Liberal Democrat leader resigns

Video
BBC

Sir Menzies Campbell has resigned as leader of the Liberal Democrats with immediate effect.

In a letter to party president Simon Hughes he said questions about his leadership were "getting in the way of further progress by the party".

Mr Hughes said the party owed Sir Menzies "a huge debt of gratitude".

Deputy leader Vincent Cable will take over as acting leader for now - a leadership timetable will be announced on Tuesday.

The official announcement was made by Mr Cable and Mr Hughes, who said Sir Menzies had taken the decision in the "interests of the party and of Liberal Democracy".

damn he hasnt lasted long as leader
wounder if its because hes worried that the Liberals wouldnt do so well next ellection?

wounder if they will get a leader that can actuily lead their party

Well, there's no doubt that worries about Liberal performance at the next election, and perhaps more importantly before that election have been the major factor in his resignation but I can't believe that it was his own worries that drove his departure.

The Parliamentary party have been in something close to public revolt against his leadership for some time and it has only been the threat of an early election which has kept that revolt in check in recent weeks. With that possibility now gone and a decent period available for a new boy to bed in before a poll his fate was effectively sealed.

So, the last leader of his generation has gone and a man who was a basically a decent, intelligent and thoughtful politician has given way in a rather grubby coup to what will almost certainly be another Tony Blair lookalike whose major challenge may well be to actually win his own seat at the next election.

Not an evening that will go down as a classy episode in the party's history I'm afraid.

[edit on 15-10-2007 by timeless test]

I'm disappointed. I quite liked Ming, even though I'm not keen on some of the Liberal Democrats' policies - I think the fact that he was a generation above Cameron/Blair/Brown made him stand out as a party leader. To me, his age wasn't a factor at all (and nor should it be).

But the Lib Dems have got this tendency to throw good leaders away. Paddy Ashdown, Charles Kennedy and now Menzies Campbell.

However, I take my hat off to him for not dragging his feet and having to be forced out like Thatcher or, to some extent, Blair. Here is a man who put his party before himself.

He was a walking coffin. You'd take his advice as a Grandfather, and love him as the best Grandfather possible. But as a party leader his intellect was not matched by his va va voomph.

reply to post by redled


Without wishing to be unkind you may well have effectively summarised up the least endearing elements of British politics, (and parts of British society), in one short post.

At the age of 66 with probably a quarter of his life ahead of him a man is now perceived as "a walking coffin", with a role in what remains of his time reduced to that of a cast off whose only remaining benefit is to provide grandfatherly advice and perhaps tell a few stories about the old days when he's had one too many whiskies in his cocoa before bed time.

A man who is now another statistic in the body count of a culture which puts more value on "va va voom" than intellect.

We do indeed get the politicians that we deserve.




[edit on 16-10-2007 by timeless test]

reply to post by timeless test


Totally agree with you. 13 years ago Blair was 'proving' that he was not too young, now age has reversed. Its all fashion dressed up as intellect, and that is va va voom over brains, character and courage for sure.

reply to post by redled


But between, say, David Cameron and Menzies Campbell, who would you trust the most to be the Prime Minister of the UK?

Ignoring policies for a second and going solely on their personalities (or how you perceive them), which would you choose?

Personally, I'd take Ming over Dave any day. We really do need less spin and more substance from our politicians.

Originally posted by Ste2652
reply to post by redled

 

But between, say, David Cameron and Menzies Campbell, who would you trust the most to be the Prime Minister of the UK?

Cameron. Whether you trust him or not, he has moved his party far more effectively than Ming did. Of course Cameron has had more time, but he has stuck through his rough patches, which Ming did not. My perception of Cameron is that he will get what he wants and you can trust him on that, though I believe both mean well.

I'm not entirely convinced that Campbell was a potential PM; I suspect that he would have made a much more effective Foreign Secretary as a No. 2 to say Ashdown.

...but if it were to be Ming or Cameron I'd take the wrinkly beggar every day of the week.

reply to post by redled


I have a pretty strong impression that Cameron is becoming too tainted by spin whereas Campbell was not, which is why I admire him even though - as I said before - I don't like some of the Lib Dem policies. In fact, as far as spinning goes, I'd say Campbell is by far the cleanest out of him, Cameron and Brown. Proclaiming yourself the 'heir to Blair' probably wasn't the best choice in retrospect!

Bit of a shock this one......but nullifying the LibDems for some time may well have been an expected and canny part of Brown's strategy in not holding an election soon (not that I ever expected him to myself).

A straight fight between tory & labour is just what Labour wants and it looks like that's what it'll be.

I wonder who the LDs will go for next?

Originally posted by redled
Cameron. Whether you trust him or not, he has moved his party far more effectively than Ming did.

- Oh come on.

What serious substantive tory policy has Cameron genuinely "moved"?

He's dont absolutely nothing of real substance & significance.
They still have almost no actual policies (and those they do have are typical tory efforts).

Cameron has done nothing to compare to Blair's 'Clause 4' moment and the movement TB effected in the Labour party.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

What serious substantive tory policy has Cameron genuinely "moved"?

Could you imagine this two years ago, the Tories educating prisoners? I'm sorry about the quote, but i don't know the external source button....but this is Tory policy.

'Reducing overcrowding is the key to reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners. We believe that prisons should be more than human warehouses: they should be places of education, hard work, rehabilitation and restoration.
A Conservative Government will reform prison regimes to help break the cycle of re-offending, and we will ensure appropriate provision for the mentally ill and offenders with drugs problems.
Furthermore, we believe that far more needs to be done to assist and supervise ex-offendors on their release from prison.'

That is substantive.

Originally posted by redled
Could you imagine this two years ago, the Tories educating prisoners?

- Well yes actually.

It's just the usual vague uncosted aspirational stuff, there's nothing actually substantive about it.

They say nothing about how many prison upgrades they'll fund, how many new prisons they want nor how many places on these 'programs' they will fund etc etc.

They're hardly going to call for hell-holes now are they?

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by redled
Could you imagine this two years ago, the Tories educating prisoners?

- Well yes actually.

It's just the usual vague uncosted aspirational stuff, there's nothing actually substantive about it.

They say nothing about how many prison upgrades they'll fund, how many new prisons they want nor how many places on these 'programs' they will fund etc etc.

They're hardly going to call for hell-holes now are they?

They could not bother mentioning it. They used to. As for costings, that all comes with Manifesto time, and is kept very quiet before that.

Well if you want to make the right sound-bites and appear to have changed and be taking a different course then this is exactly the type of thing you'd go out of your way to do.

But when it comes down to it on the substantive stuff Cameron is still taking the line which favours the already best off in our society -
only millionaires to pay IHT (despite already generous avoidance steps people can take whilst alive), stamp duty removed from all share transactions etc.

reply to post by sminkeypinkey


Conservatives are right wing and will lower taxes they judge to benefit the economy. The main issue with reforming the Conservative Party is basically happening, accepting society, redistribution, a humane prison policy, so on, they were the main areas of complaint about the Tories in 97,01 and 05 if I remember correctly.

Originally posted by redled
The main issue with reforming the Conservative Party is basically happening, accepting society, redistribution, a humane prison policy...... they were the main areas of complaint about the Tories in 97,01 and 05 if I remember correctly.

- You must be joking.

The rejection of the tory party in 97, 01 & 05 had a hell of a lot more to it than merely recognising the reality of our society (which is surely hardly something to be specifically applauded), redistribution! (they have said nothing concrete about redistribution....except criticising every Labour policy that actually effects some) and prisons (which is merely an aspiration right now).

In fact it had to do with policies which were patently similar to the kinds of disastrous policies they always espouse
(which have never benefitted the economy in the end......and they sure as hell have certainly never been the UK Gov presiding over a British economy for their record 10th year of continuous economic growth) .

......and despite the claims of those in the tory press sympathetic to them their instincts are as obvious & unchanged as ever.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

reply to post by sminkeypinkey


Well I'm glad we've moved on to why the Tories lost. I actually voted Labour in 97, I knew, we all knew. The Conservatives had stopped caring under Her, kindness was seen as wet, weak, the Tory Reform Group was branded the weak part of our party, and so One Nation died in the Conservative Party. One Nation Progressive Mainstream Conservatism is now the force in the party, and yes the heart is starting to beat again, thanks to Cameron. He has moved the party immeasurably, its not all about tax cuts, or spending on services, your fundamental attitude is vital and the Conservative Party has started to care again.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by redled]