Campbell is the frontruner on all this – but I have been following the debate from many Lib Dem MPS (more details on the blog).

Interesting claim. Why?

Harris and the secular society is a very strange relationship. for one he’s a vocal advocator for israel and of a jewish religious homeland, as well as other personal religious causes. presumably he considers it be to a race and not a religion . still strange . oh he’s homosexual to and apparently a humanist as well. just about any old Anti wagon.

secularist will never gain ground against christianity and can only supplement people’s prejudices. as if there needs to be a non-religious conformity. its like pagans setting up their own rituals . sad. why bother.

*yawns*

although, Kennedy will still be on the front bench as his peers will give him that at the least (its been agreed collectively)

“I was watching the last episode of Rome last week. Showed the assasination of Ceaser.

Kind a saw some parallels with how old Charlie was assassinated. ”

lol oh that made me smile!

Kind a saw some parallels with how old Charlie was assassinated.

Not that I am comparing the Liberal Democrats to the Roman Empire.

There’s me thinking that the lib dems were all cute fluffy bunnies. Turned out to be the killer bunnies as seen in the Search for the Holy Grail. Oh the eyes the red evil eyes.

New Lib dem, New Danger.

http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/KF/0512/zapruder_-_stable.mov

I was walking along a London street yesterday and had to think twice on reading the headline boards “Kennedy a Dead Man Walking”

They give him far too much credit. They say he gave them a great haul of seats, as though he is single-handedly responsible. I guess we can never know what would have happened to them with a more articulate leader or someone with a clearer vision, or someone capable of taking clear messages when they are given to him by otherwise loyal colleagues – such as when it is time to encourage someone else to lead the party.

The Lib Dem, Tories and New Labour have so little differentiating them in terms of values. The Lib Dems still have some vote-losing commitments to civil liberties and international law, which I appreciate. Maybe I’d vote for them if they were led by Diane Abbott.

As a lib-dem, I think you put the case perfectly. But he has gone now. not our finest hour.

I don’t think he was an effective leader, regardless of his alcoholism, and if I was a Lib Dem, I ‘d almost definitely vote against him in a contest. But why should he not go through the democratic convention of being removed or reinstated through a membership vote?

Why does it damage a party for it to go through a voting process? The expense? In return they get some publicity and a chance to air issues. The chance of becoming divided? If you are so divided you can’t work with each other you should not be in the same party.

Sure, the Lib Dems aren’t alone in this – no one can publicly disagree with the party leader and remain on the front bench – all the main parties treat the public like we are so politically immature we have to be shielded from the true beliefs of our “representatives”. Let the media scream about divisions, but if it becomes a normal way of conducting politics with integrity, and if people have the maturity to work alongside people they disagree with in terms of tactics and strategy (though maybe not core values) then the charge of division would have no power.

To refuse to serve under him whatever the electoral result seems undemocratic, unless it is Kennedy who says that people who oppose his leadership cannot be on his front-bench. To ask one another to resign for the sake of the party is contradictory – surely the party decides what is in its interests by voting.