Skip to main content

Going for It!

After conversations today and yesterday with other possible candidates it is quite clear that the position at the moment is not clear.

Potential Candidates such as Simon Hughes have a short time in which to declare that they either are or are not standing.

I need 7 MP nominations. Nominations from members are already starting to flood in from across the country. If 33 MPs support Ming Campbell that leaves 29 that could nominate Simon, Mark Oaten or myself. There are some people who will nominate either Simon or myself.

What I am doing, therefore, is collecting nominations. If I get the Members support, but MPs decide they don't want me to stand then that is life.

An argument is used by some MPs that I don't have that much experience as an MP. Given that I have 15 years experience as an elected politician and 22 years experience in running my own business I find that a bit unreasonable.

Still things are going well at the moment.

Comments

Barrie Wood said…
And what damage to those around you would emerge from you standing ? You - and they - risk being traduced in the pop press again. This wouldn't be great for the party either.

Politically it is necessary for SOMEONE to reflect, and offer members, a strongly social liberal perspective in the leadership race.

John, although I typically agree with much of what you say Simon Hughes is the man who must come forward, especially if Oaten joins the contest.

Further do you really believe you'll get the 7 parliamentary nominations required ?
Tristan said…
I'd like someone to actually tell me what this difference between the so-called social and economic liberals.
Every member of this party I have met, those I have read, including those who wrote The Orange Book are social liberals in part, they all recognise the need for social liberalism.
Only one person I met had the view that social liberalism is the most important aspect of liberalism and that it should trump other forms of liberalism, everyone else I've met of the view that social, economic, political, personal and green (and probably other) liberalism are all necessary.

We need a strong economy to provide for the social liberal aims of the party and we need effective methods to deliver the aims.
We do need a debate about the exact policies, but we are all in broad agreement. I have heard no member of the Liberal Democrats call for neo-liberalism or a return to a mythical Gladstonian laissez-faire policy.

I personally want the party to simply reaffirm the liberal principles of representative government, government with the consent of the governed, limits on power, equality under the law and individual liberty.
Social Liberalism grew out of this, it is essential to this today, the party will never turn its back on it, but we do need to talk about it without recourse to any dogma be it socialist (monolithic state run services) or neo-liberal (privatised services).

The divisions in the party are not so great as some people make out. Perhaps the biggest is still that some people view the party as another wing of a centre-left progressive movement along with Labour and others (myself included) as part of a seperate Liberal tradition which can work with some of the Labour party on some things, just as it can with some Tories.

I will be voting for the person who I feel is most likely not to define ourselves in terms of the other parties, we cannot stay equidistant between two moving points, we are our own party, with our own message and our own views. We will not, as Tony Blair wants, become a Social Democratic party in the model of New Labour, simply because it runs contrary to the deepest beliefs of Liberalism, we will not become a Thatcherite party, because that too runs contrary to similarly deep beliefs.

So, enough of this stupid divide and lets elect the leader who will perform best in the media and against the opposition, who will stand firm for our party as a Liberal party and who will put those core Liberal beliefs into practice by listening to the all party members.

*grumbles*

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…