An acceptable consequence of alcoholism or downright deceit?

Early yesterday afternoon Charles Kennedy was presented with a dossier by an ITV reporter and ex-employee of the Lib Dems which provided evidence that he was receiving treatment for alcoholism.  The Independent is saying today that the report would have included a comment that Kennedy had admitted he was an alcoholic to senior party members as far back as 2004.

Following receipt of that evidence Charles Kennedy arranged a hasty press conference to make a personal statement of admission rather than have the news broken by the press.  In that statement Charles Kennedy admitted he had been “coming to terms with” a drink problem for 18 months, he then signalled a leadership election in which he would fight.

What then followed was the worst example of spin we have seen since the Iraq War.  The biggest culprit was Lembit Opik, who spent the night touring the News Channels spouting the line that the Kennedy deceit was an unfortunate and forgivable consequence of alcoholism.   It is true that alcoholics in denial will lie, but Kennedy’s statement and his apparent admission back in 2004 suggests that he has gone beyond that stage.  

At best, the denials have been because he would not admit publicly what he knew privately – and only did so when he had no choice.  The problem is, this argument suggests that he is still, to a degree, in denial, so there is no guarantee that he would not lie in the future about how he is coping with recovery.

It looks to me like Charles Kennedy’s admission is a desperate piece of Spin; using his alcohol problem as a ploy to save himself.  He has manoeuvred himself into a position where his two strongest opponents, Menzies Campbell and Mark Oaten are unable to oppose him, this leaves the Lib Dems with only second best options, either keep Charles Kennedy or accept someone like Vince Cable or Simon Hughes.  My suspicion is that Charles Kennedy will be forced to resign over then next few days.

There are a number of other questions that arise out of this affair; the main one is why Senior Lib Dems, who were apparently aware that Kennedy was an alcoholic because of his own admission, remained complicit to a lie, especially during the run up to the General Election campaign.  The truth is that those people – who are likely to be candidates in the Leadership election – put the interests of the Lib Dems ahead of honesty, having recognised the devastating effect that the truth would have on their own election prospects.  I am afraid this is typical of the Lib Dems, who have a campaign manual that is on sale at their Party Conferences that encourages campaigners to ‘be wicked, act shamelessly, stir endlessly’, engage in negative campaigning and ‘exaggerate’ – something they are doing even today in by-elections in my own area.

As a Conservative it would be easy to argue a case for Kennedy to stay – because the Conservatives will be the winners if he does – but this does not seerve the best interests of the reputation of British politics.

I personally wish him well in his fight against alcoholism, but he should not be able to continue that fight as leader of the Lib Dems.