Charles Kennedy: A Personal Problem, A Political Crisis

Andrew Grice | January 6

The Independent - Charles Kennedy, head of the Liberal Democratic Pary, was fighting for his political life last night after admitting he was being treated for alcoholism and calling a leadership election. Kennedy was forced into his gamble to head off media revelations about an alcohol problem that has been rumoured at Westminster but which he has consistently denied.

He suffered another blow to his authority when it emerged that 11 of his 23-strong shadow cabinet had signed a private letter saying he had lost their support and his position had become untenable. That could prove more damaging than his disclosure that he had been fighting alcoholism for the past 18 months

Update: Jan 7: Charles Kennedy resigns

BBC -Charles Kennedy has stood down down as Liberal Democrat leader after admitting he has a drink problem.

Perhaps Mr Kennedy's finest political hour was his decision to oppose the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. It was a decision he had agonised over and he backed British troops once the invasion was under way. But in the run-up to the war Mr Kennedy became the unofficial leader of the anti-war movement - and the main voice of opposition in the Commons.

Here is the story of his political life More below the fold.

Tony Blair and Rupert Mudoch must be jumping up and down in glee. Forcing Kennedy out on this particular lie when they have no other leader worth his shoelace is ridiculous- The italics in parts of the text are mine- nymole

Charles Kennedy joined the Labour Party at 15 and attended Glasgow University. He won an honours degree and a Fulbright scholarship to Indiana University in the US and seemed set for a career in academia - before agreeing to fight the no-hope seat of Ross Cromarty and Skye at the 1983 election.

Mr Kennedy snatched a famous victory for the fledgling SDP in the 1983 Thatcher landslide election, at 23. He had thought his chances of victory so slim he had flown back to the US when the polls closed, but almost from the moment he set foot in the Commons - as the youngest MP - he was being tipped for the top.

At first he was SDP spokesman on social security, Scotland and health and when most of his party merged with the Liberals to form the Lib Dems in 1988, he continued to hold a series of frontbench posts. He made his first major breakthrough in 1990 when he was elected to the crucial post of party president.

During the 1990s, Mr Kennedy built his profile through appearances on TV shows such as Have I Got News for You, earning him the nickname - which he hated - of "Chatshow Charlie". In 1999, he beat off five competitors to take over as party leader, gaining 28,425 votes to second place Simon Hughes' 21,833.

Mr Kennedy supported predecessor Paddy Ashdown's attempts to form an alliance with the Labour Party, based around a shared commitment to electoral reform and Europe. But as soon as he became leader he set about uncoupling the party from Tony Blair, forming distinctive policies on taxation, the environment and, as Labour's enthusiasm for the single currency cooled, Europe. The 2001 election saw the party increase its share of the vote to 18.1% and have 52 MPs elected.

Mr Kennedy's 2002 marriage was seen by many in the party as a sign he was settling down. The birth of his son in 2005 was seen as a further sign that the hard-partying Kennedy - one commentator had dubbed him "Jock the lad" - was being transformed into a family man.

It was seen by many as a principled stand - and one that was borne out by events - and it attracted support from Conservative and Labour voters disaffected by their parties' support for the war. Liberal Democrats fully expected to reap the electoral rewards at the 2005 general election.

Mr Kennedy fought the 2005 election as "The Real Alternative", attempting to pull off the difficult task of appealing to both Labour and Tory voters. The party was rewarded with 62 seats - its highest tally since the 1920s.

But there was a feeling of deflation among some MPs - particularly some of the recent intake on the right of the party who were impatient for power. The party's 2005 autumn conference was billed as a "celebration" of electoral gains - but ended with Mr Kennedy battling to silence growing criticism of his leadership.

Mr Kennedy was a familiar sight in the bars and clubs of Westminster for more than 20 years and was known to be fond of a drink. But whenever he was asked whether he had a problem, he flatly denied it. His fondness for a drink was well known before he was elected leader. He called himself as an "up-front social drinker".

After he became the leader, the first time the question of Mr Kennedy's drinking became a mainstream issue was after a 2002 interview with Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman. "How much do you drink?" Mr Paxman asked. "Moderately, socially, as you well know," was the reply. "You don't drink privately?" "What do you mean, privately?"
"By yourself, a bottle of whisky late at night?"
"No, I do not, no." Mr Kennedy made several more polite but firm denials over the next few years, sometimes adding a pledge to quit smoking.

In 2004, he said he had cut down on his drinking and was taking more exercise - now it has emerged he was receiving treatment for an alcohol problem.

Despite the public denials, it seems efforts were going on behind the scenes to encourage Mr Kennedy face up to his demons. Four top party figures apparently cornered Mr Kennedy in his private office in 2004, and insisted he acknowledge his drink problem. According to reports, they succeeded in persuading him to admit his condition, and he has since been receiving "private" medical help.

Colleagues in the party apparently expected Mr Kennedy to stand down after the general election in May. During the campaign he seemed to have trouble answering media questions on some policy details, which he blamed on the birth of his first son but which others put down to his drinking. He did not resign, and later heightened concerns in November by pulling out of a scheduled visit to Newcastle while en route.

It followed the 2004 Budget speech, when Vince Cable and Sir Menzies Campbell were reportedly forced to stand in for him at 15 minutes notice. He denied his absence was drink-related.

The election of David Cameron as Conservative leader raised mutterings about Mr Kennedy's leadership to fever pitch. Senior figures such as deputy leader Sir Menzies Campbell and Simon Hughes said Mr Kennedy had to "raise his game" or face a leadership challenge. But Mr Kennedy might have weathered the storm had it not been for journalists from ITV News confronting him with evidence - supplied by senior party colleagues - that Mr Kennedy had received treatment for alcohol addiction.

Within an hour of being confronted with detailed allegations, Mr Kennedy made an extraordinary personal statement at party headquarters in Westminster, admitting he had a drink problem.

He threw himself on the mercy of the party membership - among whom he has always been very popular - announcing a leadership contest he intended to take part in. But his gamble failed to pay off as frontbench figures broke cover to say he should not take part in the leadership contest.

Faced with the threat of a mass walkout by his frontbench team Mr Kennedy felt he had no option but to resign.

nymole January 7, 2006 - 11:55am

printer friendly version |

( categories: News | United Kingdom )

loss of leader who was 'knifed in the front'

MPs' anger at loss of leader who was 'knifed in the front'

Danielle Gusmaroli | Jan 8

The Independent - Tributes poured in for Charles Kennedy in the wake of his resignation as Liberal Democrat leader, with party members applauding his "courageous" decision to bow out.

The party's president, Simon Hughes, was among the first to pay tribute, saying: "Today is a thank-you day to Charles and Sarah and a sad day for us. But it's a day that will let liberalism move on. There are certainly many people who feel Charles Kennedy was badly treated."

Sir Menzies Campbell, deputy leader of the Lib Dems, commended Mr Kennedy for his "dignity" and "courage". He said: "Under his leadership the party has advanced to its best position for 80 years and will for ever be in his debt. We must wish him and his family well."

Mr Kennedy's predecessor, Lord Ashdown, also hailed his achievements. "The Liberal Democrats owe him a great debt as the leader who presided over the highest number of seats and greater share of the popular vote for Britain's third party in living memory," he said.

Other party members were united in anger at the brutal treatment of Mr Kennedy by colleagues who had campaigned to oust him from the top. The Northern Ireland spokesman, Lembit Opik, said: "I'm really sad about it. He was the right man to do the job and he has been hounded out by people who didn't appreciate his qualities. But he has put the party first and that was the right decision."

A more outspoken reaction came from the Scottish National Party leader, Alex Salmond, who said: "[He] confronted his problems and appealed for support, but his MPs have responded by knifing him in the front. Julius Caesar was better treated by Brutus than Charles Kennedy was by his colleagues."

The Lib Dems' home affairs spokesman, Mark Oaten, said: "It's a really sad day for the party, and I'm upset, frankly. He was hounded out."

_________________

EDITED EXTRACT OF THE RESIGNATION STATEMENT

I wished to make a statement this afternoon having, as I said yesterday evening, reflected over the leadership of the Liberal Democrats.

On Thursday afternoon I said that I thought it was only fair to give our party members their say over my continuing leadership.

Accordingly, I requested the opening of a leadership election. Since then it has been open to any other Liberal Democrat MP to announce their candidacy and to stand against me. None have decided to do so.

In the recent weeks and days I have been inundated by messages of support from party members and activists throughout the country. It means a great deal to me. Many, many of them have made the point to me that we founded this party on the fundamental principle of one member, one vote. I urge them to exercise that right in the leadership election which now follows.

However, it is clear now, that such support is not reflected strongly enough across the parliamentary party. Accordingly, I am announcing that when nominations open for the leadership I shall not now be putting my name forward. And I am standing down as leader with immediate effect.

I have been in politics for far too long to be overly sentimental about this sort of moment. However, I would like to pay a heartfelt tribute to the many colleagues and friends who have helped sustain me through my years as party leader. They are far too numerous to mention individually, save one - and that person is Anna Werrin. A finer friend and colleague you could not wish for - throughout my first 23 years in politics.

Personally and politically, the support of my wife, Sarah, and our respective families remains beyond adequate tribute - but they know the sincerity of what I am saying today.

The new leader can be assured of my loyal support as a backbench Liberal Democrat MP. We are established as serious players in the changing reality which is three-party politics across Britain. I believe that to be a good inheritance and a great opportunity, one in which I look forward to continuing to play my part.

Thank you.

Tributes poured in for Charles Kennedy in the wake of his resignation as Liberal Democrat leader, with party members applauding his "courageous" decision to bow out.

The Lib Dems' home affairs spokesman, Mark Oaten, said: "It's a really sad day for the party, and I'm upset, frankly. He was hounded out."

EDITED EXTRACT OF THE RESIGNATION STATEMENT

I wished to make a statement this afternoon having, as I said yesterday evening, reflected over the leadership of the Liberal Democrats.

On Thursday afternoon I said that I thought it was only fair to give our party members their say over my continuing leadership.

Personally and politically, the support of my wife, Sarah, and our respective families remains beyond adequate tribute - but they know the sincerity of what I am saying today.

Thank you.

nymole January 8, 2006 - 12:31am

Whodunnit? Cameron, of course

John Rentoul |J an 8

The Independent - First blood to David Cameron, then.

We can trace the downfall of Charles Kennedy like the origins of the English Civil War in an A-level history essay - preconditions, causes and triggers.

The decisive trigger was Kennedy's bout of heavy drinking in November. The trigger was pulled by - historians will adjudicate over their competing claims - Sandra Gidley, the MP who challenged him at a meeting of his front-bench team; Vince Cable, the economic spokesman who drafted the pre-Christmas round robin signed by 11 members of the so-called shadow cabinet; or Daisy McAndrew, Kennedy's former press officer, who was about to break the story of his treatment for alcoholism.

The preconditions are similarly straightforward.

The fundamental one was the long-standing loss of confidence in Kennedy on the part of most of his senior parliamentary colleagues. This in turn arose from his drink problem, which meant that his functioning as a politician was uneven and that those who had to work with him did not feel that they could rely on him.

Related to this, but distinct, was an abiding sense that Kennedy was not as forceful, energetic and charismatic as a leader should be. As a result, the party seemed to miss opportunities.

Kennedy did not only have a drink problem, he had an underperformance problem, and it is far from clear which contributed to which. On its own, his failure to live up to early promise might not have been fatal, especially in the absence of an obvious alternative leader.

----------------------------------------------

The rest is only available to Independent "premium" readers until it goes down the internet food chain.....

nymole January 8, 2006 - 12:39am

Lib Dem contest: catharsis or civil war?

Greg Hurst | Jan 9

TimesOnline - Analysis

-------------------------------------------------

What is being decided today?

At this afternoon's session the party's federal executive commitee will decide on a timetable to select Charles Kennedy's successor. They must decide whether to stage a short campaign before the local elections in May or to delay it until afterwards.

If they decide to hold a quick campaign, the nominations will open today and a new leader would be in place by the end of March. The potential candidates would have two or three weeks to decide whether to throw their hats into the ring. If none of them does, Sir Menzies would be elected unopposed.

If the party chooses to delay the contest until May there would be a longer campaign which would leave the party without a leader until July.

--------------------------------------------------

Would the party benefit from a snap contest?

Some MPs want to wait, saying that local campaigning would be distracted by a leadership contest. Others take the view that it is unrealistic to go into local elections without a leader and it's better to settle the issue now.

As he is the current favourite, a short contest would be slightly in Sir Menzies's favour. A longer contest after May would give the other candidates more time to close the gap on him. So the decision that will be made today potentially has political implications and Simon Hughes, as chairman of the meeting and a likely candidate in the contest, is expected to stand aside as the vote is taken.

-------------------------------------------------

Would a leadership battle be damaging or could it inspire a Tory-style rebirth?

Leadership contests can be divisive, as we saw with the Conservatives in 2001 where Michael Portillo, as the leading candidate, faced very personal attacks from within the party. However, they can also be a time for vigorous debate on the future direction of a party which is cathartic and healthy.

This looks dangerous. Charles Kennedy, Lembit Opik and Lord Razzall, Mr Kennedy's strategist, are already complaining about the intemperate comments of some MPs. We also have Mr Hughes denouncing the way MPs have behaved over Mr Kennedy's resignation.

That is quite apart from the very real difference in views on policy, which are broadly split between the social liberals who have held sway for the past generation and the economic liberals who are trying to marry the social ideals with a more hard-headed, market-orientated approach.

If they can all exercise self-control and look to the future then this could be the trigger for a healthy debate which the party has needed for the past 18 months, if not longer.

-------------------------------------------------

How do the potential candidates stack up?

Sir Menzies is an establishment figure with a lot of support from the party grandees, most MPs and former leaders such as Paddy Ashdown and David Steel. He is the only candidate to so far declare his intention to stand and commands great respect within the party's higher circles.

Mr Hughes is an extremely energetic radical campaigner and has a very active power base among the activists. There's an instinctive anti-establishment instinct among Liberal Democrat members and that will play in his favour.

Mark Oaten, the home affairs spokesman, is making a judgment about whether to stand. I understand that Mr Kennedy and some of those around him have expressed their backing. He would certainly like to stand, but is deciding whether this will be a positive campaign or whether it will become bitter and divisive. He doesn't want to be involved if it is going to become nasty.

-------------------------------------------------

Are there any bright young things waiting to burst, David Cameron-style, onto the scene?

There is a whole generation of Lib Dem MPs who have arrived after the past two general elections and are getting their feet under the table. These are the party's bright young things and none of them is yet ready to stand in their own right. Most have given their backing straight away to Sir Menzies who is at most a one-election option and would offer stability and time for them to develop.

Of these, the most promising is Nick Clegg who spent four years as an MEP and arrived in the Commons in May. He needs time to adapt and to raise his profile within the party and in the country. Chris Huhne, who also arrived in May, is a former journalist and also served in Europe. He is a little older and has more experience but still needs time to build a name for himself.

David Laws, who arrived in 2001, is a former City banker who has shown no signs of every trying to build a power base but has instead focused on policy development. He is certainly the most able of the new intake and one of the party's best communicators.

nymole January 9, 2006 - 10:13am

Addendum: Martin Rowson's Guardian rendering

(click on image to enlarge)

nymole January 9, 2006 - 10:28am

Search

latest

User login

Navigation

Team Agonist

Thoughtful

Global

Timely

Who's online

Online users:

Syndicate

Charles Kennedy: A Personal Problem, A Political Crisis

Comment viewing options