Ed or Layla?

As the Lib Dem leadership campaign comes to a close, has it become easier to choose between Ed and Layla? – In short not particularly; online hustings have been repetitive, both in style and content, failing to provide probing cross examination that is needed to put putative leaders sufficiently on the spot.  Too often we had the same 2 minute sound bites without any follow up.  For Layla, as the less seasoned politician this has been particularly detrimental and for whoever becomes leader potentially problematic. For better leaders we need to improve the selection process.

In terms of political direction, by closely shadowed each other’s policies, both have eliminated significant differences; this too has had the unfortunate effect of taking the wind out of hustings.  Instead, Ed has been stressing competence and experience, whereas Layla has presented herself as a new broom.  Accordingly, Layla has been keener to stress ideas, but compared to Ed has appeared to be shorter on depth, nevertheless I think she has improved over the course of the campaign. 

Neither Ed not Layla have impressed on the consequences of Brexit.  Ostensibly both want to maintain our enhanced membership, yet by studiously down playing Brexit and the prospect of impending damage to the UK, they have offered little for many who are considering to renew their subscriptions, seemingly unconcerned at the risk of an etiolating membership.  Wera Hobhouse who would surely have argued strongly for keeping the UK in the Single Market was sorely missed in these debates.  Given the Corbyn legacy of complicity with Brexit, it is understandable why Labour under Starmer should be muted, but I cannot see why Liberal Democrats should follow suit; why cannot we proclaim, as Brexiters once did that it is madness to leave the Single Market? 

In campaigns of this sort there is a danger of choosing a leader for the previous election in which Labour under Corbyn often put more effort in attacking us than they did the Conservatives. It is already clear that Starmer is preparing the ground to present Labour as a party for government.  The strategy is to present himself as the adult in the room in contrast to a rag bag of adolescent or even infantile Tory mediocrities.  We have to complement this strategy, we too need to be seen as dependable grown-ups.  Ed’s experience gives him the advantage, but the question mark is whether he would be able to cut through.  I have seen some claim that Layla has charisma, but this is not something I recognise, I do not see her effortlessly exuding authority, perhaps I see too much of the deputy school head that she would have become. 

Some see Ed’s Coalition experience as a disadvantage, however in this campaign he has done well to present it as his advantage, stressing significant successes he scored in government.  At the last election Labour led an attack on Jo Swinson’s participation in the Coalition.  I think she handled it badly, at worst her response to questions of the form ‘- won’t you agree the Lib Dems were rubbish’ could be summarised as ‘ – yes, but now we are sorry’.  Although I do not think that Labour, under Starmer, will labour the coalition to the same extent, I do fear that Layla would be more inclined to make a similar mistake.

Both spoke of the need to project a more distinctive account of modern Liberalism and Liberal values, but struggled to articulate the basis of Liberalism: from Ed, as a former student of Politics, Philosophy and Economics, I had expected a more informed account, though Layla was less convincing; her story of weighing up policies as a then non-political student and deciding she was a Liberal Democrat hardly inspired conviction. 

By tradition, on taking office a copy of JS Mill’s On Liberty is presented to the President of the Liberal democrats, it would be as well if this courtesy were extended to the leadership.  Perhaps the leader might consider emulating Jo Grimond who annually reread the tract.  Whoever does win the leadership will need to carve out a clear Liberal niche; he or she would do well to forge strong links with successful Liberal parties that are leading or involved in governments around the world such as Canada, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Estonia.  The leader is in for a tough ride and is unlikely to benefit from much of a honeymoon period, the oft cited 6% in opinion polls could prove a hostage to fortune.

In last year’s contest, knowing the result was in the bag for Jo, I voted for Ed largely because I felt he did not deserve to lose too badly.  I did however welcome a younger image and a female leader. This time the result is not such a forgone conclusion. I wish both, but particularly Layla, had been more probingly tested and, though I could be persuaded to vote for Layla if I were convinced that she would attract many younger voters, I may well stick with Ed as the better known and more dependable option.

4 thoughts on “Ed or Layla?

  1. You miss an important point about attacks based on the Coalition, which is that they are almost entirely about personal voting records. The problem with Jo was that, as an ex Coalition minister, she had one. Ed has the same problem, and NO ANSWER that any ex-Coalition minister would give would ever satisfy the attackers. They can’t say to Layla, “You voted for tuition fees / bedroom tax / benefit sanctions” because she didn’t — she wasn’t there. So it will be much harder to make any Coalition mud to stick onto her. She cant “apologise” as she had nothing to do with it. What she can do is what Tony Blair did over attacks based on things like the winter of Discontent: dismiss them by saying she wasn’t involved in that and can we please talk about our plans for the future rather than obsess over the past.

    Like

  2. Thank you for your comment I do not recall Tony Blair being attacked over the so called Winter of Discontent; attacked from which side? My recollection is that this episode was about unions jostling for power and was hyped by the media. I would have thought it was fairly easy for Blair to defend Callaghan in a way that rather suited his purposes in 1997.

    It is self destructive to trash our past, no matter how much anyone of us including Layla may have disagreed with the outcome. We have to put forwards proposals that efface the problems. I hope to write about this at some time. I fundamentally disagree with tuition fees, but the past canot be rewritten; a solution would be to adapt the scheme, significantly raising the threshold of repayment (certainly over £30 000 so that those on moderate incomes pay nothing or very little. Likewise for the bedroom tax, legislate that it ca only be applied where similar standard smaller accommodation is on offer.

    Your comment ‘NO ANSWER that any ex-Coalition minister would give would ever satisfy the attackers’ applies to all Lib Dems irrespective of whether or ot they were a minister, however I doubt that Starmer will give encouragement to this tendency of Labour. Although it will not be easy, Starmer is serious in his aim to be in government; he will not wish to encourage an argument that implies collective government responsibility should be optional.

    Although I am concerned how Layla would handle the Lib Dem record and how she would stand up to a forensic cross-examination, I do sense that she might put more sustained energy into the leadership role. This for me is more of a consideration in her favour.

    Like

    1. No, Blair’s response to questions about the past was to say that he was only going to talk about the future, and as he was not connected to the past he was in a position to do that. (In any case, Blair’s New Labour wasn’t planning to reverse the restrictions on Trade Unions put in place by Thatcher, so it would have made no sense to defend the Callaghan administration’s handling of the Unions.) It’s nothing to do with “trashing” the past, that’s more like what Jo Swinson tried to do. For us to trash the past, we would have to be talking about the past instead of the future, and it would involve having a leader who was connected with the past. Electing a post-‘coalition leader meas we’d be doing more campagning and less explaining. Trashing the past is explaining. Campaigning means talking abut the future, and being in a position to do so because of a lack of any connection with the past. It’s about the difference between trying to face down a gang, and simply refusing to fight with them. Electing a post-Coalition leader is abut recognising that, in the words of the Wargame computer, “The only winning move is not to play”

      Like

  3. Alex,

    Callaghan was trying to call the unions to order, I do not think Blair had any problem with Callaghan’s actions per se. There was a rather futile attempt to refer back to the media’s portrayal of the period, but it only resonated with those who were never likely to vote for him.

    I do not like the idea that any time we are involved in government we the have to disavow those involved and try to make out we are something other at the behest of those who are most hostile to us. Although we need to attract those who have voted Labour, to win most of the seats where we are second we need to attract erstwhile Conservative voters. I fear that Layla’s approach might have the opposite effect to that intended.

    I see a balance of pluses and minuses. Whoever secures the leadership has a difficult task, I regret that Layla made so much of the 6% at the end; it is something that could all too easily rebound on her should she win..

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s