It seems to me that Charles Kennedy, by announcing his alcoholism, submitting his resignation, and opening a leadership contest is a true martyr for democracy. Any thoughts anyone?
Well, you say that like it's a good and honorable thing ...and yet, when all this time he's been a drunk and trying to keep it a secret from everyone. Just where was this great, honorable, "true martyr" during years past? By the way, what, exactly, is a "true martyr"? Baron Max
Okay, well a true martyr is someone who dies for a cause, but I meant that he is a martyr in the sense that he has sacraficed himself for democracy; he has given his party, as voters, the choice of whether he should remain as leader. He was trying to deal with it privately, which I find respectable: what was the point of going public with the information when he might have been able to solve the problem and continue with his career?
because people have a right to know if their reprasentative if parliament has issues like that.would you be saying the same thing if someone you didnt like admitted they'd had a problem with alcohol and were only now coming forward?or a airline pilot?or a teacher?or a etc etc etc.he didnt resign immediately as he should have.
Kennedy is among the nastiest pieces of work on the British political scene for some time. For years, he has expected his colleagues to cover up for him, always promising them that he had stopped drinking. If you know any alcoholics, you know they are always in denial. Eventually, even the dimmest of his colleagues (and they are Lib Dems) began to realise that they were being perpetually lied to. (At the moment, he is claiming not to have touched a drink for two months and to have finally conquered the problem. Anyone here believe that???) Even then, his colleagues gave him chance after chance to pick his moment to step aside with whatever story he chose. Politicians may be less choosey about telling the truth than most other mortals, but after a while they do grow uncomfortable about endless prevarication and mendacity. Especially when every journalist knows the truth of the matter. In the end, Lib Dem MPs finally confront him and force him to step down. His admirers (yes, there are people who admire this piece of trash) accuse them of disloyalty. The Party lauds him to the sky for taking what was the only path left to him. My God! I don't know whether you congratulate his colleagues for their patience and forebearance before they actually pulled the rug, or whether you pity them for their spinelessness in taking so long. Frankly, I spotted Kennedy as a "wrong 'un" a long time ago, just as my instincts have correctly warned me who to trust or nor to trust in other cases. I don't know that it is a knack I could teach anyone, but it is very obvious that there are a great number of people around who lack this facility. (Heck, there are people out there who are fans of George Galloway!)
If it doesn't affect their ability to do their job... Yeah, he tried to deal with his problem privately rather than drag the party through a media circus. River Ape: may I request a source for your information? The picture you paint seems to imply that you have followed the story for some time, or are simply presenting your imagination. George Galloway seems to come across as a 'bad guy' simply because of his involvement with Iraq, but I haven't had a chance to settle my opinion yet.
it WOULD affect his ability to do his job.alcoholism always does. aslo george galloway is an arrogant wanker who is a lot stupider than he thinks he is.
Multiple sources. I am a pretty close observer of the political scene with a cousin in the shadow cabinet; two former shadow cabinet members were also known to me (one a close friend). I have been an office holder in the Conservative Party myself (though no longer a member). Multiple etceteras! I am currently in the process of selling a studio flat within walking distance of the Palace of Westminster. (My principal residence has been out of London for the past four years, so I am not quite so well as informed as I used to be.) Believe me, Spectrum, I am only telling you what is common knowledge among "in the know" people. I will admit to a prejudice against the man before I knew anything against him; also that I am uncertain how long ago his drinking became a major problem. I am a little surprised that no real killer piece on the man has appeared in the press -- but give it time! However, there is enough information out there in the public arena for anyone who could read the subtext in reportage to have put two and two together. Partly, you just have to know how politics works to get the picture. Never forget that there are libel laws, but maybe there are also a lot of people who did really like the guy. You think I don't like him? I bet there are Lib Dem MPs who hate his guts -- though it would not stop them spouting the required guff about the nobility of his resignation! (The greatest animosities are almost always within parties.)
River Ape, is it true then that he will be taking a back-bench seat? If so I would content that he career is not finished, but merely continuing.
1. Alcoholism is a disease, not a choice. 2. Arguably the greatest Briton of all time (certainly voted as such by BBC viewers) was Sir Winston Churchill. He was pissed through much of the Second World War. 3. About the only person paying attention to the situation who did not know he had a problem was Charles Kennedy. See point 1 above. 4. He is from the West of Scotland. Alcoholism is mandatory there.
Oh, he won't be resigning his Commons seat. Remember, many MPs simply remain back-bench figures -- which is not to say that they don't have careers in some sense, as long as the electors keep returning them. Where he goes from now will depend on his alcoholism. He has had an enormous incentive to beat it -- but so far failed. (Or, let's put it this way: he reached the point where his colleagues ceased believing his reassurances that he could stop or had stopped drinking.) Now that his problem is entirely out in the open, he should be able to take advantage of the best possible treatment. Could George Best stop drinking? No! Can Paul Gasgoigne stop? I wouldn't bank on it? Might Charles Kennedy stop? It's in the realm of the possible. Can he simply stumble along with a drink problem that his constituents are prepared to tolerate? Maybe.
For many of the more elderly of us (but not quite old enough to remember the wartime Churchill), the first British politician to come to mind as a drunk is the late George Brown. It is instructive how different a character he was from Churchill, because it tells us that alcoholics are quite varied. It was never a secret that Churchill used to drink -- and we now feel pretty sure that the high estimates of his intake were the right ones. It is said that he began drinking more seriously after suffering injuries in a road accident in the US. (I believe he forgot, as a pedestrian, that Yanks drive on the wrong side of the road.) With practice, he began to consume alcohol in amounts that would have killed most people pretty quickly. Churchill was given to periods of severe depression, but these seem to have predated his serious drinking. Considering the amount of his intake, he seems to have been in pretty good control of himself most of the time. He had a strong constitution and lived to a good age despite the abuse. George Brown on the other hand (Prime Minister Harold Wilson tells us of his deputy in his memoirs) drank no more than others, but could not handle it. He is often described as a man with a chip on his shoulder, and had a fiery temper. His colleague Denis Healey wrote of him: "we managed to work quite well together, but the strain of acting as a psychiatric nurse to a patient who was often violent became intolerable". One really wonders how Brown climbed so high! Clearly, he was an entirely different sort of character from Churchill, both in constitution and temperament. Charles Kennedy is clearly the "secret drinker" among the three, so it is difficult to gauge his intake. I rather suspect that he may not be drinking more than a few others in the House of Commons consume without a problem, but that he lacks the physical robustness to handle it.
1. Alcoholism is very much a disease and has been recognised as such for a considerable period of time. Are you seriously suggesting it is not? 2. Who can say? I rather suspect it was such a part of his persona that it was essential for him in order to function as he did. However, Churchill is exceptional on any measure and does not constitute a good argument for anything relating to mere mortals such as Charles Kennedy. [I am reminded en passant of Churchill's exchange with Lady Astor whom he stumbled into in the Houses of Parliament. Astor: You sir, are drunk. Churchill: And you madame, are ugly. Tomorrow, I shall be sober and you shall still be ugly.] 3. Alcolholics are often the last to acknowledge (i.e. recognise) thay have a problem. I am a simple member of the public, yet it had been apparent to me for some time that Kennedy almost certainly was alcoholic. 4. Thank you. Ah, yes, RiverApe, I had forgotten about the illustrious George Brown. You will also remember the ITN newscaster whose decline over some years was sadly visible to the entire country. At the risk of a civil suit if I have misremembered, was it not Reginald Bosanquet. With a name like that one would feel almost obliged to drink.
