rmc28: Rachel speaking at a lectern with microphone and part of the slogan "Stronger Economy Fairer Society" in shot (libdem)
[personal profile] rmc28
From the Federal Party constitution (full document in PDF available at that page):

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.

The 8 LibDem MPs are:
Tom Brake
Alistair Carmichael
Nick Clegg
Tim Farron
Norman Lamb
Greg Mulholland
John Pugh
Mark Williams

10% of other members is 0.7 of an MP. So a leadership candidate needs to persuade one other MP to propose him (they are all white men over 40) and then another 200 members from around the country to support him.

From the Leadership Election Regulations (in the same document as above):

2. The electorate for the purpose of the election shall be those members with current membership of the Liberal Democrats on the closing date for nominations, including those members whose subscriptions were due not more than three months before the closing date.

Want to vote in this one? Want to be part of the discussion of the party's future?


You'll be welcome.

Date: 2015-05-09 12:05 (UTC)
matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (Default)
From: [personal profile] matgb

Hadn't noticed that. So we can't have more than 4 candidates. Shame, part of me wants all of them to put their hats in and let the members rank the lot.

Date: 2015-05-09 12:15 (UTC)
pseudomonas: (Default)
From: [personal profile] pseudomonas
I think that just means that they can't propose themselves; it doesn't mean that they can't propose more than one candidate (or be a candidate themselves and propose someone else).

Date: 2015-05-09 13:10 (UTC)
From: [personal profile] swaldman
Please, don't let it be Carmichael. I'm told he was a good constituency MP before he ended up on the front bench. I'm hoping he'll go back to being a good constituency MP now if he isn't distracted by, say, being party leader...
Edited Date: 2015-05-09 13:10 (UTC)

Date: 2015-05-09 13:46 (UTC)
From: [personal profile] swaldman
huh, fair point. That actually never occurred to me. Not sure what that says about me, but it probably isn't good ;-)

Date: 2015-05-09 14:17 (UTC)
jae: (politicalgecko)
From: [personal profile] jae
I'm so sorry things worked out this way. :/


Date: 2015-05-09 14:27 (UTC)
jae: (politicalgecko)
From: [personal profile] jae
I look forward to chewing over some of this stuff with you when we see each other in person, if you're game for it by then! (My party had an eventful election in my jurisdiction this week too, though it had a happier ending for us than this one did for you.)


Date: 2015-05-09 14:47 (UTC)
jae: (politicalgecko)
From: [personal profile] jae
We will get along fiiiiiiiine. :D


Date: 2015-05-09 14:21 (UTC)
hilarita: trefoil carving (Default)
From: [personal profile] hilarita
Good grief. What a lot of 'meh'. Mark Williams was the only MP I even slightly warmed to after looking at their website.

Date: 2015-05-09 16:54 (UTC)
nwhyte: (Default)
From: [personal profile] nwhyte
I've been a fan of Tim's for many years. He might actually entice me back into the fold if he is elected.

Date: 2015-05-10 00:32 (UTC)
kalypso: (Vote)
From: [personal profile] kalypso
I'd be really surprised if he doesn't try for it!

Date: 2015-05-10 09:11 (UTC)
From: [personal profile] swaldman
Wasn't Tim Farron anti-same-sex-marriage? Or do I misremember?

Date: 2015-05-10 15:43 (UTC)
pseudomonas: (Default)
From: [personal profile] pseudomonas
You misremember; he voted for.

ETA: I seem to recall there were concerns about Tim Farron's connections with Christian organisations, some of which were opposed to same-sex marriage; but I don't actually recall any substantiation of the associated rumours that he himself was anything other than in favour.
Edited Date: 2015-05-10 15:50 (UTC)

Date: 2015-05-10 18:52 (UTC)
pseudomonas: (Default)
From: [personal profile] pseudomonas
I stand corrected :-/

Date: 2015-05-10 20:25 (UTC)
bens_dad: (Default)
From: [personal profile] bens_dad
John Pugh, Mark Williams and Greg Mulholland all voted for some (but not necessarily all) of those amendments too ...

... which only leaves a choice of two for anyone who considers those amendments to be the deciding factor.

Date: 2015-05-10 15:58 (UTC)
pseudomonas: (Default)
From: [personal profile] pseudomonas
I can't disagree about the websites! Having met a number of them, I'd say that's lacklustre websites rather than lacklustre individuals; I very much hope that any of them standing get their acts together and write something more befitting them.

It is depressing that it's all middle-aged-white-men though.

Date: 2015-05-09 15:27 (UTC)
From: [personal profile] pjie2
An honourable option might for the seven of them (or however many actually want to stand) to mutually nominate each other.

What happens if none of them want to stand?


rmc28: Rachel smiling against background of trees, with newly-cut short hair (Default)
Rachel Coleman

October 2017

23 45 67 8
91011121314 15

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 2017-10-19 05:33
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios