The late, lamented satirical blog Ming's Dynasty, formed in the aftermath of the Lib Dem leadership election earlier this year, would have had a field day with the current goings-on in the party.
Welsh Assembly Member Peter Black kicked it all off last week with a well-argued piece on his blog saying that Ming Campbell needed to shape up by the time of September's party conference - or ship out.
Then the News of the Screws claimed on Sunday that Charles Kennedy planned to challenge Ming in an audacious bid to regain the party leadership, leading to a spate of denial stories in this morning's papers.
Meanwhile, over at Conservative Home, they are once again talking up the leadership chances of their favourite Lib Dem Nick Clegg - the one they hope will split his party by leading the Orange Bookers into a coalition with the Chameleon.
To make matters worse, Lib Dem blogger Jonathan Calder has written a piece in today's Guardian which, while attempting to defend Ming, actually serves to highlight his real problem.
In his piece, Jonathan argues that Lib Dem image-makers should stop trying to turn Ming into something he isn't and just "let Ming be Ming."
Well, I have a fair amount of respect for Jonathan whose blog is by some way the best of the bunch as far as Lib Dem blogs are concerned, but this argument is so manifestly ludicrous that it needs to be countered.
The problem is in fact diametrically the opposite - not that Ming isn't being allowed to be Ming, but that Ming is Ming.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Chris Huhne on the English Question
Thanks to Tom Griffin of the Green Ribbon blog for drawing to my attention some interesting stuff on the English Question in the current edition of Prospect magazine.
It features four differing viewpoints on the Tories' "English votes for English laws" initiative, the most interesting of which from my point of view is from the former - and future? - Lib Dem leadership contender, Chris Huhne.
"If the Tories do decide to campaign to end Scottish votes on English laws, they will be on fertile ground. Scotland receives far more public spending per head than England, and there is a sense of injustice in poorer English regions," he writes.
Quite so. But Huhne does not go on to advocate English votes for English laws, suggesting instead the issue can be dealt with simply by creating a new Parliamentary convention.
"There is another way the problem could be dealt with without creating two classes of MP: a new convention that prevented purely English legislation going forward unless it had not only a majority of the House of Commons voting for it but also a majority of MPs from English constituencies.
"Labour would not like this approach, as it might prevent the party getting legislation through. Too bad. Those who promote devolution must live with its consequences," adds Huhne.
For my part, I would still like to see one or both of the Opposition parties really putting Gordon Brown on the spot over the English Question by backing an English Parliament - or even better, for Brown to outflank his critics in the Anglosphere by coming out in favour of one himself.
But even though he stresses he is writing in a "personal capacity," Huhne's piece in my view shows the kind of innovative thinking we should be looking for in our future political leaders.
It features four differing viewpoints on the Tories' "English votes for English laws" initiative, the most interesting of which from my point of view is from the former - and future? - Lib Dem leadership contender, Chris Huhne.
"If the Tories do decide to campaign to end Scottish votes on English laws, they will be on fertile ground. Scotland receives far more public spending per head than England, and there is a sense of injustice in poorer English regions," he writes.
Quite so. But Huhne does not go on to advocate English votes for English laws, suggesting instead the issue can be dealt with simply by creating a new Parliamentary convention.
"There is another way the problem could be dealt with without creating two classes of MP: a new convention that prevented purely English legislation going forward unless it had not only a majority of the House of Commons voting for it but also a majority of MPs from English constituencies.
"Labour would not like this approach, as it might prevent the party getting legislation through. Too bad. Those who promote devolution must live with its consequences," adds Huhne.
For my part, I would still like to see one or both of the Opposition parties really putting Gordon Brown on the spot over the English Question by backing an English Parliament - or even better, for Brown to outflank his critics in the Anglosphere by coming out in favour of one himself.
But even though he stresses he is writing in a "personal capacity," Huhne's piece in my view shows the kind of innovative thinking we should be looking for in our future political leaders.
Brown v McDonnell: Is there a third way?
I promised last week that I would be having a closer look at the question of whether there is a viable alternative to what, for some on the left, is the increasingly unappetising choice of Gordon Brown or John McDonnell for the Labour leadership when the Great Pretender finally stands down.
I duly made this the main topic of discussion in my weekly Saturday columns and accompanying Podcast this weekend, a copy of which has also been posted on my new Labour Home blog HERE.
In it, I discuss the prospects of Margaret Beckett, Peter Hain and John Denham as potential soft-left candidates, while also arguing that Gordon the Leader will prove to be much more progressive than Gordon the Candidate is allowing himself to be.
One thing of which I am certain is that Gordon could not have made yesterday's speech by Blair to the Murdoch Corporation on political cross-dressing, even if it costs him the support of the Dirty Digger at the next election.
I duly made this the main topic of discussion in my weekly Saturday columns and accompanying Podcast this weekend, a copy of which has also been posted on my new Labour Home blog HERE.
In it, I discuss the prospects of Margaret Beckett, Peter Hain and John Denham as potential soft-left candidates, while also arguing that Gordon the Leader will prove to be much more progressive than Gordon the Candidate is allowing himself to be.
One thing of which I am certain is that Gordon could not have made yesterday's speech by Blair to the Murdoch Corporation on political cross-dressing, even if it costs him the support of the Dirty Digger at the next election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)