Forums › Life › Politics, Media & Current Events › Should Charless Kennedy have been forced to resign?
In my opinion no! At least the guy was honest about his problems and didnt tip toe around the subject with bs like most politicians would of. And also Winston Churchill was one of the greatest leaders our country has ever had, and the guy not only liked to drink but was going senile towards the end of his leadership. What do you think?
i does seem a bit harsh but he’d lost the support of many of the MPs he was leading, so…
unfortunately the problem with Kennedy was not so much that he did not eventually admit his problems – and to be fair he didn’t do really bad stuff like seriously attack his partner or crash his car and injure others, but it was more the fact that he was not able to regain an acceptable level of performance in the required timescale.
He missed several important political debates because of his drinking and initially claimed this was due to other illnesses.
In any other profession this wouldn’t be acceptable, and politics demands the “best of the best” – after all, these people consider themselves fit to lead us and to decide how we should live our lives..
There is, whether we like it or not and unstoppable social trend towards “social responsibility” on both left and right of the political spectrum where everyone must judge for themselves how what they do affects others – or expect the state or their peers to make the judgement for them.
Churchill did indeed drink a fair amount; and was also propped up on (legally prescribed and administered) amphetamines; but I don’t think you can apply peacetime standards to a wartime leader (a real war we needed to fight as well, not one caused by our own greed like todays wars..)
He did do some strange things – but many were initially harmless. He made pets of all the animals at chartwell (including a sheep which he let in the house!) and once rose at 05:00 and wandered the housein his dressing gown –
Uunsurprisingly, his five pet cats all mewed at him for food – he gave the cats a lecture on shortages and how they could only have skimmed milk and no cream! The book in which I read this also mentions his drinking and drug taking habits – OTOH with that much amphet inside him I can’t blame him for drinking, the paranoia of war would have really messed with his mind.
This is an amusing and cute story to offset the horrors of war – but towards the end of Churchills life, he did indeed come out with some deplorable ideas; some of them as bad as Hitler.
As a Conservative he was a strong believer in the class system, and simply believed that lower class males should be sterilsed to prevent them breeding too much (many of the same generation who actually won that war :rant:) and was advocating ethnic cleansing of natives who did not want their countries taken over by the Empire. By that time, thankfully, him and his party were voted out of office.
Politics and power screw people up; its just that the timescales differ (why else do countries have regular elections and in some cases limits on how long an individual can stay in power?) Its a shame that Kennedy wrecked his potential before he had a chance to prove it; but he was judged by the same social norms that he have judged us by…
A worse scenario would have been him as a future PM in a Lib-Dem /Tory coalition, rolling back all the extended hours licensing and clamping down on alcohol and drugs – using his (and David Camerons) ‘personal experience’ as an excuse for doing so.
Kennedy wasn’t that truthful either TBH – this is a report from Nick Robinson (BBC)
Westminster’s worst kept secret?
- Nick
- 6 Jan 06, 04:50PM
It was – people say – Westminster’s worst kept secret. I refer, of course, to Charles Kennedy’s drinking.
The implication, therefore, is that we political reporters conspired to keep it that way – a secret. Hold on a second. Not so fast. There is a big, big difference between knowing that Charles Kennedy drank a lot and knowing that he had a drink problem and was undergoing treatment.
I knew the first but certainly did not know the second. The same is true of all the political reporters I know and all but Charles Kennedy’s closest circle. I knew that Mr Kennedy sometimes drank more than he should. I could see that for myself and I heard it from those who worked closely with him.
I took the view that until and unless he failed to perform his public duties properly, or his own MPs decided his drinking was a reason to rebel, this would remain just Westminster chatter. Plenty of people in politics – and let’s face it in the media too – drink more than they should.
More importantly, Mr Kennedy himself and some of his aides – and let’s not mince words here – lied when asked about this.
Jeremy Paxman was famously the first to ask – he was met not just with a denial but a furious row about intruding into a politician’s private life. When Mr Kennedy missed the budget debate in 2004 and sweated his way anxiously through a party speech, I interviewed him and asked him about his drinking. I was fobbed off.
Last summer something changed. The BBC received information that Mr Kennedy was undergoing treatment for an alcohol problem. This was put to Mr Kennedy’s office who issued a flat denial. With that – and without independent evidence – the BBC decided it could not run the story.
In November, Charles Kennedy pulled out of a speech in Newcastle. His press secretary rang round to tell me and others that this was because his son was ill, but pleaded that we respected the privacy of the family. It has since emerged that at that time some of Mr Kennedy’s colleagues thought he was unfit to appear in public.
It was only yesterday when he was faced both with a parliamentary revolt and a warning that ITN were to run anonymous allegations that he was undergoing treatment that Charles Kennedy confirmed that he did indeed have a problem and was receiving help.
Believe me, until then, that wasn’t simply a secret we’d not thought it right to tell you. It was a secret that left me and many in Westminster open-mouthed. If you look at the pictures from last night’s news conference you’ll see that for yourse
didn’t Churchill also admit to smoking opium?
as far as his ideas on eugenics, they were widespread at that time… even Huxley was keen on the idea (until the rise and fall of Hitler, when such debate became unsavoury)
Unsurprisingly, his five pet cats all mewed at him for food – he gave the cats a lecture on shortages and how they could only have skimmed milk and no cream! The book in which I read this also mentions his drinking and drug taking habits – OTOH with that much amphet inside him I can’t blame him for drinking, the paranoia of war would have really messed with his mind.
that bit made me laugh so fuckin hard, id be pretty intrested to know what this book is sounds like a good read. As for the kennedy stuff your right an alcholic doesn’t make a good leader but we all know that although the lib dems have gained alot of support since the iraq war that realisticly the lib dems aren’t going to be in power within kennedys lifespan, but I still feel he was on of the only decent blokes in politics. When he was giving that speech I felt pretty sorry for him, he was a mess and it was quite clear at the time that he had a seriouse drink problem. And its not surprising he’d get defensive with parky, anyone else would, but i didnt realise it was something hed been denieing for quite some time. I kinda respected him for being so open about it but it really pisses me off when politicians fob straight forward questions of with bs.
I wish the Lib Dems would pull their finger out. Someone might be able to convince me otherwise but i really have the feeling they are a waste of time. They just never seem to achieve much.
Not that i have much confidence in the Labour / Conservative parties and would never vote for them i doubt i will vote for the Lib Dems next time either…
0
Voices
5
Replies
Tags
This topic has no tags
Forums › Life › Politics, Media & Current Events › Should Charless Kennedy have been forced to resign?