The Times' headline says it all...

For the first instalment of Greg Hurst's biography of Charles Kennedy see The Times.

Comments

[The UK Daily Pundit]

See Charles before his make-over and after.

http://the-daily-pundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/welcome-back-charles-politics-needs.html

[john mgregor]

if anybody care to look at libdems policy,as opposed to this smoke screen,it would become apparent they are all unfit to run anything,sober or drunk.scotland under their leadership,as partners in government, is struggling under an unfundable government burden.they are very left wing.

[TomTom]

Now let's know which MPs are making a secret of drug consumption !!!

There are far too many secrets between politicians and media - time for a discussion of substance abuse in political and media circles

[Jack Stone]

You can say what you like about Charlie Kennedy but one thing is true he was a better and more effective leader of the Lib/Dems drunk than any of his predesessor`s were sober!
As for the comment about drug consumption. Firstly we all know what that underhand comment is about. If your going to make allegations than have the courage to do it openly and presumidly run the risk of having your pants sued off you.

[Penultimate Guy]

@09:42 "...as opposed to this smoke screen..."

Why would The Times would want to throw up a smoke screen in front of Lib Dem policies? Have I missed a shift in editorial stance?

[David Banks]

As a recovering alcoholic myself i really worry about the way that a serious illness which so many people in this country suffer from is used to sell papers on a 'Lib Dem cover up' angle.
I'm just glad when i went into recovery that i wasn't leading a major political party ( well, the Lib Dems anyway)

[James Maskell]

We should be staying well clear of this story. Charles Kennedy has a drink problem as he was forced to publicly admit. Thats it. If Any senior Tory takes advantage of this recent story about who knew what, Im going to be seriously peed off with them.

Let it go.

This story is about selling books, nothing less. Its a low marketing tactic which celebrities have long used. The Tories must let it go. Its a personal thing, not affecting the country.

[HF]

I disagree James.

The Lib Dems should have removed CK. That would have been the best move for them, CK and would have avoided them putting forward as their PM a man unfit for the job (until he had overcome his addiction).

My issue is not the secrecy but their massive error in not dealing with the problem. They ducked it and then deceived the country with an unfit candidate for PM.
We do need to make capital on that.

If they had forced CK out quietly it would have avoided the public embarrasment that he is going through.

[Yet Another Anon]

You can say what you like about Charlie Kennedy but one thing is true he was a better and more effective leader of the Lib/Dems drunk than any of his predesessor`s were sober!
He had an easier time than any previous leader, the Conservative Party at it's lowest ebb and Labour going through a decline, not only that by a lot of the work in focusing the vote had already been done for him by Paddy Ashdown who pretty much saved the Liberal Democrats from oblivion and actually held their vote up quite well in 1992 and 1997, without Paddy Ashdown there probably wouldn't be any Liberal Democrat MP's now, Charles Kennedy really did very little as leader - the 2001 gains were mostly to do with a fall in turnout for Labour and the Conservatives and in 2005 arguments over Foreign Policy with the Liberal Democrats having the luxury of absence of responsibility, as someone relatively uninterested in policy and fairly easy going he rather matched the mood of 2005 when someone with actual substance might have struggled, he really was suited to being a leader of a political party and this had nothing to do with his drinking and plenty of hard drinkers have made great political leaders and business leaders too, warriors.

The fact is that in the 2005 General Election the total Liberal Democrat vote only went up to a virtually identical level that it was in 1992, it was still lower both in percentage terms and in absolute terms than the Alliance vote was in 1983 and 1987, if the Alliance vote had been focused in the same sort of way in 1983 they would have ended up with a better result than in 2005 despite there being a strong Conservative vote in the 1980's.

[Chad]

I agree with James. Less moralising please.

Can Cameron really put his hand on heart and say that *none* of his front bench team or inner circle are abusing illegal substances for example? (referring to the article in the London Standard where the media writer claimed to know the Notting Hill Set very well)

If being a drunk can lead to winning 62 seats in Parliament then I'll make sure the next UKIP leader is fitted with a permanent intravenous whisky drip. ;-)

[HF]

Chad, CK was unfit to be PM. Not an opinion based on political view, that is the facts based on his medical condition.

As such the Lib Dems should never have presented him to voters as fit. They should have replaced him, quietly, decently and with good grace.

Instead they made a massive error of judgement.

[George Hinton]

Charles Kennedy's trouble with the bottle was an open secret around Westminster.
The apparatchiks within the Lib-Dems and medianista's conspired to hush the story so that it did not get out to the electorate, who are of course unable to take the right decisions when such sensitive news hits the fan.
Such action goes against the grain of open government and is a clear demonstration of the complete lack of ethics and morals in the Lib-Dem Party and the political spectrum as well.
The liars, who repeatedly stated that Charles had no drink problem, should be brought to book for their mendacity, perhaps Insp. Yates can spare some time from his busy schedule burying NuLab.
This story will of course only reinforce the view that voting Lib-Dem is a waste.

[Editor]

I've deleted Malvolio's last two comments because they had absolutely nothing to do with this thread and were generally ridiculous!

[Chad]

"Chad, CK was unfit to be PM."

If anyone genuinely thought that Charlie was going to be PM, I'd suggest they have more issues to resolve that he does.

[HF]

Chad "If anyone genuinely thought that Charlie was going to be PM, I'd suggest they have more issues to resolve that he does."

Chad that is exactly what the Lib Dem party was saying to the electorate at the last 2 elections.

So, Chad, for once bury your desire to attack Cameron (because you fell out of love with the Tory party) and stop supporting the Lib Dems by letting them off the hook.

Otherwise I may have to conclude that you are one of those UKIP folk who welcome Lib Dem victories because they believe it brings nearer the day of a collapse in the Tory party.

[Malvolio]

What's all this big deal about past history.

OK Kennedy was an alcoholic, but he's gone.

Why the endless inquest?

[Ted]

Reading the extracts I see Charles Kennedy was quite honest when he denied Paxman's assertion he drank a bottle of whisky alone late at night. It turns out he's a gin & tonic man in preference to the national drink. If only Jeremy had asked the question differently...

[TomTOm]

As for the comment about drug consumption. Firstly we all know what that underhand comment is about. If your going to make allegations than have the courage to do it openly and presumidly run the risk of having your pants sued off you.

Posted by: Jack Stone | August 29, 2006 at 10:46

Yes that comment is about making public which MPs - there are 661 - has been using illegal narcotics. The LibDems want to get self-righteous about a man and a bottle so it might be a good thing to get self-righteous about something which is illegal such as drugs.

It is not illegal for a politician to be drunk; it is illegal for a politician to be using Class A drugs and it is time random drug-testing was introduced into Parliament just as it is in some schools.

[Yet Another Anon]

Yes that comment is about making public which MPs - there are 661 - has been using illegal narcotics.
Currently there are 646 MP's, there haven't been as many as 661 since the creation of the Irish Free State, the most was 659 prior to the 1997 General Election, as I understand it under the new boundaries the numbers will go up to 654 in the next parliament.

[greg]

No Churchill fans on this thread.

[James Maskell]

My point on this thread seems to be being missed. Its in extremely poor taste to take advantage of a personal issue like alcoholism to hurt the Party to which they belong. Yes, the other senior Lib Dems may have known about this drinking problem, but it is not for the Conservatives to start using it against them. We should steer well clear of that story. Its blatant opportunism of the most unethical sort. Any politician who tries to use a personal issue like a drinking problem in order to attack the wider Party to which they belong should be ashamed of themselves. This is a basic rule of politics. We mustnt use this headline against the Lib Dems, we simply cannot

Its not so much a case of live and let live as that we have to show a certain level of maturity and restraint. If the public want to punish the Lib Dems over this at the ballot box, then let them. But we cannot be the judge, jury and executioner in this case. Let the public decide.

[Chad]

"So, Chad, for once bury your desire to attack Cameron"

Huh? Before you seek to draw any conclusion HF, I'd double check you do actually know your arse from your elbow as you have got completely the wrong end of the stick.

I was simply agreeing to a point made by James Maskell about moralising.

It's amazing how all the times I agree with Cameron (defending his visit to Africa the other day for example) are conveniently forgotten.

[James Maskell]

Thats probably because there arent many instances where you agree with Cameron! Welcome to the gang...we have t-shirts!

[Chad]

:-)

Well even though few occasion are still more than when I agree with those Labour scumbags!

[Chad]

oops "even though" s/b even those

[David Banks]

Chad , hello , nice to hear from you , how are you? well i hope. its dry here. Politics is a load of crap isn't it!

[James Maskell]

.....just, Chad. Ive been counting. Its a close call...

[Chad]

Aah, I deserve the abuse most of the time.

I was just confused what I had done wrong in this particular instance David!

But I'm sure the Cameroons don't hate me as much as the ex-Tory Suchorzewski cabal in UKIP... ;-)

[Yet Another Anon]

the most was 659 prior to the 1997 General Election
I mean in the 1997-2001 parliament, it was 651 prior to the 1997 General Election.

The Media in this country are far more open about it than they are in many other countries - in France the politicians could have their own personal harems and in fact do anything they wanted in their private lives and none of it would be printed during their lifetimes in France, everywhere else of course it would; in Australia and New Zealand pretty much everything is out in the open, they accuse each other of all kinds of things openly on the floor of the house.

Everyone who had paid any attention to Charles Kennedy's rise to fame knew that he liked to put a few down on a regular basis - the same with Winston Churchill too although he never made a secret of it.

[Tony Barton]

"Thats probably because there arent many instances where you agree with Cameron! Welcome to the gang...we have t-shirts!"

Cameron is here for image and he's got the right image. That's why I voted for him.

Now we need to ensure that the right people - people like the Cornerstone group -are filling out the blank canvas.

We will get nowhere as long as people like Maude and his collection of misfits are pemitted to push their anti-Conservative views within the party. If Maude hadn't posed as a Maggie loyalist he wouldn't be where he is now.

Incidentally I believe that politicians who are guilty of alcoholism or any other breach of moral conduct should be out on their ear, and that includes a number of our own people for a variety of "offences"

[James Maskell]

Camerons had 9 months to fill out that blank canvas. Hes also had the people he wants in for 9 months and he does the talking for them. That also counts for the Policy Groups, where Cameron is pre-empting them.

[Monday Clubber]

With people like Bob Geldorf and Ian Duncan Smith in these policy groups it's not surprising nothing useful is coming out!!!!