Why would Charles Kennedy resign ?

The silly season is upon us and Labour politicians, desperate to breathe some life in to possibly the dullest leadership campaign in history are trying to make a story out of the possibility of Charles Kennedy defecting to Labour.

There are many reasons why CK would be unlikely to defect to Labour. These reasons have been discussed at length elsewhere in great detail, but for me, the main reason why Charles would find it hard to join the Labour Party is Iraq. Iraq was the defining issue during Charles Kennedy's leadership of the Lib Dems, and whilst Kennedy was putting his head above the parapet, Labour poured scorn upon him. This derision from Labour would be difficult to forget.

But more important than Iraq, Charles, like me, almost certainly feels that he still is a Lib Dem, its just that the parliamentary party doesn't look like the Lib Dems anymore. Charles, like Simon Hughes, are still true standard bearers of the Lib Dem cause, and we need them desperately to keep the Liberal Democrats true to the values we campaigned for at the General Election.

It's not Charles who should be leaving the party, it's that a number of Lib Dem MPs need to remember that they are Liberal Democrats, not Tories !

Charles Kennedy rules out return to Lib Dem front bench

Charles Kennedy indicated plainly and clearly to Andrew Marr this morning that he would not be returning to the Lib Dem front bench and it was his choice.

The speculation had been that CK would return in a senior role under the new Lib Dem leader, but on the BBC this morning Charles said that he was very busy with The European Movement, attending party functions, AGM's, annual dinners, etc, and was also applying to be rector of Glasgow University.

In many ways for the Lib Dems this is a great shame, but given all the trials and tribulations in his life in recent years, it is good that Charles has found a place and a role he is really happy in.

The first thing to put me off Chris Huhne

The news that Charles Kennedy's old team are backing Chris Huhne has been used by some as a rallying cry for other to back Chris Huhne's leadership campaign. However, I am not so sure.

As I understand it from books, articles ,various newpaper reports and having spoken to people with some knowledge of the issue, some in Kennedy's team when he was leader have to share some responsibility for keeping his alcoholism under wraps. But in doing so, there was a deep problem in the Kennedy camp. The reason why many Lib Dem MP's felt it was time to speak out against Charles Kennedy was the deeply secretive nature of his office, the attempts to cover up the extent and impact his alcoholism was having on him and the party and a real failure to get Charles to confront it and make difficult decisions. As a result, there appeared to be a sense that his office and his team were actually not helping Charles or the Party.

I've been really impressed with Chris Huhne so far, and although I remain undecided, I feel Chris has made the best start of the leading two candidates. However, I always say that you can judge someone by the company they keep. I am not sure I would want to see out leader cossetted, protected and isolated from the truth or the realities of a situation as it appears was the case when Charles Kennedy was in power and his team "protected him" at all costs. However admirable their devotion and loyalty, good friends confront problems, and don't shy away from them.

Charles Kennedy should know better ?

MP's should lead by example. This story does not show him up in a good light.

Anyone of any party who supports the smoking ban should uphold it.

Whatever next ? They'll be saying next he likes a drink too !

Why no Commons enquiry in to the Tories failure to act as an opposition over Iraq ?

I know the Tories object so strongly, and rather pathetically, to the Lib Dems use of the term "shadow" for Lib Dem front bench spokesmen. However, given the Tories abject and complete failure to act like an opposition back in 2003 prior to the invasion of Iraq, perhaps they have lost the right to object.

The question for me is, after the Tories failed bid today for an inquiry in to the Iraq war, how about the Tories having an internal investigation in to how they became the biggest supporters of the whole Iraq debacle.

The Conservatives may like to re-write history by objections so strongly to the Iraq war now, but when the important questions needed to be asked, when this country needed an official opposition, they were left lacking. In many way the Tories were beating the drum for war more strongly than the Labour Party.

When Charles Kennedy was being labelled "Charlie Chamberlain" by Tories and being jeered, it is perhaps pertinent to remember that the Lib Dems were having to be the opposition to both the Tories and Labour.