Clegg to face leadership challenge following fees vote?

[ymu]

Those figures are averages across all local parties. They're irrelevant to the electoral ambitions of individual councillors and MPs. Where the Tories are a close second and Labour nowhere, breaking the coalition - or more accurately, being seen to break the coalition - is in their personal interests.

Whether or not such a move could succeed in deposing Clegg is quite separate from whether there are enough local fiefdoms who would see it as in their best interests to try. One local fiefdom has broken cover to announce that they are doing exactly that - with specific reference to the large numbers of grassroots activists who are leaving the party. It's just nonsense to argue that none of them have an interest in making this happen - some clearly do. The only questions are: whether there are enough to force a contest; whether there are enough Lib Dem MPs who would support such a move if forced to decide, and whether Clegg could be deposed if it went to a vote.

 

[claphamboy]

Those figures are averages across all local parties. They're irrelevant to the electoral ambitions of individual councillors and MPs. Where the Tories are a close second and Labour nowhere, breaking the coalition - or more accurately, being seen to break the coalition - is in their personal interests.

Actually those figures have nothing to do with local parties, the survey is of voters not members and are therefore very relevant to the party's electoral ambitions - based on those figures breaking the coalition could cost them more votes than sticking with it.

Whether or not such a move could succeed in deposing Clegg is quite separate from whether there are enough local fiefdoms who would see it as in their best interests to try. One local fiefdom has broken cover to announce that they are doing exactly that - with specific reference to the large numbers of grassroots activists who are leaving the party. It's just nonsense to argue that none of them have an interest in making this happen - some clearly do. The only questions are: whether there are enough to force a contest; whether there are enough Lib Dem MPs who would support such a move if forced to decide, and whether Clegg could be deposed if it went to a vote.

I am not arguing that some local parties may think this is a good idea; they are after all a very strange bunch - some even thought, together with 20% of their voters, that they could win the general election.

 

[ymu]

What averages did you think I was referring to if not voting intention?

You do know that voters vote in constituencies, right?

 

[free spirit]

That can't get rid of it's leader unless a tiny handful of MPs decide you can. 50 people having more power than 40 000. a fitting microcosm of the social relations that the party seeks to defend and extend.

the alternative though would be to suggest that the party have a leadership election with no other MP standing, which isn't a realistic option is it.

 

[moochedit]

the alternative though would be to suggest that the party have a leadership election with no other MP standing, which isn't a realistic option is it.

somewhere in that constituation i posted earlier (can't be arsed to look for it now) , it said they have a "re-open nominations" option on the ballet for MP selection if less than 3 candidates but as far as i could tell that didn't apply to the leaders contest.

 

[claphamboy]

What averages did you think I was referring to if not voting intention?

You do know that voters vote in constituencies, right?

You claimed they were 'averages across all local parties', not constituencies, which implies members not [general public] voters especially as you have been banging on about the potential voting intentions of members of the local parties.

You do understand the LibDems have fuckloads more voters (6.8m) than members (60k), right?

 

[ymu]

the alternative though would be to suggest that the party have a leadership election with no other MP standing, which isn't a realistic option is it.

The alternative is for the MPs to scupper the demand for a leadership election by refusing to back an alternative candidate - ie to back the coalition when there's a chance to bring it down, and take the electoral consequences for that. Those fighting off Tories in their constituencies would be signing their own death warrant if they allowed that to happen, which is why I think there would be 6 MPs willing to nominate a 7th if they were forced to make a choice.

 

[ymu]

You claimed they were 'averages across all local parties', not constituencies, which implies members not voters especially as you have been banging on about the potential voting intentions of members of the local parties.

You do understand the LibDems have fuckloads more voters (6.8m) than members (60k), right?

Well then, you misread me. The local parties' concern is the voters, obviously. Those figures are averages of voter intentions across individual seats, but the local parties have to worry about what's actually happening in their constituency. The national averages are meaningless for making a calculation because every local party has a different calculation to make.

 

[Sgt Howie]

So who exactly is this alternative candidate who can beat Clegg in the constituencies? You must be able to produce one of their 57 MPs if this is a credible scenario, after all.

 

[ymu]

I have noted that Greg Mulholland appears to be positioning himself several times in this thread. I have not said that Clegg would necessarily be defeated.

 

[Sgt Howie]

Do you seriously think Lib Dem MPs and councillors would entrust their careers to that nonentity?

 

[ymu]

You appear to be having trouble with your reading comprehension. I have not stated what the outcome of a leadership challenge would be, and I think it would be very difficult to predict from here, given what would have had to have happened in the meantime.

Noone had heard of Clegg or Huhne when they were duking it out either. Lib Dems usually are nonentities as far as the public and media are concerned.

 

[claphamboy]

They're irrelevant to the electoral ambitions of individual councillors and MPs. Where the Tories are a close second and Labour nowhere, breaking the coalition - or more accurately, being seen to break the coalition - is in their personal interests.

I’ve been trying to get my head around this statement, but I can’t make sense of it if 50% of the LibDem voters support the coalition and; let’s take an example of [sticks pin in map] Wells in Somerset:

LibDems – 24,560 votes
Tories – 23,760 votes
Labour – 4,198 votes

And here’s the problem for the LibDems, if they break the coalition they are going to piss-off around 12,000 voters, if only quarter of those (3k) switch to the Tories to stop a Lib-Lab or Lab government as a outcome, and even if they could get all those Labour (4k) voters to switch to LibDem, the result would be something like:

Tories – 28,000
LibDems – 25,500

- and I reckon those figures for voters switching are on the generous side for the LibDems if they break the coalition and force an early election.

Now, I know you’re partly banging on about LibDems at local levels, but as parties tend to get hit hard at local elections because of what they do at the national level, I reckon the outcome would not be dissimilar.

 

[Sgt Howie]

You appear to be having trouble with your reading comprehension. I have not stated what the outcome of a leadership challenge would be, and I think it would be very difficult to predict from here, given what would have had to have happened in the meantime.

Noone had heard of Clegg or Huhne when they were duking it out either. Lib Dems usually are nonentities as far as the public and media are concerned.

The stakes are higher now. And I'm saying a challenge isn't going to get off the ground, one of the many reasons for this is that there's no-one credible to challenge Clegg.

 

[ymu]

I’ve been trying to get my head around this statement, but I can’t make sense of it if 50% of the LibDem voters support the coalition and; let’s take an example of [sticks pin in map] Wells in Somerset:

LibDems – 24,560 votes
Tories – 23,760 votes
Labour – 4,198 votes

And here’s the problem for the LibDems, if they break the coalition they are going to piss-off around 12,000 voters, if only quarter of those (3k) switch to the Tories to stop a Lib-Lab or Lab government as a outcome, and even if they could get all those Labour (4k) voters to switch to LibDem, the result would be something like:

Tories – 28,000
LibDems – 25,500

- and I reckon those figures for voters switching are on the generous side for the LibDems if they break the coalition and force an early election.

Now, I know you’re partly banging on about LibDems at local levels, but as parties tend to get hit hard at local elections because of what they do at the national level, I reckon the outcome would not be dissimilar.

You picked exactly the kind of constituency where they would be better off ditching Clegg. Way more than 50% of those votes are anti-Tory because the area is too posh to elect Labour, but not posh enough to want a Tory.

In a Lib Dem vs Labour marginal, most of their votes come from Tories who have no hope of electing a Tory. These constituencies need to back the coalition, because they have no hope of retaining voters if they don't.

You cannot apply national averages to individual seats. It is the local situation that matters.

 

[claphamboy]

You picked exactly the kind of constituency where they would be better off ditching Clegg. Way more than 50% of those votes are anti-Tory because the area is too posh to elect Labour, but not posh enough to want a Tory.

FFS if that’s the basic of your logic - you're away with the fairies!

The Tories are the largest group on their district council and Wells returns a Tory to the county council, the Tories held the parliament constituency since 1924 until the last election.

'not posh enough to want a Tory'.

 

[ymu]

They have a Lib Dem MP because the majority of those who vote do not want a Tory. If voting Lib Dem means getting a Tory, the anti-Tory vote will go elsewhere and the Tory will win. Conversely, in LD/Labour marginals, they vote LD to get Labour out. If voting Lib Dem means getting a Tory, their vote share would increase.

Fuck's sake.

 

[butchersapron]

You picked exactly the kind of constituency where they would be better off ditching Clegg. Way more than 50% of those votes are anti-Tory because the area is too posh to elect Labour, but not posh enough to want a Tory.

In a Lib Dem vs Labour marginal, most of their votes come from Tories who have no hope of electing a Tory. These constituencies need to back the coalition, because they have no hope of retaining voters if they don't.

You cannot apply national averages to individual seats. It is the local situation that matters.

Lib-dems who are anti-tory will not vote for the lib-dems in this seat ever again. Even if they elect a new leader. You're missing this central point.

 

[butchersapron]

They have a Lib Dem MP because the majority of those who vote do not want a Tory. If voting Lib Dem means getting a Tory, the anti-Tory vote will go elsewhere and the Tory will win. Conversely, in LD/Labour marginals, they vote LD to get Labour out. If voting Lib Dem means getting a Tory, their vote share would increase.

Fuck's sake.

If voting lib-dem means getting a tory with a new leader they're not going to vote lib-dem either. Your argument is that people view them as the same but doesn't seem to notice what that means even if they get a new leader. Thr anti-tory lib-dem voters are gone, no matter what leader they have.

 

[free spirit]

I have noted that Greg Mulholland appears to be positioning himself several times in this thread. I have not said that Clegg would necessarily be defeated.

I'm not convinced that he is you know, although I reckon he'd help martial support for a strong alternative candidate against clegg if a vote happened. Could maybe be a stalking horse to force an election and get charlse kennedy back in or something though if enough local groups were supporting it, and no other MP would stick their heads above the parapet.

 

[butchersapron]

Whose going to vote for someone who can't manage a conference without going on a bender never mind leading a party in crisis? They know what a hostage to fortune he and they would be.

 

[ymu]

Lib-dems who are anti-tory will not vote for the lib-dems in this seat ever again. Even if they elect a new leader. You're missing this central point.

What happens in parliamentary elections is of no immediate relevance - it's what councillors perceive to be in their best interests that matters in the first instance. They would have a shot at maintaining some power locally, particularly if they had been seen to be part of bringing down a Tory coalition govt in an area where the Tories were the only other electable option.

On the national ticket, stage 2, there are some Lib Dems who might get a shot at keeping their seats, solely because there is no other opposition to the Tories. There are more LD/Tory marginals than there are LD/Labour ones - but I don't know how many of them have Labour so far behind that the Lib Dem would be in with a shot at hanging on, or how many of these could only hope to do so if they were seen to be behind a move to bring the coalition down.

 

[Bear]

If anything happens it won't be until after the Scottish Elections and the AV vote in May. Getting AV is what is (partly) keeping them together, they think the plate of shit call me Dave is making them eat is worth it if they get AV. Look at this site http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

Basically, the pendulm swings between Labour and Tory under FPTP and they think they've each got a right to rule when it's their turn, in Britain AV would create a 3 party state bringing the Lib Dems in to join the other two. The hope of getting this is largely keeping them together. Scotland is also important to the Lib Dems. They had their first taste of real power under the Lib/Lab coalition for 8 years here - plus they get a disproportionately high number of their MPs in Scotland because we have four big parties and that makes it easier to get a seat with 38% of the vote or whatever.

If they lose the AV vote and get their arses handed to them at Holyrood who knows what will happen; but until that they'll probably just hold on a hope rather than rock the boat.

 

[claphamboy]

They have a Lib Dem MP because the majority of those who vote do not want a Tory. If voting Lib Dem means getting a Tory, the anti-Tory vote will go elsewhere and the Tory will win. Conversely, in LD/Labour marginals, they vote LD to get Labour out. If voting Lib Dem means getting a Tory, their vote share would increase.

Fuck's sake.

This is basically a Tory area, if the LibDems bring down the coalition votes will flood to the Tories to prevent re-electing a LibDem that could/would support a Labour government.

As BA has pointed out they have already lost the anti-Tory vote in that area, if they dumped the coalition they will lose their anti-Labour vote too.

The LibDems are fucked whatever they do at the moment, hence it’s better for them to hang on for a few years and try and recover.

I admire your optimism, but you seriously…..

 

[butchersapron]

What happens in parliamentary elections is of no immediate relevance - it's what councillors perceive to be in their best interests that matters in the first instance. They would have a shot at maintaining some power locally, particularly if they had been seen to be part of bringing down a Tory coalition govt in an area where the Tories were the only other electable option.

On the national ticket, stage 2, there are some Lib Dems who might get a shot at keeping their seats, solely because there is no other opposition to the Tories. There are more LD/Tory marginals than there are LD/Labour ones - but I don't know how many of them have Labour so far behind that the Lib Dem would be in with a shot at hanging on, or how many of these could only hope to do so if they were seen to be behind a move to bring the coalition down.

It is if you bloody bring it up as the motivation for an immediate challenge to Clegg. It's utterly central. The idea that the local councillors can force Clegg out has been dealt with - they can't unless the MPs agree they can. I can't see why they would allow them to, you think they might. I think you're confusing what you want to see with what's likely to happen.

You were the one who said this example was the ideal example of how 'stage 2' will happen. I think it's the perfect example of how it won't. Like may people you think these lib-dem votes they're going to lose in places like wells are coming back - they're not. The model is fucked.

Having lib-dem/tory faces off (like almost all in the south west) means that they're fucked no matter what they do - those anti-tory votes are not going to stuck by lib-dems. The tory ones will either stuck by them or go tory. The lib-dems will stick by them. You have this totally back to front. Everything you're suggesting as reason for the lib-dem MPs to split the party is actually an argument for them not splitting. Self-interest and the local situation.

 

[free spirit]

Whose going to vote for someone who can't manage a conference without going on a bender never mind leading a party in crisis? They know what a hostage to fortune he and they would be.

kennedy was shafted by a section of the party for only increasing the number of MP's from 46 to 62.

Clegg's managed to lose 5 MP's, and take the party to it's lowest poll rankings since it was formed.

Kennedy is also the only Lib Dem MP not to have supprted the coalition agreement IIRC, so is the only one who can really argue that this coalition has nothing to do with them, and that they had to be dragged into it against their judgement.

The drinking thing's bullshit. By that token, Churchill would never have been prime minister, and most lib dem local groups either hold their meetings in the pub, or go there afterwards, so it's not exactly a tee total party.

Oddly enough, some of the complaints against kennedy were that he'd taken the party too far to the right and targeted the conservatives at the 2005 election...

 

[ymu]

I'm not convinced that he is you know, although I reckon he'd help martial support for a strong alternative candidate against clegg if a vote happened. Could maybe be a stalking horse to force an election and get charlse kennedy back in or something though if enough local groups were supporting it, and no other MP would stick their heads above the parapet.

Quite possibly, but he's definitely on the warpath.

A Liberal Democrat MP has warned Nick Clegg that he needs to convince his party that he remains the right person to be leader.

In an open attack on Mr Clegg, Greg Mulholland, a former schools spokesman for the party, who voted against raising tuition fees on Thursday, questioned the wisdom of the party being in the Coalition. And he warned Mr Clegg that the party was "hurting".

"It is very important that Nick gets out to the wider party and reassures people that the Coalition is not only doing a good job for the country but also that it is the right thing for the Liberal Democrats as a party," he told the BBC's The World This Weekend programme.

"He has done a very good job as Deputy Prime Minister but he also needs to show that he remains the right person to get out and communicate with our members."

It emerged that Labour is to step up its efforts to woo the 26 Liberal Democrat MPs who refused to support Mr Clegg on tuition fees.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/clegg-told-to-reassure-hurting-lib-dems-2158671.html

 

[butchersapron]

kennedy was shafted by a section of the party for only increasing the number of MP's from 46 to 62.

Clegg's managed to lose 5 MP's, and take the party to it's lowest poll rankings since it was formed.

Kennedy is also the only Lib Dem MP not to have supprted the coalition agreement IIRC, so is the only one who can really argue that this coalition has nothing to do with them, and that they had to be dragged into it against their judgement.

The drinking thing's bullshit. By that token, Churchill would never have been prime minister, and most lib dem local groups either hold their meetings in the pub, or go there afterwards, so it's not exactly a tee total party.

Oddly enough, some of the complaints against kennedy were that he'd taken the party too far to the right and targeted the conservatives at the 2005 election...

It's no good giving me a historical list of the wrongs done against the prince over the water - he's dead after that conference. Anyone who nominated or voted for him would be dead when he fails.

 

[Sgt Howie]

The idea that walking out of the coalition now is going to save a single Lib Dem councillor is complete fallacy, as well. They themselves know there are no votes in making themselves look an even bigger shambles.

 

[ymu]

I do hold my hands up to being a hopeless optimist though.