Random thought I was mulling over. How well do the Lib Dems do under Ming Campbell in 2010 if he survived. He seemed to generate more media attention in his brief tenure then Clegg did before the debates that Parliament. I remember Cable getting more attention with Mr Bean quip that Parliament than Clegg. Do you think Ming would have helped or hindered Lib Dem overall Lib Dem performance and how would he handle a hung parliament?
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ming Campbell in 2010
- Thread starter Milo
- Start date
Juan Vogel
Well-known member
We‘d have been down to 30 seats and Cammo would have his majority. Which might work out the best in the medium term for Liberal Democracy.
Elektronaut
Effectively Stood Down
- Location
- The Legendarium of Gentleman Julius
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Most of the media attention that I recall Ming generating as leader was of the 'when is he going to stand down/Literally Die' variety. There was constant speculation about his age, to the point where he had to try to address and turn the issue in a conference speech.
Which is mad in retrospect given he was only in his mid-sixties, but A) That was the temper of the age when it came to leaders and B) I think Ming is one of those people who has always looked 78 for most of their political career.
Oh, and there were a lot of people in the Liberal Democrats who wanted to be leader of the Liberal Democrats of course.
Which is mad in retrospect given he was only in his mid-sixties, but A) That was the temper of the age when it came to leaders and B) I think Ming is one of those people who has always looked 78 for most of their political career.
Oh, and there were a lot of people in the Liberal Democrats who wanted to be leader of the Liberal Democrats of course.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- it/its (you'll get used to the third person thing)
ah, like how Patrick Stewart has always looked at least 60, or how Jerry Brown looked like he was twelve years old until the mid-90'sWhich is mad in retrospect given he was only in his mid-sixties, but A) That was the temper of the age when it came to leaders and B) I think Ming is one of those people who has always looked 78 for most of their political career.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I do agree with this, I think Chris Huhne would probably mean similar. But without having the coalition and the harsher defeat of 2015, it means the LibDems can have more leadership options once Ming steps down and opportunities to rebuild etc.We‘d have been down to 30 seats and Cammo would have his majority. Which might work out the best in the medium term for Liberal Democracy.
Ming Campbell was constantly getting "COR HE'S SO OLD HE'S GONNA DIE RIGHT NOW", as people say, which is why he ended up standing down. If he sticks it out, "the Liberal Democrats do worse" does seem inevitable. Then it depends on if whoever the new Liberal Democrat leader is can reclaim seats in 2015* and if running a majority government makes it harder for Cameron to beat Miliband. Extra bants if 2015 sees Cameron need the Liberal Democrats to stay in power and they go into coalition anyway but now with the general perception he owes them & they have a strong hand**
* Assuming it's 2015, there's no fixed-term parliament act without the need to go "look the coalition will stuck around"
** which tbf was also a view a lot of Tories did have OTL but now it'd be a wider view
* Assuming it's 2015, there's no fixed-term parliament act without the need to go "look the coalition will stuck around"
** which tbf was also a view a lot of Tories did have OTL but now it'd be a wider view
From what I remember of the Autumn 2009 pre-election briefing it sort of went like this.
We didn't expect to keep our 60 odd seats. We thought between 15 to 30 were vulnerable to the Tories. Cameron was going down well in some specific market segments who had voted for us in 2001 and 2005 (and had voted for Tonty in 1997 where they had been able to). It was hoped that Cleggers would help keep some of these (he did), there were some specific problems as well - where handovers didn't look to be going well and the seat liked Cameron (Bath, Harrogate, Hereford) and there was a problem in the West Country where UKIP had been eating into our NOTA vote. To balance this, it was hoped that about 20 seats might be taken from Labour, this was a bit optimistic. although there were issues in a couple of seats where Muslim votes gained 2005 were being brought back in the Labour fold - although in one case, highlighted, Rochdale - everyone was sort of "oh dear, how sad". There was some optimism that Clegg would "out fresh face" Cameron, which was sort of true. I could only imagine with the old Minger in charge, we might not have lost some older voters, older voters liked him, but we would have struggled with younger ones. The general outcome of this was, we would have done worse with Ming. Now what would have happened in Charlie had stayed off the sauce is another question, they would have been very different debates.
We didn't expect to keep our 60 odd seats. We thought between 15 to 30 were vulnerable to the Tories. Cameron was going down well in some specific market segments who had voted for us in 2001 and 2005 (and had voted for Tonty in 1997 where they had been able to). It was hoped that Cleggers would help keep some of these (he did), there were some specific problems as well - where handovers didn't look to be going well and the seat liked Cameron (Bath, Harrogate, Hereford) and there was a problem in the West Country where UKIP had been eating into our NOTA vote. To balance this, it was hoped that about 20 seats might be taken from Labour, this was a bit optimistic. although there were issues in a couple of seats where Muslim votes gained 2005 were being brought back in the Labour fold - although in one case, highlighted, Rochdale - everyone was sort of "oh dear, how sad". There was some optimism that Clegg would "out fresh face" Cameron, which was sort of true. I could only imagine with the old Minger in charge, we might not have lost some older voters, older voters liked him, but we would have struggled with younger ones. The general outcome of this was, we would have done worse with Ming. Now what would have happened in Charlie had stayed off the sauce is another question, they would have been very different debates.