Charlie

[liadnan]

What's the rule about saying you won't resign three times? Ho hum. I can't see him making it through this one, which personally I think is a shame. And after all, Churchill was a notoriously heavy drinker, and Eden was a speed freak, which I always thought went some way to explaining Suez. Actually, scratch Eden, I don't think Charlie really wants to emulate arguably the worst prime minister of the last century.

Still, it does seem to me that both Kennedy and those briefing against him (incidentally, the only one of those said to have signed the letter that raises more than a flicker of recognition is Vince Cable, though I smell Simon Hughes at the bottom of it all) have pretty much thrown a spanner in the LibDem machine, at the worst possible moment for them, just as the Tories finally seem to be staggering in the direction of credibility once more.

Incidentally, Newsnight seems, on my increasingly infrequent visits, to be ever more like The Day Today. "Well Nick, what does this mean for the Liberal Democrats." "It's difficult to say Jeremy."

And Sharon clings on to life, just. I find it difficult to say anything pleasant about him.

... personal responsibility...

Comments

[frankie-ecap.livejournal.com]

I feel quite conflicted about this. On the one hand, I can't immediately think of anyone I'd rather see at the helm (I'm a fan of Campbell, but I do think the age thing is a factor), and I do want the LDs to stay in the game. Also, in principle I think that admitting a psychological illness is a brave thing to do and this should be supported and encouraged rather than condemned.

I've also got some problems, though. Firstly, it seems that he has lied to his party members and they can no longer trust him, and I can see that this might make it hard for the LDs to function.

More importantly, though, I think that it is incredibly difficult to be a recovering alcoholic and a politician. Recovery from alcoholism is about giving up control and accepting what happens rather than needing to impose your will on the world. It's about coming to terms with your own faults and making amends, and it requires a deep level of personal responsibility and honesty with self and others. It's about taking life one day at a time and not needing to know or control the future. I can't imagine being able to do this and play any kind of political role, never mind as party leader.

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

Ah, this is the bit we never quite got to on the phone earlier.

I don't know - I don't think I have a problem with a party leader being a recovering alcoholic. It's the undiagnosed people in positions of power who freak me out.

[frankie-ecap.livejournal.com]

I would have a major problem with a party leader being a 'dry drunk' - an alcoholic who has stopped drinking but never had real recovery through a treatment programme. This brings appalling psychological problems and the constant risk of relapse.

But of course that would never happen.

[tybalt-quin.livejournal.com]

it seems that he has lied to his party members and they can no longer trust him

Sorry to butt in, but Kennedy's alcoholism has been the subject of gossip within the Party for at least the past decade. As a student I got an invite to a meeting with the senior Lib Dem team and a couple of them were incredibly indiscreet about skeletons in the cupboard. The Party was aware of that and voted him in anyway.

[frankie-ecap.livejournal.com]

True, and I'd guess (possibly wrongly) that was also true of Clinton's womanising? It was still the lying that most people found unforgivable.

I don't think you can legislate for trust. If it goes, it goes. I've worked for people who I've trusted until I didn't, and then I couldn't get back from there. Not always a great revelation - sometimes a slow drain, until there was nothing left to be drained.

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

I think a sizeable proportion of the US didn't really care if Clinton lied about a woman, but the Republicans mobilised the moral outrage vote, and that was that :-/

I've never lost trust in a political figure for what he does in his personal life (Clinton? Schmuck, sure, but what a politician), but so many have thrown my trust away through their politics, and they're never getting it back.

[kethar.livejournal.com]

It was known about from his time as a Governor, but I'm not sure many people really looked at the information out there enough to know. Though I tend to vote Republican, I am still not sure why it was considered significant enough an issue to go after him for. I don't think the womanizing had anything to do with his ability to act in the office. I think it was an excuse to go after him period. The lying under oath is something I thing was significant, but not the reason for him to be under oath to begin with.

When it comes to US politics, I usually figure that trust isn't something I'm ever going to find in a president or any office, except maybe some of the ones before my time. I tend to vote for the one I think will mess things up the least. It seems to be more what shade of gray is most acceptable, not who is black or white on an issue.

Are British politics more black and white, or is it just politics in general that is messed up?

-ken-

[liadnan]

Not that I think Clinton deserved what he got, but he was a serving president who lied on oath, CK is some way down the scale.

[ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com]

It really seems to come down to the following in British politics at the moment:

Which is most reprehensible?

a) denying one's alcoholism, which as a sensible LD backbencher pointed out is in fact a symptom of the condition;
b) refusing to comment about one's cocaine taking?
c) being at best economical with the truth, to Parliament, about the basis for engaging the country in a foreign war?

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

What you said. *sigh*

[aliandrik.livejournal.com]

Spot on. I don't know whether to laugh or cry, really.