Ming had to go, sooner or later. In my last post I said "He'll be gone by the end of the week, then. Within a month at the latest." I just didn't think that he'd go quite this soon!

It is clear that Ming has failed as Lib Dem leader. Under his leadership, the Lib Dem polls have plummeted by about ten points from their 2005 high. He really did lead them down the loo.

But what will happen now? We know that Nick Clegg wants to stand, and it is inevitable that Chris Huhne will as well. And since Lembit Opik has recently resigned as leader of the Lib Dems in Wales, it seems likely that he may well want to stand as well. There is also the likelihood that Party President Simon Hughes will want to stand again as well - as might Vince Cable. And what about Charles Kennedy? He was ousted for being a drunk but claims to have beaten the addiction, and has significantly refused to rule out standing again. Iain Dale thinks that he is the man to rescue the Lib Dems. I don't think he has a chance of getting the job back.

But, really, whatever happens and whoever leads the Liberal Democrats, they don't really make much difference. They are little more than a protest party. Hence why it makes little difference who is their leader - it is the effectively the actions of the other parties who decide how much support they get. Whether Clegg, Huhne, Kennedy, or whoever else wins the leadership election, it won't matter much. They will get the traditional bounce in the polls - but then it'll be back to politics as normal.

Of course, all of this is reliant on them being able to remain united after Ming the Figurehead has fully left the stage. This is their chance to decide where they will go and what it means to be a Lib Dem.

Source: BBC

Go to hospital under the alcofluence of incohol and you'll have to pay for it - again - if the Lib Dems get their way:

Not only is this a bad idea, it's pretty stupid too. First problem: define "drunk". Does this mean the consumption of any alcohol? A certain number of units? A concentration in the blood? How can you define "drunk" and where will you draw the line between not having to pay and paying? Second problem: if injured "drunks" don't go to A&E, what are they going to do? If they have to pay, many simply won't. This could well cause their injury to get worse or possibly, in extreme cases, cause death.

Unlike the idiots who made up this policy, I have had experience with drunks as a first aider with St. John Ambulance. Most of them don't want to go to hospital no matter what they have done - from cuts that need stitches, to suspected fractured bones, to stab wounds - and this idea that if they do go that they will have to pay for it would just mean that they certainly wouldn't, and could thus seriously damage themselves.

The NHS is pad for by taxes, everyone's taxes - taxes that include that levied on alcohol. Saying the drunks should have to pay for their treatments removes the very point of a publicly-funded health service. It also sets a dangerous precedent: smokers should have to pay for lung cancer treatment because they knew the risks; alcoholics should have to pay if they have liver problems; and then, eventually, old people should have to pay because they should have known better than to get old. if the NHS is funded by taxpayer's money, no British citizen should be charged at the point of delivery for health care by it. We all pay for it - to different extents, true - but we do all pay for it. And thus drunks - or any other group defined in this way - should be charged at the point of delivery for the healthcare that they have already paid for.

At least we know that they want Charles Kennedy to pay for his healthcare...

Sources: The Times, The Guardian, BBC

Charles Kennedy, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, forced out because he was - and had been for years - an alcoholic, is refusing the rule out a return to front-line politics and challenging Ming the Merciless the doddering old fool Campbell for his old job. His reply to the question "Are you going to be the comeback kid?" was:

He does seem to show some signs of still being under the influence, however, since he seems to have forgotten how many hours are in a day, and how many days are in a week, saying:
Of course, that could also have been meant as a joke, and a subtle sideswipe at Ming's leadership.

Will, or can, Charles Kennedy ever return to front-line politics? I'm not sure it's possible. Wherever he goes, whatever he does, his alcoholism [former or otherwise] will always hang over his head. Whatever happens, the Liberal Democrats should not be stupid enough to put him back in the leadership position. He may still be popular, and more so than Ming, but to put him back as leader would be a huge mistake. For one, it would be a step back in time. Like Hague could never really be Conservative leader again, Kennedy can never be Lib Dem leader again. In these jobs, you only get one chance. For a party to go back to an ex-leader makes them look weak and backwards-looking, rather than strong and forward-looking.

Kennedy, unlike Hague, shouldn't return to front-line politics at all. No matter what he does or where he goes, the shadow of his alcoholism will always hang over him. Commentators will question everything he does through that lens, and it will always come up again and again in any interview. Since he resigned [or, rather, was pushed] over a personal issue, there is no getting over or away from it in the public mind. He should instead concentrate on building a non-political career. After all, it's not like the Lib Dems are ever going to make it into government!

Sources: The Telegraph, BBC