No show
BRIGHTON: Well well. So now we know. Despite Charles Kennedy's proclamation of loyalty to his successor we discover that he refused to stage a public show of unity in which old leader and new would shake hands on the Conference stage.
I have just been interviewing Sir Ming Campbell about his tax plans (who are the rich who will pay more?), why he's frightened to say that coalition government would be good for Britain, his reaction to cartoons which portray him as an old boy with a zimmer frame or in a wheelchair and the handshake that never was. (Watch the whole interview here.)
Diplomatically he says: "We discussed the choreography. This was Charles Kennedy's day."
Behind the scenes they are less diplomatic. Charles clearly cannot forgive. Neither, let it be said, can many here who note bitterly that Kennedy gave no apology for the agony he put his party through as he battled his drink problem (and, incidentally, who chastised me for suggesting yesterday that his speech was better than the ones he gave as leader!).
I'm 
Comments
I thought Charles Kennedy's speech was a very good one, well presented under difficult circumstances and making some very good points, i'm not at all surprised he seemed to have decided not to have the new leader join him on stage for the handshake and the staged managed back slapping rubbish.
The british public are starting to learn that politics is a rough tough all game, almost impossible now to gather a group of more than two people who can agree not to disagree and fight for each others positions and pay packets, Just look at the Labour Party at the moment.
Lets see how the Leaders speech goes tomorrow before we make too many final judgemental, but i predict a pretty lack lustre performance, i see it a bit like the last speech by I.D.S wooden and over stage managed to make a man known for his drab and boring style look like a really interesting and energising leader. not going to happen.
I don't vote Liberal but i was thinking about doing so, but not with this new leader, i don't think he will last too much longer, but my question is this, can anyone really name me a serving MP who is worth voting for?
Nick
Any prospect of you discussing what's actually happening at the Conference, rather than concentrating on personalities and what happens in your interviews?
I tell you what I say- good on Charles- I thought at the time and still think now that it was a grave mistake for the liberal democrats and more than that it was purely ungrateful- he has been the best leader the lib dems have ever had and because of a drink problem that was already being tackled they got rid of him and brought in someone who is so disconnected from the electorate it is untrue and who knows little about domestic and a lot about foreign affairs- I agree with you about his speech yesterday as well. It was very commendable and I think all those stupid MP's who signed the letter for him to resign will be or should be deeply regretting their actions!!! Shame on them!!
I assume some portion of my hard-earned money paid dutifully to the government in liecense fees for the past 27 years is going toward Nick Robinson's wage? I if wanted to contribute toward such tittle-tattle I'd subscribe to Heat or Ok magazine. Then again... I guess there aren't any more pressing contemporary political issues the media or the world has to deal with at the moment are they????
This is just another example of too much media and not enough content to go round I'm afraid.
I'm not quite sure I can agree with you about "gave no apology for the agony he put his party through as he battled his drink problem" as CK didn't put the party through any agony whilst he was leader - if anything the reverse! It was only when those who sought to depose him stuck in the knife that the party had its very public issues about leadership and trust.
Sounds like Charlie hasn't reached that 9th step - Asking forgiveness. Frankly, his forced resignation suggests he hasn't reached the first step - admitting he has a problem which he cannot control. Something tells me Charlie is still in the alcoholic haze of "Yea, it can be a problem, but one drink won't hurt".
Remember Chuck -- One drink is too much and 12 is not enough. Put away the bitterness and admit you did this to yourself and your party. You turned your "friends" ("enablers") into liars to cover for you. They are better friends than you deserve. Wise up and shake that hand or you'll never be back.
It matters little since the current policies of the Lib Dems will not work. A green agenda will attract few votes, since most people rely on cars, and any sense of much higher taxation will drive voters away (no pun intended). The failure of two senior politicians to forgive, forget and work together shows that they care little for the electorate, and more about their own careers. Labour must be worried by what is happening, since a lot of Lib Dem voters will probably consider voting Conservative, as they realise it is the only way to disestablish the current Government.
I have always admired Sir Ming for being a superlative diplomat. This may help him to grease the wheels within the party: the trouble is that what the public want is open honesty. If Sir Ming can capitalise on the major opportunity the Lib-Dems currently have - to demonstrate their unswerving allegiance to Libertarian values allied to effective policies, which do more than simply pay lip-service to the environmental agenda, all within a framework of openness – then, but only then, he could be on to a winner!
Ming also said a police superintendent and a headteacher would be better off. I doubt it.
Whilst I'm no Liberal voter I can't help feeling that Charles Kennedy was treated disgracefully and if I was Charles Kennedy I'd be reluctant to publically shake Ming's hand.
He was ousted in a really low back-stabbing way and that's something. I'd imagine, a proud man such as Kennedy won't forget.
Charles Kennedy has many good qualities, but Ming was a good choice to replace him. And I think we have to recognise the fact that ex-leaders who struggle in the role often seem to gain an elder statesperson sort of glow which adds to their appeal after they have stepped down ... John Major, William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith all benefited from this effect. Even the reviled Richard Nixon was being admired in his later days, which is more than a little frightening. Indeed it is true that leaders often seem better both before and after their time in the top job - Neil Kinnock certainly comes to mind in that regard.
I wonder about the various commentaries on the LD conference. Sure it's not all fireworks and excitement but what is happening is that the one democratic party in the country is deciding on its plans democratically. The tax debate was a major change in the way revenue is considered in this country and the other two parties will move in this direction within months.
It would surely be better for everyone concerned if you considered the issues discussed as well as the personalities. Whether two people shook hands or not is a sideline - worth reporting but not the main story.
Trevor (Number 2) and Martyn (Number 4)
I can't help but think that you're being a little harsh on Nick. If you've read the 91Èȱ¬ site, you'll see plenty of in-depth analysis of the key issues and procedures of the Conference. Any diary, any blog is going by it's nature to focus on the irregularities, the interesting points rather than the broard detail of events. Personalities are important in politics - how different people react to different things and how they work together can have a significant impact on events. To believe that personal relations and the personalities that drive them are somehow irrelevant, or too trivial to waste time on, would be to miss commenting on some important factors in politics.
Incedentally, from my experience of union conferences, which I imagine to be similar to the political party ones, "what's actually happening at conference" is usually what's going on in the pubs and hotel bars of Brighton after the close of the conference sessions. And those are the conversations which, even if a journalist could get close too, they couldn't very well repeat.
It's a step forward that Charles Kennedy can remember what happened.
Nick,
In your Indy interview this week you said that personalities were important in looking at politics. A true point. But don't you think issues and/ or policy matters as well? Your emphasis seems to err towards the former at the expense of the latter.
Not everyone is interested in Hello style reporting!
Thank God there was no contrived and awkward 'hand over' hand shake. I'd have found it pretty nauseating. But Nick, HOW do we KNOW all this? As an academic, all I can say is that you can't cite a source, then don't say it! Gossip is not evidence.
Nick, I would not wish to burst anyone's balloon at a party. However, if Charles Kennedy has any lingering scores he feels he must settle, he is still on a recovery path for his disease of alcoholism. Recovering alcoholics make fast recoveries to what looks like normal, I include myself in this category being in recovery too. However it takes more time for a person to settle into sobriety than Mr Kennedy has experienced to date.
Ming is a safe pair of hands until the Lib Dems find their new vibrant, caustic and robust leader with enough steel in them to take on the other parties and leaders at their own game. The Lib Dems are in a holding pattern, and I suspect have faired reasonably given the opportunities for gaffs and blunders over the last few days. so well done them, and as for Mr Kennedy, he can be a voice of reason in the future, and keep to his chosen path, good for him, not as leader though, his time in that role is done!
No Nick there is no chance he will get away from personalities and the first question next week will be when you are going Mr Blair. I dont expect policies will figure very much at all.
Party conferences are politics on speed, aren't they! The stakes are high, the personalities are all put into the same room, the cameras are switched on, and the notebooks are open.
There is plenty on the 91Èȱ¬ website about policy announcements and all that, and this blog is for the bits in between. I'm very happy that you talk about the machinations and 'fun' stuff in this blog, as that's what it's for, right? If people want the policies, they're in the wrong place.
However, one thing I would really like to know is how the Lib Dems think they are going to move from where they are to a party with a chance of power. The coalition stuff is consequently of great interest. What are your views?
I can't help feeling the LibDems are actually a pretty good long game at the moment - although I suspect this maybe more by accident than design!
In the reasonably likely event of a hung parliament after the next election, Ming's elder statesman-type approach could work very well in a coalition with the tories - offering an attractive foil to David Cameron, undoubtably charismatic but relatively inexperienced. I suspect that the Libdems two best rising stars, David Laws and Nick Clegg, could also fit into such a partnership relatively easily.
Both parties would also be able to play on their new found environmentalist credentials and would have the advantage of being able to firmly distance themselves from Labour's great political albatross - namely Iraq.
Ditching the 50p tax pledge removed what was probably the greatest ideological wedge between the two parties...
You must be losing your touch Nick. His speech was dire.
Re a couple of the comments above. Nick is surely there to report on what's happening behind the scenes, not the stage-managed stuff that we can all watch on 91Èȱ¬ Parliament or read from the Lib Dem official website.
The fact there is still a rift between the new and former leader of the party, when officials would have us believe all in the garden is rosey, is of interest.
Keeping ripping up the news releases and tell us what's really going on Nick. I, for one am interested.
Charles Kennedy has given a good rousing speech by all standards. But before he is welcomed with open arms back to the front benches he will have to recultivate the Party's trust in him by working closely with Menzies Campbell and other senior colleagues. Arrogance in any shape or form will not pay. Party members will have to forgive him totally for his past drinking problems. That they will eventually do. Until then Charles Kennedy has to show he is in full control of his faculties and that he can command the respect of rank and file members of the Liberal Democrats.
The party conference season has less and less relevance to the way this country is governed. The elephant in the room is of course the EU. There is a meeting this week to take away the national veto in several areas, including policing and justice issues. Not much in the media about it, but you can be sure this governement will not defend our veto (even though they will say after the event that it didn't matter!)A "Europe tax", levied by the EU to fund its profligacy is also on the blocks, ready to go. What is the point in the pretence of debating issues at party conferences when all the power has already slipped away to the EU, who now call the shots? Westminster is in the final days of its era, sold out by unprincipled politicians of all parties who didn't see fit to consult the people of a once-proud nation about how and by whom it is goverened. As they squander among themselves for the last vestiges of power, I often think of the quote: "Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad."
You've got to love Lib Dem bitchiness - who are the party of substance again?
Charles Kennedy has a lot to apologise for: Drinking before the launch of the election manifesto - one of the most important events for a political party; drinking before a budget speech and drinking before a major conference speech to name just three instances that we now know about is inexcusable. What is done is done however. But he should apologise to everyone for this especially as he lied on tv to the electorate when asked by Jeremy Paxman about his drink problem. Until he does this there can be no return for him sadly as he has many talents when he is sober.
In first interview I've seen with him as leader, Ming Campbell came across as a genuine, informed and decent chap who deserves close attention in the coming months.
Nick Robinson, on the other hand, came across as a typical bully-boy 91Èȱ¬ journo. He hardly showed any interest in exploring anything but his own dumbed-down agenda, often at the expense of being able to hold a line of questioning in any way other than to rebuff comprehensive and considered answers with the dogged and petty pursuit of his pseudo-political gossip fuel.
Campbell 1, Robinson 0.
Ming- the never was and his party never will be.
Lib Dems do not know what they stand for or how to woo the public.
Game over!!
Nick
Stop insinuating and start reporting. Why should Kennedy apologise for something other people did?