Half of Lib-Dem shadow cabinet have "no confidence" in him

[sleaterkinney]

I think Charlie's going for the sympathy vote...

Clever strategy (in the short term) but I think politics will have its way in the end ...

Nobody elects a PM on sympathy though, even if he's ginger as well.

 

[Christo]

I think your view is the gamble him and his advisors are making with this. They were pretty much forced into "revealing" (it's a well known fact for a long time now just not uttered explicitly in the news) this and it makes sense they have to find a good angle to spin it along...

yeah true, just think it's a very good thing per se to have someone who has achieved so much admit candidly to this and have the strength to go on. also i know the lib dems to be (of course like the other parties) full of upcoming scheming satanic twerps, so in a sense I'd rather have a genuine if occasionally disorganised Kennedy..

 

[TAE]

I'd rather have a genuine if occasionally disorganised Kennedy..

Me too, but sadly he has not been being genuine, he has been lying. I understand why, and I think most people in his situation would have done the same, but it is a real problem. For instance, I can't see Kennedy challenging Blair on his dishonesty over Iraq any longer.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Me too, but sadly he has not been being genuine, he has been lying. I understand why, and I think most people in his situation would have done the same, but it is a real problem. For instance, I can't see Kennedy challenging Blair on his dishonesty over Iraq any longer.

But has he been lying? If he's/was an alcoholic aint it self denial we witnessed?

 

[TAE]

As quoted earlier:

On Dimbleby, ITV1, 18 December 05
Dimbleby asked: "Has it been a battle to stay off the booze, have you had to have medical support in any way at all?"
"No, no, no, that is not the case ..."

I think that's pretty clear. You could call it self denial, but I don't buy that argument from Blair either (regarding Iraq's WMD). He must have known that he was not exactly being open and honest about the issue.

Now I'm not saying that Kennedy should be thrown out of the party and shunned by all and sunder, just that I think it would be better for someone else to lead the party.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

As quoted earlier:

On Dimbleby, ITV1, 18 December 05
Dimbleby asked: "Has it been a battle to stay off the booze, have you had to have medical support in any way at all?"
"No, no, no, that is not the case ..."

I think that's pretty clear.

I'm not saying that he should be thrown out of the party and shunned by all and sunder, just that I think it would be better for someone else to lead the party.

Oh yeah forgot that, was just wondering really because the thought struck me that some people with extreme drinking problems I've known were in denial about the extent of it...just read something on the BBC site where he says he chose to not admit to it which means he knew exactly how bad his problem was and made a conscience decision to lie.*

*not that that should surprise given that he is a politician!

 

[nino_savatte]

This really aint a surprise…all the three leaders are on or have been on something:

Cameron: coke
Charley: booze
Blair: valium

Political leaders and substance abuse/dependency go hand in hand.

They do indeed! I take it you've seen the series Altered Statesmen?

 

[Kid_Eternity]

They do indeed! I take it you've seen the series Altered Statesmen?

Nope, I know the above from knowing members from all three parties.

 

[nino_savatte]

Nope, I know the above from knowing members from all three parties.

Okay.

Well, Eden was popping benzedrine like they were going out of fashion (which probably goes some way to explaining Suez); Churchill was an alcoholic, JFK liked his speed and his hydrocortisone and Nixon? He was on anti-depressants iirc. Thatcher must have been on something; no one can claim to have only 3 hours sleep a night and still function properly.

 

[Christo]

Me too, but sadly he has not been being genuine, he has been lying. I understand why, and I think most people in his situation would have done the same, but it is a real problem. For instance, I can't see Kennedy challenging Blair on his dishonesty over Iraq any longer.

Whether witholding information or lying, he's not on his own in being circumspect about discussing his health. Mitterrand was, I believe, silent on the cancer that killed him, and which can't have made running France and EU presidency easy. Sharon's ill health hasn't stopped him from being active, to say the least. It seems to me that ill health, physical or mental, hasn't barred several leaders from carrying on. If anything I'd say this belated honesty reinforces the impression of integrity. I'd be more immediately worried by a leader I knew to be corrupt or shallow. The younger lib dems have just watched Blar and young Cameron, are sh*t scared 'cos their leader is the tubbiest and least clone-like (even though he's actually done okay) and want their day as kingmakers...