When I did the Scottish Politics module at Glasgow University, one of my perennial sources of amusement was Professor James Kellas' attempts to name-check his 'celebrity' former students. He'd say : "You just never know what will happen to you when you take this course. We've had Charles Kennedy, and...er, Alan Clements, he's the husband of Kirsty Wark..." And then he'd tail off, because he couldn't actually think of anyone else!
Still, Charles Kennedy wasn't too shabby an example to be getting on with. There aren't many people who can claim to have reshaped the British political party system before the age of thirty, but that's a feat Kennedy pulled off. He was one of just five MPs that the SDP were left with after the Alliance's disappointing showing at the 1987 election, and initially all five seemed to be implacably opposed to David Steel's proposal for a merger with the Liberals. Regardless of the state of opinion among the rank-and-file membership, it's hard to see how the merger could have gone ahead if the parliamentary party had maintained a united front - but it was Kennedy that eventually broke ranks, possibly due to his closeness to Roy Jenkins.
So his biggest single legacy is simply the existence of the Liberal Democrats. Given what happened last month, it would perhaps be unwise to call that a "lasting" legacy, but any degree of uncertainty on that front is scarcely his fault. Not only did he help to found the party, he gave it a clear and popular centre-left identity when he was leader, delivered two record-breaking election successes in a row, and in general just left the place in a better state than he found it. What occurred afterwards is entirely the responsibility of the ambitious men who squandered a golden inheritance after taking to the airwaves in a coordinated and determined effort to depose him in early 2006.
His other major legacy, of course, is to conclusively prove that British leaders and parties can survive unscathed (and can indeed thrive) after taking a stand against Anglo-American military adventurism. Although he failed to prevent the war in Iraq, he arguably paved the way for the thwarting of military action in Syria.
And was he denied a third legacy that he should have been destined for? You'd think he was the obvious choice to lead the anti-independence campaign during last year's referendum - there was simply no-one else on the unionist side that could have gone toe-to-toe with Alex Salmond in the popularity stakes. In the end, he barely even had a role. Salmond is quite right to point out today that Kennedy's heart wasn't in the campaign, but that's not because he wasn't passionate about staying within the UK - it was entirely because of the way the campaign was fought. He was much more passionate about Home Rule than he was about doom-mongering. If you can imagine an entirely different No campaign, fronted by an on-song Kennedy, making a positive and authentic-sounding case for Scotland to take on sweeping new powers within the UK...well, that could have been more like a 65-35 result, and then it really would have been over for the fabled "generation". All of us on the other side of the argument can count ourselves very fortunate that he was so foolishly sidelined.
"Fury" in Telegraph over Salmond's "He was an extremely generous human being" tribute. Same paper carries "Charles Kennedy was a weak and flawed man" article. No comment.
ReplyDeleteAlex Massie has also let himself down very badly today, it has to be said.
DeleteFirstly, very sad news about Charles Kennedy. He was by all accounts a good man, a very able and principled politician, and a very good leader of the Liberal Democrats. His battle against illness was very brave, particularly so when it was conducted in large part in the public eye. Kennedy was a political figure that was much admired and respected here and the rest of the UK.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, sadly some in the MSM and some unionists have used part of Alex Salmond's tribute to Charles Kennedy in a manner that completely twists his words. Here is what Salmond said about Charles Kennedy on Twitter:
Charles Kennedy was by far the most generous person I have ever met in politics. Sad loss of a great politician and, above all, a great man.
Alex Massie and others have interpreted some other things Salmond has said in a horrible, yet sadly predictable way. They should know better, but of course we are dealing with people who are extremely nasty and vindictive towards independence and the SNP. Some individuals on Twitter have even been blaming the SNP for the untimely death of Charles Kennedy.
Anyway, that is of little importance from the main message, which is of course RIP Charles Kennedy.
The response from some of the usual suspects in the westminster bubble is pretty telling TBH. I could go into how some of the new SNP MPs were fair taken aback by the pervasive culture of drinking in westminster when they got there, and it's role as the 'problem' that dare not speak it's name in westminster (because Kennedy sure as hell wasn't and isn't the only one affected and most of the journos thrive on feeding MPs drink) but as you rightly say muttley..
Delete"Anyway, that is of little importance from the main message, which is of course RIP Charles Kennedy."
Condolences go out to his family and friends.
Charles Kennedy has died young leaving behind a wife and child, and all unionist Twitter trolls/journalists can think about is politicising his death to attack the SNP. I'm absolutely sickened, and despite everything surprised so many people would stoop so low.
ReplyDeleteI agree Calum, but it is far better to remember Charles Kennedy as both the real political talent, and the admirable person he was, rather than let these bitter fools and trolls get more attention than they deserve, through their warped and twisted agendas.
DeleteI'm sorry but I really don't buy your analysis. Kennedy wasn't offered the job because the No side knew perfectly well that he would be unable to fulfil his obligations in terms of offering sensible and sober leadership. You really can't have someone with very serious substance abuse problems in that kind of role because those at the lower levels need consistently high quality direction. Then of course there is the problem of him being a Liberal Democrat politician - you know the party that was so comprehensively rejected by the Scottish electorate at every election since 2010. Your assertion that Kennedy could have made the case more effectively for the UK than Darling just isn't credible in my view.
ReplyDeleteA great many people could have made the case better than Darling, so I think you'll struggle with that one. I do understand the point about Kennedy's alcohol problem, but that wasn't a new thing - he successfully got through two general election campaigns in spite of it.
DeleteJames is right, Charles Kennedy could have made the case much more effectively than Darling. The clue is in the word 'could'. If he had not been burdened with his illness, Kennedy would have made a more attractive case for the Union, probably by arguing for a federal solution.
Delete"I do understand the point about Kennedy's alcohol problem, but that wasn't a new thing - he successfully got through two general election campaigns in spite of it".
DeleteDid he? I There was the terrible interview about the Lib Dems' proposal for a local income tax - their flagship policy - on the day of their 2005 manifesto launch when he was unable to answer even the most basic questions.
I am not a Lib Dem by any means by I simply don't buy the analysis that he as treated poorly by that party. In Greg Hurst's generally sympathetic biography it is made clear that time and time again problems caused by alcohol were covered up and denied by those at the very top. The most obvious was missing the 2004 Budget but there were many other documented in that book.
"Did he?"
DeleteYup - you can't argue with results. 62 MPs was more than Ashdown, Clegg, Steel, Owen, Jenkins, Thorpe or Grimond ever managed.
If you remember James a certain daft old git in charge of Stormfront Lite used to get amusingly upset whenever we used to point out that the facts that Kennedy won more seats than Clegg.
DeleteIn fact Smithson (as a member of Clegg's ostrich faction) used to slag off Kennedy pretty regularly and disparage his time as leader.
All the more ironic then to see his bitter and twisted 'take' on political betting today jumped on by the dimmest of the many out of touch tories and anti-scottish bigots on Stormfront Lite.
I don't think Alcohol had anything to do with his side-lining, more the fact that there is no backing for a federal solution amongst those who made up Better Together!
DeleteI was interested in Jennie Kermode's view that, if you actually care about people, being a politician will always take a personal toll. Only those with a sociopathic edge can really hold it together in a profession that requires constant lying and pissing on people. It rings true, alas.
ReplyDeleteHowever neither he or the LibDems were in a position to deliver Home Rule. They had been on about it for over 100yrs, and even when the Libs were Government, they didn't.
ReplyDeleteThe 65-35 result would simply have been another monumental betrayal of Scotland.
nor
DeleteI did not know Mr Kennedy. It is tragic to lose your life still so young, and obviously I sympathise with his family in their grief.
ReplyDeleteThe case for indepedence was strong. We did not win because of demography and fear engendered by bitter together. It will be a strong case next time. It would make no difference who led BT. The case for independence was strong.
I felt a federal solution was the right one before devolution. It was probably the right one in 1914. But Westminster does not like to concede its powers. And as their intransigence lost them Ireland, so too are we heading for the exit.
No matter who led BT, the case for independence stands strongly on its own merits. If they hadn't indulged in dirty tricks we would already be counting the days. But don't for a minute think that they could have done better. They could only have done worse.
He wasn't a saint http://chrisspivey.org/shhh-its-an-official-secret/
ReplyDeleteHis voting record on this occasion left a lot to be desired.
My lasting memory is from a debate on the Butler Inquiry 20 July 2004 Column 215 when he silenced George Foulkes who had tried to spoil his speech. Simply brilliant in debate and a sad loss.
ReplyDeleteCharles Kennedy's death at a young age was a tragedy for him, his family and his close friends but I've never had any sympathy for his political views.
ReplyDeleteIn 2001 the Lib-Dem manifesto had a written constitution and federalism in it. In the 2005 Lib-Dem manifesto after 6 years of Charlie at the helm both these policies had gone and federalism and a written constitution haven't made a comeback in the Lib-Dems since.
This has a bearing on the referendum campaign because he was an out and out unionist in coalition with Labour and the Tories to keep Scotland under the control of a Tory dominated Westminster. Whether he could have lead Better Together or not he was in no position to promise anything as a backbencher in the then third party in Westminster far less federalism which had fallen by the wayside even in the Lib-Dems.
He might have been passionate about Home Rule but nobody knows quite what that means, and as I've pointed out, even in his time as Leader of the Lib-Dems their commitment to federalism was fading away. He stood shoulder to shoulder with the Tories and Labour in Better Together and paid the political price like all the rest.
He may have talked against the Iraq war and voted against a coalition with the Tories but when the Lib-Dems formed a coalition with the Tories he stayed in the party. He started in the SDP and ended up on the Government benches under a Tory Prime Minister. I'd have had more respect for him if he'd resigned and stood as an independent.