I haven't bought the Mail on Sunday, I feel duty-bound to point out. But I have just read, via the web, the first elements of their serialisation of Ming's forthcoming auto-biography. You can pre-order it via Liberal Democrat Voice here with some spondoolicks going to the party.
The segment serialised today certainly offers useful perspective on the Charles Kennedy leadership. I say "useful" in the following sense: As Ming says, his father had a drink problem. By writing this article, I think Ming helps to put together another piece of the jigsaw in understanding alcoholism. Several times, his narrative returns to this essential dichotomy: Charles was a superb LibDem leader, but those close around him saw things in a different light.
If Charles had been a rubbish leader, then his passing would not have been too painful. But he was a superb leader. Ming's rather "so-so" leadership demonstrated that by sharp contrast.
There is also some interesting stuff about Ming and Elspeth.
I still haven't decided whether to buy the book. Previous experience of politicians' auto-biographies is that they are interesting up until the point they get into power or leadership. They then tend to become rather sanctimonious exercises in retrospective self-justification. Alan Clark's Diaries were a shining exception to that general rule.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Things would have been so much easier if Charles had been a rubbish leader
Written by Paul on Sunday, February 24, 2008
Labels: Liberal Democrats, Sir Menzies Campbell
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
And Tony Benn's as well, surely? Although they're both not autobiographies and claim to have been written (or spoken, in the case of Benn's) at the time, with very light editing subsequently.
I don't especially dislike Tony Benn, but I would say his diaries are among the most sanctimonious and self-justifying that there are.
I haven't read all of them, but I can't think of any bit where he seriously suggests that he was significantly wrong about anything - and he often was!
I would take the suggestion that they are largely unedited with a sizeable pinch of salt. There's a reference to a disagreement with Shirley Williams (there may be more than one) where he uses an apparent inability to remember exactly what she said in Cabinet as a put-down. He is either being insincere (quite possible) or this was written much later as part of his annoying tendency to reflect that the world would generally be a much better place if people had listened to his wisdom at the time.
Like a lot of politicians, a lot of his wisdom came with age and powerlessness. Still, I wish him luck in Kensington...
"I can't think of any bit where he seriously suggests that he was significantly wrong about anything"
There is at least one - in his 1970s diaries he acknowledges (and justifies) his volte face on nuclear power (which he was in favour of in the 1960s).
Post a Comment