not so liberal and certainly not democratic
I have to say it: I felt really quite sorry for Charles Kennedy at the start of the year when he was hounded mercilessly by the press and broadcast media and then ousted by his own disloyal and scheming leuitenants because of his boozing.
I am no way of a suppporter of the Liberal Democrats; I do not take to their luke warm attitude to major Life and ethical issues. But I do expect them to be largely fair and behave like it says on the tin, so to speak. And I do think Charlie seems to be a reasonable guy and to have been an effective leader.
Charles Kennedy liked a drink, well apparently he liked it a lot; and some of his colleagues decided that he therefore was not fit to be in charge any more. Now I call that not very "liberal".
So they blackmailed him into standing down. They basically announced to Charles (oh, and everyone else) that they would not play on his team. I call that not very democratic.
The Lib Dems have a rule or policy which says that the leader is chosen by the Party Members, not by the MPs. Whether this is a good thing or bad is not an issue; the democratic process upon which their party rests is. And I believe they abandoned this value by forcing Kennedy to step down. He did not want to, you could tell that. And he could have held on and forced a vote from the party membership if he had wanted; but rather than put his party through all that, he decided to go quietly and with some decorum. Perhaps this was because he fancies a political future and did not want to shoot holes in his own boat; or perhaps he genuinely cares about the Liberal Democratic party and did the Right Thing, even though the Mark Antonies around him were prepared to stab him in the back, the front and anywhere else they could shove it in.
Well, they got their comeupppance for sure. The leadership contenders included one man who refused to come off the fence - or out of the closet - about his own sexuality and one outright pervert. Look, whatever they want to do in their spare time is fine by me, as long as they keep well away from my kids. But having publicly shamed and bounced out of office poor old Charlie for being a bit of a piss-head, they must have felt pretty awkward about the credibility of those other two putative leaders.
Serves the hypocritical scoundrels right, I say.
I am no way of a suppporter of the Liberal Democrats; I do not take to their luke warm attitude to major Life and ethical issues. But I do expect them to be largely fair and behave like it says on the tin, so to speak. And I do think Charlie seems to be a reasonable guy and to have been an effective leader.
Charles Kennedy liked a drink, well apparently he liked it a lot; and some of his colleagues decided that he therefore was not fit to be in charge any more. Now I call that not very "liberal".
So they blackmailed him into standing down. They basically announced to Charles (oh, and everyone else) that they would not play on his team. I call that not very democratic.
The Lib Dems have a rule or policy which says that the leader is chosen by the Party Members, not by the MPs. Whether this is a good thing or bad is not an issue; the democratic process upon which their party rests is. And I believe they abandoned this value by forcing Kennedy to step down. He did not want to, you could tell that. And he could have held on and forced a vote from the party membership if he had wanted; but rather than put his party through all that, he decided to go quietly and with some decorum. Perhaps this was because he fancies a political future and did not want to shoot holes in his own boat; or perhaps he genuinely cares about the Liberal Democratic party and did the Right Thing, even though the Mark Antonies around him were prepared to stab him in the back, the front and anywhere else they could shove it in.
Well, they got their comeupppance for sure. The leadership contenders included one man who refused to come off the fence - or out of the closet - about his own sexuality and one outright pervert. Look, whatever they want to do in their spare time is fine by me, as long as they keep well away from my kids. But having publicly shamed and bounced out of office poor old Charlie for being a bit of a piss-head, they must have felt pretty awkward about the credibility of those other two putative leaders.
Serves the hypocritical scoundrels right, I say.
16/3/2006 8:53 PM
| Comments [1] | #Current Affairs
