Monday, October 15, 2007

Is it all over for Ming?

Well, if this story is anything to go by, yes. But what a truly witless bunch of people the Lib Dem parliamentary party is.

In January 2006, they got rid of Charles Kennedy knowing that his successor would almost certainly be Ming Campbell. Indeed some of those who signed the no confidence letter that brought Kennedy down were already pledged to support Ming in the ensuing contest.

Now, less than two years on, they apparently want to get rid of Ming as well, on the grounds that he will probably be 68 by the time of the next election. But shouldn't they have thought of that when they elected him?

Before all this Gordon Brown snap election nonsense was even a twinkle in Dougie Alexander's eye, it was overwhelmingly likely that the next election would be in 2009 and that Ming would therefore be, er, 68 at the time of it. Whatever it is the Lib Dems now stand for, it's certainly not loyalty.

free web site hit counter

3 comments:

Turbulent Cleric said...

I agree that there is no logic as he was elected leader at a time when the next GE was thought likely to be in 2009 which is once more the likely date.

They do seem determined to replace the Tories as the nasty party which is rather sad for those such as my wife and myself who have voted for them, albeit tactically, in recent years.

Any chance of a "Bring back Kennedy" campaign?

rob's uncle said...

The link in this story is broken already.

Nick Humfrey said...

They've replaced him because he's turned out to be a poor performer in the commons (not obvious from his performances as shadow foreign sec), an uncharismatic presence in general (more forseeable, but not necessarily a bad thing after Charlie) and the media decided to hound him to the point where there could be no return. The age thing is clearly just polite shorthand for all of this. It would be perfectly possible to be 68 and charismatic enough (Ken Clarke's coming up that age isn't he?). It's not ageism, he's just not up to scratch. Whether Clegg is, is of course another matter.