(no subject)

[mrph]

Don't talk to me about politics for a day or two, ok?

Idiots. The fact that not a single one of the MPs calling for Charles Kennedy's head was willing to stand against him says it all. They wanted him gone - a number of them said they wouldn't continue to serve with Kennedy as leader - but somehow when he actually called a leadership contest none of them wanted to know. Not until he'd also been pushed into saying that he wouldn't take part in it himself.

Not impressed. I suspect whoever gets elected isn't going to last long. And then we're back to the two-party Punch and Judy show for another five years or more.

Comments

[zotz]

Mmm. Not really my business, but it doesn't strike me as much of a move either. There are other good people, but the question is whether one of them will get the job.

[nwhyte]

More likely that one of them will now that Kennedy has stepped back from the contest.

[zarbi.livejournal.com]

I don't really see the point. Recognising that someone is not a good leader of your party does not mean that you need to consider yourself as leader - it could mean that you prefer someone else. It would seem to me to be perfectly respectable for an MP to wish Kennedy to stand down in favour of Campbell or Hughes for example. Criticising the leader need not be a sign of personal ambition - simply concern for the party. Considering some of the stories that are now coming out about how his alcohol problem has interfered with his job, surely that concern was warranted. There are good potential leaders in the Liberal party - I am keen on Ming Campbell myself.

[cyberinsekt.livejournal.com]

The line that I heard - and I couldn't tell you if this was spin or not - is that for people like Hughes, Oaten and Campbell, their hands were tied. That they'd gone on public record saying that they wouldn't stand against Kennedy in any further leadership contest. If you heard a statement like that at the time, it would sound rather like one of support. If it turns out that saying such a thing was actually a devious ploy, foreshadowing an eventuality such as this... well colour me impressed.

While I've got some sympathy for Kennedy, looked at dispassionately this has been a great bit of political theatre.

[diffrentcolours]

There are two things I'm scared of. The first is the number of people who say they're not going to vote Lib Dem over this. It's a tempting reaction but a knee-jerk one. The party is, at the least, still the least worst option in Westminster, even if it's no longer the best.

The second is that this will see the Lib Dems move to the right. I'm hoping it doesn't - the party has always seemed more about policies than personalities. But some of the possible contenders have views I strongly disagree with, and I believe that an unregulated capital market cannot be universally fair. Still, I'd rather have an anti-supervision Liberal Democrat than an anti-supervision Tory...

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Seconded. Pretty much exactly my thoughts on the matter.

[deeply-spurious.livejournal.com]

I disagree actually. I do think that one or two of them behaved badly, but you have to remember that they all had been covering for him for some considerable time on the understanding that the problem was going to be sorted out... They had also all spoken to him privately well before the public stuff... Much though I like him, I'm afraid it was Kennedy himself who left his colleagues with little choice. He should have resigned several months ago but unfortunately either lost his sense of political judgement or alternatively put his own interests before his party's.

Ultimately he ended up looking rather daft because he insisted on carrying on when it was blatantly obvious that he did not enjoy the confidence of many of his senior colleagues. To me, this emphasised more than anything that his judgement was all over the place. Had he gone earlier, much infighting and bad publicity would have been avoided.

[stgpcm.livejournal.com]

I am concerned by the timing. If CK has got past the problem, why drag it up now?

It seems the new tory leader scared them, and when CK didn't go, they went for dirty tricks. I very much hope that none of the signatories keep shadow cabinet posts

[deeply-spurious.livejournal.com]

The problem is that he hadn't got past the problem. The Cameron thing probably prompt one or two of the right-wingers to overstep the mark, but the alcoholism clearly had not been resolved. I think the right wingers (Vince Cable etc) did have an additional agenda, but I don't think the same could be said for people like Matthew Taylor, who were among Kennedy's closest supporters in the past and saw first hand how the alcohol thing was putting undue burdens on colleagues for a significant period of time...

[stgpcm.livejournal.com]

He said he had, and he certainly seemed fairly sober for an achy who had just been pushed out of his job.

[deeply-spurious.livejournal.com]

He had had brief periods of sobriety before as I understand it, but had always lapsed again... it's really sad, but I think his colleagues simply felt that they couldn't continue to lie and to cover up for him - and in all fairness, it was arguably unreasonable of him to expect them to do so...

[stgpcm.livejournal.com]

I still say the timing sucks. If you need to do it, you don't do it when he's dry. Were they hoping to bury it under Sharon?

Anyway, they've shown they are as sleazy as the others.

[deeply-spurious.livejournal.com]

PS - The slightly positive thing about all this is that the unhappiness among party members about what has happened may work to the disadvantage of the 'Orange book' good, with whom the decapitation is likely to be associated - and may therefore benefit the likes of Simon Hughes...