Lib Dem Leadership

Many of you will know that I am not the biggest fan of the Liberal Democrats, and I don't think that Charles Kennedy would make a good PM. But you've got to give credit where it's due, and I respect his honesty in admitting his drink problem. It's also got to be noted that the party did get its best election result under his leadership.

My opinion of the party as a whole however has not budged an inch from rock bottom given the way that many of the members are handling the issue and not showing him any support. I think that some of the BBC Have Your Say comments have put it better than I could.

"The Lib Dems who have signed against Charles Kennedy have signed their own political death warrants. He led the party to win the most seats they had in years, yet when he admits to a problem, they all want him out. They have no idea about alcoholism if they cannot empathsise with what he has had to do yesterday. Alcoholics are usually the last to know they have a problem."

"This whole episode just goes to show how 'liberal' and 'tolerant' the Liberal Democrats really are."

Comments

Anonymous said…
Well I have to say, it's a good thing for the party he's gone anyway. I'm no lib dem, but it was obvious to see he was never going to be PM, you said it yourself. I think Mark Oaten or "Ming" Campbell have a much better chance. Charlie C was a good thing for the liberals (best post-war election results etc), but he's had his day. I don't know if you remember last summer when he missed several very important debates and good chances to have a go at Tony, but he was "unavailable" on several occasions, hmm...

The only bad thing I can see is that he did the honourable thing in owning up, and said he hadn't drunk for 2 months, which is pretty impressive for an ex-alcoholic and shows great willpower. Time will tell whether it was solely the ambition of his underlings that kicked him out.

I don't know. I've read several comment pieces about this, and most of the better ones have seen his demise as a good thing. I don't think it's "illiberal" for the party to get rid of him, and I *definitely* think it wasn't just because of his alcoholism; there were many other underlying reasons for getting a new leader; I reiterate, CK was never going to be PM was he...

Let's see if they can build on the new leader; the next general election will be interesting, three new leaders :)
Sun Jan 08, 12:16:00 AM GMT
Anonymous said…
It was hardly a pang of honesty that caused Kennedy to confess all - the papers were poised to reveal deails of his drinking problem, and he responded in the best and only way, by announcing it before it could be broadcast in the press. However, to laud his honesty because of this is ridiculous. He has lied many times in the past, on this and other issues, and I doubt he would have made the announcement he did if he hadn't been forced. I just hope that the infighting in the party will engulf and destroy it. It is also amusing to note that none of the other candidates for the leadership have even as much charisma as Kennedy!
Mon Jan 09, 10:02:00 AM GMT
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

the purpose of religion

One of the things which featured in the recent debate on this post is the idea that “religion should be about improving oneself”. This has got me thinking; ‘religion’ of course takes many forms, but in the vast majority of cases I disagree with this. To paraphrase MarkC, religion is certainly something which as a by-product might help with “improving oneself”, but however you measure self-improvement it is not the sole point, certainly not in the Judeo-Christian case. In fact, if your sole aim is to “improve yourself”, why waste your time playing around with the trappings of religion? Most religions are based around the idea of faith in God, and that, surely, is the point. Considering Christianity specifically, Jesus said “ Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself ” and so ‘religion’ should not be in danger of becoming all about wo...
Read more

atheism is a matter of faith, not science: the debate continues

Following the letters page in last Wednesday's Metro and the follow-up comment on this post I’m pleased to see that the beginnings of a debate are brewing, and I intend to use this post to pick up the baton again. Unsurprisingly, I’m going to start by responding to the aforementioned comment. I apologise if my tone was deemed to be a bit sharp, but I have no hesitation in defending the point I was trying to make. According to dictionary.com , faith can be defined as “belief that is not based on proof.” As there is no proof that God does not exist, belief that God does not exist (i.e. atheism) must be faith. Now, I take your point that “as human beings we are always revising and fine tuning what we hold to be true based on the evidence to hand, what we discover and our ability to determine what is probable or improbable.” To digress slightly, that is why switching on the Large Hadron Collider is going to be something of a milestone, as it could eit...
Read more

milk and sugar?

I've been debating with my housemate as to whether tea or coffee is more popular world-wide. We've both done quick web-searches, and we've both got results to match our different claims. I say tea, he says coffee. So, to settle the debate, it's down to you. Do you prefer tea or coffee? Please leave a comment below - one word is all it takes.
Read more