NationStates Jolt Archive

The Liberal Democrats recently got rid of Charles Kennedy, due to his Alcohol problems, does anyone actually care about this?
Its like "Oh, really? he sounds a laugh" If anything it would gain them votes.
The only people i can imagine this would sway against the Libs are the Conservatives. And this is quite ridiculous as by definition Conservatives and Libs are Opposites.
Whats your Opinion?!?!?!?!!?!

If the guy was bringing down their popularity, then sure why not. It doesn't matter if the guy is a souse or not.

Here in the US, we didn't get rid of Teddy Kennedy, who has the same problem.

And we elected Bush, who says he doesn't have the problem anymore.

Meh.

public opinion was behind him.
the press were behind him.
the party members were behind him.

he did a great job with upping the party's profile in the last few years dispite his problem, and could only do better now he's sober.


but, to further their own political careers while spouting that "the party is bigger than the individuals", his front bench turned on him and made his position untenable. fucking. stupid.

Is it because he drank or is it simply an excuse for other things?

Is it because he drank or is it simply an excuse for other things?
well the MPs didn't like him but frankly i don't know why - i think he was good :)

well the MPs didn't like him but frankly i don't know why - i think he was good :)

Pure, you have to ask yourself one question...

Would you trust a man who had NEVER gotten high in any way, shape, or form?

I liked him. And I think the fact he was an alcoholic yet still managed to run the third largest political party in Britain is pretty admirable IMO really.

I don't know. I can understand people not wanting an alcoholic as a prime-minister. Then again, no-one seems to really hold it against Churchill.

I don't care. Maybe there's stuff going on that wasn't made public, though.

Is it because he drank or is it simply an excuse for other things?

It all works together to form a kind of cohesive fixture that's much like fibrin and platelets mixed together. ie a scab. Not perfect, but it will work for the majority.

Given that my father was an alcoholic, I know the effects of it. My father was incapable of ingratiating himself into a normal family life, as are many with the illness, so I don't really see how an alcoholic could be expected to run a political party, never mind a country.

On the other hand, despite this, he did bring the Lib Dems from a pretty unelectable party into something vaguely credible. But there were a number of occasions on which he lied about his drinking habits - classic symptoms of alcholism, of course - and that's not acceptable in public office. (Though, to be fair, he wouldn't be alone there).

Meh. I don't what my exact position on the issue is. Part of me thinks he deserved to be forced to leave, part of me has a modicum of sympathy.

Apparently, just short of half Lib-dem voters (in a Guardian survey; always the best source of Lib Dems!) would like Kennedy to take the leadership back again. And, you know, he'd get my support if he came back.

People are stupid.

Come back Charles!

People are stupid.

Come back Charles!

They might not even let him be a Cabinet minister, they want him to be back bench :mad: