Had there been any danger of the man actually holding a position of real power, I might have been a little concerned by his drinking habits. As it is, he was the leader of the Liberal Democrats, and never likely to be able to, say, involve the country in a disastrous war in Iraq, which our rather more sober prime minister has. Nor to raise taxes to unsustainable levels, as our "Iron Chancellor" has.
I think it's a real shame that one of the better men in British politics has been forced to resign because he enjoys a tipple. He's hardly alone in Westminster when it comes to that particular sin, is he?
The subsidised House of Commons bar could tell a tale or two, were anyone other than Private Eye brave enough to describe our politicians as occasionally being somewhat "tired and emotional."
The internal politics of the LibDems may mean little to you, or to me, but the LibDems themselves take things rather more seriously. If they actually want to maximise their opportunities to succeed, having a relapsing alcoholic as a leader isn't a very good way to go about it. This wasn't about him damaging the country, it was about him damaging the LibDems, and they have a perfect right to want him out if he's doing that. And the MPs who see him every day and know the reality of the situation are in a much better position to judge than the ordinary members, who have only been exposed to the charisma.
You need to distinguish between "liking a tipple", and alcoholism. Heavy drinking which doesn't obviously affect someone's performance, and which can be and is curtailed when necessary, is common at Westminster and often tolerated. The things I've heard about Maggie Thatcher would curl your hair. However, actual alcoholism, that is dependency which affects performance and which can't be controlled if circumstances demand it, is no state in which to lead a political party.
The sad thing is that it was allowed to go on so long, indeed that he was supported as a prospective leader at all. It now appears that although many people who supported his leadership bid didn't know about the alcoholism, some of his main backers did. But in the years since then it has become more and more of an open secret, but the response was always to cover up for him. And more and more tales of damage to the party are emerging.
From yesterday's
Scotland on Sunday. One tale of an important meeting with a Muslim delegation to discuss co-operation in the light of the LibDem opposition to the Iraq war. This was seen as a highly significant strategic alliance, and the delegation went in to see Kennedy smiling and with an optimistic air. They emerged quite quickly, scowling blackly, saying to an aide, "your leader has been drinking." The aide replied, "I know, but what can I do?"
Also, about being dry for two months. As if two months means anything in this context, but still. In mid November Kennedy was expected at Newcastle to undertake an afternoon programme of civic engagements, to consolidate the LibDem presence there in advance of the local elections. However, the reception committee was left on the platform at Newcastle Central, and Kennedy never turned up. The official story was that his baby son was ill, but now the word is that he had been drinking on the train and had to be taken back to London by his staff as he was in no fit state to have lunch with the civic dignitaries.
If this is true, it happened nearly 18 months into an alcoholic rehab programme. And gives the lie to not having had a drink for two months. Can any political party with any ambitions whatsoever possibly afford to take a chance on this guy?
Yes, the LibDems did better than for decades at the last general election. But even at the time (and not thinking all that much about the longstanding Westminster tales that their leader was an irredeemable dipso), I thought they should have done better. Circumstances were peculiarly in their favour. Labour going for a third term, with a lot of people fairly cheesed off with them, and the Tories still on the floor. It's unlikely they'll ever get such a clear run again. They did well, but the breakthrough didn't happen. We'll never know now, but is it possible that Ming the Merciless might have netted them substantially more seats, enough to place them as the official opposition?
AC, Charlie can still be an affable, likeable fellow. He's still an MP, and only his constituents can take that away from him. I don't think they will. He still has a political career, if he chooses to accept it. And if he really does manage to kick the sauce and stay truly dry for 5 years or so, there's no reason at all he couldn't stand again as leader, and make a good fist of it. But now - just because you like him, and don't think that taking the odd dram is a crime, doesn't mean that he's fit for the job he was in.
This could be his salvation. If he realises that the drink robbed him of the job he coveted, and the political career he had mapped out, he might manage to stay on the wagon a bit more tenaciously than he seems to have managed so far.
Rolfe.
