The joy of the unexpected

Given the relative dearth of announcements recently, there have been a few discussions on social media which have raised that most worrying of spectres – an uncontested election for either the post of Leader or Deputy Leader. Whilst I agree that this would be a very bad thing for both the morale and internal democracy of the Party, I would be absolutely astonished if it actually happened. I would expect *at least* one candidate of each gender to put themselves forward for Leader – and, almost by necessity due to our slightly crazy gender balance rules (more on that in a future post), that will mean at least one candidate of each gender for Deputy Leader, too.

These discussions also seem to have surfaced a concern that there will be a ‘coronation’ of an approved candidate for Leader by the powers-that-be in the Party. Frankly, I’m not entirely sure how that could happen – after all, said powers (whomever they might be) only have one vote, same as everyone else. Past experience has also shown that endorsements by prominent figures in the Party often harm candidates as much as they help (see the cross endorsement between Caroline and Adrian and the backlash that resulted against it). Even if it were to occur, the best antidote is for the people who are concerned about this kind of thing to consider standing themselves. All that is required for GPEX candidacies is ten nomination signatures and two years of good standing in the Party. For Leader, you only need twenty signatures and three years good standing. If you’re worried about a lack of candidates for any of these posts….why not widen the field yourself? :)

Leave a comment


  1. weggis

     /  05/06/2012

    “good standing”, what exactly does that mean?

  2. mattsellwood

     /  05/06/2012

    Not much – I think it’s just a phrase I plucked out of the air. I just mean “continuous membership” :)

  3. I think the phrase also suggests that there hasn’t been anything that could be described as disciplinary action in that period. If somebody is in the middle of something that disputes resolution committee are dealing with, that might open up the possibility of them being a member not in good standing.

  4. I think the rule is just continuous membership, it is possible for disciplinary action to include forbid people from standing for internal (or external) posts, but there’s only one or two of them about and I doubt they were in the race anyway :)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: