91Èȱ¬

CK remains almost as he was when elected to the post; only the additional elements of family life may have dulled his edge slightly. There is no need to run to elect a new leader to conform to the position of the other two parties; if a new leader should be considered it should be that the majority of the party and the Parliamentary party feel there is a better candidate, or that the current incumbent is failing in his duties. I believe it has been reported that 90% of the supporters in the country still support CK, this is way beyond the figures achieved by the Conservatives new champion.
Is there a realistic, long term alternative available, who can challenge Labour's and the Conservative's four to five year plans?

Wow, talking about putting Mr. Kennedy on the spot Nick :o)

This is an excellent example of a politician "going round the houses" and avoiding answering the question put.

So much for straight-talking politics.

The usual reaction that Charles Kennedy provokes in me during his long rambling monologues is a desire to do something other than listen to him. When the Tories were nowhere, it was easy for the Libs to kid themselves that they could capitalise on their demise. The breakthrough never came and I think they're right to start feeling nervous that the conservatives are experiencing something of a renaissance in public popularity - albeit probably shortlived. Mr Kennedy seems almost anti-charismatic in comparison with the other party leaders at present and I would think that a popular movement to replace him with someone with more appeal can only gather pace.