Charles Kennedy without a drinking problem

David T

(1) Would he still be the leader of the Lib Dems in 2010?

(2) If so, would he have done better in the election than Clegg did?

(3) Let's assume the result is more or less as in OTL. Kennedy was an opponent of forming a coalition with the Tories. So what would happen? Was a "progressive coalition" really a plausible alternative? AIUI, 323 was the "magic number" for a majority (since the five Sinn Fein MP's refused to take their seats). Theoretically, this could be reached by Labour, Lib Dems, SNP, and Plaid Cymru and/or SDLP. But would a paper-thin majority of such diverse parties really work? Or does Kennedy allow a minority Tory government while insisting on the Lib Dems remaining outside it?
 

Derek Jackson

I think Liberal Democrats would have done somewhat better in the 2005 election and MUCH better during the 05-10 Parliament and in the 2010 election.

I could see him being leader of the opposition to a tory labour austrity coaltiion in the last Parliament and Prime MInister now
 

Charles RB

He would almost certainly be leader in 2010 - he'd just seen their biggest rise in 2005 (even if he didn't get more seats than OTL he's still seen their biggest rise), Iraq would again and again give him street cred, and he was a really good political operator. Add in that you wouldn't have the damaging leadership issues and the Lib Dems would come out stronger. I think they'd get the high 60s in seats, maybe 70.

Now let's say it's 70 and the Tories and Labour have roughly the same number of seats (so we don't have to work out where the extra eight seats came from). Kennedy would not work with the Tories, which means working with Labour. 258-ish + 70 = 328-ish seats, which is enough to govern. It'd be doable. Brown leaving was IIRC a Lib Dem demand in OTL's 2010 for a coalition there and I'd expect Kennedy's LD's to push for that too (the electorate would not thank them for keeping Brown).

The big outcome from this is, of course, that the Lib Dems would still get pilloried for forming a coalition. "Kennedy sold out to Labour for power!" would be the rallying cry. I doubt it'd be as big a problem for the Lib Dems but it'd be a problem, that's how humans work (and the Tories have been out of power for 13 years so they won't be as scary). History would be more forgiving.

Bad news: Cameron's out and it could be someone the backbench likes instead. Party leader Mensch.
 

RetroRaider42

Bad news: Cameron's out and it could be someone the backbench likes instead. Party leader Mensch.
Click to expand...

I recall seeing on this board numerous times the fact that Cameron was a "long-term project;" PM in 2010 and w/a (v. slim) majority in 2015 seems to be much better than they initially hoped, so I imagine he'd still be leader after in this scenario.
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Donor
People's problem and addictions are an important part of their personality and both help achieve their goals and then undercut them afterwards. It could well be that Charles Kennedy without his demons would not have been the Charles Kennedy who could inspire and lead.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
shiftygiant

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Very relevant.

Okay, so Kennedy continues as LibDem leader. Assuming he wins the 2007 Party Leadership, under Kennedy the party will do a bit better in 2010. I agree with Charles RB that a coalition will be formed, and without Clegg leading the charge, he's side with Labour, which would have been a more agreeable relationship for a coalition.

I do have to wonder, how long does Gordon Brown have though? I remember Brown was very unpopular (At least in the South of England. My Dad was a card carrying member of Labour, and he detested Brown) and watching a lot of Labour stuff at the time felt like they only stood by Brown because it was an election year. So, if Kennedy lives and forms a government with Brown, how long would the most dour man in Britain have left?

EDIT: Yeah, this thread isn't in good taste. I feel awful for contributing, especially to a man I had respect for, and I think we should hold off until he's in the ground, at least.
 
Last edited:
Fletch

Fletch

I know it is meant in good spirits, but this thread is in apalling taste given the man is not even buried yet.
 

David T

I do not think I was being disrespectful at all. A number of obituaries pointed out Kennedy's prescience in seeing the coalition with the Tories as a disaster for the Lib Dems. I therefore thought it a legitimate question to ask what would have happened to the Lib Dems if Kennedy had still been their leader in 2010--would they have done better? If they had not done sufficiently better to make a "progressive coalition" feasible, what would the party under his leadership do? Etc. Yet there is no way I can see to make him still be leader in 2010 without eliminating his alcohol problem. Of course if you view alcoholism as a sin (rather than a medical condition) asking this seems a criticism of a recently dead person. But that is not how I view it. To me the question is no different than asking what if Kennedy had not been disqualified as leader by some other health issue.
 
Fletch

Fletch

David T said:
I do not think I was being disrespectful at all.
Click to expand...
Someone dies. Within twenty-four hours, you have posted a thread about an illness the person had suffered and what would have happened had they not suffered it. I think it is tasteful to allow the body to cool down before making such a thread. It really isn't the time for such a thread. If you cannot see this then there is little more I can say to you.
 

fasquardon

I think that if a WI is tasteless, it is tasteless no matter how long ago a person died. If it is tasteful, it is tasteful no matter how recently a person died.

With regards to the WI itself, I think the LibDems would continue to shine in the reflected amiability of their leader. I think we wouldn't see a "Kennedy mania" like OTLs Cleggmania - Kennedy would be a more familiar face and the LibDems would already be attracting more of their potential maximum vote share. However, I do think that Kennedy would shine during the debates and we would see a rise in LibDem popularity. Not sure how long that would last or how that would effect the results on election day. Would more people vote LibDem in 2010 based on the debates? In OTL the debates don't seem to have made much difference at all - much heat and noise was generated, but they don't seem to have changed many peoples' minds.

I think people are underestimating the opposition to coalition within the Labour party - there were some who actively wanted to go into opposition (spend some time recovering, stage a fightback in 5 years after the Tories have taken the heat for cutting the budget) and some who wanted coalition but opposed offering the LibDems any substantial prizes in return for their support.

I can see a LibLab coalition in 2010 if the LibDems get more MPs than Labour. A then traumatized Labour party might then embrace coalition.

Or maybe the LibDems take seats that the Tories took in OTL's 2010 - then we might see Labour remain the largest party and seek LibDem help to shore their government up (in such a case, the anti-Brown crowd in Labour might be particularly pro-coalition since it would give them allies in forcing Brown out). Even so, in such a scenario, I think a confidence & supply agreement is more likely, simply because I doubt Labour would be willing to offer enough to the LibDems for even Kennedy to lead them into coalition.

Either way, all of these possibilities would lead to a very interesting 2015 election...

fasquardon
 

Pericles

Are you sure that Cameron would risk a debate with Kennedy, who's acknowledged as charismatic and affable, while Clgg was a nobody before the debates.
 

fasquardon

Pericles said:
Are you sure that Cameron would risk a debate with Kennedy, who's acknowledged as charismatic and affable, while Clgg was a nobody before the debates.
Click to expand...

Well, the debates happening was a matter of Gordon Brown desperately trying to connect with a British public that (generally) loathed him. I'm not sure that Brown would worry all that much about giving Kennedy air time - I think he'd view that as a price worth paying if he can woo people away from voting Tory.

Cameron would then have the choice to let Brown and Kennedy debate and leave the Tories represented by an empty lectern, or to participate. I suspect that in 2010 he would participate.

fasquardon
 

TimeMeddler

David T said:
(1) Would he still be the leader of the Lib Dems in 2010?

(2) If so, would he have done better in the election than Clegg did?

(3) Let's assume the result is more or less as in OTL. Kennedy was an opponent of forming a coalition with the Tories. So what would happen? Was a "progressive coalition" really a plausible alternative? AIUI, 323 was the "magic number" for a majority (since the five Sinn Fein MP's refused to take their seats). Theoretically, this could be reached by Labour, Lib Dems, SNP, and Plaid Cymru and/or SDLP. But would a paper-thin majority of such diverse parties really work? Or does Kennedy allow a minority Tory government while insisting on the Lib Dems remaining outside it?
Click to expand...

PoD: Charles Kennedy had his drinking problem under control by the time of the 2005 election

(1) He most likely would still be the Leader of the Lib Dems in 2010, but that's not a certainty. I think a lot depends on how Charles Kennedy was able to handle the financial crisis from the autumn of 2007 onwards. If Vince Cable is seen to own that issue and becomes the public face of the Lib Dems in the same way that he did in OTL, then it may be that Kennedy is asked to bow out of the leadership in the summer of 2009 at the end of 10 years in the post.

(2) I don't think the Lib Dems could expect to do very much better than they did in 2010. Nick Clegg was very popular, but that doesn't seem to have done him much good. Perhaps they hold the 13 seats they lost in OTL and gain the extra 8. That makes the result CON 296, LAB 255, LD 70

(3) If that's the result then a LAB-LD coalition is just about workable (you could add 5 friendly NI MPs - 3 SDLP, 1 Alliance, and Lady Sylvia Hermon.)

OTOH Labour is exhausted, people would have thought it was an undemocratic stitch up for Gordon Brown to remain as PM, and the Conservatives have a majority in England.

If Kennedy was smarter than Clegg, he would offer confidence-and-supply to anyone in return for constitutional reform: a referendum on an elected second chamber and referendum on STV.
 

Frances

Banned
No. The LibDems should have demanded nothing less than PR.

Clegg was a half-wit when it came to his dealings with Cameron.

Cameron outsmarted him at every point.

It's tragic that this has happened to the party of Gladstone, Lloyd George, and Asquith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top