Mark Oaten and Ming Campbell have both said they are not going to stand against CK. Is anyone going to be brave enough to? Or will something else happen? Vote of No-con? Any ideas?

Given there are 11 members of the shadow cabinet who now surely have to resign their positions Vince Cable would probably be the best choice as caretaker option mark II.

But cable signed the letter. According to cix and Sky, nine of the signatories are Andrew George, David Laws, Cable, Ed Davey, Michael Moore, Sandra Gidley, Chris Huhne, Norman Baker (who's admitted to signing it) and Norman Lamb.

And why resign?

Of all the ways in which the leadership crisis could have developed, this has got to be the worst for the Lib Dems

What were Kennedy and his advisors thinking?

He might have a chance to cling on if he just called a leadership election. But Lib Dem members now have to forgive CK a drink habit which he lied about. His last drink was only 2 months ago. Hardly proof that he's kicked the habit.

As long as someone half decent stands he'll get a poor result, he'll have made his weaknesses very public and the leadership question won't have been resolved.

What's worse is that this was never about drinking anyway. As Nick Harvey said within seconds of CK making his announcement there are other issues apart from the drink.

The Lib Dems could deal with this and get it out of the way in a matter of weeks. But CK standing won't resolve anything.

How can anyone think that this plan was a good one?

Y

Bit of a tough one, I suspect all told no one will come forward, which is the worst of both worlds.

I've been unhappy with Charles since the lack of a good and firm "Anti IRAQ war" stance. He really has been just too soft on that one for me personally.

His sacking of Jenny Tonge was in my opinion another right cockup, his election balls up was even worse...he is however still good on HIGNFY.

Then you look at his more recent performances....the press are currently running with the "best results for Liberals in 80 years line". Without Charles' cockups and softness I do wonder if we'd have been better off changing the leader prior to the '05 election.

Then there is party conference, when I first went to conference I met Paddy twice it the main hotel bar of an evening and saw him on numerous occasions.

I've only ever met Charles once, he was absent-minded very red faced and frankly boring. I've never met him at conference never seen him in hotel bar.

Despite all of this I've personally remained very loyal.

My patience is now wearing rather thin, if he's not challenged, and frankly I doubt he will be, he'll need to get his arse in gear and drive forward.

Surely they have to resign from the shadow cabinet while Kennedy remains the leader. How you serve under someone you claim to have no confidence in? Frankly a mass resignation would also maybe force someone like Menzies to reconsider.

Interesting, heard one sound bite which said the list was half the parliamentary party...and another which said 11...either way that still doesn't guarantee one MP the 10 signatories needed to become a candidate...

His advisors are there to keep their boss as leader, its a good trick, however for it to pay off, Charles needs to up it a few serious gears.

The drinking is irrelevant, it's his performance that's the issue, Churchill was a pi**head yet he delivered in many ways. By comparison George Bush Jnr is a reformed alcoholic and he's still incompetent.

I know a number of very heavy drinkers (120+ units per week) some are amazingly hard successful workers they just like a drink.

I think that's its just under half of the front benchers not parliamentary party, so 11. And they need 7 signatories in order to become a candidate, not 10. Just 10% of the pp. Hope this clears things up a bit.

The whole affair is an appalling tragedy both for CK and for liberalism. The enormous promise that CK had since he was Lochaber High's boy wonder debater has been lost to the bevy; it was clear just from the clips of the announcement that he's still not a well man, not engaging anyone - least of all the camera - by eye, his face puffy and almost jaundiced. I think that for his own good he should resign and deal with his own personal demons away from the stress of leadership; and shame on his craven advisers for not seeing this.

But the episode also shows a clear failure of collective leadership at the top of the party. If his drinking has been such a problem for so long - and clearly it has - his colleagues should have been much firmer with him, much earlier. That they felt unable to do so does not reflect well on the collegiate health of the top team, on their courage, or on the constitutional workings of the shadow cabinet itself. It's a poor show which may have damaged the party even more than their ill-advised acceptance of large private donations.

As for the "best results in 80 years" angle: don't blame the leader. If they couldn't do at least as well as they did in 2005, when all the surrounding circumstances were so favourable, they would have been in a poor state indeed.

Best outcome? CK should resign sometime between now and close of nominations. Campbell should take over, preferably unopposed, but on a ticket to reform the leadership to a much stronger collegiate style. It is hard, in a celebrity-obsessed age, to have a party where values and principles mean more than personalities, but the values and principles of liberty are much more important than personalities, and it's been a conspicuous failure of CK's leadership that he has failed to give them the priority they need.

To the 11: be bold.

Firstly it is all very sad for CK on a personal level. Secondly it is all very bad for the Party.

As a Lib Dem Councillor in a Tory area, not defending my seat until 2007 - I am glad it is not this year! This would whole episode would have been bad news on polling day.

CK thinks he is doing us a favour by struggling on - he is not. By prostrating himself at the mercy of the leadership he is ignoring his MPs.

My gut reaction after the shock of the statement was - personal tragedy, lies, stich up.

CK and his close advisors are trying to set up the party for a Soviet style election - one candidate - him. Hardly in the spirit of democracy that us Lib Dems are meant to be the champions of.

Our MPs need to be brave - take this opportunity to stand and debate the future of our Party. We do not want to chuck away all of our hard work out of a misplaced sense of personal loyalty.

I agree up to a point with your views.

However if we are to have a new leader we want one who will have the respect of the membership, the activists and the parliamentarians and who will be in post for at least three years. We don't want the spectacle of another leadership contest in twelve months.

If there is any uncertainty then it would be better in my opinion for Charles to remain until the Party is certain who it wants to replace him.

That'll teach me to trust BBC and Sky news

Its also worth noting that the letter was signed by the 11 before christmas. Therefore the numbers will have changed somewhat since then.

What might have seemed like a bold tactical announcement to finally put an end to the off the record briefing, was actually precipitated by ITN. They informed Kennedy's office that they would break the news of his alcoholism and subsequent treatment, so he had no choice but to make it public.

I see John Hemming (offering to stand) has had a ruling that MPs can nominate more than one candidate
This means MPs signatures are enabling rather than automatically endorsing...

bizzare if true!

Who says so? The Federal Exec?

I hear its true as well. Also, JH currently has two MPs signed up. All very interesting.... On a side note - what MPs are running what campaigns. I see that Opik is Oaten's campaign manager. Any others?? Archie and Tyler are helping out Ming, not MPs, but still interesting.