In a comment on Lib Dem Voice this morning, Dominic Carman has said that he no longer intends to put his name forward as Liberal Democrat candidate for London Mayor.
Carman, who last week expressed an interest in standing, now plans to back Mike Tuffrey instead, whom members are lobbying to stand.
Dominic’s comment in fulll:
Given other commitments, I have reached the conclusion that I cannot financially afford to run an effective campaign as the Lib Dem candidate for Mayor. Regrettably, I will therefore not be putting my name forward when the selection procedure formally restarts in May. Having spoken to Mike Tuffrey and others yesterday, I am convinced that he will make an excellent candidate and I will be giving him my support in whatever way I can, should he decide to run, which I sincerely hope he does.
Thank you for your support
Dominic
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
AM
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
7 Comments
It’s probably for the best. The Lib Dems can cope with insulting the entire town of Barnsley, but it’d probably be a mistake to have a candidate who would alienate all Londoners when he inevitably lost.
Good. Now, surely it’s not too late for whatsisname to withdraw from Leicester South, and for Carman to stand there. And then maybe he can have another think about London. Or maybe Lembit can have a think about Leicester South. Or maybe Floella Benjamin and Susan Kramer can set up a job-share to challenge Nick Clegg. Or … ?
Why the recent glut of people announcing their candidature only to withdraw for hardly unforeseeable reasons a week later?
re: Financial cost of running for Mayor as a Liberal Democrat
Once the full extent of the personal financial commitment to the campaign was explained, combined with the total loss of income for a year, it became clear that running a Mayoral campaign was not sustainable, given my financial circumstances and family commitments.
Dominic,
Is the “full extent of the personal financial commitment to the campaign” in addition to the year without a salary? I’m genuinely interested in what he costs are.
Thanks, Dominic, for your offline reply.
As I said in my response, I am concerned that our candidacy should not be open only to those with “independent means.” The Lib Dems have put up MPs or GLA members; Labour an MP or the current mayor (until now); the Tories an MP or a recently-retired former MP. Crucially, they did not have to give up their jobs during the campaign and so were not impoverished during the election.
The difficultly (impossibility) of running for (a city-wide) office and holding down a job is probably unavoidable – though it undoubtedly goes party way to explaining why so many MPs are either lawyers, doctors, self employed or officers in Trades Unions (which will give them sabbaticals). But the fact that there are actually costs as well raises real concerns.
It is a real shame – and an impediment to democracy – if the needs of running a campaign created an effective wealth floor below which a person could not afford to run for office.
Sadly, I think it is inevitable that the loss of salary alone is a barrier to good potential candidates standing for big political jobs. Added to that may be the longer term effects of interruption to main career.
Any campaign also carries costs that are borne by the candidate and his/her family.
So I respect Dominic’s decision and reasons.