Analysis: CDocwra’s extraordinary parting shots

The Deputy Leader made a series of big claims and cast around some stunning lines and insults, which party insiders have been keen to undermine as the words of a vengeful and bitter former Leader.

CDocwra took aim at his successor in a tell-all interview with the Guardian.

It cannot be understated quite how extraordinary it is for a former party leader to spill all the secrets of their party, and the government they were a part of, before their successor has even been chosen. It is even more extraordinary to do so in the terms in which CDocwra did, with some brutal, withering, and deeply personal lines of attack being the most notable lines.

There are a lot of stunning, concerning, and newsworthy comments, revelations, and stories throughout that are worth unpacking in what was a long and detailed interview published by the Guardian on Sunday morning. It is sure to provide the new Classical Liberal Leader, Brexit Secretary Twistednuke, with a painful headache in his first days in office, particularly with him coming for the most criticism. A full interview with Mr Nuke will be conducted and published in the coming days, as this was judged to be the best way to give him a fair chance to respond, and to speak to him as the new Deputy Prime Minister.

Twistednuke comes under heavy attack

Some of the most eye-catching, and cold blooded, lines in the whole interview were in reference to the man who has now succeeded Mr Docwra as the Deputy Prime Minister. He is accused of having “a sense of entitlement,” of running in Northern Ireland because of his “ego,” and even says a comparison Mr Nuke to Joseph Stalin is “apt”.

What all of these moments, and many more, make clear is that the relationship between the second and third permanent Leaders of the Classical Liberals has soured totally, and did so during the course of the last few months. There could be a number of reasons why, not least that CDocwra’s election to be the next Party Leader was totally unexpected, and that he got the job on the basis of leading the first round, and tying with Mr Nuke in the second. He says of his Leadership opponent “that he wished to act in as leaderlike a fashion as he could possibly get away with and a great deal of my time as leader was spent vetoing some of his more outlandish proposals.”

Whether that’s true or not, and we will find out Mr Nuke’s view on that charge soon, it does betray the problems that that shock result caused. What is clear from such an accusation is that Mr Docwra never felt he had a real mandate, and it’s entirely possible that neither did anybody else. But, as Mr Docwra’s critics will argue, it also displays his attempt to pass on a lot of blame for the issues he faced as Leader – particularly to Twistednuke.

But there is also a more fundamental split at play, and that is the one that has been theorised for a while without ever being totally clear, and which is now out in the open. And that is the divisions at the heart of the Classical Liberals between some of the big personalities. Certainly that is a theme that has been hinted at by Mr Docwra since his resignation, but it has never been clearer than now, and it has never been manifested in as much aggressive finger pointing as right now. He even says so himself, calling the Party “hopelessly divided” over Brexit, and accuses Mr Nuke of “despising…

those who would seek to ‘dilute’ Brexit.” The fact that there is such strength of claim and counter claim, never mind who’s right, is indicative of the uncontrollable strength of personality, and ideological split, among some parts, and significant members, of the party.

The “Scottish Classical Liberals”

But Mr Nuke is not the only Classical Liberal who is targeted by Docwra – his predecessor Duncs11 is called a threat to the union and is accused of being the “best spokesperson for Scottish Separatism since Alex Salmond”. But most startling is the claim by Mr Docwra of a plan to set up a new Scottish Classical Liberals, with him at the head, following the publication of some controversial comments he made about a “show of force” being needed in Scotland to prevent a second independence vote.

The comments are, of course, a contradiction. Mr Docwra voted for Mr 11 to be First Minister twice, and appointed him Scotland Secretary. There are a couple of ways you can explain this. The first, more charitable explanation, is loyalty. This version of events, the very same argument Docwra himself used, would argue that as a Classical Liberal MSP he had to line up behind his Leader and do his duty. Of course, there are some questions that this raises. Why look to depose a Leader and then plead that you backed him for loyalty? One could counter this question by pointing out that such a plot never went ahead.

The second, far harsher answer would be that Mr Docwra is now attempting to forge a new image as a man who was always against Duncs’ comments, even though his actions do not back that up. Certainly, which story you believe will be heavily dependent on who you are. If you are Mr 11, you’re going to argue heavily in favour of the latter.

But, Mr Docwra has become the first senior Classical Liberal – albeit former – to attack Mr 11’s comments and attitude towards Scotland, which has long been a point of contention among other parties in Scotland. And he has made it clear that things are not quite as peaceful within the Party in regards to that as we might otherwise believe, with Docwra implying at least one other, if not more, shared in this plot with him.

Internal government weaknesses exposed

Of course, the most substantive revelations came in relation to the internal weaknesses faced by the government, and he was unflinching in pointing how what he thought they were. Perhaps the most pointed example of this was when he he was asked whether the public should be concerned about the state of internal communications, and he said simply “yes.”

Likewise, he engaged in a long and thoughtful analysis of the government’s problems, placing significant blame on the Liberal Democrats and the Prime Minister’s periods of absence for appointing the wrong people to cabinet posts, like former Northern Ireland Secretary SireHans, and not being sufficiently active in their duties and in cabinet discussions. But in his most cruel line, Mr Docwra says “they believe that inaction makes one look stalwart but that only works in statesmen, in lesser men, like those making up this government, it only makes you look paralytic, cowardly and weak, which this government is.”

This assessment will be deeply divisive and controversial, and will provide plenty of ammunition to the government’s opponents. And whilst there will be those who will do what they can to discredit such claims – and certainly his over-reliance on blaming others, in this case the Liberal Democrats, provides his critics with grounds to argue – what he is saying is what is generally held to be true among Westminster and the public at large.

He has not mentioned or claimed anything that has not be hurled before, and that is not to downplay the significance of the statements, but instead to say that these are hardly far-fetched imaginings, but are instead widely observed elements of this government. Instead he is providing fresh evidence, and fuel, for such claims, and provides the first eye-witness, inside account of the things the Liberal Alliance has been accused of, hitherto, by opposition parties only. His testimony of these weaknesses – a lack of communication, inexperienced appointees, a strategy of inaction – will reaffirm them in the minds of voters, and brings them a whole new level of exposure.

It doesn’t even matter how credible Mr Docwra seems, or how fiercely these accusations are battled. There is a strong perception across the country about the internal state of this government, and suddenly there is an insider, not one of the government’s opponents, saying that this is all true. It is just what is needed to really cement such ideas, and it’s not clear at all that any fightback by the Liberal Democrats or Classical Liberals on the claims themselves will do any good. Instead they have to focus on undermining Mr Docwra’s credibility.

Reaction: Classical Liberal establishment keen to discredit Docwra

With their new leader announced on the same day as the interview was published, senior Classical Liberals have lined up to dismiss, not just the claims by their previous Leader that threatened to massively over-shadow their conference, and declaration of a new Deputy Prime Minister, but the man himself. A risky strategy since it brings the potential response of “well you made him leader.” Over the course of the 24 hours or so since the interview was published, we have seen those named keen to tell the opposite story, or to undermine Mr Docwra’s credibility. It seems the current strategy is to cast him as a bitter and vengeful former Leader.

The revelations couldn’t have come at a worst time for the Party, with their new Leader now having to deal with the fall out of all of this, particularly given the viciousness of the attacks directed at him. Mr Nuke faces an uphill battle to rescue the party’s, and his personal, reputation going forward from an unprecedented and merciless chain of cutting claims, comparisons, and accusations.

In response to Mr Docwra’s comments about him, Mr 11 told the Guardian that “At no point during the campaign do I recall Docwra making me aware of any concerns he had about the nature of the campaign we were running, nor the leaked comments, which he is fully aware were out of context, in that they were specifically about an illegal ballot and subsequent UDI. Therefore, for Docwra to go from that to talking about an attempt to coup myself and create some “Scottish Classical Liberal” abomination is a massive leap, missing out many key stages which should be taken first, including actually raising any concerns. I would like to also make it clear that at this time, I was still the national leader, and would have not relinquished control of the Holyrood campaign, and that I maintain the full confidence of all our members involved in Holyrood.”

What Mr11’s comments reveal is an attempt, not to engage with an argument about the veracity of the claims themselves, but to destroy the credibility of the claimant, arguing that Mr Docwra never actually said anything about the remarks internally. In so doing he would be hoping to suggest that anything his successor said about the Classical Liberal campaign in Scotland was overblown and opportunistic, and reflects more his attempts to say something shocking, interesting, and damaging rather than actually caring or acting to improve the situation.

It’s a theme echoed by Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary vitiating, who told the Guardian “I heavily condemn the former Deputy Prime Minister’s remarks. They are simply hyperbolic and defamatory mainly to two of my dear friends and allies, Twistednuke and Duncs11. CDocwra had the opportunity to fix things from the inside, yet – in my view – he took the cowardly route and abandoned the government when the going got tough for him. I had thought rather highly of him before these events, but, unfortunately, his actions and this very reactionary interview has lowered him in my estimations.” The central crux of his argument, like that of Duncs11, is that CDocwra is all words now, but no action at the time.

Brexiteer Tommy1Boy who is named in the interview when Mr Docwra talks about the right of the party despising those who wish to “water down” Brexit said briefly “yes I am a Brexiteer, but the idea I or the Brexit Secretary despise those that are not is ridiculous.”

Response: But some are on his side

And yet, there are those in the Party who agree with him. One senior cabinet minister told me “Docwra’s comparison of Lenin and Stalin remains greatly apt. I don’t know who will win the leadership election by the end of the day, but i am pretty sure it’s Twisted. Zhukov is a nobody candidate, and countbrandenburg seems completely uninterested in winning. The fact is twisted maintains a very very strong grip on the party and it’s really one that won’t be to our benefit.

“Firstly his hard right stance on Brexit is both against the party and the country’s will, his negotiation over Gibraltar showed his incompetence [M: regardless of how stupid the quad were]. Secondly he clearly intends to use the upcoming change in leadership to strong arm himself within the cabinet – if you’ve been in the Liberal Alliance cabinet you’d know that the Lib Dems often have no presence and leading them is Twistednuke in dominating the conversation. All three of the CLib’s past leaders have been relatively hands off and the two larger than life figures are vitiating and Twistednuke.

“Ultimately the comparison of twisted to Stalin is correct and many in the party are willing to enable him. I hate to have to go the route that Docwra did but another stunt like Gibraltar and it may very well be the case. Also not to criticise TheNoHeart [the soon to resign Prime Minister], but honestly most of these problems could be avoided if we’d actually had a PM who showed leadership.”

Another anonymous minister also told the Guardian about the anger that erupted as a result of Twistednuke’s decision to stand in the Stormont by-election as a unionist, in a move that was a danger to the Good Friday Agreement. A series of comments by Chancellor of the Exchequer Wagbo_ reveal the strength of feeling about that at the time.

The Chancellor reacted angrily to Mr Nuke standing in Northern Ireland.

In a series of remarks seen by the Guardian, Wagbo_ asks “You know what would have been easier & less divisive/silly for everyone? If the Europe Secretary hadn’t stood as a unionist?” He went on to make more direct attacks, stating pointedly “the fact that you are endangering that [The GFA and peace] is ludicrous.”

The Chancellor reacted angrily to Mr Nuke standing in Northern Ireland.

“You’re the one going on a jolly over there to fight for what? Take a look at the past of the province before you dare do that,” the now Liberal Democrat Leadership candidate also says. “The disenfranchisement of not letting some Orangemen have a candidate willing to collapse Stormont is nothing compared to the disenfranchisement of having no nationalists in the Assembly. The fact that you would put the peace at risk for this is amazing.”