Well, positives first; at least the BBC story didn’t change much, although they’ve now added a post-meeting write up. We are to believe that everything is now sweetness and light, with the very clear exception of Menzies Campbell (see Nick Robinson’s interview with Kennedy for more light on this).
The question is, where are we now? Charles’ critics have had the opportunity to put up or shut up. They’ve opted to shut up, but for how long this time? Is no-one, not even the lowliest and most disgruntled backbencher, prepared to speak up? If not, then what the fuck has been the point of the past 3 days or so?
Nothing I’ve seen tonight suggests we are anywhere close to seeing a resolution on this issue. The noises off have been sent the signal that Kennedy can’t afford to sack them while Kennedy has been sent the signal that the noises off can’t afford to stand up to him.
The bottom line is that there is no-one in the Lib Dem Parliamentary Party that is of both sufficient calibre or has sufficient experience to in any way challenge Charles; they’ve demonstrated this this week. There is no Hughes, Oaten, Davey or Campbell bandwagon rolling because the first three just don’t cut it and the fourth one is just too old. A serious contender right now would already have at least a dozen identified supporters behind him and could afford to release at least three of them off their leashes to publicly attack Charles. Palpably, this is not the case.
The sensible path is for Kennedy to seriously buck his ideas up and for everyone else to rally behind him until the next General Election; the problem is, I’ve seen nothing at all tonight that suggests that the message has finally got through to either camp.
Expect to see more of this every few months for the foreseeable future until Kennedy finally has enough (although I’d be delighted to be proven wrong).
UPDATE: The morning papers make it clear that this story isn’t going anywhere soon. According to the Guardian, 6 front benchers claim that they have privately called for him to quite while the Independent has concentrated on Menzies Campbell’s pointed refusal to back Charles publicly.
UPDATE 2: The Times is notably more blunt than the others, which I’m sure will come as a complete surprise to many. Not. Bizarrely, they are crediting his downfall to the party funding row they have concocted, which is almost as much nonsense as the claim that all this is a reaction to the Cameron leadership win (admittedly a slight catalyst, but there’s plenty to suggest this issue would be rearing its ugly head now even if Howard were still ploughing on). It mentions this now famous email from Mark Oaten that went out yesterday. I didn’t get a copy of this. Was it something I said?
I wonder if party funding shouldn’t reflect on the President 🙂
Gosh. I am really shocked to discover a Liberal Democrat expressing AGEIST opinions!
If Ming Campbell is capable of doing the job (which he assuredly is), then how can he be too old?
Or has it suddenly become necessary for party leaders to imitate Blair and Cameron (including the “whizz-kid” suits and the course at RADA)?
I seem to recall that Ronald Reagan became President of the United States at the age of 70, and that Konrad Adenauer was still Chancellor of Germany at the age of 87.
Surely, the optimum solution is for Campbell to take over until say a year or two after the next General Election, and then for the Party to pick a long-term Leader from the several younger pretenders now building their reputations within the Parliamentary Party?
Charles Kennedy is now so damaged that I fear the Party will become a laughing-stock unless he goes in the very near future.