Third time lucky?
So, we didn't have to wait long to solve the mystery, to find the answer to the question, "did he jump or was he pushed?"
Paddy Ashdown answered it, unwittingly I suspect, in an interview this morning (listen here). As a friend and admirer of the former Lib Dem leader, he said he'd planned to see Ming this morning to tell him, "when you go, go on your own terms". Not a shove in the back then but certainly no offer to fight in the ditches to see off the plotters and the naysayers. It was, instead, more a message of sympathy and support for a man about to take a step over the political precipice.
If this was Ming's friends speaking in public you can only imagine what some of his enemies may have said or, just as importantly, not said, in private. Unlike the defenestration of Charles Kennedy there were no 'round robin' letters demanding the leader go, no delegations of men in grey sandals, no face-to-face confrontations. The knowledge that they could - and even would - follow was ever present. This time the Lib Dem leader was slain by the silence of colleagues who did not come to his aid when people said he was too old, too poor at presentation, and doing too badly in the polls to go on.
Ming Campbell's friends say it was an honourable decision made by an honourable man. Yesterday he consulted just a handful of his closest confidants asking them a simple question - could they see a way he could escape the persistent doubts about his leadership? He had, he told them, had a good conference, he'd given a good speech, the party's ratings had briefly risen to 20%, he'd been well received at party events even once that figure tumbled and yet, every time he tried to focus on policy - the prospect of council tax rises at the weekend - the only story in town was about his failing leadership. Those who spoke to him tell me that he fell back on his lawyer's training, weighed the evidence presented to him by a small number of trusted witnesses and then reached his verdict. It was over.
His most senior colleagues had not the faintest clue what was going on. When Vince Cable appeared on The World at One yesterday to confirm unhelpfully that the party was discussing Ming's leadership, he knew nothing. When Simon Hughes had called on him to raise his game, he too had known nothing. When Ming's favoured successor, Nick Clegg, came to the cameras at teatime yesterday to urge Ming to stay he too knew nothing. When they did find out it was not from their leader. He was, by then, well on his way home to Edinburgh determined to get through his front door before the cameras could be sent to capture the defeated leader's face.
In truth there are two men responsible for the loss of two Lib Dems leaders in two years - neither of them are party members. It has been David Cameron who has successfully driven down the third party's ratings. And it was Gordon Brown's decision not to call an early election which signalled to restless party members that there was, after all, time to search for another leader to head off the Tory/Labour squeeze.
The Liberal Democrats dumped a popular leader for one who was widely respected in Westminster. Now that he has gone their hopes rest with men who are little known in the country and relatively inexperienced at Westminster. The party must hope this morning that it's third time lucky.
I'm 
Comments
I feel very sorry for Ming - a decent, principled man of integrity. Ming was never given a chance. Unlike other leaders, he had no honeymoon period. Right from the start, his leadership was under attack. Then, when he raised his game, at Prime Ministers Questions, for example, he received no credit. How could he lead when every time he appeared on tv to talk about Lib Dem policy, it was his leadership that became the issue ? Even normally fair ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ people like David Dimbleby could not resist banging on about his leadership every time he appeared on Question Time. And, as for his colleagues, with friends like Cable and Hughes, who needs enemies ?
Should we feel sorry for him over the fact that he was evidently pushed ? No. After all, isn't he the one that schemed and plotted against Charles Kennedy ?
Considering that Campbell decided to stay out sight and not give support to Kennedy, while the latter was having his own leadership difficulties, I would say this is a fitting end to his reign.
I, Mr. Robinson, think our politicians are all a bunch of doughnuts. What a joke this country is.
I was quite shocked when I read the news. I have always thought that Ming is the kind of politician the country needs. An honest principled man who asks the questions he wants answers to rather than the ones that score him the most points. Young Dave could learn a lesson or 3 from him.
I sincerely hope he stays in politics.
WHO cares - an irrelevant party led by a back stabber who got his just rewards. This is NOT the end of a statesman - eg Churchill - just a politician- so there.
As for honesty, integrity etc - dont make me laugh - ask Mr Kennedy for his opinion!!!!
Uncharitable as it is, the real question is why did he take so long?
Age was clearly established as his liability very early on. The party was looking at meltdown. He must have known what damage he was doing, and has done.
A proud, decent, honest man, no doubt But you can't help feeling there was a touch of deluded vanity in him not resigning earlier.
While Ming is a great man and noble politician, I think every Lib Dem knew in their hearts that he was not the leader to get them elected. It's good to see that the Lib Dems have at least learnt political lessons from the floundering Tory party of the start of this decade, who wasted valuable years stuck with lame duck leaders.
The delay of the general election has given the party a chance to refresh itself, and it is good to see that it has recognised this opportunity and acted quickly, seizing the chance to appoint a dynamic leader with some charisma and substance.
Hopefully now the party will make a simple choice between the two best candidates for the job, Nick Clegg or Charles Kennedy - both offer the potential of a much brighter future for the Lib Dems. Vince Cable will not appeal to voters, as he too has 'something of the night about him', and as Chris 'Who?'Huhne couldn't beat Ming in a leadership election I don't give him much chance against Cameron or Brown.
Let's just hope the party makes the right choices this time round.
Menzies Campbell's lawyers training was as much a cause of his problems at it was his political suicide. He was clever but not very wise. Training and longevity do not a master make. He had some honour and consideration but lacked substance and relevance. His choices to lead and leave don't look very wise. He attacked when he should have calmed down, and calmed down when he should've relaxed. His political wires were crossed and he blew the inevitable fuse.
I can't say I'm that interested in their upcoming leadership contest or the party. They lack leaders of substance and the party is immature. The ego of Liberal opportunism and populism is just chewing itself up. It's not as if there aren't plenty of books on leadership and comments from the public that tried to hammer some cluetrain into them. They just bought into too much of their own religion and slammed into the reality wall. Their pain is their own doing. I hope they learn from it.
The much more notable news for me, today, is Anthony Giddens comment that . He takes the many and varied problems facing individuals and society and boils them down to their simple essence. It contains many lessons for politicians, the media, and the public. Indeed, the "simple, clear, and powerful" slogan my Liberal MP borrowed from an email for Menzies Campbell's use speaks to this crisis but trying isn't enough. There is only do.
I expect the Iron Buddha of Downing Street gets this.
This is it for the LibDems, last orders in last-chance saloon.
Nick "not really very supportive" Clegg is sitting at the bar.
Chris "the knife" Huhne pushes the door open and declares menacingly "This party ain't big enough for the pair of us". He sneers at Clegg and spits "go for your voter-friendly green policy you varmint".
Clegg shoots, the media applauds but he misses as his right wing policies are not in tune with the LibDem activist base. Huhne shoots, and his left-of-centre and LibDem activist friendy policy aim is true and hits Clegg square in the chest.
"But I'm good on Question Time" declares a prostrate and wounded Clegg, "I'm good looking and the media likes me".
"Ha" drawls a victorious Huhne, "You might pretty but the lefty activists prefer me, who cares what the media thinks. Lib Dem activists only read the Guardian anyway".
Huhne slowly walks from then bar, jumps into his Toyota Prius and drives into political oblivion.
(to be continued...)
Politics will miss Ming's good sense and wisdom. There was no froth or hype when the other parties were spinning frantically.
The LibDems have always been the most upbeat of the political parties and Ming was just not getting that across the hostile and sneering media.
Perhaps all political careers have to end in disappointment. But that is an undeserved fate for one of the UK's very few statemen. At least he chose the time and exit door of his going.
Why did he take the job? He had been ill, he was approaching a period where most of us would be looking to enjoy are time.
He sought power, if you believe he had a hand in fall from grace of the previous leader, maybe he got what he deserved.
I think he is like the grim reaper, always negative, made me feel like the UK was going to collapse any time now. Maybe he will now become a political pundit, as he always see things as half empty.
Ming was chosen to hold the reigns of the party while the Kennedy affair became history.
His successors were supposed to use the time given to become 'household name' types. They've sort of done this but not as well as they might. Though to be fair it took Kenedy years to achieve this.
The Lib Dems will now do a Tory party, appoint a 'Dave' like figure and press home sensible alternitives to issues such as council tax, secuirty and global warming.
a Lib dem voter me.
Well the only reason that Ming was not aloud to focus on policy was Because the media including Nick Robinson would not let him ignoring policy statements and just going on and on about his age, I really am fed up with journalists nowadays, their level of knowledge and research is dreadful, you sit and watch them on the TV pontificating when a good proportion of what they say is wrong
Well, you must be pleased! At last, all the speculation in which you (Nick Robinson, the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ in general and the wider media) have indulged has come to fruition. You've finally got your man. This is yet another example of the media making the news rather than reporting it.
For goodness sake, get back to doing what journalists are supposed to do - reporting. DEfinition of journalism - "reporting news for media: the profession of gathering, editing, and publishing news reports and related articles for newspapers, magazines, television, or radio."
The whole premise behind Campbell's leadership was a myth: that he was a fearless and principled leader. This arose from the status he acquired during the height of the Iraq war as an 'elder statesman' who was against the war. The Liberals had chosen to be the party that would stand against it - actually the easiest option, since they calculated that most of the country would agree with them and in any case weren't likely to be in power and have to take difficult decisions about what to do about Saddam, etc. And Ming was the mouthpiece for the simple, easy to explain view that we should just get out of Iraq. In his frequent TV interviews on the subject he was hardly ever challenged, because of course most of the interviewers agreed with him. So though he had never really been tested his party turned to him in desperation, and when he became party leader he couldn't handle the greater scrutiny he came under. It wasn't his age - just that he lacked ideas and charisma, and frequently disappeared off the radar for weeks at a time.
They will choose the wrong leader again, because the left-wing activists will want to get their man in this time and will probably succeed with the utterly boring Huhne. Even if Clegg gets it, he comes across very much as another fresh-faced, public school clone who even looks like Cameron (albeit without the sleek hair style) and won't do much better.
This could be a death knell for the LibDems I'm afraid. Eighteen months after Charles Kennedy was, as you so nicely put it 'defenestrated' by his own troops, the LibDems manage to kill off the man who replaced him with damning faint praise. So the race is on to replace him but the list of contenders doesn't really inspire any great confidence in me.
In fairness Ming never really recovered fully from a nervous and unconvincing start as leader but he did improve. And the sniping about his age has been puerile and plain unacceptable. If people had focussed on his sex or religion, for example, it would rightly have been seen as an outrage. So why not this?
Part of the wider problem is the increasingly presidential style of political life and its coverage, where those who are not obsessed with presentation suffer (viz Campbell). In the current fevered atmosphere the LibDems were always going to suffer as the third party anyway, so why were people shocked at the relatively poor poll showings right now?
However, the reason I think things may be terminal for the LibDems is this: they are the party who've managed in the past, successfully, to put the perception of at least a little moral high ground between themselves and the others, concentrating on issues. They have had a relatively staid image, but it did give them some respect. All the Kennedy and Campbell resignations have shown the public is that the LibDems are just and venal and febrile as everyone else. So if there's no real difference between them and the other chancers, why bother?
Ming is an honorable man and I feel sorry that he has resigned. I hope the LibDems don't make the mistake in thinking all their problems will be solved by choosing a 'younger' man. Their problem is that they no longer hold the middle ground and there is not enough idealogical distinction beween parties so if they come up with a good policy the other 2 parties will steal it.
I think now that ideology has gone the Lib Dems are doomed in the long term. They could have been canny and gone for the older vote using Ming as an asset but I suspect they have fallen into the trap of thinking that age is an issue for voters. They should get out of Westminster occasionally and ask the public.
Brown has formed an inner circle of young politicians and already the cracks are showing. I suspect in the long term he will be roundly criticised for relying on these young nasties who have never had real jobs.
The worst thing about agism is that almost everyone grows old. So the young fresh faced MP who thinks Ming or whoever may be too old will one day have wrinkles and because of their attitudes today they are creating the weapon for their own destruction in the future.
Old people probably vote more regularly than young people so why not try and appeal to the people who actually vote rather than the young trendies down the wine bar who aren't really interested.
I don't remember who said it but a mature person was asked whether they had changed compared to when they were younger; he replied that his thoughts, feelings and desires were exactly the same but his body could no longer do everything he wanted it to do.
I think the Lib Dems have shot themselves in the metatarsal. If I had to choose between a young fresh faced MP who had entered Westminster straight from university and a man who has experience in volumes to make a tough decision I know who I would turn to.
I think after the dust has settled most people will conceed that Ming did the right thing. His age never bothered me but the fact that he seemed ineffective and invisible did.
Whoever is in government the British people require a robust opposition to keep them on their toes. The tories, at long last, seem to be making ground on that front, but it has been to the detriment of the Lib-Dems. They now need a leader who can rejuvinate the party's fortunes. Ming didnt have the energy, vision or ability to appeal to voters, however well respected he was in westminster
David Laws should be the next leader.
Was it not simply a case of those who live by the sword die by it?
There is no such thing as foregiveness in this business
I feel that Ming, rather like John Major, was always better as second in command as opposed to leader.
Ming left law when he saw the signs of being too old, so what made him think he should lead a political party at an even later stage in his life. A very vain and arrogant man.
Kennedy had problems, but he was the biggest fish in the small Lib pond.
The main party leaders are going to end up looking like dummies out of Burton's window, Blair's legacy. At least Ming looked and sounded different.
Unfortunately, good, principled man though he was, Ming was never going to get the Liberals anywhere as leader, and if that was obvious to me even before he was voted into office, then why wasn't it obvious to the Liberals? Probably because they are - mostly - as good and principled as politicians get.
But nowadays, that's clearly not enough. More guile and ruthlessness is needed. As is presentation, which the Liberals have lacked since Kennedy was leader. And who is there to replace Ming now? No-one who could do as well as Kennedy I would say.
I think the simple truth is that many of the Liberals' policies are generally sound, more people like them than the polls might suggest - fed up as they are with Labour and the Tories - but they won't vote for them because they don't think they will get in!
Rephrasing an age-old adage goes: the LibDems will get the leader they deserve. Post-Charles Kennedy, the LibDems deserved stability most of all[read: they needed to stop their inter-necine sniping, and to start collecting themselves]. Ming gave them just that. The LibDem parliamentary party should --for their own good-- offer their next leader more support than they did to Ming --through thick and thin as in their current electorally dire state. Period.
I want to add to those who place a large part of the blame for the sad demise of Ming Campbell on the media in general and Nick Robinbson in particular. Robinson is adept at spinning any mountain out of an mole hill and this holier than thou attitude that inevitably springs up after the event just sickens me.
I listened to the interview with Vince Cable and his comment that the matter was "under discussion" was merely stating the facts under intense questionning along the lines of "You must admit there is an issue about the leadership. Is his positon under threat?" "No its under discussion but I don't think it is under threat." What is he supposed to say? How was this unhelpful as if Cable has driven him from office? Instead it is you media people who have succeeded in contriving his departure.
There was a time when one could rely on the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ for honest integrity and fairplay. Not any more it seems and Robinson is one of the main reasons.
Mac,
Campbell's opposition to the Iraq War only developed after he saw the political mileage possible from it.
Previously, he was at loggerheads with Kennedy over the Lib-Dem stance over the War. For example, see
Private Eye also reported on Campbell's far from consistant approach to this issue.
Yesterday I heard the whole sorry sage of ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ 4's lunchtime coverage of Ming's leadership crisis. I have to say from the outside listening in, it looked like a planned and frontal assault, primarily by the sheer time spent on the coverage which seemed out of proportion to the subject.
Did the media coverage, including the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s' contribute to his resignation? I have to say Yes it did, and no it shouldn't have.
Not one of the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s finest hours.
Ming's sudden departure might actually cause the Lib Dems more problems. The man was an apparent rarity in the Lib Dem Party - he was honourable. He did not have any vices that caused his party acute embarrassment, nor did he openly and deliberately flout the law by lighting-up in a no-smoking area.
The Lib Dems need to understand that if they wish to return to power in Westminster, then they need men and women of integrity. They wish to lead and represent the UK, and need to behave accordingly.
The greatest issue has to be their fantasy policies. Perhaps they should look at why the Liberals have not been in power for the best part of a century.
Ming was instrumental in the ousting of Charles Kennedy. Now karma has been fulfilled. He has got what he deserved.
what I think should be most worrying for the Lib Dem's is not that they cannot seem to keep a leader for any real amount of time, or find one that has a broad enough appeal for the country - its that most people really don't care. I certainly don't as it makes no difference to me or the other voters.
The Lib Dem's should also realise that people do not much care either for their central policy aims for a greener and fairer society - even if they say they do, they certainly won't vote for it. It usually means higher taxes!
What's all the fuss about? The Lib Dems are an irrelevance. Their sole ambition is a hung parliament so that they can get themselves a deal for electoral reform on their terms thus denying power in perpetuity to the much more popular and successful Tories. And they wonder why people are turned off politics.
But politics is a nasty business as Ming himself showed not so long ago with the Charles Kennedy affair. Kennedy was popular, charismatic and intelligent, yet because he showed a bit of human weakness he was dumped. Campbell managed to look older than his years and performed poorly. He looked nervous, jumpy and awkward - the Lib Dem version of Ian Duncan Smith. He would have led the party to electoral disaster and the sandal wearers knew it. For this reason they donned their steel toe caps and gave him a kicking. I bet they wish they could bring back Kennedy, but I hope if they tried he would tell them to stuff it.
Too cosy with Labour in this neck of the woods.
Big mistake to stop Scottish liberals from getting involved with the SNP.
RIP LIB DEMS
I agree that Ming was not as publicly visible as some leaders, neither did he articulate a coherent set of positive policies - i.e. not simply knocking the other parties policies.
But my real anger is reserved for the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ and others who undermined him and his leadership from the very beginning by constantly questioning his leadership and depicting him as a senile grandfather-type figure. News organisations like the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ should not engage in news-creation: In my view the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ should split its news output from its entertainment and if the Lib Dems are wise they should consider putting this forward as a policy!
Is it all about change or going back? The Lib Dems in my option need to step back one and by this I mean re-electing Charles Kennedy. He still having a popular standing in the public eyes and that is what the Lib Dems need. Let’s not forget about the respect the public would have in the party if they asked Mr Kennedy back. He was a great person and went too soon. Mr Kennedy is the only one who can drag the party into the next election and lets face it he one of the best. I still remember the debate between Blair and Kennedy over Iraq, great to see a MP stand up to the Blair years.
Vote Kennedy
"If this was Ming's friends speaking in public you can only imagine what some of his enemies may have said"
Nick, with respect journalism should not be about imagination.
There is a vast difference between yesterday's press and today’s. Yesterday the resignation was a surprise; today the media are covering up for having no idea by imagining stories of how the Liberal Democrats turned on Ming.
The fact is the Liberal Democrats knew how old Ming was when they elected him as leader. They choose him because he is a statesman of integrity, strength, dignity, determination and: a true liberal capable of using liberal philosophy to address the problems of terrorism, global warming, poverty, health and education.
Ming had hardly any enemies in the party and the couple there are have been on the record about their dissatisfaction. Sir Ming's colleagues have not been silent as the media now pretends; they have stood shoulder to shoulder with him. There is genuine shock and sadness in the Liberal Democrats.
However, when the media reports on the Liberal Democrats it dwells on notion that, as a man in his 60s, Ming is far too old to lead his party.
For the Liberal Democrats to continue move forward, as we have at every election since the party was formed, we need a leader who is able to turn the media story to Liberal Democrat policies: policies which are both right for Britain and what people in Britain want.
If Ming feels he cannot develop a media strategy that can get journalist away from talking about his age and onto the difficult reporting of real politics, then regrettably he was right to resign. He will be missed.
Being invisible and simply not courting the media are two very different things. Personally I'd rather have a politician speak for me that was more interested in getting actual answers and announcing policies that may ruffle a few feathers than a politican more interested in where the next photo opportunity is or which policy is going to make a poll swing in his favour (until the opposition release a policy statement which swings it in their favour)
So, the man who waited on the sidelines for years - convinced that he was a better man than the younger, more polished, more outgoing leader of his party, always publicly loyal but allowing his closest followers to snipe away at the leader's authority - having finally pushed his nemesis out of the way and assumed the throne himself, has found that the job was perhaps not as easy as he'd thought it would be, the public didn't love him as he'd assumed they would, and has fallen on his sword rather than drag his party further down.
Do we think there might be a lesson in that for anyone?
DisgustedDorothy:
Nationalism and Liberalism are contradictory concepts.
For the former rights are something that belong to nations: for the other nations are a mechanism for individuals to work together.
Liberals look at the state and wonder how to arrange it to provide the best result for individuals: Nationalists believe that nations spring out of a natural pattern and must be separated - a dangerous concept.
Therefore Liberal believe in nations working together. The Scottish Liberal Democrats believe that the UK must be reorganised with increased devolution to centres of power closer to the people; they do not believe in breaking away from out neighbours by leaving the union.
I hardly think the Lib Dems need to be told not to get into bed with nationalists. And if you knew anything about the Liberal Democrats, you’d know that being organised according to a Liberal model, the federal leader (Ming) has neither the power nor the authority to tell MSPs what to do.
I may be going against the perceived wisdom but surely Clegg might be best option for the Tories?
One party copies policies, the other their man. Doesn't this give them more credibility? It says "we see him as a threat".
If his youth/inexperience are a problem why would other politicans copy it. Remember when the joke was they had no policies? Well that is not the policy joke now.
Cameron's problem is that he is not seen as having been around long enough ; he will seem like a seasoned operator, especially after the last few weeks, when another crop that missed out on the excitment starts to push up. Why vote for Cameron-lite if you can vote for the real thing and have a chance of getting rid of the Govt? Most of my L.D. friends who left the Tories have gone back and would rather vote for a Govt. Most are not enthused by the idea of increasing the chances of a hung parliament.How many times do you think his immigration policy will be thrown at him and I don't see many Tory votes in that? They like folks to have played by the rules. "Amnesty" is not in their political vocabulary. If he adandons the policy, they will start throwing flip-flops at him. You can picture the headlines now; that is if it even makes the papers.
If he tries to go right, that only endorses the Tories agenda and makes Labour look even more out of step but Clegg will face the same party troubles as D.C. with no non-election to bail him out.
I see him as a problem for the Tories in a very different way;
they need the L.D.s to do well against Labour and their traditional supporters may not find him attractive, even if he stays firmly on the left.
It is a rotten job.
Re Ageism: Where does old age begin?
It was a doctrine of Jim Hacker that you should never believe anything till it it officially denied. We have had official denials from Vince Cable and Simon Hughes that they pushed Ming into resignation. Therefore we know what happened.
Why do they do it? I asked myself when I heard of Ming Campbell's departure and whilst atching the Panorama special on Obama in the USA striving for nomination. Everybody hates you. Obama to Osama is an easy stretch and was made.
As someone of similiar ethnic mix, the too white for some, too black for others struck home. And Ming - what has someone to do? Look at the pygmies that surround him and in the space of 3 weeks from "hero to zero" - Next!
Pity anyone in the Liberal Democrats who have to take this "shower". Janet Leigh - it turns into BearNormanBating, Ides of March and a bloodbath no matter what the sensitive idiots would wish.
OK then. New Lib Dem leader. Which Cheeky Girl should it be?
Because I'd rather it not be that boyfriend of one of them. Charles Kennedy has another shot but I suppose that is the trouble - a shot too many in the past allegedly - Cleggie - Truely last summers whine - Cable superceded now by Emales and texts - European Males - agh! Simon Hughes? No for it is he whom must wield the dagger. Keep it sharp, assassin. nice and sharp.
Sir Ming resigns — tears in the trseet as a nation mourns. Another Lib Dem leadership battle — the nation hold its breath in anticipation.The only thing these two related events highlight is just how irrelevant the Lib Dems are.
Another victory for the 'Jocks Out' Brigade among the Home Counties media types in London.
Come home Ming, we don't have tiresome windbags like Kelvin McKenzie here.
"…did not come to his aid when people said he was too old".
The problem with this statement Nick is that it was the media who kept banging on about it. The constant referencing to his age by the media perpetuated and gave tacit support to what is now a reprehensive ageist agenda that is permeating our society.
Don't get me wrong I am not a 'Ming' supporter. Indeed, I thought he failed as a leader despite being extremely good as an opposition spokesman. He simply didn't have the political intellect to master more than one brief.
We should avoid this drift towards a political 'Logan's Run', whereby any politician who reaches a certain age should be eliminated.
What stops Gordon Brown calling an election now whilst he has one opponent toatlly beached? Answer - presumably the judgement that the Tories would benefit more from Lib Dem transfers.
I think that Ming was let down by a party who were simply not prepared to come out fighting in the way he though they should, even though that sort of approach is so alien to this principled voice at Westminster.
Despite that, however, when he refered to the constant questioning about his leadership I believe he was more referring to the Press.
It is the media who have not let the Age thing go. It is they who have been so quick to criticise every note of his presentation. It is the media that have raised the questions of his leadership again and again and have profiled him against the other leaders.
Everyone else in this country would have preferred to just listen to what Sir Ming had to say.
In the end, Ming has been squashed by a system that rewards bullies and not talent.
Which thug do we vote for at the next election? That seems to be our choice now.
How can a party that fires within a period 18 months, two leaders it has elected, ever be trusted to have the foresight to govern our nation? Of course both had some weaknesses, but these were either superable, or -should have been / must have been - to any competent party, foreseen. Both ejected leaders were as committed - and able - as any leader of any party, and we all know how many of them also have had their weaknesses.
To see Hughes yesterday, and previously, with a grin that can only be descibed as facile, uttering platitudes after Lib Dem leaders' forced resignations, speaks for itself.
A Lib Dem own goal? As good as Labour's 10 days ago? I think so. Time will tell.
I am astounded that, yet again, the Party President has actually let the speculation and the tawdry discussion of the Leader's position remain uncontested. When will Simon Hughes stand up for the party he is supposed to oversee? Moreover, after that disasterous World at One interview, how can any member of the Lib Dems have faith in Vincent Cable as Acting Leader?
The shelf-life of Leader Campbell (stabilizing influence) was seen to be short - but not admitted as such - from the beginning. In my view Ming understood this and made an honourable decision for the good of his party. Time now for a new younger and more dynamic leader has arrived.
Maybe I am naive but I know the feral interaction at Westminster is decidely unhealthy and Ming is an old-looking oldie.
I watched the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ news 24 last night.
It went on for hours and hours and hours all about the lib dems.
So what?
Most people want real and interesting news from home and abroad.
We don't want politics every day, especially when it's almost pre-written by the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳.
Who do they think they are? Is this how they spend my licence fee??
Is there no other news on TV apart from politics
It's got tot he point where no one really cares who takes over the Lib Dems. It's like a tired sideshow, which is a shame because it takes us one step further into the realms of "Joke democracy": two parties locked in a personality battle to fine tune their performances.
maybe the LD's should change their name to 'We are really the most centre party... well maybe a bit to the left!'
Whomever succeeds to lead the Liberals will no doubt hope that Simon Hughes doesn't suggest they raise their game.
I have to say,although I was never Ming's biggest fan I feel sorry for him. However his resignation or should I say sacking is the reason why I can't see myself supporting the Lib Dems anytime soon, because if they don't know what they want, then how am I as a voter going to know what to support them for. Brown must have had mixed feelings at PMQ's he must have liked how all the publicity was off him for not calling an election and at the same time must be disappointed that Ming is not taking the LibDems to the next election in probably 2009, where they were almost guarnateed to lose seats. The Tories can finally pass the baton of the nasty party on to the LibDems. Honestly those LibDems, they really know how to make a mess of things!
who cares.when we get english people in charge of an english parliament then we might all care a little more.all three parties are of mixed race,but do most of there work in england.i agree with alex salmon.the english should be able now to govern themselves.where did ming scuttle to?edinburgh.