The Liberal Democrats are pretty much the only political party I would consider voting for (well, I voted for everyone by Labour in the local elections in May because I was feeling particularly anti-Labour at the time, but you know what I mean). So the change in leadership is of interest to me.

In years gone by I would have described myself as a supporter of the Lib Dems. I guess I still am. But I’ve not been quite as enthused over the past year or so.

I’m not exactly sure what this is down to. Menzies Campbell’s time as leader of the federal party? Nicol Stephen’s rather rudderless leadership of the Scottish Lib Dems? My increasingly apathetic stance towards party politics? A bit of all three I guess. It will be interesting to see if Nick Clegg can get me to sit up.

The leadership campaign has yet again highlighted the dire nature of political discourse at the moment.

I have already seen two people interpreting the close result as evidence that the Lib Dems are deeply divided. The result was indeed impressively close, but I don’t see what that has to do with anything. Any leadership election that doesn’t see one candidate getting 100% of the votes is evidence of a divided party. It doesn’t mean anything.

All of the parties have well known divisions anyway. Blairites and Brownites in Labour, Eurosceptics in the Conservatives, gradualists and fundamentalists in the SNP. You wouldn’t expect anything else. No doubt a truly undivided party would soon enough find itself being criticised for being filled with flip-flopping robotic career politicians.

The alternative to having a leadership election is to have a coronation. In that case, everyone would throw stones at the Lib Dems for not having a leadership election. Plus, from what I gather, Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne are actually rather similar ideologically. On this basis, you’d expect a close election.

Also, the bad side of the media is never too far away when it comes to the Lib Dems. There is an interesting post at The Yorksher Gob (via MatGB) on why it was a mistake to elect Nick Clegg. He was the media’s favourite, which means they can’t wait to crucify him.

It wouldn’t surprise me if some of those predictions come to fruition. The media has an agenda against the Liberal Democrats for some reason — probably because having a third party just makes issues so damn difficult to simplify everything into their favoured ‘he says’, ’she says’ format.

They spent years disseminating innuendos and speculations about Charles Kennedy’s drink problem. Then when the Lib Dems finally got rid of him? All of a sudden Charles Kennedy was the best leader since sliced bread, his colleagues knifed him in the back, the Lib Dems were the nasty party.

Before he became Lib Dem leader, Menzies Campbell was a well-respected ‘elder statesman’ figure. When he became leader? He was a dithering old pensioner who was practically unable to string a sentence together. Oh, and when they got rid of him on the back of relentless media criticism, once again the Lib Dems were the nasty party, unfaithful and disloyal.

It makes me despair. Tony Blair can dangerously erode our civil liberties and engage in an illegal, unjustified war that kills tens of thousands. Yet how is he presented by the media? Magical untouchable Teflon Tony! Meanwhile, Menzies Campbell was hounded out for being old.

David Cameron’s budget counter-speech contained a ridiculous metaphor.

He is an analogue politician in a digital age.

I bet David Cameron was listening to his iPod when that great line hit him. Robert Sharp outlines how analogue is actually, like, good.

David Cameron used to work for Carlton, and they knew all about digital.

While we’re on the budget, why is it the Leader of the Opposition and not the Shadow Chancellor who responds to the budget? Of course, it hasn’t always been the case…

I can’t say that, on Saturday 7^th January 2006, I am surprised that Charles Kennedy has resigned. Earlier on in the week I would have been. It seemed as though there were a few MPs who were unhappy with Charles Kennedy’s leadership, but that he did have the support of ‘grass roots’ members. It certainly seemed that way from reading a lot of Lib Dem blogs. Even with Vince Cable’s letter that signed by half of his front bench, it seemed as though the ordinary members still wanted Kennedy to go on.

But that all seemed to change with Charles Kennedy’s coincident announcements that he had a drink problem, and that there would be a leadership election (and the following Newsnight poll that suggested that half of his MPs had lost confidence in him). Overnight, Lib Dem bloggers seemed to change their mind completely.

(Update: Please see the comments, where James Graham clarifies the the reasons why he changed his mind.)

Since Thursday the fact that Charles Kennedy had a drink problem has been described as a “badly-kept secret”, which isn’t really the case. As Nick Robinson pointed out on his blog, it was a bit of an open secret that he maybe sometimes had a bit more to drink than was wise. But the idea that it was a medical problem and that he was undergoing treatment was certainly a surprise.

At first I wasn’t too sure what to make of it. The fact that the announcement was coupled with a leadership contest made me feel that the issue over whether or not he was fit to lead the party in his condition would be resolved easily enough by Lib Dem members.

As the night wore on, though, it became clear that holding a leadership contest simply wasn’t enough. Front-running contenders all refused to throw their hat into the ring, having previously promised that they would not stand against Kennedy. Yet it was clear that the parliamentary party had lost confidence in Kennedy and that change was needed.

He was going to spend the weekend with his family. But the inevitability of his resignation presumably led him to get it over and done with today. I was surprised when I heard that he had an announcement to make — but it was no surprise that that announcement was that he would not stand in the forthcoming leadership election.

I have no idea whether or not Kennedy’s drink problem affected his ability to do the job — I don’t know anything like enough about the issue. If you believe what you hear, though, it has been the cause of him missing particular engagements. And there have also been concerns about his over all performance, and that this may well have been affected by his drinking.

I read that some MPs once cornered him in his office to get Kennedy to admit that he was drinking too much. So, although I doubt that Kennedy’s drink problem is the real reason why MPs wanted him out (undoubtedly some MPs are thinking about their careers here), I would like to think that part of it all was a real concern about Kennedy’s health. Do I still trust MPs too much?

But now the Lib Dems need to think about the future. Nosemonkey thinks they’re fucked. I was not so sure. But then I was watching BBC News 24 and they read out a whole load of emails — and every single one of them criticised the Lib Dems for, as they saw it, stabbing Charles Kennedy in the back. But, although leadership crises like this never play well with the public in the short term, I don’t see this being a big issue at the next election, for instance.

In the long term, getting rid of Charles Kennedy won’t have been a problem. Whether or not you think Charles Kennedy was a successful leader of the Liberal Democrats depends, of course, on how you define success. You can say that no third party has had as much representation in the House of Commons since the 1920s. But on the other hand you can see last year’s election as a massive open goal (because of Iraq and the illiberal nature of both of the other major parties) that the Lib Dems failed to capitalise on. Remember the ‘decapitation strategy’? It completely failed.

I don’t really subscribe to the latter view. At the time of the election, I felt as though the Lib Dems did just about as well as you could expect under the circumstances (ie. the grossly warped electoral system). Furthermore, Charles Kennedy seemed to appeal to an awful lot of voters. Mind you, a lot of that appeal may have disappeared on Thursday — he had turned into a liar, and it is difficult to have a liar leading a party which is trying to capitalise on the lack of trust in Tony Blair.

As a Lib Dem supporter / voter (but not member) I don’t have any major issues with Charles Kennedy no longer being leader of the Lib Dems. But they must choose the right leader. Electing, say, Mark Oaten as their new leader would be a disaster: we would then have three Tony Blairs, which is exactly what we don’t need at the moment. Simon Hughes, although I am sure he is a nice enough person, does seem a little bit weird. The only other really notable Lib Dem is Lembit Öpik, but he plays the Boris Johnson role in the Lib Dems.

However, it seems most likely that Menzies Campbell is going to be the new leader, which, despite what Guido may say, I think will be excellent. The Lib Dems face a tough time ahead. They must tackle an electoral system that is grossly biased in favour of Labour, and a rejuvenated Conservative party that is trying to plonk its arse on the centre ground, towards Lib Dem territory (albeit rather unconvincingly).

I think Menzies Campbell would be the perfect person to lead the Lib Dems through that. But his age means that he can’t stay in power for a decade like many Liberal leaders have done — so those voting for Campbell will have to keep one eye on the new generation of Lib Dem MPs.

Update: Tim Worstall has an interesting post. One party worker apparently reckons that Charles Kennedy has been an alcoholic since before he became leader.

Kennedy faces mass resignations. Well, that’s pretty big.

I have no useful opinions on any of the current hot talking points.

• Ariel Sharon’s illness
• Charles Kennedy / Liberal Democrats
• George Galloway on Celebrity Big Brother
• The death of Rachel Squire MP

…so here are some completely useless opinions instead.

Ariel Sharon’s illness — Nothing interesting to say, apart from the fact that I once again found BBC News 24’s headline a bit weird. They often seem to have trouble describing a story in just two or three words. “SHARON VERY ILL”. It sounds more like a headline on Newsround. It was later changed to “SHARON GRAVELY ILL”, and then “SHARON STROKE”.

Charles Kennedy / Liberal Democrats — I read that every leadership contender needs to get seven signatures before they can be nominated. So if all of the other contenders wuss out of playing Heseltine, and Charles Kennedy is unable to get seven signatures, we presumably have the possibility of there being a leadership contest with no nominees.

George Galloway on Celebrity Big Brother — Nothing apart from the obvious: “WTF — what an ego-man”. But it could be risky for him. If he puts his foot in it in the BB house, that’s it.

Rachel Squire / Dunfermline and West Fife By-election Labour shoo-in — Monkeys with red rosettes in the Dunfermline area are polishing up their CVs.