Charles Kennedy isn't hit by scandal

Thande

Donor
Yes, it's a recent political one, so don your flameproof jackets.

Charles Kennedy, I think it's fair to say, was the most effective leader the Liberal Democrats have had since the SDP first allied with the Liberals. He positioned the party well to take advantage of left-wing voters disaffected with Labour over issues such as tuition fees, pension reform and the Iraq war. This electoral strategy meant that the Lib Dems achieved their greatest vote share and number of MPs elected in 2005, equalling what the old Liberal Party had had at the end of the 1920s before its final crash into the wilderness.

However, Kennedy's drink problem was discovered - after he had quit, notably - and when he called a leadership election in response his support ebbed away and he resigned in 2006. Since then, the Lib Dems have gone from Ming Campbell, who the media refused to take seriously due to his age, to Nick Clegg who spends most of his time being an off-the-radar nonentity even by Lib Dem standards, and the rest of it unwisely moving the party to the right, fighting for ground with the Conservatives when Labour continues to haemmorage leftish voters who now have nowhere to go. Based on current opinion polls it seems unlikely the Lib Dems can do more than equal their 2005 vote share in 2010, which is crazy considering Labour's lack of support.

So, WI Kennedy's drink problem had never been discovered by ITN and he had managed to remain leader? Would he still be there in 2010, assuming the election is still called that year? By that point he would have been leader for a decade. And what might the Lib Dems' poll numbers look like instead? For one thing, what with the current Chilcot Inquiry, you can bet Kennedy would keep emphasising the fact that the Lib Dems were the only major party to oppose the Iraq war...
 
Plus with CK having a higher public profile than Clegg, Vince Cable's prescience on the Credit Crunch would have more visibility. So should Kennedy still be leader now, they would look very good.

The challenge is transforming higher LD poll ratings into electoral success under FPTP.

Also, would a stronger LD rating avoid 'The Election That Wasn't'? Would Brown be more inclined to go to the polls with a stronger LD party pulling votes from both main parties, and therefore reducing the chances of the required swing to the Tories.
 

MrP

Banned
I fear that with Kennedy it's simply a matter of timing. After all, Private Eye had been snarking about it for so long (even having to publish an apology for falsely alleging that he was frequently "tired and emotional" at one point) that it seems to have been an open secret in Parliament. However, had it been kept under wraps/remained ignored by the media, then I agree with your assessment that they would gain a few percentage points, at least, from their oft-proclaimed opposition to the war, and I agree with DocU that Cable's forewarnings would be more famed. Kennedy is a more adept politician and has a better public persona than either Cameron or Brown, so I suspect that we might well see the Lib Dems on such a high that, were the coming election to go badly for Labour, they could well be replaced by our current third party.
 
The Lib Dems would certainly be in a stronger electoral position as you said Cable's economic policies and predictions would be more widely known and Kennedy would cetainly garner more coverage than Clegg. The fact he had to step down because he was a recovered alcholic was a joke, although on a personal level I quite like Clegg.

I doubt the Lib Dems could move past Labour anytime soon, at least in seats, but if things went relatively OTL after 2005, the Lib Dems might be in a very serious position to become the kingmakers by 2010. Although amore left-wing LDs will be in a pickle in such a situation, allying with a discredited Labour wouldn't do them much good PR.
 
I fear that with Kennedy it's simply a matter of timing. After all, Private Eye had been snarking about it for so long (even having to publish an apology for falsely alleging that he was frequently "tired and emotional" at one point) that it seems to have been an open secret in Parliament. However, had it been kept under wraps/remained ignored by the media, then I agree with your assessment that they would gain a few percentage points, at least, from their oft-proclaimed opposition to the war, and I agree with DocU that Cable's forewarnings would be more famed. Kennedy is a more adept politician and has a better public persona than either Cameron or Brown, so I suspect that we might well see the Lib Dems on such a high that, were the coming election to go badly for Labour, they could well be replaced by our current third party.

It had been an open secret for at least 15 years in his own party except that it was assumed to be laddish drinking not alcoholism as was the late Sir Russel Johnstons drinking for example

"Speed bony lad like a hack on the make over the sea but why
Where is the man who was born to be king over the sea but why
Where is the lad down in the bar loudly the whips complain out on the town out of his head Charlie is pissed again."

Liberator song book

The question that should be asked is what if Charles Kennedy had curbed his drinking. I think the LDs would be better off.
Nick Clegg comes across a bit like a pushy young kid and his boasts in lad magazines didn't help. Kennedy was a likeable person and could have offered a better alternative i.e not one of three promising misery through cuts
 
The Lib Dems would certainly be in a stronger electoral position as you said Cable's economic policies and predictions would be more widely known and Kennedy would cetainly garner more coverage than Clegg. The fact he had to step down because he was a recovered alcholic was a joke, although on a personal level I quite like Clegg.

I doubt the Lib Dems could move past Labour anytime soon, at least in seats, but if things went relatively OTL after 2005, the Lib Dems might be in a very serious position to become the kingmakers by 2010. Although amore left-wing LDs will be in a pickle in such a situation, allying with a discredited Labour wouldn't do them much good PR.

Thinking about it some more, if we assume that the LibDems gain a few more percentage points than OTL (perhaps avoiding the dip once Charlie went, and then gaining the same few points over and above), the real question becomes where do those voters come from, and what impact do they have on by-elections, and the view after Tony goes.

Give the LDs 4-5 more points in the polls in 2007, and what does that do for GB - does it make a Labour win more or less likely? Does Brown shilly-shally more, or it does it push him to make a firm decision either way.
 
GB was also talking seriously about constitutional reform in 2007 and iirc there was quite some excitment about this amongst the reformist types in London at the time. I went to a launch at the LSE about this time - perhaps if the LD had a stronger position this could have been leveraged more strongly, rather than fizzling out as it did IOTL
 
ITN didn't discover his drink problem per se - his own parliamentary party said, more or less, 'we're not putting up with this any longer.' ITN then lead on that once it had become a real open secret. And he wasn't a recovered alcoholic, he was an actual alcoholic who was trying to quit.

But setting that aside and assuming that Kennedy somehow gets some early treatment.

Firstly, People are completely forgetting that the Lib Dems rode a coalition of disaffected Tory voters and, in the latter stages, disaffected Labour voters, together with the traditional 'pure' centre vote. The Lib Dems were, - are - in many cases, the main alternative to the Tories in most rural south England seats. So the fact that their vote is holding still during a big Tory revival isn't "crazy" - it's actually pretty good. Even in 1997 the Lib Dems didn't get 20%, so anything around that is pretty impressive.

Second, the inner circle of the Lib Dem MPs were never that keen on Kennedy. They thought he was lazy and that he had a tendency to 'wing it' on some aspects of the leadership, and they'd always known he was a heavy smoker and drinker. There is plenty of room for dissent if the Lib Dems encounter trouble.

A lot depends on how Kennedy handles the Tory revival. The Lib Dem antidote to that has been to go right under Campbell and Clegg. If Kennedy resists that, he could be in big trouble with his party, many of whom have south England seats. If he doesn't, then he's going to encounter the same problems of bringing in disaffected Labour voters that the Lib Dems have had recently.

But really, these issues were already coming up before Kenendy's alcoholism kicked in as a big issue. It was far from being the only reason why he was forced to quit - Campbell always disliked Kennedy because Kennedy's mass of support in 1999 had prevented him from becoming leader, so he was always waiting for an opportunity to kick the boot in. People were already saying that Kennedy was not the leader best placed to combat a Tory revival, and that the Lib Dems should have done far better in 2005. Yes, that is all utterly nuts in retrospect considering how shit Campbell and Clegg have been, but that's hindsight for you. I cannot see a continuing Kennedy leadership being very happy.
 
Last edited:
But really, these issues were already coming up before Kenendy's alcoholism kicked in as a big issue. It was far from being the only reason why he was forced to quit - Campbell always disliked Kennedy because Kennedy's mass of support in 1999 had prevented him from becoming leader, so he was always waiting for an opportunity to kick the boot in. People were already saying that Kennedy was not the leader best placed to combat a Tory revival, and that the Lib Dems should have done far better in 2005. Yes, that is all utterly nuts in retrospect considering how shit Campbell and Clegg have been, but that's hindsight for you. I cannot see a continuing Kennedy leadership being very happy.

Indeed Ming was just waiting to get away with slipping CK the big one.
I was astounded at the time how he managed to win the leadership campaign being so obviously unlikeable.
I'm still annoyed that Torylite Clegg also won out when we kicked Ming but I guess he'll pull in some disaffected bluecoats (;)) and reduce the Daveyboy's majority in May...
 
Top