Charles Kennedy

murphaph

Did anyone else watch his statement? I felt really sorry for him. I can't see him surviving until the next election as leader though.

casanova_kid

I hope he does, such a likeable chap and people with drink Problems have gone far in politics before (Bush, Yelsin)

mike65

Nope but I can imagine how it went, he never impressed me. For some reason I always found him like a schoolboy thrown into a mans job. The fact he has been lying about his 'illness' means he has to go, or in this case be voted out.

BTW, I think calling an election was a bad stunt. He should have walked then the party could have had a leadership vote without the Kennedy distraction.

Mike.

A Dub in Glasgo

I can see him leading the LD to the next election. Took some balls to say what he said

I suspect he was forced to say it though.
Something must have been ready to hit the papers.

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Took some balls to say what he said

Agreed but ITN telephoned him and told him at 6pm that if he had something to say he'd better say it or else they were going to run an exlusive story about them finding out about his treatment (which he'd denied receiving).

flogen

Did he lie about it?
Fair play to him for coming out about it, and if he is clean now then it shouldn't have an effect on his leadership skills, unless someone can suggest otherwise.

It probably will effect him, though. And besides, he has been facing a lot of criticism lately anyway. He's a very likable person, and I always enjoy hearing what he has to say, even when I disagree.
Are there any likely successors or challengers? I think he's done a good job so far, there's no denying his success, and in reality the chances of a left wing party being the opposition to another left wing party are slim, so he's done well for the party so far.

starn

No there are no oious succesors. I was very disapointedto see that almost have the Lib Dem shadow cabnit signed a letter of no confidence. In all honesty there are very few people in this country or the UK who have no had some sort of drinking problem. I despise this type of journalism. It's one thing running a story like this if the Lib Dems launch a campain for sy abstinance or proabition. But this is a disgrace needlesy prying into people's problems to get more viewers for the 10 o clock news.

flogen

flogen wrote:

Did he lie about it?

I sometimes wonder do you read any news and media at all

Fair play to him for coming out about it, and if he is clean now then it shouldn't have an effect on his leadership skills, unless someone can suggest otherwise.

Well as posted already here and in the news, he had no choice as ITN rang him for a comment on a report they were to run on him being in hospital for alcohol addiction...Ergo he put a brave face on it only because he was forced to which is not something really worthy of saying Fair play to him about.I suspect that his party wont be happy with a recovering alcoholic and liar leading the party.
The liar part would make his attacks on Blair pretty hollow.

Are there any likely successors or challengers?

There are some good articles in the UK newspapers about it.In fact its been in the UK news and media for months and certainly been fairly well front news since the start of December.At that time the media were reporting that some mp's were signing a petition for him to resign.

starn

I cant belive that 25 MP's have signed a letter asking him to resign. What a cowardly spinless lot they are.

flogen

Earthman wrote:

I sometimes wonder do you read any news and media at all

Why is that? I must have missed this coverage of Kennedy, all I've been hearing lately have been the calls for him to resign.

Well as posted already here and in the news, he had no choice as ITN rang him for a comment on a report they were to run on him being in hospital for alcohol addiction...Ergo he put a brave face on it only because he was forced to which is not something really worthy of saying Fair play to him about.I suspect that his party wont be happy with a recovering alcoholic and liar leading the party.
The liar part would make his attacks on Blair pretty hollow.

It doesn't make it any easier and it's still a big thing to do, even if he was pushed.
I think the issue of him being a liar is the important one though, I'd imagine anyone who says otherwise will do more damage to themselves.

There are some good articles in the UK newspapers about it.In fact its been in the UK news and media for months and certainly been fairly well front news since the start of December.At that time the media were reporting that some mp's were signing a petition for him to resign.

I'm interested to see what happens now, given that there have been calls for his resignation over the last few weeks it's odd that no one has put their name forward for leader, or made any mention of an intention to run. I guess they're waiting to see what support they can be certain of.
I imagine he's gone one way or another. It's odd to see 25 MPs calling for his resignation, and senior members calling for a confidence vote. I think it's more spineless that they won't go up against him than anything, they seem to be keen on waiting until he's gotten rid of first

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4587076.stm

mike65

starn wrote:

I cant belive that 25 MP's have signed a letter asking him to resign. What a cowardly spinless lot they are.

Thank God you're not in politics! You'd not last 5 mins.

Kennedy has been a disgrace as Liberal Democrat leader. The party has done little but tread water since he took over dispite having a brilliant chance to exploit the Tories own muddling uncertainly. Of course had he not been drunk for much of the past few years he may have been more effective. Though I doubt this. I kinda suspect he got the gig cos he was Mister Nice and not a harder head like Simon Hughes who would not have spent the last few years marking time waiting for something to happen.

Mike.

flogen

According to Nick Robinson (blog here), the reason MP's dont want a leadership vote is because they think Kennedy will win it, which may be why they're refusing to run against him (it would validate the contest).
There's also a quote from him on the article Earthman linked saying it was supposed to be the worst kept secret in Westminister, if that's the case why is it only in recent weeks that Lib Dems have started to sound off against him?

A Dub in Glasgo

mike65 wrote:

Thank God you're not in politics! You'd not last 5 mins.

Really? Who do you reckon will last more than 5 minutes?

Kennedy has been a disgrace as Liberal Democrat leader. The party has done little but tread water since he took over dispite having a brilliant chance to exploit the Tories own muddling uncertainly. Of course had he not been drunk for much of the past few years he may have been more effective. Though I doubt this. I kinda suspect he got the gig cos he was Mister Nice and not a harder head like Simon Hughes who would not have spent the last few years marking time waiting for something to happen.

Mike.

Quite laughable really

mike65

You could attempt some analysis rather than a quip.

Mike.

flogen

flogen wrote:

There's also a quote from him on the article Earthman linked saying it was supposed to be the worst kept secret in Westminister, if that's the case why is it only in recent weeks that Lib Dems have started to sound off against him?

Two words David Cameron

ronbyrne2005

did he look jaundiced or was it just me? another george best in the making i think.

Litcagral

He always had an 'image' problem and didn't have any of the statesman-like qualities of Paddy Ashdown - the only political leader to increase his popularity ratings after admitting an affair. The LD policies are always a bit vague and 'middle-ground' but I suppose that's the market they're after.

mike65

Exactly and thats the problem, everyone is after the same handful of votes in 'Middle England'. The Lib Dems best shot is to carve out a distinct position.

Mike.

ronbyrne2005

he is a nice guy but perception is everything in politics.even if he never drank again he will still be remembered as an alcoholic and when your asking the country to back you to run the country such a reputation doesnt help especially if your a struggling party,though george bush managed to pursuade america he was ok after his alcoholism,but thats america!
all teh british parties are now close to the centre so any little advantage/disadvantage can have a big impact at elections.having an alcoholic as a leader is never going to be an advantage no matter how much of a nice guy he is.
speaking of alcoholics is jim mc daid likely to get reelected??

ronbyrne2005

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

he is a nice guy but perception is everything in politics.even if he never drank again he will still be remembered as an alcoholic and when your asking the country to back you to run the country such a reputation doesnt help especially if your a struggling party,though george bush managed to pursuade america he was ok after his alcoholism,but thats america!
all teh british parties are now close to the centre so any little advantage/disadvantage can have a big impact at elections.having an alcoholic as a leader is never going to be an advantage no matter how much of a nice guy he is.

Why has no one mentioned Churchill yet? Arguably the greatest drunk of time!

Victor

starn wrote:

I cant belive that 25 MP's have signed a letter asking him to resign. What a cowardly spinless lot they are.

Then maybe, just maybe, the drinking is the smaller part of the story. Maybe there was something specific.

mike65

I think the drinking is slightly a side issue, it goes back to what I said earlier the feeling within the party that it has'nt advanced (dispite its modest gains at the last general elction) and is now drifting policy wise. I bet if there was an obvious alternaive to Kennedy this disatisfaction would have been made clear earlier. Kennedy is hopping that the lack of 'houshold name' to oppose him will save his bacon.

Mike.

ronbyrne2005

Papa Smut wrote:

Why has no one mentioned Churchill yet? Arguably the greatest drunk of time!

dont think general public knew churchill was an alcoholic when he got into power,and anyway times have changed ,if someone was an alcoholic but functioning back in churchills time than he hadnt got a problem and the media wouldnt really focus on personal lives of politicians.

mike65

Statement due at 3 pm.

Mike.

Freelancer

mike65 wrote:

Statement due at 3 pm.

Mike.

And he's gone

shuushh

the Lib Dems will now float around the place for the next 2 years at least without any decent leadership pity as it really would be interesting to see a genuine third contender in British politics

casanova_kid

Charlie McCreevy, Boris Yelsin, Goerge Dubya Bush, they've all been alcoholic who've fought back and had incredibly succesfull careers, Kennedy can do it too.

Cork

Changing leaders will help the Lib DEMS little without alternative policy platforms.

What is the point of having opposition partys when they fail to put forward alternative policies?

The LIB DEMS were a half way house between the Conservatives & Labour.

redspider

For once mike65, I'm in agreement with most of the sentiments you're posting here about Kennedy, now ex-Leader of the Lib Dems.

What a plonker he has been. First, he was never going to do well in the image stakes and win many votes. English voters tend to only vote for someone with an English accent. Kennedy, a red-haired Scot was always going to be a liability. If that party had a half decent female and remained steadfast against the Iraq war (Kennedy capitulated in the house of commons on the day it was voted for), then they would be in a much better position today, perhaps

The drinking thing was a smokescreen. I dont think he is a real alco, I mean, he wouldnt have been able to function even as ineptly as he did, with so many media apperances, work engagements, etc. If he's one of these "wannbe-alco's" who have their 3 drinks a day, 7 days a week and blame drink for thier ills, or someone else does, then he isnt a real alco. For example, have there ever been any stories of him being blotto?

Kennedy had his heart in the right or at least a reaonable place and his politics seemed to be reasonably fair, but in the modern era, its not about political dogma that wins you votes, most voters are clueless on real politics, but its the many other factors which influence, most of which he didnt possess from the start. Like Neil Kinnock and arguably Michael Foot, leader selection is for many voters, the be-all and end-all to get right and Kennedy was never right. Labour have been loving it.

The Tories have made a move in the right direction, it would seem for now. Labour will have to take a step backward moving from Tony to Brown. Lets see what the Lib Dems can do. Their party president seems ok.

redspider