It wasn't Kennedy was Alcoholic that worried me.

Charles Kennedy Quits as leader
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4590688.stm

The writing was on the wall long ago. It is about time he faced the facts and did the honourable thing. Very few people would elect a (known) alcoholic to any form of power, not that they had a chance anyway...

And of course the big fear, he's a Ginger
__________________

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Charles Kennedy Quits as leader
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4590688.stm

The writing was on the wall long ago. It is about time he faced the facts and did the honourable thing. Very few people would elect an (known) alcoholic to any form of power, not that they had a chance anyway...

And of course the big fear, he's a Ginger
__________________

America elected GW Bush. He was an alcoholic and a coke head.

Liberals will be breathing a sigh of relief. For a few moments there, it looked like he was going to go to the membership for a leadership election.

But even if he had support of 100% of the party (which he didn't), what is the point of trying to lead if most of your own MPs hate you? It's just not practical.

Much as I feel sorry for Charles, I am happy in that all those smug bastard Lib Dems who were saying after the last election that they would be the only party with the same leader in the next one all look stupid.

Anyway, let's face it, the Lib Dems have to shape up or kick out. Right now, half the votes they get are from people pissed off with the Tories who cannot bring themselves to vote Labour, and people pissed off with Labour who cannot bring themselves to vote Tory.

As both Labour and Tories are in favour of the Iraq War, that's the only reason the Lib Dems hav done any good at all, and it won't last. They need someone who will get them to stand on their own feet.

But... who the heck actually KNOWS any Lib Dem personalities? They simply haven't got anyone capable of doing the job, that I see.

Politicians with personality?

A rare bread indeed.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Liberals will be breathing a sigh of relief. For a few moments there, it looked like he was going to go to the membership for a leadership election.

But even if he had support of 100% of the party (which he didn't), what is the point of trying to lead if most of your own MPs hate you? It's just not practical.

Much as I feel sorry for Charles, I am happy in that all those smug bastard Lib Dems who were saying after the last election that they would be the only party with the same leader in the next one all look stupid.

Anyway, let's face it, the Lib Dems have to shape up or kick out. Right now, half the votes they get are from people pissed off with the Tories who cannot bring themselves to vote Labour, and people pissed off with Labour who cannot bring themselves to vote Tory.

As both Labour and Tories are in favour of the Iraq War, that's the only reason the Lib Dems hav done any good at all, and it won't last. They need someone who will get them to stand on their own feet.

But... who the heck actually KNOWS any Lib Dem personalities? They simply haven't got anyone capable of doing the job, that I see.

Kennedy did more for the Lib Dems than Sir Menzies Campbell or any other front bencher ever will. Also throughout the last five years the press has been calling JK a drunk but it didn't harm his position with voters.

No, circumstance did all that for the Lib Dems. CK was never, ever going to reach a position of power.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, circumstance did all that for the Lib Dems. CK was never, ever going to reach a position of power.

He was sacked because the LIB Dems feel threatened by David Cameron, they want a young leader.

Again, no, he was sacked because the MPs felt the party was going absolutely nowhere after the election, and so they were losing the chance to get anywhere. CK is hardly too old, and the front runner for the new leadership is much older. So age was nothing.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, no, he was sacked because the MPs felt the party was going absolutely nowhere after the election, and so they were losing the chance to get anywhere. CK is hardly too old, and the front runner for the new leadership is much older. So age was nothing.

Kennedy lacked the charisma the party felt was needed to combat DC. You could say CK was the Lib Dem's flat tire and while it got them a fair distance the party felt that they needed to change the tire to keep up with the Conservatives.

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Kennedy lacked the charisma the party felt was needed to combat DC. You could say CK was the Lib Dem's flat tire and while it got them a fair distance the party felt that they needed to change the tire to keep up with the Conservatives.

Are you ginger Gav, I think you mentioned it in another thread.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Are you ginger Gav, I think you mentioned it in another thread.

No.