Being "post-political" I have held back on commenting on this thread. In fact, for many weeks I was unaware of its existence. The news of Charles's demise was deeply saddening. I really felt it when it was reported. I have exchanged sentences and on occasions a lot more with perhaps 40 MPs including Ministers. Charles and I never spoke but on at least two nights we were on adjoining tables in Westminster pubs. I was in a lively work group. He was sitting quietly with a political assistant. I liked him as a person immensely. We were not quite of the same character but there was a feeling of common identification. He was in political terms my kind of Liberal. That might just mean that he wasn't a Liberal at all but rather a Social Democrat with mild but very firm radical leanings. Contrast with New Labour and indeed modern Conservatism which is all liberalism with authoritarian clout.
Politics is a complex thing. Alastair Campbell may well have tried to talk Charles into "coming back" to Labour but the Blair project was such that Old Labour had a different home during the Charles Kennedy years. Serial-Apologist is right in the way he positions Charles historically. However, the element of radicalism which was not necessarily easy for him was very obvious in the stance he took on Iraq. Anyhow, for various reasons, I abandoned the parties to which I had remained loyal for decades in the late 2000s. I don't think Charles was treated kindly and the attempts to shift the original centre ground by Clegg, Laws, Browne and others towards a Germanic FDP was viewed from my own perspective - a non-party member -as a nightmare. And I do hold Clegg responsible for my redundancy and any ill health because of it as much as I would do Maude and his cronies. He was the ultimate betrayer. While as soon as he was elected leader, I looked for alternatives and mainly chose Green, I split my vote with UKIP on the grounds that whatever I disagreed with in terms of its economics, I quite like Farage the man and would agree with him that liberalism can be too top-heavy. Where it is nannying and domineering, it isn't liberalism.
In this decade, a lot of admiration for "our guys" just fell away. Thorpe had his issues and perhaps in the current times he would fair better. I hope so although he was a politician. Steel was always just a tad too self-seeking and supercilious and his position on Cyril Smith looks with hindsight very dubious. Ashdown is so pompous and sanctimonious he has become embarrassing, notwithstanding the toe-curling uncle act on behalf of Nick. Jenkins wasn't all that he seemed to be and had a personal agenda, M Campbell was beastly to Charles and Shirley Williams didn't do the NHS or indeed the EU any favours. Few would know it but she was instrumental in drawing up the constitution for Ukraine against a backdrop of belligerent EU expansionism that did no one any good. It should have stayed at nine members and kept inside its own box but then Cook and Straw were so arrogant.
One can rue the fact that many were less influential than they might have been from Nancy Seear through John Pardoe to David Penhaligon. They may not have delivered but they might have done and all had substance of different sorts. Now we are in 2015, I am not at all concerned about the election of Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party. His economics are bonkers but the genuine radicalism he has is right. Far better, I think, to place a brake on any potential excesses in that sphere than have to rein in the 2010-2015 alternative. Corbyn was elected because the other options were all pathetic and had nothing to say about the history of Labour. Charles would have understood that absolutely. And as Peter Hitchens would note, the Tory Party deserves no support at all. I'm quite pleased Tim Farron has been elected as the leader of the Lib Dems even if the chemistry between us doesn't feel wholly right. Charles would have wanted it, my sixth form politics teacher is his personal assistant, and I am very tempted whatever has occurred to now come home.
Hey it's a ramble but I liked that man a hell of a lot and - here's a first - good luck Adrian in supporting Tim with his strengths/weaknesses although we last spoke 34 years ago! :
Footnote: We have respect for Nicola Sturgeon - genuinely what an immense politician - if only she could could be persuaded against Scottish Independence. Ta very muchly!!.
Politics is a complex thing. Alastair Campbell may well have tried to talk Charles into "coming back" to Labour but the Blair project was such that Old Labour had a different home during the Charles Kennedy years. Serial-Apologist is right in the way he positions Charles historically. However, the element of radicalism which was not necessarily easy for him was very obvious in the stance he took on Iraq. Anyhow, for various reasons, I abandoned the parties to which I had remained loyal for decades in the late 2000s. I don't think Charles was treated kindly and the attempts to shift the original centre ground by Clegg, Laws, Browne and others towards a Germanic FDP was viewed from my own perspective - a non-party member -as a nightmare. And I do hold Clegg responsible for my redundancy and any ill health because of it as much as I would do Maude and his cronies. He was the ultimate betrayer. While as soon as he was elected leader, I looked for alternatives and mainly chose Green, I split my vote with UKIP on the grounds that whatever I disagreed with in terms of its economics, I quite like Farage the man and would agree with him that liberalism can be too top-heavy. Where it is nannying and domineering, it isn't liberalism.
In this decade, a lot of admiration for "our guys" just fell away. Thorpe had his issues and perhaps in the current times he would fair better. I hope so although he was a politician. Steel was always just a tad too self-seeking and supercilious and his position on Cyril Smith looks with hindsight very dubious. Ashdown is so pompous and sanctimonious he has become embarrassing, notwithstanding the toe-curling uncle act on behalf of Nick. Jenkins wasn't all that he seemed to be and had a personal agenda, M Campbell was beastly to Charles and Shirley Williams didn't do the NHS or indeed the EU any favours. Few would know it but she was instrumental in drawing up the constitution for Ukraine against a backdrop of belligerent EU expansionism that did no one any good. It should have stayed at nine members and kept inside its own box but then Cook and Straw were so arrogant.
One can rue the fact that many were less influential than they might have been from Nancy Seear through John Pardoe to David Penhaligon. They may not have delivered but they might have done and all had substance of different sorts. Now we are in 2015, I am not at all concerned about the election of Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party. His economics are bonkers but the genuine radicalism he has is right. Far better, I think, to place a brake on any potential excesses in that sphere than have to rein in the 2010-2015 alternative. Corbyn was elected because the other options were all pathetic and had nothing to say about the history of Labour. Charles would have understood that absolutely. And as Peter Hitchens would note, the Tory Party deserves no support at all. I'm quite pleased Tim Farron has been elected as the leader of the Lib Dems even if the chemistry between us doesn't feel wholly right. Charles would have wanted it, my sixth form politics teacher is his personal assistant, and I am very tempted whatever has occurred to now come home.
Hey it's a ramble but I liked that man a hell of a lot and - here's a first - good luck Adrian in supporting Tim with his strengths/weaknesses although we last spoke 34 years ago! :
Footnote: We have respect for Nicola Sturgeon - genuinely what an immense politician - if only she could could be persuaded against Scottish Independence. Ta very muchly!!.
Comment