UK Liberal Democrat leadership election, 2015

[YL]

Caused by the resignation of Nick Clegg...

The rules say the leader has to be an MP.  So, barring Clegg, there are only 7 possible candidates:

Tom Brake (Carshalton & Wallington)
Alistair Carmichael (Orkney & Shetland)
Tim Farron (Westmorland & Lonsdale)
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk)
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West)
John Pugh (Southport)
Mark Williams (Ceredigion)

It seems very likely to be Farron vs. Lamb.  Farron is generally seen as being more on the left of the party, Lamb on the right.  Some Lib Dems are a bit suspicious of Farron because of his religious views.

Nominations close on 3 June and the result will be announced on 16 July.

[YL]

Whoever leads the Lib Dems into the next general election these are the seats where they are the nearest challengers to the incumbent. Such was the scale of their vote collapse there are only 18 seats where they are within 5000 votes:

  1. Cambridge - 599 (Labour)
  2. Eastbourne - 733 (Conservative)
  3. Lewes - 1,083 (Conservative)
  4. Thornbury and Yate - 1,495 (Conservative)
  5. Twickenham - 2,017 (Conservative)
  6. East Dumbartonshire - 2,167 (SNP)
  7. St. Ives - 2,469 (Conservative)
  8. Kingston and Surbiton - 2,834 (Conservative)
  9. Edinburgh West - 3,210 (SNP)
10. Burnley - 3,244 (Labour)
11. Torbay - 3,286 (Conservative)
12. Bath - 3,833 (Conservative)
13. Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross - 3,844 (SNP)
14. Sutton and Cheam - 3,921 (Conservative)
15. North East Fife - 4,344 (SNP)
16. Bermondsey and Old Southwark - 4,489 (Labour)
17. Berwick-upon-Tweed - 4,914 (Conservative) 
18. Cardiff Central - 4,981 (Labour)

Two things to be borne in mind, neither of which are terribly helpful for them:
- Several of those were clearly only as close as they were because of personal voting for incumbents.  If the incumbents don't stand again, and possibly even if they do, they'll be harder to regain than the majorities suggest.  There's no way a generic Lib Dem would have got within 599 votes of Labour in Cambridge.
- There will be boundary changes.  The rules for them are not certain yet, but depending on those rules some of their better seats may be broken up or have unhelpful areas added.  This applies to their held seats too: watch out for what happens to Ceredigion and Leeds NW.

[YL]

Telegraph is reporting that Tim Farron wants to change the party's name to "the Liberals".

Why not change it to "the Liberal Party", like old?

Because the old Liberal Party still exists.

But wouldn't the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 prohibit "The Liberals" as well?

Indeed, I can't see it being accepted, unless the 1989 Liberal Party either agrees to it (unlikely) or folds.  I get the impression that they're gradually fading; they only had four candidates this year, and only Steve Radford held his deposit (and that was closer than it's been in the past), but they still have a handful of councillors scattered around.

[YL]

Telegraph is reporting that Tim Farron wants to change the party's name to "the Liberals".

Why not change it to "the Liberal Party", like old?

Because the old Liberal Party still exists.

Does it really - aren't the Liberal Democrats considered the de jure successor to the old Liberal Party, even if there's a tiny splinter group calling itself by the same name?

That is correct -- the old Liberal Party voted to merge with the SDP, and the 1989 Liberal Party was formed by members who rejected the merger -- but the current legislation on registration of parties did not exist in 1988/89, and as the splinter group is registered under the name "The Liberal Party" I don't see how the Lib Dems can formally adopt that name (or "The Liberals", which would be too similar).

[YL]

Farron is in, with Mulholland as campaign manager.  There's talk of "rebranding", but not of actually changing the name (probably because, as discussed above, the obvious change isn't possible):
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/14/tim-farron-to-stand-as-leader-of-the-liberal-democrats

[YL]

Norman Lamb 43.5% (14,760 votes)
Tim Farron 56.5% (19,137 votes)

I wonder why 44% of Lib Dem members didn't bother to vote?

Anyway despite his religious views I think he's a good choice for the party. A genuine left leaning protest politician is just what they need right now (one who comes across as a normal bloke too) 

I don't think his religious views have influenced his votes enough for them to be a problem.

Politically he's probably not a bad match for me, but unfortunately the behaviour of my local party in recent election campaigns rules out me voting Lib Dem in the near future, even before I think of their record in government.

[YL]

Anyway despite his religious views I think he's a good choice for the party.

Okay, I have question to the British posters:

Today, one Polish conservative website posted article about British media approach towards fact that Farron is practicing Chrisitan (heretic, but still). John Humphreys almost molested him with questions about religion, some bullsh**t articles on Guardian and strange interviews in other media. Why the hell British media have so big problem with that he is Christian? He is not even putting his faith into political activity and still journalists reacts like something awful happened. Moreover he is Anglican so he is from one of the most liberal religious near-Christian sects.

United Kingdom really have such problem even with its state religion? I really don't understand what is going on.

Because the nature of his Christianity (evangelical Anglicanism, so not that liberal) raises questions about his positions on issues like abortion and gay rights which are important to many liberals, and for some people his record on those issues doesn't satisfy them.