Clegg to face leadership challenge following fees vote?

[ymu]

You make no sense. Plus ca change ...

 

[little_legs]

Interestingly, The Times (Dec. 11) claims there is 'unity' amongst activists. Their reporters even managed to find some amazing news for the LibDumbs:

While tuition fee rebels vowed to wage a "guerilla" campaign before Tuesday's vote in the Lords, senior party figures on local councils expressed sympathy for the leadership's predicament despite the protests.

The Liberal Democrats even succeeded in a by-election gain from the Conservatives on Thursday night, the same day as the tuition fee vote. The party won a seat on Fareham Borough Council, in Hampshire.

The same piece has a quote by this city official, I can't believe this man is actually from a university city:

Simon Cook, deputy leader of the Lib Dems on Bristol City Council, said that if he had been a Lib Dem MP he probably would have voted for a rise in fees - even though his is a unversity city - because "it's the only show in town and there isn't much alternative".

He added: "I am not convinced that everyone should go to university. Many could go into apprenticeships and other areas."

Mr Cook said if the coalition were unable to push through the Alternative Vote electoral form it would not be a disaster. "If we lose the AV vote, so be it. It's not the end of the world. We have a coalition Government until 2015. I predict the coalition will hang together.

It would be too dangerous for either party not to be be in it."

 

[free spirit]

Just to reinforce my point about his election failure. He is the first ever lib dem leader to preside over a reduction in the number of MP's the lib dems have at an election. Ok so they managed a 0.9% rise in the share of the vote, but the brass tacks of the situation is that they lost 5 MP's when the minimum expectation within the party was that they should have returned 80 MP's.

IMO a large share of the blame for this failure can be laid directly at Clegg's door for his pre-election hints that the lib dems would be likely to go into coalition with the tories (as well as his positioning the party to the right of where it had previously been). It was only after this point that the lib dem opinion poll ratings started dropping. He somehow seemed to think that the lib dems needed to be picking up both disaffected tory and dissafected labour voters equally or some such bollocks, when it was obvious that it was the labour vote that was vulnerable, but only to a party with left of centre ideals and policies. It's clear now why he did this, as he basically is a tory (as tbf butch and others were pointing out at the time).

There was also a big failure of campaigning strategy at the elections in terms of how campaigning resources were targeted, with the result locally to me that Greg Mullholland's campaign was incredibly strong, with far more poster boards, leaflets etc. out from start to finish than anyone else, and loads of volunteers. Greg increased his majority to nearly 10,000 due to this, but the lib dems failed to hold harrogate, or take any of their other target seats in the region, or do anything in the neighbouring seats to gregs, and the lib dems campaign in these areas was basically invisible. Leeds NW should have been a base from which to target these surrounding seats, but the party strategists told Leeds NW that their only responsibility was to secure their own constituency with no support from elsewhere, and the rest of the regional party would campaign everywhere else. This was blatently nuts.

 

[Kaye]

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.

In this instance, I think the stopped clock is right - there is not one MP willing to act on the 75 or more local parties, as it would be their death knell.

 

[moochedit]

there is not one MP willing to act on the 75 or more local parties, as it would be their death knell.

Even if there was, he/she would need the support of 6 other mps (10% of 57 seats).

 

[moochedit]

I wonder how many members some of these local partys have ?

 

[ymu]

It's not up to the MPs whether a leadership election is called. They can only choose to scupper such a move if enough constituency parties call for it. That's a very different situation from expecting a group of them to initiate proceedings.

Only 7 out of 34 backbenchers voted with the leadership on fees. If forced to publicly choose between helping to oust Clegg, or colluding to scupper internal party democracy in order to keep this desperately unpopular government in power, why is it so impossible to imagine that there wouldn't be one willing to seize the chance and six willing to go along with it?

I don't get the problem. For those fighting the Tories in their seats (the majority), being seen to oppose the coalition is their best hope of still being an MP after the next election, whenever it is called. It's not like they joined the Lib Dems because they thought it would ever get them any power nationally - they just like being bigger fish in a smaller pond.

 

[ernestolynch]

Who is that blonde sort?

 

[Roonster]

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.

Pie in the sky... even without the fixed term bill the tories will still have an overall majority when you include the 28 Libs who vote with them..It's five years of this lot.

 

[shagnasty]

Pie in the sky... even without the fixed term bill the tories will still have an overall majority when you include the 28 Libs who vote with them..It's five years of this lot.

Some of that 28 were put under a lot of pressure to vote for the bill

 

[ymu]

Pie in the sky... even without the fixed term bill the tories will still have an overall majority when you include the 28 Libs who vote with them..It's five years of this lot.

The post you responded to was discussing the context of a new Lib Dem leader elected on a mandate to pull out of the coalition. Your post is irrelevant, unless you're suggesting that these Lib Dems would take the Tory whip in those circumstances. Some undoubtedly would, but not enough, I don't think.

 

[butchersapron]

Andrew Rawnsley point out today the the bulk of the 'rebels' are from the right of the party - those identified as being 'left-wing' have already been bought off with govt positions. That further undermines the suggestion that the MPs will support any moves to unseat Clegg.

 

[Streathamite]

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.

Actually, i'd bet that more and more MPs will see it as in their self-interest to change leaders and leave the coalition

 

[Streathamite]

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

it's actually more than 600; there's lib dem youth, lib dem studes, lib dem women etc. they're an incredibly devolved lot. They meant it this way so as to keep the leadership accountable

 

[Streathamite]

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.

not if there's a complete change of 'top table', and they spin like mad to repudiate all the doings of the libdem ministers, and they hold off bring down the minority tory govt long enough to make the spinning sink home.

 

[Kaye]

Actually, i'd bet that more and more MPs will see it as in their self-interest to change leaders and leave the coalition

I don't agree. I think they will accurately be predicting that an early election would cause them to be unemployed (as will an election after a full term, I'd predict, but they're probably gambling something might change and the electorate might have a road to damascus moment).

Incidentally, I don't really know whether that's the right use of "road to damascus moment" as I don't know where the phrase came from.

 

[ymu]

Andrew Rawnsley point out today the the bulk of the 'rebels' are from the right of the party - those identified as being 'left-wing' have already been bought off with govt positions. That further undermines the suggestion that the MPs will support any moves to unseat Clegg.

I haven't reread the article, but I don't think that's what he said at all. He said the split was between backbenchers and members of the government. He doesn't actually identify how many on the left and right voted either way.

I don't see how it undermines the suggestion at all. It suggests that they will all do whatever they have to to save their skins.

It certainly doesn't suggest that there aren't 6 Lib Dem MPs who would support a leadership challenge.

 

[Kaye]

not if there's a complete change of 'top table', and they spin like mad to repudiate all the doings of the libdem ministers, and they hold off bring down the minority tory govt long enough to make the spinning sink home.

That's a lot of ifs though; I agree with agricola on this one.

 

[ymu]

I don't agree. I think they will accurately be predicting that an early election would cause them to be unemployed (as will an election after a full term, I'd predict, but they're probably gambling something might change and the electorate might have a road to damascus moment).

Incidentally, I don't really know whether that's the right use of "road to damascus moment" as I don't know where the phrase came from.

St Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus - bright light, oh, yay, Jesus, I will dedicate my life, etc, etc.

 

[Kaye]

I haven't reread the article, but I don't think that's what he said at all. He said the split was between backbenchers and members of the government. He doesn't actually identify how many on the left and right voted either way.

I don't see how it undermines the suggestion at all. It suggests that they will all do whatever they have to to save their skins.

It certainly doesn't suggest that there aren't 6 Lib Dem MPs who would support a leadership challenge.

I read it today and he points out that a number of traditionally left wing Lib Dems, including Sarah Teather, voted for because they're ministers. He might not have had the emphasis as BA, but it's pretty clear that he is saying that the left is not the focus of the 'rebellion' (which isn't one, is it).

 

[Kaye]

St Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus - bright light, oh, yay, Jesus, I will dedicate my life, etc, etc.

Thanks. That is what they're hoping for multiplied by a few million then.

 

[butchersapron]

He says:

In a very vivid and very public way, the Lib Dems split down the middle. The divide was not along ideological lines. MPs usually regarded as on the left of the party, MPs such as Norman Baker, Sarah Teather and Steve Webb, voted for the fees legislation. What they have in common is that they are members of the government. The Lib Dem ministers were with Nick Clegg in the aye lobby along with the great majority of Conservative MPs who had been successfully kettled by the Tory whips.

So those who you expect to be the ones prepared to mount a serious challenge to Clegg were bought off as easy as pie by virtue of their govt pay-packets. I'd love to see a challenge to Clegg but i think it's a misreading of the situation to think it's going to happen straightforwardly or soon. Before that's even on the agenda there'll be a deepening of any rift between local members and the centre - and this will be exacerbated when they realise that despite their superficially democratic and devolved control of the party that they don't even have the power to remove the leader that they elected.

 

[ymu]

Actually, i'd bet that more and more MPs will see it as in their self-interest to change leaders and leave the coalition

I think that's right - especially if they're forced to make a decision by the local parties demanding a contest. It'll come down to which bums are in which kinds of seats. Those in safe Lib Dem territory (primarily the SW) might stand a chance if they're seen to have made a stand. Those fighting off Tories in second similarly, especially if Labour is a distant third - a Lib Dem who won't ally with the Tories will still be the best way to keep the Tories out in those constituencies. I think most of the SW Lib Dems are in this sort of position - but there are a few three way marginals down that way. Those fighting off Labour are probably stuffed and might as well join the Tories for the next election.

There are more Lib Dems fighting off Tories than there are fighting off Labour ... which bodes well for some self-interested rapid spine-growth.

 

[butchersapron]

Lib-dems are in danger in every seat in the SW expect Ashdown/laws. Their only hope is to stay in the coalition and try to look like they're blocking the cuts etc - not by destroying the party. Rule #1 of electoral politics - the electorate hates divided parties. That is the bit of self-interest that will lead to them sticking together and sticking together inside the coalition.

 

[ymu]

I read it today and he points out that a number of traditionally left wing Lib Dems, including Sarah Teather, voted for because they're ministers. He might not have had the emphasis as BA, but it's pretty clear that he is saying that the left is not the focus of the 'rebellion' (which isn't one, is it).

I said I hadn't reread it (since seeing BA's post). I read it last night, and I know what it says.

Your post says the same as mine - he merely stated that it wasn't a left-right split, just a government/backbencher split. We're not talking about principles here - we're talking about self-interest. I nearly posted that article on this thread to reinforce my point! It certainly doesn't say what BA said it says, and even if it did, it would be irrelevant.

 

[ymu]

He says:



So those who you expect to be the ones prepared to mount a serious challenge to Clegg were bought off as easy as pie by virtue of their govt pay-packets. I'd love to see a challenge to Clegg but i think it's a misreading of the situation to think it's going to happen straightforwardly or soon. Before that's even on the agenda there'll be a deepening of any rift between local members and the centre - and this will be exacerbated when they realise that despite their superficially democratic and devolved control of the party that they don't even have the power to remove the leader that they elected.

Where have I said that I expect a challenger to come from the ranks of the government Lib Dems? I've said more or less the opposite ...

 

[butchersapron]

It says the 'left', those who would be prepared to rebel beyond a vote like this - one that was always going to pass - have been shut up very quickly and very easily. The rebels have no self-interest in bringing the coalition down - they've not been elected on a left wing basis -now if you have one group (the left or govt payroll MPs) bought off that easily and another group (the right or non-govt payroll MPs) bough unwilling to rock the boat then you're simply not in a good position to get the required numbers to challenge Clegg if by some reason you did come to the conclusion that the things that the electorate hates most is what's needed to save your skin.

 

[butchersapron]

Where have I said that I expect a challenger to come from the ranks of the government Lib Dems? I've said more or less the opposite ...

I meant a generic 'you' - it's surely expected that a challenge, if it comes, would come from the left.

 

[ymu]

I meant a generic 'you' - it's surely expected that a challenge, if it comes, would come from the left.

But you were implying that the only possible challengers were in government? They're not. 27 out of 34 backbenchers voted no. Greg Mulholland certainly seems to be positioning himself, and Tim Farron perhaps also. I think if one of them stood, there would be 6 MPs - backbenchers or otherwise - who would see it as in their best interests to support them. Whether the challenge would succeed is another matter. But it would pile up the pressure immensely - as, in fact, would a failure of the parliamentary party to act on demand for a leadership contest from the local parties.

 

[Streathamite]

Rule #1 of electoral politics - the electorate hates divided parties. That is the bit of self-interest that will lead to them sticking together and sticking together inside the coalition.

That's your most compelling point; against that, they might simply panic before or after the elections next may