or her, decide if any of the candidates reflect sufficient of that to merit your support, and go out there and actively campaign for them. Armchair members of our Party tend towards supporting the safe pair of hands, unless someone gives them reason to think differently. That someone might be you. How about it?