´óÏó´«Ã½

It's clear that there are plenty of people out to get Charles Kennedy; much of the media included. The spin on this is quite interesting. For example, I've just been watching ´óÏó´«Ã½ News 24, where an "expert commentator" was invited on to put the boot in to Kennedy.

The argument this "expert" gave was that Kennedy cannot go on because there is not enough tangible evidence that Kennedy has beaten his battle with drink. "Two months is not long enough," he said. "If he were a surgeon, at least 6 months would be needed... along with medical examination."

I'm sorry. This is laughable. The point is: it's dangerous for surgeons to go to work drunk. It is not even close to dangerous for a politician to be drunk. History as shown us several times that it is perfectly possible to hold down important careers in politics while being drunk for much of the time.

It is also laughable to pick on Kennedy for lying about what is a trivial matter. Charles Kennedy lied about this. It's true. But politicians lie every day - usually about rather more important matters than how much alcohol they consume (it's actually quite hard to think of a less important matter).

I should like to see every leading politician held to account by the media for the substantive lies they regularly tell. It's obvious to everyone when they're lying. Why not go for the jugulars of the big boys a bit more often? Picking on the little guys like Kennedy isn't just too easy.

You seem to be saying that it's wrong for anyone dealing with drink problems not to come clean about it - so in the same spirit of openness, will you Nick blow the whistle on any journalists you know who have had drink problems? Or is there a touch of double-standards ... ?

I think we should all rember the old days, Winston (Churchill) for example used to be very fond of a tipple or two. That did not prevent him from being a very good Prime Minister.
I admire Clarke for his honesty and I hope he wins major member support. To be honest I cannot think of anyone else up for the job of taking over from him, although clearly a few of his parliamentary colleagues will fancy it.

Well, Nick, if CK has not had a drink for two months, then none of the quotes are lies, as only the Newsnight interview from 2002 predates it. I don't know, and I suggest neither do you, whether CK actually did drink alone in the way Paxman asked.

So what's the issue here? I think some people are desperate to call CK a liar, but so long as it does not affect his job NOW, it's nobody's business. If David Cameron can overcome an alleged drug dalliance in the past, then what's the difference here?

So long as CK stays off the booze, this matter is now over. And I believe he will be overwhelmingly defeat anyone who stands against him.

I for one will refuse to vote for my local MP (Lib Dem) if he doesn't support Mr Kennedy.

What Mr Kennedy has done shouldn't be call couragous - it should be called what it is. Honest.

And there's damn few honest politicians out there these days.

Perhaps each and every SINGLE journalist who has commented on this situtation should offer full disclosure on all their indisgressions. I doubt that will happen.

Mr Kennedy has done the right thing. He's faced up to the truth that he has a problem and has sought help for it.

It's a private matter but it's been forced into the public domain. Mr Kennedy has shown a better strenght of character than our current Prime Minster who has STILL not answered for misleading the country into a war.

I know who I would rather have leading the country. Someone who has faced his inner demons and dealt with them and not someone who has proven they cannot be trusted.

Mr Kennedy deserves to remain Lib Dem Leader and we should not only support his admission and dealing with the problem but support him giving up cigarettes as well.

Meanwhile in the real world workers are losing their pension rights as there Final salary pension schemes are being removed from them. Why is THAT story not being covered in the same depth as a personal issue for Mr Kennedy?

I have the upmost respect for Mr. Kennedy making such a personal statement however even if he does survive the upcoming leadership contest it can only be said that he has given Labour and the Tories ammunition to use against him in campaigning in the May local elections. Furthermore I cannot see the electoral prospects of the Lib Dems improving under the leadership of Simon Hughes (if indeed he does enter the contest and wins) as we must remember that he was unsuccessful in his attempt to become London mayor. If I was a Lib Dem I would in the short-term stick with the leadership of 'Chatshow Charlie' as at least he is a visible figurehead for the Liberal movement who has all important name recgonition amongst the general public

A very surreal moment, here's hoping that if Charles is defeated in this contest it's for his somewhat lacklustre performances and not for his battle against alcoholism.

I doubt he'll be the leader this time next year though, as in this increasingly Americanised system of "personality politics", a soft-spoken, rational man with a past alcohol problem will hold no wait against a fresh-faced, adventurous Tory hailed as "the future".

I wish him all the best though, for the sake of himself and his family, and I can only hope that the media - especially certain tabloid newspapers with right-wing leanings - show some respect for his privacy.

When i first heard about this on the radio, i thought kennedy had actually got his act together, that the lib dems would elect someone else, in time for it to all blow over by the local elections.

Ha ha ha!!! with the main contenders saying they won't stand, it becomes less of an IDS quick-replace scenario, and more of a Major backed-but-not-really scenario.

If anyone stands against kennedy, it'll be some squirt from the lower ranks (aka Redwood) who he'll defeat. More likely is that no-one will stand against him, so the lib dems will reluctantly back him, and continue plodding along much weakened by the whole episode, just as John Major did in 95-97.

Makes me glad i'm not a lib dem really, how can they agree how they'd lead the country if they can't agree who should lead them?

Well, there go I but for the grace of..and all that jazz.

I think its no wonder he likes a drink! Specially with you guys and co doing the rounds! Hell, a grilling by Paxman Dimbleby..dare I say you et al! Who wouldn't want to get rat arsed? Ok..um Blair doesn't, the Tory geezer doesn't, so yeah moot point.

Funny though, as you said certainly unusual, how accepting are we ( the Brit public?) Accepting enough to have an ex piss head as PM? We shall see..

Warm wishes Charles, Non confundis Illegitimi or words to that effect.

Had Mr Kennedy admitted in the past that he did have a drink problem instead of allegedly lying about it, then he may perhaps have stood a better chance in the upcoming leadership election. The fact that Mr Kennedy appears to have lied is, in my view, an infinitely worse crime than being an alcoholic.

Okay then Nick, what's George Galloway (Respect, Bethnel Green and Bow) doing in the Big Brother house then?

Let's face it - for the vast majority of the population, me included, the biggest political story of today is George Galloway going in to Celebrity Big Brother.

Nick, Jeremey et al putting on their gravest expressions, pouting to the cameras about being lied to...will anyone really care?

This time next month we could be congratulating Kennedy on pulling the first 'Clinton' in Britain.

Whilst I am not a liberal supporter, a close friend of mine went through the same problem as Mr. Kennedy, indeed he paid for his drinking with his life.

I wish Mr. Kennedy luck with both the leadership election and with battling his drink problem. Alcoholism can be rather like a disease, and should not be taken lightly, it is all too easy for a drink after work to unwind to become rather too regular, we are all, afterall, human..

It will be interesting to see if any of his 'adversaries' have the courage to have a go.. they should. When the party settles down and considers the real difficulties Charles Kennedy faces, battling with alcoholism and a rejuvenated Coservative party, the Lib Dems may consider that it's time he left the stage. Whenever he appears on television, in the House or anywhere, first thought ' I wonder has he had a drink'.... won't work. He has to go.

those of you demanding to know journalistic indiscretions, no one voted for them! No one cares if they drink their loaves off. But there's lots riding on Charlie's liver.. nothing on Nick's!

I predict he will ultimately lose his high stake gamble. Being forced to admit to being an alcoholic is too much IMO for him to overcome. Perhaps he should do a swap with George Galloway and go into the Big Bro House.

I wonder who the "many others" who deal with their drink problms "on a "daily basis" are.

It's all very well people talking of his bravery but the man has admitted to lying.

In simple political terms retaining CK as leader would close a myriad of political debates to LibDems.

How can they - or he - attack Blair the next time he defends a Minister's dishonesty?

Can you imagine the guffaws the next time a spokesman stands up in the Commons to express concerns over binge drinking?

It's just a shame he didn't take the pre-Christmas opportunity to stand down without humilating himself.

This story has left me feeling extraordinarily sad.

A tale of an unmistakably 'nice guy'- a hard-working man with a young family, falling prey do what is a frankly horrifying illness.

That anyone should find alcoholism amusing or trivial is surely missing the point. How hard must it be to find oneself addicted to something which in moderation or even occasional over-indulgence is socially acceptable, morally defensible, and now freely available round the clock. Reformed Heroin addicts are paraded in front of us, demanding that we recognise the huge personal triumph that they have achieved by quitting a heavily controlled substance which is designed to be used only for getting completely mashed, whilst recovering alcoholics are seen as mildly amusing, weak and damaged.

As for the lying - for gods sake its an illness, which often includes huge dollops of self-denial !! How can it be a lie if you don't beleive it to be one ? Surely the public are not as facile as this ?

I have never voted LibDem in my life, and whether or not I will in the future cannot be affected by the story which has unfolded today. I sincerely wish Charles Kennedy well along the hard road ahead, and would encourage him to consider that perhaps the most important thing in his life should be his family, since they are the ones who will miss him the most when he's 'not himself'

Kennedy should have resigned now - that way after the 2010 election the Lib Dems would have been begging to have him back like the SNP with Alex Salmond.

This way he will die the death of a thousand stories. Every alledged story about his drinking now has credibility.

Such a shame HIGNFY isn't on at the moment.

It's indeed a hard road ahead for the so so likeable and much admired in so many many ways, Charles Kennedy. If some of his 'supportive'(?) colleagues, were to bite their Tongues when appearing in the media, expressing 'disgust', and not be so publicly damning to the man....I believe a good deal more sensitivity would be seen to be winning out. It's not always what's being said that hurts and damages, it's also HOW it's said...and with what degree of rancour. Charles Kennedy is confronting very complex challenges here, and the few who are responding with all the fairy feet of the proverbial china shop bull, might pay heed to those who are doing it differently, and play their tune a tad more kindly. Mr. Kennedy you ARE brave.....do do go on being so, whatever you find that means. You are a much admired man, and will remain so, whatever.

What a shambles !

The sight of Lib Dem MPs and supporters queuing up to stab CK really is very unedifying. You just couldn't wait could you?

And CK...yet another 'politican' who has been found out lying and is now desperate to hang on to his position of 'power'. You've treated your party with such breathtaking disrespect - have you no honour man?

A plague on the lot of you.

OK, so if not Charles Kennedy as leader of the Lib Dems, then who?

Sir Menzies isn't standing, Simon Hughes hasn't made up his mind (surely if he was going to stand he's have said so by now?) Those are the only two I consider would have half a chance against Charles.

I'm a lifelong Lib Dem supporter and sometime party member who quite likes Charles, he's proving he's human, after all. A liking for the ladies didn't affect Bill Clinton's Presidential decisions, IMHO, so why should a liking for falling over juice affect Charles's? It's almost endemic for politicians to drink, after all, more than one former PM and Chancellor has had a well known penchant for it.

And to those who say he's done nothing for the party, he has brought the Lib Dems from a no-hoper 3rd place party to being a credible almost-second place challenger, taking seats off Tories and Labour alike.

Drink problem or not this is surely the end of the line for Charlie.

You only have to look at the names on the 'no confidence' letter to realise that he has lost the support of some of the brightest Lib Dem MPs. There is surely no coming back from this, indeed he is not even guaranteed to receive the required nominations for standing as leader. And even if he does then he is likely to be up against Simon Hughes who is more popular amongst the party membership than himself.

Anyway, it doesn't matter who is leader of the Lib Dems they are destined to stay the third party of politics.

Well actually, good for him. So his political image may suffer a bit, but his health is more important. If he'd announced a couple of months ago that this was a problem and he would give up immediately, my guess is that he would have been followed by journos waiting to see if he tripped up, or publishing intrusive photos of him. No one needs that when trying to kick an addictive habit.
2 months isn't very long, but maybe he's got to the point where he's done the first bit in private and now just needs some incentive to carry on with the good work. He's got even less reason to take a drink now.

I think this pretty unfair on Kennedy, after all he is the best leader the Lib Dems have had in years, I think there is some within the party that for their own reasons would like to be rid of him.

As for his drinking problems as so the media is calling it, I really don't think that this would affect his leadership ability, I mean come on, who of us can say from time to time we have not had too much to drink, does that mean we should be voted out of our jobs? I think not.