And Kennedy is down.

[sojourner]

I know people that have worked for him. .

Oh well that's damn handy isn't it?

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Oh well that's damn handy isn't it?

Yep, don't expect you to believe me (I wouldn't believe some random on the net if they said the same to back up an arguement) but it's fine. It's hard to argue about this situation when you've known about it as fact for quite some time but there's nothing in the papers that can concretly back up your assersations. It's the reason why I've not really bothered too before now...

 

[bristol_citizen]

Oh well that's damn handy isn't it?

So do you think that CK has not been drunk and a liability to colleagues then? Is this all a plot by the press and his enemies?

 

[sojourner]

So do you think that CK has not been drunk and a liability to colleagues then? Is this all a plot by the press and his enemies?

How did you formulate that response from what I've said? There are 3 points in your response, 2 of which I've not actually argued, merely questioned, and with good grounds, the 3rd being an imaginative reading of my original point. My original point was that I found it peculiar that CK and GB have the same addictions, and yet one gets the elbow from a party that isn't even in power, and the other is still in power - massive power. I'm not denying or condoning a 'drink problem' - my point is that there's a rather remarkable difference in treatment for 2 political leaders who are addicted to the same substance.

 

[bristol_citizen]

How did you formulate that response from what I've said? There are 3 points in your response, 2 of which I've not actually argued, merely questioned, and with good grounds, the 3rd being an imaginative reading of my original point. My original point was that I found it peculiar that CK and GB have the same addictions, and yet one gets the elbow from a party that isn't even in power, and the other is still in power - massive power. I'm not denying or condoning a 'drink problem' - my point is that there's a rather remarkable difference in treatment for 2 political leaders who are addicted to the same substance.

I think it's because one is a functioning alcoholic and the other isn't.

 

[sojourner]

I think it's because one is a functioning alcoholic and the other isn't.

Which one?

 

[_angel_]

I do feel sorry for Charles Kennedy and can't see any other potential leader really doing it for them..

.. however if the stuff in yesterdays Times is true... members of his own staff have locked him in his office when he's been too pissed to deliver a speech

 

[TAE]

How do you know he was pissed all the time? Where was that reported?

(Edit - oh, not directed at me)

And yeh - Bush - 'as far as we know' - not exactly convincing is it?

Have there been any serious reports to the contrary?

---

Btw, I think Blair should resign because he has lied regarding Iraq, and Bush should just resign.

 

[bristol_citizen]

Which one?

Which one's still got a job?

 

[Zinedine*]

So, who were the 32 bastards that knifed him in the back?

 

[Pilgrim]

I'm the last person to have a go at Charles kennedy for having a drink problem, I used to have one myself.

But if, as various reports seem to be saying, he is at time incapable of doing his job, then I can see why he had to go.

It's the same in any walk of life. If you turn up for work incapable of ding the job then your employers will probably get someone in who IS capable.

I don't especially like the way in which it has been done, but if he can't do the job he's paid for then I can see why he needed to step down.

 

[mr_eko]

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.

I don't find it perculiar at all they wanted him out and they were going to do whatever it took. They tried being nice before xmas but when that didn't work they got personal. If they thought Kennedy was up to the job then they would have kept all this quiet just like they've been doing for the last x years.

 

[Zinedine*]

As a Lib Dem activist, I'm really pissed off with how this has been handled. Why wait until he had started trying to sort out his problem before they stuck the knife in?

I've just seen the list of his colleagues who threatened to resign and it's quite laughable really. By stabbing Kennedy in the back, the orange book brigade have really shot themselves in the foot. It is now obvious that since the election thay have been behaving like little kids who couldnt get their own way.

A lot of them were really worried after the election that we were perceived as being too left wing by the soft tories in their constituencies. So they attempted a shift to the right. When the rank and file members refused to agree to this at conference they stamped their feet and started conspiring against Charlie. They set out to destroy the man. I think they were kind of hopeing that we would turn against Charlie at the spring conference, but that was gonna be unlikely.

No one had the guts to stand against kennedy when he called the leadership election, they knew who we would stick with.

Well, the orange book brigade have now ruined their chances of staging a coup. I think the party membership will start to turn on those who back stabbed him. Their best hope is for a caretaker leadership under Campbell, until Oaten comes of age. But I very much doubt this will happen. The only person to lead our party is Simon Hughes.

Under Hughes the party will probably shift to the left, so we can carry on picking up votes where we are doing well- the inner cities. Maybe Kramer and co will defect Cameron. I don't think it will be much of a loss!

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Excellent, I've been waiting to see what the grassroots really think about all this! How typical would you say your reaction to all this amongst party members?

 

[Isambard]

Looks like Oaten on the right versus Hughes(ironically!!) on the left of the field

I'd rather rim Anne Widdecombe than see that fucker Hughes leader of the party I vote for.

 

[Pilgrim]

I'd rather rim Anne Widdecombe than see that fucker Hughes leader of the party I vote for.

Your personal predilections are entirely your own affair.

And if they're all like that, I'd prefer to keep them that way.

 

[nino_savatte]

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?

Kennedy's drinking has always been a bit of an open secret.

 

[Hollis]

I've yet to find in the press the extent of kennedy's drinking. He's been sober for two months. But the point remins that it had effected his performance, and people had covered for him. I can see why that caused the loss in confidence as a leader.

 

[bristol_citizen]

But there are serious difficulties for even a third party in the 24/7 media age when it is led by a man who has been strikingly incapable of performing on important occasions. It was not just the failure to turn up for the budget on one occasion or poor performances on others. Colleagues of Mr Kennedy, colleagues who regard this sad finale to his leadership as a terrible tragedy, say there have been other incidents that have been hushed up. He is said to have been in such a bad state one Wednesday afternoon that he almost threw up in the middle of Prime Minister's Questions.
Andrew Rawnsley, Observer, 8 January 2006

Full story.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

As a Lib Dem activist, I'm really pissed off with how this has been handled. Why wait until he had started trying to sort out his problem before they stuck the knife in?

I've just seen the list of his colleagues who threatened to resign and it's quite laughable really. By stabbing Kennedy in the back, the orange book brigade have really shot themselves in the foot. It is now obvious that since the election thay have been behaving like little kids who couldnt get their own way.

A lot of them were really worried after the election that we were perceived as being too left wing by the soft tories in their constituencies. So they attempted a shift to the right. When the rank and file members refused to agree to this at conference they stamped their feet and started conspiring against Charlie. They set out to destroy the man. I think they were kind of hopeing that we would turn against Charlie at the spring conference, but that was gonna be unlikely.

No one had the guts to stand against kennedy when he called the leadership election, they knew who we would stick with.

Well, the orange book brigade have now ruined their chances of staging a coup. I think the party membership will start to turn on those who back stabbed him. Their best hope is for a caretaker leadership under Campbell, until Oaten comes of age. But I very much doubt this will happen. The only person to lead our party is Simon Hughes.

Under Hughes the party will probably shift to the left, so we can carry on picking up votes where we are doing well- the inner cities. Maybe Kramer and co will defect Cameron. I don't think it will be much of a loss!

I agree with you (and with Darren Redparty above) that this is about re-positioning the LibDems to the right. But I think you are wrong about a 'caretaker' - I think the putsch has already happened, and I think Ashdown on Today programme was clearly signalling that the 'coronation' of Campbell would consolidate it. It will be interesting to see if there is a 'grass roots' revolt and a contest that Hughes wins, but I think this is unlikely. We will finish with three parties all speaking even more indistinguishably to the same neo-liberal agenda.

 

[tobyjug]

But there are serious difficulties for even a third party in the 24/7 media age when it is led by a man who has been strikingly incapable of performing on important occasions. It was not just the failure to turn up for the budget on one occasion or poor performances on others. Colleagues of Mr Kennedy, colleagues who regard this sad finale to his leadership as a terrible tragedy, say there have been other incidents that have been hushed up. He is said to have been in such a bad state one Wednesday afternoon that he almost threw up in the middle of Prime Minister's Questions.Andrew Rawnsley, Observer, 8 January 2006

PMQs often has that effect on me, it doesn't need the ingestion of any alcohol.

 

[Isambard]

What is the POINT of moving the Lib-Dems in a more neo-liberal direction?
Purely to protect some MPs who fear their voters might desert to the Tories?


I might as well say it now publicly: I vote Lib Dem. If the party moves to the right and particuarly if that snake Hughes gets the leadership, I won't be voting for them in the future.

Seeing as I won't Labour while Blair is around that will leave me in the "no vote" camp with the scary baby eating anarchists!

 

[Wolveryeti]

.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I might as well say it now publicly: I vote Lib Dem. If the party moves to the right and particuarly if that snake Hughes gets the leadership, I won't be voting for them in the future.

So what you're saying then is you're not voting for them any longer? Imo, either Hughes will win (unlikely going by the lates odds) or the party will drift to the right. I really can't see any of the likely candidates being able to pull off a Kennedy middle ground position.

 

[Wolveryeti]

Save your money, Opik has about as much chance of becoming leader as Charles Kennedy has, which is no chance.

Lembit is the Daddy. I've been very impressed with what I've seen of him so far. Clear speaker, throroughly decent chap. Best name in politics. Shame.
The Libdem backstabbers seem to be labouring under the delusion that theyr'e a proper, serious party which needs policies to get them into power and they simply aren't. They're a protest party, and as such they need likeable figureheads, not dullards like those being lined up to replace Kennedy. They're going to get shafted at the next elections.

 

[Isambard]

So what you're saying then is you're not voting for them any longer?

Well if that is what's going to happen, then correct. I won't be voting for them any longer.

 

[TAE]

Isambard - What is your problem with Hughes?

 

[Isambard]

Isambard - What is your problem with Hughes?

Bermondsey.

He went straight, for Tatchell's jugular.

 

[nino_savatte]

Bermondsey.

He went straight, for Tatchell's jugular.

This is something that I find hard to forget: the smear campaign run on behalf of Hughes by his party. Hughes is a weasel, full stop.

 

[tobyjug]

Bermondsey.

He went straight, for Tatchell's jugular.

Surely that is something in his favour.