A cover-up?
So, at last, Greg Hurst's biography of Charles Kennedy is out. I know Greg well - we used to be colleagues on the Times - and the extracts of his book live up to his reputation as a journalist - it's splendidly written, well-informed, and right. There are no angry denials pouring forth from Lib Dem HQ this morning.
Based on just the , there is no new killer fact that makes you drop your toast. We already knew the former Lib Dem leader had a drink problem, we already knew there was a plot to oust him last Christmas.
But that doesn't mean the new detail isn't important. For example, when Mr Kennedy resigned in January, he said he had been fighting alcoholism for eighteen months. According to the book, he had actually had a problem since before he became leader in 1999 and his aides knew all about it even then.
This prompts a big question. Mr Kennedy led his party through two general elections, the Iraq war and many other crucial events - while trying to cope with alcoholism. Did the millions of people who voted for him and his party have a right to know? It's a difficult one.
The conclusion that the current leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, and other senior party figures came to was no. They knew about the problem in 2003 when Mr Kennedy and they came close to revealing all at a news conference that was cancelled at the last minute.
They decided the best thing to do was to offer help to Mr Kennedy in private, urge him to get treatment and hope it went away. It didn't and eventually MPs found the situation untenable and forced Mr Kennedy out in a messy confrontation last January.
Was it a cover-up? "No" says the party, just MPs behaving properly and loyally to maintain Mr Kennedy's right to privacy. In other words, it was a cover-up but an honourable one.
The other question is what difference it would have made to voters' behaviour if they had known about Mr Kennedy's drink problem. Seven months on from his resignation, the former leader is still popular in the polls, and the Lib Dem grassroots are still not quite sure what to make of Sir Menzies.
After remaining largely silent since his resignation, Mr Kennedy is in the process of trying return to the political frontline. A big speech is planned for the party conference next month, he's hinted he'd welcome a frontbench post if one came up. This book makes some form of a comeback more difficult but certainly doesn't rule it out.
I'm 
Comments
As the former wife of a recovering alcoholic, I sympathise with the people around Kennedy who wanted to protect him by hiding his drinking. I did the same myself on many occasions, hoping that he would 'pull himself together'.
His family were in collective denial about the problem - who wants to admit their son/brother/husband has a problem?
As someone said before, Charles Kennedy drunk managed to make a better judgement about the Iraq war than the whole of the Labour and Conservative front bench sober.
I thought the LibDems were the party of open and honest politics?
It's not so much the alcoholism - although this demonstrates a lack of control that must be pertinent - but the lying, the deception, the inability to tell the truth that concerns me most. Politicians put themselves up for public office, and thereby take on a special responsibility that, for my money, means that they lose some of the right to privacy that the rest of us enjoy. I'm sorty if that is uncomfortable for the political classes; but people would respect them so much more if they displayed a littl;e honesty from time to time. There's a parallel with Blair and Iraq: it's not so much entering the war that loses him votes as the lying and deception about the reasons for going to war in Iraq that so inflames the electorate.
Perhaps its something genetic; but the 'truthful politician' seems to be an oxymoron. Maybe Paxman had it right when he asks the rhetorical question: 'why is this lying b* lying to me?' when interviewing politicians.
I think more of a question is how much the media knew of Mr Kennedy's problem and to what extent they colluded in the cover-up. The Lib-Dems may or may not have a defence of protecting Mr Kennedy's privacy, but the 4th estate has no such excuse. The story had such a clear public interest... an alcoholic bidding to become Prime Minister? The news media had a duty to publish.
So:- where were you guys when all this was happening?
Mr Kennedy's problem with alcohol is a serious personal issue and, like all addictions, a unique experience for him at the same time as being one which he shares with thousands of others in the UK. However, the forgiving way in which we see his problem and the party's cover up could for one of two reasons; either because we accept our politicians are likely to be falliable just like the rest of us; or because there was never any serious chance of his party leading the country.
So Mr Kennedy had a drink problem? Although not a voter for his party, I have to say that he aways impressed me with his publlic performances, particularly around election times - he was the only party leader that I would actually have trusted - he spoke with honesty and when I heard him, he often thankfully managed to avoid that much maligned, particularly common politician lead in line..."Let me be aboslutely clear about this - blah, blah, blah".
The essential question must simply be whether Charles Kennedy's private problem stopped him doing his job properly or not. The success of the Lib Dems in significantly increasing their vote and number of MPs over the period of his tenure suggests that it had little impact.
A politician's private life should be just that - unless it affects their job.
Well - the Lib Dems are not unique - I thought David Cameron was a Tory, but it turns out he'd been hiding Green tendencies...
However honourable the motives of Kennedy's colleagues in the past, political considerations must have come into their decision not to take him to one side and say 'enough's enough.' The whole party would have looked so silly - as if they haven't had enough problems in that regard in recent history. Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped them from looking silly - or at least, hapless and eccentic - in retrospect. And just as at a time when a genuinely liberal politics is so badly needed to leaven Labour over-managerialism. Sigh.
Having worked with problem drinkers for the past thirty years, I can tell you that most of them only acknowledge the problem a long time after everyone else around them has identified it. So the two statements ("aides knew he had a problem in 1999" and "he had been fighting the problem for 18 months") are not at all contradictory. When you ask an individual what the definition of an alcoholic is, the answer is often "someone who drinks more than I do". Many people in high positions, and in public service, have drink problems, but alcoholism is progressive, and at what point do you blow the whistle? Practically every working person has gone to work with a hangover, or over-indulged at lunchtime, and if they had all got the sack, there would be very few people in employment in this country. The realisation of a problem is a slow process, both for the individual and his colleagues, and it is a very difficult decision when to draw the line. I admire Charles Kennedy, and if he keeps his problem under control, I am sure he has a great future in politics.
Whilst these revelations are not seriously damaging to the party as the previous ones I think it is important to stress that the way Charles Kennedy has behaved since resigning has been dignified and honourable. Politicians are often accused of being on a different planet to the rest of us, in Charles I see an average bloke addicted to alcohol.
Other senior people need to focus on the future and move forward, Charles should be welcomed to the front bench if he wishes to.
The party I think will recover, we have a few years to see
Alcohol has often led to the downfall of many a politician. It is sad that Mr Kennedy fell a victim to the habit. Of course his political comeback is totally out of the question for the time being at least until he has gone through a thorough rehabilitation programme. He was shaping to be an effective leader till his drinking problem became public knowledge. Of course this disclosure made it virtually impossible for him to lead his party. His successor unfortunately has been lack-lustre. Until a charismatic leader is found the Liberal Democrats will neither make significant impact nor make in-roads at the expense of Conservatives and Labour.
How many journalists at the 91Èȱ¬ got a drink problem sir? Do you not think it as your responsibilty to tell us, the public, what's going on at the 91Èȱ¬, what you see going on there behind closed doors, given it's OUR 91Èȱ¬?
Or do you keep it quiet sir? Are there things you could tell us, but you won't?
Just because someone says something to sell a book and then someone does something with that book to sell newspapers is any reason for you the 91Èȱ¬ to latch onto it and make a song and dance of glee on the already prone body of a man who has done no harm to you.
It's at times like this, I wish there was a way I could get out of paying the license. This is not what I pay it for, to get this gutter jounalism and hippocratic BS.
Kennedy partially manages that most difficult of things, and admits to alcoholism. He admits too to facing up to its realities. Therefore he is hounded by an opportunist and profit-seeking journo. Blair takes us into a catastrophic war on a false premise, and pursues a foreign policy skewed towards the interests of US neocons with whom it is scarcely credible that a British labour party could share any interest, and all the press does is write about his bickering with Brown.
Crazy people. Crazy world.
If Kennedy was at times "obviously unfit to perform in public", then it was severe enough for the Liberal Democrats to inform the public.
That they decided to continue to stand behind a leader who was clearly unfit to hold office simply because he was popular shows how little respect they have for the electorate.
If the Liberal Democrats want to go for the popular vote rather then votes from an informed electorate maybe they should see if Ant and Dec are willing to stand as leader.
Arn't politician's a bit too squeaky clean these days? Isn't there something sinister about someone who doesn't have flaws? Hitler was a sober vegetarian Churchill was a drunk, cigar smoking, ahem (amongst other things). I know which one I'd rather have in charge (Churchill - just incase of ambiguity). I have never voted Yellow but Charles Kennedy was one of the most colourful, honest politicians and I admired the fact that he had a drink and a fag now and then - he is closer to his public than alot of politicians! ... it's the squeaky clean one's you have to watch ... I'll drink to that!
So it turns out Mr Kennedy had a more serious drinking problem that previously indicated; He was and still is one of my favourite politicians - even more deserving of respect and regard that he managed to be such a fine politician inspite of any personal problems he had.
I wish him well and look forward to his return.
No one ever wants to believe that someone has crossed that line into alcoholism. So denial is rife in the mind of the alcoholic and their nearest friends. The outcome has been ok, surely it is better to understand the disease and what he is doing about it, that is Kennedy's real story. And then if you feel like you can trust him again, make your mind up then.
If you feel he has acted badly, you are right, if you feel he told half truths, you are right, if you feel betrayed, that's your feeling, if you feel you cannot trust him, then don't.
Does he has have a right to play a big political role? I don't know.
Writing as a recovering alcoholic, I feel Mr Kennedy has enough to contend with as things are now, and let him get on with it. A tell all book may be his answer to all these questions, his truth as we see it is a measure of his recovery, his denial a measure of far he need travel to get my trust. Time may be the real key here, and time in recovery makes our honesty improve.
Mind you how many politicians are still hiding their dark secrets, and how many tell the truth anyway?
If you say its a 'cover up' then you are not far short of concluding that every person standing for office must write an extremely detailed report on their life. That report must then be published in full - and unless the individual discloses every single particular of their life which now or may be considered at some in the future to be 'pertinent' they are unfit for public office. There is no fact or circumstance beyond disclosure - not only who they sleep with but 'how' and how many times. In return for surrendering ever single facet of a personal life the British people in general and the media in particular will treat their elected representative with total contempt. Their career, given up to enter Parliament, smashed, their marriage broken, their relationship with children destroyed - burnt out within eight years they can be consigned to a scrap bin.
And in return this country will get the elected representatives it deserves - this scrutiny will not 'keep them honest'. It will however ensure that only the dishonest will stand while good men and women abandon public life.
As the partner of someone with an alcohol problem, which has had serious ramifications to our (now ending) relationship, I have to say that the inability to tell the TRUTH has been far more damaging.
It is a personal problem, I agree, but it is no longer in the realm of the personal when there are responsibilities for others...and what greater responsibility than that of the population of a country! Since when did the quality of TRUTH become an option in Life?Since when did it become OK for our leaders to be expected to lie as to have an expectation of the TRUTH was too much?
I strongly suggest that Charles Kennedy is not an alcoholic but a binge drinker, the two are quite different conditions. Alcoholics require alcohol in ever increasing amounts on a daily basis. Binge drinkers do not but find it difficult to moderate intake once alcohol is taken. Binge drinkers actually enjoy alcohol and its effects, alcoholics often do not enjoy it and take it as a medicine. The morning after symptoms are obviously the same for both. The difference being a binge drinker will not take alcohol and an alcoholic will due to true addiction. It is this fact, well in my opinion, that ensured that the Lib Dems 'in the know' struggled to cope with and agonised whether or not to bring out into the open. No doubt they asked themselves just how CK managed to cope so well on so many occasions when a true alcoholic would have had to have been under the influence and would have failed. Cannot blame them, tough diagnosis to make. Binge drinkers, in my experience, do so to mask stress or boredom of some form or another. Often if the stress or boredom is removed then so are the binges and alcohol intake reverts to normal. Give him a chance on the Front Bench and lets see, he is too able to lose.
It's certainly honourable and decent to cover-up someone's personal problems, but not when that someone is a senior politician or someone else on whom the public, bless 'em, have to rely.
So when are we going to be told about all the top journalists and broadcasters who have drink problems?
My local councillor said that it was well known for years in political circles that Charles Kennedy was partial to the bottle.
However, had he been honest enough to stand up and state he was an alcoholic straight away, I think he would have gained far more respect. The Lib Dems are not going to get into power at Westminster (and after the fiasco of them up here in Scotland, you do not want them in!), so an early admission would not have done any real damage.
The fact that the LibDems brushed this under the carpet is more a sign of the limitations of their ambition than anything else.
They never thought it would matter, because they don't believe that the personal problems of their leader would ever really matter. A few votes here and there would be nice, but they are abjectly unsuited (and not seriously in pursuit of) power.
Being the third party is much too comfy, easy policies (however radical, you won't scare anyone....), easy popularity (you don't make decisions so won't annoy anyone).
Nice warm feelings all round.
Of course, I wish Mr. Kennedy a full recovery from his disease, but until he has recovered fully, a party with ambition would and must sideline him.
There's hope - whatever you think about George W. Bush, he beat the disease and came back.
kim
Another anti-Lib Dem storm-in-a-teacup from the Murdoch press. I would also like to remind everyone that the man who led the country during the Second World War, and for a number of years in the 50's, was well-known for being exceptionally fond of the odd tipple or seven, and no-one has ever questioned his fitness to lead the country. Indeed, it's only a few years since he was voted Greatest Briton of all time. Perspective, please!
As an adult child of an alcoholic I can emphasize to the situation. The alcoholic parent I had was a perfectionist and over-achiever. Of course, this did not prevent problems from arising, mostly personal. Does it affect anyone? It did me.
Alcoholism is a disease suffered by many people. Kennedy would not be the first politician affected; Churchill, Yeltsin and Bush have had their 'battles with the bottle'.
I do not want to see the country led or unduly influenced by a drunkard (the influence of alcohol on our culture is already damagingly pervasive). However if Kennedy can and does sober up, he will have much to offer us; not least an honest perspective, admirably displayed by his open admission of personal problems with alcohol.
If Kennedy sorts himself out, then he has valuable experience to help sort the country out.
The electorate has a divine right to know about the good and bad traits of a political candidate they are being encouraged to vote for and keeping quiet about an addiction problem is morally wrong. Morever as we are seeing now such an action is simply bad PR and can infect the personal reputations of all those who supported the conspiracy of silence.
Alcoholism is a disease, just like any physical illness - and it needs sympathetic treatment. Despite his illness, Mr Kennedy still managed to carry out his duties as leader of the LibDems - but I do feel that the party should have encouraged him to undergo rehabilitation a lot sooner. Alcoholism is a degenerating illness and untreated affects every single aspect in the life of the alcoholic, his family and his friends. The Lib Dem's denial and 'enabling' behaviour (i.e. not dealing with the issue) was far more damagaging and only ensured the delay of Mr Kennedy's recovery from alcoholism.
What interests me about the biography is - what caused the change in Charles Kennedy's public persona? Still an MP, he turned up regularly on radio and television shows. He was very witty and mischievous. All this disappeared when he became leader of the Liberal Democrats. You might have expected him to do very well at PMQs, for instance. But he didn't. Why? Was the alcoholism the reason?
Charles kennedy had / has a drink problem -in this i'm sure he is not alone. Those around him tried to ensure he received the appropriate treatment. This is extremely difficult when dealing with an alcoholic - public denounciation is not normally the best way forward. I stood for the party in the 2005 Election and was proud to support the superb range of policies that I believed were good for Britain. His illness cannot detract from that. It cannot detract from the mess Labour and tory parties have left the country in. As someone so eliquently said, he managed to come to a lot clearer and better decsions on many issues with his drink problem than many in the other parties did - apparantly when sober!
I find it disturbing that loyalty is now a dirty word in politics.
This man campaigned repeatedly to be Prime Minister and if that had happened then he would have had his finger on the nuclear trigger. The fact that senior Lib Dem politicians and apparently many Lib Dem voters see no problem in a drunk being able to order nuclear war shows that the whole party is firstly living on another planet and secondly not fit to be let anywhere near government - and to think that at one stage I was conned into voting for this drunk. I am very angry at the deception and will never trust the Lib Dems again.
I voted for Kennedy and now feel angry and duped by the Libdems' dishonest and unethical cover up of his unfitness for public office.
How dare the Libdems contrive to elect a leader who wasn't fit for the job. How dare they knowingly conspire to conceal his mental fragility from the electorate. Most tellingly, how dare the party I once believed to be ethical and above political corruption betray the trust of millions of its supporters like me?
I don't care what their motives were - they lied to and duped all of us. And I am sick to the back teeth of politicians' lies.
I was a life long Liberal/Libdem - I shan't vote for them again.
Whether or not Charles Kennedy is a lovely guy, great father and able politician is not the point.
At each election he was asking to be made Prime Minister - an office which requires, one would think, a clear head, nerves of steel, a formidable constitution and a steady finger on the nuclear button.
I like Charles Kennedy. I hope he has come to terms with being an alcholic.I don't know if he wants to be leader again but I would support him. I just hope he isn't like most politicians and tries to spin his way back. If he is honest about his problems with alcholism he might just become our next prime minister at the next election.
I think everybody sympathyses with Charles Kennedy and compared to most politicians he was a pretty likeable guy- however the problem I have is that any leader of a political party is essentially putting themselves forward to be Prime Minister and however unlikely this was in the elections when Charles Kennedy was the Lib Dem leader is irrelevent as there is a chance it could happen- so it is wholly irresponsible if it is true that people knew about this problem to have let it carry on for so long.
Frankly, I'd rather have an alcholic than a war criminal for a leader.
As a boy in Belgrade in the late 60s, I once had the opportunity to tag along with the diplomatic welcoming group for the arrival of George Brown, then Harold Wilson's Foreign Secretary. Being young, I had only the vaguest idea of who Brown was and what he was doing there - only that he was "someone inportant to do with my father's work".
Even so, I thought it was slightly odd when, coming up the escalator to the VIP 'greeting area', Brown went up to a tiny black-clad Serbian granny and enveloped this total stranger in a full-on hug.
Shortly afterwards, the moment came when I was expected to shake hands with our important visitor. I duly stuck out a hand, and to my surprise, Brown grasped it and raised it towards his lips. Once it got within 'hot breath' range, I had no doubt this was no ordinary handshake, and swiftly reclaimed it before things could go any further.
At the time I just put it down to weirdness. In retrospect, I am absolutely astounded that, at the height of the cold war, anyone in his right mind can have thought it a good idea to have Britain's interests represented by someone with so tenuous a grip on what was going on around him.
Why are there plenty of comments here about Charlie's drinking but only one on your previous post about Tony Blair's in tray?
Blairs Bull*hit Corperation?
Pretty strange priority, putting your leader before the country, isn't it? What on earth would they have done if he'd won an election? Ah, that was never going to happen because the dark overlords that rule the party are all scheming drunkards anyway.
Typicaly LibDems. They've been out of power so long that they've lost sight of what their priorities should be.
And I'm a member! Clean the cupboard, let the new breed (especially the ones who've actually had careers before politics i.e. know about the real world) take control.
Let's put it more simply: would you want an alcoholic to represent us on the world stage - or have the nuclear launch codes? It was right to get rid of him. Maybe one day he'll come back, but never as PM.
A cover-up indeed, but you only mention one side of it - the LibDems trying to protect their leader.
What about those 91Èȱ¬ journalists who knew all about his problem but mysteriously failed to mention it?
I have never trusted the policital machine and I am sure this sort of thing must go on in all political parties, we just don't hear about it unless it's in their interest. I feel sorry for Mr Kennedy and his family and hope that he is now getting the help he needs. People are human and make mistakes, we shouldn't look upon politians as saints but just normal people with normal problems and vulneralbe just like the rest of us. I think we forget this but we should still strive to be better people and lead by example.
That suppressed Lib Dem announcement in full:
"We'd like to announce that some of us are rather concerned about Charles - he may be developing a bit of a drink problem, though he's not much worse than a lot of others in Westminster. Some of us think he's overdoing the hard-drinking Scot role and just needs to calm down a bit; others think it's gone a bit further than that. So don't jump to any conclusions, we just thought we'd keep you informed. It may be nothing serious, so please don't go away with the impression that he's an alcoholic."
I wonder what would have happened if Churchill had been subject to this kind of witch-hunt?
Kennedy seems like a very personable man, and his drink problem is clearly a personal tragedy. However, suppose he had won enough seats at the last election to, if not form a government, at least hold the balance of power in a hung parliament? Shouldn't the voters know before an election if a man holding the fate of the nation in his hands had such a problem before deciding if they should entrust him with that responsibility or not?
Mind you, Blair told us he was going to sort out education, get tough on crime and save the National Health Service; he was hiding the truth as well!
I personally don't think it's an issue whatsoever. Okay, he drinks a little. He does it in the private of his own home, he has/is trying to overcome it; as long as he's not drunk whilst presenting a speech, making an important decision (or any for that matter; being drunk on the job is bad), why is it such a major issue?
I support him 100%.
(Well. I'm a Labour man. But still.)
Charles Kennedy, with his alcohol problem; Menzies Campbell without?
There's no comparison. Despite his problem, Kennedy's charismatic approach brought the Lib Dems to a real peak in terms of their parliamentary representation, and their nationwide share wasn't bad either.
His principled stand on Iraq, together with his general demeanour made them look almost (hush, whisper it) a party suitable for government.
The disgraceful way his departure was handled and the dismaying cliques that lobbied for the leaderships have, I fear, once again branded the Lib Dems as no-hopers. Just at the worst time for them, as Labour slips in the polls, and the Tories move up in the polls. Mind you, if Kennedy was still there... perhaps that wouldn't have happened.
Sadly, I thing the Lib Dems have the leaders they deserve. The one consolation is that they won't be influencing any government in the medium term.
The early release of information in this book seems hyped up by a weak leadership fearful of Charles Kennedy, the obvious choice for leadership of the Liberal Democrats.
He has reportedly dried out now and has reformed, if he has not he should not be allowed to stand for office.
Where are the so called compassionate Liberals; the man has faced his demons, do not let those weaker and lesser individuals hang on to office merely by running down your ex leader.
Remember that the next real poll is years away although you will have to have your choice to lead your party in office well before that date.
If Charles Kennedy is a serious contender, call him before you to be questioned.
I've always been uncomfortable with the "second time round club" for politicians. More so when the previous position was possibly just one step away from leading the country. I realise that perfect people don't exist, but I would have thought the LDP should have been more aware of the problem before Mr. Kennedy was selected.
Well there are more drunken writers around who write such stuff its almost criminal whilst under the unfluence and whose eds cover for them the libel laws prevent me from naming 2 of them but they are well known so pots and kettles come to mind.
It is an interesting dilemna about the public right to know.
Charles Kennedy was an able leader of the libdems and an articulate and genuine voice of a section of the public. His success in incresing the libdem vote is testimony to that.
But he was never going to be PM. The libdem frontbench knew that, the people who voted for him knew that.
If he were a serious conetender to be the PM then the public had a right to know as this would have affected his job. But as a political celebrity and a voice of a certain consistituency his alcholhism was irrelevant in exactly same way that alcohol or drug abuse in a journalist or a political activist would be irrelevant.
The gamble the libdem leadership took was if they were faced with the libdems entering a coalition where Charles might have had to take ministerial office. But given the large lead Labour enjoyed in recent times this was a slim risk. It is appropriate that now that a hung parliament looks a distinct possibility, he has been ejected.
Ming is right to say that until he can demonstrate his ability to stay sober a return to frontline politics and potential minsiterial office is impossible. To allow hime otherise would be pure cynical political opportunism.
Geoff Taylor (5) has it absolutely right.
Why did the media fail to report Kennedy's drink problem to the public?
Could it be that they were doing their utmost to ensure any Labour votes leakage went to the Liberals rather than the Conservatives thus enabling Labour to serve yet another term.
The media, particularly the 91Èȱ¬ paid for by the licence-payers!, should ensure that they report the NEWS factually without any bias.
The media can take a large slice of the blame for the state the country now find's itself in.
I have no doubt that Charles Kennedy would have been perfectly safe to be Prime Minister of this country. I am certain he would never have gone anywhere near a 'nuclear button' whilst under the influence of alcohol. I am much more frightened of the person who is currently in charge. He doesn't require alcohol to fuel his irrational behaviour neither does he need it to blind himself to Britain's and the World's safety and best interests.
Charles Kennedy drunk is twenty times a more reliable and safe pair of hands than Tony Blair sober.