Clegg to face leadership challenge following fees vote?

[ymu]

Rank-and-file activists tore up their membership cards in a furious backlash against the deputy PM’s decision to break his party’s solemn pre-election pledge.

One disgusted party official urged angry members to sit tight while an attempt to oust him is organised.

Sue Gymer said: “I’ve already heard that one of our activists locally has resigned and I’m deeply worried that we are going to have more people wanting to go.

“But I would ask them to stay put because I would like to, with others, mount a leadership challenge and then they can make their decision after that.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...s-fierce-grassroots-backlash-115875-22775576/

According to the Lib Dem constitution, it needs just 75 constituency parties (out of 600+) to force a leadership election. And they just had a massive council by-election defeat with a 17% swing to Labour.

The self-interest of 4000 councillors vs the self-interest of 57 MPs, half of whom couldn't bring themselves to back the leadership in the fees vote.

Should be interesting.

 

[articul8]

I can't see it happening to be honest. They would still get a hammering under any new leader.

 

[ymu]

What difference does that make? It's no reason not to get rid of the leader who led them into oblivion and, whilst they can't salvage their parliamentary presence, they can salvage some local power - particularly in those areas which lead the charge to depose him. Any elected Lib Dems who are seen to be behind a move to bring this government down will do themselves a lot of good with their local electorates.

Their power base is not in parliament. It's what's happening in, and to, the local parties that matters.

 

[joevsimp]

but would it be an immediate leadership election or at the next party conference?

 

[ymu]

Constitution says:

An election for the Leader shall be called upon:
(a)
the Leader asking for an election;
(b)
the death or incapacity of the Leader;
(c)
the Leader ceasing to be a Member of the House of Commons (other
than a temporary cessation by reasons of a dissolution;
(d)
the receipt by the President of the resignation of the Leader or of a
declaration of intent to resign upon the election of new Leader;
(e)
a vote of no confidence in the Leader being passed by a majority of
all Members of the Parliamentary party in the House of Commons;
(f)
the receipt by the President of a requisition submitted by at least 75
Local Parties (including for this purpose, the Specified Associated
Organisation or Organisations representing youth and/or students)
following the decision of a quorate general meeting; or
(g)
the first anniversary of the preceding general election being reached
without an election being called under any of paragraphs (a) through
(f), provided that:
(i)
the Federal Executive may postpone such an election for no
more than one year by a two-thirds majority of those present
and voting; and
(ii)
this paragraph (g) shall not apply if the Leader is a member
of the Government.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-03872.pdf

Thanks to moochedit for providing this in an earlier thread.

It says nothing about conference. Just that a leadership election must be called if any of those conditions are met.

 

[goldenecitrone]

b) also looks like a good possibility.

 

[ymu]

 

[FreddyB]

Only 75 local parties out of 600. Fucking hell, they've written in to their constitution the means to tear themselves apart.

 

[ymu]

Ah, the joys of a party that never expected to find itself in power.

 

[BigTom]

heh, forwarded this to my dad, just been on the phone with him - he is a lib dem councillor and more than a little concerned about the local elections coming up and how he faces people on the street and distances the local party from the national party (he does not support the national coalition btw, he thinks that the lib dems should, at most, have entered a confidence agreement with the tories, promising only to support them in a confidence vote, and dealt with each other vote on an issue by issue basis - he is totally opposed to those who voted for the tuition fees increase, as are almost all the local party members he knows, though he is trying to rationalise things in a similar, but less stupidly offensive way to moon23 ie: we are making a bad situation a little bit better - I'm working on this to convince him that the cuts are not needed/actively harmful, and that the thought of what a tory majority govt. would have done is a silly strawman argument).

Anyway, He thought that the local parties could only bring about an election of the party chairman, not the leader, but wasn't sure (he isn't involved with things on a national level, only on a local level).
I hope that he thinks about putting this forward to the local party. I'm going to push it, it'd be fucking funny if they lib dems toppled their own leader. I'm not really sure what the practical outcomes would be, but I'd like to see more turmoil in national politics anyway.

 

[ymu]

Send him the constitution Tom! They can force a leadership election, and the best possible way to save his seat is to be at the forefront of the movement to do so. Make sure he gets in touch with Sue Gymer (Cambridgeshire) too. She's the first to have spoken up about this possibility, and I'm sure she could do with the support.

 

[butchersapron]

There appears to be a gap between these 75+ local parties demanding a leadership election and an MP being nominated to stand against Clegg - and it has to be an MP. The centre have built in a safeguard to protect them from the wider membership.

 

[joevsimp]

There appears to be a gap between these 75+ local parties demanding a leadership election and an MP being nominated to stand against Clegg - and it has to be an MP. The centre have built in a safeguard to protect them from the wider membership.

sure they can find one if a vote's triggered, I'd be glad to have Kennedy back in for one

 

[ymu]

There appears to be a gap between these 75+ local parties demanding a leadership election and an MP being nominated to stand against Clegg - and it has to be an MP. The centre have built in a safeguard to protect them from the wider membership.

Less than half the party voted in favour of fees, and 21 voted against, including two former leaders. There must be some possibles in that lot, especially when the parliamentary party is largely irrelevant for the foreseeable.

 

[butchersapron]

sure they can find one if a vote's triggered, I'd be glad to have Kennedy back in for one

I'm not convinced - they need at leat 6 people to put their heads above the parapet. Kennedy will never be trusted again after his performance at the conferece the other month. About 30 of those MPs are on the payroll and won't be rocking the boat in any serious manner. So they need about 25% of the remaining MPs to mount any sort of challenge - not convinced they think that's a gamble worth taking at this point.

 

[Lock&Light]

A change of leadership now would mean the eradication of the LibDems in the election which would immediately follow. The only chance of saving the party lies in keeping the coalition going, and hoping for better times ahead, (without which, of course, they would also be eradicated).

 

[ymu]

Greg Mulholland looks like he's manoeuvring into position. If this is a move forced by the constituency parties, I can see a few of other 20 'rebels' deciding that their best hope is to be involved in the beheading.

 

[Lock&Light]

What would be the point of getting elected as leader of the party, only to lose your parliamentary seat a couple of weeks later?

 

[butchersapron]

What would be the point of getting elected as leader of the party, only to lose your parliamentary seat a couple of weeks later?

Why do think a lib-dem leadership election will automatically trigger a general election?

 

[Lock&Light]

Because the government would fall.

 

[ymu]

Why do think a lib-dem leadership election will automatically trigger a general election?

I'm certainly hoping it would. I can't see the point of them deposing Clegg if not to elect a leader who will withdraw from the coalition. It would be pointless. This move, if it happens, will be led by those who want to hang onto their seats.

L&L seems unaware that there are 4000 councillors set to lose their seats if they don't do something drastic. It has fuck all to do with 57 MPs.

 

[butchersapron]

Because the government would fall.

Not necessarily. Firstly you don't know that a new lib-dem leader would a) pull out of the coalition or b) support a confidence and supply agreement with the tories. Secondly, Cameron would go to the Queen and try and form a minority govt if the lib-dems do pull out. There is no need whatsoever for a general election if he can do this.

 

[Lock&Light]

L&L seems unaware that there are 4000 councillors set to lose their seats if they don't do something drastic. It has fuck all to do with 57 MPs.

But it is one of those MP's who would have to stand for the leadership. I don't see that happening.

 

[Lock&Light]

Not necessarily. Firstly you don't know that a new lib-dem leader would a) pull out of the coalition or b) support a confidence and supply agreement with the tories. Secondly, Cameron would go to the Queen and try and form a minority govt if the lib-dems do pull out. There is no need whatsoever for a general election if he can do this.

He might try to stick it out, but he's already having difficulty in passing votes with the LbDems on board. It would be impossible if the Libdems are free to vote as they want.

 

[ymu]

No it wouldn't. Fistrly you don't know that a ne wleader would a) pull out of the coalition b) support a confidence and supply agreement. Secondly, Cameron would go to the Queen and try and form a minority govt if the lib-dems do pull out. There is no need whatsoever for a general election if he can do this.

It wouldn't trigger one instantly, no. But how long do you think the Tories could hang on as a minority government, with or without confidence and supply? The fees vote was only the first big test of dozens to come, and they would not have won it under confidence and supply. The fixed term parliaments bill isn't passed yet, and even if it is passed, it contains provisions for forming a new government mid-term or triggering a general election if one that commands the confidence of the house cannot be formed.

 

[butchersapron]

He might try to stick it out, but he's already having difficulty in passing votes with the LbDems on board. It would be impossible if the Libdems are free to vote as they want.

Not with a confidence and supply agreement and not if the coalition doesn't break up. You seem to forget the lib-dems actually fervently support overwhelming majority of the the tories program - they're not secret commies waiting to bring the thing down as soon as they can. They're the joint ideological architects of the cuts.

 

[BigTom]

Send him the constitution Tom! They can force a leadership election, and the best possible way to save his seat is to be at the forefront of the movement to do so. Make sure he gets in touch with Sue Gymer (Cambridgeshire) too. She's the first to have spoken up about this possibility, and I'm sure she could do with the support.

I have sent it to him - he is not up re-election this time I don't think, but he'll be out campaigning for other people. I'll see what he says about it and tell him to contact Sue Gymer if it seems he thinks it is a way forward.

 

[butchersapron]

It wouldn't trigger one instantly, no. But how long do you think the Tories could hang on as a minority government, with or without confidence and supply? The fees vote was only the first big test of dozens to come, and they would not have won it under confidence and supply. The fixed term parliaments bill isn't passed yet, and even if it is passed, it contains provisions for forming a new government mid-term or triggering a general election if one that commands the confidence of the house cannot be formed.

A new election is of course a possibility but it's ceratinly not going to follow automatically. We must remember that it's not Clegg alone who happily ran after the tories into govt, but the whole party - they still support the overwhelming majority of the coalition policies.

 

[ymu]

It has fuck all to do with ideology and principles and everything to do with 4000 councillors who look set to lose their seats. They'll do whatever they have to to hang onto their own little fiefdoms, and I doubt they will demand a leadership challenge on the basis of electing someone who will do exactly what Clegg is doing.

 

[Lock&Light]

Not with a confidence and supply agreement and not if the coalition doesn't break up. You seem to forget the lib-dems actually fervently support overwhelming majority of the the tories program - they're not secret commies waiting to bring the thing down as soon as they can. They're the joint ideological architects of the cuts.

If that's true, then there is no reason for them to want to elect a new leader. Which is why I don't think they will.