Kennedy, Livingstone and the demon drink

| | | | | | | |

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Political Betting has a good short summary of,

The big political news in the UK this morning...[is] the future of the Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, following the resignation yesterday of the £2000 a day consultant whose job it is to deal with the media on his behalf.

I'm getting bored with saying that Peter Oborne is right about our political class thinking it is above the law (this includes the media NB). Peter was also early and strong on the disgrace that the smell of bad behaviour should in any way seem to emanate from the speaker and called on Brown to persuade him to step down at the start of his premiership in July.

However, for me the story of the day is another hit for the Mail group (it was a Mail journalist whom the Speaker's consultant had misled). This is its extract of Ming Campbell's autobiography on the cover up of Charles Kennedy's drink problem. Read it here.

It's a ghastly tale of weakness and stupidity for which the country is still paying a price. Ming details the meetings with Lords Razzels and Rennards - reckless architects of the long cover-up. One motivated, it seems, by a wretched lack of belief in the Lib-Dems and their own programme so great that they felt only the popularity bestowed by TV quiz shows would compensate. The praetorian guard of Kennedy's incapacitating alcoholism apparently went on to justify their betrayal of democracy to themselves by comparing their behaviour to Soames and others hiding Winston Churchill's illness from the public. What a bad joke: Kennedy was no Churchill! And anyway that episode was at the end of a long national career of achievement and was motivated by the desire to provide the old beast with a dignified touch-down. The Lib-Dems were at a turning point, poised to strike as the true carriers of the banner of democratic modernisation in the spirit of Ashdown. They need focus, energy and tactical impact. Instead they behaved like old farts protecting the inebriated scion of their country house. 2003:

The big parliamentary event in early June, at which Charles's absence would be unthinkable, was Gordon Brown's announcement on whether Britain would join the single European currency.

Kennedy was so drunk he "wasn't even capable" of just sitting in the House of Commons.

Budget Day 2004: same again.

Just imagine, we might have had a close to hung parliament in 2005 and none of the proposals for extending detention without charge or the ID state would be before parliament.

As the question of Ken Livingstone's drinking is also in the news, let me add I've nothing against mild addiction. Those who live a high-risk life in the media eye may well have to stiffen their nerves. Drink can help people take decisions, fortify their courage and lubricate their personality. It can also disable people, bringing out their self-pity and making them legless. I do not advise either in a young leader and am not suggesting Nick Clegg take a wee dram at breakfast. It is just that I am not being pious about it. I think we should judge those who wish to lead on their ability to lead - whether with or without some alcohol in their blood. By this criteria not only does Kennedy fail, but much more seriously so do those sober agents of the cover-up who should all follow Ming's belated example (for he was one of them too) and resign completely from the councils of the party whose historic opportunity they ruined in the 2005 election. As Ming now reports, "we all knew it was an opportunity missed".

| | | | | | | |