They're an odd lot, the Lib Dems. They have some good people, but tend not to give prominence to them. There is no doubt that the best leader available to the Lib Dems at Westminster is Vince Cable. He's impressed everyone since he was appointed their 'acting' leader. This blog has acknowledged the impressiveness of this man for many years. But he's not a candidate for the leadership. This is being fought out (with 'fought being an entirely suitable word) between two much lesser men.
None of this is particularly surprising or interesting. The leadership contest is turning out to be a bit of a yawn. And anyway, its not unknown for similar situations to have occurred in other parties in the distant past. A lot more interesting is the reappearance on the 'commenting' scene of Charles Kennedy, who resigned as party leader two years ago, admitting a drink problem. Fair enough, no party wants an alcoholic in a senior position - in fact, anyone who is an alcoholic should be prevailed upon to resign from Westminster altogether. But it does look as if Kennedy has fully recovered.
Last week, he was being touted as a possible candidate for the position of President of the Lib Dems - and I do think he would be vastly better than any other name I'm seen suggested so far. Today, the Mail on Sunday has him 'launching a devastating attack on the two men fighting to become Lib Dem leader.' This could be a MoS exaggeration - but he is quoted as saying "There's no clear message coming out of either candidate. It looks like a squabble about nothing". Kennedy has been around too long for him not to have known how his words would have been taken. He's up to something. It really does look as if he intends to run for the Party Presidency next year - or even the leadership if he thinks that neither 'Calamity Clegg' or Huhne are up to the job. I have a personal interest in all this. I wouldn't mind seeing another good old fashioned blood letting row break out amongst the leading Lib Dems.
5 comments:
do you have any alcoholics in mind glyn?
I think they need to get serious about beig a party , not a collection of individuals, may be that would give them a focus
anon - no-one in particular.
vm - I certainly agree about the 'getting serious' bit.
I believe many members would have to resign if that were the case Glyn, all parties would be involved.
Not sure about the ARSembly.
Come to think of it, Churchill would have gone!
oscar - I'm a bit old fashioned about this - and it does depend on your definition of an alcoholic. Personaly, I have no problem with someone who drinks a lot (their liver, their choice) but if it prevents them doing the job properly, they should resign. I don't think anyone has ever said that Churchill couldn't do the job properly.
Post a Comment