In article ,
T.C.Roll-Pickering@qmul.ac.uk (Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote:

> But it comes back to the point that Kennedy could easily have 
> survived that problem if his colleagues had rallied round him and 
> given support, not run to any TV studio that would take them to 
> mouth off on air, whilst also lacking the balls to resign by 
> themselves, instead having to sign mass letters and act in numbers. 

This is just ignorant Tory rubbish. It was too late for that by the end
of 2005.

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

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

>> But it comes back to the point that Kennedy could easily have
>> survived that problem if his colleagues had rallied round him and
>> given support, not run to any TV studio that would take them to
>> mouth off on air, whilst also lacking the balls to resign by
>> themselves, instead having to sign mass letters and act in numbers.

> This is just ignorant Tory rubbish. It was too late for that by the end
> of 2005.

What was too late? Kennedy had just led the Liberals to their highest number 
of seats since 1931 and secured 61 out of 62 nominations for re-election. 
What went so wrong in late 2005 that could not have been resolved if the 
parliamentary party had held its nerve and supported the leader rather than 
stabbing him in the chest?

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

> T.C.Roll-Pickering@qmul.ac.uk (Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote:

>>But it comes back to the point that Kennedy could easily have 
>>survived that problem if his colleagues had rallied round him and 
>>given support, not run to any TV studio that would take them to 
>>mouth off on air, whilst also lacking the balls to resign by 
>>themselves, instead having to sign mass letters and act in numbers. 

> This is just ignorant Tory rubbish. It was too late for that by the end
> of 2005.

Of course it was too late. By then, he'd been stabbed in the back 
repeatedly. Don't blame the messenger for the contents of a message 
you know to be true.

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
> Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

>>> But it comes back to the point that Kennedy could easily have
>>> survived that problem if his colleagues had rallied round him and
>>> given support, not run to any TV studio that would take them to
>>> mouth off on air, whilst also lacking the balls to resign by
>>> themselves, instead having to sign mass letters and act in numbers.

>> This is just ignorant Tory rubbish. It was too late for that by the end
>> of 2005.

> What was too late? Kennedy had just led the Liberals to their highest number
> of seats since 1931 and secured 61 out of 62 nominations for re-election.
> What went so wrong in late 2005 that could not have been resolved if the
> parliamentary party had held its nerve and supported the leader rather than
> stabbing him in the chest?

Why the use of dramatic language like "stabbing in the chest"? This is a
common dilemma, and I find it hard to believe that so many people have led such
sheltered lives that they've never experienced it before. You are in an 
organisation and the person at the top has flaws - over-use of alcohol is
a common one - which seriously affect his or her performance. The question is
do you try and support that person through it, or do you do what is needed to
encourage him or her to resign. It generally is the case that people are
reluctant to do the latter so it ends up being done a bit too late and a bit
too messily. Come on now - you people at universities have you never
experienced a head of department like that, you people in offices have you
never experienced a senior manager like that, you people who are councillors
have you never experienced a senior officer like that? Does one really have
to describe the delicate process of coming to the conclusion that someone who
you've tried to support through their problems really would be better off
resigning as "stabbing in the chest"?

Of course, one of the advantages of Kennedy's problem was that it forced
the Parliamentary Party to become more collegiate. Paddy Ashdown's dynamism
led to the problem that it appeared to be the Paddy Ashdown Party. Kennedy's
lack of dynamism meant that it became apparent there were other talents in
the Parliamentary Party apart from the leader. This worked in terms of
public image of the party, but my understanding is that there were increasing
cases of Kennedy pulling out from important commitments at the last moment
due to being incapacitated by alcohol, which clearly was unacceptable and had
it gone on would have damaged the party considerably.

While the party's national image is a contributory factor, there were plenty
of other factors leading to the success in the 2005 general election. 
My own activity in the party during that time, leading to its successful
growth in the London Borough of Lewisham had very little dependence on
Charles Kennedy's leadership. It owed much more to local action and 
circumstances - people on the ground willing and able to do the work,
and to quite a large extent the collapse of the once formidable Labour
Party election-fighting team and the almost total disappearacne of the
Conservatives as a serious campaiging oragnisation in the borough. I am
sure similar happened in many other places.

Matthew Huntbach

Matthew Huntbach wrote:

> Why the use of dramatic language like "stabbing in the chest"?

Because unlike past Conservative deposals, which invariably are described as 
"stabbed in the back", the Lib Dem assassins did not hide themselves and 
wield the dagger out of sight. Instead they went public (unlike when Ming 
went). Since the Lib Dems have taken the mantle of the party with the most 
frequent leadership elections it is natural to transfer the terminology to 
them.

Yes Kennedy had his personal problems but there were also clear political 
reasons for his downfall - David Cameron's early moves, especially 
LibDems4Cameron, had left the Lib Dems seriously rattled, looking for a 
clear direction when two competing options were emerging in the party. 
Kennedy didn't suddenly fall because one Thursday afternoon a journalist got 
hold of yet another story about his drinking - his fate had been heavily 
speculated on in the media right over that Christmas.

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
> Matthew Huntbach wrote:

>> Why the use of dramatic language like "stabbing in the chest"?

> Because unlike past Conservative deposals, which invariably are described as
> "stabbed in the back", the Lib Dem assassins did not hide themselves and
> wield the dagger out of sight. Instead they went public (unlike when Ming
> went). Since the Lib Dems have taken the mantle of the party with the most
> frequent leadership elections it is natural to transfer the terminology to
> them.

Sorry, can I repeat the question? Why the use of this over-emotive language
like "dagger" and "assassins"?

> Yes Kennedy had his personal problems but there were also clear political
> reasons for his downfall - David Cameron's early moves, especially
> LibDems4Cameron, had left the Lib Dems seriously rattled, looking for a
> clear direction when two competing options were emerging in the party.
> Kennedy didn't suddenly fall because one Thursday afternoon a journalist got
> hold of yet another story about his drinking - his fate had been heavily
> speculated on in the media right over that Christmas.

No, as I already said, it's a delicate problem which is faced in many
organisations, how to deal with a guy at the top who's not a bad person but
has an increasingly obvious problem which is affecting him and hence the
whole organisation. You may enjoy the cloak and dagger language, but I think
it's the sort of thing which pisses people off from politics. In pure human
management terms, persuading him to resign was obviously the right thing to do,
but also it's a difficult and embarrassing thing hence left to later than
would have been ideal.

Matthew Huntbach

Matthew Huntbach wrote:

>> Because unlike past Conservative deposals, which invariably are described 
>> as
>> "stabbed in the back", the Lib Dem assassins did not hide themselves and
>> wield the dagger out of sight. Instead they went public (unlike when Ming
>> went). Since the Lib Dems have taken the mantle of the party with the 
>> most
>> frequent leadership elections it is natural to transfer the terminology 
>> to
>> them.

> Sorry, can I repeat the question? Why the use of this over-emotive 
> language
> like "dagger" and "assassins"?

Because it's fairly standard vocabulary used when referring to a party 
getting rid of its leader - look for instance at how often both words are 
used in relation to Margaret Thatcher's downfall. If you dislike the current 
vocabulary of politics fair enough, but this newsgroup is hardly the place 
to start a drive for change.

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
> Matthew Huntbach wrote:

>>> Because unlike past Conservative deposals, which invariably are described
>>> as "stabbed in the back", the Lib Dem assassins did not hide themselves and
>>> wield the dagger out of sight. Instead they went public (unlike when Ming
>>> went). Since the Lib Dems have taken the mantle of the party with the
>>> most frequent leadership elections it is natural to transfer the terminology
>>> to them.

>> Sorry, can I repeat the question? Why the use of this over-emotive
>> language like "dagger" and "assassins"?

> Because it's fairly standard vocabulary used when referring to a party
> getting rid of its leader - look for instance at how often both words are
> used in relation to Margaret Thatcher's downfall. If you dislike the current
> vocabulary of politics fair enough, but this newsgroup is hardly the place
> to start a drive for change.

I think it's worthwhile to discuss things like the vocabulary used in politics.
Things that we do because that's what's always done are often worthwhile taking
out, and looking at, and asking whether they have to be done that way and whether
it would be better if they were done some other way.

Matthew Huntbach

Tim Roll-Pickering  wrote:
> Because it's fairly standard vocabulary used when referring to a party
> getting rid of its leader - look for instance at how often both words are
> used in relation to Margaret Thatcher's downfall. If you dislike the current
> vocabulary of politics fair enough, but this newsgroup is hardly the place
> to start a drive for change.

Why not? One's got to start somewhere.
--
Henry

Matthew Huntbach wrote:

> I think it's worthwhile to discuss things like the vocabulary used in 
> politics.
> Things that we do because that's what's always done are often worthwhile 
> taking
> out, and looking at, and asking whether they have to be done that way and 
> whether
> it would be better if they were done some other way.

Well okay can you suggest a better catchy turn of phrase for a party 
deposing its leader, one that can be adapted whether the leader is deposed 
behind closed doors/in secret ballots (a la Thatcher) or by frontbenchers 
putting their names to round robin letters and running all over TV studios 
demanding that the leader goes now?

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
> Matthew Huntbach wrote:

>> I think it's worthwhile to discuss things like the vocabulary used in
>> politics.
>> Things that we do because that's what's always done are often worthwhile
>> taking
>> out, and looking at, and asking whether they have to be done that way and
>> whether
>> it would be better if they were done some other way.

> Well okay can you suggest a better catchy turn of phrase for a party
> deposing its leader, one that can be adapted whether the leader is deposed
> behind closed doors/in secret ballots (a la Thatcher) or by frontbenchers
> putting their names to round robin letters and running all over TV studios
> demanding that the leader goes now?

I think we should be more accepting of the fact that parties may change their
leaders for a variety of reasons, without that being something reprehensible
as is implied by language like "assassins" and "stabbing".

During my time as a councillor, I twice stepped down as group leader, and
yes, amongst the Labour group there was use of this sort of language, but the
reality is I wasn't "stabbed", I actually was finding it difficult to balance
the jobs of being leader of the opposition on a London Borough and being a full
time academic, and wanted to hand the role over as soon as there were others
who had the experience to take it on. I took the role on for a second time
not because I had "stabbed" the person who took over from me, but because she
was going through a stressful period in life which meant she couldn't easily
carry on with what is required to be the lead spokesperson. These things happen -
politicians are human beings with real human lives.

Matthew Huntbach

In article ,
   Matthew Huntbach  wrote:

[Earlier material snipped]

> I think we should be more accepting of the fact that parties may
> change their leaders for a variety of reasons, without that being
> something reprehensible as is implied by language like "assassins"
> and "stabbing".

When that is appropriate, yes, I agree.

> During my time as a councillor, I twice stepped down as group leader,
> and yes, amongst the Labour group there was use of this sort of
> language, but the reality is I wasn't "stabbed", I actually was
> finding it difficult to balance the jobs of being leader of the
> opposition on a London Borough and being a full time academic, and
> wanted to hand the role over as soon as there were others who had the
> experience to take it on.

That sounds like a good approach, and one I myself would adopt in the
same circumstances.

> I took the role on for a second time not because I had "stabbed" the
> person who took over from me, but because she was going through a
> stressful period in life which meant she couldn't easily carry on
> with what is required to be the lead spokesperson.

That seems reasonable enough.  The real world is far more complicated
than the soundbite-orientated media (and all their offshoots and
consequent discussion places) can accomodate within their own terms of
operation.  I have recently broadened my own horizons in terms of the UK
media, as this part of the world has moved on significantly from where
it was only comparatively recently.

> These things happen - politicians are human beings with real human
> lives.

Yup: even I make some concessions toward leading a "human" lifestyle, to
try to understand others' situations, needs and aspirations better.

Okay, I can never be "yer typical Joe" (or whatever the current
expression might be), but it is important that all of us in this
business have at least some grasp of our constituents' lives and all
that implies, while still bringing our own individuality to our
positions.  Many go for one /or/ the other, which is incomplete: we need
both.

Bland uniformity is the hallmark of Labour, but must never be allowed to
diminish the rest of us.  Therefore it is unfortunate when the more
distinctive Party leaders are deposed (and I have long been a Charles
Kennedy fan, for example) for whatever reason and by whatever mechanism,
whether it be "stabbing" (front or back!) or something else.

The bottom line is that this whole area of public life tends to be cruel
and unforgiving, unless one finds a way to evade judgment -- which seems
to have been the recent salvation of the Harmans and Alexanders of this
world, though Hain might not be so lucky...

-- 
John M Ward - see http://www.horsted.john-ward.org.uk
Political blog at: http://medwaycouncillorjohnmward.blogspot.com/
Conservative Councillor for Rochester South & Horsted ward, Medway
--> In favour of returning all local decisions to local people!

In article
,
   usenet@bondegezou.demon.co.uk 
wrote:
> Tim Roll-Pickering  wrote:
> > Because it's fairly standard vocabulary used when referring to a
> > party getting rid of its leader - look for instance at how often
> > both words are used in relation to Margaret Thatcher's downfall. If
> > you dislike the current vocabulary of politics fair enough, but
> > this newsgroup is hardly the place to start a drive for change.
>
> Why not? One's got to start somewhere.

Agreed; but this is just a minority-interest forum, and is extremely
unlikey to have any real-world impact.  If one were serious about this,
one would not start here -- obviously.

If it's at all important, it would be tackled out in the mainstream of
public debate, and (by all means) reported back to here and any other
suitable public forum-like places.  It's how I'd do it.

-- 
John M Ward - see http://www.horsted.john-ward.org.uk
Political blog at: http://medwaycouncillorjohnmward.blogspot.com/
Conservative Councillor for Rochester South & Horsted ward, Medway
--> In favour of returning all local decisions to local people!

John M Ward  wrote:
>  wrote:
> > Tim Roll-Pickering  wrote:
> > > Because it's fairly standard vocabulary used when referring to a
> > > party getting rid of its leader - look for instance at how often
> > > both words are used in relation to Margaret Thatcher's downfall. If
> > > you dislike the current vocabulary of politics fair enough, but
> > > this newsgroup is hardly the place to start a drive for change.
>
> > Why not? One's got to start somewhere.
>
> Agreed; but this is just a minority-interest forum, and is extremely
> unlikey to have any real-world impact.  If one were serious about this,
> one would not start here -- obviously.
>
> If it's at all important, it would be tackled out in the mainstream of
> public debate, and (by all means) reported back to here and any other
> suitable public forum-like places.  It's how I'd do it.

Think global, act local. If one feels things should be done
differently, then one should start doing them differently, wherever
you are.
--
Henry

usenet@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:
> John M Ward  wrote:
> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Tim Roll-Pickering  wrote:
>>>
>>>>Because it's fairly standard vocabulary used when referring to a
>>>>party getting rid of its leader - look for instance at how often
>>>>both words are used in relation to Margaret Thatcher's downfall. If
>>>>you dislike the current vocabulary of politics fair enough, but
>>>>this newsgroup is hardly the place to start a drive for change.
>>
>>>Why not? One's got to start somewhere.
>>
>>Agreed; but this is just a minority-interest forum, and is extremely
>>unlikey to have any real-world impact.  If one were serious about this,
>>one would not start here -- obviously.
>>
>>If it's at all important, it would be tackled out in the mainstream of
>>public debate, and (by all means) reported back to here and any other
>>suitable public forum-like places.  It's how I'd do it.
> 
> 
> Think global, act local. If one feels things should be done
> differently, then one should start doing them differently, wherever
> you are.

That was certainly Humpty Dumpty's motto (words for him meant exactly 
and only what he wanted them to mean). And look where it got him.

Matthew Huntbach wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
> 
>> Matthew Huntbach wrote:
> 
> 
>>> I think it's worthwhile to discuss things like the vocabulary used in
>>> politics.
>>> Things that we do because that's what's always done are often worthwhile
>>> taking
>>> out, and looking at, and asking whether they have to be done that way 
>>> and
>>> whether
>>> it would be better if they were done some other way.
> 
> 
>> Well okay can you suggest a better catchy turn of phrase for a party
>> deposing its leader, one that can be adapted whether the leader is 
>> deposed
>> behind closed doors/in secret ballots (a la Thatcher) or by frontbenchers
>> putting their names to round robin letters and running all over TV 
>> studios
>> demanding that the leader goes now?
> 
> 
> I think we should be more accepting of the fact that parties may change 
> their
> leaders for a variety of reasons, without that being something 
> reprehensible
> as is implied by language like "assassins" and "stabbing".

Sinn Fein doesn't like that language. One is also not allowed to change 
the leadership. They have a competition at the moment with a free car 
for anybody who can name ten SF people who were not working for MI5.

Maybe Lib Dems should whack 'the enemy' for a decade and then, when the 
opportunity and conditions are there, without saying sorry or anything, 
kind of stumble towards a meeting in DC with the President to hint at 
calling off your bombing campaign, not for certain, but as a big maybe.

Be the 'mirth movement'. The DUP are SF have a sell out tour of the 
mid-west doing tap-dancing and everything.


> 
> During my time as a councillor, I twice stepped down as group leader, and
> yes, amongst the Labour group there was use of this sort of language, 
> but the
> reality is I wasn't "stabbed", I actually was finding it difficult to 
> balance
> the jobs of being leader of the opposition on a London Borough and being 
> a full
> time academic, and wanted to hand the role over as soon as there were 
> others
> who had the experience to take it on. 


People are eejits, I couldn't do it.


I took the role on for a second time
> not because I had "stabbed" the person who took over from me, but 
> because she
> was going through a stressful period in life which meant she couldn't 
> easily
> carry on with what is required to be the lead spokesperson. These things 
> happen -
> politicians are human beings with real human lives.
> 
> Matthew Huntbach

Keep you chin up