Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

And Kennedy is down.

Looks like some of the less power-hungry lib-dems are manouvering to have Ming Campbell in as a "caretaker".
 
editor said:
His mates sure couldn't wait to stick in the boot once he'd admitted to his problem...

That's politics for you.

Those so-called mates are probably thinking 'The King is dead, long live the King'.

As long as they are the one wearing the crown.
 
Who do you want to be leader next folks?

Looks like Oaten on the right versus Hughes(ironically!!) on the left of the field
 
editor said:
His mates sure couldn't wait to stick in the boot once he'd admitted to his problem...


It does rather make one wonder what would have happened if it was an illegal drug problem and not an alcohol one. (I suspect the reaction here on U75 would have been somewhat different).
 
tobyjug said:
It does rather make one wonder what would have happened if it was an illegal drug problem and not an alcohol one. (I suspect the reaction here on U75 would have been somewhat different).

maybe not
 
editor said:
His mates sure couldn't wait to stick in the boot once he'd admitted to his problem...
To be fair, most of them did wait and wait until he finally admitted his problem.
 
tobyjug said:
It does rather make one wonder what would have happened if it was an illegal drug problem and not an alcohol one. (I suspect the reaction here on U75 would have been somewhat different).

I'd say the "reaction" on here has been quite sympathetic, why would it be any different if it was a drug problem?
 
editor said:
His mates sure couldn't wait to stick in the boot once he'd admitted to his problem...
Indeed. An unedifying spectacle from the Liberals.

The funny bit is they have nobody with the recognition factor Kennedy had. :D
 
what this is about is less kennedys personal failings and far more the libdems need to reposition themselves as a potential partner to a tory led coalition following the failiure of the previous tactic of aiming to be the junior partner in a minority labour government.
Unfortunately kennedy and ashdown before him failed to realise just how far to the right new labour were to go and thus found themselves appealing to many who were on the left of the blair govt. This has made much of the leading figures of the libdems very uncomfortable as the last thing they want is political principles that might impede their chances of political maneuvering and coalition politics.
even before the last election there were moves around the 'orange book' in order to reset the libdems as free market liberals and the way in which the libdems won more votes from dissafected labour voters and not from tories, who it was argued were put off by the anti war, higher taxes rhetoric from the libdem front bench.
There were also fears that the anti war people who had voted lib dem might actually jion the libdems and be a impediment to the opportunist swinging from left to right that is liberal politics.
 
Hughes will definitely be one candidate, though as party President (and therefore responsible for the running of the election) he'd have to stand aside from the post at least temporarily. He's hugely popular amongst the members I believe and polled 43% in the last election when Kennedy won.

The others? I don't believe Oaten, Cable etc will stand a chance against Hughes. The only one who could give him a proper fight would be Menzies Campbell I reckon.
 
nino_savatte said:
My money is on Lembit Opik, who seems to have more personality than Oaten and Hughes.

Save your money, Opik has about as much chance of becoming leader as Charles Kennedy has, which is no chance.
 
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it really fucking peculiar that the leader of a UK party that isn't actually in power gets the boot for the same addiction that the cunt who runs America has? Although I can see a distinction between a dry drunk and a recovering alcoholic - it's a verrrry small one. :confused:
 
sojourner said:
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it really fucking peculiar that the leader of a UK party that isn't actually in power gets the boot for the same addiction that the cunt who runs America has? Although I can see a distinction between a dry drunk and a recovering alcoholic - it's a verrrry small one. :confused:
He didn't get the boot because the Lib-Dems had some moral problem with alchohol or alchoholism. He was sacked because it was increasingly impossible to work with him because he was drunk so much.
Most people presented with a permanently pissed boss or colleague would eventually do the same.
It's the old adage about when your problem becomes someone else's problem then they can act. Personally, I don't care what people do or consume but if their doing this started to adversely affect my work, life, home or family then I'd do something about it. Why should their problem affect me?
 
sojourner said:
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it really fucking peculiar that the leader of a UK party that isn't actually in power gets the boot for the same addiction that the cunt who runs America has? Although I can see a distinction between a dry drunk and a recovering alcoholic - it's a verrrry small one. :confused:
The difference is that Bush made it very plain from the start that he is an alcoholic, and has (as far as we know) been dry for decades.

IMO Kennedy should either have said that he never talks about personal health issues or he should have said that he has seen professionals regarding his drinking and it's under control.
 
How do you know he was pissed all the time? Where was that reported?

And yeh - Bush - 'as far as we know' - not exactly convincing is it?
 
sojourner said:
How do you know he was pissed all the time? Where was that reported?

And yeh - Bush - 'as far as we know' - not exactly convincing is it?
Newsnight on Thursday night referred to at least 3 occasions when he was pissed and unable to perform duties. The press is also focussing a lot on that press conference at the general election where he looked and sounded pissed.
All those unusual 'illnesses' at conference and in the commons begin to make sense now too.
 
Oh my god, at LEAST 3? :rolleyes: I'm not condoning alcoholism, but none of us really know how bad it was do we?

Doesn't take owt away from the fact that 2 people with the same addiction get treated in hugely different ways though does it?
 
I don't think it's the frequency it the critical timing of it. Also people being on edge all the time because they don't know if he going to turn up drunk and fuck things up publicly can't be a nice enviroment to work in....
 
But how do you KNOW he's turned up drunk? You don't, not really - oh yeh, references on newsnight - they're not hard evidence though really are they?

Critical timing? Hmm. Expand?
 
sojourner said:
But how do you KNOW he's turned up drunk? You don't, not really - oh yeh, references on newsnight - they're not hard evidence though really are they?

Critical timing? Hmm. Expand?

I know people that have worked for him. Critical timing like the budget report a couple of years back would be one.
 
Back
Top Bottom