rileyuk.co.uk

Hello Everyone,

I wanted to know what others thought about the confession that CK (Lib Dem Leader) about being a recovering alcoholic.

Mike

I think that he had to admit it or a newspaper was probably going to print the story anyway.


ALthough - having an alcoholic as a party leader doesn't give you very much confidence in the party, and he would probably be right to quit !!

rumours about his drinking have been going on for some time, so the newspapers wouldn't have had a story to break - in the end the constant pressure of the rumour probably forced his hand, as well as the recent resurgence of the conservatives. i think it is brave for a man of his position to admit to a drinking problem even if he was pushed, and it might not necessarily be detrimental to his career in the long term - the drug allegations surrounding david cameron have proved that.

as a lib dem voter myself, i like kennedy and think if he can weather this storm it will only bolster his reputation in the long run. as a politician he can not be faulted for his ideals even if his delivery is not always up to scratch, and no matter what his personal problems are i would prefer him to lead the party as opposed to a new face that no one had heard of (ming campbell, the only really other noted candidate has already put his weight behind kennedy).

after the successes of the last election, it seems some people in the lib dems would prefer to be on the fringes of politics...

Fair point, Fez !!

I don't think it really matters. Well it does to an extent. By this I mean it would be wrong if his admitting to being a recovering alcholic, if it had/has been forced.

I think it is his business, even in his position. I don't claim to know much, (if anything) about politics. But I think if he should be forced to admit such things, (or anyone in such a position for that matter) to anybody it should be those who it may be necessary that they are informed, (such as party members). However this in itself may be wrong, as this denies the person, (Charles Kennedy in this case) the right to keep personal information private. The price of being in the public eye I suppose.

Overall I think this comes down to morals. But irrelevant of the reason, I think its quite brave of someone in such a position to admit something like this, whether its true or not. But, as is often the case with people in his position, it is likely he must succomb to rumours and the media.

Damn, I thought he was still an alcoholic. The fact he's a recovering alcoholic makes it a total non-event of a story. MPs are representative of the population, so there's bound to be some alcoholics there, it's just that some manage to lead political parties whilst being one. Imagine how well the Lib Dems will do with him sober.

Churchill was, apparently, an alcoholic and much worse than Kennedy according to The Times. What makes me laugh about the whole situation is that Kennedy has been ''dry'' for two months. He has battled it for the last 18 months. I personally applaud the man, it cannot be easy living your life under the media spotlight - even though that is what he chose to do.

I'm not sure on his position. It seems to me as though a large number of his party want him out. A Newsnight poll showed that 33 out of 62 MPs wanted him out, 16 didn't express an opinion and just 13 said he should stay. Many of his critics say that they should have taken advantage of the Conservative's turmoil and attracted more voters. I'm almost positive that the 'David Cameron factor' is coming into play here as well - get a youthful man in and boost the polls.

I think that he will eventually leave. I quite like him but then again, he is not a pompous git, his personality is pleasant and he seems to enjoy a laugh - all of which mean that I will quite like him. I think the vast majority of his views are for the good of his country. He seems to have been good for his party and has gained them a number of strong seats and ''swing'' seats. This seems to me to be good leadership because he has strategically targetted these seats.

There only question the Lib Dems are facing is who do they get in - none of them seem to be that impressive especially after Sir Menzies Campbell pulled out.

I think it does take a brave person to admit being an alcoholic but I think that politics is a twisted game. Lets be honest (a rare thing I know!) he has made some mistakes in his leadership but that does not mean he has not generally done well. I think the problem is that all the parties was a figure head - a perfect, unblemished person for all to look up to in awe. This is obviously a unatainable goal but it just goes to show that image matters more than policies!

Well, he's stood down. I've just listened to the news conference.

Tis not surprising really but I am sure he will make a comeback sometime in the future, just look at Peter Mandleson.

Am gutted he's stepped down, the guy is flawed sure, but who isn't? Deep down he seemed like a decent bloke doing good things for the Lib Dem party, now there's one less decent bloke with a conscience in parliament, its a poor show.

i wrote the first post while still at work on friday afternoon and even by the time i got home the writing seemed to be on the wall regarding kennedy's position. it's a terrible shame he has had to step down under these circumstances and in a way i believe his drinking has purely been used as an excuse by his rivals in the lib dems to get him out of the way, as there has been a feeling for quite sometime that the party has not made much impact since the successes of the last election.

as i've previously said i have voted for the lib dems in the past and that was done on the basis of the leadership qualities of firstly sir paddy ashdown and then charles kennedy, but now i'm struggling to even think of who might replace him. unfortunately, the party has for a long time pushed onwards really only under the charisma of its leader - the others are grey-faced nobodies. the only noted personality is sir menzies campbell and he's already 67, by the time of the next election he'll be in his 70s - the likelihood of someone so old drawing in voters is small; the very reason in fact why howard stepped down as conserative leader.

the lib dems seemed to be heading back into political obscurity, and not for the first time the sacraficial lamb at the centre of all this was a decent politician. do you have to be a complete shit to become prime minister?

the lib dems seemed to be heading back into political obscurity, and not for the first time the sacraficial lamb at the centre of all this was a decent politician. do you have to be a complete shit to become prime minister?

Possibly. I'm sure there are lots of genuine individuals who enter politics thinking they can make a difference and make things better. They probably find that the machinery grinds them down into almost total ineffectiveness. Others, far more devious and self centred, probably do very well for themselves. I would put Tony Blair in that category - someone I know who has met him described him as utterly charming but totally shallow.

Unfortunately, I don't know how we can tell the good from the bad....

johnriley1uk wrote:Unfortunately, I don't know how we can tell the good from the bad....

Since we do not have a really good handle on all of their policies (and more importantly the implications) I would suspect that the country will always chose based on the image of the figure head. How many times have you heard a voter say "He looks like a good choice".

I agree with Chrissie, I think it is a shame that the democracy cannot accept that alcohism is a genuine illness, it is unfortunate resigned. I think his political career as leader was over from the moment he confessed. I also think Fez has a valid point - all of the supposed candidates did not look like the usual PM material, we could be wrong though.

Mark Oaten or Simon Hughes seem likely to challenge Sir Menzies Campbell for the job. Neither of the first two seem that very old - one has been there less than six months - which means that they will probably contest it. If this happens, then I do not know what the future holds for the Lib Dems. Cameron may have boosted initial polls but then again, so did Hague at the beginning of his reign. Do you realise, that if Blair stands down as plans, Cameron will be the longest serving leader in the next general election!

Personally, ultimately image does matter even though it shouldn't. We expect certain things. if we go for a McDonalds we would walk out if the server was covered in a blooded robe and had mucky hands. Why? Because that is not what we expect. We expect them to be clean (if not a little spotty and called Mel or Jay).

At a parents evening and in every day work I am expected to walk in dressed smartly. I can dress in jeans if I want to but once a supply came in jeans and was asked to leave. He was told that at Bedford, teachers have to set certain standards and one of these is appearance (there has been a big comedown on it over the last three years - please, no stories of Mr. Ashmore in flared jeans). It sounds picky but they are the expectations of the institution I work for.

The difference I think on this case is that we, as decent human beings, have compassion towards Kennedy. We feel that he should not be treated this way. If we were looking to win an election then we would probably think differently.

In response to the comment of 'do you have to be a complete shit to be prime minister?' I think you need to replace prime minister with MP. By all accounts, if he didn't quit there was going to be a 'charge sheet' delivered to all the newspapers of much worse revelations of Charles Kennedy's antics. They wanted him out and they got it.

I believe that Kennedy will be back, look at Mandelson and Hague.