libd MP's hid Kennedy's alcoholism for years, we could have had an alcoholic PM, can we ever trust the libdem?

Answer 1

Unfortunately, it has already happened, with utterly disastrous effects.

The last Prime Minister of a Liberal Government was Herbert Asquith, who was Prime Minister between 1908 and 1916 (his successor, Lloyd George was a Liberal MP but headed a coalition). Asquith had a very talented ministerial team (which is more than I think you could say of the current Lib Dem front bench); but was himself more than fond of a tipple. He was known as "Squiffy" Asquith to reflect his drinking habits.

At the beginning of August 1914 Asquith's Cabinet met to decide whether to declare war on Germany or let the Germans and French fight it out as they had done in 1870. Most of the Cabinet was against but they were pursuaded round by the warmonger Churchill and the Foreign Secretary Grey. A stronger Prime Minister could have prevented them.

Apart from the one million British Empire men killed in the First World War, the United Kingdom was ruined financially as a result. The country became economically dependent upon United States loans. It lacked the money to invest in industry to remain economically competitive: Liberal free trade policies taken over by the Tories (Churchill changed Party and became Chancellor of the Exchequer) made matters worse. One consequence was that Britian was unable to fund the armed forces needed to protect its Empire and deter Hitler.

The British Empire in 1914 ruled more of the earth than any other Empire ever. I would hope that the Empire would have become less racist in the Twentieth century anyway and have given all its subjects democracy; but you can blame Asquith's alcoholism for Britain's ceasing to be the most powerful country in the world.

I mentioned Churchill. Churchill also drank very heavily whilst Prime Minister - perhaps it was necessary for anybody to put up with the strain of the job during the Second World War. Churchill was of course an inspirational leader but there is a good case for arguing that his personal state was sub-optimal for the detailed work of winning the later stages of the war and, in particular, for planning to repair the nation afterwards. Chruchill's position was under threat in 1942. The trouble was that there was no good alternative. Churchill as a national symbol became Prime Minister between 1951 and 1955 when he became more or less senile: he had a serious stroke in 1953 (he had already had one in 1943). The early 1950s were a critical period when Britian failed to recover economically by comparison with other Western European countries: Churchill's unfitness was a major reason. He was far from an unblemished hero.

Kennedy's alcoholism shows that the Liberal Democrats have not learned. It is important that Party leaders are in good health.

A lot of brickbats are rightly being thrown at Blair and the Labour Party at present. However, one good thing they have done is reduce the amount of drinking at Westminster, which was until recently grossly excessive. MPs have still not all caught up with a general change in British culture whereby it is no longer acceptable to drink at work or during the working day.

Answer 2

I think actually that George W Bush DID have a booze problem. Churchill suffered from depression, Nixon was taking some kind of psychiatric medication, Kennedy and Clinton both appear to have been sex addicts and I expect that a fair percentage of past leaders of many countries had 'problems' which have never surfaced or which did not appear important in the society in which they lived. Anyway Kennedy had about as much chance of ever becoming prime minister as Kermit the Frog, so what's the problem?

Answer 3

We would not have had an alcoholic Prime Minister considering that the Right Hon. Gentleman Charles Kennedy is a member of the Liberal Democrats.

Besides, as long as it does not interfere with the job: who cares? Most of the Victorian political establishment were raving alcoholics who drank like fish with a Queen who was an opium fiend; but we possessed an Empire upon which the sun never set!

Therefore, it is a perfectly logical argument to conclude that if we are ever to regain our primacy in world affairs, we need to have more soused politicians.

Answer 4

Bring on the alcoholics! They can't do any worse a job in the UK than the sanctimonious St Tony. You never know, the general public may even have a laugh or two (if can we remember how). Some of us may even be able to come off the antidepressants.

Answer 5

Never trust a politician. Most of them are only out for themselves, to make as much money before the electorate or their party throw them out. I can't think of many trustworthy ones but pleanty of the other sort. Only elect MPs who have already made their millions and you have more chance of a trustworthy set in parliament

Answer 6

To be honest the greatest leader this country ever had was Churchill and he was always on the scotch.

Also given the fact that squeaky clean, gym visiting, health guru chasing, cliff richard sounding blair has made such a hash of everything I quite fancy having a P.M who goes down the pub and puts the world to rights, rather than going down the U.N and screwing it up.

Answer 7

hmm, politicians are a shady lot at the best of times. I don't think Charlie Kennedy is the worst. I think it would have been better if he'd been more open about the problem, I'd like to think people would have respected his honesty, but I guess that's quite naive with the way the press would handle it.

Answer 8

There have been alcoholic MPs in the past and no doubt will continue to be in the future - so what's the problem??? - We've even had an alcoholic Prime Minister (Winston Churchill).

Answer 9

Alcoholics aren't necessarily bad people you know. A lot of them are desperate to get rid of the stuff and when they eventually do stop drinking a large percentage of them become very successful. As for trusting the Lib Dems I don't think they are a bad bunch.

Answer 10

Well as they say, how do you know when a politician is lying; his mouth moves. We have had alcoholic PMs before, it's fairly certain that Churchill was a very big drinker, and often got drunk.