May 1963 local elections and the party would have stayed in three- party contention. As it was, the Reports Orpington effect slowly dissipated and by 1970 the party was in deep electoral trouble. Even Orpington was narrowly lost, although Eric Liberal leaders and leadership Lubbock slightly increased his vote. His cousin, the 3rd Baron Avebury, Conference fringe meeting, 20 September 2015, with Simon died in 1971 and, as his heir, Eric Hughes and ; chair: had to make the difficult choice of accepting a role in a House of Report by Douglas Oliver Lords whose basis he strongly disa- greed with or disclaiming the peer- he Liberal Democrat vote collapsed in association with age and hoping to come back into History Group convened the hard left – and first served the Commons at some indefinite Tfor its fringe event at the alongside . Paul Tyler future date. He decided that it was autumn Federal Conference in was first elected for Bodmin in better to continue with his parlia- Bournemouth to launch and dis- 1974, during the colourful period of mentary work and he used his seat cuss its new book, British Liberal Jeremy Thorpe’s leadership, serv- in the Lords for forty-five years Leaders: Leaders of the Liberal Party, ing for only a few months before to espouse many civil rights and SDP and Liberal Democrats since 1828. losing during that year’s second human rights causes. With the party at its lowest ebb general election, but subsequently On his election for Orpington for many years, following the dis- returning to parliament in 1992 as Eric Lubbock immediately dropped astrous electoral showing in May Tory fortunes faded in . into the parliamentary routine and 2015, and with ’s narrow Simon began his discussion with was appointed Chief Whip in 1963. leadership win in July, the question praise for a ‘fantastic book which He was a superb ‘fixer’ and did the of effective political leadership and had lots of insights, and would pro- job exceptionally well for seven positioning was at the forefront of vide a competitive edge for any long years. In January 1967, when most delegates’ minds. As well as internal party quiz!’ Organising Jo Grimond retired, Lubbock made hoping that the book might offer his limited time, Hughes chose a quixotic bid for the leadership, the new leader tips on the effec- to focus on the three leaders who on the basis of ‘anyone but Jeremy His first les- tive performance of his difficult were before his era but had shaped Thorpe’, but he did not have the role, the History Group felt that him the most politically, as well personality for such a task and he son was that the principles of Farron’s forebears as on those contemporaries he only secured the support of two of might act as signposts for the par- had worked directly with, and by the nine MPs who were not candi- Liberal lead- ty’s future philosophical direction. examining the parallels he sought dates – Richard Wainwright and ers had a Lynne Featherstone, former to draw lessons for the present. Michael Winstanley. MP for Hornsey and Wood Green, His first lesson was that Lib- Eric increasingly demonstrated strong ten- as well as former head of Norman eral leaders had a strong tendency that he was an instinctive Liberal Lamb and ’s unsuc- to be resilient and energetic. From and took on many unfashionable dency to cessful leadership campaigns, Gladstone onward, it was notable causes, such as gypsies’ rights, even chaired the discussion and opened that party leaders had great stay- when his health began to decline in be resilient by musing upon the ‘madness’ of ing power in parliament, and not later years. At one time it seemed any one person actively seeking the merely as leader. The Grand Old that whatever country I turned up and ener- role. After a decade in Westminster, Man was an MP for an epic sixty- in on a pro-democracy mission he the former coalition minister (in three years, and David Lloyd would be there making forceful getic. From both DfID and the ) George for his own half century in representations on behalf of some reflected on the immense personal different eras; but even more-recent ill-treated minority. Thrust into Gladstone commitment that any leading leaders like Kennedy and Ashdown the limelight by the chance of a his- political role demands – and all the were in Westminster for relatively toric election, he carved out a polit- onward, it more so for the person tasked with long stints before and after they ical career and earned the respect of leading a party in the centre ground were leader. Despite variable per- colleagues on all sides of the politi- was notable of British politics. sonalities, outlooks and political cal spectrum. She was joined on the panel by contexts, there was, Hughes argued, that party two former Liberal parliamentary a hidden steel that linked these lead- was Liberal MP veterans who had first come to the ers – and that was a tendency for for Leeds West, 1983–87. leaders had party before merger with the SDP, hard work and stringency. great staying and had met and worked with a Hughes went on to conclude 1 The two key published essays on the wide range of party leaders from that a strong sense of political posi- by-election are: Donald Newby, power in par- Jo Grimond right through to Nick tioning and direction was critical to ‘The Orpington Story’, New Outlook, Clegg and now Tim Farron. Simon any party leader. Hughes said that March 1963, and, Ken Young, ‘Orp- liament, and Hughes was famously elected in in his view – which he accepted not ington and the “Liberal Revival”’, in the by-election in the all in the party shared – the party Chris Cook and John Ramsden (eds), not merely as spring of 1983 – benefitting from had ‘performed best’ when it stood By-elections in British Politics (UCL the largest-ever political swing in a from the centre-left, rather than the Press, 1997). leader. Westminster election, as the Labour centre-right. Furthermore, Hughes

Journal of Liberal History 90 Spring 2016 31 report: Liberal leaders and leadership argued, the greatest dangers for the neglected by the big two parties. perspective, and noted whimsically party have come when it has sought Furthermore, Thorpe was shrewd, how much had changed as cam- to represent the ‘centre ground’, and Hughes felt he was correct to paigning methods had changed. which he felt was too indistinct to turn down Edward Heath’s over- Early Liberal Prime Minister Lord hold significant political strength. tures to share power in 1974. Palmerston had been told never Looking back to the towering Despite policy agreements to visit his own constituency, the giant of Victorian politics, William with the last leader of the origi- Isle of Wight, by his wealthy local Gladstone, Hughes said that three nal Liberal Party, David Steel patron, for fear of disturbing the core lessons could be drawn from – such as over nuclear disarma- locals – an amazing contrast to the his incredibly wide and long career: ment – Hughes felt that the Scot- contemporary campaigning stand- radical policy, social commitment, tish Borders MP was able to get the ards epitomised by Simon Hughes’ and an ability to ‘wow the crowds, big message across to the voters. commitment to Bermondsey. in an effective and innovative way’. Steel was also helped by a calm dip- was one of three Lloyd George who was distinc- lomatic approach which enabled surviving Liberal leaders inter- tive in many ways, had a similar him to manage party disagree- viewed and included in the book breakdown of capabilities: progres- ments and to reach out to pro- and it was his remarks that Tyler sive ideas, such as a decent budget, mote allegiances with members of sought to echo for the structure of state pension, etc.; strong social other parties. Hughes remarked his own remarks. Clegg remarked commitments and values; and his that Steel and Clement Freud had that ‘resilience, principled patience own charismatic sense of how to worked carefully together to help and perspective’ were key themes wow the crowds. Hughes’ fellow his own selection in Bermond- necessary for party leadership, Welshman Clement Davies – who sey in 1983. Despite his relatively and it was these characteristics led the Liberals during its 1945–56 quiet approach, Steel was a brave that Tyler identified in his original nadir – had a different kind of set of politician and gave loyal support to political hero, Jo Grimond, during strengths which enabled him, criti- parliamentarians. the Suez Canal Crisis in 1956. cally, to hold the party together Clegg Hughes said that Paddy Ash- Within his first year of leading during the bleakly polarised period down was unlike any other leader the party, the MP for Orkney and immediately following the Second remarked he had worked with, and would Shetland had robustly intervened World War. start work at 5 am and continue to describe the conflict as ‘unprinci- Hughes identified Davies’ suc- that ‘resil- with meetings and stringent targets pled, illegal, counterproductive and cessor, Jo Grimond, as one of his until 9 pm or even later. He was the a throwback to gunboat diplomacy’ key political lodestars when he was ience, princi- most hardworking and diplomatic within days of its commencement. himself emerging in politics as a leader we ever had. Ashdown also Whilst the Conservatives were young man. The man who led the pled patience garnered respect from having been responsible for a foreign affairs party as Britain left the straight- and perspec- in the services before he went in to shambles that was in many ways the jacket of 50s conformity, and politics. Hughes went on to speak last spasm of the Empire, and the entered the more hopeful 1960s, tive’ were fondly of Kennedy, Campbell and Labour Party under Hugh Gaitskell inspired young people to join the Clegg. In their own ways, whether uselessly vacillated for months party with charismatic communi- key themes it was Kennedy on ‘Have I Got and weeks, Grimond effectively cation skills, a clear liberal intellec- News For You’ or Clegg’s stellar used the circumstance to seize the tual lead and organisational reform. necessary for debate performance in 2010, they moment and hold Anthony Eden Hughes felt that Davies’ grasp of opened up the party’s appeal to new to account, and prove that only both an international and a national party lead- parts of the electorate. Liberalism offered a positive mes- agenda allowed the party to pick In conclusion Hughes felt that sage of where Britain might other- itself up, but that the Old Etonian ership, and the book made it clear that it was wise stand in the world. To Tyler was also helped by his ‘establish- important for the party’s leader to the rhyme of history remains clear, ment aura and credentials’ which it was these grasp priorities, to understand the ‘Suez was the Iraq of our genera- meant that he could provide a party, and, finally, to communi- tion: and it was left to Liberals like broader appeal than the alternatives characteris- cate with the public. For Hughes, Grimond and Kennedy in both in the Labour Party. In this sense he understanding the minutiae of periods to rise to both challenges.’ was redolent of , tics that Tyler policy was useful but inessential: During the 1990s, Paddy Ash- who once joked that there is no rea- energy and resilience were the down had pursued his own princi- son for Liberals not to ‘dress right, identified most important thing. Whilst he pled areas of public interest, such as but think left’. acknowledged that it was impossi- his demand for humanitarian inter- Later on, Hughes felt, Gri- in his origi- ble to read the future, he saw these vention in Bosnia, and the grant- mond’s successor Thorpe was also nal political characteristics as identifiable in Tim ing of passports to Hong Kong charismatic but with an even more Farron and therefore auspicious for citizens, as the colony prepared to immediate style, as Britain came hero, Jo Gri- his future as leader. be returned to Chinese administra- ever closer to politicians through Paul Tyler built upon the analy- tion in 1997. With these thoughts the media. Though best remem- mond, dur- sis that Simon Hughes had out- in mind, Tyler said that he felt Far- bered now for his unseemly demise, lined, and commenced his own ron’s demand for a more generous as well as mishaps involving over- ing the Suez discussion with an encouragement reception for Syrian refugees might ambitious excursions on a hover- to the audience to ‘read the book, well be the kind of issue that would craft, Thorpe was able to empathise Canal Crisis in it is amazing, fascinating and fact- prove the enduring need for the with and hence unpeel many of packed.’ He remarked that he had representation of liberal values in Britain’s latent liberal instincts 1956. gained a wide-ranging historical Westminster.

32 Journal of Liberal History 90 Spring 2016 report: Liberal leaders and leadership

Tyler said that, whilst cam- by party members when he him, and that this holds some their activities, and that politi- paigning had always been an went in to government as part truth for all politicians, who cians like Palmerston, who had important aspect of the party’s of the National Coalition in often have to think nimbly, and fathered an illegitimate child, identity, it was not always a 1931, and a shower of gifts when to adapt according to rapidly would have struggled in the defining feature of certain lead- he was removed from parlia- changing events. modern age. Simon Hughes ing individuals. Grimond and ment a short period later. This Nonetheless, Tyler con- responded that giants like Glad- Jenkins were, for instance, not characteristic was evidenced on cluded that the party would stone – who could be consid- the most ‘hands on’ when it a number of occasions by the need to be careful that it did ered as Britain’s Lincoln – still came to doorstep campaign- party with regards to its atti- not rush too quickly into ‘fight- are manifesting in society as a ing. However, Thorpe, by con- tude to the coalition. back’ mode without taking the whole, but that nowadays they trast, was very involved and Building on the theme time to decide exactly what it are often less attracted to poli- was good at ensuring that the of patient persistence which was it was fighting for – and tics because of its high risks and party focused its resources on Hughes had explored, Tyler that although the lack of atten- exposure, so instead they seek the key by-election wins that mentioned that whilst hard tion being paid to the party in reward from other things. For shaped the ‘revival’ stage of work is key for a third-party the short term was troubling, it Hughes, this was a big danger his own of leadership. All of leader, the reality of the posi- did provide a useful opportu- for public service. As a response, these individuals were known, tion, with the media often apa- nity to reflect upon the party’s he felt ‘we [in all parties] have though, to maintain an inti- thetic, meant the position of raison d’etre. got to carry on recruiting peo- mate knowledge of and curi- Liberal Democrat leader often Tyler’s final remark of the ple from outside politics’. osity about local campaigners had to deal with ‘boredom’, as main discussion was to chide Tyler concluded that the and their families, and would as you would have to continue the authors for the use of an party must not just rely on the assiduously seek updates on the to quote the liberal position analytical league table which leader to exhibit the virtues health and well-being of local time and time again, with little ranked the quality of their lead- evidenced by previous leaders, party members’ families as on means of easily transmitting it ership. In his view, leadership but should also seek to exercise salient matters of state. Tyler to the wider electorate. was a more subtle, subjective them itself. The Liberal Demo- concluded that this was another With this in mind, Tyler said and heterodox skill that was crats will need to be patient and important aspect of leadership. he felt that a knowledge of the difficult to record in such a way. reflective in order to continue Tyler wryly critiqued the tight details of policy are not Instead, he urged readers to the long march back to political tendency within the party to always essential, but that it was focus on the portraits of the dif- recovery, and that will involve be less zealous in its embrace of critical to have a strong vision. ferent leaders offered by their careful thought about what it power as it should be, remark- In Ken Clarke’s Westminster respective chapters. means to be Liberal, as well as ing that this was not a new office during the coalition years When it came to questions the self-discipline in order to characteristic. In the early there was a Punch cartoon from the floor, David Wil- achieve that end. twentieth century, the great which showed Gladstone run- liams reflected that image was Liberal MP Isaac Foot remarked ning to deliver his budget, and an increasingly significant issue Douglas Oliver is Secretary of the that he was met with hostility not taking his ‘policy’ bag with for politicians, which restricted Liberal Democrat History Group. Letters to the Editor Targeting Michael Meadowcroft is mis- constituencies, the resources seats, there is strong statistical is that the turning points for taken ( Journal of Liberal History went on more and more at each evidence – including several dif- both membership and council- 89, Winter 2015–16) when he of those subsequent elections. If ferent analyses by non-Liberal lor numbers at different points writes of ‘twenty years of tar- anything, a criticism of target- Democrat political scientists – over the years have been uncon- geting under which, hear by ing by 2010 was that it was too which shows that targeting did nected with the rise of targeting, year, the party’s financial and widespread, not too narrow. indeed cause the increase. as they happened at significantly campaigning resources were I wrote more about this in the As for the impact of targeting different times. That reading is, concentrated on fewer and special 25th anniversary edition on seats that were neither initial I concede, not based on rigor- fewer constituencies’. In fact, of the Journal (issue 83, Summer targets nor part of the very large ous analysis of the numbers but the exact opposite happened. 2014) and that piece too set out growth in the number of seats rather eyeballing the graphs, but The introduction of serious tar- the evidence that it was indeed which were targets, there could it is certainly stronger evidence geting for Parliamentary elec- targeting which produced the be an argument to make based for what happened overall than tions ahead of 1997 certainly big increase in seats in 1997 (an on what happened in member- the one council that Michael resulted in a concentration of election at which the Liberal ship, councillor numbers, local Meadowcroft refers to. resources, but then through Democrat vote fell whilst the party income and other such Targeting did not stop the the 2001, 2005 and 2010 general number of seats won by the evidence comparing target seats party increasing its national elections the number of seats party leapt upwards). Far from with non-target seats. Alas, share of the vote – it went up for targeted grew steadily. Far from being, to use Michael Meadow- Michael Meadowcroft’s piece three general elections in a row the party’s resources being con- croft’s word, ‘assumed’ that tar- does not provide such evidence. between 2001 and 2010. Nor, centrated on ‘fewer and fewer’ geting produced the increase in My reading of those numbers however, could it rescue the

Journal of Liberal History 90 Spring 2016 33