Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Leading the Liberal Democrats

Page: (1)2 3

Our Lady Has Left the Building

12:26 / 14.12.05

Just watched the last PMQ before the Christmas recess, typically unedifying spectacle, with the noisiest scorn seemingly reserved for Charles Kennedy. The media has had a number of stories for the last week about his supposed poor performance, but is the fact that they are not yet our Orange Overlords the fault of Chatshow Charlie? Is the fact that the Lib Dems seem rarely on our screens because the party has nothing to say, or because they haven't had the messy internal struggles that have characterised most of the coverage of the Tory party since about 1993?

Tryphena Absent

12:35 / 14.12.05

Or is it because they don't function centrally and thus have no party loyalty and aren't particularly consistent or cohesive because of it?

The Lib Dems never condemn anything outright over a long period of time because invariably someone with a reasonably senior position in their party believes it.

Tryphena Absent

12:36 / 14.12.05

Sorry, in summary the party has nothing to say because they're not a party in the traditional (or some, including me might say in a realistic) sense.

13:04 / 14.12.05

They have enough of a party structure that I would have thought they'd have taken better media advantage of recent events, though - they're not the Greens or anything. I certainly remember more concerted efforts in the past. The recent terror bill stuff I thought provided them with a perfect opportunity to showcase their civil liberties side, and that just didn't happen.

13:13 / 14.12.05

It would seem to me that a powestruggle is the last thing the Lib Dems need.

Kennedy has taken them to their best election result since 1906 and brought them the most MPs they've had for 80 years. They now face a resurgent opposition under David Cameron (close friends get to call him DC). One of the things that the Lib Dems have had over the Tories in the last decade has been their comparatively united front and they now appears to be elements within the Lib Dems willing to sacrifice that.

Tryphena Absent

13:45 / 14.12.05

There have always have been elements in the Lib Dems willing to sacrifice that and they've been trying to get rid of Kennedy for months. Their local offices don't answer to party central so how do you ask them not to rebel? How do you gauge how the party feels about a statement quickly and effectively: you don't. That's the problem.

14:11 / 14.12.05

Their local offices don't answer to party central so how do you ask them not to rebel?

Trouble is the current expression of disatisfaction appear to be coming from within the Lib Dem enclosure at Westminster village - the local groups appear to be incredibly loyal to Kennedy - which is another reason why such a rift against the leadership would harm the party as a whole.

As Nick Robinson points out on his blog CK has not yet used his best defence - namely that he's so expanded his party that it's big enough to have leadership coups and rival factions.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

16:53 / 05.01.06

Charles admits to drink problem and agrees to leadership contest. Claiming to be over the problem and not to have drunk for Two! Whole! Months! really does him no favours either. I'm annoyed because it looked until now as though this was mischief created entirely by the media and bored Tories, now it looks like there's genuine cause for concern. I'm not yet in the position of 'Kennedy must go' but my confidence in him is shaken.

Hattie's Kitchen

17:38 / 05.01.06

Claiming to be over the problem and not to have drunk for Two! Whole! Months! really does him no favours either.

Well, I guess it depends on how far back his treatment/counselling commenced. He said himself he did not admit it earlier because he wanted to overcome it in private and not under media/public scrutiny, and I think that's perfectly understandable. Functioning alcoholics in high-powered positions are more common than people think. I see no reason why Kennedy can't continue, that's if he wants to, of course.

This is likely to improve his standing with voters, not harm it, IMHO. People prefer a politician who is honest about his failings over a fake Teflon-coated actor like Blair.

Tryphena Absent

18:55 / 05.01.06

That confession was a really bad political idea. Even if every Lib Dem already knew about it he's confirmed a weakness and opened himself up to the British media. He's not in favour with the press as has been evident through recent coverage and now he's basically invited them to discuss his personal life. On top of all of that he's made it easier for his MPs to rally against him and push for an election date by exposing himself in this way. Even if he wins the leadership again he'll be weakened as party leader because he has effectively told them that there needs to be another election. If someone advised him to do this then he should fire them and if it was his decision then he shouldn't be in charge of the party because it was a foolish choice and shows that he's making political misjudgments.

20:23 / 05.01.06

Dead in the water. Poor Charlie.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

20:36 / 05.01.06

Watching his full statement on Newsnight and it really sounds as though he was absolutely pissed when he read it. His voice is really slurred.

22:05 / 05.01.06

I have to keep reminding myself that Leo McGarry was only a fictional character.

Is there a chance that Charlie might actually be more focused on the task and do a better job, now he's abjured the sauce? I suspect it's going to lose him votes where it counts (with ambitious LibDem politicos and the vast Daily Mail-reading swathes of Middle England).

I think he is a fine man and this is a damn shame but Ganesh is right, he's a fatally lamed duck now.

22:49 / 05.01.06

I don't think charlie will lose an election because he is very well liked by the grass roots members. (bear in mind that I genuinely believe that the American people wouldn't re elect George W.)

And even if he does get scalpt - he will be remembered as the most successful liberal leader in 80 years. meanwhile what remains of the party will be riven by political in fighting - when this happened to the tories they at leats had just come off the back of 18 years of government...

Our Lady Has Left the Building

05:49 / 06.01.06

Again, according to Newsnight (and getting an idiot like Lembit Opik, the Liberal Boris Johnson without the intelligence, to speak up for Charlie was cruel), Kennedy seems to fall off the wagon every few months.

06:29 / 06.01.06

And, yeah Charles Kennedy would have to go a long way to beat the scandals that afflicted his liberal predecessor Jeremy Thorpe...

09:29 / 06.01.06

I wonder if the man does in fact have a drink problem, or whether he's been forced to spin a liking for booze into alcoholism in an attempt to gain some ground on the tabloids and his political rivals (within and without the party). I mean, if those who have been working against him have beefed up the booze angle - which it seems they have - then he has two options: deny, deny, deny or admit to having a problem. The first option would seem pretty unsustainable in the long run.

Just a thought.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

09:33 / 06.01.06

Have to admit that had also occurred to me, Boboss...

Tryphena Absent

12:26 / 06.01.06

He's known as someone who turns up to interviews smelling of alcohol. I suppose it depends on your definition of drink problem but if you do that consistently then you're going to be labelled in that way so either way it's his own fault.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

12:30 / 06.01.06

See, so was Churchill.

But yes, it does depend on your definitions. For various reasons, I'm probably not going to be able to be impartial on this one, but FWIW I like the guy and haven't seen any evidence of it affecting his ability to do his job.

lord henry strikes back

13:36 / 06.01.06

As was Ulysses S Grant.

Anyway, I agree that I don't think that alcohol has affected CK's performance. The reason that he has to go has nothing to do with drink and I'm saddened that when he does depart (somewhere between next week and the May elections, depending on how things play out) the drinking will be seen as a factor.

Really he is a victim of his own success. He's brought the Lib Dems to a high unparalleled in recent times, and thank you to to him for so doing. But if the party is going to push on up and past the 100+ seat mark, and that really does have to be the next mile stone, then a harder, sharper style of leadership is needed. Say what you like about the combative nature of Westminster but that is the current reality and the Lib Dems need a leader that can trade blows with Blair and Cameron on an equal footing.

Admittedly I'm not sure who within the party could step into that role right now, maybe a relative unknown, but a change is needed and preferably soon, allowing time to settle down before May.

13:45 / 06.01.06

Well there are the various cited examples of him delivering speeches whilst looking decidedly rough, cocking up interview responses and so on.... personally I wouldn't hold things like that against him when judging whether he's incapable of doing the job, but with the clips repeated constantly on TV news for the next week or so and combined with "DRINKING PROBLEM", that's gonna be the impression that's created in the public mind whatever happens.

13:47 / 06.01.06

(sorry, above post written before I saw Lord Henry's)

Tryphena Absent

15:16 / 06.01.06

It's not really about whether he has a drink problem or not. It's about his MPs not wanting him to lead them. This is only convenient.

Tryphena Absent

15:44 / 06.01.06

By the way Kennedy faces mass resignations.

16:03 / 06.01.06

Indeed, this can be read as an attempt at a coup that can only serve to harm the Liberal Democrats.

16:52 / 06.01.06

To be clear, my last post was an attempt to point out another potential absurdity of politics: that a man could well be forced into a position whereby he had to admit to a fictional drink problem in order to win some political ground.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

19:44 / 06.01.06

It's not really about whether he has a drink problem or not. It's about his MPs not wanting him to lead them. This is only convenient.

This is also true. If the party won't stand behind him, then right or wrong, he can't lead it. Personally, I'd say that was wrong, and a terrible misjudgment on their part, but that is indeed how it works. Democracy has never been about fairness.

What I think is terribly sad is that a coup at this point could undo an awful lot of the good work he's done for the party. That said, if it IS gonna happen, then it's best it happens quickly, so they can get themselves settled before the next General.

Tryphena Absent

23:01 / 06.01.06

On Newsnight earlier they had three political analysts who were talking about Kennedy's inability to make the position of the party clear and the opportunities missed under his leadership. I found myself reluctantly nodding my head because it's really frustrated me that the Lib Dems failed to take full advantage of the mass media coverage against Labour and the Conservatives over the last 2 years.

Charles Kennedy is nice, the problem is that political negotiation isn't nice. I can't conceive of the Lib Dems really working effectively as the opposition. Primarily you need a leader who is tough, opinionated, with firm allies and an ability to adapt to circumstance incredibly quickly, almost able to pre-empt it. Kennedy might be pre-empting problems but he hasn't done it early enough. That's why alcohol is an issue but not the real issue. The issue is that he should have done these things 2 years ago, when everyone was focused on bigger things.

Politics is a nasty business everywhere, regardless of country because you're always in conflict with other people's belief systems and the needs of various countries. It's about balancing the needs of people within the country that you have power over and compromising so that everyone is looked after as far as you can manage. You're always hedging a bet and you have to contend with potential criticism everytime you do anything.

I feel sympathetic towards Charles Kennedy as a human being but politically I don't think he's capable of the above because he's responded to criticism by confirming it at the wrong time. He should have rode it out or given up because he's in a profession where the one, invariable element that you need to possess is the strength to do what needs to be done rather than what you want to do or what other people want you to do.

Jack The Bodiless

00:35 / 07.01.06

Seems to me Kennedy's consistently avoided bully-boy opportunism when it could have helped his party's standing. He's missed several gaping holes in the oppositions's (Tory and Labour's) defences by deciding that the LDs should stand on policy, not convenience and backstabbing - effectively, that same 'nice guy' role David Cameron's mining now, except without the media fanfare. It's a crying shame his position hasn't merited more column inches, and a crying shame his role in the renaissance of the LDs hasn't been more widely recognised. He's a fine speaker, and a decent man, both of which are rare in British politics - hell, in politics as a global whole.

But none of that matters. He's screwed. Any media perception of himself as an election winner that still existed is lost. Right now, if the LDs don't come up with a serious candidate to oppose/ratify his leadership (by which I mean, a candidate who can legitimately replace him or a candidate through whom he can regain his credibility via a squash match), they will destroy their credibility as a potential opposition party. This division could not have come at a worse time for them, what with the recent publicity given to the Tories' alleged resurgence. They were so close to being credible. Now they might as well rename themselves the Bronze Medal Party and get it over with...

Our Lady Has Left the Building

09:10 / 07.01.06

Although I think Charles Kennedy should remain as leader, the ultimatums by the rebel MPs make that impossible. The simple fact is that those MPs have acted stupidly because they have absolutely no-one that can take his place, so whoever gets the job will have to spend all their time between now and the next election making sure the public know who they are. They'll probably have to spend the next two Parliaments to try and get back to the position of strength they are now in.

David Cameron must be pinching himself, he's taken control of the Conservatives with his dark secrets already exposed to the public, Tony Blair is on his way out, there's Labout disunity and now the Lib Dems are throwing away their biggest asset.

11:09 / 07.01.06

The rebel Lib dems really have behaved in foolish and irresponsible manner.

Particularly as those rebels don't have the stomach to stand against Kennedy directly in a leadership election. The reason for this is that any challenger would most likely lose against a leader who still has massive grass root support.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

11:40 / 07.01.06

Hah! Tim Wilcox, who is one of BBC News's wet and woolly types, has managed to land a heavy blow on MEP Chris Davies who is saying some nasty things about Kennedy, he's challenged him to name one time when he's known that Kennedy was too drunk to work as leader, there was a long pause before Davies was forced to admit he couldn't think of a specific time. Then he goes back to badmouthing Kennedy.

12:25 / 07.01.06

Listening to Any Answers, and getting fed up to the back teeth with people saying that he should go now, WITH DIGNITY, and make way for the kind of leader that can lead of a party of 60+ MPs.

Unsurprisingly, none of these people seem to have any idea where this leader will actually come from.

12:37 / 07.01.06

The word is out- Kennedy is going to resign...

Page: (1)2 3