Race for the Party Presidency: what do I think of the show so far?

So, we're back to four candidates again with the emergence of Daisy Cooper as a new contender. So, has anything changed?

Well, we now don't appear to have a BAME candidate, which is a pity, especially if they had something different to offer other than just diversity - it isn't enough in my mind to be something, you have to be able to offer a perspective, or experience, or a strategic vision that resonates with the needs of the Party, perceived or actual.

We now, however, still only have female candidates - not a problem from my perspective, but interesting nonetheless, given the tendency of men to run for vacancies because. That full stop is deliberate, by the way.

My observations, thus far, are as follows;

• Reform is in the air, following the fallout after the disciplinary actions relating to accusations against Chris Rennard. Interestingly, Party Presidents have no direct role in terms of disciplinary procedure, as their role is federal, as opposed to the state levels where disciplinary rules are decided upon. They do have, as James Graham so wisely noted, soft power but is a promise of action one that any candidate can actually deliver upon?

• There are few signs of organised team-based campaigning that I can see yet, with the exception of Daisy Cooper, the most recent entrant in the race. You do need a team to multiply the effectiveness of a campaign, especially if, like Daisy, you might not have already established resonance with armchair members across the country.

• The social media "war" is beginning to hot up. Sal has a relatively established Twitter presence, whilst Liz is relatively new to it but making an impression already with her campaigning across the country. Daisy has something of a reputation for using social media, having used it very effectively in her campaign in Suffolk Coastal for the 2010 General Election. It may be me, but Linda hasn't yet gotten into her stride, although she's no stranger to blogging and other social media.

• There is a greater tendency for bloggers to ask the candidates questions and publish the results - I tried it myself at an early stage but never did get replies from two of the then four candidates, one of whom subsequently withdrew, despite a commitment from all four to do so. The questions, drawn from a range of perspectives, have elicited some interesting, and enlightening, answers, and have offered candidates an opportunity to rehearse positions before exposure to a wider audience.

• The dilemmas potentially facing a newly-elected Party President in 2015 do not appear to have drawn much comment yet. What the role of the President might be, given the range of possible outcomes, is yet to be articulated in anything other than  the most general of terms, so if any candidate has given thought to what they might do in the event of a leadership contest, or a coalition offer, I am yet to be made aware of it.

As I indicated at the outset of the campaign, I'm intent on remaining neutral and plan to only make a decision one way or the other late in the day - I will be voting, of course. And, as someone with a unique perspective on the Party Presidency, I shall be intrigued to see how the expressions from the four candidates coincide with, or differ from, my impression as to the requirements of the task ahead of the winner.

Regardless, we should consider ourselves fortunate to have four candidates with differing perspectives of the role, and with a range of experiences to offer.

Let the contest continue!...