Will I win my Ming Campbell bet?
March 3rd, 2007
How long can the Lib Dem leader withstand the media pressure?
It’s perhaps an example of the Lib Dem version of “sod’s law” that just as they gather for their spring conference in Harrogate hoping for a publicity boost that we have the latest developments in the cash for honours case and the gagging order that has been taken out against the BBC.
For it’s hard enough grabbing media attention as the third party and then they get shoved down the bulletin because of this story. The lack of media attention has been made worse now that the Tories have got their media act together and most of the political focus is on the twilight weeks of the Blair government.
You’ve also got to feel a touch of pity for poor Ming because whenever he is interviewed the first thing he has to deflect are questions about his age and his leadership.
It was no different last night when he faced the cameras on BBC’s Newsnight and was presented with the findings on an ICM poll which showed that just 6% of those interviewed wanted him as their next PM.
Even more irritating was the poll finding that 49% said they thought his predecessor, Charles Kennedy, would make the best Lib Dem leader compared with just 22% that opted for him.
Which brings me to the small spread bet I placed on Ming Campbell on April 5th 2006. The bet was on how many months he would continue as leader and I “bought” at the 25 level. This means that the bet goes into profit from May 2008 and every month that he continues thereafter my winnings increase.
At the time of making the bet I wrote “Barring accidents and Ming’s health - which thankfully looks OK - it is hard to see how he is not going to serve for another two years. After the trauma of Charles Kennedy the Lib Dems are not, surely, going to get rid of a second leader in such a short time period? Ming will go on to fight the next election and beyond.”
I think that judgement still stands. I cannot see another move being made against a Lib Dem leader this side of the General Election. The only doubt is Ming himself. Could he decide to jack it in?
He’ll get a good standing ovation in Harrogate and provided that the May 3rd elections are not a disaster for the party then I think he will stay.
If by any remote chance Ming steps aside and the party decides to follow the polls and bring back Kennedy then I will pick up a nice profit on a 100-1 bet that I placed at the end of March last year.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Liberals tend to be disproportionately team players and loyal to the leadership.
Over the decades that has been both a characteristic that has boosted the fifty-year revival and a cause of frustration in policy debates for activists to who policy matters. (We have an example of the latter in the Trident debate this weekend.)
It partly explains why David Owen was, (and is), such a hate figure within the LDs.
There is (IMO) a correllation between party loyalists and those for whom policy matters. This makes it more difficult to put together a coalition for replacement. (I, for example, put Ming third-or-nowhere on the ballot, but would oppose any attempt to force him out, certainly this side of a general election.)
I would think your main risk to the spread bet was a cut-and-run election by Brown, and even then it’s by no means sure when (if) Ming would retire.
O/T in post 2 (sorry!) but it’s a rather interesting story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6410955.stm
I doubt it’s news to many of us, but if Le Pen’s not on the ballot that leaves 14-20% up for grabs in the first round which means all the polls so far are way out. Thoughts on the impact of that?
On topic, I agree with you Martyn that if Brown had an election soon after his that Ming might leave afterwards; there’d be less harm for the party. Though, if it’s a hung parliament he’d obviously likely stay around for negotiations and there may be another election soon after so it’s still quite possible he’d stick around for a bit longer. Depends on the result of the election to a large degree, really.
1. I’m sure your characterisation of most Lib Dem members is right. There is a lot of loyalty towards the leadership there, but possibly less so among MPs (this is also true of the other main parties).
I don’t think he needs to worry about a cut-and-run election; that would be wholly out of character for Brown and besides, the polls aren’t encouraging that sort of thing. Ming’s biggest two worries must be his health and his MPs. While his health looks OK at the moment, I think there would probably be less leeway given to a man in at least his mid-60s with health concerns than one in his 40s. If the Lib Dems are in a bit of a spot, it could more easily be used as excuse for him to stand down especially given his history.
His MPs are another matter. He lead them against Kennedy and once the taste for blood is out there, it has a long lasting effect. In the 2006 predictions, I went for Kennedy to last the year (as did many others), partly because Liberals had no record of ditching the leader in any but the most extreme circumstances - the same collegiality. But now the game’s changed - they know they can do it becauase they did. A revival in Tory fortunes leaves a lot of them looking over their electoral shoulder. If they were to ditch Ming, I can’t really see it helping them - it would look silly and their bigger problems aren’t ones they can sort out themselves (Tory revival, Iraq diminishing as an issue).
I’d agree that Mike’s bet looks safe unless the following circumstances all coincide: a Tory lead of at least 10% over Labour, a Lib Dem score below 20%, a period without media coverage or with negative media coverage, a period of ill-health for Ming, a catalyst for action.
It’s not terribly good for the Lib Dems and their leader at the moment, but providing they can hold their head as they have in the past his position should be secure through to the election.
The LD’s are now in a lose:lose situation, unless Ming falls on his sword, which is very unlikely.
If he stays he looks wounded (is it only me that since his illness a few years back, he just does not look as sharp as he used to). If he is ousted they have a touch of the Lady Bracknells - one change of leader ok, but 2 is careless.
4 weeks of Ming at election time does not look good news for them. It can only be a time for “the men in grey suits” David Steel, your time has come to save your party
Ming is actually very well regarded by his MPs - he has been in charge while the mess that was the LD organisation is sorted out and most people of whatever political view within the party agree with that.
No votes in it yet - but when the time comes I expect our campaign to be far better than in the past. We also seem to be getting a surprising large number of donations - only just behind Labour with a fraction of the costs. It isn’t totally ridiculous to say we might actually have more money to spend on a GE campaign than them (at least if you ignore borrowings - we will not borrow much and they might). That could be very important. A Labour vote collapse in seats where they are third would be very useful to us.
“A Labour vote collapse in seats where they are third would be very useful to us” - or it could be a disaster if they go straight across and the Lib Dems are in first place. There’s no guarentee that the anti-Tory tactical voting will continue, indeed the evidence (forced Lab-Con vote in polls) seems to suggest that it is unwinding.
Actually, I don’t think a Labour collapse would make much difference to either Tory or Lib Dem votes - most would abstain. Labour voters that could be squeezed to either other camp mostly have been so those that remain probably have something against both other parties. If they can’t vote Labour, they could go for a minor party or they could abstain.
I agree with Jon @ 5: the key test is having the support of psrlismentary colleagues. Kennedy had lost the ‘dressing-room’ so although he was popular with fans, he was not forced to resign over wider popularity. While Ming may not have fans chanting his name from the terraces, I sense no internal mood to move against him, and a united and organised team. Also no-one listens to this but it’s worth saying again: the Lib Dems have never been solely about a leader, they have a clear policy position and agenda. It is the other parties and media who have allowed political activism and coverage to be so leader-centric.
I wonder how many voters will say they would prefer Blair as leader to Brown a year after Brown’s takeover…
I heard on radio this morning a voice saying “we want honesty in sentencing…life must mean life….” I thought it must be an unreconstructed Tory from the Howard era. Unbelievably it was a Lib Dem from now! No wonder their support is dwindling!
Roger, as I understand it the Lib Dem proposal is that automatic mandatory life sentences should end. So the punishment as such fits the crime, so that different circumstances surrounding say a murder conviction apply, ie a domestic incident, perhaps a total one off , may receive say 7 years, the really relatively small number of notorious type murders would receive Life, and for them it is suggested Life means Life.
Also the mandatory Life sentence unless special circumstances apply, for three of a certain crime, say supplying drugs would cease.
So both your comments apply, the punishment fits the crime, time for the Mikardo to enter the scene, and Life would mean Life in those special cases, (we have such cases in prison now who appear to have been told, they will not be released because of the public outcry if it occurred).
However I would agree with you, the way it is being spun, whoever by, it is coming out as a hard line, whereas it really takes a realistic view ofthe law and treats cases and circumstances on their merit, a more liberal, and to me sensible approach.
“provided that the May 3rd elections are not a disaster for the party”
So what would be a disaster? Failing to gain [net] seats for the second year running in the context of a deeply unpopular government? Would they have to lose net seats for it to be a disaster? Do the Lib Dems need to push Labour into third place on national equivalent vote share?
I think it is very important for the Lib Dems that they hold their own against the Tories. At the present time the Tories are building up a fair bit of momentum and there is the danger [for the Lib Dems] that the Tories will be seen solely as the party to vote for if you are pissed off with Labour. The Lib Dems have to remain competitive against the Tories, and in 2006 they weren’t.
11 - The May elections are difficult ones to set pass marks for for all parties because (a) there is a mix of tiny district wards and huge city wards up; and (b) Scottish and Welsh assemblies are important.
The Lib Dems would happily trade a reasonably large number of losses on Anyshire South district council for a handful of gains in Sheffield and Bristol. No amount of hoovering up seats in numerous deep blue shires would compensate the Tories for a lack of a breakthrough in Scotland and the cities. For Labour, they would happily face wipeout in areas they don’t have MPs if they held on in Scotland and Wales and did better than expected in Midland areas.
Dave. I’m sure the person making the podium speech (was it Ming?) knew how it would sound to the world outside. It was designed to sound hard line and the person making it knew that the subtleties that you mention wouldn’t register. The Lib’s USP is that they are the nice party. Lose that and they lose their biggest vote gatherer
I am pretty certain that Ming will last until the next General Election. There is no appetite in the parliamentary party for another leadership election. Sure, there are pretenders to the throne, but even they admit that the time is not now. Ming deserves his chance - he has essentially waited all his life for this moment. Though the end result may not be good for LDs, it could be argued that with the rise of Cameron, it is completely out of their control.
I’ve always said that a good result at the next election for the LDs would be to tread water. There may be some seats lost to the Tories but they will pick up more Labour ones, even though they are on a drift to the right. Though the membership may have their fun if they choose to reject the leadership line on Trident this afternoon.
[9][10] A two thread day, eh?
This sentencing proposal is very poorly thought out. Imprisonment serves three purposes: to punish (i.e. retribution), to deter and (far too infrequently, I daresay we can all agree) to reform. It is because there is no agreement amongst the public on the relative signficance of these three that sentencing policy is and will remain confused. The ultra-liberal position is that retribution has no place in sentencing policy (this is not the same as saying that sentences should be shorter); the ultra-conservative position is that reform is irrelevant - punishment should be based solely on the actions and the mentality of the perpetrator at the time.
Some of the difficulty associated with either point of view may be appreciated by the following hypothetical example.
A Muslim is convicted of a terrorist atrocity and is jailed for life, with a recommendation he serves, say, 40 years. After ten years or so he converts to Christianity (or Buddhism) & all agree that this conversion, and the associated repentance, is sincere. Should he still serve 40 years or more? Clearly there poweful arguments either way.
re 15. IA I could not decide which story to go for this morning so I opted to go for both. Generally if there are two big stories going then the “main” thread will meander into both. Today we split them.
15
In your example you have absolutely no way of determining whether or not the conversion and repentence is sincere,I think you will find that this type of behaviour is fairly typical in the hope that it will earn remission / early release.
17 Story in papers about a guy given Royal Pardon in the 90’s because he had “repented” and turned queens evidence - told police where caches of arms were hidden. Now it turns out he had associates go out and bury the arms so that he could “reveal” them. Crooks are dishonest - they will do dishonest things if it benefits them.
The senior Lib Dem MPs are stuck with Ming. Clegg, Davey, Lamb, Burstow et al put him in for one parliament in order to provide time to get over Kennedy, sort out the organisation, and provide time for each of the ambitious ones to build their base. If they ditched him now it would call their judgement into question.
Ming is certainly doing a good job at getting the party organised and more coherent. Under CK it was beginnning to implode. Age is an issue for Ming, without doubt, but I am more concerned about the fact that the older he gets, the more he looks like John Howard!
6% thinking he would be the best prime minister is also a bit of a concern. CK always polled higher. Despite being a reasonably loyal LD, I do think CK would have been a disaster as PM. He was, however an able party leader until about the end of 2003, when he became rather a disaster at that too.
Ming won’t be deposed. Even the Economist has a positive article on him this week. He may step down, but I think that would depend on his health, which I have reason to believe is excellent.
Third party leaders are not well-known till they fight a GE. When I joined the LDs in 1990, Ashdown was leader, but the public probably thought David Owen was leader. CK was supposedly well known for appearances on TV- well 56 million people in this country do not watch Countdown, and well over 50 million do not watch HIGNFY. CK was not known until 2001.
Ming will have to sharpen up his TV appearances a fair bit before a GE. Away from foreign affairs, he is still fairly poor at them. I am reminded of a political interview with a PM in the 1950s - was it Eden, which went along the lines of “PM, you are of course an expert on foriegn and on domestic affairs; which would you like to talk about first.” I feel as if Ming is expecting this sort of treatment, but you don’t get this in the 21st century.
So, sharpen up for TV. It can be done, and the party is in good shape. It’s been a better year for Ming that I thought it would be. I think he’ll probably step down after the GE, but I see no appetite to force him out at all, whatever happens in May - and I think May could be good for the LDs.
Mike’s bet looks safe.
Ming’s wobbliness on TV first manifested itself during the last GE campaign. When CK took time off when his son was born, Ming took charge of the campaign for a few days. He looked a bit bewildered by it all, and it did not come naturally. I recalled this, when I voted for Huhne.
20. You’re right to highlight the Economist article for panicking Lib Dems. TBH I think May is looking so black for Labour by default it must also be good for the Lib Dems as well as the Tories. The 2005 trend will accelerate, Lib Dem rollback v Con, and advance v Lab. How fast can you hold your Leadership contest. The big challenge if a Hung Parliament results would be to keep it that way, and if Ming decided a new Leader boost might aid that he might well step down quickly, so you’d be in a hurry. How fast can you do it.
BTW What is Lib Dem policy on PR. Is it commitment to approval by referendum, and if it was rejected would they accept that.
The mood at Harrogate is pretty buoyant. Obviously some are disappointed that Ming closed off their chosen option, but people are impressed with his courage and passion.
The press is pretty positive so far.
15. I disagree. Prison is to protect the public from people too dangerous to be allowed out; to deter; and to rehabilitate, or if you prefer, to reform. Punishment is the deterent effect. If there’s no deterence, there’s no reason to punish - although we still might have to imprison, despite the damage done to the individual, for the other two reasons. I’m not saying it’s wrong to want bad things to happen to criminals to punish them for their crime, but they’re only justified by the deterent effect. Otherwise they’re just a regretable side-effect.
I completely agree that there should be more rehabilitation going on in prisons though.
> What is Lib Dem policy on PR. Is it commitment to approval by
> referendum, and if it was rejected would they accept that.
Interesting article Mike and in my view good bets. It is just a shame a good betting article has been a bot overshadowed! Sorry
22. They would introduce STV. They wouldn’t need to hold a referendum. If the Lib Dems were a minor party in a coalition, then they might be able to get a referendum on the issue as part of a deal for government.