It means that I can now vote for Lembit – AS MY THIRD PREFERENCE.

With this Presidential contest we are somewhat blessed by the result not being obvious and with each of the candidates being good eggs while representing very different things.

On sheer hard work and seriousness Baroness Scott surely deserves to win. If you believe the role of the party President is to go around the country rallying the troops and making people, paritcularly volunteers and activists feel good about being a Liberal Democrat she’s surely the best candidate. She’ll almost certainly run the best campaign as well.

If conversely you believe that the main role of the President is to get us in the media and raise our profile, making the public interested in us, then Lembit has the best case. I can’t agree with people who criticise him for his Hello-magazine lifestyle, he has a depth of seriousness behind the fun-loving facade, was an excellent BERR spokesperson, and normal people actually read and like Hello magazine…

Chandila is probably not I suspect, running with a great expectation of success, but he is raising the profile of his point of view… and I might add, in bringing out the less pleasant and irrational side of people who disagree with that point of view, raising it rather well. I suspect if he does win he’d be a rather exciting President.

Apple Blossom: I’m not disputing that lots of people think it’s an important part of the presidency, but re-asserting that doesn’t answer my question as to why…

In which case, fire at will (not Howells, might I emphasise…)!

Can we cut out the personal abuse though? Attacking each other’s ideas is part of the cut and thrust of debate, personal attacks go beyond what some of us are comfortable with…

I notice that Liberal Vision has no qualms about saying whether they cosnider MPs to be liberal or not, so I hope they don’t mind if others have no qualms about indictating whether bits of Liberal Vision are liberal or not.

If Jock wants to hurl abuse at me, people can judge for themsleves.

This comment also serves as a subscription for me, but some of you might be interested in Jennie’s post and the ongoing comments at Liberal Conspiracy as well, rather than repeating myself my view on the role of the President (and thus why I’m backing Ros) are also there:
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/09/25/lib-dem-party-presidency-three-to-choose-from/#comment-21480

I’ll be very interested in hearing what Chandila has to say about why he’s running; preferential system, gotta give the 2nd pref somewhere and Lembit’s fine, but I really want someone with the nous to tell the noble lord Rennard when he’s wrong (because everyone’s human) and while I know Ros’ll do that I don’t feel Lembit is as able.

http://www.lembit4president.co.uk/pages/manifesto.html

A selective, edited quote doesn’t exactly help.

If you had included the beginning of the paragraph, which indicates that “the President is”, and the subsequent paragraph, where Ros indicates her qualifications, it might have been more informative… and accurate…

However, don’t take my word for it, read the manifesto at http://www.im4ros.com/manifesto...

Jennie, with respect Ros herself in her own manifesto recognises the need “to be a key external face of the Party with the media, with communities, business and interest groups, potential supporters and with the international community.”

Oh dear.

Indeed, although until Chandila explains why he is running, what he proposes to do and how he will achieve it, conjecture will fill the vacuum.

Whether or not he is a libertarian will, I suspect, have little impact on his credibility as a Presidential candidate given the defined role as it currently exists.

However, we shall, as they say, see…

As I understand it, Chandila and Chamali’s father was a member of the SDP (a parliamentary candidate in 83 and 87) who followed Lord Owen into the Blues. He subsequently left and then later joined the Lib Dems.

I would imagine Chandila’s defection follows a similar pattern.

I know Chamali quite well and have met the family – all perfectly good people.

I have already declared my support for another candidate but nevertheless I wish Chandila well. I have always felt that a contest that is wider than Lembit vs. “Whoever isn’t Lembit” was the best way for there to be an actual debate on the job of the President and if nothing else (and I hope he uses the platform for other things) Chandila’s candidacy will ensure that.

However, I will state my current preference.

I’d prefer to write in someone like Sandi Toksvik, or Claire Rayner or Brian Eno – in other words I’d really rather the President was about as far away from the entrenched sel-absorbtion of the Westmonster Village as humanly possible in a political party.

I am always suspicious however, whatever the rights and wrongs of hi policy platform, of people with such a short history of the party running for such an office so will not be supporting Chandila.

On the fedw occasions I have felt a need however to email all our MPs and many of our peers, one person alone has always given me the courtesy of a reply – Lembit.

I accept that it’s not necessarily the role of the party president to be visible in public and that can help to confuse the perception of the leadership (I am sure I’ve heard people on the doorstep thinking that Simon was our leader because they had heard him described as our “president”), but equally I think that the mass of our ordinary members and supporters will appreciate more someone they know of and feel approachable and human.

Not that Ros, I am sure, fails any of these tests, and I’m not entirely decided yet, but it looks like it will be Lembit for me personally.

Whilst the debate on the merits or otherwise of libertarianism is interesting, we’re in danger of straying away from the topic towards a series of abusive comments and rebuttals. Helpful to those trying to find out about the merits or otherwise of the candidates? I think not…

Thanks for playing, your ignorance is for all to see.

Just so that you know, Ros has now, as promised, published her manifesto…

Well none of them are serious, because it an incoherent philosophy.

>it is corporate welfare, protectionism and monpoly that creates a situation where the worker cannot negotiate proper reward for their labour from the state protected capitalist.

LOL, send the kids back down the mines, it’s only a lifestyle choice.

Violence, ill-behaviour, vandalism and throwing up in the street cause those impingements – not drinking. The offending person’s drinking might be a precursor to some of those actions, in which case the offending person must take responsibility. The offender should thus be targetted, not the alcohol. A majority of people are more than capable of drinking (in some cases, a lot) without affecting anyone else whatsoever.