The Return Of The Alcoholic?

by Chris | 25 Aug 2007 | No Comments

Charles Kennedy, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, forced out because he was – and had been for years – an alcoholic, is refusing the rule out a return to front-line politics and challenging Ming the Merciless the doddering old fool Campbell for his old job. His reply to the question “Are you going to be the comeback kid?” was:

When you have been the leader of a national political party obviously you know what is involved, you are still of an age where you have got something to contribute, but you don’t have the relentless and remorseless demands upon you in quite the same way.

He does seem to show some signs of still being under the influence, however, since he seems to have forgotten how many hours are in a day, and how many days are in a week, saying:

[I]f you are involved in the story of the day you can be broadcasting 25 hours a day, eight days a week.
And still it won’t be enough, such is the insatiable appetite of the media monster. [emphasis added]

Of course, that could also have been meant as a joke, and a subtle sideswipe at Ming’s leadership.

Will, or can, Charles Kennedy ever return to front-line politics? I’m not sure it’s possible. Wherever he goes, whatever he does, his alcoholism [former or otherwise] will always hang over his head. Whatever happens, the Liberal Democrats should not be stupid enough to put him back in the leadership position. He may still be popular, and more so than Ming, but to put him back as leader would be a huge mistake. For one, it would be a step back in time. Like Hague could never really be Conservative leader again, Kennedy can never be Lib Dem leader again. In these jobs, you only get one chance. For a party to go back to an ex-leader makes them look weak and backwards-looking, rather than strong and forward-looking.

Kennedy, unlike Hague, shouldn’t return to front-line politics at all. No matter what he does or where he goes, the shadow of his alcoholism will always hang over him. Commentators will question everything he does through that lens, and it will always come up again and again in any interview. Since he resigned [or, rather, was pushed] over a personal issue, there is no getting over or away from it in the public mind. He should instead concentrate on building a non-political career. After all, it’s not like the Lib Dems are ever going to make it into government!

Sources: The Telegraph, BBC

No Comment »

  • Daily Referendum said:

    What is the point of having a party leader who will never be PM, even if the LibDems win by some miracle? You cannot have a alcoholic, reformed or not in charge of the UK’s Nuclear Deterrent.

  • Norfolk Blogger said:

    The Tories have had a succession of leaders who never were PM and have got a leader now who also has that problem too.

  • ThunderDragon said:

    What, a leader that hasn’t yet been PM? Most tend to suffer that until at least after they lead a party into an election. The last Liberal PM was Lloyd George in 1922, who was held in position by the Conservatives. He will always be the last.

  • William Gruff said:

    You are most unfair in criticising The Drunken Scotchman’s calendar skills. The McDrunk was of course describing a Barnett Formula Day and Week in Sc*tland. The extra hour and day is another gift from the people of England, even though the Jocks don’t need it.

Comments

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.