Not admitting to fickleness, but my love affair with the LibDems was as brutal as it has been brief. It is already over. I admit I have been fancying them from afar for a while: I now live in one of their constituencies. And to his shame, and my anger, my MP Dr Evan Harris is one of the traitors at Charlie's door. Especially as he is a (I think) gay MP, I can only presume that he has faced and faced down a great deal of prejudice in his private and professional life. His is an especially significant act of betrayal because of its extra hypocrisy.
And that's really why my love affair with the LibDems is already over. They set themselves up as an honest and open party and yet this episode is demonstrating, on a wide public arena, that hypocrisy abounds, even flourishes, in the party. My God, what would they be like if they weren't pretending to be more open than they are? A normal deceitful lying bunch of hypocritical shits? I see that now. And feel disappointed.
Aside: I am so naive - always assuming what people say is true, and therefore always being let down. Memo to self for 2006: become a bit brighter. DOH.
They, the hypocritical backstabbers, deserve no more than to be dropped with a resounding thump on their well padded arses. Join me as I propose a series of tactical voting manoeuvres in the constituencies of all of the hypocritical MPs (see here for names) and dump the whole lot of them.
Only of course, as this is a 'democracy' in name only, we're not asked what we think about the behaviour of our representatives, indeed our servants (they are public servants, please note).
Politics. It's disgusting, and this is a particularly sickening episode.
Is it any wonder that people are becoming increasingly disinterested?
You could write to you MP and show your disgust (equally you COULD show your disgust about Charles Kennedy - it's a free world. But you wouldn't be here if you were that way inclined, would you?) by going here. I have.
Flame wars! Hoorah.
6 comments:
I dunno. I don't think an alcoholic should be in a position of that authority (OK, yeh, leading the Liberals is not a position of authority) and being dry for 2 months proves absolutely nothing. Look at George W.
My feelings about Kennedy are that he pissed away the best chance that the Lib Dems have had in years to become the second party, an opportunity which is now pretty much gone. He was an appalling choice as leader from the outset. Good riddance to him I say.
Here's the reply to my letter to my MP:
-STARTS-
Dear Colleague/Friend,
Many people have contacted me to let me know their views and to ask for my views on the unfortunate situation regarding Charles Kennedy.. This is my position.
I have previously neither privately nor publicly criticised Charles'leadership. In fact, I shared the disappointment of many that there appeared to be a whispering campaign being waged through the media against his leadership by some MPs and that there appeared to be a problem with the shadow cabinet in particular. My contribution to the parliamentary party meeting at the end of December was mainly to ask Charles why he thought senior colleagues were turning against him (there
was no answer). However following Charles' statement to the press on Thursday and now that others have been more free to discuss these personal matters, it does appear that
1. he has been battling an alcohol problem for some time (perhaps even years), and that he has had a series of relapses despite having had treatment.
2. some people feel that he has put them in a difficult position due to these episodes and that it was too high a risk for this situation to continue.
3. some of the indirect comments - which appeared to be obtuse or oblique - can now be seen to be based on a willingness or attempt to get Charles himself to take the initiative and admit the problem or resign for personal reasons at a much earlier stage.
I had heard rumours, but as a doctor who is sometimes consulted by friends and colleagues I am in a position where I can NOT discuss these matters in relation to any colleague, and until Thursday I stuck to
that.
After Thursday's statement I told the local press that if his statement had mollified his critics so that he could unite the shadow cabinet then I would support him but that if despite - or indeed because of - his statement, people were still unhappy then he would have to resign because the party can not have a leader who does not have the full support of the shadow cabinet, let alone the parliamentary party.
It was very soon clear to me after discussions with several colleagues that
a) he did not have the support of the shadow cabinet by (11 to 2 of those who declared) and indeed that many were antagonised by the prospect of a "put up or shut up" leadership election challenge that Charles had issued, after 3 leading contenders had all declared (out of concern for him and the party in at least two cases) that they would not stand against him, and after 2 of them had most likely urged him to face the issue earlier.
b) that the extent of the health problem was such that he would need to have a break from the front line to deal with it in all probability and
c) we could not have a leader (or a leadership election which Charles contested) that pitched Charles against leading members of the shadow cabinet (that would be political suicide)
At this point I told colleagues that I would do whatever I could to help persuade Charles to resign and when the shadow cabinet 11 put there letter in to Charles and I was asked by Ed Davey and Sarah Teather to sign the statement below I did so, with the full intention of resigning my front-bench spokesmanships on science and human rights next week if
necessary.
At this point (yesterday afternoon), having spoken to Lord Goodhart and Caroline Mayr-Harting (OxWab Chair) and heard their own views and the reported views of others (clear majority in favour of CK resignation), I agreed to give interviews to the local and national press which expressed
* my genuine support and admiration for Charles, personally
* my deep regret that this had happened and that we were in this position
* my strongly-held view that Charles' position was now untenable and that he should both resign with dignity as soon as possible and not seek to stand to in any leadership election
* my view that it is hard enough for the Lib Dems to get fair coverage of our policy positions in the media without continuing press speculation about the health or capabilities of the leader and whether he has the suppport of his colleagues
This has not been a easy few days for us, nor an easy few months for the leader and his colleagues but I think my approach as set out above was justified, and I fully expect an imminent announcement of his resignation.
I would not criticise him for his lack of candour with the media earlier, as people in public life have a right to privacy. I have not expressed public views about who the next leader should be as that is premature
I hope you agree with this or at least understand its view.
Yours sincerely
Evan Harris MP
-ENDS-
Soap. Bath. To mind, comes.
GSE, I don't alternatives he may have missed an opportunity. What I disagree with is the hounding of man as he comes to terms with his problem. And the options are pretty weak: Menzies Campbell?! Or Simon Hughes?!! Or the other one, Oaten is it? When you look at the possibilities, Kennedy was their only serious chance. I really want opposition to be strong. It's the way our system really works. And now it is working even less well than it has been.
It's this relentless drive toward persosality policitics and the need to be squeaky clean, or politically correctly clean. People ARE flawed. There's nothing wrong with that, and the problme with finding people with no flaws is we end up with this awful blandness.
I think the whole thing of politics is in a worse mess than I have seen in my life time.
I just went off to check some figures. One million more votes than at the last election. More LibDem MPs than in the past 80 years. It's not a bad legacy, and true, he could, perhaps, have made more of it. But under Campbell, Hughes or Oaten I doubt they would have done even that well.
I rate Menzies Campbell very highly. People seem to think a lot of Vince Cable too don't they?
Is he the new boy, with only about four months as an MP? I'm not familiar enough to comment.
Didn't seem to do Cameron any harm - lack of experience, that is. In many ways, and with many things. A ruthless ambitious man who will stop at nothing and do whatever it takes.
I'll reserve judgement on SirMC. Now CK has gone it seems likely he will be the chosen one. He doesn't, or rather, hasn't impressed me much before, but I am always willing, nay eager, to be proved wrong.
Word ver: kylie - seems wholly inappropriate
Post a Comment