Skip to main content

Charlie Kennedy


It seems to me a great shame that the daggers are coming out to politically assisinate Charles Kennedy. It's rare that one finds a politician that one genuinely warms to. I think Charles Kennedy is a genuinely nice bloke. I'd like to go to the pub with him (as long as he has orange juice). I couldn't say that of Tony Blair, Michael Howard, David Cameron or Gordon Brown.

He's the most successful Liberal leader in 80 years. He has a drink problem, but so did George W. Bush. And he managed to get past it. I can't help having a lot of personal admiration for Kennedy. I think he's a very good politician, and a very good opposition leader. His was the only party that stood up against the Iraq War. He doesn't take himself too seriously, yet he often seems much more mature than Blair, Howard, or Cameron in Prime Minister's questions, when he asks serious questions about civil liberties and the war.

Having said all that, I don't think he looks like a Prime Minister. He looks like a leader of the opposition, but not like a Prime Minister. The election of David Cameron for the Conservatives I think has made the Liberal Democrats think about the need for stronger leadership. If the Lib Dems are serious about making Britain into a three party system, then they need a stronger leader that looks like a Prime Minister. The problem is I don't think they have anyone.

If there was someone they could bring in that was a very charismatic leader like Blair or Cameron, then I say, bring them on, it probably is time to hand over the mantle. But I really don't think there is anyone. Simon Hughes? Menzies Campbell? I don't think they're any better than Kennedy.

Right now I don't know anyone who could do a better job. If they exist, let them come forward.

We shall see, I suppose.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The dumbest thing about American Unitarian Univeralism

I'm glad Peacebang started blogging about this cos I was about to, and now it's like I'm joining in with a conversation rather than doing a big rant and having a go at Americans (though that is always fun ;-)). Why the hell do American (or is it just in New England??) UU churches take, like a quarter of the year off? In the summer they close. They CLOSE!! A church, closing. It's so bloody weird and wrong. Where does it come from? Why? Why? Why? Why do people need church less in the summer? Where are people supposed to go? Where is the Divine supposed to go? My church in Boston didn't close exactly, but moved to the smaller upstairs chapel, but the minister still had all that time off. Now I've spent most of my life around teachers and priests, both jobs where people think people don't put many hours in, when in fact they put in loads ('you only work Sunday mornings/9 to 3.25'). Teachers work hard and need their long holidays. Ministers work hard, a...
4 comments
Read more

Is humanism theologically tolerant?

OK, well this might be controversial, but I feel the need to say it. Is humanist tolerant? Please note I'm not asking about humanism within society. Clearly humanism certainly believes in tolerance within society and I'm forever glad they are often the only people in the media calling for a separation of church and state. No, what I'm talking about is descriptions of Unitarianism like this and adverts like this , discussed at Peacebang here , which say that humanism is one option, Christianity is another, God is one option among many. The trouble is, humanism, by definition is theologically opposed to theism. This is very different from the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism. These two traditions may be vastly different, but Buddhism, by definition , is not opposed to Christianity, and Christianity, by definition , is not opposed to Buddhism. But humanism is consciously defined in opposition to Christianity and theism. So to say that humanism and theism can bot...
14 comments
Read more

LOST and theology: who are the good guys?

***Spoiler alert*** I'm continuing some theological/philosophical reflections while re-watching the series LOST. One of the recurring themes in LOST is the idea of the "good guys" and the "bad guys." We start the series assuming the survivors (who are the main characters) are the "good guys" and the mysterious "Others" are definitely bad guys. But at the end of series 2 one of the main characters asks the Others, "Who are  you people?" and they answer, in an extremely disturbing way, "We're the good guys." The series develops with a number of different factions appearing, "the people from the freighter" "the DHARMA initiative" as well as divisions among the original survivors. The question remains among all these complicated happenings "who really are the good guys?" I think one of the most significant lines in the series is an episode when Hurley is having a conversation with ...
3 comments
Read more