In article ,
roger_mackee@donaldsdook.co.ir (McKee) wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:39:59 -0800 (PST), 
> "usenet@bondegezou.demon.co.uk"
>  wrote:
> 
> >I voted for Huhne, but I'm not worried by a Clegg leadership. What 
> >do others think?
> 
> Iff I were Clegg I would be worried about Huhne!

Not now I wouldn't.

-- 
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge                    http://www.rosenstiel.co.uk/
Cambridge Liberal Democrats: http://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:38:23 +0000, Matthew Huntbach 
wrote:

>So Huhne's tried his best, didn't quite make it, and there isn't
>much more he can do.

How long have you been living and working in Andromeda?

Matthew Huntbach wrote:

> If the party were to dispose of Clegg within a few years it would look
> ridiculous

That's not stopped the party from deposing two leaders in rapid succession! 
And Clegg wasn't exactly innocent in either of those.

> I started off in this campaign thinking there wasn't much to choose
> between the two, but soon came to the conclusion that Huhne was effective 
> and Clegg wasn't. I really do fear that Clegg is rather shallow
> and gets by on personal charm and waffle. I suspect we've elected our
> William Hague.

If so then get ready for a depressing few years. Contrary to what some now 
claim, they were not a good time to be a member of the Conservative Party.

On 20 Dec, 15:57, "Tim Roll-Pickering" 
wrote:
> Matthew Huntbach wrote:

> > If the party were to dispose of Clegg within a few years it would look
> > ridiculous

> That's not stopped the party from deposing two leaders in rapid succession!
> And Clegg wasn't exactly innocent in either of those.

In both cases their going was plain common sense - Kennedy's drinking
problems clearly meant he was unsuited to the job, Campbell
unfortunately was pulled down by a media which focussed relentlessly
on his age  and meant it was impossible for him to be seen in any
other light.

Nevertheless, it wasn't easy to sell it that way - the party *did*
come under attack for losing two leaders in rapid succession, and it
will look much worse if it loses a third like this, particularly one
who has been so heavily trumpeted as his party's saviour.

Matthew Huntbach

Matthew Huntbach wrote:

> "Tim Roll-Pickering"  wrote:
>>Matthew Huntbach wrote:

>>>If the party were to dispose of Clegg within a few years it would look
>>>ridiculous

>>That's not stopped the party from deposing two leaders in rapid succession!
>>And Clegg wasn't exactly innocent in either of those.

> In both cases their going was plain common sense - Kennedy's drinking
> problems clearly meant he was unsuited to the job, Campbell
> unfortunately was pulled down by a media which focussed relentlessly
> on his age  and meant it was impossible for him to be seen in any
> other light.

The UK press (or at least, the usual suspects - the Grauniad, etc) 
tried (to what should be their everlasting shame) to do that with 
Ronald Reagan. I dare say that some of the USA media tried to do the 
same. It didn't work. If the constitution had allowed a third term, 
he'd probably have won it. So much for the "old age factor". It's all 
to do with policies and communication. Probably not in that order.

Matthew Huntbach wrote:

>> That's not stopped the party from deposing two leaders in rapid 
>> succession!
>> And Clegg wasn't exactly innocent in either of those.

> In both cases their going was plain common sense - Kennedy's drinking
> problems clearly meant he was unsuited to the job,

Kennedy's drinking had not even been a secret since 2002 - remember the 
Paxman interview that made it a public issue? Yet the Lib Dems had no 
problem with keeping him on as leader for more than another three years and 
advancing in that time. It was the vultures in the parliamentary party who 
pounced on a minor weak moment and humiliated him in a way that makes a 
Conservative leader's downfall look like a tea party.

> Campbell
> unfortunately was pulled down by a media which focussed relentlessly
> on his age  and meant it was impossible for him to be seen in any
> other light.

The Lib Dems didn't help themselves by trying to talk up his age as an 
asset. And Campbell is only two months older than Michael Howard, and I 
can't remember the media ever once talking about his age.

> Nevertheless, it wasn't easy to sell it that way - the party *did*
> come under attack for losing two leaders in rapid succession, and it
> will look much worse if it loses a third like this, particularly one
> who has been so heavily trumpeted as his party's saviour.

Oh I think the last two months have showed who the best potential leader for 
the Lib Dems might be, even if he does have to recycle other people's jokes 
(but then so did Lloyd George).