UK Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2017

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tbh I'm kind of amazed that a significant portion of former LibDem voters supported Leave.

[MAINEiac4434]

Lamb out:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/22/lib-dems-next-leader-hard-brexit-inequality

Congratulations Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable

[Phony Moderate]

Tbh I'm kind of amazed that a significant portion of former LibDem voters supported Leave.

Pre-coalition, they were the main non-Labour/Tory party and were seen as 'clean' due to not having had experience in government since the War. A lot of their old vote was in no way intended as an endorsement for liberalism.

[Kingpoleon]

Tbh I'm kind of amazed that a significant portion of former LibDem voters supported Leave.

The Liberal Democrats' national emphasis on supporting the E. U. wasn't always reflected at the local level.

[Tintrlvr]

Tbh I'm kind of amazed that a significant portion of former LibDem voters supported Leave.

Pre-coalition, they were the main non-Labour/Tory party and were seen as 'clean' due to not having had experience in government since the War. A lot of their old vote was in no way intended as an endorsement for liberalism.

Overall, their voters were definitely more liberal than other non-Lib Dem voters in the same seat, of course.

In any case, the EU wasn't a significant political issue to most Britons until the referendum. That's what made the referendum such an own goal by Cameron. He never had to promise it, and he would not have been punished much if he had ignored the promise.

[parochial boy]

Tbh I'm kind of amazed that a significant portion of former LibDem voters supported Leave.

Pre-coalition, they were the main non-Labour/Tory party and were seen as 'clean' due to not having had experience in government since the War. A lot of their old vote was in no way intended as an endorsement for liberalism.

Overall, their voters were definitely more liberal than other non-Lib Dem voters in the same seat, of course.

In any case, the EU wasn't a significant political issue to most Britons until the referendum. That's what made the referendum such an own goal by Cameron. He never had to promise it, and he would not have been punished much if he had ignored the promise.

Yes, the reason the referendum happened was all about the obsessions of a certain part of the Conservative party than it was driven by any real popular demand.

The Lib Dems also had a lot of there middle of the noughties strength on the back of their opposition to the Iraq war, which never had the level of public support in the UK that it did in the US.

Also, a good deal of the Lib Dem strength in the South West was always based on them being on the left of the Tories, in a region where an "urban" party like Labour was largely unpalatable.

[Tintrlvr]

Tbh I'm kind of amazed that a significant portion of former LibDem voters supported Leave.

Pre-coalition, they were the main non-Labour/Tory party and were seen as 'clean' due to not having had experience in government since the War. A lot of their old vote was in no way intended as an endorsement for liberalism.

Overall, their voters were definitely more liberal than other non-Lib Dem voters in the same seat, of course.

In any case, the EU wasn't a significant political issue to most Britons until the referendum. That's what made the referendum such an own goal by Cameron. He never had to promise it, and he would not have been punished much if he had ignored the promise.

Yes, the reason the referendum happened was all about the obsessions of a certain part of the Conservative party than it was driven by any real popular demand.

The Lib Dems also had a lot of there middle of the noughties strength on the back of their opposition to the Iraq war, which never had the level of public support in the UK that it did in the US.

Also, a good deal of the Lib Dem strength in the South West was always based on them being on the left of the Tories, in a region where an "urban" party like Labour was largely unpalatable.

Iraq had little to do with the strength in the Southwest; that was more of the cause of Lib Dem strength and ability to eat into Labour in the cities, the Muslim vote and the youth and student vote. The Lib Dems were strong in the Southwest in 1997 and 2001 also (and pre-1997 they were clearly already ahead of Labour in the region back to the days of the Alliance). In order to get back to 1997-2001 support, the Lib Dems don't need another Iraq, although they would need one in order to really break the party system (deeply unlikely within the next 20 years or so).

I do think the Lib Dems will probably come back at least to a degree in the Southwest naturally once the Tories have done things to make themselves unpopular. We say that the Tories are unpopular right now, but that's not really true. They're middlingly popular, certainly nowhere near the depths of the late 90s. And the Tories could easily rebound if May leaves and is replaced by someone else.

[parochial boy]

Iraq had little to do with the strength in the Southwest; that was more of the cause of Lib Dem strength and ability to eat into Labour in the cities, the Muslim vote and the youth and student vote. The Lib Dems were strong in the Southwest in 1997 and 2001 also (and pre-1997 they were clearly already ahead of Labour in the region back to the days of the Alliance). In order to get back to 1997-2001 support, the Lib Dems don't need another Iraq, although they would need one in order to really break the party system (deeply unlikely within the next 20 years or so).

I do think the Lib Dems will probably come back at least to a degree in the Southwest naturally once the Tories have done things to make themselves unpopular. We say that the Tories are unpopular right now, but that's not really true. They're middlingly popular, certainly nowhere near the depths of the late 90s. And the Tories could easily rebound if May leaves and is replaced by someone else.

Oh,  I didn't mean to say that their strength in the South-West was due to Iraq. The SW is like Mid-Wales or Northern Scotland in that it has always been a strong area for the Lib Dems. The fact they did particularly well round there in the New Labour era is probably due to the general weakness of the Tories at the time.

What I meant was, if you go back to the mid-2000s, the Lib Dems were able to take advantage of a very specific set of circumstances that are not the case at the moment. At the time, economic issues were kind of off the agenda as the economy was growing strongly and there wasn't really much mainstream debate over New Labour style economic policies. The major political topics at the time were things like foreign policy or identity cards, where the Lib Dems seemed to be more in tune with much of the public..

Getting down to it, I think the Lib Dems have never really won much support for their economic stances, and most people have probably never really been aware of them. So they were able to harness a good deal of public support at a time where economics faded into the background, and the sorts of issues that the public are generally quite socially liberal on where among the most salient issues.

Basically, now at a time where much of the focus is on falling living standards, job insecurity and the ongoing fall out of the 2008 crash, the Lib Dems don't really have much of any real relevance that they can say to people.

[Tintrlvr]

Iraq had little to do with the strength in the Southwest; that was more of the cause of Lib Dem strength and ability to eat into Labour in the cities, the Muslim vote and the youth and student vote. The Lib Dems were strong in the Southwest in 1997 and 2001 also (and pre-1997 they were clearly already ahead of Labour in the region back to the days of the Alliance). In order to get back to 1997-2001 support, the Lib Dems don't need another Iraq, although they would need one in order to really break the party system (deeply unlikely within the next 20 years or so).

I do think the Lib Dems will probably come back at least to a degree in the Southwest naturally once the Tories have done things to make themselves unpopular. We say that the Tories are unpopular right now, but that's not really true. They're middlingly popular, certainly nowhere near the depths of the late 90s. And the Tories could easily rebound if May leaves and is replaced by someone else.

Oh,  I didn't mean to say that their strength in the South-West was due to Iraq. The SW is like Mid-Wales or Northern Scotland in that it has always been a strong area for the Lib Dems. The fact they did particularly well round there in the New Labour era is probably due to the general weakness of the Tories at the time.

What I meant was, if you go back to the mid-2000s, the Lib Dems were able to take advantage of a very specific set of circumstances that are not the case at the moment. At the time, economic issues were kind of off the agenda as the economy was growing strongly and there wasn't really much mainstream debate over New Labour style economic policies. The major political topics at the time were things like foreign policy or identity cards, where the Lib Dems seemed to be more in tune with much of the public..

Getting down to it, I think the Lib Dems have never really won much support for their economic stances, and most people have probably never really been aware of them. So they were able to harness a good deal of public support at a time where economics faded into the background, and the sorts of issues that the public are generally quite socially liberal on where among the most salient issues.

Basically, now at a time where much of the focus is on falling living standards, job insecurity and the ongoing fall out of the 2008 crash, the Lib Dems don't really have much of any real relevance that they can say to people.

I think it's not so much that the Lib Dems don't have something to say about economics as it is that, while they can stake out positions clearly different from both the Tories and Labour on many issues, on economics they definitely are in the mushy middle, which doesn't appeal to that many people unless you are a technocratic party of government and which also contains some politicians on the right of Labour and the left of the Tories. It's also hard to throw around rhetoric about middle-of-the-road economic policies, much harder than "poor people are poor because they deserve it" or "the rich are undeserving fatcats who exploit the common man."

[Chickpeas]

Ed Davey has announced he isn't standing.

It's looking likely there won't even be a contest now.

[adma]

Vince Cable is a safe pair of hands to put the party back on its feet after Farron and Clegg left it in shambles. Cable will be a caretaker in my view, the leader after him though will probably Jo Swinson. Once the party is on its feet, Cable will step down and Swinson will become leader. I am speaking hypothetically of course.

So, another Ming Campbell, albeit less messily so.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Can't disable the Cable!

[Kingpoleon]

Ed Davey has announced he isn't standing.

It's looking likely there won't even be a contest now.

If Lloyd doesn't run, the other three MPs are all new. Hobhouse, I believe, would be the first party leader born outside of the United Kingdom.

[Gary J]

Ed Davey has announced he isn't standing.

It's looking likely there won't even be a contest now.

If Lloyd doesn't run, the other three MPs are all new. Hobhouse, I believe, would be the first party leader born outside of the United Kingdom.

Andrew Bonar Law, the Conservative leader from 1911-21 and 1922-23, was born in New Brunswick which is now a Canadian province.

Wera Hobhouse does not seem to be a very plausible candidate to be a party leader.

[Kingpoleon]

Ed Davey has announced he isn't standing.

It's looking likely there won't even be a contest now.

If Lloyd doesn't run, the other three MPs are all new. Hobhouse, I believe, would be the first party leader born outside of the United Kingdom.

Andrew Bonar Law, the Conservative leader from 1911-21 and 1922-23, was born in New Brunswick which is now a Canadian province.

Wera Hobhouse does not seem to be a very plausible candidate to be a party leader.

At the time he was born, however, New Brunswick was not yet part of the Canadian Confederation.

[adma]

Ed Davey has announced he isn't standing.

It's looking likely there won't even be a contest now.

If Lloyd doesn't run, the other three MPs are all new. Hobhouse, I believe, would be the first party leader born outside of the United Kingdom.

Andrew Bonar Law, the Conservative leader from 1911-21 and 1922-23, was born in New Brunswick which is now a Canadian province.

Wera Hobhouse does not seem to be a very plausible candidate to be a party leader.

At the time he was born, however, New Brunswick was not yet part of the Canadian Confederation.

So would this be like John McCain being born in the Canal Zone?

[Gary J]

Ed Davey has announced he isn't standing.

It's looking likely there won't even be a contest now.

If Lloyd doesn't run, the other three MPs are all new. Hobhouse, I believe, would be the first party leader born outside of the United Kingdom.

Andrew Bonar Law, the Conservative leader from 1911-21 and 1922-23, was born in New Brunswick which is now a Canadian province.

Wera Hobhouse does not seem to be a very plausible candidate to be a party leader.

At the time he was born, however, New Brunswick was not yet part of the Canadian Confederation.

So would this be like John McCain being born in the Canal Zone?

To some extent. However there is no requirement that a British Prime Minister should have been born in the United Kingdom. Thus Bonar Law, having been born in the British colony of New Brunswick, was fully entitled to move to the UK and take part in British politics. In his time any subject of the British Crown, born anywhere in the Empire, had the same legal status.

Even today any citizen of a Commonwealth country, with the correct immigration status to be resident in the UK, can register to vote and be a candidate in elections.

Wera Hobhouse is in a different category. She was born in Germany so to be eligible to be an MP she had to become a naturalised British citizen. Having done so, she was free to be elected to Parliament  and could then (in theory) become a party leader or Prime Minister.

[Hnv1]

De jure i don't think there's any requirements of status. The monarch can appoint whoever he wants as PM, member of the commons a peer or none of the above (Home was PM for three weeks being a member of neither of the houses). It's merely a convention that it will be a member of the commons

[Gary J]

De jure i don't think there's any requirements of status. The monarch can appoint whoever he wants as PM, member of the commons a peer or none of the above (Home was PM for three weeks being a member of neither of the houses). It's merely a convention that it will be a member of the commons

The modern convention. which is not a matter of strict law but a very strong requirement of political necessity, is that the Prime Minister if not already a member of the House of Commons should become one as quickly as possible. Lord Home upon appointment as Prime Minister, had to renounce his peerage and win a convenient by-election.

The following year Patrick Gordon-Walker lost his seat at the General Election. He was still appointed Foreign Secretary in the new Labour government, but when he lost a by-election he then had to resign as a Minister.

The convention operates in Australia as well. Senator Gorton was appointed Prime Minister after Harold Holt disappeared. Gorton resigned his Senate seat and then won a by-election in his predecessors House of Representatives electorate.

Nowadays, in Westminster type bicameral systems, a Prime Minister really must be in the lower house to retain its confidence.

[Phony Moderate]

Sir Vince Cable is now the Lib Dem leader; nominations closed a few minutes ago and he was the sole candidate.

[parochial boy]

well... My initial impression is that, like Caroline Lucas, he has a personal brand that is much stronger than his party, but a popular leader does not necessarily translate into popular support. The LD's inability to position themselves is going to continue.

[Phony Moderate]

Actually, an argument can be made that he's got the most gravitas of any Liberal leader since Jo Grimond.

Farron had eff all and his GE campaign ended up being dominated by questions about his views on teh gayz.

Clegg was just a pretty boy who had a brief, shiny moment in April 2010 before (lol) making a net loss of seats. He then proceeded to so publically betray his base that it was quite surreal, pissed away voting reform for a generation, got wiped out at every level of government and then didn't even manage to hold Twickenham in 2015. Oh, and post-leadership he managed to lose his own seat despite a slight improvement for the party overall.

Campbell was old and stale in 1997, let alone 2007.

Kennedy was a nice guy but...cheers.

Ashdown was plagued by a play-on-words headline on his name.

Steel was f**ked by Spitting Image.

And then you had Jeremy Thorpe.

[Krago]

Ashdown was plagued by a play-on-words headline on his name.

Which was?

[Lord Halifax]

Ashdown was plagued by a play-on-words headline on his name.

Which was?

[Leftbehind]

10 pages devoted to that...