The Liberal Democrats don’t tend to go for rhetorical fireworks or verbal kneecappings when grumbling about their leader.
But that doesn’t mean there hasn’t been grumbling going on. In the last week, two members of Sir Ed Davey’s frontbench have resigned because they were unhappy with him, the party’s direction and how policy is decided.
It meant the prospect of a lengthy and potentially testy meeting for Sir Ed with his MPs on Tuesday evening.
The Liberal Democrat leader arrived smiling, flanked by several loyal MPs, but made no comment as he entered the room.
Nearly four hours later, when the meeting broke up, his deputy Daisy Cooper said: “There is overwhelming support for Ed in the parliamentary party and a real sense that we need to come together as a group.”
Earlier, behind closed doors, we understand Sir Ed told his MPs: “We have made changes. I am happy to embrace more changes. I want us to work as a united front.” Another tacit nod to things being less than united recently.
In recent months he has appointed a new chief of staff, Ruth Younger, and James Holt, a veteran of the party’s years in coalition government, as political director.
Last week’s resignations were described to the BBC by one party figure as a rather Lib Dem insurrection – dissent expressed modestly.
Neither Charlie Maynard, a former Treasury spokesman and Alison Bennett, a former care and carers spokeswoman, have been publicly explicit about the reasons for their departures and both sought to express their concerns to Sir Ed privately and discreetly.
And, it is understood, there was no coordination between them in the timing of their resignations. They were departures that led to fury among some of their colleagues, irritated that it made the party look divided.
The resignations were the most clear indicators yet of an anxiety that has been bubbling away for over a year among some Liberal Democrat MPs. The essence of that anxiety is a fear they are not making enough of an impression and impact for the 72 MPs they have in parliament.
“The big frustration is the lack of cut through, being noticed. We are the biggest third party in the Commons in a century. But parliament doesn’t shape things as much as it used to. It’s about algorithms now,” is how one figure put it.
They added: “In the world of social media there is an incentive, even a financial incentive, to be divisive and extreme. That’s a sandpit we refuse to play in.”
Nonetheless, the party is planning to up its social media game, but do so in line with what it sees as its authentic temperament and values.
Those around Sir Ed Davey privately acknowledge there is what they claim to be a “small group” of Lib Dem MPs who are not happy with his leadership. It is suggested that number isn’t greater than “half a dozen” – a phrase used by several people we have spoken to.
But the anxiety about a perceived lack of impact involves far more MPs than that.
Some previous private critics have been won over by the recent changes to Sir Ed’s team and are pleased to see the government talk about issues they care about: the European Union, changing the voting system for Westminster elections and social care in England, for instance.
They also hope the scale of their local campaigning, rather than poor national opinion poll ratings, will be more significant come the next general election.
Al Pinkerton, the party’s Europe spokesman, told the BBC there had been a frank exchange of views during the meeting, but Sir Ed’s willingness to make changes had been “very well received.”
“It is a slog in the middle of a parliament, it’s hard being the third party and it’s such an enormous leap going from 15 MPs to 72,” another party figure present told us. “But we’re getting there putting in place the structures to better deal with that and keep MPs happy.”
“Why would we get rid of our leader when no one else is pitching to be our leader? We need to let Ed get on with it,” said another MP.
But they all know the underlying concern about impact – the challenge of being noticed – is real and not going away.
