'The Liberal Democrat leader, Charles Kennedy, resigned this afternoon after reluctantly accepting he'd lost the support of his parliamentary party at Westminster.
Mr Kennedy brought his seven-year reign as leader of his party to an end with immediate effect and withdrew from the leadership contest he'd triggered 48 hours ago in a statement given at 3pm at the Liberal Democrat headquarters.

His resignation followed a dramatic admission in his earlier statement on Thursday that he'd been seeking medical help for an alcohol problem that he'd long publicly denied.'

Tragic really - Kennedy's alcoholism (which comes as a surprise to absolutely no-one) is merely the excuse to edge him out by a group of Lib-Dem MPs who are worried about their seats in the light of David Cameron (Blair Mk II)'s election as Tory leader.
I would say this is pretty much akin to the NDP ditching Ed Broadbent in 1983, on hearing of Brian Mulroney's election. Kennedy's mishandling of his drinking problem is, of course, a factor, but in the end it was merely the weapon for a caucus that was determined to oust him.

Hopefully the Lib Dems will see sense and choose the charismatic Social Democrat Simon Hughes over the right-wing aristocrat Menzies Campbell, but it's really too early to look at that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
I think there were also concerns that Kennedy was moving the LibDems too far to the right in an attempt to attract Tories.

---

I wonder - I'd have to hear from someone over there who'd looked into it. After all - the MPs who rebelled were those who won their seats marginally in strong Tory areas - wouldn't a swing to the right be what they wanted?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:

I wonder - I'd have to hear from someone over there who'd looked into it. After all - the MPs who rebelled were those who won their seats marginally in strong Tory areas - wouldn't a swing to the right be what they wanted?

---

From what I can tell looking at media reports Kennedy suffered from a bit of a squeeze play. The left of the party was mad at him for courting Tories, others were mad at him because the LibDems didn't do better in the election as many saw a chance for them to surpass the weak and ailing Tory party.

Something similar happened to Donald C. Macdonald when he led the Ontario NDP to 20 seats up from 7 in the 1967 provincial election. A lot of people were mad because they thought the NDP could have done even better so Macdonald was challenged by Jim Renwick for the leadership in 1968 and was ultimately pressured to quit in order to make way for Stephen Lewis in 1970.

Anyway, I think a big factor here is the election of "liberal" Tory Cameron as Conservative leader and the fear that he'll attract a large number of LibDem voters (and even MPs) into the Tory fold. The LibDems probably feel they need a stronger, more appealing leader.

[ 07 January 2006: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:
[QBKennedy was low-key and civilized - I suppose you could say urbane. If they're looking for a stronger, more inspiring leader, I hope they've got someone good in mind. Otherwise all this frenetic activity will be moot.[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walker:
Call me shallow, but I always look at the candidates to help me decide who might be the better leader.

The chin has it. That is one trustworthy chin.

And I do recall seeing the latter speaking on various issues during my time in 0ld Blighty. So I vote for Si.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walker:

I agree, Charles Kennedy exuded fairness and civility, he was a good speechmaker and he really ripped into Blair without mincing his words. And that was when he supposedly had a drinking problem. I wonder how he would have come across sober.

---

That was a bold and courageous step, and if it reduced Liberal Democrat support(which I doubt, since the polls showed a clear swing from Labour to LibDem)it would be a good thing.

Simon Hughes would be a good leader(although for those who've been calling him a "Social Democrat" I'd like to point out that he was first elected as an "old" Liberal before the merger). My only qualms about him revolve around the fact that he was the beneficiary(in the Bermondsey byelection campaign of early 1983)of the viciously homophobic media smear campaign against the Labour candidate, Peter Tatchell(who has since gone on to help found the group Outrage a group that has attacked figures like Robert Mugabe and the Palestinian leadership on their antigay policies at a time when no one else on the left would do so). Had Tatchell prevailed in that byelection, the chances of a Labour victory, under left wing leadership and on a genuinely socialist manifesto for the first time in decades, would have been greatly bolstered, and Britain might have been saved from the Tories when defeating them still mattered.

Instead, the UK got...well, what it got. Enough said.

If Hughes had denounced that campaign(which he refused to do at the time)or if he were to apologize to Tatchell for the damage that those who indirectly supported Hughes did, it would be easier to support him.

[ 10 January 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]