´óÏó´«Ã½

As a Lib Dem activist, I feel this has rumbled on long enough. It's time for SOMEONE to go, to bring an end to this nonsense.

Susan Kramer went on the Today programme this morning to call for a mythical fast leadership election, while openly admitting she didn't know what the Party's rules surround elections were. What she called for was impossible.

But it got her on the Today programme, which the poor dear hasn't been on for quite a while since her failed lacklustre London mayoral campaign.

Kramer is already being descibed as a "senior Lib Dem" by some news outlets - she is in fact a junior treasury spokesperson in the Lib Dems.

Having demonstrated live on air to the nation this morning that she is insufficently thorough in her approach to politics to read a few paragraphs of the Party's constitution before going on the radio to call for the leader to resign, she now lacks all credibility - she must resign.

Charles Kennedy is a lame duck while this debate rumbles on. Howard was. Tony is.

Cameron can't "refresh" the political stage in Britain till Tony and Charles have gone. Will they get on with it and clear the way for some real political debate?

How can Charles Kennedy hope to lead his party in any future election when his leadership and credibility are called into such open question by his own coleagues? Surely this means he has to go soon?

As a Conservative activist, I just have to laugh. The lib dems have had everything their way for so long now, its about time something happened to upset their apple cart.

Kennedy will go, the same as IDS did. The only question is how long it will take his 'colleagues' to make him see he is damaging his partys image. With a bit of luck it'll take quite a while, he'll drag it out up to the local elections, and make the public realise that the lib dems are actually the most devious and opportunistic politicians of the lot.

Being serious now, i think the lib dems day in the sun is now over. Ex-tories who voted lib dem at the last election will hopefully come back now that the tories have realised there's actually a modern world out there, and ex-labour voters who voted lib dem will go back to labour when they can vote for someone else other than blair. I think as a result of this, at the next election the lib dems will probably end up with less than 40 MPs.

As a former (and hopefully future) Lib Dem candidate, I'm sick of the behaviour of some of our so-called "senior" MPs. Charles Kennedy was elected by the members of the Party, and it should be us who decides if he goes or not - and frankly, most of us don't want him to. Have we learnt nothing from the antics of the Tories over the last 10 years?

As a party member I really don't recognise all thats going on as reflective of the party as a whole. In many respects this whole debate has come from nowhere, as its not being reflected by the members or even voters. So its been created and developed by certain members of the parliamentary party (who should know better) and/or the media. The party has already had a leadership election (of sorts) this year as the leader has to go through a re-nomination process after each general election and Charles Kennedy was the only candidate, and was re-elected as a result. If things are so bad, why on earth didn't these members of the parliamentary party put up then?

Charles Kennedy's stance on the big issues reflects that of the vast majority of the activists - such as his brave leadership against the war and breaking off links with Labour started by Paddy Ashdown. Not all members of the parliamentary party would have taken us down that route - especially the most senior name being touted as a caretaker leader. What our stance on these issues has done is opened up a whole new electorate for the Lib Dems, leaving real numbers of Labour seats vulnerable to us which we can now take advantage of because of the vast increase in second places in Labour seats last May. Those are going to be the fights to watch next time. Without Charles Kennedy we would not have these opportunities, which are now available to us because of these stances. So at the next election these seats could well fall to us, possibly creating a hung parliament. And maybe thats what this is all about, older members of the parliamentary party positioning themselves for posts in such an event.

And by the way this whole debate is being run by a small number of outsiders who aren't well known in the party. I've been a very active member of the party since I was 15, and I've never heard of this Ben Ramm bloke. The only time I've read his so vcalled 'Liberal' magazine is when he sent me a free copy - and it wasn't all that good. You really have to question his motives. And he certainly does not speak for the membership. I'm a councillor and I wasn't asked to sign this petition and nor has any other councillor or activist I know.

Of all the grassroots activists I know (and I know a fair few), not one is being overly critical of Charles Kennedy. Yes frustrated at the last election result, but fully united behind him, because he still represents the best bet for the party. I really think the average party member is pretty at ease with him. He has our support and many of us can only look on and wonder where this has come from...and the motives behind it.

If the Liberal Democrats lose ground in the local elections in may, the blame will lie with the MPs. If the MPs do not stop the whispering campaign now, i suggest all Lib Dem activists, when we go to Harrogate for spring conference, put down a motion of no confidence in the Parliamentary Party and charge them with bringing the party in to disrepute.

They say: "be careful what you wish for"; perhaps it is the Party as a whole that is the problem, and not the Leader?

What happens if the Lib Dems continue to fall in the Polls if Charlie is replaced?

Nick,

But the issue is not about what the Lib Dem party (Westminster or otherwise) thinks. They are, to be blunt, irrelevant.

Kennedy is not threatened by a jealous internal rival, or a different school of thought. It is Cameron's plan to queeze the Lib Dems's and to push them into second place where the hold and patch the split Tory/Lib Dem vote in labour holds. Labour can keep the metropolitans till Kingdom come.

Look at the Conservative propoganda site "Libdems4cameron.com"

Now, how do you answer that?

(apart from the spoof Lib Dem reply
"libdems4cameron.co.uk")

As David Cameron signals his intention to do "a Tony Blair" and steal the government's thunder by appropriating both their policies and their political ground, Charles Kennedy appears to some to be the odd one out.

Whether this whispering campaign was started by Kennedy's rivals within his party or the media, it is difficult to say. Inevitably the media fans the flames of concern within those Lib-Dems who think that they need their own version of the Cameron/Blair automaton.

The point is that once the Tories and Labour have converged so closely in the middle ground that it becomes impossible to tell them apart, voters who don't want that vacuous option will look for an alternative.

Getting rid of Kennedy at this stage indicates that perhaps the Lib-Dems will not offer that alternative. That would be a disaster for both the Lib-Dems and the voter.

With levels of voter participation in our representative democracy at alarmingly low levels, we need more mainstream political alternatives, not less.

The problem for the Lib Dems, in my opinion, is not Charles Kennedy but the make up of the British Political system. In reality, our style of adverserial politics means that really one party holds power and the other opposes - it encourages a two-party system, which we've got now.

The real chance for the Lib-Dem 'breakthrough' was at the last election, and although the party increased their numbers of MP's, it wasn't really enough to be classed as such. In reality, the Lib Dems got seats by people not wanting to vote Labour nor Conservative and a fall in support for New Labour.

Unfortunately, many people do not take the Lib Dems seriously, Charles Kennedy is seen as a 'fun' MP, but is the view the same about him being PM and leading a Government? Probably not. Whilst I like the Lib Dem policy on the environment, and let's hope the Conservative interest in this area isn't just a vote winning idea, their pro-Europe attitude, tax policies and general liberalism, turned many people off the party at the last election, particularly in the South East of England.

Charles Kennedy should be careful about allowing this to split the Lib Dems, he should either silence his critics for good or go. This has been gradually building for some time and even during Kennedy's illness in the election campaign, there were similar calls - especially after his tax gaffe, for a resignation.

Both the Lib Dems and Labour face the painful realities of leadership contests. Blair is worried about causing a Labour split and leaving his party in a position similar to that of the Conservatives under Major in 1990, do you really think that New Labour Blarites will support a Brown Government? Whilst, Kennedy who has been in charge since 1999, has been frequently criticised as being the sort of candidate for PM - 'Chat show Charlie' only works for some people.

The problem for both parties is the resurgence of the Conservatives. If the party unites under Cameron and his lead remains, then both parties will be looking for new leaders in the foreseeable future. British politics has become interesting again!

I'm sorry Nick but I think that your use of the term 'liar' when discussing Charles Kennedy's alcohol addiction is inflammatory, unfair, inhumane and downright wrong. People who suffer from addiction disease are struggling with huge issues. It is very easy for people without empathy and real understanding to point fingers and cry "liar" when the object of their derision has been unable to admit that they had a problem. This is in itself indicative and symptomatic of their illness - it is not lying to be in denial, but it is human. So do not point and name call to achieve a political headline - it doesn't become you or the ´óÏó´«Ã½. Have some empathy and humanity and embrace that for once a politician has had the courage to admit that they too are mortal and vulnerable.

I was surprised to hear Nick speak after the main interview on Today (Friday 6th Jan) when he alluded to the fact that for some time the media had been 'protecting' Charles Kennedy by not releasing evidence of alcoholism. I am not sure about the morals or justification behind this. Sometimes it is hard to believe that journalists would suppress a story in this way unless they wanted a better story to out in the long run.