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

pete

redspider wrote:

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?

It was - people say - Westminster's worst kept secret. I refer, of course, to Charles Kennedy's drinking.

The implication, therefore, is that we political reporters conspired to keep it that way - a secret. Hold on a second. Not so fast. There is a big, big difference between knowing that Charles Kennedy drank a lot and knowing that he had a drink problem and was undergoing treatment.

I knew the first but certainly did not know the second. The same is true of all the political reporters I know and all but Charles Kennedy's closest circle. I knew that Mr Kennedy sometimes drank more than he should. I could see that for myself and I heard it from those who worked closely with him.

I took the view that until and unless he failed to perform his public duties properly, or his own MPs decided his drinking was a reason to rebel, this would remain just Westminster chatter. Plenty of people in politics - and let's face it in the media too - drink more than they should.

http://blogs.bbc.co.uk/nickrobinson/

redspider

Yes, he drank, that isnt whats in dispute here. He may be a heavy drinker, but to me it seems like a very tall story that Kennedy was a heavy alcoholic.

I have personally known people who had a few jars everyday, nothing overboard, they hardly ever got pissed, only for them to "come out" and personally claim years later that they were alcoholics. The medical profession, counsellors, etc would of course take their money and agree that they had a dependency on alcohol, etc, but I suspect its like that for many million's of people, because having a few drinks on a very regular basis and even having a habit of it is not alcoholism.

I'm also of the opinion that its not a black or white thing, there are shades of grey of course, and the worst alcoholics can sometimes disguise it and never seem drunk, but just judging Kennedy's amount of public appearences, how he performed and his physical attrributes today, this guy did not drink himself into an abyss, a stupor, thats for sure.

Mentally he may feel some dependency on alcohol, or has been led down that path by design or otherwise, but how many Scottish people like a wee dram or two, as did Maggie Thatcher and Mowlam when she was around.

It just seems far too convenient to bring it out when he did.

redspider

Freelancer

I think what finished off Kennedy was Cameron. Lib Dems couldn't help and see them losing middle ground voters which they've been pinching from the conversatives for over a decade. The Conservative party now has a dynamic young moderate as a leader, and Lib Dem's could not help and see how the conversative leadership contest invigorated their party. Kennedy was looking weak, tired and old, before the drinking problem was exposed, it was just the coup de gráce.

Redspider, the English Independent rattled off a list of incidents whereby it's plausible that Kennedy's drinking affected his leadership, missed appearances, a botched rebuttal to the budget etc....

mike65

a botched rebuttal to the budget etc....

Remember how tired and emotional he was during one 7 am press conference in the last election campaign? It was passed off as him being a new dad and the hell of the "3 am feed" but some were suggesting otherwise even then.

Mike.

Freelancer

The front page of the Guardian Media Section pretty much exposed how ITN had the story, suggested that ITN went with the story as a last gasp (it's news channel died, they needed a high profile story to keep punching their weight as a news organisation) The story, in the guardian was anonymous, and detailed a litany of alcohol abuse in both the ITN and BBC news rooms, it detailed the honour among reports and producers, the tales of abuse, and woe, the thousands of pounds spent by ITN on rehab for its staff and support for their families.

The article asks, why did a station that was so demure and quiet about its staff when they were at their weakest, what right do these journalists have expose a politician who was in a state that the staff of said station were in again and again. Its ****é. Pure and simple. The level of drunkness among journalists on the political beat is staggering. For a news station who's staff had a culture of drink abuse to drive a recovering alcoholic from office is sickening.

I'll look for the piece toward. Otherwise try the media guradian.

GypsumFantastic

Kennedy was driven from office by his Lib Dem colleagues, not ITN. If Kennedy had the confidence of the Party then he would have stayed, drink problem or no.

It's a rather rubbish argument by the Guardian to suggest that because some ITN journalists have or have had a drink problem then they shouldn't have ran with Kennedy's problem. The Guardian knows full well it's a nonsensical argument - you could equally apply it to extra-marital activities of politicians - and I can only imagine it's doing so because of support for the Lib Dems as I cannot see them being so coy about it should it be a Tory.

BuffyBot

And we should probably not forget that if you went poking amongst the staff of the Guardian, you'ld uncover more than one or two alcoholics on their payroll as well. Pot calling someone else black.

Freelancer

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Kennedy was driven from office by his Lib Dem colleagues, not ITN. If Kennedy had the confidence of the Party then he would have stayed, drink problem or no.

Oh I agree but ITN were the ones with the story, were going to run it, and Kennedy went to the BBC. Or so the article says.

It's a rather rubbish argument by the Guardian to suggest that because some ITN journalists have or have had a drink problem then they shouldn't have ran with Kennedy's problem. The Guardian knows full well it's a nonsensical argument - you could equally apply it to extra-marital activities of politicians - and I can only imagine it's doing so because of support for the Lib Dems as I cannot see them being so coy about it should it be a Tory.

Okay thats hardly fair, I think the suggestion is, arguing that whether a politican should be fit for office, when clearly they were happy with several alcoholics within their own ranks.

The article doesn't critise the reporting, it critising the manner of the reporting, the tone.

BuffyBot wrote:

And we should probably not forget that if you went poking amongst the staff of the Guardian, you'ld uncover more than one or two alcoholics on their payroll as well. Pot calling someone else black.

I think someone missed the point the article doesn't critise ITn for having alcoholics in it's ranks, or merely asks, should an organisation with such a history of a drinks culture, presume to question another alcoholic's fitness to lead.

Anyway heres the piece, Perhaps I'm doing a poor job explaining it.

Make mine a double standard

ITN showed Charles Kennedy little sympathy over his battles with alcohol but it could all have been very different

Monday January 9, 2006
The Guardian

My heart skipped a beat last week when I learned that my old employer ITN had forced Charles Kennedy to confess his torment with alcoholism. Dear old ITN, itself reeling from a Christmas hangover in which it somehow lost both Trevor and the News Channel, had shown there was still some life left in the old streetfighter.

But even its moment of glory was spoiled. When Kennedy got wind that ITN knew his secret, he arranged a 5.45pm press conference that allowed the BBC 6pm news to scupper ITN's scoop. Cue an immediate ITN press release bragging that it was "only when ITV News put the results of the investigation to Mr Kennedy's office this afternoon that he called a press conference".

In this fog, some nagging questions occurred: should there have been more restraint in dealing with a person's alcoholism, no matter how high his public profile? Was the revelation something a news organisation should boast about - particularly one that always kept quiet its own battles with booze?

Today's ITN appears a model of sobriety compared to the days when the good ship often felt like it was sailing on a sea of alcohol. Was Reggie Bosanquet ever sober reading News at Ten? What of the anchor who couldn't get through a bulletin without a bottle of scotch? And how about the senior executive, so drunk one night that as he poured a visiting BBC chairman into a black cab, the poor man's head smashed against the door and required hospital treatment?

Out in the field, there was a Beirut correspondent who needed a bomb blast to sober up; a cameraman who would bully his crew into all-night poker and brandy sessions; and a reporter who got so drunk that the following morning he threw up during an 8am interview with the CBI, a moment captured forever on videotape.

More disturbingly, there were a few sporadic cases of domestic violence and flashing in public. None of this, of course, ever made the news.

ITN knew that organisationally it had a drink problem but it took a caring, patrician approach to those members of staff who went over the edge. The drinking culture began at the top and the responsibility to those lower down the chain of command was acknowledged. Thousands of pounds of ITV money was spent on rehab clinics; wives and children were looked after as famous reporters dried out; charities and support groups were silently supported.

The problems employees had were hardly ever discussed in the newsroom. Colleagues just "knew" and did what they could to help; day one back at work after three months drying out was treated as though nothing had happened.

All of this in its own quiet way was just what the alcoholics appeared to need and to appreciate. They didn't want their battles with the bottle to be broadcast, or to be the stuff of newsroom gossip; they just wanted help to get back to normal. Some were more successful than others.

Other broadcasters had their problems too, most notably the BBC, where there was the famous case of the editor of TV news pictured by the Mirror drunkenly rolling around the pavement. Years ago, one editor of a news programme had to be relieved of his duties after staff complained he was too often incapable of running the show.

But was Kennedy's outing a question of treble standards all round at ITN, its newly acquired abstemiousness no doubt aided by ITV's current financial restraints?

On balance, an emphatic "no" has to be the answer. If any news organisation has evidence that the leader of a major political party has misled the public over his drinking habits, then it has a duty to report it. ITN apparently had proof of a lifestyle that had caused unease over Kennedy's leadership, so disclosure was clearly in the public interest.

We don't know how ITN would have handled the news if it had remained its exclusive. It may have been a touch more sympathetic, reflecting the way it has traditionally dealt with its own staff. However, Kennedy's decision to effectively deny ITN its scoop and hand the story to the BBC probably meant that the gloves were off.

But after its own trials with alcohol, was it ITN's place to start firing off press releases bleating: "We got it first"? Perhaps, now heads have cleared, that is something to reflect on.

· The writer is anonymous but not an alcoholic, and has donated the fee for this article to the Samaritans

http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,1682370,00.html

requires free registration.

whiskeyman

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Kennedy was driven from office by his Lib Dem colleagues, not ITN.

That's it pure and simple really.
The 25 who issued the statement wanted him out, for the reasons Mike and redspider mentioned.
The past few years should really have been a much bigger success for the Lib Dems... Labour in decline and the Tory's in turmoil... but Kennedy failed to fully capitalise.
Was listening to BBC5live phone in at weekend (Stephen Nolan) and they had Jo Swinson, one of the 25 who backed the statement.
Nolan kept on asking her for "one example of bad leadership by Kennedy that made you want him out" and she couldn't do it.
She dodged it every way she could and could only keep saying "he lost the support of his fellow MPs" , but refused to say what action lost his support.

leeroybrown

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Kennedy was driven from office by his Lib Dem colleagues, not ITN.

Agreed. My first reaction when I heard about the issue was that if the parlimentary party still wanted him to lead them then he'd still be there. Ultimately it gave a group that wanted him replaced a good excuse to campaign aggressively to do it.

The question now is can they replace him with someone suitable for the job without the appearance that the party is imploding.

dahamsta

Kennedy was the reason I joined the Lib Dems, a politician very much in the mold of dear-departed Mo Mowlam, both of whom I had and have enormous respect for; as politicians and as people. I think his departure says more about collective stupidity than Big Brother and the "War" in Iraq put together. He was shafted because he's respectable, and honest, and decent.

He was shafted by bog-standard, knife-in-the-back, lies-and-deceit politicians, which the collective view - for some bizarre reason - as better than a man like Kennedy. One of whom they'll now appoint leader. Let's have a scumbag as leader, instead of a decent man. That, to be blunt, is just plain retarded. It's the Sun and the Mirror retarded. It's collective stupidity retarded.

I'll hang around to see what happens, but somehow I doubt I'll be renewing my membership. I doubt they'll care because they didn't have a vote for me anyway, but at least I get to keep my fifteen quid.

adam

Victor

BuffyBot wrote:

And we should probably not forget that if you went poking amongst the staff of the Guardian, you'ld uncover more than one or two alcoholics on their payroll as well. Pot calling someone else black.

More the frying pan commenting that the pot is complaining the kettle is black.

redspider

Freelancer wrote:

Redspider, the English Independent rattled off a list of incidents whereby it's plausible that Kennedy's drinking affected his leadership, missed appearances, a botched rebuttal to the budget etc....

Whilst all his misgivings can be blamed on alcohol/hangovers, etc, thats just too easy. All politicians make mistakes, Blair makes them, Mary O'Rourke makes them, ahem, Bertie Ahern makes them. They get tired, they look tired, they look drained and inept. They age rapidly under stress, etc. Many of them drink, but they are not alcoholics. And everyone now saying that "oh yeah, Kennedy was an alco, and it showed" are using hindsight inappropriately and using alcohol as a reason for his performance is wrong.

I guess that's how history sometimes gets re-written sometimes, but it doesnt make it right. It probably suits Kennedy as well. eg: "I would have been great, a bit like George Best, but I was an alco, not my fault, sorry".

I dont buy it, and as I mentioned in my earlier post, I have first hand experience of so-called alco's coming out as alcoholics, and in reality, they are just using it as an excuse, as a crutch, they are no more alco's than 2m people who go out every Sat night in this country.

redspider

redspider

Ken Shabby wrote:

Kennedy was the reason I joined the Lib Dems, a politician very much in the mold of dear-departed Mo Mowlam, both of whom I had and have enormous respect for; as politicians and as people. I think his departure says more about collective stupidity than Big Brother and the "War" in Iraq put together. He was shafted because he's respectable, and honest, and decent.

He was shafted by bog-standard, knife-in-the-back, lies-and-deceit politicians, which the collective view - for some bizarre reason - as better than a man like Kennedy. One of whom they'll now appoint leader. Let's have a scumbag as leader, instead of a decent man. That, to be blunt, is just plain retarded. It's the Sun and the Mirror retarded. It's collective stupidity retarded.

I'll hang around to see what happens, but somehow I doubt I'll be renewing my membership. I doubt they'll care because they didn't have a vote for me anyway, but at least I get to keep my fifteen quid.

adam

Ken/Adam, whilst its good that you joined a party because you were inspired by one person, in this case Kennedy, I think if that person was the only reason you were with that party, then its a weak connection. If the rest of the party are potential "scumbags" because of Kennedy's ousting, then all I can say is welcome to politics. Leaders will come and Leaders will go.

Paddy Ashdown, a character who comes across as very Conservative-looking, yet with the common sense to be liberal (!), was always going to be a hard leader to live up to. Kennedy did an ok job, but a bit like both of these baldy chaps that led the Tories for a while. He was a stop-gap that just stayed there for too long. I was very dissapointed in how he let Blair off the hook in the commons over Iraq, he was weak when the world needed someone to stop Blair supporting the US.

Do the Lib Dems have another Ashdown-like character, or someone like a Mary Harney who managed to follow in the footsteps of Des O'Malley?

Party president Simon Hughes seems reasonable.

redspider

BuffyBot

I think someone missed the point the article doesn't critise ITn for having alcoholics in it's ranks, or merely asks, should an organisation with such a history of a drinks culture, presume to question another alcoholic's fitness to lead.

Point not missed at all. But one media outlet having a go at a similar one on this issue is a bit much, no?

mike65

Adam/Ken (eh?) you'll be pleased to learn Menzies Campbell is odds on the be the next leader, a more decent chap you'd go a long way to find (for some reason news that you are a member of the Lib Dems suprises me, not sure why!).

Mike.

dahamsta

redspider, I'm just a tad offended/disappointed at your estimation of my intelligence. Certainly, I joined the Lib Dems because Kennedy was Leader, however the fact that he was Leader of the Lib Dems had just a wee bit of a part to play. Perhaps people do join political parties based on the character of one person - in fact, given the level of stupidity I encounter when it comes to politics, I have no doubt they do - but I don't.

I might add that I didn't say that the rest of the party are potential scumbags. (Is that the same as potential terrorists?) I quite clearly labelled the people that shafted him as "bog-standard, knife-in-the-back, lies-and-deceit politicians", and by extention scumbags. At the last count that was twenty people, and at the last count the Lib Dems were a little bit bigger than that.

If you usually draw (completely incorrect) conclusions in this manner, whether intentionally or by accident, perhaps you should consider a career in politics yourself? Thanks for welcoming me to the fold by the way. I was feeling left out.

mike65 wrote:

Adam/Ken (eh?)

Dahamsta, remember?

you'll be pleased to learn Menzies Campbell is odds on the be the next leader, a more decent chap you'd go a long way to find

Early days yet Mike.

for some reason news that you are a member of the Lib Dems suprises me, not sure why!)

My politics often surprise people. I like to keep people on their toes. (Actually I don't, but I can rarely be pigeonholed. I am, after all, a capitalist by definition... but with strong socialist overtones. )

adam

Freelancer

BuffyBot wrote:

Point not missed at all. But one media outlet having a go at a similar one on this issue is a bit much, no?

Not really the Guardian went at the tone of the ITN approach, not the approach. look and read the article. It just points out the sympathic attitude of ITN towards its staff alcoholism, but its gusto attitude in attacking kennedy for his. It's absurd that any organisation cannot critise another person or group of their behaviour when their own behaviour on a similar matter is dubious.

But the article just suggests that the vigour and tone of ITN's approach, their reaction to kennedy leaking their story to the bbc, and their approach.

The article, which I suggest you read, just reacts to the tone of the ITN approach.

certain people

Kennedy wasn't a great leader. At a time when the Tories were in an utter shambles the Lib Dems really should have done much better in the last election than 50-something seats out of 600-odd. Three party politics, which Kennedy kept claiming was upon the UK, is so definitely not there yet. The Lib Dems have some way to go to catch up yet, and the last few years with Kennedy have been a wasted opportunity.

I have to disagree with the people who've said there's no obvious sucessors. Simon Hughes, Menzies Campbell, and Lembit Opik would all make fantastic leaders. I doubt that Lembit will run this time around but he will lead the party one day.

As for him being an alcoholic, I don't care - I mean I hope he is successful with treatement etc. and good luck to him, but it makes no difference whether he is or not. Many alcoholics have been successful in many fields and I think it's got nothing to do with him as party leader at all. I think the concentration of the media on people's private lives is sick - let people be private, unless it's a matter of major public concern. Which this isn't.

In short: him leaving as leader is the right decision but for entirely the wrong reasons. Bring on Menzies Campbell.

redspider

Ken Shabby wrote:

redspider, I'm just a tad offended/disappointed at your estimation of my intelligence. Certainly, I joined the Lib Dems because Kennedy was Leader, however the fact that he was Leader of the Lib Dems had just a wee bit of a part to play. Perhaps people do join political parties based on the character of one person - in fact, given the level of stupidity I encounter when it comes to politics, I have no doubt they do - but I don't.

I might add that I didn't say that the rest of the party are potential scumbags. (Is that the same as potential terrorists?) I quite clearly labelled the people that shafted him as "bog-standard, knife-in-the-back, lies-and-deceit politicians", and by extention scumbags. At the last count that was twenty people, and at the last count the Lib Dems were a little bit bigger than that.

I didnt doubt your intelligence, no offence was intended. My point is still valid though - that if someone joins a party because of its current leader, it is only a matter of time before that leader will move on. Of course its up to the individual if they want to remain with that party or not. I didnt pass judgement on whether it was an unintelligent thing to do, but the fact remains that it was only a matter of time before it happened. There is nothing that prevents people from joining a party and leaving because of leadership reasons.

Its true that not every MP was baying for his head, but when 20 people are willing to put their name down officially for that call, and many of them not "knife-in-the-back" politicians, plus no doubt there were many senior members of the party who didnt state it publicly. Given that situation, it was therefore the vast majority of sitting Lib Dem MP's (otherwise he would have just held a vote and railroaded the nay-sayers). Calling all of these scumbags means that your affinity with the party is surely lowered with Kennedy gone.

Should Charles Kennedy now enter the big brother household and join up with George Galloway? At least he wouldnt be a "mis-fit" in there!

redspider