Not helpful but fun....

Nick Clegg's position as leader has probably strengthened over the last  2 weeks, with a relatively quiet conference, the apology and the anti Nick campaign being fronted by Lembit. The received wisdom in the press (and in the bar gossip) seems to be that he has a year to turn the polls round.

So it's interesting jus how many names are now being bandied about  in the media as potential next leaders of the party. And I thought it might be fun to keep track between now and next Full Conference  2013 of the names I hear mentioned..

In the last month I have heard six names from various credible sources. They are:

Vince Cable
Ed Davey
Tim Farron
Jo Swinson
Jeremy Browne
Chris Huhne (huge caveats obviously apply)

I have also in recent months heard a seventh in a potential 'caretaker' capacity - Charles Kennedy. So that's over 10% of the parliamentary party to date.

One name I haven't heard yet - but expect to - is David Laws.

Who knows what other names will emerge...


PS

Jennie Rigg has an interesting analysis of the runners and riders over at her blog - including a few names I haven't yet read in the mainstream press - but may well do!

Update

Even as I was writing this a new name has appeared, courtesy of the Sunday Times: Danny Alexander

So that's 8 names and counting..,

Are there other 'Former MPs' plotting with Lembit?

In a generally very unhelpful piece in The Guardian on Monday Jackie Ashley wrote...

'The final part of this fantasy conference is the commonly held idea that Clegg isn't really the Lib Dem leader, or at any rate won't be for long.Tim Farron is coming! Vince is on his way!

But the plotting is real enough. A group of defeated MPs and others are planning a motion for the Lib Dem gathering next spring to change the party rules in order to allow leaders to be ousted by the party conference. They'd be unlikely to get the necessary two-thirds majority, but a simple numerical one would be such a stinging rejection of Clegg that he would have to resign. Then, the argument goes, the party could find a different leader (probably Cable, as a stopgap) for the 2015 election, and save as many seats as possible'.

Hmm, I wondered. Who are this group of defeated MPs?

Then, after about 2 seconds thoughts, I worked out it was Lembit. And sure enough, a few days later I read...

'Last night's Liberal Left event was the exception – former MP Lembit Opik openly demanded that Clegg resign as leader, soliciting support for a petition that calls for Clegg to remain as deputy prime minister, but step away from the running of the party.

"The problem is that the image of the Liberal Democrats is mixed up with the coalition government," said Opik. Clegg is too tainted by his relationship with the Tories, he said: if he's not ousted by the next election, "we'll be throttled to death."

Currently, the Lib Dem conference cannot fire the Lib Dem leader. But should Opik's petition gather enough support, it would force a vote at the party's spring conference on whether to give delegates the power to sack Clegg. The proposal would need a two-thirds majority to pass'.

But read Ashleys original piece, and she apparently deliberately writes 'a group of defeated MPs'. That implies not just Lembit. So who could this be? Here's the list of sitting MPs who lost their place in the last General Election.

Sandra Gidley, Romsey, 2000-10
Julia Goldsworthy, Falmouth and Camborne, 2005-10
Evan Harris, Oxford West and Abingdon, 1997-2010
Paul Holmes, Chesterfield, 2001-10
Susan Kramer, Richmond Park, 2005-10
Lembit Öpik, Montgomeryshire, 1997-2010
Willie Rennie, Dunfermline and West Fife, 2006-10
Paul Rowen, Rochdale, 2005-10

No obvious suspects there I would suggest. The only possible rebel I would say may be Evan - but he is FAR too sensible to throw his lot in with Lembit. Isn't he?

So is Jackie Ashley flying a kite? or are we looking at MPs who lost in 2005? 

Answers on a postcard. PS For what it's worth, Lembits petition probably wouldn't work. Here's the rules on changing a party leader in the Lib Dems

My take on the Clegg speech (from the New Statesman.

I thought Nick spelt out a clear narrative going forward for the party in his speech at conference. And I liked his speech more the second time I heard it, and even more when I read it.

Judging from my twitter feed amongst party members, I'm in a minority on this one.

However, I've stuck my neck out and said what I think in the New Statesman. Do pop over there and have a look at the normal forthright comments. But here's what I said..

"I asked Nick Clegg yesterday at Lib Dem conference for a short description of what we stand for. What is the liberal language we should be using in our everyday conversation? What's the elevator sell?

I rather liked his answer: "We should answer the call of the head and the heart." By this he meant that we should offer the fiscal responsibility the country needs (and Labour can't claim to have delivered) and also ensure that the life chances of every person are never blighted by the circumstances of their birth - everyone should have an opportunity for greatness. The 'caring' territory that the nasty party (not my phrase) would struggle to own".

Reading the above makes perfect sense in the context of Nick’s speech to the Lib Dem conference yesterday. What’s interesting is that I wrote the above 12 months ago at the Birmingham conference. And here we are, 12 months on, and the message remains the same

"Are you ready to trust Labour with your money again? And do you really think the Tories will make Britain fairer? Because the truth is, only the Liberal Democrats can be trusted on the economy and relied upon to deliver a fairer society too".

And the other truth is that it’s been this ever since we entered government

Leading up to Nick’s speech, there was no shortage of advice about how we should restore our standing in the polls and in the eyes of the electorate. "Turn left" was the advice of the Telegraph's Mary Riddell – "The party’s voters won’t allow a deal with the Tories in 2015 – it’s time to make eyes at Labour". Keep right was the advice of Richard Reeves, Clegg's outgoing director of strategy, in the New Statesman– "Any attempt to position the Liberal Democrats as a party of the centre left after five years of austerity government in partnership with the Conservatives will be laughed out of court by the voters – and rightly so".

But Nick’s message from the last week is clear: yes, I have made political mistakes, but my principles have stayed the same. And for the second half of this Parliament, I will demonstrate that we remain an economically responsible and socially liberal party and you will see that.

The chatter around the grassroots throughout the conference was pretty consistent. Yes, Nick’s got stuff wrong – and large swathes of the party remain livid about it. Yes he’s got a lot to prove – to us, even before the rest of the world. But the next 12 months will show if Nick can deliver against the agenda he outlined yesterday. And if the electorate is willing to give him a hearing.

The party has approved that agenda, supporting the leadership on its economic strategy, while giving it a bloody nose on socially illiberal Tory led policy like "secret courts".  Now let’s see the leadership deliver. The grassroots – and the electorate – are watching. And the clock’s ticking ...

Update

Oohh its the most read and most commented piece on The Staggers. How lovely!

Civil war in Labour part 2; I told you so...now it's started

I posted the other day that Harriet Harman - awful on Question Time last night by the way - was spoiling for a fight with Ed Balls over spending cuts and austerity measures.

And so it has come to pass. Never one to walk away from a fight, Ed Balls has come out swinging in The Telegraph.

Predictably he has gone 'tough' on spending. Nick was right to highlight this weakness in Labour's record in his conference speech, and Ball's clearly has cottoned on too. (It's not rocket science)


"The public want to know that we are going to be ruthless and disciplined in how we go about public spending".

He has also promised to look at every line of government spending - an odd thing to say as it would have been nice if they'd done that during the 13 years they were in power.

Harman, by contrast, is offering a firm 'no' to all this...

She told The Spectator that Labour would not be "signing up" to the kind of spending cuts seen in the Coalition.

"Our argument against the Tories is that the scale and pace of their deficit reduction is self-defeating and hurting the economy and therefore making less money available," she said. "So we have got a fundamental economic critique — we would not be signing up to doing the very thing we think is hurting the economy"

I predict a tad of bother in the weeks and months ahead. apparently as (according to this article) Harman is also now demanding Ed Miliband makes her DPM if Labour win the next General Election...

Latest Obama TV ad. Simply brilliant

When friends fall out aka Richard Reeves gets a Rollocking off Nick

The Sun had a small scoop yesterday, of little interest to much of the world but I would have thought of great fascination to the Lib Dem grass roots.

The leader, it would seem, is not happy.....

Civil War in Labour?

If this tweet from Fraser Nelson is accurate - and obviously he's no friend of Labour so I would suggest caution - then it sounds like civil war could be about to break out in the Labour party.

All the smart money seems to say that Balls is going to do exactly that - sign up to Government spending plans up to 2016. Our vote at conference on Monday, freeing Danny Alexander's hand to do just that, may have queered that pitch. But received wisdom is that Labour will want to sign up to Govt spending plans in 2014, just as Blair/Brown did in 1996, to give them economic credibility.

In which case, a bust up may be on the horizon....