Since the announcement of Charles Kennedy’s untimely death
the public and press have been in reverie. The ‘twittersphere’ has given us
endless iterations of the words, ‘kind, funny, a man with integrity,’ from
people who may or may not have been connected to him in any way. And although,
as his dear friend and colleague Alistair Darling wrote today, Charles felt
twitter was, ‘all a bit silly.’ we see that what people saw, through the
accumulation of each poured over attribute, was a sense of honour. It is this
honour that the public will miss.
Immediately after Charles’ death hit the headlines, senior
politicians were given the opportunity to consummate his memory. Senior Lib Dem
Norman Lamb was the first speaker of many I heard to set the stage for what was
to be a day of subtle party politicking, using Charles’ death as sort of
‘cooling fan,’ to blow opinion this way, or that, but attached to the glowing
remnant of Charles memory. Norman lamented on Charles’ ability to ’reach out
across the political spectrum,’ his indelible sense of humour and made many
other fine points also but the last gasps of ‘air time’ were used to emphasise
that Charles was, a “fierce opponent to leaving the EU,” and by power of
association Norman had scored a political point. Who would disrespect the
memory of the dead, and such a respected member of its cohort in that way?
This went on in to today’s Parliamentary proceedings, the PM
using his position at the dispatch box to throw in a line on Charles’ inherent
‘sense of ‘internationalism,’ to ‘puff out’ his own chest on issues surrounding
the EU referendum and Scottish nationalism. Both of these issues affect the
cohesiveness of his own party and indeed his ability to govern. When Harriet
Harman, the opposition leader stood, she also reminded the house by the blunt
force of Charles’ memory, that he wasn’t a proponent of Scottish independence.
Although the use of his memory in such a way is what some
may term as dishonourable, politicians do notice that politics will miss
figures such as Charles. The word ‘Honourable,’ itself was used. ‘Honourable
but not ignoble’. He was not an “I told you so politician,” stated Nick Clegg, “If
we could all carry ourselves with a little more of the honesty, wisdom and
humility that Charles had, politics would be held in much higher esteem than it
is today”. Against a backdrop of teary eyed Lib Dems, the Speaker added that,
Charles’ gift was his ability to reach out to those, “untouched and actively
hostile to politics.”
So, although the respective pontifications on the subject of
Charles were both respectful and elevating for his memory, I felt that they
undermined a collective attempt by parliament to project outward the view that,
politicians are, as was said of Charles, ‘paid up members of the human race.’
I’m not sure that in one breath, using one’s gleaming public persona to point
score on political issues, whilst with the next utterance ‘wittering’ about the
need for more trust within politics, doesn’t compound the problem that MP’s
attempt to combat. The public trusted Charles Kennedy for 32 years. They don’t
trust ‘politics’ for the reason Nick Clegg suggested today, that a ‘sleight of
hand dominates so much of politics today.’ Last Night’s edition of Newsnight
only served to compound this view as Evan Davis asked Alistair Campbell if
Charles was, “incapable of the dark arts.”
Although I am sure that using a dead person’s memory for
political gain is wrong, I am also sure that however subtly MP’s communicate
their strife over the state of politics’ public image, the public will see
through any appeal to them, via their love of Charles Kennedy and only distance
themselves further from engagement with politics in the future. As for the use
of his memory in an attempt to engage other members of the political classes
and the public on single issues like Europe, we all look on with contempt don’t
we?