Chris Huhne seems to think so, anyway.

"People in charge"? Who the hell does he think has been running the Liberal Democrats? Little green men from Mars? Pod people? The Mighty Jagrafess of the Holy Hadrojassic Maxarodenfoe (aka Max)?

Well, at least this opens the door for an whole new line of speculation over why and how Ming was forced out. Did they discover his secret and threaten to spill the beans? Or does Ming just want to phone home?

And is he also trying to subtlety suggest that Nick Clegg is less than human? Maybe that was part of the deal - Ming will go quietly, but in return they can't openly out Clegg. Or maybe Huhne is just trying to lead us off the scent...

Idea pseudo-nicked from Guido.

After Ming Campbell has been evicted from the leadership, the BBC report that "as many as seven are considering running" to repalce him. But of them, not even Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne have yet announced. Apparently:

They'll both stand, and this 'period of reflection' is nothing more than an attempt to not be seen as the back-stabber. But both of them are. Along with Simon Hughes and Vince Cable. That Ming made the choice by himself to stand down is utter bollocks. As Iain Dale describes, they pushed him into going.

I'm not surprised that no-one has yet officially thrown their hats into the ring. But I bet they are many, many soundings being taken behind closed doors.

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

He'll be gone by the end of the week, then. Within a month at the latest.

It will have been quite possibly the shortest, and most certainly the certainly the most useless, political party leadership term in British political history - I certainly can't think of anyone who has done worse. Ming should hang his head in shame. Not that it's necessarily his fault or that anyone of the contenders could have done any better.

But who will replace him? Nick Clegg, Chris Huhne, Simon Hughes, Lembit Opik, Vince Cable himself or will alki Charles Kennedy return to the position? Not that it really matters. The Lib Dems aren't a serious political party anyway.

Source: BBC

... sounds about as much fun as being anally probed with a hot poker. In fact, considerably less exciting.

Via Dizzy, who wonders "is he on valium?" we can see a sneak peek behind the bustling hive of activity that is Ming Campbell, as he is in his constituency and preparing for government...

Ming says he's not too old... well, actually, yes you are Ming. You're 66 - you are past the retirement age. But it's more than just your age. Despite every attempt to give you "zing", you still appear about as lively as road kill. That is your major problem, a symptom of your age maybe, but not simply down to that one issue.

It is not Ming's actual age that is a problem, but his perceived age. He appears far older than 66 in both looks and actions. Instead of the lively, interesting and entertaining leader needed by a minor third party such as the Lib Dems, they have a doddering old octogenarian look-alike.

You should be at home with your pipe and slippers, reading the newspaper and tutting at "the youth of today," Mr Campbell... but then again, for all the impact that the Lib Dems have you might as well be.

It seems that the latest polls are saying that David Cameron is less popular than Gordon Brown, and even Ming Campbell. Gordon Brown's approval rating is +32, Campbell on -5, and Cameron on -8.

This new set of polls is just full of bad news for the Conservatives, giving Labour a 40% share, next to the Conservative's 32%. As to whether this will lead Brown to jump for an election now, I still very much doubt it.

Hopefully this is just a short-term problem, and one that will rectify itself after the conference season is over and Brown's honeymoon has properly ended. Hopefully. And it is up to Cameron and CCHQ to ensure that it does.

Sources: The Guardian, The Telegraph

Why did Nick Clegg do it? But whatever the reason, he did. Whether it is a mistake or not will emerge in the future, but it can be seen as little other than the effective throwing down of the gauntlet to Chris Huhne.

It seems that the Lib Dems are fed up with the constant questions about Ming's leadership and the positioning of the potential leadership candidates - so much so that Simon Hughes delivered quite a smack-down to them in a speech just shown on Daily Politics.

Even though Clegg specifically said that "if you are asking me would I stand against Ming, the answer is no," that he also said "if there was a vacancy in the future then I probably would" will just keep the leadership questions coming - and we may well see a riposte from Chris Huhne soon.

UPDATE: Huhne has responded, saying that it is "premature" to talk of a leadership election. A bit of a slap-down for Clegg and a way for Huhne to seem like the more loyal of the two - and to keep his powder dry.

Sources: BBC, Times News Blog

What we have all known for years has now been shown as absolutely true - the Lib Dems are just a protest party.

This is something that we all knew, really. People don't vote for the Lib Dems because they want a Lib Dem government, but because they want to say that Labour and the Conservatives aren't doing/saying what they want. Nothing much more than a protest vote. And this is why the Lib Dem vote is so very easily squeezed as it is being so now.

The Lib Dems are also claiming that Gordon Brown is "threatening democracy" with his attempt at a "big tent" because he wants to "create a permanent dominance" for Labour. What they really mean is that they're being squeezed and don't like it. Gordo's "big tent" isn't a new type of politics, but a slightly re-packaged old variation of the old politics - and as such he won't be able to continue the charade for long.

Ming is failing as Lib Dem leader. He is more of a figurehead than a real leader, and can't even make his mind up on referendums. He also seems remarkably unmedia-savvy, allowing photos of him to be taken whilst pointing down a toilet, and even admitting that he is a failure...

Image: Times News Blog
Source: The Times, BBC, Times New Blog

Just a few days ago, Ming Campbell said that a referendum on the EU Constitution "Reform Treaty" was "not necessary" because the treaty was "sufficiently different" from the constitution. But he seems to have changed his mind on referendums.

So he wants a vote on the larger issue of EU membership but not on the direction of that membership. That makes no sense. Apart from UKIP, there are few who really advocate leaving the EU entirely. The difference is over opinions on the direction of the EU and the amount of power that the undemocratic institution should have over sovereign governments and parliaments. Calling for a referendum on EU membership of the whole misses the entire point, and will be used as an excuse for more and more integration into the EU without asking the people.

What Ming is trying to do is simply to have it both ways - more integration with the EU but without being blamed for it because he "offers" a referendum on EU membership. Very simply, both Ming and the Liberal Democrats as a whole have to make up their mind - either they are democrats and thus allow the people to vote on these things or they're not. They can't keep putting their left leg in, then their left leg out [shake it all about] all the time. Pick one position and hold it. Stop trying to do the Hokey Cokey.

You put your left leg in
You put your left leg out
In, out, in, out,
shake it all about.
You do the Hokey Cokey and you turn around
That's what it's all about...

Woah, the hokey cokey,
Woah, the hokey cokey,
Woah, the hokey cokey,
Knees bent, arms stretched, ra ra ra!

Source: BBC

Ming says no to a referendum:

A day after David Cameron says that he'll force a referendum through parliament, Ming makes his job that bit harder by backing Brown instead. Why? On this issue he is definitely opposed to public opinion, and also to that of his own party!

The idea of a referendum is not one based along anti- or pro- EU opinions. It is based along the idea of the British people making their own decisions about the future of our country. After all, it is backed by left-wing trade unions, the Conservative Party, Labour MPs, and Lib Dems - and there are many many different views on the EU and our future within or outside it between [and within] those groups!

As I've said before, the outcome of the referendum is far less important than having it in the first place. Then, whatever the result, it is the people who have decided, not politicians in Westminster, under a Prime Minister no-one elected.

At the same time as this is happening, it is clear that the "red lines" which Labour have so constantly claimed have not been breached really have, to the extent that
We want, and need, a referendum on this Constitution "Reform Treaty". There is no denying that Ming has taken the wrong course by backing Brown on his opposition to letting the British people vote. It is strange, considering his own party's name, that he is opposing to a democratic vote.

Sources: Financial Times, The Times

The Liberal Democrats aren't as united as they would like us to believe:

As much as they would like us to believe it, the Lib Dems are probably less united than the other main parties - they just seem to be better at hiding it and/or no-one really cares. Unlike with the other parties, where those who are divisive tend to be the old, past their sell-by date, politicians, with the Lib Dems it as a great division within the new up-and-coming politicians.

Ming Campbell is a dead duck leader, and they all know it. He has failed miserably as Lib Dem leader, and his MPs are already jockeying for position over who will succeed him. As Suz Blog [one of the few Lib Dem blogs I bother reading - the main other being Norfolk Blogger] says:
The Lib Dems need to decide what sort of party they are. Are they of the Left, Right, Centre, or just try and be equidistant? The last one is obviously impossible. They have to have a basic ideology, something on which to base their entire existence as a political force. Vacillating because the major parties have changed is no longer acceptable. They have to make their minds up, and stand up and be counted as themselves.

With Labour and the Conservatives, the ideological battles are pretty much settled. Those who oppose it are pretty much just those of the old party - the ones who had their go in the eighties and nineties. Labour changed to get into power because their old way wasn't working. The Conservatives have done so as well, because their old way wasn't either - hence the last decade out of government.

But the Lib Dems still have their battle to come. There's the Orange Book group of Vince Cable, Nick Clegg, and David Laws and the leftwingers of Chris Huhne. Whether this battle really will - or can - be had until Ming Campbell stands down as leader is debatable. But both sides seem to be setting out their stalls already. Less Ming the Merciless and more Ming the Figurehead of a divided party?

Source: The Guardian

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

The Labour Party are holding another coronation. After Gordon Brown was unopposed for the leadership of the main party, the same is happening in the Scottish Labour Party:

But at least there appeared to actually be some opposition from within the main party, either the failed candidacies of Michael Meacher and John McDonnell. There doesn't seem to be anyone else who is even willing to put their name forward in Scotland.

This is despite Wendy Alexander being wanted as Scotland's First Minister by only 7% of Scottish voters, behind Alex Salmond on 38% and even her predecessor Jack McConnell, who is off to Malawi, on 10%. She is level with Annabel Goldie, the Scottish Conservative leader, and with only Nicol Stephen, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, being more unpopular, with just 5% wanting him to be First Minister.

This spate of coronations in the Labour Party, when contrasted with the last leadership elections in the other main parties, is odd. David Cameron and Ming Campbell had to actually fight and be elected to become the leaders of their parties. Thus, it can mean one of three things: either Gordon Brown and Wendy Alexander really are "head and shoulders" above any other possible candidates, including their own colleagues, that there is a concerted attempt to get and keep Brown and his cronies in the top positions in the Labour Party, or no-one dares challenge anyone else. None of these are good options, really.

If Brown and Alexander really are "head and shoulders" above the others, then that is (a) a damning indictment of Labour talent, and (b) means that when they're gone, Labour really are screwed. If none of their colleagues are even good enough to even challenge for the leadership, why are they good enough for a high-powered Cabinet job?

Sources: BBC, The Times

They're not good news.

Ealing Southall:

Virendra Sharma (Lab) 15,188 (41.48%, -7.28%)
Nigel Bakhai (LD) 10,118 (27.63%, +3.19%)
Tony Lit (C) 8,230 (22.48%, +0.91%)

Sedgefield:

Phil Wilson (Lab) 12,528 (44.77%, -14.11%)
Greg Stone (LD) 5,572 (19.91%, +8.02%)
Graham Robb (C) 4,082 (14.59%, +0.19%)

It seems that the gamble on Tony Lit, and the repeated visits of David Cameron to Ealing did not work. It was pretty much an abysmal failure. At this stage in a Parliament, the Conservatives should be doing far far better in by-elections than a less than 1% increase in vote. As Tim Montgomerie at ConservativeHome says:

"Today the only silver lining of the Ealing result is that LibDem MPs have not got a ready excuse to oust Menzies Campbell."

When that is the best thing that can be said about the results, it's not good at all.

So there was some truth in the Guardian report yesterday on the possibility of a Lab Dem Cabinet. Former Lib Dem leader, Lord [Paddy] Ashdown, was offered the position of Northern Ireland Secretary in Brown's first Cabinet. He then rejected it after discussions with Ming, saying:

"I told him [Brown] that I could not conceivably consider such a position unless my leader told me that he thought it was a good idea and even if he did, I didn't."

The Lib Dems were put in an impossible position. No matter whether they said, they were screwed over by Gordon Brown. If they accepted one or more Cabinet or ministerial positions, then they would be associated with all of Brown's acts. The Lib Dems would get the backlash from bad or failed policies, but would get none of the glory for the good ones. However, by refusing to join a Brown government, they have shown themselves unwilling to act in government. Just this idea has really given strength to the slogan "Vote Lib Dem, Get Labour."

By offering Ashdown Northern Ireland, Brown has also pretty much said that Hain will be moved or sacked - not good news for someone almost certain to lose the deputy leadership election. It appears that his battle is more not to come last then to actually win.

Brown may claim that this was an attempt to bring an end to "tribal politics" - but it certains seesm to me to be more of an atempt to screw over the Lib Dems.

Sources: BBC, The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian

This story in the Guardian has set off posts all around the blogosphere on the likelihood of it being true and any effect that it could have. The story, of course, being that of the possibility of a Lab Dem Cabinet:

"We are now in an era of solid third party politics."
...... - Menzies Campbell, Lib Dem leader [but for how much longer?]

He should be a stand-up comedian - he'd do a better job at it than he does as a political leader!

Source: BBC