Skip to main content

Liberal Democrat Leadership Election

Somewhat surprisingly and in a rather rushed manner there is about to be another election for the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party.

I have always said that it is a job that I was interested in doing at some stage.

I am currently in the process of taking soundings as to whether or not I should stand. There are quite a few people in Birmingham who are quite enthusiastic about that idea.

My view is that Charles Kennedy's bravery in accepting publicly that he has a problem with alcohol should be recognised as a courageous step that in no way prevents him being a good party leader.

Winston Churchill was known to be drunk on many occasions, but people recognise his merits as a leader.

It is also only fair to recognise that if someone denies to themselves that they have a problem then it is not dishonest if they deny that to someone else.

60 Lib Dem MPs signed the nomination papers for Charles Kennedy last May. One didn't. That was me.

The reason I did not sign the nomination papers was that I was not happy with the way in which the party was being run.

I have 21 years experience in the private sector. That involves working in a professional manner and most importantly communicating.

The party needs an election where the membership decide who the leader is.

If I stand, and I have not yet taken a final decision, I will be standing on the platform of improving communication within the party.

One of the reasons I have not commented publicly much over the past few weeks is that I feel that such communications should happen in private. Good private communication would not result in intemperate public spats.

The party in recent years has not communicated well.

Party policy is determined by the party as a whole. The party has a process called "Meeting the Challenge" going on at the moment to review policy. Electing me as leader would not be about a wholesale shift in policy. Yes it is true that I do not think the way forward is to join Tony Blair and David Cameron in undermining democratic accountability. Instead I would wish to see improvements to democratic accountability. In particular I would wish to make it easier to sack senior managers in the public sector to stop them empire building. That would make the system far more democratically accountable.

However, policy is to be determined by the Meeting the Challenge approach.

I shall continue a process of sounding out opinion within and outside the party and make an announcement in the near future.

Incidentally the odds on me winning have shortened in the past 2 days from 28/1 to 20/1 (see link). I am now the 7th favourite other than Charles Kennedy.

Let me make it entirely clear, however. If Charles Kennedy wins the leadership election then I will work with him if he asks me to. If, however, I win the Leadership election (whether or not Charles Pulls out), I will invite him to join my Shadow Cabinet.

Charles has taken the party forward over the period of his leadership. The events of recent weeks have been very sad and do not reflect well on the judgment of those people involved. A fair and calm leadership contest based upon the issues not the personalities can bring the party back together.

Comments

sunny said…
don't
Chris said…
I think that you should run for the leadership. People should be provided a choice in an election. The more diverse the candidates are the more choice people will have and hopefully the best candidate possible will prevail. If you do decide to run, i wish you the best of luck.
PoliticalHack said…
Go on, you know you want to!

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men: