Charles Kennedy Resigns
Charles Kennedy has just resigned as the leader of the Liberal Democrats in a press conference this afternoon. This has come amidst immense pressure from many of his frontbenchers and statements of no confidence in his ability to continue as party leader, with 25 MPs pledging that they will refuse to serve on the frontbench under Mr Kennedy in the new parliamentary session due to open on Monday.
The ostensible reason for his resignation was his admission that he had a drink problem which MPs claim had affected his performance as party leader in the past. Notable instances of his ill-health , which has often been attributed to an overfondness for alcohol, include his failure to attend Gordon Brown's budget speech last year, and a stuttering speech at last year's Lib Dem party conference. However, given that his problems with drink were well documented in the past, one cannot but feel that this is far from the root cause for the calls for his dismissal.
One does get the sense however, that MPs are increasingly worried that the Lib Dems are a party without any direction, something that seriously inhibits their credibility in fulfilling their claims that they can be a real alternative choice, even in opposition. In that sense, Kennedy's performance at the party conference was all the more damaging, as far from kindling new enthusiasm and stating clearly the strategy the party would pursue in the coming year, he came across as distincly uncertain. Given these fears, it is perhaps not too difficult to understand their wish to have a new person at the helm, given that there is now a huge ideological debate over defining party policies.
Many would rally to the defence of Mr Kennedy by saying that the Liberal Democrats have never come closer to regaining credibility, given their ground breaking performance in the last general election. Yet, many MPs felt that the Lib Dems should have done even better given that the government was being embattled over Iraq, a war that the Lib Dems opposed, not to mention other contentious issues like ID cards, and education policy. It clearly didn't help that the Lib Dems much vaunted decapitation strategy directed against the Conversatives failed miserably and they failed to make any inroads whatsoever into Tory ground - which was seen by party members as the crucial indicator of success.
Kennedy only added fuel to the fire with his actions in recent weeks, when he knew that there was growing discontent directed against his leadership. Far from making attempts to reassure MPs, he was seen - unfairly or not - to be attempting to climb over their heads by appealing directly to the grassroots, where he did get an enormous public outpouring of support. However, as he soon came to realize, a party leader can only maintain his position at the behest of his peers in parliament and as the discontent increased it became increasingly obvious that his position had become completely untenable, and that he was effectively becoming a lame duck.
In many ways, this could not have come at a worse time for both the party and for parliament as a whole. This entire saga has been one of the most bloody, and public executive decapitations in recent (or even ancient) parliamentary history. I would liken it to the modern equivalent of stabbing Caesar on the steps of Pompey's theatre. The past conservative leadership struggles (Thatcher, Hague and Duncan Smith) hardly bare comparison, let alone the neverending Blair vs Brown squabbles. The public impact of such a brutal and open leadership struggle still remains to be seen, not to mention the political credibility of the party as a whole.
Worse still, there hardly seems to be any real credible candidate to succeed Charles Kennedy. Sir Menzies Campbell is certainly well respected, but hardly had the charisma and man of the people quality that Kennedy possessed. Other candidates for the leadership race have yet to come forward, and I am highly doubtful that they possess the combination of experience and public appeal that made Kennedy such a successful leader.
The Lib Dems have also been thrown into disarray by recent events, something that will undoubtedly have a large effect on their ability to act as a cohesive opposition in parliament. This comes at a time when the government is attempting to force many controversial pieces of legislation through the commons, and when the need for cohesive or at least coherent opposition could not be greater.
I have been personally disappointed by comments suggesting that Mr Kennedy had gone to far in using his image as an average Joe, characterized by his demons with the bottle, in garnering personal popularity at the expense of party credibility. According to these cynics, his recent admissions were nothing more than another press exercise targeted at gaining sympathy. I think these accusations are disgraceful and unjustified. It takes a lot of courage to admit to personal weakness, more so when you are a politician, and Mr Kennedy should be given respect for owning up, even in the face of his past attempts to subvert scrutiny on his drinking habit. Given the present government's preponderance of spin, it is rather harsh and extremely cynical to see all this as a public persona PR stunt.
For all his failings at a personal level, Mr Kennedy has done immensely well to consolidate the Lib Dems as a credible party - credible enough to be considered a serious contender for opposition. I heard Lord Jeffrey Archer speak on British politics and the state of the conservative party at the end of 2003 and he said that his greatest fear for the conservatives was from the Liberal Democrats and that he found this all the more remarkable consiering their position in the 1980s. Lord Archer remenisced about how the Shadow Home Affairs minister would suddenly be seen speaking out on Development issues or in the capacity of the Arts and Culture brief due to the fact that the Lib Dems had so few MPs that they couldn't even fill an entire shadow cabinet. That this is no longer the case has a large part to do with Mr Kennedy; whether this continues to be without him as leader remains to be seen.
090106 - Check out this in depth coverage of Charles Kennedy's resignation and the Lib Dem leadership contest on the BBC website.
The ostensible reason for his resignation was his admission that he had a drink problem which MPs claim had affected his performance as party leader in the past. Notable instances of his ill-health , which has often been attributed to an overfondness for alcohol, include his failure to attend Gordon Brown's budget speech last year, and a stuttering speech at last year's Lib Dem party conference. However, given that his problems with drink were well documented in the past, one cannot but feel that this is far from the root cause for the calls for his dismissal.
One does get the sense however, that MPs are increasingly worried that the Lib Dems are a party without any direction, something that seriously inhibits their credibility in fulfilling their claims that they can be a real alternative choice, even in opposition. In that sense, Kennedy's performance at the party conference was all the more damaging, as far from kindling new enthusiasm and stating clearly the strategy the party would pursue in the coming year, he came across as distincly uncertain. Given these fears, it is perhaps not too difficult to understand their wish to have a new person at the helm, given that there is now a huge ideological debate over defining party policies.
Many would rally to the defence of Mr Kennedy by saying that the Liberal Democrats have never come closer to regaining credibility, given their ground breaking performance in the last general election. Yet, many MPs felt that the Lib Dems should have done even better given that the government was being embattled over Iraq, a war that the Lib Dems opposed, not to mention other contentious issues like ID cards, and education policy. It clearly didn't help that the Lib Dems much vaunted decapitation strategy directed against the Conversatives failed miserably and they failed to make any inroads whatsoever into Tory ground - which was seen by party members as the crucial indicator of success.
Kennedy only added fuel to the fire with his actions in recent weeks, when he knew that there was growing discontent directed against his leadership. Far from making attempts to reassure MPs, he was seen - unfairly or not - to be attempting to climb over their heads by appealing directly to the grassroots, where he did get an enormous public outpouring of support. However, as he soon came to realize, a party leader can only maintain his position at the behest of his peers in parliament and as the discontent increased it became increasingly obvious that his position had become completely untenable, and that he was effectively becoming a lame duck.
In many ways, this could not have come at a worse time for both the party and for parliament as a whole. This entire saga has been one of the most bloody, and public executive decapitations in recent (or even ancient) parliamentary history. I would liken it to the modern equivalent of stabbing Caesar on the steps of Pompey's theatre. The past conservative leadership struggles (Thatcher, Hague and Duncan Smith) hardly bare comparison, let alone the neverending Blair vs Brown squabbles. The public impact of such a brutal and open leadership struggle still remains to be seen, not to mention the political credibility of the party as a whole.
Worse still, there hardly seems to be any real credible candidate to succeed Charles Kennedy. Sir Menzies Campbell is certainly well respected, but hardly had the charisma and man of the people quality that Kennedy possessed. Other candidates for the leadership race have yet to come forward, and I am highly doubtful that they possess the combination of experience and public appeal that made Kennedy such a successful leader.
The Lib Dems have also been thrown into disarray by recent events, something that will undoubtedly have a large effect on their ability to act as a cohesive opposition in parliament. This comes at a time when the government is attempting to force many controversial pieces of legislation through the commons, and when the need for cohesive or at least coherent opposition could not be greater.
I have been personally disappointed by comments suggesting that Mr Kennedy had gone to far in using his image as an average Joe, characterized by his demons with the bottle, in garnering personal popularity at the expense of party credibility. According to these cynics, his recent admissions were nothing more than another press exercise targeted at gaining sympathy. I think these accusations are disgraceful and unjustified. It takes a lot of courage to admit to personal weakness, more so when you are a politician, and Mr Kennedy should be given respect for owning up, even in the face of his past attempts to subvert scrutiny on his drinking habit. Given the present government's preponderance of spin, it is rather harsh and extremely cynical to see all this as a public persona PR stunt.
For all his failings at a personal level, Mr Kennedy has done immensely well to consolidate the Lib Dems as a credible party - credible enough to be considered a serious contender for opposition. I heard Lord Jeffrey Archer speak on British politics and the state of the conservative party at the end of 2003 and he said that his greatest fear for the conservatives was from the Liberal Democrats and that he found this all the more remarkable consiering their position in the 1980s. Lord Archer remenisced about how the Shadow Home Affairs minister would suddenly be seen speaking out on Development issues or in the capacity of the Arts and Culture brief due to the fact that the Lib Dems had so few MPs that they couldn't even fill an entire shadow cabinet. That this is no longer the case has a large part to do with Mr Kennedy; whether this continues to be without him as leader remains to be seen.
090106 - Check out this in depth coverage of Charles Kennedy's resignation and the Lib Dem leadership contest on the BBC website.
posted by Caleb Liu | 4:53 PM
2 Comments:
Hey Caleb, insightful commentary - I really enjoyed it. Keep it up :)
"Mr Kennedy should be given respect for owning up, even in the face of his past attempts to subvert scrutiny on his drinking habit. Given the present government's preponderance of spin, it is rather harsh and extremely cynical to see all this as a public persona PR stunt"
False. Mr Kennedy had his hand forced by events. He panicked when he found out that ITV were going to lead on the alcohol story and the letter from his MPs. Had this not been the case he would still be leading his sorry little party today. He deserves no respect. He even failed to do the sensible thing and resign straight away. Have you been reading too much Guardian trash recently? (they've switched to rabid ignorant leftie mode since Cameron got in)
Mr Kennedy was a deeply mediocre politician. He ‘united’ opposed the right-wing free and the left-wing social rubbish lib dem philosophies by plotting a meaningless political non-course. I won’t say the lib dems are better without him, as the party is still full of middle-class arseholes (the sort of people who live down Banbury and Parks Road in Oxford spring to mind). With an actual opposition in the Tories, the party is finished.
Post a Comment
<< Home