Politics

Charles Kennedy’s true legacy is the transformation of the Conservative party

2 September 2006

In fact, the Kennedy legacy is most pointedly visible in the new style adopted by the Conservatives. David Cameron’s decision to create a two-year policy vacuum by delaying a policy review until the end of next year is straight out of the Kennedy playbook, giving the Tory leader breathing space in which to define his media image without getting bogged down in detail. So far, the Tory high command believes the strategy has worked perfectly. Even the much-derided ‘hug a hoodie’ speech is regarded at party HQ as an outright success. For all the scorn at Westminster, they argue, the message was received and understood in the wider country. To be fair, this surprising analysis of the speech is shared by many at No. 10.

But perhaps Mr Kennedy’s greatest gift to the Tories was the strong anti-war position he guided his party towards, which has created a strong and lasting headache for Labour. Sir Menzies was initially hesitant in opposing the Iraq invasion in such emphatic terms but in this — as in much else — Mr Kennedy got his way. As a result the Lib Dems are now the party of choice for those former Labour voters who opposed the war and are disgusted by its aftermath. For as long as Mr Blair remains in office, Labour will be unable to satisfy the anti-Israeli, anti-American, anti-war constit-uency that has defected to the Lib Dems. The question is whether Gordon Brown would win these voters back.

Meanwhile, the third party is only too happy to be of service. The staged defections of 30-odd (mainly Muslim) Labour party members to the Lib Dems last week in Margaret Beckett’s constituency warns of a trend which could pave the way to Tory government. The Lib Dems could unravel the New Labour coalition from the Left while the Cameron Conservatives tug from the centre-Right — sending Mr Brown spinning into oblivion.

It is a personal tragedy for Mr Kennedy that he has to watch as his ideas are put to use by others. He was, as the new biography shows, the author of his own downfall. But he may yet lay claim to being the author of Labour’s downfall, too.