2) You are not distinctive. With the two other parties dancing on a pin-head policy-wise you are left at the side of the dance-floor with no-one listening to you. It isn’t because you have nothing to say, it’s because it isn’t distinctive from the other two parties. Given your usual lack of media attention to compound the issue, no-one knows what you stand for. I’m a political anorak and would find it difficult to describe any of your policy positions.
3) And finally to hit a man when he’s down. The terms of public debate are moving sharply against you, or more importantly your public perception.

Whether it is true or not, you are seen as a party of high taxation, high levels of public spending and producer capture (e.g allowing healthcare professionals autonomy in running the NHS).
Public debate is now moving against this. After 10 years of New Labour and truly epic levels of tax n’ spend we still have people dying of hospital acquired infection in the NHS, truly awful educational standards and 5.4 Million people living in state financed poverty and unemployment hidden as incapacity. Public spending is now at such a high level that it will shortly breach the 600Bn level pa. Amazingly it is almost at the level wherby if public spending was cut to the 2002-3 fy level, we could abolish personal taxation!
Do you feel our public services are significantly better than they were in 2003? No neither do I.
The point I’m making is that the LibDems seem to stand for more of the same. NuLabs great spending experiment has failed, but the public perception is you want to reinforce this failure. Public debate is now tentatively moving to be around significant reform of public services, tax cutting and reducing the size of the (massive) state, stoked by a media that judges New Labour badly and wants a competition at the next election. This debate may (will?) mark the end of New Labour, if you are on the wrong side of it as public perception would have you, the tsunami will take you as well.

It is unlikely that I’ll vote LibDem at the next election, but I wish you well because we do need a distinctive voice in politics. Sadly a voice that under Ming, you are not providing.

PS Simon Huhges was awful on Question Time last night. Never allow him near a TV camera.

It was unpleasant last time, but can you imagine the political interest of a competition between Huhne, Clegg and maybe someone like David Laws. The discussions would be intellectual and would really deliver a sense of direction for the party that at present I feel we lack. Sure we’ve unveiled some good policies and yes that matters, but the sense of ideology or purpose underpinning those escapes me somewhat and that can hardly be a good thing? Before I get some come-back about how its about Liberal values etc etc. I am more than aware of that, but we’re not articulating the instinctive difference between us and the others. I’m sorry Ming, but to my mind it’s important to step aside and allow us to seize the opportunity that 18 months with a new, charistmatic and youthful leader can deliver.

Where do we want (the party) to be in 18 months?

Dynamic, progressing, with a clarity of message and purpose.

Can that be achieved with the current leader?

On the evidence of the last 18 months, my view would be ….. No.

Should we have a new leader?

In my view ….. Yes.

Way to go, Alix!

I respect him but I think it’s time that he accepted the fact that the media and a large part of public opinion has not warmed to him. That fact has become very apparent after 18 months.

I don’t think that is fair on the guy but life isn’t fair.

He should go now, and give his successor between 18 months and 2 1/2 years to get bedded in and improve things.

There is a second tier of people to ask, they are the key donors to the party.

These are the “mega” donors who deal directly with the treasurers office and Liberty Network.

Liberty Network had 150 plus members who give a minimum of £1000 each but now they have only 39 active members.

The garden party normally has over 140 people this year it had just under 20 !

It is the message, messenger and how we are perceived ! Denying it, is insulting to anyone’s intelligence.

We have a major wake up call, communication is central to the leadership as if it is not,then the only hope is that we say nothing as that might be better than the poll rating we are getting now.

Clearly (1) you are anti-Ming (why not just say so in heaven’s name, like Leo @ 49 does? I may not agree with him, but in the words of Bill Bryson I defend to the death his right to be a complete arsehole )

(2) “We are a party that allows any of us to express themselves in a way that if the other two did, they would self destruct.”

Well, I should damn well hope so! Anyone should be allowed to express themselves in any way they wish. Political parties are absolutely pointless without individual powers of expression. That’s what makes the other two such utter wastes of space for anyone who wants to make a genuine difference.

(3) many of the 45+ responses you cite have been completely off-topic, something I was guiltily aware of @ 14. There are issues here that need airing (chiefly to do with communication, to my way of thinking) but they have got little to do with the party leadership.

If you have a worthwhile point to make, threatening other posters with “dark forces” is not going to advance it. Make more sense, please.

The Tories were not punished by the electorate for getting rid of Ian Duncan Smith because he was interminably boring and the public had no real interest in or sympathy with him. The reason getting rid of Kennedy was so much worse for us is twofold: firstly, he was much more popular among our voters when he was ejected and secondly, the party did not act decisively enough to oust him.

We must show a hunger for power and a dissatisfaction with anything less than the best or else the public will continue to perceive us as they currently do: indecisive and not prepared for government.

We have a window of about 2 months, during which Ming must go. If we do not get rid of him, we will go into the next election on the defensive, seeking damage limitation. For an opposition party, that is wholly unacceptable. Our membership does not have high enough standards or expectations of the leadership.