Sunday, February 26, 2006

Well I guess this is one way of trying to unify the party

It wouldn't be mine by a country mile

In my opinion people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Campbell clearly had dirty hands in Kennedys assassination and refused to answer the question on question time. Huhne had his hands bloodied but at least he had the guts to stick the knife in the front. Campbell seems to spend a lot of time getting others to do his dirty work for him. This (as I understand it ) was not the first time he had tried to bring down Kennedy and on both occasions his preferred solution to the leadership vacancy that would occur was a coronation for himself.

I also hope that this does not indicate that under a Campbell leadership Huhnes talents or those of anyone else will be wasted on the backbenches.

Tag Lib Dems


Anonymous said...

Getting rid of Kennedy was necessary given that his condition prevented him to fulfill his duties as the leader of the party. As the party president Hughes should have had a more active role in that, after all the party president should be first and foremost looking after the interest of the party, not the interest the party leader or his own.

By doing nothing until Kennedy had resigned and then criticising those who brought Kennedy down, Hughes tries to attract the Kennedy sympathy votes.

Ming, on the other hand, as the deputy of Kennedy, was not in a position where he could openly criticise Kennedy. Therefore he is sometimes criticised (as you now) for not having openly defied Kennedy, sometimes for doing it too openly.

Tony Ferguson said...

On that basis his condition shoyuld have prevented him from getting elected in the first place. Ok so his colleagues had finally reached the end of their tether I guess. But on both occasions that the assassination was attempted the suggestion was that Campbell should be crowned as unelected leader. For a party which takes democracy seriously I find this somewhat worrying

Anonymous said...

"...prevented him from getting elected in the first place..." - in 1999? I assume that they might not have been aware of his conditions yet. In 2005, well, they might have done it, but I have understood, that Kennedy promised to change several times, before his colleagues eventually couldn't believe him anymore.

As for the coronation, I'm sure you know that both Oaten and Hughes had made perfectly clear already before Kennedy had resigned, that they would be interested to stand for the leadership when Kennedy would step down.

With all these accusations it sounds like the supporters of Hughes are becoming increasingly desperate.

Tony Ferguson said...

Well if as an ordinary party member I was aware of his "condition" as you put it I guess that I feel that his parliamentary colleagues might have been more aware. I don't think this is case of Hughes supporters (yes I am one)becoming desparate. This was a spat between Campbell and Huhne outlined in the article and that is what I was commenting on