Kennedy is a "dead man walking"

This morning's newspapers do not expect Charles Kennedy to survive as LibDem leader and some senior parliamentary colleagues have also turned against him this morning:

• Nick Harvey MP said that a number of colleagues - including him - were likely to force a vote of 'no confidence' at the parliamentary meeting of LibDems next week.

• Chris Davies MEP, Leader of the LibDems in the European Parliament, described Mr Kennedy as a "dead man walking".

• Sandra Gidley, MP for Romsey, and one of eleven 'shadow cabinet' members who signed the pre-Christmas 'no confidence' letter put together by Vince Cable MP said: "Charles must think hard about whether he has the personal strength to fight the triple demons of the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the drink problem."

• Lady (Jenny) Tonge (sacked by Mr Kennedy in the last parliament) said that Mr Kennedy was in danger of "destroying" the  party.

Comments

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Could we see the slow demise of the Lib Dems as they are squeezed by a re-newed Conservative party. Surely the pressur on Kennedy is a direct result of Cameron's election and the fears of Lib Dem MPs that they are going to come under threat at the next election.

[Mark Fulford]

Kennedy's leadership is clearly toast. But how will Campbell and Oaten switch from the loyalty required by the illness to leadership runners? Kennedy isn't going to stand aside so, eventually, they have to get the knives out.

[Reasonable]

He will stand aside after Parliamentary colleagues make clear he no longer has their support. Then they will be free to run.

[Mark Fulford]

I don't think Kennedy will stand aside. His belief in his continued ability to lead is part of his denial and will defy rational sense.

[wasp]

He probably is also calculating that he can bluff Hughes out of it and beat anyone else in a membership ballot.

Either way its not going to be pretty.

He had the opportunity to walk away with dignity and chose not to take it. Kennedy is a very foolish man.

[Mike Christie]

I would hazard a guess that Oaten and Campbell know that a vote of no-confidence is imminent and want to appear loyal so they can stand in the leadership constest with unblemished reputations.

[Ian Sider]

There's one thing we're forgetting here. Charles Kennedy is the most successful Liberal leader since David Lloyd George (Ll-G did destroy his party, I suppose, but you know what I mean). Kennedy has therefore proved that it is perfectly possible to lead the Lib Dems whilst maintaining a state of frequent enebriation.

Something must now be done for the Lib Dem MPs that wonder what they're doing in such a party. To coin a phrase, we must "take them to our hearts" and offer them asylum within the Conservative Party. That means automatically adopting them as PPCs in seats where we were the main challengers or otherwise putting them on the A-list.

[Mike Christie]

Ian, I'm afraid I don't quite follow your reasoning. Existing LibDem MPs are quite free to cross the aisle so to speak.

I personally believe that MPs changing parties should be compelled to resign and contest their seat for their new party in a by-election as modern voters tend mostly to vote for a party not a person. However, if LibDem MPs wish to join the Conservative party they may do so. They will then be Tory MPs.

Quite how happy the local associations would be with that is debatable, also the local populace may well take a dim view of representatives who show such contempt for the wishes of their constituents. Whether those MPs would be able to stand for re-election in their current constituencies would be debatable.

Quite why such people should be given any preference over long-term party members is not something I really see. I can only see the idea of new converts being shoe-horned into positions against the wishes of the grassroots starting a huge row within the party.

[Jeremy Moulton]

There is no chance that Kennedy will survive. You cannot admit to being a drunk and say that you are in rehab and expect to continue as leader of the Lib Dems. It seems madness for him to continue. A stalking horse will soon emerge and then it will be a free for all. The dignified thing would be for him to step down now. Perhaps it's ego that stops him or maybe he wants to influence the sucession. Either way it will have to be done quickly if it's all going to be done and dusted by the May elections. Personally I think Sandra Gidley should go for it. That would be great fun!!!

[TC]

We could have the ideal situation at the next election: the Lib Dems led by the left leaning Hughes and Labour led by the uncharismatic Brown.

[Reasonable]

Harvey says he will table a no-confidence motion. It's all over. I do wish Oaten would consider joining the Tories. I daresay a Shadow Cabinet place could be found for him.

Cameron is absolutely right to appeal to the Orange Book-ers. Their future is blue, not orange. And if they want to ever actually be in a position to change the UK for the better, ie in government, they should look long and hard at the progressive, modern Conservatives.

[Graeme Archer]

I was going to post something but "Reasonable" says it better than I could.

[Huntarian]

Why on earth would the Tory party want to throw its doors open to all these sandal wearers and give them shaddow portfolios? -- They are doing a great job for us right where they are --tearing the Lib-dems apart. Keep it that way. Few people who cross the floor ever make a worthwhile contribution again---
remember Shaun Woodward?

If we are going to open our doors to our opponents lets send the first invitation to Frank Field, he at least speaks our language and has some principles.
Lets just sit back and enjoy Lady Macbeth ( Jenny Tongue or Susan Kramer)wiping the blood from her hands.

[Cloud Cuckoo Tories]

Come off it!

Cameron's intent in ditching all the Liberal policies you once had, so why would any Orange Bookers want to switch? If we wait long enough, we'll be able to outflank you from the liberal right. :lol:

[Chris Palmer]

"Come off it!

Cameron's intent in ditching all the Liberal policies you once had, so why would any Orange Bookers want to switch? If we wait long enough, we'll be able to outflank you from the liberal right. :lol:"

Keeping on dreaming.

[Graeme Archer]

On Mr Kennedy: It's quite simple: he lied to the public over something that has a clear impact on his ability to be an effective MP. He didn't just lie about it, he kicked up a fuss when he was questioned about it by Paxman inter alia. I'm very sorry for him and his family and hope he conquers his problems, but an alcoholic, functional or otherwise, isn't fit to lead a political party.

On attracting the attractive liberals: all parties are coalitions, aren't they? Ours is something like a coalition between free-marketeers and social conservatives. Theirs is a coalition between free-marketeers and left-wingers. Before this crisis, we had already set out a direct policy of wooing the sensible right-wing Orange Bookers. I think this crisis just makes the call more attractive.

[Peter C Glover]

I have no doubt Kennedy will go.

The ideal man for the job is without peer David Cameron. A true bonafide liberal, without any discernible policies of value, no political scruples and no detectable cerebral activity, he is my pick for the man to rescue UK liberalism.

Hic...

[Mike Smith]

At least Kennedy is doing something useful (for once) by keeping the ghastly Cameron off the front pages.

But if he can't see he is kaput he is a bigger fool than I always thought he was.

He should resign now. Why is it that modern politicians (of all parties) are so utterly lacking in a sense of dignity and decency?

[EU Serf]

I can't see that CK being an alcoholic is anything but a necessary qualification for the leadership. After all, being a Lib Dem is all about staggering from left to right, telling everyone that they are your best friend.

[Orange Booker]

Graeme, to a certain extent you're right. Tell you what - you ditch the xenophobes, hangers & floggers, europhobes and religious moralists, and we'll ditch the statists. We'd probably be down to the same sort of size then. Then we can join together.

Actually, if you ditched that lot we'd be bigger than you ...

[John Hustings]

"Cameron is absolutely right to appeal to the Orange Book-ers. Their future is blue, not orange. And if they want to ever actually be in a position to change the UK for the better, ie in government, they should look long and hard at the progressive, modern Conservatives"

Firstly, as someone has already said, Cameron is not demonstrating himself to be an "economic liberal"; quite the opposite.

Secondly, if a Lib Dem *does* switch, they are likely sacrificing their political careers. Their stay in parliament would probably only last one term, as with most defections. The point being: just because the MP defects doesn't mean that those who voted him there will also.

Altogether, I think the idea of trying to court Orange Book MPs is a silly idea.

[John Hustings]

"Tell you what - you ditch the xenophobes, hangers & floggers, europhobes and religious moralists, and we'll ditch the statists."

Can you explain to me how being a "europhile" is consistent with believing in a small state?

[Chris Palmer]

"Altogether, I think the idea of trying to court Orange Book MPs is a silly idea."

I completely agree John. In my opinion, they joined the Lib Dems for a reason. If they believed in the Conservative cause, they would have joined the Conservative party in the first place. The Conservative party doesn't need Parliamentary converts. What it does need is ordinary voters who had voted Lib Dem to instead vote Conservative.

[Orange Booker]

John Hustings - its quite easy to believe in greater European co-operation and reform of EU institutions (including apropriate repatriation of powers). Its about devolving power to the correct level. And that includes downwards away from Central Government, something your party has been appalingly bad at.

Or are you going to tell me that pollution, crime, terror and disease are respectors of natinal borders?

[Peter Franklin]

Graeme: "all parties are coalitions, aren't they? Ours is something like a coalition between free-marketeers and social conservatives. Theirs is a coalition between free-marketeers and left-wingers."

You're right Graeme, but our coalition makes sense and theirs doesn't. Social conservatism (of the sort that builds people up rather than knocking them down)advances the free market cause by enabling people to be less dependent on the state. By contrast statism (beyond necessary corrections of market failure)doesn't do anything for the free market cause at all.

Orange Booker: "Tell you what - you ditch the xenophobes, hangers & floggers, europhobes and religious moralists, and we'll ditch the statists. We'd probably be down to the same sort of size then. Then we can join together. Actually, if you ditched that lot we'd be bigger than you ..."

Tell you what, Mr Booker, if your fellow Lib Dems now go on to elect one of the Orange Book authors by a margin similar to that by which David Cameron was elected, I'll take your post seriously. Can't say fairer than that.

[John Hustings]

"John Hustings - its quite easy to believe in greater European co-operation and reform of EU institutions (including apropriate repatriation of powers). Its about devolving power to the correct level. And that includes downwards away from Central Government, something your party has been appalingly bad at."

There's no point talking about "my party". This isn't a party-political point.

The point is: how do you square believing in localism and smaller government with the bureaucratic centralising nightmare that is the EU?

[Chris Palmer]

"Or are you going to tell me that pollution, crime, terror and disease are respectors of national borders?"

Conversely, enlarging the borders doesn't stop the above either. In fact it could be argued that it aggravates these problems further.

[Orange Booker]

Peter Franklin - are you seriously trying to tell me that all the 66% who voted for Cameron were voting for the sort of socially liberal, anti-business, enviromentalist, statist agenda he's now putting forward???

[Orange Booker]

John Hustings - by changing it. International co-operation is a good idea. Throwing up your hands and saying "I'm going to leave you bunch of frogs/wops/dagos/krauts to your mess doesn't solve anythign."

[Peter Franklin]

Chris Palmer: "In my opinion, they joined the Lib Dems for a reason. If they believed in the Conservative cause, they would have joined the Conservative party in the first place"

Chris, we did more than enough to put off some perfectly decent individuals from joining our party e.g. poll tax, sleaze, ERM debacle. If Lib Dems who believe in national sovereignty, a stronger society and a smaller state now want to join us, then that is a good thing and we should welcome them in a spirit of generosity. There are, of course, many Lib Dems who don't believe in these three things, but then I don't suppose they'll want to join us.

[Chris Palmer]

"Throwing up your hands and saying "I'm going to leave you bunch of frogs/wops/dagos/krauts to your mess doesn't solve anythign." - Orange Booker

I don't think the Conservative party ever intended doing such. What the Conservative party does oppose is "even closer union." You can work with other European countries without politically integrating with them.

[John Hustings]

"John Hustings - by changing it. International co-operation is a good idea."

I never said it wasn't. The point I was making was that you slurred the "europhobes" in the party, who dislike the EU for legitimate reasons. Many of us are sceptical as to whether the EU *can* change because of its very nature.

But rather than address this point you will resort to childishness:

"I'm going to leave you bunch of frogs/wops/dagos/krauts to your mess doesn't solve anythign."

No-one is using such language. If we dislike the way Europe is being governed, it doesn't mean we dislike Europeans.

The point remains: Believing in small government and localism is inconsistent with being a Europhile. Which just goes to demonstrate the manifest inconsistencies in the Lib Dems.

[Sean Fear]

The Lib Dems would do themselves a lot of favours by dropping their love of anything that comes from the EU.

For heaven's sake, the Lib Dems even supported the Common Arrest Warrant - something they would have hit the roof about if it had simply been a policy proposed by David Blunkett at the Home Office.

[Peter Franklin]

"Peter Franklin - are you seriously trying to tell me that all the 66% who voted for Cameron were voting for the sort of socially liberal, anti-business, enviromentalist, statist agenda he's now putting forward???"

Cameron is not anti-business, he is anti the abuses of any institution that uses its size against the common good. This is part of the very essence of conservatism. If by social liberal you mean respecting the dignity and privacy of individuals, then that too is part of conservatism (though not the moral cretinism that believes that enabling sixteen year olds to watch and appear in hard core pornography is a worthwhile contribution to the cause of liberty). And, by definition, mainstream environmentalism is also conservative in nature. So yes, I do believe that those who voted for Cameron are in accord with his programme (as it actually is, not as it is caricatured). Furthermore many if not most of those that voted for Davis are also in accord with these principles. None of this is statism, it is conservatism which is at last is breaking free of the twin shackles of free market fundamentalism and bigotted reaction.

[EU Serf]

.....Throwing up your hands and saying "I'm going to leave you bunch of frogs/wops/dagos/krauts to your mess doesn't solve anythign."......

Except our contributions to the EU budget, our inclusion in the immoral CAP, the restoration of our fishing grounds and the right to make legislation for ourselves.

No doubt there are areas where cooperation is important. Its a shame then that 95% of what the EU does would be better left to national or even local government.

[malcolm]

Typically pathetic Europhile argument Orange Booker.You should be ashamed of yourself.I can't believe that really is the best you can do.

[Orange Booker]

Ooh, Malc, I love it when you talk like that. Did nanny used to talk the same way?

[John Hustings]

There are only two arguments Europhiles use:

1)the EU stopped all of Europe from going to war for the last 50 years

2)If you don't like the EU, you're a small-minded xenophobe/Little-Englander

That really is all they have.

[Mike Smith]

So yes, I do believe that those who voted for Cameron are in accord with his programme

If that's what you think, Mr Franklin, you know very little about the Tory grassroots.

Most of the people who voted for Cameron are elderly reactionaries who have simply 'bought' the myth of the Cameron magic bullet. They love their party (sad really) and think it ought to be ruling the roost again. Cynical, laid-back David Davis didn't give off the right vibes.

I was drinking with a fairly young (ie only just over 60) Tory the other day. He spent an hour telling me how fantastic Cameron is, and then spent the next hour whinging about the way the country has been 'taken over by f***ing w*gs'.

The far-right Monday Club likes Cameron too.

Read their statement here...

http://www.quicktopic.com/18/H/mc9GTZhpSgEi

[Mike Christie]

Ah, the old chestnut of if you aren't in favour of a european super-state you must be a racist xenophobic little englander.

Dontcha just love it! It actually sounds like typical New Labour tactics of painting anyone who disagrees with you as a dangerous extremist. Are you sure you're a LibDem?

If this is the modus operandi of the Orange Book Libs, then I'd rather we didn't try and recruit them thanks all the same.

[malcolm]

The Tory party you're a member of Mike is very different from the one I belong to.If you were still a member and had been to conference or the leadership hustings you would have seen a bunch of people of all ages who seemed to me to be both decent and public spirited.
Orange Booker- as a matter of fact she did.Your argument if you can call it that is still pathetic.The Lib Dems are welcome to you.

[Orange Booker]

Mike Christie - similarly you trot out the old chestnut that if you're in favour of an EU you're in favour of an all encompassing superstate.

I'm very happy to debate with you on the terms of what the EU should cover, and a lot of what Brussels does it shouldn't be doing. The reason for that, however, is that national governments hold onto far too much stuff that Brussels should be doing and only give them the stuff they shouldn't. Similalry National Government holds onto too much stuff that should be devolved downwards, hence the toothless fundless town and county halls we have.

I don't have some doctrinaire adherence to Brussels or the nation state. And its the latter point that separates us.

[James Maskell]

I have no problems with the Lib Dems tearing themselves apart and possibly having MPs defect to us. It would hasten the death of the Lib Dems.

[Mike Smith]

Strangely enough, Malcolm, I have attended several recent Tory conferences and my wife is still a member of the local Tory Executive, so I do get to hear who's currently at whose throat.

The party has got a lot smaller and older than it was 'in my day' but otherwise it seems to be pretty much the same old dreary bunch - plus your 16,000 shiny new members, apparently.

I wonder how long they will stay?

Got any good Tory bingo drives in your part of the world?

[Mike Christie]

The EU as it stands aspires to be a European state, with a President, military capability, flag, constitution, anthem, seat at the UN and all the trappings that go with it. It is about time that people woke up and realised this.

I support a close relationship with our neighbouring soverign states. I'm quite happy to have reciprocal agreements on cross-border issues such as rights of residence, trade etc. I don't see why that should extend to having soverignty over this country, the ability to overrule our democratically(ish) elected parliament or dictate our relationships with other nations. That is without the blatant corruption, CAP, fisheries and all the other objections I have to the EU as it stands.

If I have misrepresented your own view-point that is one thing, but in doing so I have merely ascribed views to you that you do not hold. I haven't accused you of treason or impugned your character in anyway, unlike your generalisation of eurosceptics using racist language and being isolationists.

[James Maskell]

One of the founders said that the point of the EU is to be a superstate. Even at the inception of the EU, its premise was to be a control over states, however well intentioned it might have been.

[Orange Booker]

MC, JM - we are NOT going to get a superstate. We've won, if only you could see it!!! The accession of the sceptic Eastern European countries and the inclusion of Turkey will mean that the EU will mutate into what its supposed to be, a much looser trading federation of sovereign states. The French and the Germans won't get their way. And you want to leave just at the point when we can finally set about sorting out the mess?

Mike Smith - glad to see my prejudices about the Tory membership are being confirmed.

[Mike Smith]

glad to see my prejudices about the Tory membership are being confirmed.

Don't mention it, dear boy.

[malcolm]

Except of course that we haven't won, we have as the last budget round proved lost even bigger.The EU will still devote a huge amount of its money toward inefficeint and corrupt agriculture subsidy,it will still advocate protectionism damaging to the interests of the UK and the third world,the unreformed budget will continue to grow and will not be signed off by the auditors and the idea that Turkey will ever join is just a pipedream.
Are you really fooling yourself this much Orange Booker?

[Orange Booker]

Mike Smith - thanks.

Some have speculated on whether there will be defections. There are some pretty wierd Lib Dems. I am probably one of them. But ultimately they can be classed, much like Douglas Adams' view of Earth, as "mostly harmless".

I don't think you can classify the sort of comments made by the chap in the same way. and I can't think of any Lib Dems who would be able to laugh off those sort of views as "eccentric". Hence I think defections are unlikely.

[Orange Booker]

Malcolm - did you really have a nanny?

Tent - p*ssing - in - out

[James Maskell]

We havent come close to winning. Nor do I think all the countries within the EU have benefitted either. Look at the messy situation with setting interest rates. One country's benefit as regarding a rate rise could be another country's crisis. When there are 15 countries involved, it become a very tricky business. There is huge amounts of waste in the EU, to the point that not a single set of accounts have been signed off as correct in 14 attempts.

[Mark Fulford]

"There are some pretty wierd Lib Dems. I am probably one of them. But ultimately they can be classed, much like Douglas Adams' view of Earth, as "mostly harmless"."

... and mistaken.

[Orange Booker]

"whinging about the way the country has been 'taken over by f***ing w*gs"

And that's not mistaken, Mark Fulford?

[Mark Fulford]

I hadn't read that far up the thread...

That comment is worse than mistaken. It is disgusting, stupid and not the view of the Conservative party. There may be a few idiots who call themselves Conservatives that spout that sort of sh*t, but they are the scum we can happily do without. The same is true for Labour and Lib Dems.

Lib Dems are mistaken in, for example, local income tax, taxing high earners, unaffordable proposals for the elderly, schools, police and hospitals.

[malcolm]

Doesn't everyone Orange Booker? I don't understand your reference to tents.Why not try arguing the serious points for a change?

[Mike Christie]

"MC, JM - we are NOT going to get a superstate. We've won, if only you could see it!!!"

So all the Eurocrats have given up, the fact that the wishes of the British people expressed through their Parliament can still be overturned by a European court, that we still pay billions of pounds a year to fund a corrupt beauraucracy, still have the CAP, common fisheries and all the other 'benefits' of the EU are suddenly going to go into reverse?

For as long as 'ever closer union' with a single currency, harmonised tax, no internal borders and common foreign policy are aims of the EU then it aims to be a state even if it chooses not to call itself such.

[Chris Palmer]

"Doesn't everyone Orange Booker? I don't understand your reference to tents.Why not try arguing the serious points for a change?"

I expect the reference was to the comment made by an American President (I forget who now) who said something along the lines of "I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in." I'd had thought this about Mike Smith - though this would depend on whether he was ever a Conservative party member, or if he has been deceiving us the entire time.

[James Maskell]

I believe it was Johnson. The tent line pops up every now and again on this site.

[Chris Palmer]

Johnson about Lindly in the FBI? I cannot honestly remember James.

[James Maskell]

Johnson about Hoover in 1971. http://www.bartleby.com/63/17/4617.html

[Graeme Archer]

There are some really interesting points being made here! I think Orange Booker and Peter Franklin are trying to make serious points - I'll ignore the silly "all Tories are racist" thread. I wonder what those racist Tories would make of the Hackney branch? Our orthodox Jews, moslems, gay white middle class types - and even the odd heterosexual white male! - all appear to rub along together quite happily, if you'll forgive the allusion. What unites us is bigger than what divides us - a hatred of control-socialism and a desire to get rid of a borough government that runs itself for its friends in Whitehall and big business. I think this is what we have in common with Orange Bookers, to be honest, and I think it's probably a stronger link than what might divide us on the European issue (I'm quite eurosceptic but one of my closest friends, like me card-carrying Tory, been a councillor, etc etc, is very strongly pro-Euro, more europhile than Ken Clarke). Given that it's possible for pro- and anti-EU Tories to live in one big tent, is it so difficult to imagine a big tent Tory party providing a home to all free-marketeers (I'm using a woeful shorthand but I'm sure you know what I mean) as well as social conservatives.

By social conservatives - I mean One Nation, not "hangers/floggers". That really is too trite a way to describe anything unpleasant that might be found under the stones of a local assoc. I grew up in a horrid anti-gay culture that was near totally dominated by a Labour voting culture; I really don't think you can determine someone's social attitudes from the single dimension of party affiliation.

[John Hustings]

Hey Graeme, why not invite Marxists in too? We can all be one big happy family!

[Graeme Archer]

I don't follow what you mean John. Are you saying that the Tory party isn't a coalition of people from the libertarian to the social conservative (as well as mixtures)? Or that it's impossible to imagine those on the libertarian wing making common cause with "Orange book" liberals? What has that to do with marxism?!

[John Hustings]

You seem to wish to deny disagreements. The fact is, if Lib Dems had so much in common with the Tories, they would be in the Tory Party. Trying to fudge away differences doesn't do anyone any good.

[Mike Smith]

I'd had thought this about Mike Smith - though this would depend on whether he was ever a Conservative party member, or if he has been deceiving us the entire time

Tsk Tsk Chris. That's not nice.

After all, we've only your word for it that you are anything to do with the Conservative Party.

Apart from my work in Portsmouth and Wessex Area I was Vice-Chairman of Bethnal Green CA for several years.

We had a substantial Bangla Deshi input but no one-legged lesbians in those days.

[Graeme Archer]

No I know what you mean. And I do confess, especially when I post here for some reason, I can come across as a ridiculous Polyanna, everything's great innit! But every so often, there is a shake up in tribal affiliations. I could never be a member of, or vote for, the LibDems. All's I'm trying to do is imagine the mindset of one of the "Orange Bookers". I can't believe someone like Vince Cable was attracted to them because of the views espoused by Simon Hughes or Charles Kennedy! I'm guessing he must have thought them the most likely vehicle for getting small-l liberal ideas into power. Now we might have a chance to detach a significance chunk of centre-right lib-dems from the left wing joke that the main party always was.

PS You and I barely agree on anything to judge from our posts here! Yet we're both loyal and hardworking Tories - even if I don't agree with you on some things you say, I can tell I'd happily be out leafletting with you for the same candidates. So it's not impossible for me to imagine our party inviting in other people who might agree with neither of us.

Apologies for rambling, it's Friday and way past time for the first gin of the evening!

[Graeme Archer]

My last post was in response to John Hustings, not Mike Smith.

[John Hustings]

"I can't believe someone like Vince Cable was attracted to them because of the views espoused by Simon Hughes or Charles Kennedy!"

Vince Cable is a lunatic who thinks the United States is the world's biggest war criminal. (Mind you, you could say, so does Alan Duncan, but there you go.)

I don't really want the Conservative Party to demean itself by appealing to such people. Where is its self-respect?

The Tory Party should not be such a "broad church" that there is no commonality at all. And as far as I'm concerned Graeme, if my views and your views differ, it is because your views are out of the mainstream, not mine (I hope you don't mind my saying that).

The point I'm making is that its all very well if you find yourself in agreement with people in other parties, but in doing so, you speak for yourself as an individual, not for other Conservatives.

[Chris Palmer]

"You seem to wish to deny disagreements. The fact is, if Lib Dems had so much in common with the Tories, they would be in the Tory Party. Trying to fudge away differences doesn't do anyone any good." - John Hustings

My thoughts too John.

"Tsk Tsk Chris. That's not nice.

After all, we've only your word for it that you are anything to do with the Conservative Party." - Mike Smith

True Mike. Difference is that I don't go round badmouthing the party in my posts. You've been exposed for what you really are.

[Chris Palmer]

And you didn't just "leave" the party, did you Mike? You were expelled weren't you.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

You seem to wish to deny disagreements. The fact is, if Lib Dems had so much in common with the Tories, they would be in the Tory Party. Trying to fudge away differences doesn't do anyone any good.

Political parties are broad churches. I'd say the majority of Liberal Democrat activists have little in common with the Conservative Party, but a significant and sufficient minority - including probably a majority in some areas of the south and south-west - very much do.

There are a variety of reasons why these people chose the Liberal Democrats over the Conservative Party. Some - particularly in the north - are in areas where the local Conservative Associations are moribund if not non-existent. Some may have been influenced by local factors (ie - friends in the LibDems, local LibDem association has centre-right majority, local Conservatives offputting, bad experience with local Conservative activist). Some - particularly younger activists - may have thought we were on the way out a few years back. I've even heard of Conservative-inclined Liberal Democrats shunning the Conservative Party in rock-solid Tory areas purely out of a desire for political plurality.

Whatever the reasons, we can and should be showing these people that they have a home and a future within a forward-looking, successful Conservative Party. We need them, and we need the voters who are attracted by those sort of Liberal Democrats.

[Orange Booker]

Graeme - I have a lot in common with the old One Nation tradition, sadly killed off by Magie and being unconvincingly revived by Cameron (the fact is there aren't any ONTs left and Cameron's positioning looks cynical). Unfortunately, I can't live with the likes of John Hustings. All I can say is, you must have a hell of a lot of patience, and if it ever runs out, you know where to come!

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Orange Booker, there are quite a few unreconstructed socialists in the Liberal Democrats, and particularly within LDYS. I know people from your wing of the Liberal Democrats refer to some of their colleagues as "communists" in no uncertain terms.

Do you feel comfortable sharing a party with them? Does it not worry you that amongst grassroots activists those people are likely to be in a majority?

[Orange Booker]

Iain, there are a vocal (and perhaps significant) minority of left-wingers amongst the activists but NOT amongst the members (or voters).

Unfortunately the same can't be said for the reacionary tendency in the Tory party membership or voters.

And personally I find social conservatism far more pernicious than socialism (which is a busted flush in any case).

[Andrew]

"And personally I find social conservatism far more pernicious than socialism (which is a busted flush in any case)."

Both of them are. The only difference is that the latter is aware of it.

[Mike Smith]

And you didn't just "leave" the party, did you Mike? You were expelled weren't you.

Well Chris, I received a letter from CCO informing me that I had been expelled for

(1) Making rude remarks about IDS - then party leader.

(2) Threatening to stand against an official Conservative Parliamentary candidate.

After the customary preliminaries, my solicitors served a writ on Mrs May (as Chairman) and a few months later the party readmitted me and paid all costs (about £10,000).

I few months after that I allowed my subscription to expire.

I leave you to judge who ended up with egg all over their face.

[Mike Smith]

Graeme - I have a lot in common with the old One Nation tradition, sadly killed off by Magie and being unconvincingly revived by Cameron (the fact is there aren't any ONTs left and Cameron's positioning looks cynical).

Too true, OB.

Although I was always on the authoritarian right of the Tory Party, I actually had a lot of friends in the Tory Reform Group, whose senior members included Ken Clarke, Michael Heseltine, Peter Walker &c.

I used to enjoy attending TRG meetings at conference. One could meet the kind of intelligent company which the modern Tory Party increasingly lacks, and strangely enough I did agree with some of the TRG's 'One Nation' ideas while rejecting their pinker views.

It's strange how these principled Tory left-wingers have suddenly been outflanked by a bunch of political chameleons who have either come from nowhere (eg Cameron) or have been everywhere (Letwin, Maude &c)

What is also interesting is that not a few 'Tory Modernisers' lurked on the far right of the party when it suited them to do so, and have a track record to match.

Genuine liberals should beware of shapeshifting imitators.

[Oberon Houston]

This has been brewing since the General Election. A sobering reminder (pardon the pun Charles), of just how brutal politics can be. I actually have some admiration for Kennedy, you can only really test a mans metal when the chips are down, and Kennedy (and Robin Smith) went up ten notches in my book over Iraq, unlike our senior party leaders, who have blown like reeds in the wind. Ok, criticism over, my objections to the Iraq invasion have been voiced enough.

Getting back to Charles, my views are this: the LibDems will soon realise that their leader is the least of their problems, in fact ditching Charles is going to pull another bung out of their leaky ship. If they think Menzies Campbell is the answer, they're well off the mark - he may look the part, and sound it, but he is underneath all that a lightweight. The other two are even worse.

The only relevance for the LibDems was a right-wing Tory Party, but since that has appeared to vanish in a puff of smoke, they have all started running around on deck looking for a lifeboat. A third party in British politics only serves as a rudder, when the other two get too far away from the mainstream opinion. Quiet days ahead for LibDems - if Labour and the Conservatives remain on course.

In the meantime Charles - you've missed a golden opportunity to do this properly, and I am saddened to see the way things have gone for you. Having said that, I'm looking forward with relish to thrashing your party senseless in the Elections, your party has been feasting on disaffected Conservative voters for too long.

[Oberon Houston]

... sorry, mind was all over the place... "Robin Cook" (thinking about two Labour Politicians at once)...

[Reasonable]

He is to make a statement at 3pm, I guess to resign. This must be a bitter time for the man and we should keep him in our prayers.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Nick Robinson has just claimed Kennedy will definitely resign at 3pm.

[Reasonable]

Why is it that leaders often give their best speeches when resigning? It was good, and it was dignified. It will do much to counter the poor impression he has given over the last 48 hours.

Well done CK.

[Frank Young]

Kennedy has gone. Listening to Oaten on the BBC and reading remarks from other potential candidates i suspect we will see a Howard type coronation, with the Orange Book lib dems falling behind Ming Campbell as a caretaker leader until the day after the next election. This gives the Orange bookers, some of whom only entered parliament at the last election time to progress and raise their profile.

A deal will be done allowing Ming Campbell to lead the party in return for supporting the careers of a number of Orange bookers, including supporting, probably Mark Oaten in the Deputy leadership race..

What of Simon Hughes in this Westminster dance????

[Frank Young]

I absolutely agree Reasonable, credit should be given to a principled and interesting politician who on a personal level always made me pause for thought. I think that is often the biggest compliment that can be paid to a politician of any persuasion.

He also carried himself with humour and charm and I’m sure will make a valuable contribution to our politics in the future

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Hughes has refused to endorse the coronation idea and is putting a typically shifty performance in on the steps of Liberal Demoprat HQ.

[Frank Young]

My hunch is Hughes will gamble that his support is such that he would try his hardest to force a leadership contest where he would do well amongst the membership. However by doing so he will make himself very unpopular amongst the parliamentary party and struggle both for the 7 MPs needed to second him and to run a united party on taking the leadership. He will need to make some very posiitive sounds towards the right of the party.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Cable and Davey have both effectively endorsed Campbell.

[John Hustings]

I think Hughes will win.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

John Hemming is signalling that he intends to run. Where he intends to get 6 other signatures from is a mystery to me.

See here.

[MTK]

I *hope* Hughes will win.

[Biodun]

The Lib Dems have done irreparable damage to their reputation with this cowardly way of dispatching with Charles Kennedy.

I always thought they were the most principled of the 3 parties, although I wasn't too hot on their policies.
Guess I was wrong.

Who were the 25 MPs who refused to work with him?

They should take a look at the BBCs Have Your Say. The comments are pretty much unanimous in opinion.
"WE WILL NOT VOTE FOR YOU AT THE NEXT ELECTION".

Their dissatisfaction with CK only surfaced when they were confronted with David Cameron.
Shame on them (and kudos to DC).

[Reasonable]

Biodun, give me a link to that thread if you would?

[Biodun]

This link should work.

Otherwise copy and paste this.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=698&edition=1&ttl=20060107170953&#paginator

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

There's going to be a lot of bitterness, rancour and recrimination amongst the Liberal Demoprats for a long time to come about this. Witness Lembit Opik going berserk about some of his colleagues every four minutes on every conceivable media outlet under the sun. Adam Boulton was doing a masterful bit of shit-stirring on Sky News earlier - this could all be very entertaining indeed.

[James Hellyer]

It has to be Hughes. His politics fit well with the Lib Dems sandal wearing members. Menzies Campbell would be a better choice for the Liberals but bad for the Conservatives - his gravitas contrasts well with Cameron, and his views were sound enough to see him twice invited to defect on the promise of a seat in the Major cabinet.

[James Maskell]

Anyone else have a sense of schadenfreude with this? As decent people we should feel sorry for Kennedy since it was the statement about his alcohol problem that really kicked this into high gear. But by the same token, hes a Lib Dem.

About Ming Campbell, he was one of the two frontbenchers (if there is such a thing with the Lib Dems) to stand behind Kennedy, and yet Campbell is the first to say he will stand...what do people think about his prior intentions?

[Chris Palmer]

"I always thought they were the most principled of the 3 parties, although I wasn't too hot on their policies.
Guess I was wrong." - Biodun

A commonly held misconception it would seem. Hopeful this series of events will change people's minds.

I have this to say though. If the Lib Dems go for a coronation then (like Labour and Brown) they can be accused of being un-democratic. If on the other hand they go for a leadership contest, then it will one, show up what a useless bunch they really are, and two, give the public an idea of what they REALLY stand for. Either way they lose. British politics has no space for a third party.