Originally posted by Will EverittPoor guy, said on interview heard here in the US he 'hadn't touched
He has resigned now anyway even though a day ago he said he wouldn't.
a drink in 2 months' Wonder how long that lasted.
I don't like democracies anyway. I think we should have government
by lottery. Nobody gets bought up, at least for the first week.
Originally posted by lukemcmullanDoesn't matter what the public think, his MPs were unhappy.
I think he ought to resign - this is a situation where he must put the future of the party above his desire for leadership. The British public would not elect a party led by a known alcoholic.
I admire him a little for admitting it, it must have taken courage, though it makes sense as the media were practically about to announce it anyway. Just beating them to it, really.
Although they cannot vote him out, they made it pretty impossible for him to stay.
And the media announced it ages ago didn't they?
At least, they've been making jokes about it in Private Eye for at least a year.
Ah sure those backbiting nerks in his party had it in for him anyway, so they used they only thing they could to do him in in the most underhanded way possible.
It's disgusting the way he was treated by his party and by the media, Paxman and Dimblebum in particular. He never lost his composure, and responded always with dignity.
The thing about Kennedy was he was a human. He had his faults- he was an alcoholic. But did that stop him from doing his job? Apparently not, and if not, and he functioned well nonetheless, then sacking because having a drink problem is immoral, or some such tripe, is petty and pathetic. In this case his personal health matters should have remained private.
He got the best results for the party in 80 years. Who could get anywhere near doing the job as well as he did? He made unprecedented gains. He rebelled against these same MPs in opposing the war, who thought him a traitor, and then when the gains were to be made in the election, in turned out the boy done good. Creeps, the lot of them. And then the nerds in his party who got in on the anti-war protest votes (e.g. young Sarah Teather, Brent East, looks like a gerbil) sign a letter saying they lack faith in their leader.
It's quite sickening.
1 edit
Originally posted by sjegI disagree entirely.
Ah sure those backbiting nerks in his party had it in for him anyway, so they used they only thing they could to do him in in the most underhanded way possible.
It's disgusting the way he was treated by his party and by the media, Paxman and Dimblebum in particular. He never lost his composure, and responded always with dignity.
The thing about Kennedy w ...[text shortened]... like a gerbil) sign a letter saying they lack faith in their leader.
It's quite sickening.
The Liberal Democrats must be professional. No other major party would put up with a alcoholic leading them, they should be doing better than they are. Kennedy was bold opposing the war! However on every arguement since he has been timid.
The future will see a blurring of the political focus with the Tories following new Labour into watered down centre left policies. The Liberal Democrats must paint the Tories as elitist and Labour are bureaucrats.
There is now a great opportunity to help the poor and the old, whilst decentralising power, and giving the individual real opportunity and freedom.
I wish Charles Kennedy all the best, but he is damaged goods politically.
Originally posted by sjegOh please.....
Ah sure those backbiting nerks in his party had it in for him anyway, so they used they only thing they could to do him in in the most underhanded way possible.
It's disgusting the way he was treated by his party and by the media, Paxman and Dimblebum in particular. He never lost his composure, and responded always with dignity.
The thing about Kennedy w ...[text shortened]... like a gerbil) sign a letter saying they lack faith in their leader.
It's quite sickening.
Kennedy's party has only existed since the 1980s, when Jenkins and the other traitors left the labour party, so they can hardly have had their best result for 80 years. I also remember the SDP doing at least as well then as Kennedy did last year.
Kennedy, and the rest of his party, are opportunist chancers. They present themselves as left wing when it suits them (though Kennedy's actions as a student in Glasgow show he's no friend of the working class), but they're really just another free market party.
In Scotland, they sell their principles just to keep a couple of ministerial salaries.
Their opposition to the war was the same - simple opportunism. They haven't supported any moves to impeach Blair, they took no part in building the anti-war movement, apart from high-profile appearences at demos.
They also have a long history of adopting particularly dirty electoral tactics, especially in bye-elections, so we shouldn't be surprised when they're no slouches when it comes to internal maneovering and media manipulation.
I don't care about whether he could do his job or not, but lets not kid on the LibDems are any sort of progressive force.
Originally posted by RedmikeSorry Redmike- it's traditional to consider the older part of any political alliance, which in this case is the Liberal party. Remember them?
Oh please.....
Kennedy's party has only existed since the 1980s, when Jenkins and the other traitors left the labour party, so they can hardly have had their best result for 80 years. I also remember the SDP doing at least as well then as Kennedy did last year.
Kennedy, and the rest of his party, are opportunist chancers. They present themselves as lef ...[text shortened]... ld do his job or not, but lets not kid on the LibDems are any sort of progressive force.
About the SDP doing as well as the Lib Dems under Kennedy, you are factually incorrect, whatever your impressions might be.
If Kennedy was no friend of the working class, who elected him in the first place? What's wrong with being a free market party? Do they purport to be MArxist in their manifesto? Do you know anything about the liberal tradition?
The decision to oppose the war caused Kennedy to be labled a traitor by Labour, Conservative and even Lib Dem MPs, so an opportunistic stance it was not.
Besides, as a 3rd party looking to overthrow the Tories, you might expect some opportunism- as they'd never get in, they could promise what they liked.
However, your criticisms are rather similar to those your good friend Tony ("but hey!"😉 Blair used in response to Charlie when he was in- and whilst in part justified on some issues, arguably, it certainly is not the case on Iraq, even though it led to political gain in the long run.
And no, the Lib Dems now certainly are not a progressive political force- they've buggered that one up for themselves with this stunt.
Originally posted by sjegSarah Teather, Brent East, looks like a gerbil
Ah sure those backbiting nerks in his party had it in for him anyway, so they used they only thing they could to do him in in the most underhanded way possible.
It's disgusting the way he was treated by his party and by the media, Paxman and Dimblebum in particular. He never lost his composure, and responded always with dignity.
The thing about Kennedy w ...[text shortened]... like a gerbil) sign a letter saying they lack faith in their leader.
It's quite sickening.
Sounds like backbiting to me...
Originally posted by invigorateWhat about old Churchill- the Tories put up with him for long enough, and you all elected him twice. He was an alcoholic, and arguably one of the best leaders your country has ever had. He got the job done, and thanks to him we're not having this conversation ein Deusche, svinehunt! Unt ze tipple he dvank on miny ze occazion!
I disagree entirely.
The Liberal Democrats must be professional. No other major party would put up with a alcoholic leading them, they should be doing better than they are. Kennedy was bold opposing the war! However on every arguement since he has been timid.
The future will see a blurring of the political focus with the Tories following new Labour ...[text shortened]... tunity and freedom.
I wish Charles Kennedy all the best, but he is damaged goods politically.
Originally posted by sjegOK - if you're going to include the liberal party, their history is more than 80 years.
Sorry Redmike- it's traditional to consider the older part of any political alliance, which in this case is the Liberal party. Remember them?
About the SDP doing as well as the Lib Dems under Kennedy, you are factually incorrect, whatever your impressions might be.
If Kennedy was no friend of the working class, who elected him in the first place? What's ...[text shortened]... progressive political force- they've buggered that one up for themselves with this stunt.
Didn't the alliance get 25% of the vote in 1983?
In terms of the number of seats, the LibDems did best in 2005, but on the same sort of %age vote they always got - they just targetted better. I suppose it depends how you measure it, but their vote has stayed much the same while their number of seats has gone up.
Just because Kennedy is no friend of the working class doesn't mean thay won't be conned into voting for him - they voted for Thatcher, after all.
You need to decide whether they were opportunistic and this is what you would expect from a 3rd party, or whether they weren't opportunist.
The LibDems were never a progressive force, and this stunt just demonstates it. It doesn't change anything, but just shows them for what they are.
Originally posted by RedmikeWouldn't you say that the Lib Dems are more like a schizophrenic party, with half being liberal social democrats and half being liberal economic capitalists?
OK - if you're going to include the liberal party, their history is more than 80 years.
Didn't the alliance get 25% of the vote in 1983?
In terms of the number of seats, the LibDems did best in 2005, but on the same sort of %age vote they always got - they just targetted better. I suppose it depends how you measure it, but their vote has stayed much t ...[text shortened]... nt just demonstates it. It doesn't change anything, but just shows them for what they are.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeYes - 2 different ideologies altogether.
Wouldn't you say that the Lib Dems are more like a schizophrenic party, with half being liberal social democrats and half being liberal economic capitalists?
Maybe we'll see the differences in the leadership election - Campbell is very much the social democrat. No idea who the other guy is.
You might argue that they could do with being more opportunistic. As you point out, they're a bit of a mixed bag of ideologies.
But with Tony ("but, hey, guys"😉 Bliar having killed off any socialist leanings in the Labour Party, and stolen what he liked of Conservative policy, to move the party to the centre, and then the Tories having plumped for the new Toff to move their party to the centre, steal all Tony's ideas, and superimpose their party on his, what are you left with.
The liberals could move left to pick up the disenchanted labour voters with any real socialist leanings, or right to pick up on the less "compassionate" of the tory voters who believe in privatisation, policing and all that.
So there's loads of opportunity to win vots. Shame being that so many of them stand for nothing, so when they do decide on a path, people will tend to see it as opportunistic.