Charles Kennedy and his wife have split up. A sad news story on a slow news day. However, I do really wonder whether the BBC news website couldn't have come up with a better picture for this particular story than this one:

Unfortunate would be an understatement...

Memo to the Lib Dems: DITCH CLEGG!

An interesting poll over at Political Betting – both the Tories and Labour are up in the nation’s hearts. Of course, the Tories are still way in the lead, with Labour desperately trying to claw back all the ground they have lost. But for me the interesting figure is the Lib Dem percentage. Because the only way in which the Tories AND Labour have managed to go back up in the polls is through the Liberal Democrats losing 5% of the vote.

Except, they’ve lost more than 5% of their support. They’ve actually lost 27% of their overall support between polls. That is so much a dip in popularity as bleeding support from a major artery. Unless it is a freak poll for the party, it is a catastrophe for the Liberal Democrats.

And if this trend continues, or if they don’t regain that support that has suddenly vanished, then the Liberal Democrats really do need to work out why there has been this nosedive in their support. The answer, as far as I can see, is obvious. Their leader.

There are popular and high profile Liberal Democrats (despite the alarming shite they spout) – both Chris Huhne and Vince Cable seem to be able to generate column inches and, in the case of the latter, actually seem to be quite popular with both the media and the general population. The problem is that neither one of those fellas is Liberal Democrat leader – although you just know that Huhne is plotting away somewhere right now for a new way to try to win that position. No, their leader is, of course, Nick Clegg.

Nick Clegg is one of the reasons why the Lib Dems struggle to get any support these days. The guy is perhaps the least spectacular politician since Iain Duncan-Smith mumbled something about being a quiet man. Somehow – and Lord alone knows quite how they managed it – the Liberal Democrats managed to find the one person in the country with less charisma that Ming Campbell. And made him their frickin’ leader.

Part of the problem is defining exactly who Nick Clegg is. Sure, if you put him next to Gordon Brown, then you would be able to tell the two apart Mainly because Brown resembles one of Dracula’s hunchbacked minions from an old Hammer Horror movie, where was Clegg just looks like a middle manager in an accountancy firm. Whereas if you put Clegg next to Cameron, then – amazingly – Clegg makes Cameron look charismatic. Sure, Cameron looks like an insurance salesman, but at least you get the impression that Cameron would bother to come up with some sort of accidentally patronising platitude for you. Whereas Clegg would just stand next to Cameron, looking faintly sad. Like a four year old who has lost his mother in the supermarket, and is on the point of tears as a result.

The simple truth is that Nick Clegg has been a disaster for the Lib Dems. Not the earthquake sort of disaster – not blatantly destructive like the ginger drunk, who left the party devastated in his wake. No, Clegg is more of a quiet, slow moving disaster. Like the gradual erosion of your house. You don’t really notice anything is happening until your house starts to vanish altogether.

The Lib Dems need to replace Clegg – and fast. Huhne or Cable would be good candidates. They can at least talk. But as well as giving us a bit of entertainment*, there is another reason why the Lib Dems should be working to make themselves more popular through having a leadership election. After the next General Election, the Labour party will be broken. And the country will need some sort of an opposition party. For all of his flaws, Charlie K did at least manage to offer some sort of Opposition to Nu Labour in the aftermath of the Tory meltdowns in 1997 and 2001. A continuation of the Clegg leadership will instead see a rump of a Liberal Democrat party, capable of nothing other than fighting for their survival.

*And man alive, that contest to replace Kennedy was fucking hilarious. We should so have another one of those.

The Curse of Calamity Clegg

Nick Clegg – the face that bedded 30+ women*

Here’s a question for you – why isn’t Nick Clegg having more success?

Yes, I know part of the problem is the party who he chose to join and then chose to lead. But other Liberal Democrat leaders, in particular the ginger drunk, have managed to get much more success than Calamity Clegg. Put simply, what is Clegg’s problem?

David Cameron is the correct answer. Cameron has managed to steal the mantle of the Liberal Democrats, and in doing so has removed the need for Clegg and his merry bunch of environmentalists, vegetarians and geography teachers.

Before any of the fans of Cameron get their knickers in a twist, I am not talking about Cameron stealing the policies of the Lib Dems. That’s a whole other debate to be had another time. But Cameron looks and acts just like a Lib Dem. In that he appears to be moderate, reasoned, middle of the road and – crucially – not threatening. After years of Tory leaders who look foetal, or like middle managers in unethical banks, or even vampires, the Tories have a leader who looks like a normal human being. Aesthetics shouldn’t be important in how people chose who to vote for, but ultimately they are. And Cameron looks like someone friendly enough for a normally Lib Dem voter to back.

Look at this way. Whilst you probably wouldn’t leave your kids with Cameron, you’d be happy for them to be in the same room as the Tory leader. You wouldn’t say the same thing about leaving them in a room with Gordon Brown. You’d be afraid that he might tear them apart with his teeth to make an obscure point about austerity or something. Cameron looks, in an era where marketing and PR is more important than ever, like someone who isn’t a threat.

Which renders Nick Clegg, whose sole selling point is that he is young and non-threatening, completely pointless. He is leading a party who struggle to clearly identify themselves at the best of times, and often fall back on the personality of their leader to distinguish themselves from the two main parties. With Clegg they can’t do that. As limited as Cameron’s ability might be, he is at least more capable than Nick Clegg.

Had Vince Cable run, then the Lib Dems might actually have had a leader capable of leading and someone who could have positioned them in a way that make them distinct from the two main parties. But he didn’t, and the Lib Dems elected Calamity. Which means they have a leader who is, to all intents and purposes, a waste of time.

The ironies are almost breathtaking, given the party itself is arguably a waste of time.

*Picture via the BBC.

Calamity Clegg

The one ray of light on this otherwise shitty, rainy, bleak winter day came from that most unexpected of sources - the Liberal Democrat leadership campaign. Just when you thought they had given up finally there comes the faint whiff of a contest. For the Huhne campaign, or at least an over-zealous researcher, have dubbed the faintly bemused looking Nick Clegg "Calamity Clegg". You can read all about it here, and I would advise having a look at the video as well. It is great just to see how over-bearing, rude, and arrogant Huhne is, next to the schoolboy hurt and utterly ineffectual nature of Clegg. Swear to God, it looks like Clegg is going to cry at one point.

Of course, this is nothing compared to the wonderful 2006 Lib Dem leadership campaign. I mean, no-one has had to resign over being pissed up all the time, and no-one has been exposed as a shit obsessed rent-boy addict. But finally, it looks like there may be a bit of fight left in the scrag end of Britain's third party. And with the petty, but effective, viciousness of Huhne's attack, you really note that the Liberal Democrats don't need enemies when they have each other.

Calamity Clegg is a tag that is going to stick, and I already think of young Nicky boy with that nickname. But in the interests of fairness, I think Huhne should have a nickname as well. Any suggestions, please put them in the comments section. But I rather favour "Hideous Huhne".

UKIP - The Writing's on the Wall?

Back. Although probably not for long.

Couple of things have caught my eye over the past few weeks that I wanted to comment on. First up is the news, relayed with a certain gleeful (and almost infectious) relish by Jackart that UKIP have gained a rather humbling 0% in a recent poll. Of course, you could point out that opinion polls are unreliable – after all, if they could have been trusted, then Kinnock would have become Prime Minister in 1992 - and the 0% is likely to be a distortion of reality. However, and let’s be brutally honest about this – 0% is a horrifically shit figure for any party. UKIP might yet rally and confound their detractors, but it is going to take a massive reversal of their fortunes to turn this disastrous result around.

Now, as a non-aligned political observer, I’m not going to jump up and down, clapping my hands with delight, as UKIP drown in the mire of British Politics. Equally, I ain’t going to wail and gnash my teeth at their slow passing. But it does beg the question, given the recent similarities between the two major parties and the utterly terrible performance of the Lib Dems since they binned that ginger drunk, of how UKIP have managed to fail to capitalise on the situation and push themselves forward as a credible player in the British political scene.

I think the answer is quite simple – and it is one very much in keeping with modern politics. What has crippled UKIP from the outset is an image problem. They are forever, even as they discuss other political policies, perceived to be a single issue party. They are against the EU, and that, many people think, is it. The perceived focus on this issue, particularly since it revolves around some debate about nationality, leaves them open to the ever-present (and largely unfair) accusation of racism. However the problems go deeper than just that. For every eloquent advocate of the party, there is an embittered ex-Tory, a half-baked borderline racist, or a perma-tanned, publicity seeking, self-serving cunt. They have never managed to escape the restrictive straight-jacket of being a small party, and cannot shake the tag of being a single issue party.

There will be those who will continue to push for UKIP, and continue to argue the case for that party in the current format. But this poll probably shows the time has come for those at the very heart of UKIP to ask the question whether it is best to continue to push for UKIP, or to move on from that tainted brand and form a new party – a party that can fully set out a right of centre, Euro-sceptic and Libertarian agenda whilst learning from the mistakes/building on the experiences of UKIP.

"I'm sorry, sir, this is a no smoking train."

Charlie K has been caught smoking on a train, less than 1 week since the smoking ban was introduced (and despite the fact that every train I've been on for the past five years has been no smoking anyway). With his rigorous grasp of the law - and a law he voted for - he thought it was OK if he smoked out of the window.

One rule for us, one rule for them, etc etc ad fucking nauseam.

Falling Off The Wagon

Oh dear. It seems those predicting the return of Charlie K to the forefront of Lib Dem politics may have been a tad premature. It seems his on-off love affair with the bottle is most definitely back on - according to this, anyway.

Apparently he still doesn't think of himself as an alcoholic. Hmmm, maybe time to get a new shrink to help with the drink problem, Charlie boy. And maybe stick to the soda water next time, eh?

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.

Bless 'em

See, I don't hate the Liberal Democrats (with the exception of that utter cunt Simon Hughes). Sure, I dislike them, and their local campaigns can often be vitrolic and bitter, but ultimately they are not important enough to hate. They remind me of the earnest fat kid at school - just as the fat kid desperately tries to do well in the classroom and on the sport's field but can't succeed as he is obese and stupid, the Liberal Democrats desperately try to get into government. Even though they are fundamentally incapable of achieving that goal.

And as a result everything about the Liberal Democrats is that little bit pointless. Take this story - a drunk who once crapped himself in the office doesn't shake hands with a doddering old fool. As leadership rivalries go, it really isn't that impressive or exciting. Blair and Brown are fighting each other to become Prime Minister - to become the leader of our country. Kennedy and Ming the Merciful are fighting each other to lead a band of geography teachers, failed social workers and pious arts lecturers to a guaranteed third place in the next General Election. Honestly, I would argue that Tennant replacing Eccleston as Doctor Who probably had more impact on this nation than Kennedy being replaced by Campbell.

The Liberal Democrats are like student polticians - they are allowed by the electorate to spew their unworkable crap at the public in general as everyone knows they will never get into a position of power where they can implement that unworkable crap.

A Bad Night for Charlie Boy

As related by the ever entertaining Guido.

Wonder whether it was Mark Oaten who found him?

Slight Return (Charles Kennedy)

It says something about the leadership of Ming "The Merciful" Campbell that a poll suggests only 26% of people think he is a good leader.

And it says something about the calibre of the MPs in the Liberal Democrats that 53% of people believe their best option is the alcoholic the Lib Dems off-loaded in January.

Rum, Sodomy and the Libs

Charlie Kennedy is not ruling himself out of becoming Liberal Leader again. Sorry, Charles, but I don't think it is going to happen. Surely even the Lib Dems wouldn't elect a known drunk as a leader? I mean, it looks as if we will have a nuclear deterrent for the forseeable future, and the last thing we need is a Prime Minister with their finger shaking on the button.

But the idea of Charlie returning to power after resigning, like a Labour Minister seeking a second chance, made me think. With all the disgraced/damaged Liberals through history, you could have quite a Shadow Cabinet:

- Jeremy Thorpe, Home Affairs Spokesperson
- Mark Oaten, Health Spokesperson, with a special brief for dealing with prostitution
- Jenny Tonge, Foreign Affairs Spokesperson
- Simon Hughes, Shadow Minister for Inclusion
- Maundy Gregory, Constitutional Affairs

Not bad going, eh? I mean, Charles Kennedy leading a man accused of murder, a coprophiliac, a sympathiser with suicide bombers, a bi-sexual who also appears to be homophobic and a man imprisoned for selling peerages would be a team that makes even the current Labour cabinet look effective and capable.