My estimable colleague and our Editor-in-Chief, Caron Lindsay, wrote yesterday asking the question, “Is Ed Davey toast?”. And a fine question it is too, although I’m perhaps not the obvious person to answer it.

So, instead, I’m first going to look at the mechanics of it all. With the Parliamentary Party in the Commons due to meet tomorrow, what are the options?

1. Charlie Maynard has moved in the confidence that he can secure enough votes to defeat Ed, and Ed knows it. That would potentially trigger Article 18.2(a) of the Federal Constitution:
   

   the Leader asking for an election

or, Article 18.2(d)

the receipt by the President of the resignation of the Leader or of a declaration of intent to resign upon the election of a new Leader;

2. Nobody is really sure, there’s no obvious choice, but there are enough votes to defeat Ed in a confidence vote. That triggers Article 18.2(e)
   

   a vote of no confidence in the Leader being passed by a majority of all Members of the Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons

Of course, none of these could happen, but that doesn’t present members from getting involved. Article 18.2(f) allows for a leadership election to be triggered by:

the receipt by the President of a requisition submitted by at least 75 Local Parties (including for this purpose, the Affiliated Organisation or Organisations representing youth and/or students) following the decision of a quorate general meeting

That’s more difficult than it used to be, as the number of Local Parties has shrunk over the years through various mergers and reorganisations on the basis of local government boundaries.

And, despite the conjecture and press speculation, we don’t have a clearcut idea as to where the majority of the Parliamentary Party in the Commons lies. Whilst Politics.co.uk lists eighteen MPs who have publicly announced their support for Ed, that still leaves him potentially short of a majority.

Alright, so much for the mechanics. But let’s assume that Ed is toast. What next?

Are there a collection of viable candidates for the leadership, or a clear “young pretender”?. Personally, I’m not seeing the latter and, viewing the landscape from distant Suffolk, whilst I might have some personal preferences, most of the Parliamentary Party are still pretty raw in terms of experience. That’s not to say that they couldn’t lead the Party, but I’d suggest that the wider Party would want to take a “good look under the bonnet” first.

And what is the Party looking for in a new leader? Policy changes? Not entirely within the control of a leader, although one might choose to emphasise different policy areas. Better media profile? Again, not entirely within the control of any leader – t’was always thus.

So, before anyone gets too excited about the possibility of a new Leader, I would offer the following questions:

1. What do we want that is different, and is a leadership change, as opposed to a change of leadership approach, likely to achieve that?
2. If there is a possibility that we might go into coalition after the General Election (and I would argue that there is), what skills and experience would be most likely to produce a better outcome than the 2010-15 Coalition did?

I guess that I am, unlike some, more sanguine about the answers to those questions, as I have reconciled myself to being part of the Party’s past than its future. I do care deeply for the party still but, more important, I care that there is a strong liberal political force campaigning for personal freedom within the framework of strong communities. Hopefully, that’s the Liberal Democrats.

* Mark Valladares is the Monday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice.