WHILE not a supporter, I wonder if the manner of the Parliamentary rebellion that forced Charles Kennedy to resign as leader of the Liberal Democrats will destroy any hopes of them increasing their share of the vote in the future.

My reasons are twofold. Firstly, it is clear that despite the party standing for a balanced, compassionate agenda, a man suffering from a serious medical condition was forced to step down because of illness.

Opportunists in his own frontbench have seized their chance because alcoholism is not a condition that has widespread public sympathy, despite the wretched hold it has on the sufferer.

If this event is indicative of the true level of compassionate integrity among those who seek to govern, then the electorate should be aware of what so called "protest votes" might just deliver.

Secondly, am I the only person who felt some level of incredulity at the arrogance of some of Mr Kennedy's frontbench team? Despite the fact that it is the rank-and-file membership of the Lib Dems who elect the leader of their party, these MPs had already communicated their intention not to serve under him as frontbench spokespersons.

Perhaps they should reflect that they are in office to serve the interests of their constituents and the nation and are members of a party with a clearly defined protocol for electing a leader.

If they were not prepared to accept the wishes of the party membership, these MPs should have had the integrity to resign their extremely well-paid jobs and taken their chances as independents in the resultant by-elections.

David Forrester,

Main Street, Knapton, York.

Updated: 11:31 Wednesday, January 11, 2006