[A-List] UK state: political realignment

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

To save his life, Kennedy has to risk it

LibDems must seize their chance to inspire disillusioned voters

Roy Hattersley
Monday March 10, 2003
The Guardian

I make no complaints about the conspiracy to denigrate the Liberal
Democrats. That is what, in the modern era, the big parties do and I have
often done it myself. But the Tory and New Labour leaderships ought to
beware. In the present febrile state of political opinion - with more and
more people expressing their disapproval of government policy and Duncan
Smith, typically, clambering on to the bandwagon as it disappears downhill -
Charles Kennedy might just be facing a walk with destiny. The year 2003 may
become the Liberal Democrats' finest hour.

The invocation of Winston Churchill's wartime speeches is intentional. Last
week Shirley Williams reminded us that in the 1930s, he - like Kennedy 70
years later - thought it necessary to question the army's readiness for
battle. Comparisons with the great wartime leader are always dangerous. Some
people think him beyond compare. Others argue that the circumstances which
occasioned his greatness were so exceptional that little he did has any
relevance to modern politics.

There is, however, one prime ministerial parallel which Kennedy might ponder
to his advantage. Last week he was accused - without much justification - of
criticising our troops while they were on active service. One of his Liberal
predecessors, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, attacked the conduct of British
soldiers under fire. Lord Roberts and General Kitchener were confining Boer
women and children in what came to be called concentration camps. Sir Henry
claimed that the war in South Africa was being "carried on by methods of
barbarism".

The jingoistic press went wild and stated, as fact, that the British people
would never give power to a man who had traduced our gallant lads in khaki.
Three years later Campbell-Bannerman was prime minister. I no more suggest
that Mr Kennedy will find himself in No 10 in 2006 than I claim that he
would use such violent language about the soldiers of the Queen. But to
fulfil what he believes to be his destiny, he has to behave as Sir Henry
behaved. He must boldly say what he believes and gamble that his boldness,
as well as his beliefs, appeal to the British people.

The path to the next general election will be littered with the
disillusioned supporters of the two major parties. They will not be
attracted to the Liberal Democrats by uplifting chats about protecting the
ozone layer and complicated arguments for electoral reform. Wisely Mr
Kennedy has dropped the call for proportional representation which, whatever
its objective merits, always sounds like the demands for a new voting system
from politicians who know that they cannot win under the old one. To achieve
a bigger aggregate vote than the Tories, Mr Kennedy has to light up the
political sky. There is a risk that pyrotechnics will destroy him. But the
alternative is acceptance of the impotence which characterised his
predecessors.

Jeremy Thorpe, who might have formed a coalition with Edward Heath, threw
away his chance by asking for too much. David Steele, who made a
parliamentary pact with Labour, pulled out at the moment when he should have
exacted a higher price for staying in. Paddy Ashdown hoped for a Labour
majority small enough to justify Blair realigning politics in the way both
men wanted. Mr Kennedy has to increase the Liberal vote single-handed.

This he can only do by speaking out in favour of issues which a large
proportion of the electorate abhor. But to win something approaching 30% of
the votes, and to overtake the Tories, he has to take their opposition on
the chin. He has to search out the people with passionate convictions about
the single European currency, the balance between taxation and public
expenditure and, above all, the war. To save his life, he has to risk it. If
he pussyfoots his way to the polls, he will end his political career as
speaker of the Scottish parliament or governor-general of a central European
protectorate.

Cosying up to the Labour party can only do him harm. The last thing the
floating voter wants is a political party that horse-trades principles for
power. They find Kennedy's slightly amateurish commitment to basic beliefs
endearing. His inability to embrace the hard professionalism of the other
two parties is part of his charm. It is easy to envisage him becoming the
victim of a public relations catastrophe, but hard to imagine him cynically
managing the news.

Charles Kennedy is, like his party, a bit of a joke. But he is a good clean
joke which all the family can enjoy. He is the nice chap in the nasty
business, the innocent in a corrupt world. To maintain that reputation, he
has to take a simplistic view of complicated questions and he has to risk
making blunders. But the right sort of blunders may mark out his path to
leadership of the opposition.