Charles Kennedy - Classic or Dud?

I sort of agree with this - he's too amiable for his own good really - but part of it surely is that old chesnut about the inherent difficulty of conveying any sort of nuanced stance through such an unsubtle beast as the media. When you're the third party commenting on what's often falsely portrayed as a black-and-white issue, it's kind of hard finding a distinct spotlight to wank your mandate under. Which has always been Charlie's gripe I guess.

Which is the nubbins of it really isn't it? LibDems have always blamed the system where others have played the system.

neither did the Tories at the last election really but they still picked up more votes. i blame the electorate!

I think that Hughes and Campbell will not be future leaders. I think that a contest could be fought between Oaten and Cable. I would expect Oaten to win. Maybe that will even happen soon.

how so?

he's telegenic, yes.

Lembit Opik is a menk however, and I'd rather have Charlie Kennedy any day over a bloke who is obsessed with aliens and married to Sian Lloyd.

What example are we talking about here? Of course division doesn't work against the idea of one party being completely united on all issues, but the latter seems somewhat absurd in itself. Unrealistic? When most issues are clearly grey, how can one commit to a policy that is entirely black or white?

also, SIAN LLOYD IS AN ALIEN. It all makes sense now.

I would rather have a 'chairman' than a 'leader' like Blair or Cameron.

OTM. But also, has it really come to the point where we have no other choice than to support either right or central parties? I find the fact a lot of people my age are disillusioned with politics and don't vote is because there is no real alternative. Left-wing parties are considered extremely radical or unfashionable in this day and age. And I'll agree with Matt DC - we need a few Thatchers and Benns to shake up the system. It's become a fucking X-Factor contest of whose mug is the most camera friendly rather than who is the most passionate about what they believe in.

My friend put forward the other day that most authorative figures (politicians, teachers, even parents) go out and try their best in order to prove their own worth to other people, rather than actually wanting to make a difference. While I would argue that it's really horses for courses, this is the impression that I get from people like Cameron and Blair - they got bullied at school and now they want to prove that they can make it - like some kind of messed up popularity contest. At least Kennedy doesn't TRY to be some jumped up over charismatic male model all the time. I'd hate it if the LD's followed down this path and therefore I'd say it's Ming Campbell who deserves a shot at the (ironically-called) limelight, despite the well documented health issues.

watch yer back Kennedy (and Cameron)...

He does have a very large and bulbous head, mind.

http://www.equalrights4all.org/images/bushbust76.JPG

If only I'd got that stint as PM in before I started me a-levels...

*What choice then*?

what does kennedy represent?

kennedy....

i made it registered-users-only. sorry. if i'd seen this thread was in new answers, i wouldn't have started the other one. but i didn't, so i did. such is life.

hic.

Isn't that a bit young to be Constituency Association Chairman?

-- Dave B (dave.boyl...), January 5th, 2006 8:06 PM

Is that a gratuitous Wedding Present reference?

FUCK THIS SHIT. Surely there is one person out there who can slap these cunts into place.

wtf are you on about?

yup.

Alcoholics refusing/failing to recognise an alcohol problem is quite commonplace. I don't think it reflects on his integrity as a politician.

How long was Boris Yeltsin in charge again?

also if you're a putative head of state, alcohol addiction is a bit of a no-no.
Bullshit. He sought treatment. He stopped drinking. He will ALWAYS be an alcohol addict.
Heads of state and alcohol have a long and illustrious history together.

Missing a big debate is a non-no
Alcoholics get non-alcohol related illnesses too you know.

he has flat-out denied being a heavy drinker, though, eg 4 1/2 years ago on 'newsnight'.

'illustrious'?

http://www.photodome.ru/School/EPA/RUSSIA-YELTSIN_DANCES-2.jpg

"Hey, Kennedy, Swimmers Arms at 2, yeah?"

and speed. but churchill didn't actually run tings; in fact his staff had to dissuade him from playing silly buggers (let's invade istria!) much of the time.

he has flat-out denied being a heavy drinker, though, eg 4 1/2 years ago on 'newsnight'.
I know. Alcoholics do that. My point is that this denial about drinking while still drinking is sympomatic of the problem and not a reflection of his honesty as a politician. Since he recognised his problem and sought help he has not denied it, but merely attempted to keep it to himself, which is more than understandable.

On the other hand, he never advocated sterilising poor people or gassing the Kurds, so it's swings and roundabouts.

no, he said he hadn't had a drink for two months, not he stopped drinking two months ago. that sentence was just after the one where he said people who knew him well would know that it had been a long struggle and that he had had long periods of time without drinking any alcohol at all. to me that suggests he's been fighting it for quite some time and has had a few relapses, the last of which was two months ago.

"How much do you drink? Do you drink privately? By yourself, a bottle of whisky late at night?"

Oaten will get the LibDem job because he's the youngest of the potential challengers. Then he'll appoint that 12 year old from the other thread as Education Spokesboy.

finally i'm in fashion.

i don't give a fuck if the guy's an alcoholic or not. i know many "dysfunctional" people who are astonishing at their jobs; hellfire, i'm a journalist. alcoholism used to go with the territory. my problem with kennedy is that, for whatever reason, the libdems under his leadership have never made any great inroads; every time they threaten to soar, they fall back to earth with a bump.

this might be because he's too pissed to run the party properly. it might be because their policies are too weak to attract the disillusioned left-wing labour voters they so desperately need. up here in scotland, i've never voted libdem because a) the scottish party is riddled with wanks, and b) in coalition with labour at holyrood they've been a fucking bad joke. but god, i'd rather have a drunken but effective leader than a sober, weedy one.

but that's just me. like i say: if he does survive in the job, which is eminently possible, then he's signed his own death warrant because a) voters won't trust him any more because he lied repeatedly about his problem, and b) many people will have a kneejerk "O NOES HE IS A JAKEY" attitude. and i'm not even getting in to how amusing/horrible parliamentary debates will become.

They have ruled themselves out of running against Kennedy - that does not mean they won't be running in the leadership election

'Cameron = who he?'

and the cnuts going to be the next PM.

-- Theorry Henry (miltonpinsk...), January 6th, 2006 12:21 PM. (Enrique) (later)

Oaten fails on posh. Comprehensive then a poly.

I'll go out an put a fiver on Oaten to win then

With Oaten's dwindling majority and a resurgent Tory party we could see the next LibDem leader lose his seat in the general election.

what they need is their very own cameron: some wee moke from the ranks who can ride to their rescue.

they just don't have one, though, do they?

Why? Most of their seats are in Tory constituencies

it worked in my manor (hornsey) and my ex-manor (cambridge).

as one of my colleagues wrote today: we can't tell whether this whole fessing-up strategy will work, because nobody has ever tried it before.

yes, and the newly re-energised tories aren't going to lose too many seats (unless cameron manages to piss off the blue-rinsers). the problem with westminster politics right now is that no party is appearing to offer any kind of left-wing alternative: a soft-left, anti-war, US-sceptic party would rack up shitloads of votes among the disillusioned chattering classes (who, let's face it, are going to make up a large part of the electorate who bother to turn out next time).

Yes, but drunk or sober, Charlie's main problem is that he's just crap

exactly. but he's probably the least crappy option.

okay, yes, sorry: lots of people have fessed up to all sorts of stuff, but AFAIK nobody's ever said: "my name's the wannabe PM, and i'm a boozehound."

true: the aim of an ambitious third party would be in part to CREATE an electorate -- there are people outside north london who don't like the war.

http://www.british-sitcom.co.uk/hi_de_hi/graphics/char_fairbrother.jpg

1) MPs - especially newer ones - will consult with their constituency officials. They will in turn have consulted with other party members, who will have listened to what people in their workplaces and pubs and schools have said. The newer MPs are crucial, as they may calculate that, pace Cameron, they'll have more chance in a leadership election themselves in 4 years time. This is all a bit soon for them.

2) If the feedback is that whilst admiring his 'bravery', people just feel he's gone beyond the boundary of things that can be forgiven and accepted in a party leader, those MPs will talk of a stalking horse, and Kennedy will be asked to resign lest he be humiliated. He will be offered something like the Party Presidency late on.

3) If the feedback is that his tactic has gone down a storm, those MPs will urge Chuck to fight, in which case the Senior MPs (who are clearly spitting feathers about him and want him gone). The angle they'll use is of decisiveness - taht's what Chuck hasn't got and never will, and it's what they need, and the man who challenges (Oaten prolly) will say that he's not disloyal to kennedy, but he's the man of action who by doing what he';s done proves himself to be the man needed.

Oaten's majority of 7500 is fine; it won't survive a collapse, but party leaders usually survive. Howard's majority in Thanet was less than that last time around, and Thatcher never had a particularly high majority in Finchley.

xpost - the trouble with the chattering classes is that whilst there are a fair few of them, they're spread out across the country thinly - much like Lid-dem support in general. That's why I switched position on PR - without it, we will never have the soft-left alternative that is needed.

yes, absolutely.

but i still think the soft-left middle-class vote is where the libdems' immediate hope lies. there are alternatives for those who want to make a political point (galloway/respect) and for those with, er, deep-seated convictions (socialist labour etc) but none of these are a serious governmental alternative to labour (or the increasing possibility of the tories).

i'm not a psephologist so i could be way wide of the mark here, but i imagine there are millions of people who voted labour last time because, although they had myriad gripes, saw the party as the only electable semi-left-wing alternative and couldn't ever bring themselves to put an X in a tory box. i'd also imagine that tertiary-educated m/c types are more likely than anybody else - excluding paid-up party members - to actually cast their vote. this, to me, suggests an enormous untapped constituency for, er, a soft-left LD with a strong leader to reap great rewards.

but it's that leadership thing that's the problem. really, looking at the alternatives, i think a re-energised kennedy is the best hope. if he's astonishingly clever and has enough allies/support, he can turn this to his advantage: i am chuck, i am human, i am strong enough to overcome.

but i accept that's a fucking tall order, and is very unlikely to come off.

Imagine, if you will, the millions of middle class, Middle England, voters (i.e. the only voters that appear to matter anymore) who voted Lib Dem last time because, although they had myriad gripes, they were deeply disillusioned with the Tory Party but couldn't ever bring themselves to put an X in a Labour box

so, er, that's why the libdems are in power at westminster. silly me :)

(i.e. the only voters that appear to matter anymore)

this is the big problem: who's actually voting? old folk, party members ... and, umm ...

i absolutely agree with enrique's point that the most important thing to do is re-engage huge swaths of society with the democratic process. "social exclusion" works in a variety of different ways. but in the short term, surely the key for the LDs is to lure the middle-class, anti-labour, we-still-remember-thatcher-and-ain't-ever-voting-tory mob?

Nope, that's why Tony Blair has been able to win elections with massive majorities

this could work :)

Dada OTM.

fuck's sake, it might have been devalued somewhat, but "leader of the opposition" is pretty fucking triumphant.

1992 Tories 14.1m, Labour 11.6m, Lib Dem 6.0m
1997 Tories 9.6m, Labour 13.6m, Lib Dem 5.2m
2001 Tories 8.4m, Labour 10.7m, Lib Dem 4.8m
2005 Tories 8.8m, Labour 9.6m, Lib Dem 6.0m

The Tory vote absolutely collapsed in the mid-90s – they lost about 40% of their support. About 2 million lent their support to Blair in 97, but the real reason for the landslide then was that another 2.5 million just stopped voting altogether. The Tory vote is still a shadow of what it was, and even with the Cameron effect I can’t see them getting above 10 million again.

The Labour support peaked in 1997, but Kinnock actually got the support of far more people than Blair has ever managed since people were able to judge him on his record in power. If you think of 1992 as the last election fought by ‘Old Labour’ then this suggests there is a substantial number of Old Labour voters out their who feel disenfranchised with their party’s obsession with chasing the Daily Mail vote.

The Lib Dems were actually losing support (but gaining seats) until the most recent election, which is the first election where the positioned themselves to the left of Labour. I think this is significant – they were not stealing Tory voters in 95, they were stealing Labour voters. I know – I’m one of them. For them to suddenly ditch their leader and position themselves to the right to join the fight for the Daily Mail readers just strikes me as insane. There would end up being a very large number of potential voters to the left of all three major parties who probably wouldn’t feel like voting for any of them.

Stalking horse: choose any one from this lot
The letter is thought to have been signed by: Mr Cable, David Laws, Chris Huhne, Sarah Teather, Sandra Gidley, Andrew George, Ed Davey, Norman Baker, John Thurso, Norman Lamb and Michael Moore.

Oh, and that Simon & Simon separated at birth thing is uncanny.

http://www.british-sitcom.co.uk/hi_de_hi/graphics/char_fairbrother.jpg http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40818000/jpg/_40818780_hughes203.jpg

i don't believe it. i don't think cam'ron will actually be left of howard where it counts, and brown's "left-wing" only insofar as he likes increasing the state apparatus. his views on foreign policy and personal liberty are unknown, but not likely to be very 'left'. the economic climate will curtail his spending plans, i'd imagine.

hmmmm. gordy is - in economic terms at least - a pro-market right-winger. this has been sussed by many observers and commentators, and will be used by "the left" (whoever "the left" might be) against him.

he's also a miserable auld fife fuck, which will be used by cameron et al against him.

however: we must not underestimate him. he is a clever, ruthless man who's been lurking, biding his time, for aeons now. he is not about to let his chance go. i am convinced that, when the time comes, the "brown for britain" campaign will be a juggernaut. cameron can have his day in the sun snow, wittering about chocolate oranges, but is he a match for the machieavellian might of brown? i don't think so.

however, if i am proved wrong and GB gets trounced for being a tedious old git, i will hold my hands up and say: "fuck."

x-post to onimo: putting his thumb up sia [rest of post deleted on legal advice]

Well, I'm talking about incremental changes in a political landscape whose ground zero has moved decisively to the centre-right since New Labour. It's interesting that Cameron thinks he has to make leftish noises - about not letting big business oppress the masses etc. It may all be facade, but a little of that facade may stick if he pragmatically feels it's necessary. As for Brown, he'll have to be seen to be drawing a line under New Labour in order to make a fresh start and define his own political leadership.

xpost

Everyone I know becomes very happy and friendly when they're pissed...

x-post: tissp, you haven't met me yet :)

(Jez - Peep Show, Series 3, Episode 1)

You Sheffield people have a way about pronouncing your English.

so, if the lib dems ditch kennedy. and then he gets sickently drunk would
the headline be:

DEMS CHUCK CHUCK - CHUCK CHUCKS.

This is why we opted to revolutionise mainstream electronica instead...

Q: What do you call an alcoholic rock 'n' roll singer from Glasgow whose just given up the booze?

A: Chuck Bevvy

Make mine a half, I want to STAY IN CONTROL.

"...AND THE FACKING ROACH WAS THIS BIG."

"FOOK OFF YA SOUTHERN NANCY."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2005/02/27/nbook27.jpg

"THAT CUNT SPILT ME PINT"

BAH XPOST

http://www.spunk.org/library/music/chumba/sp001737/images/prescott.jpg

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/185375403X.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Coulda beena contenda
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1245000/images/_1245424_hague150.jpg

Barman: "Mr. Kennedy, I'm surprised to see you in here"
Charlie: "Whit? Oh aye... well, I'm in here wi' mah wee pal here, Liam... shay hello to the barman Liam."
Fox (*Kennedy speaking out of corner of mouth*): "Oh hello, my good man, delighted to meet you"
Barman: "Errrrr, yes, well what can I get you two, errrrrrrrrr, gentlemen?"
Charlie: "Oh, nuthin fur me, ah'm oan the wagon, know what ah mean?"
Fox: "But Charles, can't I tempt you with a shoftie?"
Charlie: "Oh awright, ye twishted my airm, so ye did."
Fox: "Barman, a lemonade for Mishter Kennedy and double shcotch and a gottle of geer for me..."

http://politicalbetting.com/upload/blunkett.jpg

Now where is it?

He's already been Party President, about ten or fifteen years ago as far as I remember.

"I'm alright love, but the dog'sh a bashtard when he'sh had a few"

OMG. Lock Thread..again.

STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTER, MR TONY BLAIR, SEDGEFIELD, FRIDAY 6 JANUARY 2006 - TRIBUTE TO CHARLES KENNEDY:

"I feel like everyone else in this country today. I am utterly devastated.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Charles Kennedy's family. Our heart goes out to them.

We are today a nation in a state of drunkenness, in mourning, with a hangover that is so deeply painful for us. He was a wonderful and a warm human being, although his own life was often sadly touched by tragedy. He touched the lives of so many others in Britain and throughout the world with joy and with comfort.

How many times shall we remember him, in how many different ways - with a Scotch, a g and t, with vodka, with the shakes? With just a look or a gesture that spoke so much more than words, he would reveal to all of us the depth of his compassion and his humanity.

I am sure we can only guess how difficult things were for him from time to time. But people everywhere, not just here in Britain, kept faith with Charles Kennedy. They liked him, they bought him drink, they regarded him as one of the people. He was the People's Pisshead and that is how he will stay, how he will remain in our hearts and our memories for ever".

"If you stroke my dog..."

I feel rather disappointed that the LibDem MPs trained their fire on their leader, rather than on the centre-right Cameron-New Labour consensus... Kennedy was hardly perfect, but he did take most big decisions correctly - though as remarked Sir Menzies Campbell was a more frequent and articulate opponent of the Iraq War. He was a fudging 'unity' leader of the Harold Wilson sort, if hardly with Wilson's political nous and flair. He did however have a well-versed, convincing 'popular touch' and reassurance common with HW, but of course one untested by high office. It is not altogether clear that they have a ready replacement who can connect with the public as well; of course, that may lead to a greater consistency and direction, but certainly not more votes overall... and that's what I liked about Kennedy; he did steer his party broadly towards the liberal-left, whilst being an effective campaigner and personality.

There is frankly no future whatsoever for the LDs if they feel they have to join the 'race to the centre', as defined by the other parties and the media - Kennedy himself was correct in cautioning against this in his resignation statement. They are dead if they try and copy Cameron (who is actually a more truly Thatcherite Tory than the last x many leaders); they need to present a significant alternative to that vacuous, duplicitous man.

Hughes might be closer to a 'centre-left' candidate, but surely Campbell is the only option; gravitas is exactly what is required in an age of lightweight positioning and posturing, and he would be uniquely poised to hammer the government and the Tories over their foreign policy collusion and the disgraces of that pro-Bush policy.

Brown being PM already if he'd resigned over the Iraq war... well, Robin Cook didn't make it, did he? (a genuine figure of the centre-left) It is an interesting hypothesis, but little more; such a move on Brown's part would have triggered an almighty split, with New Labour still exercising a good deal of control in 2003... You would need to change GB's basic political personality to make this occur; a cautious tactician, preferring 'unity' - who rarely has stood up to the New Labour reforms and rightwards trajectory. On this whole basic point; why is it inevitable that thoroughly disilluisoned socialist or Old Labour - or even soft-left, or Hattersley and the old Labour 'right' - voters will turn back to Labour from the LDs if Brown is in charge. Brown has been clever in not shouting too loudly his pro-free market views, so that many believe he will be 'Old Labour'; it's a testament of the woolly/wishful thinking of the left that they see him as a likely saviour or benefactor...

It is by no means the case that I would likely vote Labour purely because of Brown leading them; I would need concrete evidence that they were moving beyond New Labour and advancing a different agenda. I don't see this as likely - they wouldn't even allow a debate on Robin Cook's legacy and ideas at the last Party Conference; plus, the Wolfgang ejection... Thus, I have to look at alternatives to the Cameron-New Labour consensus, and the LibDems, however partially, *did represent that* at the last election, and should do again. It is their task, however, to become a cohesive national party, rather than being *significantly* different in Winchester and Guildford, say, than in Newcastle or Durham...

Certainly not on questions of Europe, Iraq, civil liberties and education (if these be left-right issues, in today's terms, they are certainly on the left, siding with Labour rebels rather than the government).

Europe, Iraq, civil liberties and education

They have taken traditional Liberal positions on all of these. Positions that put them on the right in european terms (though not in american terms).

Does their Iraq position really put them to the right in European terms? If so, what is 'right', and does this make Blair and Bush 'left-wing' in European terms...?

I heard a few comments on a Radio 5 phone-in yesterday and on the media in general over the weekend that've reinforced my contempt for the great British public and its hypocritical post-Victorian morality. Those fuckers get the politicians they deserve.

Perhaps I should say in 20th century terms rather than european terms. the whole british political spectrum is vastly the right of the pre thatcher/blair era. The Liberals (or Lib Dems) have been incredibly politically consisten since the late 19th century (possibly all the way back to the Whig days). They have stood for Free trade, commerce and human/social improvement and been against anything that impedes this (wars being a particular bugbear).

Ed: well, yes... but, one must consider the LibDems' position as a compromised, composite party, fashioned as a merger between the SDP (the right-wing of pre-Kinnock Labour; who are now to the left of the scale, yes) and the Liberal Party. It is really rather complex, as the great rows in the '80s were over things like defence, with David Owen hawkwish and the Liberal membership almost akin to CND... and yet on economic policy, 'classical liberal' (represented perhaps by this 'Orange Book' tendency) is at odds with social-democrat - Labour derived, represented by Shirley Williams and Roy Jenkins, hardly Thatcherites, but Keynesians.

Kennedy was an SDP member, initially, and can be seen as being a social-democrat, but in tune with Liberal attitudes to foreign policy - unlike David Owen, who appears increasingly like a dry-run for Blair.

In other news Tony Banks seriously ill.

I really think this leaves us with the possibility of having 3 PM's inside 18 months come 2008-10.

Agreed. I voted for them last time but after this I doubt they have any chance of getting my vote next time. Always had my reservations about Kennedy, but if I wanted to vote for a bunch of egotistical, self-serving, "ambitious", illiberal, judgemental right-wingers I would have voted Tory in the first place.

(i presume you are meaning: Blair-Brown-Cameron. i'd not be altogether so sure that Blair will still be PM in two years time)

well, he was pretty much an architect of new labour! but you're right, tom: sections of the "left" are putting this utterly misguided faith in brown, as if he's going to simply assume power and go: "right, the last decade was all a big joke: pass the beer and sandwiches and the acme wealth distributor."

But the thought of the 25 MPs who said that they would refuse to work with him, an attitude which puts them slightly lower than vermin in my eyes, will make it hard to vote for their party

this thought occurred to me last night: i wonder if kennedy drank so much because of the fuckwits he had to work with? :)

The interest for me is whether Hughes declares; he seems to represent the old liberal strain within the LDs. I can see people urging him too withdraw to ensure Campbell wins. Even so, Campbell has two burdens - he's oldish and he has a first name with weird pronunciation. That's fine for a front bencher, but an issue for a leader.

Owen was a grade a twat, and always was. The strain of 'I'll bend to anything if it puts me in reach of power' is evident within Nu-Labour, but I see him much more in the Oaten/Laws axis than the ex-SDP people such as Williams.

Ultimately, the major issue that might just be forced out here is their own answer to the question of who they are. They fudged the issue through the 80s and into the merger, and have never grappled seriously with it. Steel outflanked his left by bringing the Alliance in as a rightwards counter, and in the 80s, the Alliance was very much the anti-Tory but not Labour Party. Blair's taking of that territory left the LDs with a new problem which Chuckie manfully tried to manage through personality - the LDS are the party I lead, was his answer to those asked existential ideological questions about the party's identity.

But now, the gloves are off. Campbell might offer the unideological answer by virtue of his apparent stature trumping all (especially for a party which will fear navel gazing), but the leadership contest after this might be the undoing of them when stature will accrue to none, and they're left with simple policy positions on left and right to choose from.

Many people I know (not myself) voted LD in University constituencys as a war protest. Come 2009 these students will be pushing 30 and voting Conserative my look a lot more appealling to them. Secondly people who will be able to vote for the first time in 2009 will be the first batch who weren't alive during the Thatcher years and will be unlikely to even remember the 1997 election. Hopefully there will not be a protest vote against a war next time and Iraq is unlikely to feature.

We the British public be taken in by a young, photogenic and pleasant man a second time? especially since this one's a Tory.

If he aspired to be a leader, he should have resigned over Iraq. It wouldn't have split the party any more than it already is (given it was riven over war, and the unions are with him) and he could have said something like 'I'd didn't manage the economy so well to see the reserves spunked on war". Sadly, he didn't. He's increasingly being boxed in by the Blairites, fearful of losing their jobs and life's work, and will - if he inherits anything - will inherit an exhausted party like the Tories in 92 who fight out of habit rather in pursuit of something more.

Brown failed the Iraq war test, which will define a generation of politicians. I was always very brownite, but his supine loyalty has done for me. He doesn't deserve to be leader, since as far as I can tell, his only claim to the leadership is that he has been worthy of it and waited his time. Fuck that.

I'm a Douglas Alexander man meself. Intelligent guy, thinking through issues, organisationally sound, rooted in the party and a great common touch.

absolutely. it's happening even now: among 18 and 19-year-olds, the tory party is just that - a party, not a bunch of pariahs. in fact, i've seen interviews with 18-year-olds saying things like: "that mrs thatcher, she did a lot for the country" ... remember how the spice girls reclaimed her as a paragon of girl power and we all laughed? well, some of those eight-year-olds fans took that shit to heart :o

among my generation - i'm 30 - voting tory is absolutely taboo. i have one "out" tory friend, and even he feels he has to justify himself at every opportunity. but there's a whole new generation of voters and prospective voters hot on our heels, and they haven't a fucking clue about thatcher. after all, if i was a young, politicised teenager these days, i'd be using ALL my energies railing at fucking blair and new labour, rather than opening the history books.

cameron is a fucking snake: surely this much is obvious to anyone with half a brain. his U-turn on the NHS last week is proof of this. but by the same token, anyone that fucking stupid can't have what it takes to win an election.

can they?

anyway: RIP, chuck's political career. i'll raise a glass to you tonight :)

-- CLassic or Dadaismus? (dadaismu...), January 6th, 2006.

Nick Clegg is in 30s and went to Westminster School (same as Louis Theroux and Joe Strummer); and I wouldn't be that surprised if he did get the job.

Favourite has got to be Menzies though - and it won't be good for the party.

(I know a lot of people who are around 20 who would never vote tory (except one who does it just to be controversial))

and me

just the one?

Anyway - prediction. Labour will win the next election, with or without Brown at the helm, but with a decimated majority. If Brown wins the leadership contest and the election, he limps on a weakened leader with a (now vastly more experienced) Cameron gaining ground. And he does so without Labour's biggest electoral asset, ie Brown as Chancellor. Who else is going to have a fraction of his credibility? This will benefit Brown in the run-up to the election. Despite his surliness and his age and his Scottishness, Brown is still one of the few politicians in this country the electorate actually TRUST. If he weren't, Labour wouldn't be in office. Cameron's surface similarity to Blair might well count against him in the short term.

Whoever's in the Treasury at the next election and after won't wield a fraction of the power Brown does now. If the economy goes tits-up in that time it reinforces the 'return to Bad Old Labour' tag that regardless of policy sticks easier to Brown as PM than it does to Blair, especially if there's growing dissent within the party. This situation gets worse as the next Parliament progresses, Cameron wins next election comfortably.

The Lib Dems are irrelevant to all this, as they'll lose votes and seats on both sides regardless who leads them. They'll say they're both pro-market and pro-"social justice", whatever that is. Conventional wisdom says shifting the balance either way is electoral suicide. Labour will say exactly the same thing. And so will the Tories, unbelievably. The real winner in all this? Tony Blair.

I never knew the BBC to be so staunchly anti-LD.

'a bit too clever perhaps'? Why not just affirm that he speaks well and with dignity on the subject of our current political malaise? (but oh no, don't we all have to agree that Cameron is 'good' for our politics?)

i.e. Britain on the whole is attached to institutions such as the NHS, the BBC; many want to conserve what is good. I see nothing wrong with being 'conservative' in this sense, as opposed to 'Conservative' in the ever vague, ever content-less Public Relations-led Cameron sense.

Leaps may have been made in issues of gender, sexuality and race, but of course a good proportion remains who will sympathise with the BNP (and indeed UKIP; many of whom are not old, wouldnae-know-better fogeys).

I remain to be convinced on the whole that there is anything like a 'Conservative' majority in the country at present; the state of the parties - seemingly adjoined since Cameron - assured that such simple analyses will not suffice. Indeed, as Tebbit hypothesises, it may well become the case that there is substantive and vocal minorities both on the left and the right of politics without any home within the main two parties, come the next election...

And still, there is idiocy of people claiming that the LibDems should tow the line towards a *now-defaced* current 'centre-ground' - such as it is defined by Blair-Cameron.

Also: I know who the very first rumble about Charlie's drinking, which was published in the diary section in The Mirror in 2003, comes from. Go me!

-- Mike W (mik...), January 22nd, 2006.

er, right, only that famous newsnight interview in which paxo went off on one about whiskey was... summer 2001. so not the 'first rumble' as such.

Dead at 55

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32970337

Man, you beat me to it by seconds. RIP Charlie, last genuine Liberal in Britain.

Malcolm Bruce just came within an ace of blaming SNP voters on Today

Classy.

Numbers of Lib Dem MPs on resignation:

Clegg 8
Charlie Kennedy 62

Lembit Opik was in blaming a few as well.

A lot of deeply upset Libdems, possibly needing a moment or two to calm down.

We had some rare old fun at Charlie's expense on this thread btw, bless 'im.

people falling short of blaming the SNP is a bit disingenuous when you consider the state he turned up on qt recently, before he had lost his seat.

The last time I saw him actually speak was on Question Time and he looked absolutely plastered.

Conjecture obviously as we don't really know what happened, but in these situations the sudden removal of structure from your life can't be a good thing.

One of the few Liberal Democrat MPs who came out as a vocal hater of the coalition, not that it did him any good. RIP.

(xp)

Hadn't realised that his father died at the start of the election campaign as well. Holy shit that's a horrific couple of months.

:( i liked him a lot. RIP

RIP. It does seem that likeable politicians with principles seem to die too early

RIP. Always struck me as one of the saner and more genuinely down to earth of the mainstream politicians.

the night i was at Question Time in 2010 he was announced as a guest and got a properly celebratory, roof-raising welcome from the audience.

.. and he said the album he'd 'save from a fire' was Bowie's Station To Station.

Reminds me of my uncle, also a gregarious and popular yet lonerish alcoholic in a high-pressure job, also beset by structure loss in early retirement, also dead at 56 (in my uncle's case, cause of death was abdominal haemorrhage). Still a shock, though. RIP.

Really saddened to hear this, and really sad that most people's last memory of a decent man and a fine constituency MP (my parents had a lot of time for him, and he did a lot to look after the widespread and diverse electorate of a huge area) will be of a shambling drunk performance on Question Time. Always seemed genuinely passionate about his politics and respectful of others rather than a careerist out for himself. Definitely one of the good guys, even if I didn't always agree with him.

RIP.

rip charlie, genuinely sad about this. are there any broadly well-liked uk politicians left now?

no

Skinner?

Tragically the closest to that description is probably Boris.

yeah, you're probably right :(

Balls to Boris. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Charlie Kennedy a perfect example of that latter day hate figure, the Career Politician?

I think it's possible to escape that charge if, as an MP, you represent the place where you were born and raised (see also: Gordon Brown).

It's a charge that carries no great weight with me anyway tbh.

that latter day hate figure, the Career Politician?

I used to think it mattered that if you were going to present yourself as a Labour Man you had to have had at least one fucking job somewhere before putting your rosette on but that means fuck all to whatever "Labour" is these days. Politics is more of a game than ever and MPs have never been so powerless so you may as well have people who've been at it since high school debate club just to keep the charade of PMQs going.

Sad news re Charles Kennedy. Alcoholism is a terrible thing and does terrible things to people.

I can believe his last appearance on QT was not due to being drunk, but more than likely due to whatever killed him in the end.

(Which may well be alcohol related i.e. lasting effects of alcoholism and so on..)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009377m#playt=4m24s

that is very beautiful and I am very sad

Jesus wept! politician choosing Toploader + Bowie on Desert Island Disc so fucking rote, too busy drinking myself to death tonight to genuinely gaf!

if you'd rather rage against toploader than listen to a special bit of fiddle playing a few times that's your prerogative :)

RIP xelab

assumed you would have c&ped that 'rote' post

rip to charlie anyway, i shall have to do some more reading about his tenure but i think it's possible to say, tentatively, that he was a good person, that a government of drunk teuchters would not necessarily be worse than one of religious lunatics or cromwell baronets, and that despite his liking for toploader his death is still to be lamented

I am unpredictable xp

also "rote" was in quotes so it was difficult to find

site:ilxor.com

lol that was a joke but thx

i shall have to do some more reading about his tenure

Re-reading this thread (which I'm not suggesting you do, btw!) I'd forgotten how useless he was considered by the end of his leadership, this in spite of electorally being the most successful 'Liberal' leader since... errrrr... I'm sure I heard someone say Lloyd George? Right?

Mind you, successful in spite of him turning up still drunk from the night before for the Liberal Democrats 2005 election launch. I can't remember but I'm guessing his appearances were strictly monitored and/or rationed for the rest of the campaign.

same as clegg and alexander were the most powerful liberals since then, they were on the crest of a wave that probably any leader (save or an evidently unsuitable one like campbell) would have benefitted from, especially since any liberal leader would likely have followed the same policy on iraq, but he still did a good job electorally

the aspect i had forgotten was 'chat show charlie'........apparently having charm other than of the charismatic/psychotic variety was looked down upon, and being approachable to the larger public suggests lack of moral seriousness

sometimes i will trawl through the archives for all the calumnies thrown at him in early 2003 from vermin in the press corps, such as being demeaned for offering pro-forces boilerplate once the war started while reiterating his opposition to the war itself (as if he should have wished death upon their brave boys instead)

he does have the look of a human being who entered a career where that status had become surplus to requirements

I'd also forgotten that he was nicknamed Taxi Kennedy (seems he had a few, if you pardon the expression) at Glasgow Uni because of this habit of taking taxis, no matter how short the journey (i.e. to and from the Students Union).

probably have less luck in london, once a fat cunt in a hackney carriage got out to shout at the next cabbie for accepting my (sub £5) fare