It is being variously rumoured that:-
a) a margin of only 2 votes separated Malcolm from the widely-championed establishment candidate, Danny Alexander's PPS Lorely Burt;
b) factors at play included the championing of Burt by the party leadership, a reaction among certain MPs to this and additional backing from Scottish MPs (a significant constituency) for Malcolm's traditionally strident opposition to the SNP;
c) although 24 MPs reportedly nominated Lorely, not all of them voted for her;
d) it may also be the case that an MP known to be retiring in 2015 may be a better bet than one defending a wafer-thin majority.
Given that a bare majority of Liberal Democrat MPs enjoy the patronage of the Party leadership, though (whether through Ministerial salaries or honorary unpaid titles such as PPS or Whip), is rebellion afoot?
And is this a kick in the teeth for Nick Clegg and his advisors who in September were reportedly [http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/22/vince-cable-dirty-tricks-campaign] to blame for inventing a Parliamentary Party meeting at which Vince Cable was fictitiously outvoted on the subject of the economy? Or has the Parliamentary Party had sight of the result of the much-anticipated investigation [http://liberalengland.blogspot.com/2013/12/how-is-nick-cleggs-inquiry-into.html]?