Will Charles’s great gamble work?
January 5th, 2006
-
William Hills make him only second favourite for his own job
An evening of excitement following Charles Kennedy’s dramatic announcement about his drink problem and his desire for another contest has thrown open the betting.
This complicated by the fact that the main markets that exist are on who will be the NEXT leader - not who will win this latest contest.
William Hill have just announced a market on who will win this contest. On this Kennedy has been installed as 5/2 second favourite to win with Menzies Campbell 5/4 favourite to emerge as Party Leader as a result of the contest. Other prices are 5/1 Simon Hughes; 8/1 Ed Davey; 10/1 Nick Clegg; Mark Oaten; 20/1 David Laws; 33/1 Vince Cable; Lembit Opek; 100/1 Sara Teather.
The danger for Kennedy is that there will be a media open season in the next few days which could produce highly damaging stories about past behaviour.
-
The question is bound to be asked that he put himself forward at the last General Election as a potential Prime Minster in the knowledge that he had this problem. He has also repeatedly lied about his condition.
On the betting so many issues need to be resolved. Will other Lib Dem MPs put themselves up against him. What is the view of the party membership - do they back him in the way that Kennedy believes they do?
Let’s hope that there will be an opinion poll of members in the next few days. My understanding is that YouGov has a list of known member who could be included in a poll.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Sky News: Campbell said he won’t stand
Really, Where?
Personally I think this great gambit is doomed to failure. He has betrayed the trust of so many, and even if he wins he wil have a VERY discontented party to deal with.
The overall polling effect of this in my view is for a 2% drop for the LDs, because if Kennedy wins he is seen as wounded or as a liar, and if he looses the LD alternatives are Campell(The Lib Dem answer to Malcom Rifkind) or Hughes, a leftie who wil loose disaffected a Tories liking the look of Cameron’s Conservatives.
Simon Hughes wants to wait until after the May elections to hold the leadership election. Not a good idea IMHO. I think the Lib Dems need to lance the boil quickly rather than let the whole issue fester.
Correction:
On this Kennedy has been installed as 5/2 second favourite to win with to emerge as Party Leader as a result of the contest. Other prices are: 8/1 Ed Davey; 10/1 Nick Clegg; 20/1 David Laws; 33/1 Vince Cable; 100/1 Sara Teather.
And it OPIK!
Andrew George sounded on the defensive on SkyNews. He certainly didn’t help himself.
As far as Charles Kennedy’s personal issues are concerned, I’ve been there, done that and got the T-shirt. I haven’t had an alcoholic drink for 8 years, and as I listened to his personal statement my admiration for his courage grew. It was in the circumstances the only possible statement to make.
As a Scot, he doubtless wanted to get through a sober Hogmanay before anything else - I can assure you from the bottom of my heart that there is all the difference in the world between stopping drinking on your own for a short while and admitting to having a problem and seeking help. If there wasn’t, the Government wouldn’t have an Alcohol Strategy. But it does, and there is.
As for his Party, they don’t need my advice. I happen to think that if anyone stands against him now they will destroy themselves. Kennedy believes that he can both deal with his “drinking problem” (I think those were the words he used) and lead his Party. If he can’t do the first, I’m sure he won’t try to do the second. That would be the time to have a “real” leadership election.
I don’t propose to post on the site on this subject again to-night - but I shall be contactable by e-mail this evening if anyone would like to know more about why I have posted in these terms - mikekillingworth@ntlworld.com
Simon Hughes has used the President/Chairman of the party excuse to dodge a question on Channel 4 about whether he would stand. Doesn’t look like he will anyway though.
The only thing to stop Kennedy now would be if he did not get the 7 MPs required to nominate him. He’s already got at least 4 if those who have given him full support on the media do so, so it looks like Charlie has got away with it, and with lying to the public.
Oaten and Campbell have both said they won’t stand. Hughes has refused to rule himself out. Has Hemming said anything? I’ve noticed he’s been stealthily moving up in the betting recently - possible dark/stalking horse?
The question though, IA, is whether his “drink problem” was exacerbated by his job? 2 months, in which he has had to make no major speeches or House of Commons appearances is not, surely, a very long time.
What happens when he has to respond to the budget again?
8 - good thinking Daniel. Or the major players have said they won’t stand against Kennedy. They desperately need him to be fatally wounded, and forced to resign.
10 - however the need for 7 nominations is a major stumbling block to any stalking horse. The LibDems have advanced so far (in terms of MPs) so fast, that there are likely to be few MPs prepared to risk their careers.
Charlie has ZERO chance of staying on. Even standing for leader reduces his credibility to nil. I’m surprised that all the political experts on this site can think anything else. How could he appear on any future political program without having to answer completely unanswerable questions?
Ming is a very good bet.
Having said all that ….poor Charlie. I’ve always thought him a poor leader but tonight I feel sorry for him
11. Will CK get 7 nominations?
Hughes on Sky saying the ones who want CK to go are a minority.
IMHO the key player in all this is now Hughes. As he pointed out on C4 News, as Party President, he’s actually in charge of the leadership selection process and has said he will be in consultation with party colleagues in the days ahead. Norman Baker and others have been less than unequivocal supporters of Kennedy in public appearances tonight - the support for a challenger is there for the taking.
At least this will knock David Cameron off the news
I think the disloyal gits like Campbell, Hughes etc will now rot in their own juices. I think Kennedy’s pulled off a masterstroke. For all his failings, he still looks better than most of the muppets on the liberal benches. The public love someone who fights the odds, pulls through adversity, comes clean about failings. The party (as liberals) must shurely forgive his misdemeanours. My money is most definitely on him pulling through, despite what Adam Boulton et al are saying.
16. Thank God, I would say. I started to have a Cameron overdose!
My heart goes out to Charles Kennedy and his family.
13. I think he can bank on Oaten and Opik, and probably the ’stop Hughes’ camp. Can somebody please tell me more about the mysterious John Hemming and his prospects?
Nevermind the statements of support tonight from top Lib Dems. Openings like this don’t come to often and I fully expect that a few of them will run against Kennedy in the up comming leadership contest.
So is it up to Hughes rather than CK whether there is an election or not? Hughes may say no - no election unless you resign first, Charlie.
I would be interested in seeing Chris Huhne puyt himself forward for leader. I appreciate it is probably too soon, although he does have the MEP experience.
The main reason I go for him was because of his performance at a hustings for potential Euro candidates oh so long ago. The event was just so very very boring, understandably so as there was little dissent. However Chris Huhne was head and shoulders above everyone else and was really interesting. It was a breath of fresh air.
To put this in context Susan Kramer was also pitching for support at the hustings and frankly was with the also rans behind Chris. Since then she (in my opinion) very impressively stood for Mayor of London and Richmond. So I even more suspect that it wasn’t her performance that was poor, but that Chris’s was just so good (and so much better) that night.
He also has a very good CV and built up Abingdon (although I don’t know how much was down to him or his team) to become a target and then a LD seat after he left. Although I don’t know why he left it after it became so winnable.
On another topic with the new format the posting numbers get truncated (for me anyway!). So I see the posting numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 but then I get 0, 1, 2, 3 etc. i.e. I only get the ‘unit’ digit of the posting number. Any ideas please?
It would be high risk but I wonder if CK might try and persuade 7 MPs to stand. It’s strongly in his favour to give the membership an opportunity to express their opinions on his leadership (assuming they’re overwhelmingly in favour). He could get a friendly MP to stand as a mechanism for creating a de facto “Confidence vote” among the membership.
*persuade 7 MPs to nominate someone to stand
Hemming for Leader! Run Hemming, Run!
20.” Can somebody please tell me more about the mysterious John Hemming? ”
If CK likes drinking too much, Hemming likes women a bit too much:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/18/nhemm18.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/18/ixhome.html
If CK win the elction surely those 11 members of the Lib Dem ’shadow’ cabinet who signed the letter saying they have no confidence in him cant poccibly stay in post.
21. Such barefaced cynicism wouldn’t reflect well on such MPs if they were so openly disloyal.
22. I’m not too sure as I’m not too hot on Liberal Democrat matters but judging by Hughes’s performance on C4 News, he wants to create the impression that he’s the one holding all the cards.
27. Thanks for the link. Having taken a look, he stands no chance as he would clearly frighten the horses. How on earth did he get so high in the betting (the prices for which have mysteriously disappeared - is Smithson on the case?)?
28. Even Gordon allegedly couldn’t believe any word coming from Tony, but he’s still there.
The CK position is built on three lies:
1. I’ve been brave in making this statement. Fact. He was forced to do so by the certainty of imminent outing.
2. I can’t answer any questions because of the personal nature of this statement. Fact. Alcoholism is not a personal matter for a leader of a political party. It directly affects public performance.
3. This courtesy of the absurd Lembit Opik. Noone should have the’gall’ to stand against CK after his brave statement. What a complete prat!
However, the feeble 11 who signed the letter and didn’t deliver it(presumably CK and the Chief Whip knew about it!) have been shown up as utterely feeble ‘letting I dare not wait upon I would like the poor cat i’ the adage’ If no one from the Parliamentary Party stands they will be shown as a bunch of cowardly to**ers. What should happen is that the MPs demand a ballot before the contest starts so that CK is forced out. If there is a ‘coronation’( not exactly the mot juste in the circumstances) I foresee further trouble after DC makes significant gains at the local elections at the LD’s expense. But if CK has just been re-elected by the membership the LDs will be stuck with him until 2009. This is what you get if you freeze out MPs from a role in electing a Leader.
How on earth did he get so high in the betting (the prices for which have mysteriously disappeared - is Smithson on the case?)?
He’s not quoted in a two-way market (e.g. Betfair), so it doesn’t mean very much. I mean, the bookies could quote 6/4 against Sarah Teather if they liked; they wouldn’t lose money, they just wouldn’t take any bets.
21 - In the same way as several Tory MPs turned down the chance to be Prime Minister?
How did this mysterious letter become public knowledge?
Interesting that most of the “letter-signers” are of the 1997/2001 intake. Presumably they would want a leadership election before the 2005 intake get established?
Btw, Andrew Price’s article in The Times about the letter contains a big mistakes. It reads:
“They included Sarah Teather, 31, who shadows John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, who in 2003 won a shock by-election in the former Labour stronghold of Brent East after the resignation of London Mayor Ken Livingstone.”
Someone should tell him about Paul Daisley!
My (already low) opinion of Ming Cambell has sunk even lower with his decision not to stand against CK after seemingly being the lead orchestrator of last month’s disruption.
Hughes also sounded shifty and unconvincing on Channel 4 News this evening.
Very early days, and my knowledge of the LibDems ‘pulse’ is negligble for obvious reasons, but isn’t there every chance that no MP will stand against Kennedy, and he will be returned nem con. And then what…
16 - who’s paul daisley?
Come on people you can hardly blame the dozen or so Lib MP’s for asking Charlie to go. What else could they have done? They knew he had been completely useless for the last several months and more to the point they KNEW he had a serious drink problem but didn’t make it public. The only Lib Dem who strikes me as behaving badly is Charlie himself. It’s sad that he has a problem but now it’s been revealed he should bow out with dignity
38 - Livinstone’s Labour successor as MP who died shortly thereafter thus causing the by-election
18. Alex, Brent East MP from 2001 to 2003. His death was the cause of the by-election Teather won.
31. “This is what you get if you freeze out MPs from a role in electing a Leader.”
Err- there just needs to be 7 MPs to propose one other to stand - how is that freezing the MPs out?
42 - you’ve misunderstood the point
Well, the worst-kept secret at Westminster is now finally public. At least it pushes Commie-ron out of the news.
Personally I wich CK every strength in dealing with his problem.
Politically, this contest should be about where the party needs to go and whether his performance as leader has been sufficient. From the MPs view this is not directly about his drink problem, but about whether (and how) that has affected his ability to do his job. I am glad to see that some media discussion has been on this issue.
I have just looked at the runners and riders in the Guardian and I’m going to see if I can put a bet on Clegg or Campbell. sarah Tether would be the way to go but I suspect that’s not a view shared by Lib Dems. I agree with Tabman that this isn’t about drink. It’s about Kennedy being a useless leader. He has chosen to make it about drink possibly to get some sympathy. Too cynical for my taste. It’s about half his party thinking he’s not up to the job and that’s fatal for a leader in whatever party
It’s somewhat disturbing the attempts to drown out anyone who suggests alcoholism should be a great impediment to top political office. Just quoting Churchill back will not do. There may have been many alcoholics holding political office throughout history, but probably all have performed worse for it. At least many have had the excuse of seriously high pressure jobs.
“sarah Tether would be the way to go but I suspect that’s not a view shared by Lib Dems.”
Why do you think she would be “the way to go”?
Roger 39 - I agree completely. One of the reasons that I have been so hostile to CK is that I was told about his problem some time ago by a very senior figure in the party who did not have an axe to grind. I’ve been amazed that Kennedy knowing his condition has been prepared to continue with the leadership. I find it extraordinary that even now, after having his admission forced out of him because of an ITV report, he considers himself able to lead the party.
Alan. MPs only get one vote each; the same as ordinary Party members. The LDs now have a situation in which MPs won’t be able to express a collective view which can at least be taken into account by the membership.
Personally I don’t think a sitting leader should be allowed to put himself forward for Leader unless he has received the confidence of his MPs first, otherwise you may well get a re-elected Leader who has lost the cofidence of his MPs. The only circumstances when a Leader would issue a’ back me or sack me’ challenge is when there was considerable doubt about whether MPs continued to support a Leader; the situation with CK now. When Major pulled this trick he took matters to his MPs and nearly went because he felt he hadn’t got sufficiently strong backing.
Still it’s not my Party and if LD supporters are happy with the situation that’s their privilege. If CK survives and the LDs do well in May I will have egg on my face. I will not be alone!
48 - Mike, do you favour Simon Hughes this time as you did in 1999?
48.”One of the reasons that I have been so hostile to CK is that I was told about his problem some time ago by a very senior figure in the party who did not have an axe to grind”
Like Tabman said it was one of the worst kept Westminster secrets.
Kennedy has tried to turn the leadership issue into a vote on whether Liberal Democrats are sympathetic towards a recovering alcoholic. This may turn out to be clever politics, but the MPs and party members need to ask themselves where a Kennedy re-election would leave them. Going nowhere, not very fast, is the only honest answer.
BV She’s young and she’s a woman (obviously!). She’s also articulate and if you believe as I do that a Lib Dem vote is a vote ‘against’ rather than ‘for’ she might be the perfect recepticle for the dissafected. As unpolitical as Charlie and nice with it.
(PS. What did you say to me about my useless predictions the other day!!)
I`m not neccesarily disgreeing with your premise about his performance in fromt of the media this evening or about his good , earnest approach towards his constituency duties ( which exemplify the strength of the LD`s as a parliamentary party making them notoriously hard to unseat - to my mind one of the biggest challenges for Cameron ) ..
However in the last 22 years the world has moved on and his type of `cordouroy politics ` do not compare well either with the Tories Notting Hill set or what will most likely be a Labour Party machine under Gordon Brown with Ed Balls providing the youth .
Suspect if a poll of LD MP`s was held Hughes would be well down the list of candidates particularly amonst the sophisticates such as Davey or Cable - the difficulty is when it comes to a poll of Party Members Hughes is immensely popular but as with all these things it will get nasty and I will be surprised if Hughes prevails ..
53 - (PS. What did you say to me about my useless predictions the other day!!)
It’s not over yet…
Anyway, I think Sarah has plenty of potential but isn’t ready for the leadership yet.
BV 50. Simon’s problem is that he has less support amongst his fellow MPs than even Charles and I do think that a leadership has to be supported by the parliamentary party. We saw what happened with the Tories and IDS when that did not happen.
I like Ed Davey and Chris Huhne. Sarah Teather is just too young though Lynne Featherstone looks promising but this is too early for her. I am less impressed than many with Nick Clegg. Oaten? - some days I like him but other days he just appears lightweight.
I think Campbell as a short-term solution might be OK as would Vince Cable.
53.”she’s a woman (obviously!).”
Roger, yes, and so?
Mike Smithson This all may knock Dave down the news list for a while but it is certainly all doing his work for him.
When he next calls on LibDem voters to join us Tories they may feel less loyalty to a party that cannot even organise an efficent leadership coup. Where the leader misleads on a vital matter. A party whose ’shadow cabinet’ is so clear and committed that they re-rat as soon as they smell the powder. A party where its senior politicians put themselves into an easy checkmate at the beginning of the game.
As I suggest on the earlier thread, unless the adults get a grip soon this could descend beyond farce into political tradegy with unknown consequences for the political ecosystem.
Its already a personal tradegy but soft pedalling will not make that any less and will certainly make the politics worse.
I draw attention to the nature of what a liberal MP is.
Are there any liberals who have the courage to stand against their leader?
Are there liberals who will continue their cowardly back stabbing?
This is, however, a very clever move. BY submitting himself to the grassroots, he can only be beaten if a big beast stands against him. If the MPs voted them the malcontents could vote for a stalking horse to wound him. However, against most LibDem MPs Kennedy would still win. Kennedy versus Teather, Clegg et al and he would win. By not going for it Campbell, Hughes and Oaten may well miss their chance - period, because once he’s won then he can be secure for the rest of this parliament.
Seen as Campbell and Oaten have both been gutless, it’ll have to be Hughes or nobody. Unless CK quits before then … but would could an MP say now to make him resign given then strenght of his position?
Unless, of course, 11 of them threaten to quit the LibDem frontbench and then what?
I would be very surprised if Charlie doesn’t see the writing on the wall and quit either tomorrow or over the week-end. Surely if he can’t see it himself the men in brown sandals will put him right
How many Lib Dems posting here have defended CK against opponents and on the doorstep re drinking allegations?
How are we supposed to react now?
How can CK ever do a Paxman interview again without being asked “you lied before, why should I believe you now”?
This is fantastic stuff. It is quite simply amazing that not only is Charlie damaged goods beyond repair, the LibDems now look increasingly like they might be stuck with him until the next election, or until he falls off the wagon again. As every day passes, I am becoming more and more convinced that Lady Luck has finally decided to smile on the Conservative Party again. Everything is going our way once more, and were only a month in the new era.
sorry, “we’re”
61- Roger,you haven’t replied to my question about you pointing out Teather is a woman.
Maybe I should articulate it better. You seem to indicate that just because she’s a woman, she sould gain some points (but I could point out that Widdy and Clare Short are women too, but no-one would dare to propose them as leaders of their parties!).
So maybe you wanted to say she’s a woman with some qualities. If so, which ones?
My God, my initial reaction - apart from CK is finished as a political leader, probably soon but certainly soonish - is how could someone with that level of problem even get through the build-up and conduct of a General Election campaign. OK, he wasn’t sparkling but post-birth of baby aside he wasn’t bumbling.
66 (?) - he’d clearly had an heavy night (for whatever reason) when he faced that early morning question about his party’s tax plans!
Kennedy has committed political suicide. Who replaces him is a different matter. My instinct is that many Lib Dem MP’s will want to unite around one candidate ot avoid further damaging the party. However most top candidates are too cowardly to take on Kennedy possibly out of fear of defeat which would undoubtedly destroy their career. This means I wouldnt be too surprised if one of the second tier candidates emerges as Kennedy’s opponent. Maybe Norman Lamb?
Time Gentlemen Purrrrleeeze!
Aintchagotnowwomes tergoeterr?!
Oh *****! Tone’s called time on closing time. Looks like a long night ahead?
Nick Harvey is not backtracking. He’s saying that CK’s position is unsustainable. He’d make a possible stalking horse, faute de mieux.
Funny thing is that Harvey was once talked about as Ashdown’s ‘annointed successor’. Can’t remember what happened.
Interesting developments tonight. I will try to repeat my previously acclaimed dispassionate view of the Lib Dem leadership woes.
Firstly, one would not be human if one did not feel some sympathy for any man who has been forced to describe and explain his own private failings in public. Particularly someone who is such a high profile figure. Whether he was forced into it by ITN or chose to do it of his own free will it cant have been easy. The rumours of his “ill health” had been sweeping around Westminster and the media for some time now and some sort of revelation was inevitable in time.
That said (!) we now know that he has directly lied to a number of people on a number of occasions. There are numerous interviews (not least with Jeremy Paxman) where CK expressly denied alcohol problems or receiving any treatment or professional help on the matter. The more charitable may take the view that denial is a characteristic of alcoholism but this will merely serve to underline for many the unsuitability of the man for high office or leadership of a political party. Anyone who has known an alcoholic (as I have) knows that two months is a very short time for someone with a problem to stay “clean”. George Best managed over 12 months prior to his liver transplant but then reverted to the bottle. Someone once said to me that you cannot cure alcoholism but merely control it on a day to day basis. Whether or not that is totally true, the consequences of alcoholism render anyone considerably less fit to make judgements and deal with difficult situations. If CK is serious about quitting the drink the best thing he could do is immediately resign as leader and use the time with his family and friends (and maybe professional help) to get himself in a position where he is less likely to revert at a time of stress.
Secondly, by doing what he has done, CK has undoubtedly pronounced his own political end. Whether he survives through the contest or whether he is forced out earlier, his end as leader is now eminently visible. I can see no way that he will lead the Lib Dems into the next General Election. He is a wounded figure with severe question marks over his own character and past honesty. He also has questions over his future ability to deal with problems and personalities as they arise. The pressure of a General Election clearly told on him and can his party (much as they may like him) have confidence that he has what it takes to lead them into another? The more reflective Lib Dems I know consider the last election a missed opportunity and are hungry for a real break through at the next. Kennedy now simply cannot do that for them IMHO.
Finally, I ask you to consider the similarities and differences with David Cameron’s position over personal drug use in the past. Many posters suggested that if he had in any way lied he would be finished and relished in the prospect of a national newspaper publishing pictures of him at a party snorting coke or something equally damaging. Cameron stuck to a line of refusing to comment on the past and denying any current use. I agree that if he is shown to have lied he is probably finished, so why is Kennedy any different?
In my previous reflective posting I suggested that the Lib Dems were best keeping CK for the time being and having a leadership contest in a year or two. After today’s events I now think that the Lib Dems best interest is now served by a rapid departure and rapid replacement. Who that should be heaven only knows. I would think that the worst scenario for the Lib Dems is now the most likely, that Kennedy survives wounded until after the local elections in May.
It will be fascinating to see if anyone does challenge him and which sides people take in the contest. I would predict a win for CK!
Either way it is good news for David Cameron and the Tories. I expect Cameron will go a little silent for a while to ensure that Kennedy’s woes are not in any way overshadowed.
Nick Harvey is the only sane voice tonight; arguing as he is for an immediate vote of MPs to force out CK and open up the contest. He thinks this ‘may well happen’. So do I. Can CK block this procedurally? Does anyone know the rules?
72.”Either way it is good news for David Cameron and the Tories.”
Could I remember that there’s another party too: the Labour Party!?
I’m sorry for Kennedy - he must have had a pretty rough time. I don’t think the ‘lying’ charge is very serious - I don’t feel that people asked by journalists whether they have a health problem can be expected to be entirely candid. Nobody thought he was about to be PM so that bit is spurious.
There are worse things for parties than having a leadership election, as we’ve just seen. A couple of months chewing over the relative merits of different LibDems will give them an unusual airing. It’s difficult to see CK still being their leader at the next election, though.
You can just imagine a someone dressed as a six-foot rabbit following poor Charlie around the campaign trail with a glass of scotch. He can’t last out.
76 - Jack W?
77 - that got one of today’s rare laughs from me…
Where is Jack? Back on his estates?
“You can just imagine a someone dressed as a six-foot rabbit ”
especially if you’ve quaffed a dram or two yourself?
My first reaction is that a newly recovering alcoholic cannot be a candidate for prime minister. And with such a massive list calling for his resignation within his own shadow cabinet he cannot be credible.
And yet Ming and Mark Oaten have ruled themselves out. And unlike the Tories there’s no second round. Unless Kennedy’s persuaded that he cannot stand, allowing Ming and Mark to put themselves forward, it’s hard to see how two of the man contenders can stand without breaking a pledge. All of which gives Kennedy a chance of pulling this off.
Anyone else has to get seven nominations. There would appear to be enough rebels for a stalking horse, but no way for the real contenders to get into play without Kennedy first pulling out. This is where we see the wisdom of the Tory multiple round contests.
Much as I respect Innocent Abroad’s analysis on a personal level -and Innocent himself for telling us about his own problems, and for staying dry for so long - the Liberal Democrats paint themselves as the white guys of politics. Kennedy loses a lot of credibility for having denied having a problem so many times. And it’s that much harder for a Lib Dem than a Tory to break a pledge not to stand. Actually, as a Lib Dem candidate at the last election, I’d always naively believed his assurances, as party loyalists do. I feel let down myself - not an emotion I feel very often.
I think there is likely to be a stalking horse, who will then emerge as a major leadership contender, a bit like John Redwood. Ed Davey or Norman Baker perhaps? Then it might be Kennedy versus Hughes versus stalking horse. Under pressure from the press, and any hostile polls of party members, Kennedy may yet be persuaded to pull out. In that case we then get a straight contest between all realistic contenders.
Alternatively, Ming may break his pledge. That too might push Kennedy out of the contest.
But it still looks possible that either Kennedy will be the only candidate. Or it’ll be Kennedy versus stalking horse and Kennedy wins. Or even, Kennedy beats one of the main contenders, partly because Ming (or whoever) is so damaged by being seen as an assassin. But a surviving Kennedy will still be a deeply wounded leader. If he stays on the wagon he may yet survive to the election. If he comes off, or for some other reason, we could be into another leadership election before the general - probably the worse scenario for the Lib Dems. If the Lib Dems don’t manage to ditch Kennedy now, they will emerge very deeply damaged.
79
Very good!
I agree with Mike re. Vince Cable. He’s very plausible (as the same Newsnight panel which sung David Cameron’s praises - and arguably started the Cameron bandwagon really rolling - found). Apart from being a hit with Frank Luntz’s focus group, he’s also extremely good on the floor of the House (anyone remember how well he did in the Budget statement where he had to stand in for Kennedy at the last moment?)
As a Labour Party activist, I want to see the LDs elect someone with appeal to LD/Tory waverers like Cable or Campbell (or, just possibly, an Orange Booker like Clegg or Huhne) to stop the Tories winning back places like Torbay and Romsey (which would, of course, make it far easier for them to cross the magic 324 line at the next GE).
I feel very sorry for Charlie Kennedy. But that’s not the point.
After seeing the performance of the other LibDem Mps tonight on the television. I have a very low opinion of them. They seem to have no backbone and they seem unable to put the interests of the party first.
Having watched Harvey on News 24, anyone who believes CCck will survive is deluded. Kennedy will be throw in the towl in due course, leaving Clegg and Laws to fight out who will stand in opposition to the established candidate. Just which one will go for it is the most fascinating bit of all this. Legt’s face it, the recent intake will not stomach MC, Sh or MO.
Personally whereas I find Menzies Campbell very credible (albeit too old), I find Vince Cable nauseating in a Leon Brittan kind of way. He is creepy and slimey and I can imagine a lot of people being put off the Lib Dems with him as leader. Surely the option is one of the new shiney intake?
At the BBC News website: ‘In pictures - the political life of Charles Kennedy’. So they think he’s had it.
Having watched Harvey on News 24, anyone who believes CCck will survive is deluded.
What did I say about seeing giant rabbits!
Nick, I think the Tories were able to have a leadership election without damaging themselves largely because no-one had to assassinate their leader. As a result it was possible to have a pretty good-natured contest. Even if Kennedy were to pull out tomorrow, this row will have been bitterly divisive.
I think I come across a bit more harshly than I meant to above. I do think Charles probably is and almost certainly should be terminally damaged as Lib Dem leader - not that he was likely to survive after the latest set of rowing erupted in December. Party leader is a very important and responsible job even for the third party.
Nonetheless on a personal level, I do feel sorry for Charles. I wish him the best of luck dealing with this problem. It must be incredibly hard to admit problems like that in public. And surely the best thing for him, leaving aside everyone else, is to step down and take life a little easier.
84. I’m still not convinced. There were similar voices from the Euro-rebels in 1995 which forced John Major into his leadership election and he won. He probably had more parliamentary backing, but do the Lib Dems have the bottle to go through with this if CK insists on standing. The evidence so far is decidedly mixed. It would also be a pretty undemocratic move to say that whatever the membership thinks, the MP’s have a veto - which is effectively his line.
A quick point on the stalking horse possibility: it was possible in 1989, 1990 and 1995 in the Tory leadership elections because of the two seperate rounds with nominations being made for each. Under the Lib Dem rules, to win you have to be in at the beginning. Therefore the only use a ’stalking horse’ candidate could be would be to force the hand of a serious player.
Vince Cable nauseating and slimey? No, that’s Mark Oaten. Cable has the face of a Victorian ironmaster (as Ferdinand Mount once wrote) but comes over as having a certain flinty integrity.
Apart from Laws, Clegg and Huhne, another ’skip a generation’ candidate would be Jeremy Browne (he sounds like a Tory of the old school, an affable, unflashy, affable Knight of the Shires).
Oh dear, it’s getting late - I’ve used affable twice……
sorry to be OT but George Galloway has just gone into the Big Brother House!
STOP THE PRESS…. gorgeous George is in the Big Brother house…. is this the first case of Reality TV meets Politicalbetting???
ian - just beat me to it!
92. Galloway is on Big Brother!
Forget Kennedy, George Galloway IS the political news of the day.
What a perfect springboard for Galloway’s Respect party to connect with millions of new voters.
Truly absurd. Is he ever going to make even a pretence of serving his constituents?
92/93. Beaten by both!
Maybe he’ll habe a meeting with Michael Barrymore near the swimming pool!
Brilliant! I am very tempted to watch Big Brother now. Will CK be pleased or annoyed that this is going to overshadow his announcement?
Book Value, by raising his profile on Big Brother Galloway raises his ability to campaign for the things his constituents voted for.
So I would argue he is serving his constituents in the best way he can.
does this count as a 23 day (if he makes the distance) party political broadcast?
With the political reality show earlier this year, Rory Bremner’s sketch parodying BB, and comments that General Elections are more like reality shows and popularity contests than proper elections, this is the natural extension….. now, as voting is negative (i.e vote out), can we start a book on how large his margin will be when he is evicted?
56 - Mike - I agree with your analysis. CK must stand down and NOT try to run for his own succession. It is in the best interest of the party and himself (and probably of his family).
I think Cable or Campbell would be fine and there are some good candidates for next time around - including Featherstone.
btw, Mike, I know discussing GG is tantamount to a lawsuit on this site, but as has ben pointed out above, this is the political news of the day, perhaps GG has just given you one article plus forum for first thing tomorrow morning?
101.”comments that General Elections are more like reality shows and popularity contests than proper elections, this is the natural extension…”
I would say that the count and the declaration of the result are a reality show.
More exciting to be honest!
100 - I would have thought he had a pretty high profile already…
I don’t wish to upset certain people here, but isn’t BB all a bit gay? They’ll stone him next time he visits Arabia!
105. BV, if only they would have listed to the Venerable Helen and to the Fugitive:
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/02/nmp02.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/11/02/ixhome.html
Every time I see David Laws on tv I am impressed. He is articulate, and asks awkward questions of the Government. I think if he won a leadership contest, he would have plenty of time to show his abilities.
He’d appeal to floating voters (like me) who still find the Tories difficult to really take seriously.
9-John Penrose
‘My heart goes out to Charles Kennedy’
Pass the sick bucket,this is a serial lyer!
CK to survive.
I reckon tonights announcement is a political wheeze by Kennedy of the highest order.
Provided he doesn’t lose his nerve and keeps a moderately balanced BBC on side he can stand; and if he does I think he will win.
Lib Dem members will just love the idea of a reformed character at the head of their party, it goes to the DNA of their party and showing compassion to Kennedy could benefit them in the public eye as well.
A lot depends on the press coverage this weekend but if the early indications are anything to go by he will be treated compassionately (most of the press know all about drink problems, after all)
It gives the (to me) great prospect of a fatally damaged Liberal leader despised by his own MP’s and distrusted by the media hanging on for at least a couple more years.
And nobody has even mentioned the issue of his private office’s political funding ….
And to think the Liberals used to be the party of temperance….!Kennedy is finished, and his attempt to hang on by trying to emotionally blackmail his (admittedly cowardly) colleagues using his illness is very unpleasant. But from a partisan perspective, this is great news for the Tories - in fact I think it greatly increases the possibility that there will be Lib Dem MPs defecting to the Tories in the near future. ….back to the 1920s perhaps….
Well, I thought as soon as I heard Charles Kennedy was “making a personal statement”, this was not going to be good and so it has turned out. Walking home tonight, I kept going back to 1995 and that infamous headline in the currant bun “It’s Worse Than That; He’s Won” after Major beat Redwood 218-89 in the leadership election.
I hoped Kennedy was going to resign with dignity - he seems to have forgotten, as Major did, that even an electoral success doesn’t keep the whispering or the snide remarks down for very long and that ultimately, as Margaret Thatcher discovered, an indecisive victory means nothing in the short-term.
I expect Simon Hughes and perhaps one other to declare next week and while I’ve been no great supporter of Simon Hughes in the past, it may be that his time has finally come in the absence of my personal favourite, Andrew George.
So, where do we go from here ? It seems that unless Charles sees sense, we are forced with a leadership battle which will be unsatisfactory however it turns out.
My thoughts are with Charles and Sarah tonight - we can worry about betting opportunities and snide partisan comments tomorrow.
Book Value, many Big Brother viewers will have little idea who Galloway is. Many will have have no idea what Respect is about.
Here’s Galloway’s opportunity to charm them and sell his view of a better way and tell them what they need to do to make the world a better place (vote Respect).
If Galloway was to win Big Brother it would be a political sensation and elevate him to a status that would be unchartered waters outside the main parties.
The impact on media attention for Respect in the run up to the local elections could put the party on the map.
Imagine if he was to become a celebrity superstar and followed up Big Brother with every chat show and interview and magazine front page available.
Imagine if polls showed he had become more popular as a leader than Charles Kennedy and Tony Blair, still clinging on for political life.
“Provided he doesn’t lose his nerve and keeps a moderately balanced BBC on side he can stand; and if he does I think he will win.”
Bad news then - Nick Robinson was scathing on BBC News earlier on.
Book Value, it looks like GG is in a good company (in terms of ru…..):
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/197/197752_celebrities_revealed_for_big_brother_house.html
113 - Imagine if polls showed he had become more popular as a leader than Charles Kennedy and Tony Blair, still clinging on for political life.
Probably worth reflecting on - I must work out how many suitcases I’ll need to hold my stuff when that happens and I emigrate…
110. Glad someone agrees with me!
112. Lighten up - he hasn’t died; in fact he’ll come out ahead one way or another, even if he’s defeated (and I don’t think he will be if he stands). He’ll still be the most successful Liberal-tradition leader for 80 years.
115 - with Galloway and Barrymore, I expect some lawyers will be rubbing their hands at the prospect of the fees.
Was anyone else reminded of Jimmy Swaggart the US TV evangelist tonight, and his ‘Lord I have sinned, forgive me’ confession?
118. I think we could leave him there.
If CK stays, can’t wait for next PMQs.
From The Times:
!”The Times learnt last night that a delegation of senior MPs is considering a personal plea for Mr Kennedy to resign of his own accord to spare the party a damaging leadership election in the run-up to the local election campaign in May. One MP said: “It is unimaginable that he will stand. He is in no fit state.” ”
A bad (for CK) article by Peter Riddell too:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-1972890,00.html
I wish to make a personal explanation to this house (sorry, board):
With respect to my earlier posting, and stealing the MilkyBars from the Kid, it was my wife who was watching the entrants to the Big Brother House, and who enquired whether George Galloway really was an MP. I can say, with the honesty that rightly becomes a member of the Liberal Democrat Party, that I have never watched an episode of Big Brother.
phew, good to get that off my chest!
OK….is it appropriate now to vote for George Galloway? If only to get him off the TV?
……..but the serious stuff of today is CK. I hope that over the week-end he reflects upon the additional difficulties which will follow him for the rest of his political life. If times were hard in the past, and merited a small nip of something golden, then any high-profile future will be doubly more difficult. My sympathies for the man and his family, but we may well be at the time whereby we LibDems should be rehearsing “the king is dead…….long live the king”.
123.”OK….is it appropriate now to vote for George Galloway? If only to get him off the TV?”
I think it’s appropriate to vote him to keep him on TV too. or maybe you’re so keen to seen him in the Commons again? ops, he almost never in the COmmons anyway!
The way it’s looking, no-one might stand over the weekend, but there might be surreptitious moves to get the vote of no confidence moving. That way, CK can be felled by a collective rather than an individual hand, and no-one need bear the odium of disloyalty. But CK out of office will be difficult to handle.
Personally I think CK had two windows to go - one was in May (which would have been stupid, on the back of the best LD result for 80 years), the other being Late Nov/Early Dec, when the rumblings started.
At that point, although the press was talking about our leadership contest, there was a lull, with the inevitability of DC’s victory apparent to all.
To go then, gracefully, at the first murmurs, and before it truly became public knowledge, would have been sublime timing - he could and would have taken a degree of the wind out of our sails, and could have used it as the chance for a neat and tidy hand over, akin to the one we had, and not impacting -vely on the locals - in fact, handled correctly, it could have really bumped the LDs into the locals
Instead we now have a seriously damaged CK - although people mayfeel awkward criticising because of his alcoholism, and his public confession, he was outed, he lied about this for ages, and only revealled it because ITV were going to run an article tonight.
He has inexorably damaged himself, and, ironically, if noone stands against him, or he wins, it will do more damage in the long term to the LDs, as people will always question him, and watch for his next slip - effectively creating two lame duck party leaders in himself and Blair, and allowing DC to capitalise further as the only one looking statesmanlike in the public perception.
125. Let’s start the speculations about who the 2 MPs asking for the no confidence vote could be. Any guesses?
Even if no one runs against him, or only a nominal candidate, he’s still finished.
I sympathise with his predicament, but it’s now in his party’s interests (and his own) that he should step down.
128.”creating two lame duck party leaders in himself and Blair, and allowing DC to capitalise further as the only one looking statesmanlike in the public perception. ”
even if I dislike him, Blair is a statesmanlike even wounded.
Would CK ever have agreed to go quietly? Naturally, it would be better for all if every leader knew just when their time was up, but very, very, few politicians can see that when they’re in a position of power. He’s not going to throw away something he spent half his life working for, especially as the long-term prospects for a hung Parliament look very good.
I feel very sympathetic to CK for tackling his alcoholism. Addiction and the Mental Illness that goes with it is a very serious problem which affects masses of people (with probably everyone here knowing someone with similar problems), but mostly behind closed doors.
However politically I think he is finished and should step down with dignity over the next week. He could win a leadership contest, but in doing so, he would destabalise the party in a manner reminiscent to the worst days of the last Tory government having had so many MP’s going against him over the last few weeks.
For me the most credible candidate would be someone like David Laws or Ed Davey, who combine telegenic appeal alongside serious political personas. Simon Hughes is actually more impressive than others had made out, but I suspect he is too leftwing even for the Lib Dems.
Andrea. I think we can assume that Nick Harvey is quite prepared to do so. I doubt that it would be impossible to find another.
George Galloway is a seal at 14.5 on Betfair - he`s going t give this his best shot and is manipulative enough to get close to winning not saying he will win but should be able to lay him for clear profit at around 5`s at some stage imo ……..
As for Charlie - he`s toast …………
72 - Rik, excellent post.
[This really is a strange day!]
What about Matthew Taylor standing?
My own opinion of him may be low, but his own has always been very high indeed. He’s quite egotistical enough to give it a shot, especially with everyone else holding back.
steal I mean - not a seal
I wonder what Paddy Ashdown thinks of CK statement. I also believe that if he chose to Ashdown could possibly end Kennedys career tonight by telling him enough is enough. I do wonder what his advice would be to CK…
137 - The Viceroy of Bosnia … actually, Paddy as a non-involved unity candidate as leader isn’t so stupid …
Interesting day of political developments and another excellent thread full of incisive comments. When will we know the timeline for the Leadership election and how likely is it that they will be able to defer it until after the local elections as Simon Hughes seems to want?
I wonder if this is really as wise as it seems because it just prolongs the uncertainty already swirling around Kennedy. Would it not be better to organise a vote as expeditiously as possible and try to have this question resolved one way or the other before the 4th of May?
138 - slightly reminiscent of Jo Grimond in 1976….
133.Galloway is a 14-1 outsider to come out on top for William Hill.
Lots of boos for GG according to press reports.
138 - Party Leader… in the Lords??!! My Lord Matlock, the Orange Book ends could be your path to power
140 - indeed. It would also allow for the policy review to be completed and an election to take place when policy had been resolved.
The best thing for the Conservative POV would probably be a CK victory, with CK trying to rebuild his position by moving to the left, and rounding on the OBs as underhand plotters. I’m not sure what Labour would gain directly; they’d have to rely on the campaign appeal of the LDs to slacken.
141 But there will surely be unanmity in saluting his courage, his strength and his indefatigability.
Can’t believe Channel 4 is giving Galloway free rein to prattle on with his anti-war/anti-Blair campaign unchallenged. He’s just admitted now on E4 that he’s entered the house only to bring his political campaign to a wider audience. Are they not in breach of rules and guidelines on political impartiality for broadcasters?
144. I think Lab could prefer a right wing LD leader being able to defend their LD/Con marginals (making harder for the tories to reach the 324 line like Richard said earlier) and stopping them to make inroads in former safish Lab seats.
145. As I said: leave him there forever. Maybe a final 2 with him and Berrymore.
Book Value, Galloway may already be more popular than Blair and Kennedy if he was given as much publicity.
Big Brother and the potential media circus around it could create that situation.
Galloway has to walk a tightrope on Big Brother between being controversial and entertaining to win plenty of votes and being arrogant and aggressive.
He needs to generate some media attention in what he says or does there to create a virtuous spiral of publicity and more votes.
Big Brother bleep out the voices when the housemates say things that could be slanderous. I don’t know how much they will let him talk about Iraq, Bush, Blair and lies etc. He may have to fall back on his charm.
149.”Book Value, Galloway may already be more popular than Blair and Kennedy if he was given as much publicity”
I think it works in the opposite direction for him with the general public.
“He needs to generate some media attention in what he says or does there to create a virtuous spiral of publicity and more votes. ”
He’s one of the best attention grabber in the political world.
149 - Even if people do warm to him, it’s not necessarily going to translate into anything more tangible. Some excitable media people after the first couple of BBs seemed to assume that BB had “greater legitimacy” than the political process because of the ratings and ‘phone votes cast. We saw how meaningful that actually was in ITV’s Vote for Me, where the candidate selected by ITV went down do ignominious (and deserved) defeat in Folkestone and Hythe.
Betfair update:
Simon Hughes is now (for the first time) the favourite to be the next Lib Dem leader.
He moved ahead of Ming Campbell within the last hour.
Re Big Brother - remember this celebrity BB is much shorter than the normal BB. It will only last 3 weeks (a normal BB is 10 weeks).
Hence any effect is likely to be much more limited than some people may think.
251. Jordan got 1.8% in 2001 in Berverly Hughes’ seat (don’t remember the constituency name now)
Prediction:
Matthew Taylor will toy with standing, as will Nick Harvey - as stalking horses. Another personal statement from Kennedy following a few dismal polls in the coming days about his leadership; he won’t stand.
Hughes will stand, and Oaten will also stand. Ming Campbell will be happy to try to act as kingmaker. Clegg won’t stand as he has been in Parliament (although an experienced MEP) so short a period of time - and the media question Cameron’s experience. The Orangers will settle on Laws - and he will win.
Stretford and Urmston. The main attraction, I believe, was that the constituency contains Old Trafford (she was in a relationship with Dwightt Yorke at the time).
156. Thanks Observer. To be honest I don’t know who Dwightt Yorke is. Actually I don’t even know what Jordan does. I suppose nothing, but I’m not that sure.
Maybe Adam Rickitt will make the A list!
If Sir Menzies doesn’t stand eventually, it will be deeply damaging to his credbility. A lot of the rumours which have damaged CK have come from his circle. If he’s shown not to have the courage to back up his inclinations, questions must be asked about his judgement.
Has Taylor said anything? I’d have thought he’d still be fairly loyal.
Dwight (pardon the mispelling) Yorke - striker at the time for Manchester United. Jordan’s metier, as far as I’m aware, appears to be to appear on programmes like BB.
Mike L.
A week can be a long time in politics. Three weeks is even longer.
The resurgence in careers of hasbeen F list celebrities brought back to life by Big brother/I’m a Celebrity/reality shows should be noted.
Galloway is sure to entertain by charming the ladies. He went straight for Rula Lenska on arrival. His analogies of Big Brother and Blair’s police state and the Big Brother house as a microcosm of a possible ideal Gallowian socialist utopia is sure to seduce or raise a laugh. And as has been suggested, the scene of Galloway and Barrymore in the pool together has to be worth voting for.
“And as has been suggested, the scene of Galloway and Barrymore in the pool together has to be worth voting for. ”
do you think Barrymore will make a pass at him?!
Btw, I agree that scene is worth seeing.
O/T (and another possible article for Mike in the morning):
There is a story in The Sun that Tony Blair will remain PM for several years.
This has prompted a huge move on Betfair - the price on him lasting until at least January 2008 has come in from approx 3-1 over the last few days to a last matched price of even money (the shortest ever price on this market).
162. He also said he would be happy to have Gordon as his successor:
http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/200601/f90ead4e-80ff-4af9-abf0-6d5e3c06b1d3.htm
Blair has to sound chipper to have any hope of getting the “legacy” Bills through. If the PLP suspects that “one more heave” could get him out of Downing Street, than education reforms (and Blair’s authority, to say the very least) will be seriously undermined.
Davis H If you didn’t intend this its still the best line of the day, do the Lib Dems have the bottle to go through with this if CK insists on standing
Andrea, what I foresee is a love triangle between George, Rula and Barrymore. It will certainly get steamy in the sauna.
I would expect more rapid twists and turns to this saga which I think will result in CK not putting his name forward and resigning. He will come under intense pressure to step aside partly due to the reluctance of the main players to stand against him.That stalemate would be very bad for the party indeed. 48 hours,thats it I’m afraid. Anyone who had 52 weeks in the competition will soon be on a big minus score!
You’re all wrong about the Lib Dem leadership election…
The great thing about this site was that with the Tory leadership elelction that it became (after a few months) a font of knowledeg from the grassroots.
There has not been a single comment tonight that provides any analysis to the Lib Dem predicament (although those posters - including Rik - who have understood the possibility of a sympathy vote for CK and the Lib Dems) are more on the button than most.
The 11 who signed the letter is in fact 12 (due to Thurso being a Lord and all that!) and the letter was delivered in private, before Christmas, to CK’s office. It was only leaked yesterday by Kennedy’s office as a last ditch attempt to avoid the inevitable.
The key players in Kennedy’s office are Dick Newby - a former SDP guru, Tim Razall - the fundraiser and Jackie Rowley - the spin doctor.
There are two constitutional hurdles that CK needs to get past…
1) Monday’s Federal Executive - this body has the power to determine the election timetable and whether there is actually a vacancy. (The question is has Kennedy resigned as leader?) If so then all the commitments to ‘not stand against the leader’ become invalid.
2) The Parly party meeting on Wednesday - if they no confidence CK - he can constitutionaly still stand - but will he bother?
We are in the end game but there are only two likely scenarios:
1) Kennedy survives the next week and he stands in an all member ballot. He is likely to lose rather than win.
2) Kennedy doesn’t survive next week.
I will doubtless have egg all over my face next week but I’m going on CK surviving
(a) hes given people what they wanted and no one seems willing to put up.
(b) lib dem memebers will LOVE reelecting an alco, particularly one being battered by the media. they are liberals remember.
There has been the odd (understandable) gripe from the odd Lib Dem on here over the past nine months that the site became full of obsessive Tories poring over every lovely detail of the leadership election. Well guys, your moment’s arrived. I for one look forward to giving the Lib Dems the sort of attention that the Tories got - because I still don’t really understand the Lib Dems as much as I’d like to. For purely selfish reasons (because leadership elections have me salivating like a dog with a pork chop) I hope they drag it out for as long as possible, but my guess is that CK will see the writing on the wall and go relatively quickly. Which will leave the subsequent election less behoven to awkward questions of loyalty and make things much more interesting for where the party wants to go.
Last week I met a couple of Lib Dems from Leeds North-West in a pub in Newcastle and rudely barged into their conversation - they both liked Simon Hughes best but acknowledged that he probably wouldn’t be the best bet for making the party electable. Then they rather gently and charmingly tried to persuade me to join them. This is the sort of conversation we’re often told doesn’t happen amongst real people, and I was very pleased to be part of it.
Not sure why I’m telling you this - probably just showing off at being up so late.
Purely in a sense of which candidate I like best, I’m backing David Laws.
Another thought - the north-west of Scotland isn’t like other places - would it be the sort of place were an admission of alcoholism might be frowned upon rather more severely than elsewhere? Is ther likely to be any problem from his constituency? I could really do with someone who knows the territory a bit better than me to analyse this.
It’s been an interesting evening, hasn’t it? Firstly I want to echo the thoughts of many posters here in saluting the courage Charles Kennedy has had to show in coming public with such a private and difficult matter, under sever pressure. I wish him well as he continues to work through his drinking problem.
As a Lib Dem voter, it’s been a depressing evening, and few days, for more reasons than just Charles’ health however; the party seems divided and squabbling, and there seems to be no obvious
‘not CK’ candidate, hence all the talk of senior figures trying to get CK to resign; he has said time and time again that he won’t do so.
I do give CK my support, with one condition. Nothing to do with drinking, but I want my party to have vision and direction, and I’m just not seeing enough. David Cameron is hitting headlines constantly by making new policy announcements, and showing what his prime concerns are. I want to see where CK is taking the Lib Dems on taxation, education, welfare reform, anti-drink culture (no irony intended.) He’s not getting his party’s message out on the current big issues enough for me. If we have this full-blown leadership election, I hope that it will be areas like these which decide between the candidates, not personal insults and slurs.
I think that CK has an excellent chance in a full membership ballot-but as with IDS grassroots support alone is not enough to prop up a leader who is struggling with parliamentary colleagues. The disaffected MPs, especially the magic 12 don’t seem to have worked out how they will stand up against Kennedy, they seem to have been relying on him resigning. Had they been Tories, they’d have almost had a candidate crowned by now! I’m just worried that a wounded but victorious CK will limp along and lead us to poor results in May. I believe that if we see some of the direct, aggressive leadership as promised, he can not only hang on but pick up momentum again, and I hope he does.
But what if not? If he decides he can’t hang on, he can have some say over his successor. If he resigns, Menzies Campbell and Mark Oaten would probably slug it out, and while I admire both of them, Ming would surely be favourite. Would be very interesting to see Lib Dem elder statesman against Tory upstart rather than vice versa.
If he fights but goes down, it all depends on who dares to put themselves forward. My personal choice would be Vince Cable-a solid, knowledgeable performer who comes across well-I remember Frank Luntz’s Newsnight piece-but I don’t know if he’d have enough support. While I have a huge amount of respect for David Laws politically, I think he would struggle to unite the party politically. In this case, I would favour Vince Cable as (probably caretaker) leader, with Sarah Teather, Nick Clegg, Susan Kramer and that Huhne guy promoted to senior positions to try to establish themselves as future leadership candidates.
If Kennedy chooses to go down fighting however, I think Simon Hughes will fancy his chances. So if CK doesn’t think he can win, what does he do? Resign and let Ming in, or fight and take his chances with who stands?
And if they go for John Hemming, I’ll sign up to Team Cameron on the spot.
This just feels an awful night to be a Lib Dem-I’m seeing shades of the Conservatives over the last few years in allowing infighting to get in the way of providing sustained opposition, however we’re not all that good at it. I guess I hope this is quick and decisive as much as anything right now.
Ho hum. I feel like voting for George Galloway for the first time in my life
Night all
“Galloway and Barrymore in the pool together has to be worth voting for.”
‘The Sun’ will doubtless be sending in suicide bombers!
173. Is the Sun employing Jenny Tonge now?
166. Printz, if it gets steamy in the sauna, think what could happen in the swimming pool!
According to the Guardian, Galloway enjoyed a “prolonged handshake” with Faria Alam…
175. BV, you’re getting interested!
I think we should propose the MPs Big Brother again. Even if some major players have left the House.
Lots of naive support for Kennedy on the 5live phone-in this morning - is it me or are ordinary LD supporters somewhat cerebrally challenged ? …
171 - I don’t think it would be that different from the rest of rural Scotland - with the possible exception of the Western Isles. It’s also probably the case that his constituency has more distilleries in it than any other - so I doubt its that frowned upon.
Re: 177 - No, Grahamh. The vast majority of people live normal, ordinary lives into which politics protrudes peripherally. They don’t live or breathe in the febrile atmosphere of Westminster or follow politics with a microscope.
Just because we assume Kennedy is dead in the water or massively unpopular, the public don’t see it the same way. Just because we may think Cameron is the greatest Tory since Mrs T, that doesn’t mean the public agrees.
Indeed, the “public” may take more heed of the views of Andrew Alexander and Jeff Randall. The latter wrote a devastating critique of Cameron in the Telegraph earlier this week. Indeed, the most damning part was his analysis of Cameron’s time at Carlton. Any LD who feels down at the moment should dig up that piece by Randall - it’s far and away the best condemnation of Cameron I’ve seen.