Here is the Lib Dem leadership ballot paper -with very clear and totally absurd voting rules clearly printed on it.
With the Lib Dem leadership contest into the last couple of weeks, and with ballot papers now sitting with the Lib Dem voters, how are the two candidates shaping up?
Rather than look at the candidates websites, their promises and “liberal vision” (yes they both have one), now seems a good time to see who is endorsing them. Having big grand ideas is all well and good – but what also counts in a leadership race is the respect that colleagues have for prospective leaders. Those working alongside Norman and Tim will have a much better working knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses than the average voter can ever hope to determine by a search of their websites or tv clips of the odd hustings.
Besides, (being totally honest) I am just darned curious to see how it is stacking up.
Getting the comprehensive list was not easy. Norman’s and Tim’s websites do a pretty good job of listing their supporters – but both list their supporters in a bit of a randomised way. And Wiki, whilst pretty good, seems to have a few missed off the list.
Having completed the task as best I could, I thought I would share, in case (a) anyone else is interested and (b) anyone can correct any of the entries.
FORMER MPs declaring for either Norman or Tim.
Former MPs = recent MPs (those who stood in 2015)
|Norman Lamb||Tim Farron|
|Ming Campbell||Simon Hughes|
|Ed Davey||Alan Beith|
|Stephen Williams||Duncan Hames|
|Don Foster||John Leech|
|Norman Baker||Greg Mulholland|
|Tom Brake||John Pugh|
|Paul Burstow||Sarah Teather|
|Bob Russell||Mark Williams|
|David Laws||Jo Swinson|
Interesting to note that Norman’s list is substantially longer, though Tim has three of the six current MPs. Norman has one. Nick Clegg and Alistair Carmichael appear not to have declared for either.
There is also a long list of notable ex-MPs (including Danny Alexander, Vince Cable,and Jeremy Browne) who appear to have not indicated a preference either way.
Sandra Gidley and Julia Goldsworthy (MPs from further back) have also declared for Norman.
LORDS DECLARING FOR NORMAN AND TIM
|Norman Lamb||Tim Farron|
|Paddy Ashdown||David Steel|
|Shirley Williams||Meral Hussein-Ece|
|Tim Razzell||Diana Maddock|
|Kate Parminter||Brian Paddick|
|Judith Jolly||Ros Scott|
|Joan Walmsley||Floella Benjamin|
|Liz Barker||Alexander Charles Carlile|
|Lindsay Northover||Brian Cotter|
|Dee Doocey||Kenneth Macdonald|
|Alison Suttie||Monroe Palmer|
|Paul Sciven||James Palumbo|
|Sue Garden||Paul Strasburger|
|Jane Bonham Carter||Matthew Taylor|
Once again it is Norman that scoops up not only more of the Lords, but a much more impressive list. Having Shirley Williams and Paddy Ashdown on your side must be pretty useful! So useful in fact that I wondered at first why Norman does not seem to have featured Paddy in any of his literature.
The answer seems to be that ballot papers (with the latest literature from both candidates) went out on 24th June. It appears that Paddy Ashdown only declared his support for Norman (via twitter to his 19,000 followers) on that day (24th June).
If this is the case, Norman must be spitting feathers that he could not get that all-important endorsement into the leaflet accompanying the ballot paper. Will that have cost Norman the leadership?
There are some other notable names on the list declaring for one or other candidate. Sarah Ludford, Andrew Duff (ex MEPs) support Norman. Fiona Hall (ex MEP) and Catherine Bearder (Lib Dems only current MEP) break for Tim. Also worthy of note is Willie Rennie (Leader of the Scottish Lib Dems) declaration for Tim.
The prize for best supporter(s) has to go to Norman however. No. Not Shirley or Paddy. Norman has captured some heavy weight support from outside of politics. Frank Bruno has clearly been knocked out by Norman’s work on mental health and N-Dubz star “Dappy” has taken to twitter to show his support for Norman too. With some 875,000 followers on twitter, Dappy’s support has got go someway to getting the vote out (assuming at least some of his followers are Lib Dems of course !). If nothing else it shows that Norman has the ability to excite people from outside of politics to get involved- no bad thing for a party that is going to struggle to get its voice heard on traditional news media in the coming years.
The bookies odds have Tim Farron as the clear favourite to become the next leader of the Lib Dems. But as we have seen in previous Lib Dem leadership elections, the betting market is pretty illiquid. It doesn’t take much cash to skew the odds in favour of one or other candidate, intentionally or not, out of all recognition. And it is worth noting that traditionally the activists have always made more noise during leadership elections – putting their poster boy into the lead on the betting markets – but it is the centrist candidate that the wider membership end up voting for.
Of course, this election may be different. The “Lib Dem membership surge” in recent weeks, may be comprised primarily of the disillusioned (who quit when the liberals went into power with the Conservatives) coming home. But that is mere speculation and even if partially true, not all will be of the left-leaning variety. And not all of those will vote for the sometimes gaff-prone Tim. And let’s not forget those who stuck with the Lib Dems throughout the past five years. Everyone agrees that Norman had a pretty good time of it in Government, winning respect from fellow politicians of all colours.
Given Norman’s impressive supporters list (including the somewhat late arrival of Paddy Ashdown), in a two horse race, I wonder whether the value bet is Norman. Long odds of course, but worth a tenner perhaps?
[Please do let me know, via the comments section, of any additions/omissions/errors in the above lists and I will correct.]Tags: betting, Dappy, Frank Bruno, Lib Dem Leadership 2015, Norman Lamb, Paddy Ashdown, Tim Farron
This morning I spotted a simply astonishing post over on Conservative Home detailing how one state-funded sock puppet is not only taking vast swathes of cash from the taxpayer, but using it to intimidate local councils to stop vital work and force added costs onto the taxpayer.
Harry Phibbs reports that ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) has been quietly rolling out an initiative called the “Local Government Declaration on Tobacco Control” (LGDTC). Essentially this “encourages” local councils to refuse to have any contact/liaison with tobacco companies whatsoever.
What contact might councils have with tobacco companies?
Well, crucially a lot of contact has historically occurred between tobacco companies and local council trading standards departments, collaborating on identifying and stopping traffickers of counterfeit/smuggled/stolen tobacco products. Illegal tobacco sales costs the taxpayer over £2 billion a year, affects the livelihood of local retailers, and not only funds organised crime – but is often the entry point for gangs into an area. On top of the financial issues, are the health concerns. Criminals don’t care who they sell too, (kids) and what they sell (many fake cigarettes contain such nasties as cadmium, benzene, formaldehyde – even mouse droppings).
Clearly there are many good reasons for local councils to be as effective as possible in clamping down on illegal tobacco sales.
Of course tobacco companies have skin in the game too. Illegal sales hurt company profits and damage brand reputation.
So it is not surprising that there has historically been much collaboration between councils and tobacco companies on illicit trade. And, though not widely known, much of the initial (often dangerous) tracking and tracing work has often been undertaken by the tobacco companies themselves, liaising with trading standards once suspect warehouses/stores/factories/traders have been identified.
That has displeased the state-funded zealots over at ASH who despise any contact – however beneficial it has proven to be – between tobacco companies and local government. They have taken the somewhat reasonably phrased World Health Organisation’s directive (not enshrined in law in Britain btw), Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control…
“In setting and implementing their public health policies with respect to tobacco control, Parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law”
… and twisted it out of all recognition. As Christopher Snowdon reports, ASH has gone around local councils getting them to sign up to an agreement that includes a promise to…
“Protect our tobacco control work from the commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry by not accepting any partnerships, payments, gifts and services, monetary or in kind or research funding offered by the tobacco industry to officials or employees.”
Snowdon has been doing some digging around. He has found the ASH document ‘Developing Policy on Contact with the Tobacco Industry’. This document highlights just how extreme government-subsidised ASH has become – using, as Snowdon puts it, “thinly veiled threats” to bully Councils into bending to ASH’s will. The ASH document states:
“[Article 5.3] could be relied upon in legal proceedings brought by an individual or other non-state body against a public authority. An authority that does not act in compliance with the convention may be exposed to risk of judicial review. If a local authority decides to diverge from the guidelines it is suggested the reasons for doing so should be documented…”
As Snowdon observes…
“…Needless to say, all of this goes far beyond anything in Article 5.3, but with the bogus threat of legal action hovering over their heads, it is little wonder that local authorities have chosen to unnecessarily milk the taxpayer for bills that have traditionally been paid by industry.
The outcome of ASH’s interventions means that much of the collaboration with, and funding (eg for sniffer dogs etc) from, tobacco companies has, or will cease in those areas signing up to LGDTC.
Not very smart thinking for government at national or local level, as more of the costs of clamping down on illegal tobacco fall on the local taxpayer and the number of seizures is almost inevitably destined to fall, harming the Exchequer as well as public health.
And the idiocy does not stop there. Local Councils are also being advised that they must also no longer co-operate with tobacco companies on anti-litter measures. Returning to Phibbs, this means
“…councils and the Keep Britain Tidy campaign will no longer work with the tobacco industry on anti-litter measures or campaigns such as making bins smoker friendly.”
That helps who, how? Surely it is in everyone’s interest (except ASH perhaps) to seek corporate funding where possible to make our local streets a cleaner, nicer place to be? How long before this idiocy extends to McDonalds, and other corporately responsible companies?
With a good five years in power, it is time for the Conservative government to weed out these ideologically driven sock-puppets which are not just a drain on public funds directly from the “grants” received, but are causing untold chaos – and added costs – at a local level and actively contributing to public health harm?ASH, Exchequer, public health harm, sock puppets, taxpayer costs
Lord Bob Kerslake, the author of a report in housing in London, has said that the failure to build enough homes “has been the biggest public policy failure of the past 50 years”. It is refreshing to hear someone admit that public policy can fail. Normally, commentators and policymakers talk about market failure. This is normally a cue to proposal State intervention. Lord Kerslake appears to be thinking along these lines, which is a shame. It would be better to admit that public policy has failed and that it is time to let the market function properly.Tags: public policy
Recent Blog Posts
- Crying Over Milk
- Tim Farron needs to start closer to home
- Public health demands: all fizz, no sparkle
- New study shows #e-cig vapour as good as clean air
- BMA: it it moves tax it, if it still moves ban it
- More #Libdemmery nonsense
- Is it worth putting a tenner on @NormanLamb to win?
- Sock puppets go too far
- Should government regulate marriage?
- Public policy failure
- Fear the Walking Dead Season 1 Episode 2 Allmyvideos Putlocker:I absolutely love your blog an
- Fear the Walking Dead Season 1 Episode 1:I was extremely pleased to fin
- Teen Choice Awards 2015:I am not sure the place you're
- Oliver:Muy buena info. Me Lucky Encon
- vmenplus herbal:I came across the serach engin
- lionel messi fc barcelona jersey messi:Its not my first time to visit
- UFC 190: Rousey vs Correia ppv online:Really no matter if someone do
- StephanG:www.liberal-vision.org has pot
- The Last Ship Season 2 Episode 7 free:Hi my loved one! I wish to say
- The Last Ship Season 2 Episode 7 videoweed:Very good info. Lucky me I dis
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- July 2014
- May 2014
- March 2014
- January 2014
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009