The bullet's in the post
So that's all right then. A key member of Team Kennedy has rushed to his aid.
The Lib Dem Leader in the Lords declared this morning that he didn't want his party to be plunged into a bitter leadership campaign between now and May. So a planned, calm, leadership campaign after May's local elections is all right then.
Lord McNally has said more explicitly what many of Charles Kennedy's closest colleagues have said so far only in code. Over Christmas, the Grand Old Man of the party, Alan Beith, said that the New Year would provide an opportunity to consider whether Mr Kennedy was up to leading the party to the next general election.
Before the festive period, the party's current deputy leader and heir apparent, Sir Menzies Campbell, had refused to give Kennedy his unequivocal backing.
So too the Lib Dem's education spokesman, work and pensions spokesman and many others. They are doing this in public because they do not believe that their leader has listened to them in private. Charles Kennedy's colleagues say that this deeply private man barely blinks when told to his face that he's not performing, leaving them not just unnerved but uncertain whether he's listened to a word they've said.
The message now is plain for all to see - if you don't get your act together, be in no doubt that the bullet's in the post.
PS Perhaps we should now hear from Paul Holmes MP, the chairman of the parliamentary party, who said that calls for Mr Kennedy to step down were a "made-up story" and insisted he had not been approached by anyone expressing doubts about Mr Kennedy's leadership.
I'm 
Comments
The problems for the Lib-Dems run deeper than a lack-lustre leader. Their party was born out of the marriage of the old Liberal party with the SPD. But these two parties had different aims and backgrounds. There were good reasons why the 'gang of four' who broke away from Labour to form the SDP didn't just join the Liberals.
Now the marriage is coming apart. The new party appears to lack any credible or consistent core beliefs. It seems to exist only to oppose the two main parties. Its policy of trying to be all things to all voters was clearly coming apart at the last election as, at last, the media started to scratch below its surface.
Getting a new leader will only postpone the real task of deciding what, if anything, the party is for.
I like Charles Kennedy - I saw him on the anti-war march and applauded him. I also think the libs have the best environmental policies, something close to my heart. So why, like other voters, don't I have any confidence in him? As a leader he now has the life expectancy of the lock on a gents toilet door. I don't know why, though. He's good, decent, affable, a good speaker...what? Nick? Bueller? Anyone?
This is a non-story. I was at the Lib Dem conference in September, and the only people I heard sniping about Charles Kennedy's leadership were journalists - including Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú journalists who should know better. All I can imagine is that some of the disillusioned Tories who have joined the party in recent years are suffering from culture shock of having a leader who is both competent and consensual - something the Tories haven't had in my lifetime (I'm 32). Charles is a true democrat, and some people, who are perhaps used to more autocratic styles of leadership, seem to have a problem with that.
OK, I'm a Lib Dem member but not particularly an activist. And I disagree with the first reply to this post. I joined because I saw a party with a clear agenda that I could sign up to, a decent man in charge and a grown-up approach to political debate sadly not shared by Labour and the Tories.
In my view Kennedy's done great things for the party, not least in positioning it so well over the Iraq war. And, as a grassroots member, I'm becoming increasingly impatient with the activists and the various leaders manqué who I feel are busily undermining all the gains of the last few years with their childish behaviour.
I want to see the party pulling together and continuing to increase its impact on the British political scene. Perhaps its a truism that the fighting only breaks out when there is something to fight for. But all the current crop of malcontents are doing is ensuring that, should a leadership election come around, my vote won't be going their way. And perhaps my membership won't be renewed either.
Dan - "best environmental policies" ?? Actually this is a good illustration of what is wrong with the Lib Dems under Kennedy. The Lib Dems may well have the greenest-sounding policies, but every single time there is a difficult and potentially unpopular decision to be taken, they duck it. So although the Liberals, in theory, support road congestion charging, they have found excuses to oppose every scheme that has actually been proposed. Although they are, in theory, in favour of wind power, in practice they back the nimbys who don't want windmills in their area or power lines to bring the electricity from the turbines to the cites. Kennedy has failed to give any real leadership on this, as on so many issues. Sadly, his successor (if it is Menzies Campbell) is no better.
I'm getting a bit hacked off with all this sniping of Charles. In theory I should be worried, my term of office on Newcastle City Council ends in May. But have residents besieged me with Charles good, bad or indifferent leadership?
Er...well no actually.
...and does it remind me of the smoke and mirrors reporting of the Tories a few years ago? Certainly does. No hard facts, just rumours, unattribued briefings an tittle tattle. 100% "in the beltway" as the Americans say. Look how good it was for the Tories then!
So, what are the facts? Charles was re-elected unopposed after the General Election, yet now he's a horse destined for the knackers yard if you beleive some doom-mongers both outwith and inside the Party. And what precisely have these doom-sayers been doing themselves? Funny that. Nowt!
Anyroad, just my halfpenny worth!
As a conservative activist I just hope the post at 3 above is true.
The longer CK stays on the better as far as I am concerned.
Sadly, I just live in the real world instead of the parallel universe occupied by most Liberal Democrats which is why I am certain Kennedy will go as soon as he decently can, in the summer after the local elections.
The most frustrating thing about Charles Kennedy is that he seems to be the only one not really trying to go for the Punch and Judy politics but it never seems to get him anywhere. I often find it hard to spot the clear sound bite in what he says at PMQs. While I applaud the gesture and used to respect him for this I am now starting to realise that with the modern television coverage being what it is sound bites are the only way to get your message heard by almost anyone outside the political arena. Even David Cameron who claims to not being always trying to score political points off the Prime minister knows how to ensure there are a few choice words strung together for the cameras. Has Kennedy been most severely damaged by the fact that the new Conservative leader has made a bigger splash in a month than he has in over 5 years as Libel leader?
Ha. Right. Enjoy him quickly then. In politics, "non-stories" always have an unhappy ending.
I like the way Liberal Democrat supporters claim this is a non-story when the prime movers of the story in the media are... Liberal Democrat MPs.
Now Susan Kramer has called on him to put up or shut up. The one thing that is clear is that this lingering problem has damaged the Lib Dems. If you look at the opinion polls since their Conference, the view people have of their leadership has deteriorated drastically. To which we can only say... "good".