For what it’s worth I’m happy to accept Nick’s explanation.

My view is that if Simon wins there will be difficulties for him with a number of people in the PP. If Chris wins I suspect there won’t be.

Another reason for a candidate to have a large number of MPs in support - and I’m not suggesting this is the case with Ming’s supporters of course - is that if you’re perceived as the frontrunner very early on, some MPs will feel it necessary to back you in the hope of promotion if you are elected.

I’m not denying that a candidate with the support of half of the parliamentary party is in a stronger position than one without (well, actually it isn’t quite as clear cut as that; just because a candidate is being backed by a lot of MPs it doesn’t mean he enjoys their “unambiguous loyalty,” it just means they consider him to be the best option under the circumstances), but there is a world of difference between a leader not being as popular amongst his colleagues as they’d like and having to constantly “look over their shoulder.”

The bottom line is, the Campbell campaign - and Nick Clegg here in particular - have adopted what I regard to be an unneccessarily defensive tone. At best, the paragraph I cited above is an example of using negative language when quite positive alternatives could be used. I’m being accused of nitpicking over an essential truism, but a truism shouldn’t need to be said. It is reasonable to ask why.

Doing a “Lemon Lyman” doesn’t exactly project self-confidence either.

It is the MPs that the leader has to work with, day in, day out. It strikes me as a statement of the bleedin’ obvious to point out that a leader elected with the support of more MPs is going to be in a better position to work with the PLDP than one elected without much support among the MPs. In other words, they can ‘hit the ground running’.

“Surely by definition, any candidate that actually wins an all member ballot will have all the authority and respect they need?” You’re right this is a true-ism. And it’s one that neglects the human dimension, as we saw vividly displayed 3 weeks ago.

As I said at 2, I’m wholly supportive of omov for Lib Dem leadership elections (though show me a Lib Dem council group in the country which would ever use such a system!). But I’m struggling to see for the life of me how you can deny that it doesn’t pose potential problems.

This is a very simple matter to clear up Nick. Can you confirm that:
1. Whoever wins this election will be able to enjoy the “unambiguous loyalty of the overwhelming majority of his parliamentary colleagues”, and
2. They won’t have to “spend their time looking over their shoulder to make sure their own colleagues are on side”?

If this is the case, then it was a pointless thing to say in the first place. If it isn’t, then I would refer you to my earlier comment.

And, no, of course I never hoped for a coronation, it would be entirely out of step with the beliefs/ethos of our party, and with my own beliefs, for any leader to be elected without a mandate from members. And, no, I can’t see what’s wrong with emphasising the strength/depth of the team around a candidate. I think members are entitled to know whether a candidate has a good team or not. I don’t expect agreement with what I write, but I think such wilful misrepresentation doesn’t help the debate.
Nick Clegg

To clarify: I’m not accusing Nick Clegg of calling for the abolition of OMOV. What I am accusing him of is claiming that the membership would be irresponsible to support any other candidate because the Parliamentary Party wouldn’t wear it, without accepting any responsibility the other way. Indeed, he is quite emphatic they they propose to absolve all responsibility if the wrong candidate is elected.

As Will says above, it has grown apparent that the Ming team really wasn’t expecting or wanting an actual election and this has lead to one stumble after another. The whole campaign has been incredibly defensive.

I’m not proposing, as some have suggested, that I believe that the views of MPs here are irrelevant; indeed I made that point clear in my final paragraph (and elsewhere). What I resent is the implication from Clegg’s article that the Campbell team will not respect the mandate of the leader if any other candidate is elected.

Valerie: MPs have been elected on a party ticket and they should be expected to play within the rules of that party. Why? Because that is what those constituents voted for - they didn’t vote for an independent. It is the closest we have to MPs respecting their wishes in this case.