The New Statesman endorsement for the Liberal Democrat leadership: Tim Farron, pictured here outside parliament. Photo: Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images
Show Hide image

The NS leader: why we're endorsing Tim Farron for the Liberal Democrat leadership

The road to recovery will be a long one. It is Mr Farron who offers the Lib Dems their best hope.

More than any other British political party, the Liberal Democrats face an existential crisis. They have been reduced from 57 MPs in 2010 to just eight – the same number as the Democratic Unionists – and have become a byword for hypocrisy and opportunism following their role in the coalition government. The Scottish National Party, the UK Independence Party and the Greens have all, in different ways, captured the political territory they once occupied. An increasing number of commentators call for them simply to dissolve themselves, or to merge with Labour or the Conservatives.

Next month Liberal Democrat members will elect a leader to inherit what remains of their party. The two candidates, representing a quarter of their number in the Commons, are Tim Farron, the former party president, and Norman Lamb, the former health minister. It is Mr Farron (interviewed in this week's magazine) who offers the Lib Dems their best hope of recovery. Unlike Mr Lamb, he is untainted by service in the Tory-led government and voted against policies such as higher tuition fees and the bedroom tax. He won his constituency of Westmorland and Lonsdale from the Conservatives in 2005, ending nearly a century of rule by a single party, and transformed it into one of the safest Lib Dem seats in Britain through Stakhanovite campaigning. He is devoted to the causes the Lib Dems must embody if they are to survive, let alone flourish: constitutional reform, civil liberties, environmentalism and social justice. Like his late mentor Charles Kennedy, he is a sincere and humane communicator. The revival of the Lib Dems will be the work of many years; Mr Farron is the best man to begin the long journey back across the wasteland.


Now listen to George, Stephen and Caroline discussing Tim Farron's leadership prospects on the NS podcast:


Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.