Charles Kennedy admits drink problem and initiates leadership contest

Statement from Charles Kennedy:

"I've called this press briefing to address an issue - directly - one that has been a source of concern to myself and to others for some time.

Over the past eighteen months I have been coming to terms with and seeking to cope with a drink problem. And I've come to learn through that process that any drink problem is a serious problem indeed - for yourself and for those around about you.

I've sought professional help and I believe today that this issue is essentially resolved. People close to me know that this has been a struggle and for extended periods I have consumed no alcohol at all. As a matter of fact I haven't had a drink for the past two months - and I don't intend to in the future.

I've learnt the hard way of the need to face up to this medical problem - one that is dealt with successfully by many others on a daily basis. I have chosen not to acknowledge it publicly in this way before because, if at all possible, I wanted to overcome it privately.

In a sense, this admission today comes as something of a personal relief. I should have been willing to talk about it more openly before. I wish I had.

This issue has - understandably - been of concern to several of my parliamentary colleagues.

They have been both understanding and supportive.

I am extremely grateful to them for that.

It also lies beneath much of the current leadership speculation within the parliamentary party.
Therefore, let me be clear. I consider myself capable and in good health - and I remain politically determined as leader of the party.

This party's members have shown me tremendous support over the years and overwhelmingly in recent weeks and days. It is a privilege to serve as their leader. I want to continue doing so, not least because the prospects in front of us in this parliament are so great.

Given my statement today I believe it is only fair now to give our party members their say over the continuing leadership.

It is open to any colleague who believes that they can better represent the longer-term interests of the party to stand against me in such a leadership election.

I am requesting that the party puts in place the necessary steps to enable this election to take place immediately.

Given the extremely personal nature of this statement I trust that you will understand that I do not propose to make further comments."

Comments

[Dominic Llewellyn]

After today, I have a lot more respect for Charles Kennedy. Many politicians have gone before him and failed to break the taboo of alcoholism and Mr Kennedy has admitted it, humbled himself and swallowed his pride. I hope this doesn't become a points scoring game, after all who are we to judge?

[Selsdon Man]

Kennedy has repeatedly denied a drink problem for many months. He has admitted it only when he was about to be outed by the media. That is not integrity IMO.

[John Hustings]

Yes he has out-and-out lied about it many times. When asked to explain why the "rumour" of his drink problem was so widespread, he traduced the name of the Westminster media to save his own back.

That is not integrity at all.

[Selsdon Man]

"after all who are we to judge?"

The Electorate and funders of the Palace of Westminster, Short money, MPs salaries and their expenses.

[James Maskell]

One thing I would like to say before I give my comments, is that we should be careful how we phrase our comments on this issue. Owing to the subject matter, not so much the person as to the problem itself, some people might get ahead of themselves. I hope on this issue people could keep restrained. This is not because of some messages on this issue already posted but is just to say.

I think Kennedy has done a very courageous decision. Its a big gamble. I dont care when he admitted to the problem. I dont like the Lib Dems but this is a separate issue. He has the guts to stand in front of the media and admit he is fighting the problem. Still, hes a poor leader for the Lib Dems, but I think he deserves credit here.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

I think in this case Charles Kennedy's reticence/dishonesty (call it what you will) could perhaps be understandable. I'm not sure that the media should be poking their noses into such a personal matter for the leader of a minor political party.

[Goldie]

I agree with Mr. Vince-Archer.

We need to try to retain some privacy for our political leaders (and others in the public domain).

Since Mr. Kennedy, as leader of a trivial party, has absolutely no chance of running the Government, it's not the duty of the Press to 'out' Mr. Kennedy's problems. It's entirely a matter for the LibDems to decide who their leader should be.

Apparently "everyone" in Westminster knew about this issue for a long time (as "everyone" know so many other personal things that are kept hidden from the public).

It would be different for Government ministers, as servants of the Crown and the people, and also for the Leader of the Opposition. There the Press has perhaps a duty to investigate certain matters.

I, too, thought it was courageous that he spoke up about it, irrespective of whether he's denied this falsely publicly in the past.

[Mark Fulford]

I have sympathy for any alcoholic but, at the last general election, Kennedy put himself forward to be Prime Minister (albeit with no chance) while being unreliable and vulnerable through alcohol addiction. He put his political career above his party’s and our nation’s interests. His position and continued ambitions give us and the press the absolute right to question his suitability.

[James Maskell]

Lets just clarify the fact that he didnt admit to alcoholism. He just said he had a problem. Also the problem he had says nothing about his political ability or the way the Party is moving. Its a personal problem that he is dealing with.

[John Hustings]

"Since Mr. Kennedy, as leader of a trivial party, has absolutely no chance of running the Government"

I simply don't think there should be different standards for the Lib Dems just because they are a minor party. The point remains that Charles Kennedy is putting himself forward as a potential Prime Minister.

[Mike Christie]

I have some sympathy for Mr. Kennedy, I would however have a lot more if he'd played with more of a straight bat rather than slandering those who were reporting the truth.

I would say that it is in the public interest to know if the leader of one of our main political parties has a drink problem if it is affecting his work. All the not-so-veiled comments about good days and bad days would clearly indicate that it was.

As an elected public servant, especially one seeking such high office, the public have a right to know about matters that affect the ability to discharge that office. Lets not forget that even a humble back-bench MP costs the taxpayer in the region of £200,000 is salary, allowances and expenses.

Some so-called scandals, such as extra-marital affairs are not necessarily in the public interest, and I would agree that party leaders and other figures of similar standing deserve as much privacy as they can get.

However I do feel that the public have a right to know if someone with serious (if somewhat unlikely) designs on running the country is up to the task. His constituents certainly have a right to know if the man they elected to Parliament was an effective representative.

I wish Mr. Kennedy the best of luck in dealing with his problems, and if his party are happy for him to remain their leader and his constituents are happy to have him represent them now they are openly aware of the problem he has faced then good for them.

[Derek]

The strategy he has used to try to keep his job is a big gamble. This whole saga could go on for weeks, and although it will give the Lib Dems a lot more coverage, it may lead to more revelations.

Perhaps Charlie could go into the Celebrity Big Brother House as a late entry. If he wins he can keep his job!

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Charles Kennedy deserves credit for seeking professional help. Many people with a drink problem do not seek help and their lives are ruined. So too are the lives of people around them. We can attack him on a variety of political fronts, but we must salute him for facing up to his addiction, seeking help and being honest. Due the nature of politics and campaign - we often find ourselves in pubs (after delivering / attending evening meetings). I myself have sought help on this front and I am pleased that I have cut down considerably - it was not easy. Well done, CK!

[Guido Fawkes]

You'd have to have a heart of stone not to laugh. He lied, lied, and lied again.

Only his own ego prevents him from seeing the truth of this - expect him to play the victim card now.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Guido, you were right about Galloway being on Big Brother. Well done.

[Sean Fear]

Fair enough Justin, but such a problem does interfere with one's ability to function properly. He should step down as leader of his party (and the less stressful role of backbencher would also make life a good deal easier for him).

[James Maskell]

I think you are completely wrong, Guido. No matter when he admitted to it, hes be accused of using the victim card. Hes just admitted to the British public on national media that he has been fighting a drinking problem. Not only that but has thrown himself at the mercy of the Party. Thats is serious stuff. Would you do it? Would you admit to the country you had a problem with alcohol and tell the Party that they could kick you out of your position if they wanted?

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

This is a bizarre day. Galloway is on Big Brother.

[James Maskell]

That is IF you had a problem. I wouldnt have a clue if you did and it would not be my business either way.

[Chris Palmer]

David Cameron was quizzed over drugs, now it's Charles Kennedy's turn.

All this statement proves is that he has lied in the past to the media and to the electorate and should not be trusted. He has announced his "battle with alcohol" now as an attempt to gain sympathy. "Oh poor old Charlie, he's trying, he really is. Better keep him as leader." It’s a malicious ploy - and I imagine many people will fall for it. He did not admit the problem of his own accord, and has only done so because the media would have highlighted the problem if he had not. He is a man trying to save face and scrap together what he can from a particularly bad situation.

"Many politicians have gone before him and failed to break the taboo of alcoholism and Mr Kennedy has admitted it, humbled himself and swallowed his pride."

Alcoholism still is a taboo Dominic - and rightly so. He is hardly being humble by admitting to something he had lied about in the past. I am amazed that the issuing of his drinking problems has rumbled on for so long without any noticeable political consequences. If Mr Kennedy had been a Cabinet Minister then he would have been shamed and gone long ago.

Further, why is Mr Kennedy receiving "Private Medical Care/Help/Advice"? Surely Mr Kennedy believes in the NHS - or is this yet further proof that it's one thing for him and another thing for others?

"We can attack him on a variety of political fronts, but we must salute him for facing up to his addiction."

He could command some respect if he managed to conqueror his addiction - not for just limply admitting to it.

It is difficult to say which leader of the Lib Dems would be the best outcome for the Conservative party. Campbell and Oaten are obviously relatively new faces to most of the electorate and therefore represent a break with the old, as Cameron was with the Conservatives. The advantage of a new leader for the Lib Dems would (I think) be quite significant. Charles is obviously taking one for the team here. Whether of his own accord or because he was coaxed into doing so, I am unsure – but I think it’s safe to say that the Liberal Democrat party itself won’t take too much of a popularity hit, as the blame will be placed on Mr Kennedy.

In my opinion, the Conservative party should hope that Charles Kennedy remains as leader of the Lib Dems. He is a weak leader and lacks real conviction and political drive (though some people rather strangely seem to find this attractive – though they tend to be the people who know very little about politics.) As elections get closer, the party could always gently remind the electorate that he has a drink problem, and should someone like that be Prime Minister? And for those people in English constituencies, they need reminding that he’s Scottish – because some people just don’t realise that he is.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"It is difficult to say which leader of the Lib Dems would be the best outcome for the Conservative party. Campbell and Oaten are obviously relatively new faces to most of the electorate and therefore represent a break with the old, as Cameron was with the Conservatives."

Campbell and Oaten are both backing Kennedy. Hughes is the man to watch - he was looking very shifty (even by his standards) earlier on this evening and made a point of highlighting that he is in charge of the leadership selection process. There are also whisperings about Cable - he would make an interesting compromise candidate.

[john Skinner]

Just one person on this thread has pointed to the reason for Kennedy's "brave" statement. He heard during the afternoon that he was going to be outed at 6.30 on the ITN News. (That he was an alcoholic and had sought treatment in the past, contrary to his previous statements on the matter).
He then calls a press conference at 5.45 to pre-empt ITN.
I really do sympathise with the bloke, but he still hasn't done the decent thing. He has little or no support from his parliamenary colleagues (forget Limpet Optic)but still thinks he can survive through appealing to the innocent flocks in the constituences.
Ask anyone who has dealt with alcoholics; you can't believe a word they say. It's very sad, but Kennedy simply isn't in a position to lead a political party.
Amazingly, his colleagues are bottling out of standing against him. If they don't act quickly, the members will choose Hughes. Out of the frying pan.....

[John Hustings]

I actually think Simon Hughes would make a great Lib Dem leader. He is everything the sort of people who would vote Lib Dem want: smug, sanctimonious and left-wing.

[Dominic Llewellyn]

I believe Mr Kennedy has done wrong by lying over the issue. I can however only imagine the days and weeks which he spent agonising over the issue and a problem which he finds hard to shake off. I do not believe alcoholism should remain a taboo, by addictions remaining a taboo, the social problems facing this country will never be solved.

We all do wrong and we need to face the consequences of our actions. For Mr Kennedy that may mean losing his job. He has made himself accountable to his party and should be commended for this and it may be right for him to be replaced. But I know for one that I have lied in my life and that is why I can't judge Charles Kennedy.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

I really hope that the media will exercise some restraint and show some sensitivity on this. Whatever one thinks of Kennedy the politician, one has to feel some sympathy for Kennedy the person and I would therefore hope that the newspapers manage to avoid exploiting Kennedy's personal demons with cheap headlines like 'Kennedy's Career On The Rocks' or 'Has Kennedy Got The Bottle For Leadership Fight?'.

[Richard Allen]

As much as I disagree with his politics I have always thought that Charles Kennedy was a decent man. Tonight he has proven that and some of his critics on this site (people with whom I often agree) should honestly ask themselves if they would have big enough to do what Charles Kennedy did tonight because I doubt whether I would have been able to do so.

[Gawain]

David Cameron must be sleeping soundly tonight. If "chat show" Charlie stays then any boasts about the Liberals as a party of government become a joke, he has shown he is even more cynical than any of the other leaders. If Simon Hughes wins it will be easier to target the Libs, as John Skinner says above smug, sanctimonious and left wing; I would add boring to boot. Best of all it is just wonderful soap opera seeing the orange ones fighting like a bunch of girlies after a binge drinking session on a Friday night.

[William Norton]

It's time to put this discussion on ice. It's become a cocktail of unpleasant spirits and it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth to read people imbibing the grapes of wrath.

As compassionate conservatives it is our duty to rally round Charles Kennedy in his hour of need. Log your support here:

http://www.webpetitions.com/cgi-bin/print_petition.cgi?99500307

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"I really hope that the media will exercise some restraint and show some sensitivity on this. Whatever one thinks of Kennedy the politician, one has to feel some sympathy for Kennedy the person and I would therefore hope that the newspapers manage to avoid exploiting Kennedy's personal demons with cheap headlines like 'Kennedy's Career On The Rocks' or 'Has Kennedy Got The Bottle For Leadership Fight?'."

I'd like to add 'Last Orders For Kennedy' to the list of insensitive headlines that one would hope do not receive a public airing.

[Will]

Charles Kennedy has come out of this with some credit - even if the issue was forced by the media. Hopefully this downpoint in his life will help him overcome his problems. Whatever happens to him politically, and I think his immediate public life is finished, his honesty now will help more people understand the issue of alcohol abuse.

For those of you out there with no sympathy, I hope you are consistant with your views and feel that the likes of Churchill and Eden should never have held office. Two of many in our party that not only had issues with alcohol, but who never faced them. Let alone in full media glare.

[Matthew]

If he was going to be outed on ITN anyway, you can hardly call it brave to pre-empt. It was the only way of keeping his job!

Further, calling an election among the membership is cowardly because it makes anyone who stands against him look as if they are unsympathetic to his health problems and he knows this.

Also I think he was a bit egotistical to suggest that it is only his drink problems that have led to his leadership being questioned. Personally, I think he's pretty inept anyway.

I feel sorry for him, i'm sure he's a lovely bloke. But if someone's going to be making decisions on going to war, and the like, i'd rather they were sober. Sorry Charlie.

[Frank Young]

Charlie deserves our full support and sympathy. Whatever happened yesterday ought not to diminish the courage and determination he has shown in his private life to overcome a difficult problem.

There have been a number of supportive messages towards Kennedy on this site and I think this, more than anything else, shows the sort of compassionate and thoughtful people that make up this party.

I remember being at university when Gordon Brown's baby daughter died prematurely. The university Conservative sent a card signed by the whole committee to him - that's the sort of party we are.

We will rightly disagree with Kennedy and the Liberal Democrats on all sorts of issues. But on the question of his health and his overcoming his demons, he should receive our warmth and support.

[Mark Fulford]

"We will rightly disagree with Kennedy and the Liberal Democrats on all sorts of issues."

And one of them is his ability and suitability to be a political leader.

"But on the question of his health and his overcoming his demons, he should receive our warmth and support."

As soon as he takes himself off the political stage he becomes a person and gets my absolute sympathy and the right to total privacy. Until then he's a politician with a problem that could affect his judgement and ability.

[Richard]

Charles Kennedy has an alcohol problem; I think many of us suspected this for years. Not only does he have a problem he has also lied about it for years.

Now we can all feel sorry for someone with an addiction, but would we all be feeling sorry for him if he was addicted to hard drugs? Say for example that the press had found out that David Cameron had taken drugs; would the Liberal Democrats or Charles Kennedy have shown us any mercy?

[James Hellyer]

"I remember being at university when Gordon Brown's baby daughter died prematurely. The university Conservative sent a card signed by the whole committee to him - that's the sort of party we are."

Gordon Brown has never trioed to exploit his personal tragedy for political gain. Charles Kennedy is trying to use his problems to win the sympathy of his party members for his own political gain. The two are not analagous.

[Simon C]

It appears that, as party president, Simon Hughes is going to be in charge of arranging the rules for a leadership contest that he is expected then to take part in.

The thought that he might have a conflict seems not to have occurred to him. The BBC reports him as saying:

"I have a constitutional duty. I will discharge that, and at some later stage I'll deal with personal matters."

This sort of regard for propriety and fair play makes him admirably suited to become the Lib Dem leader.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Now we can all feel sorry for someone with an addiction, but would we all be feeling sorry for him if he was addicted to hard drugs? Say for example that the press had found out that David Cameron had taken drugs; would the Liberal Democrats or Charles Kennedy have shown us any mercy?"

There's quite a lot of difference between someone being addicted to a freely-available legal substance and someone being addicted to an illegal substance.

[Derek]

True, Daniel. But apart from the legality element, the consequences for the individual are broadly similar. They become dependent on it and their life slowly disintegrates.

The fact that Charlie has taken so long to conquer this, would. in my view leave a huge question mark over his future as leader. However sympathetic one is, positions like this require tremendous resilience, and any weakness should count heavily against him. Some people are able to drink quite a lot of alcohol without it appearing to affect them or their work. This does not seem to be the case with Kennedy, whereas Churchill and Eden were not so noticeably affected. Either that or those around them were not so critical in what was a much more defferential age.

[Chris Palmer]

Why should addicts gain our sympathy? Surely their addiction is their own fault - certainly nobody was forcing alcohol down Mr Kennedy's throat. He is a politician and represents his constituency, therefore giving him a position of responsibility. Charles Kennedy can hardly be compared with Churchill, as I would imagine that as a war time leader, Churchill was under far more pressure and strain than Mr Kennedy as the leader of some backwater British political party.

An addiction is a sign of weakness, and certainly the fact that any person did succumb to such an addiction is also a sign of weakness. It would be admirable if Charles Kennedy were not an alcoholic, and had not given into to such a weak and pathetic habit.

"There's quite a lot of difference between someone being addicted to a freely-available legal substance and someone being addicted to an illegal substance." – Daniel Vince-Archer

Under law Daniel, maybe. However in my opinion, an addiction to any substance is a weakness, alcohol, cannabis, cigarettes etc. It is the addiction, not the substance that they are addicted to that is the problem in my opinion. Similarly I am not particularly happy that David Cameron smokes.

It would appear that Mr Kennedy’s sympathy tactic has been so successful; it has even duped members of the Conservative party. As Richard quite rightly said above, "Say for example that the press had found out that David Cameron had taken drugs; would the Liberal Democrats or Charles Kennedy have shown us any mercy?"

[johnC]

I hope that this episode might help to break the taboo on this subject and lead to a mature public debate on the dangers of alcoholism particularly given the alarming statistics on binge drinking among young people. This would be an opportunity for the Conservative party to highlight the inconsistency of the government in cracking down on smokers while liberalising the licensing laws. The publicity given to the awareness of the dangers of drinking seems to be a fraction of that of the anti-smoking campaign.

[James Maskell]

About the lying thing, Kennedy wasnt lying in my book. There are two types of lies: well intentioned and malicious ones. This was a well intentioned one. Its his business about his drinking problem. This was not a malicious lie. I know many people here are going to question my judgement on this issue but I can assure you, I know what I mean. Kennedy didnt lie out of spite and to hurt the Party. I think in his heart of hearts, he knew that the truth would eventually come out but until it does come out, he has to deal with it by himself. If he brings anyone else into the fold by going on TV, the situation becomes something greater and it wasnt worth it.

[John Hustings]

"I hope that this episode might help to break the taboo on this subject and lead to a mature public debate on the dangers of alcoholism particularly given the alarming statistics on binge drinking among young people. "

I'm sorry, I keep hearing this. What "taboo" is there? People are *obsessed* with talking about the *dangers of alcohol*.

[James Maskell]

Theres a difference in public perception with binge drinking and alcoholism. Binge drinking is a natural thing and no one is suprized if someone gets lashed on a Saturday night (although if I were to do it I guess it would suprize a few people!) but with alcoholism or serious drinking problems its harder for people to be open about it.

[Chris Palmer]

"Binge drinking is a natural thing" - James Maskell

No it is not, and if you think it is then you're mad. Sorry.

[Geoff]

I'm very sorry, Chris, if you think people are "mad" for enjoying a good night out every now and then. Ever been to a good party in your life? Relax and let you hair down a little. How will you celebrate our triumph at the next election? Orange juice?

[Mike Christie]

"Its his business about his drinking problem."

I'm sorry James, I have to disagree, not if it affects his ability to lead his party, represent his constituents or be a fit candidate to run the country as he seeks to do. His position and aspirations make his drinking problem a matter of public concern.

[John Hustings]

"Binge drinking is a natural thing and no one is suprized if someone gets lashed on a Saturday night (although if I were to do it I guess it would suprize a few people!) but with alcoholism or serious drinking problems its harder for people to be open about it"

Well why is it hard for people to be open about it? Because it is damaging for their careers?

Are you seriously saying it shouldn't be?

Here's the thing about "breaking taboos": alot of the time removing such stigmas does more harm than good. Charles Kennedy is already playing the "victim" card, as if he is not responsible for his actions.

[Mark Fulford]

Put a pig in front of a pile of rotting apples and you'll see that binge drinking is a *very* natural thing.

I'm always slightly uncomfortable around people who've never been a drunken fool - they take life too seriously for me.

[Chris Palmer]

My point, Mark and Geoff, was that binge drinking is not natural. Not that people shouldn't be free to do so if they wish.

Mark, surely the act of putting "a pig in front of a pile of rotting apples" is a contrived situation and therefore un-natural? Though I suppose this all depends on your definition of natural.

[Geoff]

I understand your point, Chris, but enjoying something to excess and regretting it later is a natural human failing; be it alcohol, chocolate, cheese and so on. The difference is: it's fine for you or I to hit the bottle every now and then but *we* don't have our finger on the nuclear button or a direct phoneline to the White House etc etc etc examples ad nauseum.

I make decisions in my office which could inconvenience tens of thousands of people with one wrong keystroke and I rarely drink mid-week because of that responsibility. Prime Minister Kennnedy could hypothetically start World War III with a bottle of Glenfiddich inside him. That, surely, must be the reason why he shouldn't ever hold office.

[Alexander Drake]

What on earth is it about third-party leaders and booze??

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/06/1070625583872.html