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

Drop the Free Christian!

Let me preface what I'm going to say by first saying this: I am a Christian. It's taken me a long time to be able to say that, and to know what I mean by that, and I'm very lucky that in the Unitarian church I have been given the space to come to that decision in my own time, on my own terms. But I am a Christian, I'm more Christian now than I have been for years. Now: I want us to drop this "Free Christian" from our title. It's a silly phrase that we need to get rid of. Why? "The General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches" is a long and unwieldy title. It would be much better if we traded under something like "Unitarians in Britain." It gives the impression that there are two separate and distinct groups: "Unitarians" and "Free Christians," this is not the case. It's not that there are Unitarians (who are not Christians) and "Free Christians" who are not Unitarians. There are not two dif...
21 comments
Read more

Clergy-wear during protests

OK, I'm wandering into the territory of Beauty Tips for Ministers here, but a couple of recent conversations have brought up the issue of what clergy should wear for protests. I know a number of Ministers who only wear clerical collars for protests. The logic is that it's important to identify as a Minister when you're supporting something society doesn't expect clergy to. So Ministers will wear a collar at gay prides or pro-choice rallies to make this point. Now I could understand this if it you wore a collar going about your general business, and also did during a protest, but I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of wearing clerical wear ONLY for protests. The seems to be something worth exploring. I have said before that I'm not in favour of special titles or clothing for religious leadership, mainly because Jesus explicitly said this was a lot of nonsense. Religious leaders should not need these articial crutches. I have no problem with certain liturgical c...
11 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