Clegg to face leadership challenge following fees vote?

[butchersapron]

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.

It's got a lot to with ideology as well as self-interest. The MPs still control the process - they can decide to kill off any leadership challenge if they feel that a further public deepening of internal splits will effect their careers, never mind the councillors. If they decide to stick with the current leadership there's nothing the lib-dems who want a leadership challenge can do within the party.

 

[ymu]

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.

The polls looked very different when they backed the coalition. I'm pretty sure they'll have been following them as closely as you have.

 

[ymu]

It's got a lot to with ideology as well as self-interest. The MPs still control the process - they can decide to kill off any leadership challenge if they feel that a further public deepening of internal splits will effect their careers, never mind the councillors. If they decide to stick with the current leadership there's nothing the lib-dems who want a leadership challenge can do within the party.

Yes. But less than half of the PLDP voted with the leadership on fees, and over a third voted against them. There will be enough MPs to allow a challenge to go ahead - then it's down to the local parties to do the calculations in their own interests.

 

[Lock&Light]

Turkeys don't vote for christmas.

 

[butchersapron]

Yes. But less than half of the PLDP voted with the leadership on fees, and over a third voted against them. There will be enough MPs to allow a challenge to go ahead - then it's down to the local parties to do the calculations in their own interests.

There's a world of difference between voting against one single beacon proposal that you know is going to pass anyway and bringing down your leader and potentially your career with him. We know they're spineless bastards who will do whatever they consider is in their own best interest - and imo it's far too early to say they def won't consider sticking with the current path as the best way to achieve that self-interest, that they won't adopt that analysis. None of them crossed the floor, none of them resigned from the party when the coalition agreement was being discussed, when plans were being put into place even before the election to dump the abolition of tuition fees.. I think there's a few too many assumptions being made about what the lib-dem MPs are up to flying around right now.

 

[ymu]

Turkeys don't vote for christmas.

You're a bit thick, aren't you? Christmas is coming whether they like it or not, but there are 4,000 turkeys who can vote for the cull to be limited to just the 57 other turkeys, and some of those 57 turkeys have a shot at escaping if they side with the 4,000.

 

[Lock&Light]

You're a bit thick, aren't you?

I could say the same to you. But where would it get me? Nowhere, so why do you do it?

 

[weltweit]

I can't see it happening.

But if it were to happen I wonder if they think a new leader would null their agreements with the tories, or if they think a new negotiation would be required.

Anyhow .. who is likely to stand?

 

[agricola]

You're a bit thick, aren't you? Christmas is coming whether they like it or not, but there are 4,000 turkeys who can vote for the cull to be limited to just the 57 other turkeys, and some of those 57 turkeys have a shot at escaping if they side with the 4,000.

The point you are missing is that, if they ditch Clegg (without any clear replacement of course) and the coalition falls, they will be screwed. If they keep him, hang on until the next election and see what the situation is like then, then they might not be.

 

[ymu]

I can't see it happening.

But if it were to happen I wonder if they think a new leader would null their agreements with the tories, or if they think a new negotiation would be required.

Anyhow .. who is likely to stand?

If a challenge is successful, it seems unlikely that they would elect someone who will do the same as Clegg. Either they will re-elect Clegg, or they will elect someone with a clear mandate to get them out of this mess by whatever means necessary. Public opinion is very, very different now than it was 6 months ago. There will be plenty calculating whether their chances of survival are better if they are seen to be trying to bring this government down than if they are seen to be propping it up.

Greg Mulholland looks well placed to stand, as does Tim Fallon. They've been the most high profile rebels on this issue. Simon Hughes appears to have given up his leadership ambitions, and he wimped out on the vote, so it'll be a new new guard taking on the challenge - much like it was in the Clegg vs Huhne leadership battle. Noone had ever heard of them either, back then.

 

[ymu]

The point you are missing is that, if they ditch Clegg (without any clear replacement of course) and the coalition falls, they will be screwed. If they keep him, hang on until the next election and see what the situation is like then, then they might not be.

All of their councillors face re-election before the MPs do, and many of them much, much sooner than that. They won't much care about what happens nationally - especially when they're having to implement cuts that their national leadership has made possible. They'll lose their seats because of Nick Clegg and the PLDP, and because of what Nick Clegg and the PLDP have allowed to happen whilst in government. They have every incentive to be seen to be stopping them.

 

[butchersapron]

This is all true, but there's till this gap between whet they want to do and what they can do - they can trigger an election contest but they can't force an MP to stand against Clegg. The parliamentary party are still in control - whoever drew up that constitution was very devious, almost as if they tried to give the impression of ground up democratic control whilst leaving the reins firmly in the centres hands.

 

[ymu]

This is all true, but there's till this gap between whet they want to do and what they can do - they can trigger an election contest but they can't force an MP to stand against Clegg. The parliamentary party are still in control - whoever drew up that constitution was very devious, almost as if they tried to give the impression of ground up democratic control whilst leaving the reins firmly in the centres hands.

Also true. But I think there will be at least one young turk who fancies his chances, and enough others from the 21 'rebels' willing to back them rather than being seen to back Clegg once the issue arises. Then, it's up to the constituency parties, who will face a choice between retaining some power locally, or losing everything.

 

[agricola]

All of their councillors face re-election before the MPs do, and many of them much, much sooner than that. They won't much care about what happens nationally - especially when they're having to implement cuts that their national leadership has made possible. They'll lose their seats because of Nick Clegg and the PLDP, and because of what Nick Clegg and the PLDP have allowed to happen whilst in government. They have every incentive to be seen to be stopping them.

There is an awful lot of supposition masquerading as fact in that post. For a start, I think most councillors (and most voters, more importantly) would realise that whatever government got in for 2010 was going to cut, just as any potential government between now and 2015 would have to.

Secondly, you have to wonder whether kicking Clegg (and the government) out of office would provide those councillors with any benefit whatsoever, especially (as you point out) that they are not all getting elected at the same time and they are at least as likely (more likely in the Lib-Tory marginals) to get the blame for Labour getting in. Given then that the current New Labour party is inherently incapable of governing either well or honestly, and that they would probably do many of the same things that the Coalition has, when the wheels come off the Lib Dem councillors will get the blame from all sides.

Finally there is the assumption that the Coalition will inevitably lose the next election. That is as wrong now as it was in 1980, the situation can change between now and 2015, and if it results in something that can be sold as a success then the Libs will probably benefit from it.

 

[ymu]

There is an awful lot of supposition masquerading as fact in that post. For a start, I think most councillors (and most voters, more importantly) would realise that whatever government got in for 2010 was going to cut, just as any potential government between now and 2015 would have to.

Secondly, you have to wonder whether kicking Clegg (and the government) out of office would provide those councillors with any benefit whatsoever, especially (as you point out) that they are not all getting elected at the same time and they are at least as likely (more likely in the Lib-Tory marginals) to get the blame for Labour getting in. Given then that the current New Labour party is inherently incapable of governing either well or honestly, and that they would probably do many of the same things that the Coalition has, when the wheels come off the Lib Dem councillors will get the blame from all sides.

Finally there is the assumption that the Coalition will inevitably lose the next election. That is as wrong now as it was in 1980, the situation can change between now and 2015, and if it results in something that can be sold as a success then the Libs will probably benefit from it.

You've forgotten just how rapidly approval of the coalition has fallen since the true nature of the cuts was made clear. And how rapidly people are educating themselves about the alternatives.

You've also forgotten that the Lib Dems have long held a great deal more power locally than nationally. Getting the blame for Labour getting in won't harm them half as much as being seen to allow the Tories to continue - and that's the choice they will face if a leadership challenge gets off the ground. By definition, if Labour wins the next election, it's because people want this government out, the sooner the better ...and that is one concrete thing the Lib Dem local parties can offer.

It is, of course, impossible to tell what will happen in 2015. But we're not talking about 2015. If an election is forced soon, the Tories will lose ground to Labour, there's no doubt about that.

 

[tbaldwin]

It is, of course, impossible to tell what will happen in 2015. But we're not talking about 2015. If an election is forced soon, the Tories will lose ground to Labour, there's no doubt about that.

And yet you think the Lib dems will force Clegg out? Why would they?

PS I really think you apologise to Lock and Light for calling him a bit thick.

 

[ymu]

And yet you think the Lib dems will force Clegg out? Why would they?

Why wouldn't they? They stand to lose everything they've gained in the last 25 years. You think they'll happily throw that out so that a handful of MPs can enjoy ministerial office for 4.5 more years until they get wiped out too?

PS I really think you apologise to Lock and Light for calling him a bit thick.

And I think he should apologise for cluttering these forums with ill-informed nonsense and illogical cliches. That ain't gonna happen either.

 

[agricola]

You've forgotten just how rapidly approval of the coalition has fallen since the true nature of the cuts was made clear. And how rapidly people are educating themselves about the alternatives.

But when the realistic alternative would, in all likelyhood, do exactly the same things (except of course that they would not care about the fates of a few Lib Dem councillors) one wonders again why they would stab themselves without any likelyhood of benefit from it.

You've also forgotten that the Lib Dems have long held a great deal more power locally than nationally. Getting the blame for Labour getting in won't harm them half as much as being seen to allow the Tories to continue - and that's the choice they will face if a leadership challenge gets off the ground. By definition, if Labour wins the next election, it's because people want this government out, the sooner the better ...and that is one concrete thing the Lib Dem local parties can offer.

So you are saying that a Lib Dem group of councillors should act because they could offer a Labour government? Do you not see the flaw in that logic? Especially given how Labour acted in very, very similar ways to the coalition when they were in office?

It is, of course, impossible to tell what will happen in 2015. But we're not talking about 2015. If an election is forced soon, the Tories will lose ground to Labour, there's no doubt about that.

As would the Lib Dems (in both Labour and Tory areas), which would be a powerful reason not to kick Clegg out.

 

[ymu]

Had Labour been elected they would be doing much the same, albeit with a higher ratio of taxes to cuts and with some slightly different targets taking the brunt of it, and a slower timetable.

If Labour get elected on the back of mass protests which bring down a government trying to implement an austerity budget, with more and more people becoming aware of just how stupidly counter-productive austerity budgets are ... with people still willing to hit the streets to bring down another government if they have to ...

Arguing that nothing should change because nothing will change is just stupid. If a leadership challenge is launched, it is about how elected Lib Dems are seen to respond to that. They can be seen to support this government, or be seen to be helping bring down this government. They'll do whatever they think is most likely to salvage their votes locally. Whether it will be enough to see off Clegg remains to be seen, but it's just nonsense to argue that the Lib Dems have no incentive to bring down a Tory government just because it would deliver a Labour government. They're not in power nationally and they never will be - it's a non-issue for the local parties.

 

[where to]

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.

one Lib Dem MP you say?

 

[agricola]

Had Labour been elected they would be doing much the same, albeit with a higher ratio of taxes to cuts and with some slightly different targets taking the brunt of it, and a slower timetable.

If Labour get elected on the back of mass protests which bring down a government trying to implement an austerity budget, with more and more people becoming aware of just how stupidly counter-productive austerity budgets are ... with people still willing to hit the streets to bring down another government if they have to ...

Arguing that nothing should change because nothing will change is just stupid. If a leadership challenge is launched, it is about how elected Lib Dems are seen to respond to that. They can be seen to support this government, or be seen to be helping bring down this government. They'll do whatever they think is most likely to salvage their votes locally. Whether it will be enough to see off Clegg remains to be seen, but it's just nonsense to argue that the Lib Dems have no incentive to bring down a Tory government just because it would deliver a Labour government. They're not in power nationally and they never will be - it's a non-issue for the local parties.

This is just an argument as to why people should ignore the past thirteen years and give Labour yet another chance, isnt it?

 

[ymu]

This is just an argument as to why people should ignore the past thirteen years and give Labour yet another chance, isnt it?

No.

 

[moochedit]

Thanks to moochedit for providing this in an earlier thread.

that's ok

To actually stand:

10.5 Nominations must be of a Member of the Parliamentary Party in the House of
Commons, who must be proposed by at least ten percent of other members of the
Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons and supported by 200 members in
aggregate in not less than 20 Local Parties (including, for this purpose, the Specified
Associated Organisations representing youth and students as provided by Article 13.8)
and must indicate acceptance of nomination.

Full constitution for the Anoraks

I would think though that any party members that would have been up for it (if there were any) would have quit already.

 

[ymu]

that's ok

To actually stand:



Full constitution for the Anoraks

I would think though that any party members that would have been up for it (if there were any) would have quit already.

Yeah - that's why Sue Gymer is appealing for them to hang on in there whilst they get a leadership challenge going. Not sure that tearing up your membership cards counts for anything officially, so I guess what matters is how many of them still have a vote when/if it happens. It's the types who feel the need to join a party and can't bring themselves to join the Tories/Labour that matter here - especially in those areas where they hold power or the balance of power on the local councils.

 

[Lock&Light]

That is as wrong now as it was in 1980, the situation can change between now and 2015, and if it results in something that can be sold as a success then the Libs will probably benefit from it.

This is something these so-called political savvys just don't seem to be able to understand.

 

[free spirit]

I would think though that any party members that would have been up for it (if there were any) would have quit already.

nah, there's probably a lot who'd maybe not renew their membership next year, but are merely biding their time now and seeing what happens rather than resigning immediately.

I reckon the chances of this happening are much higher than most (other than ymu) seem to think. Nick Clegg was already on borrowed time after the election for delivering less MP's than at the previous election, which given the shitness of labour and the tories at the last election was utterly crap leadership. Had he done what was hoped he'd do as the leader of a junior coalition partner and fight hard for all lib dem policies, and win compromises across the board, and shown that the coalition government could work, then the party would have forgiven him the shit election performance. As it is though, what he's actually done is to use the coalition as the opportunity to abandon large sections of lib dem party policy that he personally didn't agree with, resulting in a disastrous drop in support, and forcing remaining loyal lib dem party members to attempt to defend the indefensible on the door steps.

IMO kicking clegg out is the only way the lib dem party can save itself. If not they're going to lose a large proportion of the activist base, get wiped out at the local elections, and get wiped out at the next general election whenever that is. The worst bit though is that he's demonstrating to the uk public that coalition government doesn't work, which is the worst thing possible for a 3rd party who's only hope of power is via coalition government - in doing this he's going to screw the lib dems (and possibly other smaller parties) for a generation as we'll revert to the 2 party system that guarantees only one party in power at a time.

 

[Lock&Light]

If an election is forced soon, the Tories will lose ground to Labour, there's no doubt about that.

If I was butchers I'd simply say something like 'bullshit'.

As it is I'll leave him to spout his own nonsense.

 

[ymu]

Lib Dem grassroots hit back over fees

 

[ymu]

Cheers fs.

If I was butchers I'd simply say something like 'bullshit'.

As it is I'll leave him to spout his own nonsense.

You're predicting that the Tories won't lose seats if an election is called soon? What a well-informed individual you are. Finger right on the pulse.

 

[Lock&Light]

I have never predicted anything, other than that you are probably going to learn more than you know already.