A tragic flaw? Which flaw?

Just finished reading Greg Hurst's biography of Charles Kennedy. All very interesting, not least because it is about revisiting all those telltale signs that Charlie Boy had an alcohol problem. Now, until he actually confessed that he was an alcoholic, I really didn't believe he was one. Yes, there were a lot of signs, and some journalists directly suggested it (such as Paxman's wonderful "You're interviewing Charles Kennedy, I hope he's sober" question) but I could not believe that in this modern age of 24 hour media and post Watergate investigative journalism that a leader of a major party in the UK could be an alcoholic for many years and the story not come out. Just goes to show how wrong I can be.

And some of the stories are entertaining, in a sick, trying-not-to-look-at-the-car-crash-as-you-drive-past-it kind of way. The junior MP who clocks him as drunk at a party speech, the manifesto launch, the *illness* at the party conference… on some levels, Kennedy’s time as Lib Dem leader was a catalogue of disasters, as the party lurched from one drink induced crisis to another. You could argue that Kennedy did have a tragic flaw, that his drinking led to his resignation. But I’d disagree.

Sure, the reason why the Liberal Democrats eventually moved against Kennedy was because of his drinking. But Campbell, Taylor, Stunell and Rennard knew about his alcoholism prior to the 2005 election. Rennard asked Kennedy point blank whether he was an alcoholic, and Kennedy replied in the affirmative. It was apparently an open secret in Westminster that Kennedy has a drink problem for years – perhaps even before he became leader. Sandra Gidley relates his lacklustre performance – and general aroma of alcohol – in the 1999 leadership election. Had they wanted to, then the Lib Dem leadership could have got rid of Kennedy several years ago. His alcoholism was nothing new to them. Whether or not he could have survived as party leader after his admission of a drink problem is pure conjecture – the fact that he fell so swiftly after admitting a problem many knew he had was entirely down to the fact that his Shadow Cabinet failing to support him as he made his statement. Whatever their conscious motivation, I am convinced that, on a subconscious level, the Liberal Democrats did not depose Kennedy because of his drinking.

Alcoholism is a flaw in Kennedy – I guess it could be tragic if he doesn’t put it behind him and continues to destroy his health with it. But it is not the flaw that led to him being ousted as Lib Dem leader. His flaw as a politician is that he doesn’t actually seem to believe in anything. He is a politician without policies, without conviction, without the ability to make – and then stick to - a difficult decision.

In the book he comes across as a procrastinator, as someone who will avoid any choice for as long as possible and only really make those choices when he had to. Witness his thoughts on the Alliance/SDP merger. His choice on the Iraq War. Allowing the Union between the Lib Dems and Labour to “wither away on the vine” is typical of the way Charlie K thinks – he wants to avoid tough choices, and instead let events take their natural course. He is not a leader, he never was and will probably never will be. Showman, vote winner, amiable chap he may well be – conviction politician, well, no. Not now, not ever.

This is his key flaw. Kennedy is/was the epitome of the protest vote. He was a likeable leader of his party, someone who you wanted to vote for if you wanted to vote for the most human of the candidates. However, if you want to vote for someone who you think has the ideas and the convictions to run the country, it will never be the perpetually amiable Kennedy.

In today’s Times, Matthew Parris makes a very interesting point: calling for David Cameron to come out and stand for something – anything – to make him into a conviction politician. For Cameron to have a belief. Cameron should heed the warning offered by the coup against Kennedy – you can try to sell yourself as a nice chap and try to be everything to everyone but ultimately it won’t work. You have to stand for something. Whilst it may sound like the pot calling the kettle black, Blair was right to respond to Kennedy in the run-up to the Iraq War with the quip “Ah, yes, of course. The Liberal Democrats – united, as ever, in opportunism and error.”

Kennedy was opportunistic throughout his career, and whilst voters liked him, they had no idea what he stood for. Kennedy was the ideal third party leader – someone to vote for if you didn’t like the main party leaders. He was never a candidate for Prime Minister in his own right, as he stands for nothing.

I think, on some subconscious level, the Liberal Democrats offloaded Kennedy as they knew that, with him as leader, they would never move beyond third party status. They had the chance to push ahead dramatically in the 2001 and 2005 General Elections but ended up resolutely in third place. Kennedy failed to offer any real alternative to the two main parties, other than being a bloke you might want to have a beer with (bad taste, I know). I think there is ambition within the Lib Dems to become the Opposition, and then maybe the government, and also an understanding that a prevaricating populist like Kennedy cannot achieve that.

Whether Ming The Merciful can remains to be seen. But Kennedy’s drinking was a problem for him as Lib Dem leader, not the fatal flaw. It was the complete lack of political belief behind his leadership that led to his downfall. So even if he does overcome the alcohol problem, he will never be an effective party leader. Those who want Kennedy to make a comeback as leader are missing the point. He never was, and, unless he has a radical change in the future, will never be a leader.