flashboy dot org

Well, that’s that, then.

Roughly two responses come to mind over Charles Kennedy’s resignation (the responses from others range from the thoughtful to the entertainingly gloaty). First up, the moderately serious one, and then the groan-inducing joke after the jump.

Serious one:

It’s sad. Really, properly sad; head-shaking, chair-kicking stuff. At least 0.3 Brokeback Mountains-worth of sad. Charles Kennedy doesn’t deserve to have his political career end this way (and hopefully it won’t be the end). But really… what else was there to do?

Those unpleasant off-the-record briefings aside, the idea that the MPs who went public were committing an act of betrayal – I can understand why some people feel that, but I just don’t buy it. Everything suggests that they’d all have rather kept this behind closed doors (after all, why the hell wouldn’t they? What do they gain from looking like spiteful backstabbers?) It was Kennedy’s horribly ill-advised attempt to do a ‘95 John Major that turned the situation into a miniature bloodbath. Classic resignation blindness: that strange delusion which afflicts even the canniest of politicians, as – at the point of crisis – every shred of judgement deserts them and they attempt to struggle on long past the point where their inevitable exit could ever be described as “dignified”. That moment was the trigger; if you ask people to “put up or shut up” you can hardly be miffed when they do, in fact, put up.

And considering the 28 “rebel” MPs who signed one of either Cable or Davey’s letters, I’m not sure the idea that it was just a faction of right-wing orangebookies out on a power grab really holds up either. There’s too many old Kennedy loyalists, for a start. It’s hard when there’s so many competing factions and motivations to discern any sort of pattern; however, one or two things suggest themselves. The most obvious trend is that MPs whose contituencies experienced a swing against the Lib Dems in the last election split 60/40 in favour of rebelling – 46% of the rebels saw their share of the vote go down in 2005, compared to only 27% of loyalists. The actual size of their majority appears irrelevant, as does the party that poses the closest threat in their seat – perhaps oddly, considering the general assumption that the Cameron factor was major catalyst for the leadership crisis. The split’s roughly 70% Tory to 30% Labour for both groups. So if this was about self-interest, it seems that for many it was at least a democratic self-interest…

Ultimately, why this was fatal comes down not to the drinking itself, but to the effect that the associated deceit would continue to have on the party. I know , I know… alcoholics don’t lie, they deny; Kennedy is a decent and honourable man, and I’m absolutely sure that he was decieving himself as much as others. But unfortunately, that get-out doesn’t apply to the people who work with you and who have to cover up for you. His behaviour forced his staff and his colleagues to lie to each other, to the press, and to the public. If he stayed on, every Lib Dem MP would be on the back foot, left vulnerable to questions about how much they knew, and when, and why they said nothing. Any hope of agenda setting would be shot to buggery. Public opionion’s a weird beast, especially when it’s looking round for someone to blame on emotive issues. So you end up with a situation where Charles Kennedy gets sympathy, but all other Lib Dems are liars. And that’s bad. Really, properly bad.

What else was there to do?

And now, the bad joke version:

There’s been a long-standing struggle in the Lib Dems over the direction of the party – between the moderate, socially liberal old guard and the radical, economically liberal new intake. Where will it go now that Kennedy’s been assassinated?…

…I’m hoping for “back, and to the left”

Sorry sorry sorry sooorrryyyyy.