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...
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...