Charles Kennedy: man of principle

Like him or loathe him, you can’t deny he sticks to his guns.

By James Macintyre Published 21 June 2010 18:30

Whether or not you agree with his decision to oppose the Liberal Democrats' move to enter a coalition with the Conservatives, or his opposition to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the former, highly successful Lib Dem leader -- who, it should be remembered, won more seats than any other Lib Dem leader in history, including Nick Clegg -- is never unwilling to take highly unfashionable positions because he believes they are right.

Now, it has emerged that he reportedly refused to shake David Cameron's hand in the House of Commons and gave a colourful condemnation of the Lib-Con coalition to a Labour MP. Paul Waugh has the details.

Kennedy may well be proved right in the end, of course, as the coalition seems to some to be a no-win situation for the Lib Dems. If the Tories, for whom they are providing cover, implement a cuts programme that produces a recession, the party will be tainted. If the cuts work, the Libs may be seen as irrelevant, and, having served their purpose of getting David Cameron into Downing Street, cast aside by the Tories. Whether and how they can re-establish themselves as an independent political force remains to be seen.

Tags: Liberal Democrats

More from James Macintyre

15 comments

Mon, 2010-06-21 18:41 — clem the gem (not verified)

I think Kennedy, who was easily the best LD leader for years, is playing a canny game.
In effect, he is the Liberal opposition to the coalition, and is able to stay onside with many in his party.
Thought it very unfair that he was shoved out just as he was tackling his personal demons in public.
At the very least, he will remain a totem for the left of the LDs, but at the moment, I am afraid that they are all a busted flush...

Mon, 2010-06-21 18:52 — mr_wonderful (not verified)

Too many Lib Dem MPs are prepared to sacrifice their party's future for their own short term gain. I suspect some will end up defecting to the Conservatives if the coalition breaks up.

Personal ambition as so often under Labour is deemed more important than the country, government or party.

Mon, 2010-06-21 19:17 — alan (not verified)

I think Kennedy was treated terribly by his own party when as said he was facing his demons,he comes across as a decent man who faults yes but i prefer that to this age of plastic we seem to live in nowadays.

I too feel the libdems are going to have a hell of a time when the coalition breaks trying to restablish themselves Clegg for my money is a cert to go tory along with many others its could leave the party in tatters.

Mon, 2010-06-21 19:24 — ROBERT TAGGART (not verified)

Kennedy... principled ? Aye !
But who cares ? He may have been the LibDems most successful leader but he was still a loser... big time !
'Cheers' Charlie !

Mon, 2010-06-21 20:01 — Steve Reid (not verified)

With all respect, "opposition to the invasion of Iraq in 2003" was hardly "unfashionable" however justified.

Mon, 2010-06-21 22:01 — Lou (not verified)

I have said before, Charles Kennedy was the best leader of the Lib Dems and in my view, should still be leader.
He is principled, he would never have gone into a coalition government in order to prop the Tory cuts up and be the fall guy for all the blame when the doo da hits the fan.
Sadly, I believe the Lib Dems are headed back to being a pretty insignificant party as a result of this coalition so maybe Charlie should cross over to the Labour benches and provide some effective opposition to this coalition government.

Mon, 2010-06-21 23:03 — Celia (not verified)

Charles Kennedy is great, and if he were still leader, the Lib Dems might be halfway worth voting for in future. Perhaps he'll cross the floor. Probably not, but that'd be funny. Especially if he took some others with him. I'm pretty sure he started out in the SDP, which would make that even better.

Mon, 2010-06-21 23:07 — Graeme (not verified)

I am very sorry that Ming stood down. He or Charles, or Paddy, or David or anyone other than this cuckoo in the nest (Clegg) would have run a mile from the Tories. Obviously Clegg has always be comfortable with the Tories, that's to see for all in his CV.

So - most likely the LibDems will break up, one principled group led by someone like Charles, and the other which will merge with the Tories. The party as we have known it will be a shadow of what it was once.

Why do parties get it so wrong? Blair was not a socialist, had no background and little interest in the labour movement. He could just as easily have joined the Tories. Clegg is the same. They, and Cameron to a lesser extent, just operate within a political class, just any "suit" which might easily be running whichever corporate opportunity comes along.

Mon, 2010-06-21 23:35 — Lou (not verified)

I did see Charles on a programme somewhere when pushed about being leader of the Lib dems again saying never say never in politics. Maybe he will be leader again, once this coalition govt is kicked out and the Lib Dems are in total disarray.

As to why the party got it so wrong and selected Blair....well his early political life showed him to be on the left which he exhibited many times in speeches and policy ideas and in shadow cabinet positions. He was a reformer but he still leant to the left. Soft left as he called it. Centre ground to others - who would also argue that this centre ground got Labour back in power whereas I believe it was the sheer apathy of voters for a Tory government after John Major and eighteen years of conservative policies and not anything that Blair represented personally. Labour won the election in 97 and New Labour was born. It did some fantastic work but then power went to Blair's head, he became more presidential than prime ministerial, he moved to right of centre ground and ignored the people who had put him in power as well as his cabinet colleagues and the Labour party in general. I'm sure with hindsight, if they could cast their votes again Blair would not have been leader of the party. He forgot his roots, he forgot where he had come from, what his socialist principles were and he saw himself as omnipotent, he was the Labour party as far as he was concerned.

Power corrupts as we now see with the Clegg, Cameron and Osborne's of this world.

Mon, 2010-06-21 23:38 — jeremiah

Well said Graeme. I hate the Tories but I don't mind them we they are what they appear to be.

There are plenty of examples in Labour history of "cuckoos". Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams, Bill Rodgers and David Owen. Those four joined Labour simply to obtain power. They had no loyalty or interest in the Labour movement.

Frank Field, Kate Hoey and Nick Clegg should do us all a favour and join the Tories. Ditto Nick Robinson, David Dimbleby and Adam Boulton.

People you're not fooling anyone!

Wed, 2010-06-23 23:00 — clem the gem (not verified)

So Tom, youre answer to all of this is that the job of opposition is to simple shut up? How very pluralist, how very open, how very democratic.
I am tired of repeating basic arithmetic to those who cannot add up, but a Labour/Libdem coalition would have needed constant support from both the Ulster Unionistand the Nationalst parties of Wales and Scotland.
That Labour reneged on a committment to a referendum is true, but at least the Jenkins report (thats Lord Jenkins of Hillhead - LibDem peer all you pluralists) put forward the best options.
The Labour part, in its very structure is both pluralist and, (can be once again) democratic.
Personally, I find it hard to forgive the Liberals for ww1 and Appeasement, but never mind, I am sure we can both get over our foibles in the spirit of co-operation.

Wed, 2010-06-23 23:03 — clem the gem (not verified)

Oh, and the selling of peerages by Maundy Gregory for Lloydd George.
And the disappearance of the left wing Mp who broke the story.

LibDems and their ancestors do have previous convictions as well Tom.

Tue, 2010-06-22 09:55 — writeoff (not verified)

Nick Robinson was chairman of the Young Conservatives. Have you noticed how his intonation has changed completely since the election? I suddenly realised what I thought was an odd inflection was actually a career-long sneer at everything he had to report. Now he sounds like a good little posh boy.

Tue, 2010-06-22 09:58 — tomjoad

Ah principles!
Yep I remember them,but they took a back seat when the Lib Dems, gagging for a chance to be in a government,dropped their knickers for the Tories.
The Tories offer Clegg a few crumbs from the table and their principles and stated policies suddenly become diluted to the point that I cannot tell the difference between Camerclegg or Cleggeron.
Charles Kennedy? Old fashioned, out of date Old style politician who sticks to his beliefs.Scandalous!

Tue, 2010-06-22 10:54 — Tom (not verified)

All the Labour leadership contenders support dis-proportional representation. All of them prefer a Conservative Government to a Lib Dem Labour coalition.

Until such time as they become a pluralist, democratic party, can they and their supporters please stop whinging about the Lib Dems.

None of this would have happended if Labour had kept it's manifesto promise of 1997 of a referendum on proportional representation. there has been no explanation and no apology so any talk of "principles" is sheer cheek.