Keep calm, and give our MPs some space...

No declared candidates, lots of rumours, and the first signs that the leadership contest may not be the edifying, inspiring event that it really ought to be. Not a great start.

I am disturbed that members are already urging individuals to declare their intentions to run. Look, the job of Leader is a tough one. It requires the post holder to make sacrifices that most of us cannot comprehend. It exposes you to increasingly microscopic and often hostile examination of your life, the lives of friends and family, and makes you the bearer of the dreams and aspirations of Party members, not all of whom display sufficient tolerance when things don't go to plan. In short, you've got to be pretty bloody committed in order to want the job.

MPs are people too. They juggle the various elements of their lives in order to fulfil their obligations to constituents and to their loved ones, just like the rest of us.

So, let them have the time and space to talk to partners, family and trusted friends, consider the implications and then announce their decision. Don't pressure them to be what you want or need.

As for the nascent attack lines against specific MPs, let me take this opportunity to utterly condemn Dominic McCaffrey for his written assassination of Jo Swinson in the Independent. Attacking one person on their record without having the decency to run a fair comparison with their presumed preferred alternative is shabby in the extreme, and if there is any suggestion that he has colluded with another candidate as part of the drafting process, you can be confident that my support for that person will be limited at best. Ironic really, given that she isn't actually running...

So, less conjecture, more patience is my advice. And, once we've identified the field, then let informed debate begin.

Queensbury Rules for a modern Leadership contest

Great, another leadership contest... just what the Liberal Democrats were crying out for. Or not, perhaps. Frankly, whilst Tim didn't handle the whole 'gay sex' thing terribly well, and a far better response was available than the one he gave, whilst he had the support of my friends in the LGBT community, I was willing to turn Nelson's eye towards the matter. It is his actions rather than his personal beliefs that actually impact on people's lives, and it seems that his record on Parliamentary votes was well nigh impeccable.

But it wasn't to be, and the grey men came for him. It's not clear who they were yet, and even less clear who exactly they spoke for, and I can't say that I'm awfully impressed. Jonathan Calder has already put it rather well when he suggests that whilst you can claim to be a democratic Party all you like, if a decision of the membership can be overturned by an anonymous cabal, you don't really have proper democratic control.

And, like Bill Le Breton, I'd like names too, if only so that I know who to hold to account. However, unless we're going to quiz every potential suspect, and we can validate what responses are given, the identity of the 'delegation' can only be conjecture, and a witch hunt would be deeply unedifying. That, of course, hasn't stopped elements of the Party in the past...

As to the succession, I know as much and as little as anyone. There are only eleven potential candidates, which does rather narrow the field, and some of those will rule themselves out as the days pass by.

I'm not minded to indicate support for any candidate at this stage. Until nominations close, the nature of the field is unknown, and whilst if given a range of choices, I might prefer one candidate over another, until offered an actual choice, I'm not disposed to providing even a glimpse of my thought process yet.

However, I would like to offer some advice to anyone out there thinking of running (in no particular order);

1. Don't go negative. If you do, I'll assume that you don't have as much to positively offer as your campaigning might suggest. If you win, I'll think less of you, and to be honest, you need me rather more than I need you. After all, without me, and thousands like me, you lead a shell of a political party. And as for me, I could give the time and energy that I currently expend on the Party to something else, or in a different way. Oh and if you lose, you will probably have damaged the winner. I recall both Huhne vs Clegg and Lamb vs Farron achieving that only too vividly.
2. Offer a vision. Vision is important. Yes, I want a shining city on a hill, yes I want chocolates and a long-stemmed rose. Or a pony. But definitely a vision for the Party. Have one, and articulate it.
3. Talk to people beyond the bubble before you get elected. Find out why the volunteer Party volunteers, and tell me why it should volunteer for you. Demonstrate that you understand how the Party really works - some of the previous job holders really haven't got that, and it's made the relationship between leader and led rather prickly. I also expect you to work with the Party President and respect their office...

There's probably more that I should include, and I'll probably revisit this before too long, but one should always get some thoughts out there whilst they might be noticed and make a difference...

A new Leader in the Lords... some thoughts from a close observer

So, the count took place, with both candidates and the outgoing Leader present, under the close watch of the Deputy Chief Whip, Christine Humphreys, and I was able to declare the result as being;

Dick Newby 59 votes, Robin Teverson 44 votes

Close, but no cigar, for the former MEP, but it was no disgrace to pick up more than 40% of the votes.  I wouldn't be surprised to see him take on a leadership role in the future.

Dick Newby has been on my radar for more than three decades now, from his SDP days. He, like I, has a Civil Service background, he was predominantly a back room influence but now has the challenging job of leading a Group which is not always easily led.

His first task will be to persuade someone to come forward to assume his former role as Chief Whip, a job which some might say is a bit harder than that of Leader. After all, how do you instil discipline into a group of people who are there for life and who have done or been most things already? Not so much enforcer as persuader.

I will have to get used to a new Leader too. When I first started seeing Ros, Tom McNally was into his third year as Leader. I tended to refer to him as the 'Glorious Leader', at first as a mark of respect, and then, as we got to know each other, out of warmth. Indeed, I still refer to him as 'Glorious Leader' when we occasionally run into each other, adding the suffix 'Emeritus' in deference to the fact that we have had a new Leader since.

Jim Wallace hasn't been in post anywhere near as long as Tom was, and we haven't had as much contact - my relocation to Suffolk makes me a relatively infrequent visitor, and there don't seem to be as many gatherings of the Group and spouses as there were - but he seems nice enough.

And so, we wait to see what a Newby leadership brings. The Group will evolve, and almost certainly shrink too. There are a number of members in their eighties, who may not welcome many more years of service, and with replenishments at the mercy of Theresa May, who I don't think is likely to be generous, the burden of opposition will fall on those who remain. Luckily, the recent intakes of new blood are keen and sharp.

Me, I'll be an occasional visitor to Whips Office, as and when circumstance brings me to Westminster, and I'm sure that Ros will keep me up to date with those stories that she can share. And I wish Dick good fortune. He'll bring his own thoughts to the role, and I'm confident that he'll do everything he can to make the Liberal Democrat voice heard in the Upper Chamber...

[insert title here] - 19 October 2015

Something to look forward to next week in the Lords

The Parliamentary Party in the Lords increases by two next week, as Shas Sheehan is introduced on Monday, and Jonny Oates on Tuesday. I really ought to write about this for Liberal Democrat Voice, oughtn't I?


On this day... in 2007

Is it really eight years since the Clegg versus Huhne leadership contest got underway? It must be, because I was getting ready to chair the first public hustings in Newbury the next day. As usual, I was somewhat undecided. Luckily, I had Ros to keep in on the straight and narrow...


Never let it be said that I don't know how to have a good time...

This evening's task is to draw up a system for selecting our Party's delegations to ALDE's Council and Congress. Gender, ethnicity, nations, all of these have to be carefully counterbalanced and accounted for. I may be gone some time... At least you'll know who's fault it is...


New York, New York...

If someone had told me two months ago that I would have been watching a World Series contender, I would have laughed at you. Yes, the New York Mets, the Cinderella of New York baseball, are two-nil up in the best of seven National League Championship Series against the Chicago Cubs. But, Ros and I can claim that we saw them play if they go all the way. Their likely opponents, the Kansas city Royals, who are two-nil up against the Toronto Blue Jays in the American league equivalent. We saw them play the Boston Red Sox two weeks later...

If Jeremy Corbyn is the answer, what does that say about the relationship between Labour's Parliamentary Party and its ordinary members?

Obviously, I don't have a dog in the increasingly curious fight that is the contest for the Labour Party leadership. Indeed, it isn't important to me who wins, although the views they advance will be of interest in due course. But the emerging fears amongst those within the Labour Party who are stepping forward to condemn Jeremy Corbyn seem to demonstrate something that I've suspected for some time, i.e. that there is a divergence between some senior Labour figures and their membership base.

It doesn't take a genius to spot that, here in Suffolk, most of the buzz is pro-Corbyn. I follow a few leading Labour activists in these parts, and they are fairly, though not ludicrously, left-wing. They believe in redistribution, in the role of the state to support people and in taxing the rich. What I might call, traditional Labour, now I come to think about it. Admittedly, they weren't terribly successful in these parts in May, failing to win the county's two marginal seats - Ipswich and Waveney - but you do know what they believe in.

And, it seems, the Guardian-reading, granola-knitting fraternity appear to be unhappy too. They hate the Conservatives, and see the role of a Labour opposition to, well, oppose the Conservatives. Easy, really.

So, with a leadership contest to get their teeth into, you might expect the four contenders to seek to buff up their appeal to the people with the power, the ordinary party members and tack to the left. Except Liz Kendall, of course.

The Welfare and Reform Bill is an obvious place to start. It is a fairly unpleasant piece of legislation, likely to hurt the poor, the sick and the vulnerable - an obvious Labour cause. And yet, Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper have, for whatever reason, hedged and trimmed, leaving Jeremy Corbyn as the only one attacking the Government.

If you're an angry, left-wing Labour supporter, determined to fight the evil Tories, you'll want a leader likely to do that. You are, it could be argued, left with only one credible choice.

Yvette, Andy and Liz will argue that they are credible too, and they'd be right. The problem is, the people they are credible with aren't necessarily helpful, because they mostly aren't members of the Labour Party. Supporters, maybe, but not actually members, thus not voters in the selection.

Someone will doubtless tell me that, it's about selecting a candidate who can win and be Prime Minister one day. And yes, that's what you might want in the medium and long term. But, unless you win the selection, your credibility with centrist voters is irrelevant. The dilemma is obvious, but in dwelling on the consequential stuff, three of the four candidates risk conceding the contest to the candidate least likely to be seen as widely credible.

And the apparent groundswell of support for Jeremy Corbyn appears to have come as a complete surprise to people like Margaret Beckett, who called herself a moron for nominating Corbyn in order to ensure that a range of views were heard. It might imply that she doesn't come across ordinary members that much, or that the huge increase in membership has left senior figures struggling to work out who these new members are and what they want.

Might it be that the policy of parachuting bright young things for London into safe seats in the North and Wales has left a gulf between members and MPs? Or is it more fundamental than that? This may not be a good time to get the answers...

We have a new overlord, it seems. Well done Tim, and well done to Norman too...

So, the white smoke has come, and Tim Farron has won by a rather wider margin than his predecessor did eight years ago. I'm pleased that the margin is unquestionable, but also that Norman did as well as he did do. 43.5% is more than respectable, and it means that he has earned the right to be as serious a player in the future of the Party as he wishes to. Given his obvious ability, that can only be to the advantage of the liberal cause.

It is interesting to see the response below the line on the various websites. The irreconcilables are, still, irreconcilable but, frankly, the fact that they see fit to post how disinterested they are rather undermines that apparent stance. There are others who continue to take great delight in attacking the Party for supposedly enabling the Conservatives. I tend to think that the electorate have some responsibiity there too but wonder if these people were listening to the likes of Rachel Reeves on the subject of welfare. Probably not, as that might challenge them to question their own prejudices.

There are, astonishingly, those who consider that a new leader offers the best hope for social democracy in this country. I do hope not, as I'm a liberal.

And finally, there are those who believe that we should all just give up and go home. Bearing in mind that they aren't liberals and apparently have no interest in hearing an alternative voice, we can safely ignore them.

No, there are millions of people in this country who, if given a reason to vote Liberal Democrat, will do so happily. Will they agree with us on everything? Probably not, after all, even party members disagree amongst themselves - it's part of the liberal DNA. It's our job to make the case of liberal democracy, do it well and rebuild trust again.

So, Tim, good luck. From the snippets of your speech this evening that I've seen, you came across as suspiciously human, and that's a damned good thing. We will probably disagree from time to time, and that's healthy, but if you can inspire the sort of respect that has appeared in my Twitter feed this evening from a surprisingly wide range of people, you're not likely to go far wrong...

Leadership contest: "Regrets, I've had a few, but then again, (almost) too few to mention..."

And so, polls have closed, and the candidates await their fate. Whilst they do, I thought that I might reflect on the events of the past ten weeks or so.

Firstly, whilst I have voted for Tim Farron, I would have no real concerns if the membership chose Norman Lamb. He has performed well, confirmed that he is a wonderful exponent of liberal values, and has risen in my estimation (albeit that he didn't have an awful lot of scope to do so - I have always held him in high regard). Indeed, if the Party's circumstances had been different, I could easily have found myself supporting him instead of Tim.

It has, for the most part, been an interesting campaign, especially if you don't take it too seriously. Neither candidate has ventured into the wonderful county that is Suffolk, although Norman might, occasionally, have glanced out of the window on his regular commute between Norwich and London (it's very nice between Diss and Manningtree, Norman...).

Having made up my mind and cast my vote, nobody has seemed too bothered about involving me in either of the campaigns, so I have remained beyond any partisanship, which is nice.

And that brings me to my regret. You see, leadership campaigns tend to highlight, usually unintentionally, some of the less savoury sides of political campaigning. This puzzles me because, it seems, such bad behaviour is much more likely to be noticed, and exposed, during a high-profile campaign. It also implies that the values of such people are out of keeping with the underlying one of the candidate they are espousing.

This campaign has been no exception. References to 'real liberals' (as opposed to those awful ersatz ones you get on market stalls in South London), or negative campaigning when your candidate is talking a good game about positivity and optimism, do neither you, nor your candidate, any good. And, to put it bluntly, I think rather less of you as a result. Not enough to disown you or anything, but enough to be disappointed. You're probably a good person otherwise, but you've sown the seed of doubt in my mind. I may not give you the benefit of the doubt in future, which is a pity.

And, regardless of the result, we, that is, all of us, need to pull together for the cause we believe in. Yes, we may disagree on the route to be taken, or the mode of transport, but we do believe in the same thing, liberalism. So, if you are thinking about attacking another Party member in a public forum, or even just using harsh language in response to them, do think again. It isn't clever, and it isn't worth it.

If there is a consolation though, it is that we haven't had it as bad as the Labour Party is. Don't feel that you have to prove me wrong though...

Data breach allegations: Mark Gettleson communicates strategically...

It now seems to be generally accepted that Norman Lamb was not involved in the decisions that led to accusations of data protection breaches and push polling over the weekend. It did seem unlikely, knowing what I know of Norman, but one wanted to be reassured. But, whilst we wait to hear more about Gavin Grant's role in events, there is time to analyse young Mark Gettleson's statement, as published in the Guardian today.

The survey we conducted was not a ‘push poll’,” he said. “A push poll is an unethical campaign activity, where an untrue or unverified statement is pushed towards a wide audience with the sole aim of distorting their views.

I agree with Mark when he claims that a push poll is unethical - it takes a special lack of awareness to believe anything else. But his definition of what push polling is can be challenged.

Wikipedia defines a push poll as "an interactive marketing technique, most commonly employed during political campaigning, in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of voters under the guise of conducting a poll". 

Mark admits to holding very strong views about Tim Farron and his suitability for the position of Party leader, and I do find myself wondering if the Lamb campaign's early references to 'real liberalism' and 'consistent liberalism' came from him. It is noticeable that, in his statement to the Guardian, he refers to 'Tim Farron's illiberal record'.

So, Mark needs to answer some questions;

1. Were those people contacted told that they were being called on behalf of the Lamb campaign?
2. What use was intended for the results?
3. In what form was the data transferred to the third party organisation?
4. Who paid for the work to be done?

Mark Gettleson is a 'strategic communications professional'. He may want to make a more convincing case for that self-description over the coming days...

Newly organised, an ex-bureaucrat reaches for the stars...

I've just returned to work after a couple of days off, spent getting my life in order. I had rather allowed things to pile up to the point that I was frozen in the headlights of an oncoming truck marked 'administrative overload', and Ros persuaded me that some time spent on my paperwork would allow me to dig my way back to the light. I wouldn't say that I'm entirely up to date, but close enough...

Tomorrow, I head for Newbury for the South Central Regional Conference, originally intending to appear in my capacity as European Returning Officer. However, things seldom work out as planned, and I was then appointed to be the Returning Officer for the Regional Executive elections. So far, so good. Now, I find myself chairing what is described as "an opportunity for members to hear and question the declared leadership candidates". This is not, I repeat not, a hustings, in that nominations haven't closed yet, and Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne, or Chris Huhne and Nick Clegg, depending on your perspective, will not actually be on the platform at the same time other than to shake hands.

I should warn anyone expecting a polished chairing performance that I've chaired a European hustings meeting (ironically, in Canterbury last Saturday), but am unused to the spotlight and, in particular, to the media. On the other hand, I may be the only person in the party to have been Returning Officer to both candidates simultaneously (the 1999 European selection contest for South East), so at least it's all familiar. And best of all, I haven't actually made up my mind as to who I'm supporting this time (really, I haven't!), and so I get a close-up view of each of them.

May the best candidate win!