Personally I don't think it was ageism that sealed Campbell's fate, rather the Lib Dems hadn't yet recovered from the negative reaction of their shameful treatment of Charles Kennedy (arguably their best ever leader). Drifting further right on tax and other economic policy also hardly helped.

I voted Lib Dem in last two general elections, but under Campbell's 'leadership' I found myself moving back to Labour.

Britain needs a strong 3rd party, but its about time they got their act together - lets hope they choose a decent leader this time - I quite like that Chris Huhn bloke. They need to present a clear libertarian, principled and fair alternative to Labour and the Tories (the latter still can't be trusted despite Cameron's touchy-feely brand of conservatism - the cabinet is packed full of right-wingers like Hague and Redwood).

At the moment, the Lib Dems look like backstabbing opportunists, who play the green/environmentally friendly card only when it suits them (locally, the Lib Dems have a shameful record on environment, as this suits them politically where I live).

I agree, I don't think it had anything to do with his age, more the fact that he didn't seem to be able to present a coherent package of policies. People need an alternative to Labour and the Tories - who seem to have very similar policies if you ask me. Campbell seemed completely unable to put such a package forward.

I spoke to a friend of mine at the weekend who has always been a staunch Lib Dem and even he admitted that he was put off by Campbell. I was a big fan of Kennedy - but in the end, he did need to stand down if he had an alcohol problem. :shrug: I don't think it would necessarily have been the best thing for him to continue leading a major political party whilst trying to battle alcholism :blink:

He was, however, a brilliant leader and I'd love to see him return in all honesty :ok:

Well I seem to remember there being murmurs that Ming had quite a lot to do with Kennedy's exit anyway!

I was talking to my dad only the other day about the Lib Dems, and how much better I think they would have done with a fairly straight figurehead like Kennedy at the helm. If he was leader of Labour or the Tories I think his character would win an election, he has more about him than Brown or Cameron and ,may well have made considerable inroads recently in all the election kerfuffle. Let's face it, Ming was not a man who I ever though could impact.

Totally agree with you DJ - if he came back as leader for them I think he'd make an impact - especially against Cameron.

the thing is sam, i've heard a lot of rumours that he's still drinking - they daredn't let him back unless they're sure he's kicked the habit :(

What they must NOT do is to bring someone in who's all style rather than substance - under Kennedy they had some really interesting policies that were a complete alternative to the two major parties, i'd like to see them "thinking the unthinkable" again :ok:

Have a look at the list of contender's here... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7045894.stm

Most are fairly right-wing economically...

Not promising in terms of giving a choice for those of us whose politics are to the left of centre...

Personally, the Lib Dems held more appeal, at least in terms of honesty, when they had a high-tax, high public spend agenda (e.g. a penny on income tax to improve education).

Hey being an alcy might get the vote from some quarters roflmao

You're right, he certainly does have to kick the habit, though I don't think it was damaging the lib dems vote!

well, he'd get the student vote i'm sure :P

I agree entirely :ok: I don't want them to slowly drift to the right..... :(

That was on the tip of my tongue roflmao

It's crowded enough already over there!

damn right! There was a lot of talk after the French presidential election that one of the reasons they had such a high turnout was because they had candidates who were properly left-wing and properly right-wing. None of this crappy trying to capture the centre, or the centre-right. Some people don't vote in this country because they can't see any difference between the parties anymore. :(

So right!

I mean, if the tories suddenly took charge, would we notice much? Im not that sure :shrug:

Sam, we would notice a difference if the Tories took power...there are more right-wing than Cameron's slick media-friendly image would have us believe - a lot of right-wingers packed in that shadow cabinet...

I agree we'd see a shift to the right in policy, but do you think we'd actually notice much change "on the ground"?

Interestingly enough, i was chatting to someone I work with who was saying she'd listened to a radio programme the other day where the home secretary (or Minister for Justice I guess it is now) was talking about prisons, and was debating with his opposite number in the tories. She said she was shocked to hear the Labour guy going on about making sure we punish people in prison, and that's all it's about. But the Tory guy was arguing that we should focus on rehabilitation of offenders...... :blink:

I just wonder how much would change in terms of practice rather than just policy? :unsure:

If he had not been such an absolutely rotten performer in Parliament (and he was completely gruesome) he would probably have been cut more slack by his MP's and the press, but how ever much good work behind the scenes he is doing it must be pretty soul-destroying to see your 'leader' laughed at and out-manoeuvred each week. If you can't get that right you put the rest of your position under huge stress. You also don't look too clever banging on about being a statesman with gravitas and judgment if performing in Parliament turns you into a gibbering wooden wreck each week.

The debate on prisons tells of which audience both parties are playing to - Labour still trying to talk tough on crime, whilst the Cameron agenda for the Tories is to appeal to the liberal middle classes.

Labour are terrified of being portrated by the Daily Mail and Sun as being 'soft' on crime (the reality is, they are seriously looking at reducing numbers of people who go to prison because of the overcrowding problem). Cameron meanwhile is trying to show that the Tories have changed (fundamentally, I don't believe they have despite him making the right noises about a lot of things) so is talking about rehabilitation and other stuff on the social agenda.

It worries me how many policies these days are decided by The Sun and the Daily Mail :blink:

Btw, Mr I, i wasn't saying you were wrong about whether we'd see a shift to the right in policy terms, i was just interested to see what the impact would actually be in practice? :hug:

Well overnight you wouldn't see that much difference - it takes time to see the effects of things. Some of the negative effects of Thatcher's policies were not immediately apparent, but manifested themselves over time (e.g. lack of affordable housing today due partly to 'right to buy' policy, profiteering of privatised utilities, etc). Likewise, and, trying to be balanced, the foundations for the good economic performance of UK in late 1990s were laid by Tory Chancellor Kenneth Clarke, who, ironically, left the country's economy in far better state in 1997 (when Tories lost) than John Major and Norman Lamont in 1992 (when Tories won).

Anyway, is this thread a symptom of some of the Lib Dem problems - we're spending more time talking about Labour and Tories than we are about the Lib Dems!!

Yeah, I see your point - you could add privatisation to that list as well. :shrug:

and yes, perhaps it is a symptom of the Lib Dems problems that we're talking about Labour and Tory policies - but what are the Lib Dem's policies? I liked the adding a penny to income tax one - that seemed to make a lot of sense to me. But what else is there? More to the point, what is there that makes them unique? At the last election they did well based on their opposition to Iraq, but that won't carry them through the next election. Labour and the conservatives are helpfully pinching their green policies..... :shrug: They truly need a decent, liberal platform on which to fight the next election.

Well although Labour and Tories have to some extent pinched Lib Dem environmental policies, there's plenty of room for improvement in order to attract the green vote towards the two main parties.

I think the Lib Dems aren't green enough. Nationally, they have had some good environmental policies, yet, locally, in my area, they are supporting an environmentally damaging road scheme because its politically convenient to do so, and showing a distinct lack of leadership when it comes to the environment.

Locally I would vote green if I had the choice - better to vote for the real thing rather than the imitation.

I considered voting green but there was no candidate at my last vote. My concern was always what abotu their other policies? But then I'm not impressed with many of the other parties polices.

The Liberals can no longer use the green ticket as a distinguishing thing to attract votes. Every party worth it's salt has to have a green manifesto these days as green issues have become mainstream, popular and important .

I've never voted liberal, but I have to say that I liked Charles Kennedy and it is a shame what happened to him and it turned me off the Liberals totally. Ming(ing :D ) Campbell was a huge mistake. Exactly NOT what was needed, it was a major step backwards after what Kennedy had achieved. And ironic that he was deemed not fit to lead co she had a drink problem. Look what Churchill used to knock back in a day!

Im not sure the difference would be that huge though, nto as much as it might once have been. And if there was a difference I fear we would be going back to the dark ages a little :shrug:

Can Kennedy come back?
Analysis
By Nick Assinder
Political correspondent, BBC News website

It is a question that is being asked around in Westminster - could Charles Kennedy really make a comeback as Liberal Democrat leader?

The answer that quickly follows is almost always "no", but there are enough MPs willing to ponder the thought for more than 10 minutes to make it a tantalising idea.

Mr Kennedy was removed from office with some brutality on the grounds he was struggling to cope with a drink problem. There was, needless to say, more to it than that.

The most popular theory was that the "young turks" wanted the still youthful Kennedy out of the way before the next election in favour of a caretaker candidate, Sir Menzies Campbell, who would step down shortly after the poll.

That would give them their chance to make a mark, settle differences over the party's future direction which were running hot at the time, and then those left standing would step up to the plate after the poll.

It was also partly sparked by panic in Lib Dem ranks at the possibility of a resurgent Tory party under David Cameron squeezing them off the political map and some genuine concerns over Mr Kennedy's ability to build on his two general election successes.

No one could question the fact that Mr Kennedy had led the party to new highs, with the Lib Dems having their best election for 80 years just seven months before he was forced out.

His relaxed, approachable image was a hit with voters and even his "Chat show Charlie" reputation probably didn't do him too much damage, particularly once he scaled down the TV performances.

After he was so unceremoniously dumped there was a lingering sense of guilt amongst many Lib Dems who believed he had been treated too roughly, although they virtually all agree he had had to go.

There was plenty of talk, including from Sir Menzies Campbell, that he could certainly make a comeback to the frontbench once he felt ready.

That mood was encouraged when he made highly-effective speeches at the last two party conferences although he has himself showed no great desire for a return to a frontline job just yet.

So, have things now changed? Has Sir Menzies Campbell's resignation - whatever actually sparked it - caught the "young turks" still unprepared for the big job?

And, if that is the view amongst grassroots party members who still hold Mr Kennedy in very high regard, might this set the stage for a sensational, bookie-breaking comeback?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7047018.stm

For another take on Charles Kennedy vs the 'young turks' how about this? The alcohol problems were only part of the story, and were used as an excuse to oust Charles Kennedy who was seen as being on too left-wing a platform by the 'young turks' who are more right-wing (they all seem to have contributed to the economically right-wing 'Orange Book' which is often mentioned). A lot of the contenders seem to want the Lib Dems to become a tax-cutting party who are prepared to cut back on public spending - I don't really see the point myself, as surely that's what the Tory party is for?

I think that would be a disaster for the Lib Dems if they were to move economically to the right - like you said, the major parties are all in to their cutting tax etc etc, the Lib Dems need to stand for something different. If anything they need to become a social democratic party, considering that Labour don't occupy that position any longer :shrug: