Heartland

All a bit bald aren't they?

Well, except this Chris Huhne guy that I've never heard of.

Then maybe this is the perfect test case for the politicians getting voted in due to good hair theory.

Unless this Huhne feller is some kind of ringer- I've never heard of him either, & I do follow these things.

I though elections were things that civilised democratic people had, not mutinous backstabbers.

My mistake

To be fair, whatever you think of Charles Kennedy, it was the press that hounded him out, not his party (wasn't it ITN that threatened to go public with his alcohol problem, forcing him to do it first? )

A party with someone who has publicly stated that he has a drink problem as its leader is, in today's political climate, effectively unelectable. You can't really blame the party for wanting rid.

Campbell is too old. If the only decent party in the country is going to be led by anyone, they need to be neither old, nor grey and bald, nor right-wing.

So sue me, I want a good party to lead the sensible people of Britain.

If the majority of the party wanted him out as was believed by the 29 cabinet members, then the proportional election offered by Mr Kennedy would have removed him and instated a new leader in one fell swoop. Instead, in defiance of the party line, they used their own disproportionate power to oust him, effectively silencing a much larger proportion of the party (larger than the 29, though not necessarily a majority) who believed him a fit leader. The process of removing the leader only added more time to the election process and they could have had a replacement brought in more quickly if they forewent it. The desire to remove Charles from candidacy altogether would suggest a childish fear of not getting their own way if he was favoured by the other party members. What they did amounted to blackmail and was highly unprofessional.

If an alcoholic is unfit to lead a political party, then they are unfit to ratify the selection of our political leaders. The right to stand for election is enshrined right next to the right to vote for those who do. Furthermore, if someone dependent on alcohol to see them through the day is not fit to lead a party, then neither is someone who depends upon prayer. A religiously inclined politician would be more comfortable putting his god before his constituents than an alcoholic one would be to put drink before his constituents. There are many dependent individuals in politics and I'd be inclined to place more trust in those who admit their flaws than those who play Herr Tadelos.

all of which (and i think it sadly because i fuckin' hate the other two options more) is just the sort of in-fighting and self-serving disorganisation that will ensure they don't get into power, or even become a viable opposition.

I doubt alcoholism in itself would have been enough to stop people voting for Kennedy.An affair seemed to actually boost Paddy Ashdown's popularity,as I remember.
More likely his utter lack of impact on the public consciousness,and his party being viewed as "nice but naive" was Kennedy's stumbling block.
I doubt Sir Menzies Campbell's stuffy and mildly pompous public image will be a great benefit to the party.