Our man this time

Daniel again, on the Liberal Democrats who committed regicide:

Those who did it shouldn't be embarrassed. They have been brave and really helped their party.

We mustn't let all this talk of assassins and daggers and so forth make it seem as if getting rid of Ming was a dirty deed.

This is clearly right, and I'm amazed it needs to be said. My analogy yesterday was with Michael Foot's leadership of an enfeebled Labour Party. If Foot's later testimony is to be believed (and I'm sure it is), only two Labour MPs urged him to his face to stand down before the party's electoral humiliation in 1983. (Those MPs were Gerald Kaufman and Jeff Rooker.) It is extraordinary and moderately scandalous that there were not more. Lib Dem MPs are not so sentimental; witness their speedy refusal to allow Charles Kennedy to continue in a post that he was demonstrably unable to fulfil. Those parliamentarians who realised the party's mistake in electing Ming have acted in their party's interest as well as their own.

They have therefore forced the question of the succession. The smart money and opinion appears to be on Nick Clegg. Here is Matthew d'Ancona on The Spectator's blog:

I stick by what I wrote in a Daily Telegraph column in January 2006. Nick Clegg is, as he was then, the only man for the job. Ming's problem was never age - Mick Jagger and Michael Heseltine are proof enough that you can still bring down the house after 60. It was the Lib Dem leader's countenance - a bearing he has always had - that made him unfit to be at the helm of a modern party: patrician, diffident, a little aloof. As Lib Dem voters looked at David Cameron's green Tories with interest, and Labour switchers, no longer outraged by Iraq, drifted back to their party, Ming had no aggressive response to offer. That was the whole point of Ming: he didn't do aggression.

He is the first casualty of Gordon Brown's decision not to hold a snap election. The Lib Dems are in big trouble, but if they choose the formidable Mr Clegg they could recover fast. Once again, the landscape changes: these are volatile, exciting times.

I can say with certainty that I shall not be voting for the Liberal Democrats at the next election, but it's still reasonable to have a preference for a leader of a party one doesn't support. I don't share the general commentators' preference for Nick Clegg. I stick by what I wrote on this site in February 2006 concerning the criteria for Lib Dem leader. Then I endorsed Simon Hughes. Hughes has ruled himself out this time, so I have considered the possible contenders. I'm pleased to read on his weblog the interest of John Hemming, MP for Birmingham Yardley, in seeking the leadership:

We should clearly argue for quality of life and away from a numerical perspective. The Treasury has argued that policy should be determined by valuing options financially. We should argue for people to have the power to determine their own situation based on an assessment of quality of life. This is, in fact, another dimension of politics where we can stand alone against Labour and Conservatives.

A third dimension in which we can create a distinction between our approach and that of the other parties is that of Deontology vs Consequentialism. Consequentialism, where the ends justify the means, has developed a stronger hold in the UK in recent years. On issues such as BAE and the Natwest 3 we should continue to argue that things should be done the right way (Deontology). Colleagues will be aware of some of my work in Public Family Law where Consequentialism holds sway and hundreds of people are imprisoned in secret every year. We should, however, review our approach to ensure a consistency here. Strict liability offences where there is no mens rea do cause difficulties from this perspective and how that operates to affect people should be thought through.

I shall wait till nominations close before I make a final decision. But as things stand, John Hemming is the most likely contender to receive my endorsement.