The Apollo Project

We've Merged!

2006-04-10T21:20:00.000+01:00

The Apollo Project has joined forces with Rob Knight's Liberal Review. Henceforth this site will be kept as an archive. For the new Apollo Project follow the link.

Liberal Review offers the best of Liberal opinion, commentary and ideas. We will continue with the best of Apollo, plus the Editor's review and Guest Blogs by various well-known Liberal and liberal contributors.

Rob will continue to round up the day's News, and there will be regularly updated Blogger Profiles. We will link to the best of Liberal thought, and also welcome contributions.

Liberal Review - what no Liberal should be without.

Wiki Meme

2006-04-09T00:12:00.000+01:00

by Steve Travis

OK ... 6th December:

Three events
1768 - The first edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica is published.
1921 - The Anglo-Irish Treaty is signed in London by British and Irish representatives
2005 - David Cameron becomes leader of the UK Conservative Party, defeating David Davis.*

Two birthdays
1896 - Ira Gershwin, American lyricist (d. 1983)
1977 - Andrew Flintoff, England cricketer

One death
1882 - Anthony Trollope, British author (b. 1815)

* - strictly speaking I'm not sure if this qualifies as an "event"

Sour Grapes or Lemon?

2006-04-07T00:16:00.000+01:00

by Jabez Clegg

Oh dear. It seems that David Cameron isn't very popular with the readership of the influential Tory blog Conservative Home. Most of the advice on what he should say in a speech in Manchester* tomorrow is less than complimentary.

My personal favourite:

"I come here to Manchester today with an apology and a big announcement. I stood for the leadership last year wildly overestimating my capabilities as a politician. Over the course of my short leadership I have felt out of my depth and this has begun to show through. I am sorry to the party for this, but today I am stepping down from the leadership and offer my full support to David David the man I think can make this party great again."

That would make my year if DC said that, mainly because it would be the right decision.

Posted by: Clare Lewis | April 06, 2006 at 14:41

*Although we're surprised that the Notting Hill-billy knows where Manchester is.

Song Title Meme

2006-04-05T21:16:00.000+01:00

by Steve Travis

Thanks to Random Incident:

1. Are you male or female:
Mr X

2. Describe yourself:
I am alive

3. How do some people feel about you:
Your name (has slipped my mind again)

4. How do you feel about yourself:
Stranger within

5. Describe your day:
Rage in Eden

6. Describe current gf/bf:
Mine for Life

7. Describe where you want to be:
White China

8. Describe how you live:
Sleepwalk

9. What would you ask for if you had just one wish:
I want to be a Machine

10. Share a few words of wisdom:
We stand alone

11. Now say goodbye:
I can't stay long

Bonus points for naming the group.

Punch and Judy Politics – Child’s Play for Cameron and Osborne

2006-03-23T16:31:00.000Z

Nick Robinson has big shoes to fill. His immediate predecessors in the role of BBC Chief Political Correspondent – John Cole, John Sergeant, even the New Labourish Andrew Marr – all had a certain gravity and authority that repetitious phrasing (“If only, if only” and “Can he? Can he?”) haven’t quite matched as yet. Still, he had it partly right on his Newsblog when he wrote:

So much for "No Punch and Judy!" Coming face-to-face with Gordon Brown for the first time, David Cameron leant across across the Despatch Box, shouted rather than spoke and pointed his finger.

This is rather true. Cameron evidently had almost nothing to say, and said it only for a very short period of time. The suspicion remains that it is not clear that his years advising Norman Lamont resulted in any detailed knowledge of either finance or economics, or whether his subsequent career as an ITV spin doctor and political adviser have ever trained him to master a detailed brief. Generously, Robinson went on to say:

There were lots of high quality Oxford Union-style gags at Gordon Brown's expense - "In a carbon conscious world we have a fossil fuel Chancellor" and "He's an anologue politician in a digital world".

Perhaps it is beside the point, but I have actually heard far funnier gags in the Oxford Union than the ones above. High quality these were not. In fact, they look really rather childish and not terribly effective playground jibes. A fossil fuel chancellor? Please! Analogue not digital? I can think of two digits response to that. If Gordon Brown had pigtails, David Cameron would have pulled them. But isn’t the real point here that this isn’t the Oxford Union? One is left with the feeling that Cameron is playing at politics, as if a mere game.

But the real joker yesterday was the hopelessly out of his depth George Osborne. On Newsnight last night (watch it here for the next few hours) he was asked by Paxman which bits of the budget he didn’t like. Lamely, Osborne explained that nothing new had really been said in the budget so he couldn’t think of any. Paxman, sensing blood, pushed on. As it turns out Osborne couldn’t actually name anything in the budget that he disagreed with, and seemed to be oblivious to the fact that Brown’s budget speech is a rather different thing to the Red Book which details the budget – this year’s is three hundred and four pages long. Surely George disagreed with some of the content? Well, I daresay he might – had he read some of it - but as he couldn’t articulate any criticisms at all he should seriously question why people should think him competent to run the British economy. It is perhaps worthwhile pointing out once again that George Osborne is a man who has no formal economic training and has never worked in either the public or the private sectors.

On this evidence, as long as Cameron and Osborne are at the Conservative helm there is no chance of the Conservatives regaining a reputation for competent financial and economic management – and on that basis alone, they are not going to win the next General Election with Big Gordie on the other side of the bench.

[posted by Simon]

Budget Bore

2006-03-23T15:10:00.000Z

by Peter

It would be over-the-top and old-fashioned to accuse a Labour Chancellor of sounding like a soviet commissar, so I will quote Martin Wolf rather than make up anything of my own. Here he is:

as I tried to stay awake during his Budget speech, I understood what it was like to listen to a Soviet commissar delivering a discourse on prospects for the tractor sector.

This was the speech of a man with a plan for every cranny of British life – for children, childcare, skills, education, science, the environment, enterprise, economic development and even Olympic athletes (this being the most Soviet moment of all). Some of Mr Brown’s plans are sensible. Some look absurd. But what remains missing is an overall strategy for reform of the public sector or, equally important, of the tax system, under a putative Brown premiership.

There is something in this. Listening to Brown one was struck by how much he believes the State has to wade in to save us from ourselves. We were being tinkered with - just like the nation's finances:

this Budget amounts to next to nothing. On an indexed base, the fiscal policy decisions add a mere £415m in extra tax in 2007-08 and £705m in 2008-09, after a giveaway of just £380m in 2006-07. Individual measures are tiny: the biggest for next year is the £275m cost of failing to adjust fuel duty for inflation until September 1 2006.

Brown was most interested to manage the public when he talked about training

Mr Brown remains a man obsessed with quantitative targets for inputs and outputs, rather than a man who has internalised either the role of incentives or the deep uncertainty about the future. No passage from the speech better illustrates these failings than this: “Today the British economy has just 9m highly skilled jobs. By 2020 it will need 14m highly skilled workers. And of 3.4m unskilled jobs today, we will need only 600,000 by 2020.”

This is Soviet tractor planning at its ludicrous worst. Fifteen years ago, no one imagined the current economic role of the internet, for example. Yet the chancellor now dares to tell us the precise number of highly skilled and unskilled people the economy will “need” 15 years hence. In fact, he has no idea how many skilled people the economy will need (or, more precisely, demand) by then. Such “plans” are not worth the paper they are written on.

So that's it fro the FT. Brown is competent but boringly compete net, interested in managing the public rather than managing the State. Labour's big problem just now - and for the years to come - is the NHS. All that money has brought surprisingly little improvement - in spite of the that (rather soviet style) Healthcare Commission designed to ensure it was well spent. All of which brings to mind a Scottish expression about best-laid plans...

There are no easy answers for any of this - and the correct response is unlikely to be to spend more still.

Man Bites Dog!

2006-03-20T22:36:00.000Z

Apollo launches its very own Tabloid.

The Education Bill and the British Political System

2006-03-17T20:04:00.000Z

by Simon

A common argument for the First Past the Post electoral system in the United Kingdom is that it usually provides operational Parliamentary majorities for the winning party in a General Election, which in turn leads to stable government. It is true that in the period from 1945 to the present only one short-lived Parliament in 1974 has been without an overall majority from the outset and Governments have generally been able to get their legislation enacted.

A common argument offered against proportional electoral systems is that sometimes they do not provide operational majorities for the party with the most number of seats following an election, which in turn leads to unstable government, encourages horse-trading for votes, and discourages radical legislation and reform.

I heard Frank Field on the BBC News the night before last arguing that it was perfectly reasonable for Tony Blair to get support for the recent Education Bill from wherever it was forthcoming, including from the Conservatives. Frank Field is usually seen as being in favour of radical reform. Backbench Labour opposition to the Education Bill was because they thought it too radical (or radical in the wrong direction at any rate).

The Labour Government, of course, eventually had to rely on Conservative votes to pass the Bill. It seems clear that a Parliamentary majority of 66 - at one time considered to be a thumping majority - is not large enough for the current Prime Minister and the current Labour party in Government to guarantee to be able govern (i.e., command an operational majority). This is not to say that a different Labour Prime Minister would be unable to pilot similarly radical legislation with the same or even a reduced majority. The same can be said, perhaps, for a hypothetical Conservative Prime Minister. However, it is worth pondering the propensity within ALL parties to dissent from the leadership - and the increasingly incongruous agglomerations of disparate perspectives incorporated within those parties. Can we see the Cornerstone Group, for example, agreeing with a Cameroonian Butskellite consensus agenda? Can we see the Labour left following Brown into the lobbies when they realise he is not of the same position as them? Will corporate-state Lib Dems gladly follow a more market-oriented Liberal leadership?

No system of rules that seem to govern a political ecology last forever. All systems evolve. New rules are created and old assumptions must be cast aside. The Blair-Cameron accommodation over education paves the way for the kind of horse-trading needed to sustain coalition Government.

And so, one of the main arguments in favour of First Past the Post - that it provides meaningful governing majorities and stable government - falls away, just at the moment that the argument that radical reform cannot be sustained by operational coalitions begins to disintegrate also.

Those in favour of electoral reform won a big victory this week. They just didn't notice.

No reason to panic...yet.

2006-03-14T22:12:00.000Z

by Peter

Just the other day I was reflecting on Cameron's first 100 days as Tory leader.

I was not all that impressed:

I think the Tories would have expected rather more: Cameron on paper is a more attractive figure than Howard; the other parties have been in considerable trouble during much of this period; and Cameron ought to be having a baby bounce (or have the Great British Public sated their appetitie for politicians with babies).

And frankly one of the issues that has bemused me is the extent to which he has got the press coverage as new and dynamic, with little to show that he is really having any impact.

The latest opinion poll will make it harder to retain that sort of press support: The Tories are back in their box.

The latest ICM poll (according to polioticalbetting has them on 34%. Where have they got under Cameron? Nowhere!

The Tories have not yet started to panic. They have set up a working group involving Bob Geldof and Zak Goldsmith, and this working group will advise them when the panic should begin.

The deputy leadership contest

2006-03-14T15:17:00.000Z

By Peter

Iain Dale has a post on the contest to become Deputy Leader.

This is not a contest that is keeping me awake at night - Jack Garner's words on the Vice Presidency come to mind - but Iain seems to be offering odds of 25/1 on David Heath - and I might put a fiver on that.

He does not mention Malcom Bruce, who stood last time, and always strikes me as a good performer and safe pair of hands. But I thought that when Malcolm stood for the Leadership too, and the rest of the Party failed to follow my lead.

Childcare is not "just a woman's issue"

2006-03-14T13:34:00.000Z

by Steve Travis Nick Assinder raises the issue of a Commons Creche, but chooses to portray this as solely a female issue. I'm sure I am not the only man in the world who, along with his partner, has made the issue of child-raising a joint decision. In practical terms, as we both have demanding careers, that means a difficult balancing act cum timetabling exercise as we juggle our professional diaries around our childcare provision. Typically it means my wife works an early day in order to pick the children up, and I work a late day so that I can drop them off. The question we should be asking is why aren't male MPs looking to make this an issue too? Its a sad indicment of our "Obsessive" working culture that, in its worst form, means that any attempt at a normal family life has to be brushed under the carpet. Thankfully, far away from the notice of those who run government and business, a quiet revolution has been taking place. Perhaps in 10-20 years time when those fathers are setting the workplace culture as decision makers at the tops of businesses and government, they will remember what it was like for them and respond accordingly. Sadly, it seems we will have to wait that long.

1906 and all that - Part 1

2006-03-12T20:57:00.000Z

by Steve Travis

Prompted by the anniversary of the Liberal Landslide, adn a recent foray into genealogical research, I have just finished Paul Thompson's excellent The Edwardians. Written originally 30 years ago, and the product of nearly 500 interviews with (then) living Edwardians, it gives some insight into the lives lived 100 years ago. In an occasional series I will dip into this work to look at the differences and, in many cases, surprising similarities with today.

First up is the Conservative Party which, like the poor, seems destined to always be with us.

The Conservatives, who were in power from 1895 until 1905, based their electoral strength on the middle class vote. Although there was still an important Liberal minority in the middle classes, the stage had been reached when a Yorkshire small businessman who was a Liberal town councillor could be regarded as indiscreet for so acting aganist his own natural interests:'people used to tell him that as a businessman he had no business to be so outright a Liberal.' But the middle-class vote was insufficient to win victory alone. In addition the Conservatives secured between on-third and one-half of the working-class vote. It was a working-class vote that asserted the essential unity rather than antagonism of class interests. Hence the Conservatives were significantly least succesful in those regions where the middle-class presence was weakest: the north, Scotland and Wales.

There were, however, areas of active working-class Conservatism to be found in Lancashire. It was fed by the hostility felt for the large enclaves of Irish Catholics who supported the Liberals. Here, in contrast to their methods anywhere else, local Conservative parties were organised on a dual basis, with democratic federations based on the Conservative Working Men's Clubs alongside the usual exclusive party Constitutionalist Associations. Similarly, although with less active working-class participation, the Conservatives were able to profit from the fears brought by the waves of Jewish immigration into east London in the late C19th and early C20th. In the last years before 1914 a new populist radical minority in the party sought to woo 'the man in the street' with a combined campaign against the Irish, intellectuals, Jews, 'money-bags' and corruption.

It strikes me as remarkable how many strains of Conservative thought are actively recognisable in this characterisation of the party from 100 years ago. Perhaps it should not - human nature being what it is. But food for thought, and some pointers about the direction the party may take once again.

A Spring in our Step

2006-03-07T21:50:00.000Z

by Steve Travis

I received today my thank-you letter from the Member for Sutton & Cheam for my (modest) contribution to the election of Sir Menzies Campbell as leader. Spring might not yet be in the air, but there was a spring in my step today. There is a palpable sense of momentum about the party once again. At long last we have the prospect of a coherent policy programme. Ming's shadow appointments set a clear marker about our future direction. Predictably, there have been noises off from the usual suspects, but even this can't spoil the moment.

I would imagine I'm not alone in relishing the prospect of campaigning on the sort of programme Ming will put together. This must be in stark contrast to thousands of Tory activists, faced with having to "sell" Cameron's pale imitation of New Labour - a programme with which they have little in common. For it would be the most pyrhhic of victories for them in the (unlikely) event that the Conservatives were to be elected on such a programme.

The icing on the cake is the return of Lord Ashdown. The future's bright ...

Our day out in Liverpool

2006-03-07T16:52:00.000Z

The children enoyed themselves yesterday on their class visit to Liverpool.

They even got their photograph in a local newspaper.

This is what they said:

Voters deserted the Tories in droves in the 1980s, blaming Margaret Thatcher's policies for Liverpool's decline - and most have never returned.

The party has no MPs in Merseyside and no city councillors.

Last week, the Tory candidate was beaten into last place by the British National Party at a council by- election in Waterloo.

That was very exciting!

But there was a surprise for us

"I cannot say everyone I met was a card-carrying Conservative member!!!"
I told the nice man from the local paper. (Fortunately he didn't interrupt me the way some of them do - although he did find it hard to understand my accent).

Everything went rather well. Most of the children were well behaved, although some of them did mutter rather a lot on the way back home.

School trip to Liverpool

2006-03-06T13:01:00.000Z

Dave: Come on! We're late!
Shadow Cabinet: Where are we going?
Dave: To Liverpool
Shadow Cabinet:Why? Has Boris got to apologise again?
Dave: Stop muttering and get in the coach! Have you remembered your packed lunch?
Shadow Cabinet: Why do we need a packed lunch? Aren't we going to have lunch with our Liverpool MPs?
Dave: We haven't got any, you clot!
Shadow Cabinet: Well, with our Councillors then?
Dave: (reaches for detention book)
Shadow Cabinet: Sorreee!
Dave: Just get in the coach, and no muttering!
Shadow Cabinet: Well if we haven't got any Councillors and we haven't got any MPs, What are we going to do in Liverpool?
Dave: We are going to go canvassing.
Shadow Cabinet: what good will that do?
Dave: I've got it all worked out. If each of us can just convice two Liverpudlians to vote Conservative...
Shadow Cabinet: Yes?
Dave: Well, we will just about double our vote. Now get in the coach and STOP MUTTERING!

So hip, so trendy, those cool conservatives

2006-03-05T16:02:00.000Z

Damien Green is in the Observer this morning, telling us how much the Tories have changed.

His speciality is immigration. He doesn't exactly apologise for baseless scaremongering and pandering to racism, but is prepared to admit that

Maybe the tone has been too harsh.

So now the Tories welcome immigrants, nothing against immigrants, fine people immigrants. Got it?

But of course he has to be mad about something. So now he is mad about statistics. He expresses this, well, madness with a stunningly fatuous comparison:

Here are a few things the government does not know. It cannot say how many people are living here illegally. It comes up with a figure of somewhere between 310,000 and 570,000. If the Chancellor told us he was taking somewhere between 31p and 57p in the pound in taxation and couldn't be more accurate than that, he would be out on his ear.

If a Chancellor told us that a particular tax was probably going to raise 440 million, but that on pessimistic assumptions the tax take might be as low as 310 Million, and on optimistic assumptions as high as 570 million (a rather better analogy, if I say so myself) then I do not think anyone would give a damn.

But what does Damien Green want? Apparently he wants the collation of an enormous quantity of statistics wherever an immigrant/illegal immigrant/asylum seeker might come into contact with the the public services:

What about figures which must be available to the authorities, because they involve those receiving a public service? How many children of temporary migrants are currently in state schools? How many temporary migrants are receiving NHS treatment?

So this is the new liberal conservatism. Not mad about immigrants, but bonkers for immigration statistcs - and prepared to make it a little bit more difficult for anyone who just might be an illiegal immigrant to use public services in orde to get them.

Thanks but no thanks, Damien...

ForMing, NorMing, StorMing, PerforMing!

2006-03-03T10:52:00.000Z

by Steve Travis

Congratulations to Sir Menzies Campbell on a hard-won victory in the leadership election. In deference to the four phases of team-building alluded to in the title, I'd like to take the presumption of offering him some advice on the immediate priorities requiring attention:

- Restructure the parliamentary team. Focus on maybe half a dozen (at most) key departments, and ensure that those chosen for these briefs are strong candidates. We should aim to get our stars in the media as much as possible.

- Give the party's professional structure a complete overhaul. Evaluate the performance of all departments, restructure and reform with a more focussed professional team.

- Media relations. We must construct a more potent media strategy, and that should include (if it doesn't already) training on how to deal with the media. Too many recent banana skins here.

- Set the narrative. Decide on the 5 key themes that make our party distinctive and keep pressing the message.

- Focussed policy. Back up the narrative with a cohesive, slim, but powerful policy platform that reinforces our core values.

And above all, be Merciless in your commitment to Liberalism!

The result you've been waiting for

2006-03-02T18:16:00.000Z

by Stephen Tall

The votes have been counted, and it's now time to declare the winner... of The Apollo Project's Liberal Democrat leadership prediction competition.

Twenty-two entries were received, and our collective punditry was a good pointer to the eventual outcome. This is what our entrants predicted would be the result:

Turn-out = 68%
First round: Ming Campbell (38%), Chris Huhne (34%), Simon Hughes (28%)
Second round: Ming Campbell (52%), Chris Huhne (38%), Simon Hughes (9%)
And this is the result as recorded on the Liberal Democrat
website:

Turn-out = 72%
First round: Ming Campbell (45%), Chris Huhne (32%), Simon Hughes (23%)
Second round: Ming Campbell (58%), Chris Huhne (42%),

The scoring system for the competition was straightforward: I summed the differences between our entrants' predictions and the actual result – the lower your score, the more accurate you were.

The clear winner was Peter, one of The Apollo Project's co-founders, whose prediction of:

Turn-out = 72%
First round: Ming Campbell (44%), Chris Huhne (30%), Simon Hughes (26%)
Second round: Ming Campbell (57%), Chris Huhne (43%),

gave him a score of 8. The five runners-up were: Paul Linford (14), Icarus (22), Stephen Tall (23), Alastair Mckinnon (24) and Joe Otten (25).

Just for fun

2006-02-28T15:48:00.000Z

I have calculated the overall net prediction from the leadership prediction competition.

So far, 12 give it to Ming and 5 to Chris.

The average score on second preferences is nearly 53% to Ming, just under 47% for Chris (some answers do not sum to 100%).

We don't have enough replies to read much into this.

Please keep entering. It is too late to impress the electorate that anyone has the momentum with them, so just tell us what you think.

Leadership prediction competition

2006-02-27T11:04:00.000Z

by Stephen Tall

Here at The Apollo Project the arguments have raged over the last few weeks (or at least as close as we Lib Dems come to raging) as to which of the three Lib Dem leadership hopefuls – Ming Campbell, Chris Huhne or Simon Hughes – will emerge victorious.

In truth, none of us really has any clue what will be the decision of the 73,000 party members when it is announced this Thursday. Which is what makes elections exciting.

But the time has now come for us to set aside our own partisan views, and to put our pundit credibility on the line. Below are the seven key questions which will determine who is the victor: using your skill, judgement and sheer blind luck, post your predictions in the comments box before 12 noon this Thursday.

The prize, as is customary in all such cheap-arsed interweb competitions, is the admiration of your peers.

1. Total number of votes cast (%):

2. First preference votes cast for Ming Campbell (%):

3. First preference votes cast for Chris Huhne (%):

4. First preference votes cast for Simon Hughes (%):

If no candidate scores 50%+ on the first round, the candidate with least 1st preferences will be excluded, and their 2nd preferences re-distributed accordingly.

What do you think will be the result in this final round? (Tip: put 0% next to whichever candidate you think will lose in the first round.)

5. Second round votes cast for Ming Campbell (%):

6. Second round votes cast for Chris Huhne (%):

7. Second round votes cast for Simon Hughes (%):

By 3pm this Thursday, 2nd March, the Liberal Democrats will have a new leader. The Apollo Project wishes the best of luck to whoever emerges the winner; and thanks the two losing candidates for ensuring a hard-fought contest.

Probably not the UK's biggest robbery

2006-02-22T23:22:00.000Z

by Alex Sweet

A pedant writes: today's robbery has been widely referred to in the media (e.g. tomorrow's front pages) as the UK's biggest ever robbery. It is thought that around £40m may have been taken.

It ought to go without saying that to assess what is the largest robbery ever in Britain, you need to adjust the previous amounts stolen for inflation. Here is a ready reckoner, applying the UKCompare tool at Economic History to the amounts given at the BBC's roll call of past hauls.

There are two major contenders in recent history (and doubtless some others looking further back).

1963: the Great Train Robbery made off with £2.6m worth of swag, which would be some £37m in 2006 on a retail price basis, adding an additional 4% for the years since 2004.

1983: the Brinks-Mat robbery netted £26m. This translates to £61m in 2006 on the same basis.

If correct, the £40m thought to be stolen today would therefore be far short of the most valuable UK robbery.

The First 100 Days

2006-02-16T16:48:00.000Z

by James Chard

In a couple of days or so, young Mr Cameron will have lasted 100 days as leader of the Conservatives, an achievment of itself. He has been quite busy, but to what effect remains to be seen. This is my take on how our new leader ought to make an impact both within and without the party in his first 100 days:

1. Put Cowley Street on the market with the aim of moving to modern office facilities, quite possibly some distance from Westminster. A statement of intent regarding a modern, professional party organisation is required.

2. Announce plans radically to reform conference along the lines Francis Maude floated for the Tories - with two weekends of set-piece speeches, big announcements and mystery non-party guests in two provincial cities in September and a low profile, dry, policy-based session in the Spring.

3. Ditch the 50p rate for earnings greater than £100k and pledge to go into an election not proposing net tax increases for the first time in a long while. I am not violently anti-50p, and was happy to defend it last year but it is an idea whose time has passed and this simple move would be an important outward-looking statement that we are clearing the decks for a manifesto next time based on reform, rather than spending. Maybe at the same time we should propose taking X million out of tax using green taxes as per Mr Huhne, but maybe not within 100 days as we need to ensure this policy is cast-iron and able to withstand scrutiny.

4. State that the Euro is off the agenda for a generation, that Europe is excessively bureaucratic and that we will force through proposals to cap the EU budget. We need to ditch the image of being uncritical friends of the EU (which I think is an unfair image, but it is the image). This will be the sort of "Clause IV" headline-grabbing move we need to make to keep ourselves in the spotlight once the leadership election is done.

For-Ming an Opinion

2006-02-16T10:41:00.000Z

By Steve Travis

The deed is now done. After time for final reflection, my vote in the leadership election was cast and posted today. For the record, it was:

1 Ming Campbell
2 Chris Huhne
3 Simon Hughes

All three candidates have strengths, and all three have weaknesses. All three would make good leaders of the party and would, no doubt, grow into the role. All three are also fortunate to have a talented front-bench team.

In the end, though, a decision has to be made. And what tipped it for me was this statement:

If the Liberal Democrats are to be credible on public finances and on social policy, we will need to demonstrate that we are capable not only of suggesting extra spending, but also identifying savings. Only in this way will the party be able to free up resources for its key spending priorities.

We need as a matter of urgency to devise a [tax] system that is both simpler and fairer and that maximises opportunity, not penalises achievement.

This demonstrates to me that of the three, Ming is most in touch with the issues that matter to the electorate. This is the way we will build the further electoral success which enables us to put Liberal ideas into practice, and is, after all, what we are in politics to acheive.

The Mask Slips

2006-02-15T20:53:00.000Z

by Steve Travis

The more sharp-eyed and eared amongst you may have noticed that that nice Dave Cameron is rather keen to recruit Liberal Democrats because they will help him get elected. Sorry ... I mean, of course, because they share his liberal values (no, really). He even set up a website that, rather nicely, shows all the Lib Dem held seats turning from gold to blue. Well ... that's the subtle way to say you want to send us to oblivion.

Over on Conservative Home they don't hold with all thus wet shilly-shallying. They believe in calling a spade a spade. Things are looking up for the Tories, notes William Norton:

It’s a good time to be a Conservative, just now. We have a new leader and some momentum in the polls. Labour have suffered humiliating defeats.

[but not at the hands of the Conservatives. We move on].

This is not enough, however, to guarantee a Conservative Government. The 2005 General Election demonstrated that an unpopular Labour administration does not lead automatically to a Tory victory. What do we do for our next trick?

The options, finds Mr Norton, are two-fold:

(i)Pretend to be nice and cuddly - repeat this message often and get lots of no-Conservatives to be photographed with you to reinforce it.
(ii) Win the policy argument, but don't be too shrill or too wonkish.

Except they're not. He believes the Tories ought to do both. Luckily, he believes that the Great British Electorate isn't interested in policy, so sweet-talking should do the trick.

Now, however, comes the good bit. Understanably, some Tories might be unsettled by the voter-friendly mood music:

Some stalwart Tories may object to the company we will be keeping – but asylum-seekers always create resentment among their hosts.

What an astounding assertion - asylum-seekers always create resentment. Never mind that they might have suffered great hardship, abuse, death of loved ones, lost all their possessions and be barred from re-entering the country of their birth. It's not compassion for their plight, but resentment ...

It gets better:

When Liberals start flooding our constituency associations like latter-day Vietnamese boat people, we will just have to establish “reception centres” for them where they can adjust to life in a civilised party.

So, when we take the great leap into the welcoming arms of the Tories, we can expect to be patronised and treated like second-class citizens. That's useful to know.

Perhaps distinguished North Devon accountants would volunteer to give them re-education lectures?

This quote is bizarre - perhaps its an oblique reference to one of our ex leaders, famously from North Devon. But its also instructive to note that he assumes all accountants are Tories. I can assure him he's wrong on that count.

No doubt Mr Norton would argue that this was "just a bit of fun" and that we are being thin-skinned in reacting to it. Most Liberals would take it for what it is - patronising, insulting, and a useful reminder of why we're not members of the Conservative Party.

So, next time you hear the siren call of Cameron's liberal Conservatives, just remember what lies beneath the mask.

Reflecting Britain

2006-02-15T11:22:00.000Z

by Peter

I haven't responded to this before, but reading Mark Valladares on the Ethnic Minority Election Task Force made me think that I should.

To start with the basics: we should have more women MPs and we should have ethnic minoirty MPs and we should be working to make sure this happens. We are making progress on getting more women MPs - not enough -yet the mechanisms of getting more women to put their names forward seem good to me. Having a much bigger pool of ethnic minoirty candidates should be high priority moving towards 2008 or 2009. (Brown will cut and run, won't he? perhaps it will be earlier).

Are these the only ways we should reflect Britain? No. I think we need to retain a number of candidates with strong regional roots. I don't say that all candidates should be local - but we need our Penhaligon's (and voters need them too).

And then there is education. There is a disturbing trend for increased credentialism in the UK and for the political elite to fill up with public school, oxbridge types. This is epitomised by Blair (Fettes and Oxford) facing Cameron (Eton and Oxford) at PMQs (though not today). We need to be vigilant to ensure that while decrying decreasing social mobility in the country we are not reinforcing it within the party. By all means let us have candidates from this sort of background - but let us think about what this means in terms of Reflecting Britain.

On how to achieve these ends, well I agree with the argument Mark develops

I really ought to declare an interest here. I serve on the English Candidates Committee of the Party, on the London Region Candidates Committee and have been a Returning Officer for our internal selections since 1989. I fundamentally belief that restricted shortlists are illiberal and contrary to the notion of selection on merit and nothing else. I expect Simon to be in favour of quotas - he has form after all (remember Blackpool?) - but to see Chris pander to this was very disappointing. Ming, on the other hand, took the line that persuasion and leadership would be more effective and essayed a liberal philosophy that I was impressed by.

We need to reflect Britain, and we need to adopt liberal solutions to achieving that end. Labour have gone for the option of parachuting in a woman from London - and it does not work.

Exit Poll

2006-02-15T10:40:00.000Z

by Gareth Epps

I have finally cast my vote, which is Chris Huhne 1, Simon Hughes 2. The reasons?

Chris is the heavyweight of this contest. His campaign has taken off from a late start after he was persuaded to stand (unlike others who had their campaign teams organised before Charles Kennedy's departure). He has gained tremendous momentum in just a couple of weeks.

I've been impressed with the way Chris has taken on the policy debate - he has a great article in today's Guardian and has gained column inches on Iraq (the first Lib Dem to do so for quite a while). He will inspire all communities but especially those in urban areas - after all, that's where the next big forward move is for the Liberal Democrats. He knows it and will work for it. And having campaigned alongside Chris (we were in a Brent East canvass team but I've campaigned with him in Oxfordshire) I know he goes down well on the doorstep and is a team player.

(The Oxfordshire story begs repeating: in a village for a County by-election he asked about the issues, which were limited but included a struggling small shop whose owners were furious that the Tory council had scrapped rate relief for small village shops. Ten minutes later, one ripped campaign schedule but one household of prominent - and flattered -Lib Dem supporters and a great new poster site.)

Chris' entrepreneurship is illustrated by that story, but also his background. He has the hunger of many of the brightest newer MPs wrongly labelled as 'modernisers'. What he will modernise is our approach to campaigning - happy to go on the attack rather than settle for comfortable, established positions that have led us to media anonymity in the past. And his skin's thick enough to withstand the attacks of more than the motley bunch of Campbell campaign outriders who've grown ever more shrill and whose skin has thinned with Ming's lead as the campaign has gone on.

The point about entrepreneurship is personal, not political. Many have sought to paint Chris as the candidate of the Right - or to be more accurate the unfettered free-marketeers who breathe a purist form of economic Liberalism. The Times is the paper which regularly makes this false equation. Entrepreneurship and modernisation for a political party means moving its campaigns, communications and shop front into the 21st century. Chris is the only candidate who has spent time on this in the campaign and it is absolutely fundamental to future Liberal Democrat success. Crucially, he will do this with the ability to unite the party - when the debate (sadly absent in the election) on macro-economics and public services comes up, he won't tack one way or the other. Sorry Mr Murdoch.

My second preference has gone to Simon but only very reluctantly indeed: he will not set us back in the way I fear Ming will by wasting time focusing on winning over rock-solid Tories, but his presidency and London mayoral campaign hardly inspire confidence.

Economical with the Actualite

2006-02-13T10:23:00.000Z

by Steve Travis

In today's Independent, the paper's founder, Andreas Whittam Smith, indicates his support for Chris Huhne in the leadership contest. In his article he makes a strong case for having an economically literate party leader in contrast to the usual collection of barristers, lecturers and PR types. Whittam Smith's argument is a good one, and he makes a number of points that add weight to Huhne's candidacy.

However, he rather spoils his case with this paragraph:

I had better also say that I believe him to be honest and trustworthy, no small quality in contemporary politics. The Daily Telegraph headed a leading article: "Huhne takes the lead in spite of duplicity". That is a very damaging statement for a newspaper to make about anybody. I don't suppose Mr Huhne will be bothered to sue for libel, but he would have a good cause. For what proof did the newspaper offer? Chiefly that instead of dismissing as irrelevant his rival Simon Hughes' deceitful accounts of his sexuality or passing over them in discreet silence, he "sententiously" declared that his colleague had apologised for misleading people. I'm afraid that isn't what duplicitous means.

That may well not be what duplicitous means, Mr Whittam Smith. But what you fail to mention anywhere in your piece is that the Telegraph article you refer to also makes this point:

Mr Huhne's early manoeuvrings in the leadership contest were similarly two-faced: having agreed, in concert with his Orange Book colleagues, to support Sir Menzies, he reneged on the agreement and stood himself, taking the opportunity to make an unkind observation on Sir Menzies's age.

Readers can make their own minds up as to whether Huhne was showing verve and daring by entering the race, or reneging on an agreement. It can then be debated and explained, and the explanations judged. Brushing it under the carpet doesn't do anyone any favours in the long run.

Came friendly lib dems

2006-02-12T22:50:00.000Z

by Davd Langshaw

To Slough yesterday, for the Leadership Hustings. It started in the best way possible, with a rousing address from our favourite Lib Dem MP – yes, Willie Rennie flew down to Heathrow, just to come and speak to an ecstatic South Central Regional Conference. I can’t remember much of what he said, but who cares? We cheered, we shouted, we yelled, we laughed at the jokes and agreed with everything he might have said. Careful attention was paid to the three leadership candidates on the platform, to see that their fervour and enthusiasm for our new hero was suitably euphoric. The Chair (Dawn Davison, from the English Candidates Association) told us twice that we were not allowed to vote for Rennie as our first preference. By 9:45, he was off, back to Scotland, “Because he has a constituency to look after, you know!” said Dawn.

Then on with the main business of the day – three speeches from Ming, CH and SH (in that order, drawn by lot.) We were already running a bit late, because of the Surprise Guest and because Simon was late. Three good, competent speeches: Ming emphasised radicalism, CH majored on tax and green issues, and SH concentrated on the concept of “fairness” in Liberal Democratic thought.

The press were out in force, and in due course they were invited to leave before questions were asked. During the break, I asked a representative sample of 12 members (six men, six women, one ethic minority) what they thought of the speeches. I did not know any of them (except for one) and I emphasised that I did not want to know who they were going to vote for: I just asked them to mark the speeches out of 10. The average scores were Ming 7.08, CH 7.25 and SH 7.75. Someone gave CH a 10, and someone else gave SH 4, but they were the only outlying scores.

In my opinion, the questions showed the candidates in a better light. The questions (submitted in advance) were on the environment (the most popular subject), education, tax and transport. This gave the candidates the chance to extemporise; SH made better mini-speeches, CH answered the questions better, and Ming looked and sounded magisterial.

All candidates had their supporters present, handing out flyers and badges etc, but SH did not seem to have an entourage with him. I spoke to a couple of raddled and cynical party hacks at lunchtime (one of them a strictly neutral party employee) who both agreed that the three campaigns showed the need for the Party to employ competent campaigners, as all three of the Candidates’ campaigns were so poor.

There was a Lib Dem Image stall, selling badges and mugs for the three candidates; they had sold out of CH mugs, but it was thought that that was because CH’s office staff had bought one each, rather than popular demand.

The rest of the day was a bit flat. The training was worthwhile, some of the Party business was incomprehensible, but Neil Fawcett on the Campaign for the Local Elections was quite informative. (Apparently, the press coverage of the success or failure of our campaign in May will depend on the results in just 30 wards.) Then, after lunch, Tom Brake spoke on Transport and Vince Cable spoke on the policy Review. Vince came over very well, a lot of “presence” compared with Tom, who looked a bit tired.

Two other MP’s were present – Sandra Gidley talking to putative candidates in a fringe meeting, and Evan Harris in the audience. David Rendel was also there. I wonder, when was the last time that eight Lib Dem or Liberal MP’s were present in Slough at the same time? Changing trains on the way to Queen Victoria’s funeral, I reckon.

On the way out, some of us were given Focuses to deliver on the walk back to the railway station – the Slough Party used the occasion to get a target ward delivered in one day.

All in all, a day that recharged the batteries. Everyone seemed in good heart, all of the candidates seemed to be acceptable to the membership, with choices being made on the basis of personality rather than ideology. I did not change my mind, but I would be happy with any of the three of them as our next leader.

Two Takes on Huhne

2006-02-12T09:18:00.000Z

by Steve Travis

I noted two snippets in today's Observer concerning Chris Huhne. The first is a rather catty dig at his former car-purchasing habits by Nick Cohen:

Can this be the same Chris Huhne who led an unseemly scramble for company cars by Independent execs all those years ago? And picked a BMW which was such a flash motor that Ian Jack, the most fastidious literary journalist of the time, wrote 'This Car Is Very Vulgar' in the dust on the bonnet? If Huhne wins, Lib Dems shouldn't be too surprised if he orders a stretch limo and private jet.

The second is the paper's lead article, which could have been penned by our own Paul Lloyd:

The person best placed to see off David Cameron is Chris Huhne. The Tory leader's strategy in the next election will be to sell himself as the candidate of energy over experience; 21st-century liberalism over 20th-century leftism. David Cameron's claim to represent those things will look most inauthentic next to Chris Huhne, the genuine article.

But there is a problem. Huhne broke from the pack of new Lib Dem MPs to run for the leadership, but then his courage failed him. He has squandered his time in the spotlight talking up his experience as an MEP and fiddling around the margins of tax policy. His manifesto offers a broader vision. He must learn to express it with real passion.

Sir Ming would be the safe choice, but safety is not a winning strategy. Huhne would be the bolder choice and a risk worth taking if only he could show boldness himself. The vacancy is for a new champion of British liberalism. It needs a man of stature. Chris Huhne must raise his game if he really wants the job.

Chris has spent a lot of time talking down his orange book credentials, probably to outflank Simon. Were he to win the leadership, I would urge him to ensure the Liberal principles he showed in that volume come to the fore once more.

Citius, Altius, Fortius

2006-02-11T13:19:00.000Z

by Steve Travis

Some of you may recognise the motto of the Olympic Games (Faster, Higher, Stronger). We need to take this on board as we look beyond the Leadership Election.

Much virtual ink is being used penning the virtues of the various candidates, both here in the blogosphere and also in the MSM. Sometimes it is fair, sometimes it personal, sometimes inaccurate.

There are signs that people are becoming tetchy. We have another three weeks of this still to go - perhaps its time to start looking ahead.

There is no doubt that Dunfermline was one in the eye for all of our opponents, especially those who were writing our obituaries as a serious political force. Hence it is vital that we do not lost the focus on our unity if purpose over the coming months. Soon, we will have a new leader, and it is the duty of all of us, regardless of opinion, to continue to drive forward the cause of Liberalism.

If at any time your spirit wavers, read, listen or view what the MSm are saying about us. Then go forward with renewed vigour!

New blog

2006-02-10T20:25:00.000Z

by Peter

Regular readers might like to add this new blog to their bookmarks.

That's right - all four of you!

Update on the Apollo Jury: Ming back in lead after Question time

2006-02-10T15:55:00.000Z

the friendly rivalry between Hunnies and Mingers took another turn after Question Time. Some of those who had been waiting to make their minds up cast the vote.

The new figures are as follows

First preferences

Ming Campbell 12
Chris Huhne 12
Simon Hughes 1
Still undecided 4

After redistribution of the Hughes vote (1) Ming wins by a margin of one.

Interestingly all of the new votes seem to be Campbell 1, Hughes 2.

Usual caveats apply, small sample, internet-based, almost all graduates.

UPDATE: Another couple of Hunnies have emerged blinking into the daylight - the lead changes once again!

Chris on QT

2006-02-10T15:48:00.000Z

by Dan Falchikov

I was impressed with Chris on last week's QT, but I have been fed up at his campaign's rather precious and intrusive tactics.

It seems only reasonable when Huhne campaign supporters post obvious 'puff pieces' on the net that an alternative view should be put for balance. But it's been the most thin skinned campaign I have ever witnessed - it's OK for Chris or his supporters to make veiled attacks on the other candidates, but they wail and gnash their teeth when the other teams do the same. If you're big enough to dish it out you have to big enough to take it back.

What has also become clear over the past few days is that Chris is not a Liberal, but a Social Democrat. I do not want to see the part lead by a Scoial Democrat - the party is instinctively Liberal and the sort of technocratic mangerialism that social democracy represents will conflict with the parties best instincts and continue our policy making bias towards producer interests.

The Fourth Poll: Scotland's Orpington?

2006-02-10T08:55:00.000Z

by Peter

A wonderful result - usually you know that it is going to happen, or that it very well might happen. My impression here was that we might have needed one more week of campaigning. When I heard the result I had that elusive sense of not believing my ears and being happy about it.

This is a great result for all lib dems. We have heard often enough that we are in "turmoil", "meltdown" and "disarray" - to win against this background was fantastic.

Who are the losers? Obviously Labour. Gordon Brown very definitely. And let us not forget Cameron. His ill-advised leaflet was part of our success. The gamble of picking a man who went to an elite public-school, and has a tiny amount of parliamentary experience is looking riskier than ever for the Tories.

Incidentally this is what the Times is saying

The Lib Dem victory also amounted to a vote of confidence in Sir Menzies Campbell, the acting leader, who is MP for a neighbouring constituency of North East Fife.

And here (because the excuse does not come along too often) is a link to the Daily Mail!

The Alex Wilcock View

2006-02-09T19:57:00.000Z

by Peter

Reading Alex Wilcock's pieces on the candidates has been educational.

These thoughts caught my eye:

Ming, at his best, has statesmanlike gravitas. Simon, at his best, can be passionate, or friendly and at ease. Chris, at his best, is… succinct. Unfortunately, he writes much better than his spoken delivery, and the election will be settled on television rather than through pamphleteering. Who is he going to appeal to? Yes, he can seem solid and serious, but does anyone really think he’ll come across as more solid and more serious than Gordon Brown? He really needs to work on sounding human, and I suspect hardwiring his massive brain to a virtual Charles Kennedy is as yet beyond the party’s budget for CGI.

Alex goes on to say:

After Jackie in '99, I vowed to myself I wouldn't back another first-time MP with a tiny majority. After the European Parliament I can just about let him off the one, but a 500 majority? What is he thinking? Though he’ll probably hold it, there'll be no other story than 'Will the Lib Dem Leader lose his seat?' for us in the run-up to the election. So I worry.

Now Huhne's sharp elbows have always seemed an asset to me. Alex puts it like this

The other side of his dealing with people, however, is his obvious ruthlessness, which is unattractive; perhaps he needed to from third place, but he’s been much more ruthless in person to the other two leadership candidates than they’ve been (their entourages are a different matter). He was quite open about being one of those to bring Charles down, too; I didn’t like it. Though it’s more attractive than plotting without holding the knife. And if he’s such a good team-builder, I do wonder that his team and following is mostly made up of people on whom he’s made a good first impression, rather than known him for a while. It’s striking that there are so many more MSPs, for example – as far away from him as possible – than MEPs who he worked with for years on his list of supporters.

I still have my doubts about whether this is all negative - I don't think there is any point worrying that he was one of the prime movers against Kennedy. One almost wonders why he feels he has to be so frank about this - but being frank is a good thing.

And one last thought

Unlike Ming’s, Chris' is a campaign that would benefit from having more of a team to it, and from making lots of moves about consulting the party.

I know most about Simon and Ming so it is good to have this insight into Chris. One hears conflicting reports about him - but "Chris the team player" is not something one hears said very often.

Paddy's back

2006-02-09T19:26:00.000Z

by Peter

He is not everyone's fave, but I like Paddy.

From my first Young Liberal's conference (Weymouth - 1981) I have two clear memories. One is of a stout young man from Liverpool who was very interested in campaigning. (Chris something, don't know where he's got to...)

The other was the young Ed Lucas - now a journalist for a well known weekly publication. Ed spent his time "Paddy Ashdowning" - telling people how the fantastic PPC was a future Party leader.

I met Paddy a few months later at the Llandudno - where he made the anti-Cruise missile speech. About a year later I became responsible for getting leaflets printed in my West of England constituency. Yeovil got the contract (undercutting Dowry printers in Bristol). So Paddy printed the leaflets himself - this was how he kept himself from starvation until he had won Yeovil. Many people's memories of Paddy will be of speeches he made as leader. I remember him as an aspirant MP with inky fingers.

So I'm glad he's back. And pleased that I agree with all he says here.

Paddy, if you are reading this, why not sign up to Liberalism2010? The email address is liberalism2010@yahoo.co.uk (and we haven't got any Lords on board).

Did you hear the one about the three Polls?

2006-02-09T18:18:00.000Z

by Peter

Poll number one is one down from this. Apollo Project members have voted by a margin of one in favour of Chris Huhne (at latest count - when I looked this morning it was still a tie). Caveats of course are that we are a self-selecting, internet-based, group, all activists. Almost all the others seem to be Oxbridge with multiple degrees (Exeter and just a BA here). I can't think of anyone who hasn't got a degree. And our only parliamentarian has not voted nor declared for any candidate yet (last I heard he was choosing between Simon and Ming). So good news for Chris Huhne - but not enough to uncork the champagne. 58% of Lib Dem members have no degree, a greater percentage is not Oxbridge, an unknown percentage are not activists. Relatively few of them use the internet with frequency.

Poll number two is the controversial Huhne-supporter commissioned You Gov poll, showing Huhne leading Campbell 52% to 48% after distribution of Simon's second preferences. Sample size is higher (401), and we know little about their makeup. Clearly they are internet users. Interestingly 77% of this group said that they favoured higher fuel taxes. This might mean that the Huhne camp has changed members minds. But a survey published quite recently showed that only 53% of members agreed with this suggestion. This is at least a sign that the online sample is significantly different from the real membership of the Liberal Democrats.

Poll number three is one commissioned (or so I believe) by the Hughes camp. It was performed by Communicate Research and involved a sample of 501 voters. Among the findings of this poll were that Ming comes out in the lead on the following measures

* Which of the Liberal Democrat leadership candidates do you think is best placed to revive the party's fortunes?
* Which of the Liberal Democrat candidates do you think would make the party most popular?
* Which of the two Liberal Democrat front runners, Sir Menzies Campbell or Simon Hughes do you think would be best able to unite the party?
* As a Labour voter, which of the Liberal candidates has most appeal to you
* As a Conservative voter, which of the Liberal Democrat candidates has most appeal to you?
Simon also did well on some points, of course - and is I think quoting these bits. This is a poll worth reading.

The votes of the Apollo jury...

2006-02-09T14:32:00.000Z

by Oxonian

You could be forgiven for thinking, on occasion, that the Apollo Project is firmly behind Ming for leader. In fact the voting intentions of this small sub-set of the Lib Dem online fraternity are a lot more interesting than that.

Since various polls of membership are stirring up all sorts of controversy at the moment at politicalbetting.com, and small sample sizes don't seem to be a hindrance, here's the votes of the Apollo jury:

First prefs:
Chris Huhne - 12
Ming Campbell - 10
Simon Hughes - 1
Undecided - 2

Reallocating Simon leaves Chris Huhne as the winner, by the narrowest of margins.

The final result is pretty close to today's YouGov poll, but where are all those Simon voters...?

Dunfermline latest

2006-02-08T18:21:00.000Z

by Peter

This is the Guardian on Dunfermline - in the last hour.

In his appeal to Lib Dems in the Dunfermline and West Fife byelection, Mr Cameron wrote: "Issues that once divided Conservatives from Liberal Democrats are now issues where we both agree. Our attitude to devolution and the localisation of power. Iraq. The environment. "I'm a liberal Conservative. I hope many Liberal Democrats will want to join us."

Given Mr Cameron's strong support for the 2003 Iraq war Mr Blair delighted Labour backbenchers in reading out the leaflet when he was accused of "flip-flopping" over schools reform.
"Is this the same man that two weeks ago told the Daily Telegraph 'I am and always have been a Conservative to the core of my being?' One week ago he's the heir to New Labour and today he is a liberal Conservative," Mr Blair taunted, adding to laughter from Labour backbenchers, "No wonder he's against ID cards". Mr Cameron's attempt to steal Lib Dem and anti-war voters drew an angry blast from the Lib Dems' acting leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, who was campaigning in Dunfermline this afternoon.

"I know real liberals, Mr Cameron, and let me tell you - you are no liberal. David Cameron's flip-flops on policy expose his inexperience. He's still a novice. A leader with L-plates.

"So while Conservatives may think that youth, inexperience, and naivete are the answer to their problems; I say they are not the answer to the country's problems," Sir Menzies said.

And more good news for Lib Dems in closing paragraph

Voters in Dunfermline and West Fife go to the polls tomorrow in a byelection to replace the Labour MP Rachel Squire who died last month after a long battle against cancer. The Lib Dems, who have sent 200 activists to the seat to try and overturn the 11,562 Labour majority, claim the result will be close tomorrow night.

Leaked poll figures incorrect

2006-02-08T09:09:00.000Z

by Peter

My last post expressed scepticism about the "leaked" You Gov poll figures.

Now Peter Kellner confirms that these are NOT the correct figures. Writing to Mike Smithson at politicalbetting he said

I have been authorised by our client to say that all the figures that you, and Guido Fawkes, attributed yesterday to our recent poll of Lib Dem members are wrong.

One candidate's web site continues to link to these disavowed figures. This seems an error of judgement.

Update: I'm told that the link has now gone. Credit where credit is due - this reporesents good judgement!

Bobby smells a ramp

2006-02-07T21:15:00.000Z

by Peter

There is a lot of fuss being made about "leaked" poll figures at the moment that suggest that Ming will win the contest but that Huhne is in a relatively close second place. No one leaks anything interesting to me, so I don't know if this is true or not. But one poster on politicalbetting smells a ramp.

I don't know who Bobby is - but this is what he says.

103. Does this mean that YouGov need to publish the relevant details of the survey now that its main finding has entered the public domain?

Yes it does, only the figures that have suckered Mike are not the YouGov figures. If Mike believes otherwise he should recontact Peter Kellner with his numbers and demand full release.

What has actually happened here is that the Huhne campaign have taken at punt at the numbers based on their own canvassing returns (returns that tend to ramp the position of the candidate asking). The person doing the spinning to Guido and Mike is more than likely one of the bloggers4Chris.

The giveaway is the second preferences neither of the other candidates has detected anything other than that Chris does poorly on second preferences except if Menzies comes third when he would do better.

It’s a clever piece of spin, but I wouldn’t bet your shirt on it.
by Bobby February 7th, 2006 at 9:05 pm

The Mo is with Ming now

2006-02-07T16:21:00.000Z

by Peter

The Guardian website is running this story.

With both the Guardian and the Independent declaring their support for Sir Menzies this morning, Andrew George, MP for St Ives and the Isles of Scilly, added his name to the long list of parliamentarians backing the frontrunner.

This brings the total number of Liberal Democrat MPs backing Sir Menzies' campaign to 31 - half the parliamentary party and more than Mr Huhne and party president Simon Hughes combined.

The Huhne camp - as ever - is claiming to be past Hughes and into second place. This might be correct, but I would have strong doubts. Few of the Hughes supporters I know have shifted from him, and he is far better known in the party. I don't think that Simon can win, but I would be surprised if he failed to make the last two.

To my mind both the Guardian and the Independent get it right. Ming is a quality leader. He has the support of the largest share of the parliamentary party (Commons, Lords and Strasbourg). All of the Cornish MPs are now lined up behind Ming. We should vote for Ming in large numbers and go forward confidently.

My Secret Life

2006-02-04T22:24:00.000Z

by Steve Travis

Perhaps an unwise title given recent events. Have no fear - this isn't a confession, but a take on the Independent on Saturday Magazine's questionaire. And while we're at it, why not make it a meme?

I drive/ride ... a Saab 9-5 Aero Estate. Practical, but fun; and more fuel efficient the quicker you drive.

If I have time to myself ... I write letters. Nothing beats the physicallity of handwritten correspondence.

You wouldn't know it but I'm good at ... making game pie. Port being the secret ingredient!

You may not know it but I'm bad at ... being decisive.

All my money goes on ... mortgage and nursery fees. What's left goes on design classics.

My favourite work of art ... Not art as such, but Art Deco architecture.

It's not fashionable, but I like ... taking Standard 8mm cine films. No sound, a strong chance of messing up the exposure or losing some of the film when you turn the reel over, and 4 minutes costs £20. Yet you get no sense of occasion and anticipation with the instant fix of video. Plus you still can't beat Kodachrome for colour.

If I wasn't me I'd like to be ... a philanthropist. I imagine the hardest bit woud be choosing between so many good causes.

Comfort eating ... Sticky Toffee Pudding.

The soundtrack to my life ... currently Keane. But all time, ABC's masterpiece The Lexicon of Love.

I wish I'd never worn ... shiny black peg trousers and white shoes. But it was 1985.

A book that changed me ... My father read me Animal Farm when I was about 7 years old. The bit about the farmer being a drunk really disturbed me, but understanding the alegory led me to a lifelong fascination with history.

My biggest regret ... Not taking History A-Level.

7 Samurai

2006-02-01T22:24:00.000Z

by Steve Travis

Stephen Tall requested, so here goes ...

7 THINGS TO DO BEFORE I DIE

1 See my grandchildren children grow up
2 Win an election
3 Write a novel
4 Row in a Thames Cup VIII at Henley one more time
5 Re-attain a 32" waist
6 Travel the Silk Road
7 Design and build a house

7 THINGS I CANNOT DO

1 Play golf
2 Sit with my legs at 90 degrees to my body with a straight back
3 Be neat and tidy
4 Bowl a cricket ball
5 Comb my hair
6 Write legibly, quickly
7 Make a smooth roux

7 THINGS THAT ATTRACT ME TO NW WILTSHIRE

1 Stone Mushrooms
2 The Oolite Band
3 Castle Combe Manor
4 The A4
5 Corsham Computer Centre (CCC) - hello spooks!
6 Proximity to Bath
7 Slaughterford

THINGS I OFTEN SAY

1 Stop that (Alice/Joe)!
2 Excellent
3 Kind of
4 The thing is ...
5 This really isn't getting us anywhere; can we move on? (used at work)
6 Do you like ...
7 Just the one glass

7 BOOKS THAT I LOVE

1 1984 - George Orwell
2 Piece of Cake - Derek Robinson
3 Sherston Trilogy - Siegfried Sassoon
4 Tess of the Durbevilles - Thomas Hardy
5 Posession - AS Byatt
6 Stalingrad - Anthony Beevor
7 The Great Game - Peter Hopkirk

7 MOVIES I WATCH OVER AND OVER AGAIN

1 A Matter of Life & Death
2 Brief Encounter
3 Ice Cold in Alex
4 Dark Blue World
5 The Titfield Thunderbolt (NE Somerset, in colour, in 1950)
6 My father's 8mm cine films
7 Any footage of real places in colour from as early as possible

7 PEOPLE I WANT TO JOIN IN TOO

Paul Lloyd at Apollo
Cicero
Oxonian at Apollo
Pandora at Apollo
Augustus Carp at Apollo
Simon Mollan
Simon Isledon

[A bonus point to anyone who can explain the reason for the title to this article]

I note that the Powell & Pressburger Oeuvre is very popular among Lib Dems.

Religious hatred

2006-02-01T10:08:00.000Z

by Alex Sweet

Last night's victory on religious hatred was a fantastic result for the parliamentary party. Well done to all of them and to Andrew Stunnell -- if just one fewer of our MPs had turned out to vote, the story everywhere today would be "Lib Dems fail to defend free speech". Lessons have evidently been learnt from prior debacles.

Of course it was *also* a great tribute to all of us foot-soldiers who got every single Lib Dem MP elected. Just one fewer MP elected in May would have reversed last night's vote, and allowed one of the sickest, most mis-judged and most corrupt New Lab pieces of legislation through.

Occasions like this are gold dust in denostrating to people that voting makes a difference, and voting Lib Dem makes a difference.

Who are the Liberal Democrats?

2006-02-01T09:04:00.000Z

by Peter

The Guardianhas a piece about us, this morning.

They have a higher average age for the membership than I would have guessed (59) and say we are unusually highly educated (42% with degrees - which sounds more likely).

They find us relatively coherent

the members share a coherent set of Liberal principles which go beyond local concerns. As the party's name suggests, contemporary liberal democracy encompasses both liberalism and social democracy. The former emphasises individual freedom and market solutions, while the latter emphasises equality and redistribution. In relation to the former, our survey found that 58% of members thought that "individuals should take responsibility for providing for themselves" and only 28% thought that "it is the government's responsibility to provide a job for everyone who wants one". However, they do recognise the limits of the market, since only 19% agreed that it "would be a good thing for schools to be made to compete with each other for students",

Members tend to have the same sort of views as voters. But the one great exception to this environmental taxation:

One difference between members and voters concerns the environment. Fifty-three per cent of members supported an increase in taxation on motorists in order to curb pollution. Lib Dem voters, by contrast, are distinctly cool on the idea that car owners should pay higher taxes.

I don't think this means that we should not advocate higher fuel taxes. But it does imply that we should beware of getting too far ahead of them. The short, sharp shock approach advocated by Chris Huhne is doubtless attractive to many activists. I prefer the Campbell line.

We must be far more imaginative in explaining how changes in individual behaviour can produce a win-win outcome for both the environment and consumers. Energy efficiency measures, which cut carbon emissions, also provide enormous financial savings for families. As leader, I will be unveiling an action plan for a significant boost to energy saving technologies and the provision of incentives to households to encourage the necessary changes at home. What is true for households, also applies to businesses. The Carbon Trust recently set out a detailed analysis of the way in which the costs of energy efficiency measures implemented by manufacturers can be recouped through lower running costs in a surprisingly short space of time.

The tax system and user charges must be used to create incentives to change behaviour. Environmental concerns must be centred in the Treasury, not regarded as some sort of departmental add-on. We’ll create an Environmental Incentive Programme in the Treasury to see how within the same overall tax envelope, incentives for good environmental behaviour can be built into the tax system. Individual behaviour is more likely to change in the right direction if there is a clear material incentive to do so, as well as a positive effect on the environment. There is a case to consider the expansion of road charging systems, as long as the revenues are clearly dedicated to improving public transport alternatives.

Incentives must exist to discourage unnecessary car use rather than an overnight attempt to price travellers out of their vehicles by pushing the price of fuel beyond their reach. I will want to ensure that our party’s position on this is both workable and credible.

My personal preference would be to establish a framework in which users know that taxation is going to rise over the medium term by more than inflation (giving them an incentive to make appropriate investment decisions). At the same time we should promote alternatives to carbon-burning energies.

Our argument should not simply be the impact on the environment. This means a lot to us, but not so much for the wider electorate, and is vulnerable to the irrefutable argument that our impact on atmospheric CO2 is outweighed by that of the rest of the world. Instead we should be arguing that this is necessary to ensure continuity of supply.

That politics test.

2006-01-31T17:41:00.000Z

Everyone is doing it so I did it too.

the good news is that I am an economic and social liberal Democrat.

The bad news is that their definition of "economic liberal" is not the same as mine.

But I wouldn't like to quibble.

You are a
Social Liberal
(76% permissive)

and an...
Economic Liberal
(31% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Democrat

Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

Two sevens clash.

2006-01-31T15:52:00.000Z

By Peter

Stephen Tall is responsible for this. Apparently if I don't carry on, then I will have seven years bad luck and all my cattle will die of thirst.

7 THINGS TO DO BEFORE I DIE

1 See my children grow up
2 Fight an election
3 Publish a novel
4 Spend a winter in Salamanca, Grenada or Madrid
5 Learn Czech or Russian
6 Watch every day of a Test Match
7 Walk the Pyrenees from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean

7 THINGS I CANNOT DO

1 Make tea
2 Drink tea
3 Listen to phone-in programmes
4 Watch a game of soccer
5 Enjoy christmas without gaining weight
6 Discuss operations and medical problems
7 Persuade Valerie or James to write something for the blog

7 THINGS THAT ATTRACT ME TO GLOUCESTERSHIRE

1 The Shed
2 Cheltenham Cricket Festival
3 Tewkesbury pubs
4 The Forest of Dean
5 Village cricket
6 Bourton-on-the-Water
7 Odda's Chapel, Deerhurst.

THINGS I OFTEN SAY

1 Yes but
2 ¡Diselo tu!*
3 Aren't you ready for bed yet?
4 I agree with Graham
5 Peter Bray was innocent
6 ¿Qué sé yo?*
7 Is there a hurry?

7 BOOKS THAT I LOVE

1 Moby Dick - Melville
2 Requiem - Tabucchi
3 The Crying of Lot 49 - Pynchon
4 Se una notte d'inverno un viaggiatore - Calvino
5 Hard times - Dickens
6 Heart of Darkness - Conrad
7 La tía Julia y el escribor - Vargas Llosa

7 MOVIES I WATCH OVER AND OVER AGAIN

1 A Canterbury Tale
2 Passport to Pimlico
3 The Secret Agent
4 Down by law
5 I soliti ignoti
6 Ladri di bicicleta
7 Women on the edge of a nervous breakdown (Mujeres al borde de un ataque de nervios)

7 PEOPLE I WANT TO JOIN IN TOO

Martin Tod at Resurgent Liberal
Rob Knight at Liberal Review
Mark Salisbury at Mark's World
Joe Otten
Dave Radcliffe at the 3Ps
Simon Mollan at Inner West Central
Stephen Glenn in Linlithgow

*my wife is Spanish.

"I spied for the Kaiser," Tory's shock confession - updated

2006-01-30T21:30:00.000Z

by Peter

The Courier (published by the firm responsible for the Beano et al) has the latest in a sad succession of tory revelations. Bearded Tory Leader Stuart Randall, arguably the most well known Tory in Fife, is quitting the party so

he could speak openly on the party’s poor management and what he called a “policy vacuum”

He went on to say

"It has been taken over by an incompetent clique, who can’t see past the next headline, and there seems to be no way for the grassroots to regain control.

"Decision after decision has been botched and wherever one scratches the surface, the whole edifice of the party is crumbling, yet no one really seems to care.

“Image is everything. There is a vacuum at the heart of Scottish Conservative policy, nobody seems to be responsible for where the party is heading.

Plymouth Hustings

2006-01-30T08:18:00.000Z

Here's a report.

Meanwhile in the Guardian.

Chris Huhne suggested that his rival Simon Hughes was no longer a serious contender after coverage of his personal life.

The people I have spoken too seem more concerned about the way Simon has slagged off the people who worked so hard to get him elected in the first place.

The Sunday Times had some more positive comments on the campaign:

There is a debate in the Lib Dems, not spoken of by the media or even leadership candidates, about which course the party should take. It is after Sir Ming Campbell wins that a real battle starts.

Something to smile about (2)

2006-01-28T21:04:00.000Z

by Peter

The announcement that a former Conservative MP is joining the Liberal Democrats.

This is what he said:

David Cameron was the author of Michael Howard’s illiberal manifesto just last May. If he believed what he wrote then, how can he believe what he says now? And since he voted for the US invasion of Iraq, and has been continually Eurosceptic, what right has he to our respect for his international intentions?

I am supporting Ming Campbell’s campaign to lead the Liberal Democrats - who I joined last year - because I admire his consistency and integrity, and I believe his distinct radical liberalism would be a breath of fresh air in British politics.

The Campbell supporters list is now up to 767. Politicalbetting regulars will be pleased to read that to know that Icarus has added his name to the list.

Something to smile about (1)

2006-01-28T21:00:00.000Z

by Peter

What a week.

Rocked by scandal.

Finished as a serious political force.

It is hard not to feel sorry for George Galloway.

(Link via title)

The case for Huhne

2006-01-28T13:31:00.000Z

by chrisk

My enthusiasm was only sparked when I heard Chris Huhne was going to stand.

The first few days of the leaderhip contest were predictable. Many Lib Dems, myself included, met the announcements from the obvious candidates with a kind of bored scepticism.

Chris is a unity candidate. He shows that you can be economically sound without being right-wing: he can help address our biggest perceived weakness without causing storms of protest from our activists. The support he's receiving from relatively left-wing members of the policy commissions he's chaired bears this out.

He's also not yet put a foot wrong. In the selection campaign for the 1999 Euros, he came third in the ballot of the South East region and was only elected to Europe because of the gender balance rules. By 2004, he very comfortably topped the poll. He held us Eastleigh in circumstances probably more difficult than those in many similar Tory seats we lost. And in recent months, as our shadow Chief Secretary, you'll have noticed him stepping up to torpedo Cameron's credibility as well as defending Charles.

A lot of people are impressed with Chris (including, unlike some other candidates, the people who've worked directly with him); his constituency nominations were the first in, in twice the strength necessary. Some candidates started their campaigns months ago; Chris Huhne didn't. Given the lack of prior stitching-up of supporters, the depth of Huhne's backing shows some genuine excitement about his candidacy, and not just in the South East.

And, before stories about sex scandals started to break, Huhne was close to setting the agenda of the leadership campaign; shifting the agenda to the environment in the first week, for example. This is probably why the odds have slashed from a 8/1 outside chance when he declared to much less now.

The only caution I had was that I hadn't seen him performing live in a high-pressure Paxman-style interview. But he handled the first Sky interview well and I think the more broadcast exposure Chris Huhne gets the more members will like him.

It's still early in the contest, and I think Huhne will be not so much a stalking horse but a sprinting one.

A Question for the Contenders

2006-01-28T09:32:00.000Z

by Steve Travis

I would urge anyone attending a leadership hustings to ask a variant on the following question:

"It is well known that any group that operates in a competitive environment (business, sports team, military force, political party even) has to constantly re-examine itself in order to remain competitive, or else it will "go out of business".

For a political party one part of this process is to examine how its current policies align with its core values, and from the evidence we've heard tonight that process is well underway.

The second, and often neglected point, is that it needs to examine its electoral strategy, not its tactics (the two are often confused), and the way it is organised to deliver that strategy.

Can the members of the panel assure us that when they are leader they will undertake a thorough review of party electoral strategy, and ensure that the party's headquarters organisation is changed to reflect the most effective way to deliver that strategy?"

I attended a constituency dinner last night where Nick Clegg MP made an excellent speech to party members. One of his key points was that the vast majority of the electorate vote not on specific policies, but on general impressions, or gut feel, of a party and its values. Polling evidence of the support that we attained at the last election tends to bear this out: the "grey vote", for whom many of our policies were designed, did not support us in the numbers we would have liked; yet amongst the 25 - 45 group, who might perhaps have been adversely affected by some of our proposals, we did very well.

This latter group was attracted by the open-minded, internationalist, caring, environmentally-concerned image of our party - an image we need to reinforce and develop further by adding financial and fiscal responsibility to our portfolio of values. We certainly have the talent as a party to do this.

Leaving aside the issue that those impressions will have been tested by the events of recent weeks, it is imperative that we recognise that the party has to spend the next three years ensuring it projects the right image of the it's core values and principles. This work needs to be undertaken now; we CANNOT afford to wait.

Getting the message across requires a constant drip-feed to the elctorate. Lets all work hard to make this happen.

For a Lib Dem breakthrough (updated)

2006-01-26T17:18:00.000Z

by Peter

(Update - let me start by saying that this is the way I see it. I hope the others will post to give their views soon enough.)

I welcomed the Huhne leadership candidature, and considered voting for him. If he had stuck to the agenda announced by Lynne Featherstone, he might be even have been my first choice. But I haven't been very impressed by his tax proposals, nor by the signals sent out by his Telegraph interview at the weekend. And in the background have always been worries about his majority, and his lack of experience in the Commons.

Some of the negative campaigning has put me off, so I'll be positive: I was happy about him deciding to stand, and even happier about it after the last weekend. He should have a more prominent role in the future - as should some of his supporters in the Commons.

I didn't expect to vote for Simon, even though I have happy memories of campaigning in the "controversial" by-election, and have always admired him as a speaker. He made a good start, and his most recent interview in the Guardian did send out some of the signals I was looking for. But I am still not quite sure what he wants to do with the leadership. I won't let the latest news influence me one way or the other.

So Chris and Simon are two good candidates - and make it hard to decide who will get my second preference.

The pieces on the leadership election election that have most influenced my views are here, here, and here.

Why will it be Ming for me?

First, Ming is a fighter and has put the party first. He stuck with the Liberals through the Thorpe years. He fought his seat every inch of the way, taking us from fourth to first and then on again to a 32% majority. He will take us further than anyone else we have.

Second, Ming is an instinctive liberal, a "gut liberal" in the words of David Howarth. The leadership debate is about values and direction. Ming is the man to combat false liberals of the Cameron kind.

Third, Ming is not just a politician. He has had a great life away from politics, and there is more to his life today than politics. He has great respect at Westminster, but he is not immersed in the Westminster bubble. He has a great story to tell the electorate.

Fourth, you can imagine Ming in a Cabinet. He has the Westminster experience. He has the style. He will give something that we have not had in recent years.

Fifth, he speaks well, and debates well, and has a great radio voice. He exudes warmth.

Sixth, all the candidates have said things I agree with. But more than anyone else, Ming offers the whole Liberal agenda. For a Lib Dem breakthrough, a Ming is the thing!

More than 600 Liberal Democrats have signed up as Menzies Campbell supporters. You can add your name here.

Around the blogs and media

2006-01-25T16:21:00.000Z

by Jabez Clegg

James Graham has an exposé of modern conservatism.

Cicerohas a thoughtful piece on localism, defections and everything else.

The Times features a piece that brings to mind older, happier sex scandals.

Vince Cable, the Treasury spokesman, is correctly named by 6 per cent and Nick Clegg and Ed Davey by a mere 2 per cent each. Some confused Mr Davey with the retired England rugby captain Will Carling.

The Odd One Out Round

2006-01-25T15:43:00.000Z

by Jabez Clegg

As Bill Mclaren might have said: "There'll be trouble in the streets of Tunbridge Wells tonight!"

It seems the Tories are waking up to the fact that one of these "right-wing" leaders is not like the other ones ...

[Hat-tip to Guido]

Silver Linings

2006-01-25T10:45:00.000Z

by Steve Travis

There is much gossip about potential MP defectors to the Tories. Even the Independent decided to speculate on this matter.

Leaving aside the fact that defectors rarely prosper, I suspect any potential leaver would want to see some action rather than warm words on Cameron's part before jumping ship. And this ignores the signal fact that becoming a Lib Dem MP is bloody difficult, and anyone who wanted the easy route to power would have joined the Tories (or Labour) in the first place.

What seems to have been less remarked upon is the tremendous opportunity that's been presented to us with the Cameron "no tax-cuts" announcements of recent days. With even Simon Hughes singing Vince Cable's praises, it's clear that the centre of gravity amongst the party's talent is recognised by all the leadership contenders.

Our heavyweight economics team now have the chance to put forward a visionary, challenging and above all popular fiscal programme that lifts people out of tax altogether, and rebalances the tax-take away from income and towards other forms of taxation, such as environmental, property and capital taxes.

Lets hope this is siezed with both hands. That would really shoot the Tory fox - social justice and fiscal imaginativeness!

Joe Otten on the environment

2006-01-23T08:47:00.000Z

by Peter

Joe Otten has an excellent post on the environment on his blog on the strengths and weaknesses of environmental thinking. (He doesn't mention the fact that he used to be active in the Green Party).

There are two passages that particularly struck me. One on keeping things in perspective:

The idea that the environment is so important that everybody should focus on it is an unfortunate consequence of the green lifestyle movement. If it actually happened it would do immense damage to every other aspect of public service. In practise of course it makes nobody responsible and so nothing much happens at all.

But the environment is like other policy areas. If we neglect it, people and other life forms may suffer and die. If we neglect healthcare people will suffer and die. Or crime. If we neglect education or strangle business, we will be poorer in the future and will therefore neglect healthcare, crime or the environment more than necessary then.

A second on the limitations of tax as a policy insturment:

However I don't expect higher fuel costs to change behaviour all that much. I think people will largely cough up and curse. The choice Huhne offers is between energy tax and income tax. Both distort economic choices, but one distorts them in favour of the environment, and the other distorts them against employment. I support fuel taxes because I like one distortion and dislike the other. But there are limits - there comes a point when fuel taxes are too grossly distorting and unfair. My hunch is that this limit comes before very significant changes in behaviour, so I would not like a policy of escalating the taxes until behaviour changes.

The last time there was such a policy, behaviour was changed to that of blockading the fuel depots.

i might go further than Joe on this, but this sort of argument illustrates why some of us have become so disillusioned with the Huhne leadership campaign (I don't know how Joe intends to vote).

If we want to reduce carbon usage we need a long-term framework in which people know that the cost of carbon sources is going to rise faster than that of other sources of energy. Given the issue of peak oil, it is likely that many businesses are on the verge of planning on that basis anyway. But what we don't need is a short, sharp shock. Nor am I reassured by quotes like this (from the FT)

"A rise in taxes on petrol and a new levy on household energy are the key to electoral success, Chris Huhne, one of the three contenders for the Liberal Democrat leadership, has said."

If only it were so simple!

The Mat GB challenge part one: Why should he rejoin the Liberal Democrats?

2006-01-23T05:38:00.000Z

by Peter

Mat GB's first challenge was to persuade him to (re)join the lib dems. Here's my go.

Are you a Liberal?

(I used to recruit people by knocking on the doors of known supporters and asking if they would like to take their support of that nice Party led by David/Paddy/Charles one step further. Mat GB is looking for something more ideological, so let's take it back to basics.)

If you believe these three things, you are a liberal in politics

1. Power should not be concentrated.

That means both poltical and economic power. Competitive markets are good because they spread power around (also see 3 below). Absolute monarchy or dictatorship is bad because it concentrates power in one pair of hands. Separation of power is good. Decentralisation is good (but still requires checks and balances). Doctrines of sovereignty are a threat.

2. All people have equal rights.

Self-evident perhaps, but there are many peole around who, sometimes unconsciously, believe that a hierarchical arrangement of society is better. And too many people believe in some kind of discrimination or another.

3. The spontaneous interaction of free human beings is the key source of progress and well-being.

Again, this is an argument for markets, against hierarchy, and for democracy. And against ideas that government (or our traditional ruling elite) can sort everything out.

If you agree with all these propositions, you are a liberal. (You can, of course, seek to put them into practice in many differnt ways. And you can add different elements to them.)

But why should I join the Lib Dems?

Because the Loiberal Democrats represent the liberal centre of gravity in the UK, and it is time we stood together. We need to do so to argue for more localism and against centralism. We need to argue against ID cards. We need to argue for competition and for participation. And we need to protect the space in which people can make their own moral judgements.

And because we are gaining strength, perhaps too slowly, but we have behind us a fifty year rising trend in support. Too many liberals have thought that "when the time is right, I'll lend my support. I'll be active." The time is now.

Aren't there many things that divide liberals?

Not so much. There are liberals who believe that negative liberty is key and their are liberals who define freedom from poverty as part of liberty. But all liberals are against poverty and ignorance, and they should be able to agree on ways to tackle them. And if they can't, well the debate is part of the package! (See Steve Travis for another view on this).

Are all Liberal Democrats liberals?

Not all. Some are just nice people. But most are.

Is it expensive?

Not at all. The recommended amount is 42 quid, but we'll let you in for just six quid if tinmes are hard. Sign up on line here.

BritBlog Roundup

2006-01-22T16:47:00.000Z

The Britblog round up is out. Nothing unusual about that. Except that we're included. We're not quite sure if we should have a drink or a ... anyway we're not quite sure how to celebrate.

Also there are Ken Owen, Jonathan Calder, Pickled Politics (all to be found in our links) and Joe Otten (who will shortly be there).

Time to draw together

2006-01-22T14:37:00.000Z

By Peter

It is not a great time for a story like this to break.

Ming's message for the party to "draw together" hits the right note.

According to the North London Online he has said:

"No party is entirely subject to what happens to any one individual. The party is much bigger than that. My task as acting leader is to secure a sense of unity and purpose. We have a strong political agenda. We have a sense of purpose, we have great deal to do and a great opportunity in which to do it."

I think that is right. Time to get back to business.

Not exactly the sort of press coverage we wanted

2006-01-21T21:51:00.000Z

by Peter

I don't think I have ever linked to the News of the World before, and if it is all the same to you, I hope not to have to do so again. But here it is.

It really is astounding that Mark Oaten should have stood for the leadership knowing that any story like this might break.

He has done the right thing in standing down immediately. I do not believe this is the end of his career - this is his private life, after all. But he must need a break from the frontline for a while.

Stephen Tall puts things very well on his blog.

Week two: where do they stand now?

2006-01-21T03:26:00.000Z

by Peter

Another week has gone by in the leadership contest - time to take stock once more.

Mark Oaten: last week I had Mark Oaten in fourth place - and pointed to his limited support among MPs. Since then, of course, he has had to drop out of the contest. This is a little sad, as he has ideas worth debating. But if you have not got support from your parliamentary colleagues, standing for election as leader is not sustainable. Mark probably felt that he might become our Tony Blair. My feeling is that - in the nicest possible way - he might yet become our Mandelson. All the candidates have promised him a place on the front bench - a good thing too!

Chris Huhne: Chris Huhne made quite an impression in the first week of the campaign (surprise and a well-managed will-he-won't-he manoeuvre contributed to this). He does have sufficient support from the parliamentary party to justify standing - but it comes essentially from first term MPs. He has gathered the support of a number of Lib Dem bloggers - yet this second week has been relatively low key. He has not been backed by his old European Parliament leader, Graham Watson - which would have got him a sympathetic hearing from the South West. One would not write-off Chris's chances if he got into the last two. The problem is trying to imagine him getting there. Outside his (substantial) former South East Euro seat his name recognition is not high. His slim majority and some of his old policy positions also count against him. Of course he got quite a lot of hair...

Simon Hughes: Many Lib Dems who had thought there was no way they would vote for Simon, were impressed enough by his launch to reconsider. And three extra endorsements from the parliamentary party mean that he can claim a concrete advance this week. But last weekend he was the favourite - one journalist rather unflatteringly described him as hardly able to contain his excitement at last Saturday's hustings. This weekend he is in second place. Indeed I begin to wonder whether his objective in this contest is really to win, or to make a statement on values. He has not said much on what he would use the leadership for, and done little to outline a strategy for the party. He remains the best speaker, and I think the hustings will bring out the best of him. Personally I hope he uses them to address the country rather than the party: ordinary party members often have a less rarefied view of politics than those you meet at conference. If he connects with the public at large, things might start to move for Simon.

Ming Campbell: Ming can hardly have hoped for a better week than this. His first attempt at Prime Minister's Questions was not a great success. Second time around he had done all the homework and got a good press. If he had slipped up a second time his campaign would have been in crisis. Instead he could move smoothly on to the official launch of his campaign. This was well-judged. Surrounding himself with Jo Swinson, Sarah Teather, Nick Clegg, Mike Storey and Shirley Williams he hit all the right notes, presenting an attractive vision of the future of the party. Essentially he offers Lib Dem members the chance to vote...Lib Dem. This looks like a winning formula to me - but there is a long time left in this contest. At the moment he is reinstalled as favourite.

Any more bar charts?

2006-01-20T12:47:00.000Z

by Peter

Ryan Cullen has this bar chart. It is based on tee shirt sales, and rather heavy on non-candidates (Mark Oaten, Öpik and Hemming - future collector's items all of them).

Any more bar charts out there?

Nick Clegg takes the Mat GB shallenge

2006-01-20T11:32:00.000Z

by Peter

Nick Clegg has a piece on the Guardian site that responds pretty well to the terms of the MatGB challenge (scroll down).

Why (re)join the Lib Dems?

Nick says

the need for a forceful, independent Liberal voice to challenge the two larger parties has never been greater. Who else would have opposed the invasion of Iraq when Labour and the Tories both supported it? Who else would have opposed the expensive and illiberal proposal for ID cards when Labour and the Tories agreed (even though the Tories have now executed a welcome U-turn on the issue)? Who else would have spoken up in defence of the environment before Labour and the Tories decided it was trendy to do so? Who else will campaign against the bossy top-down system of government, barely accountable to parliament or the country at large, which Tory and Labour governments over the years have done so much to defend?
These aren't piffling questions. They go to the heart of what Britain is, and what Britain could aspire to be. If people want a Liberal Britain - tolerant, diverse, moderate - then everyone has an interest in seeing the Lib Dems grow in strength.

Why support his candidate?

Ming Campbell is, in my view, by a long way the best candidate to lead the Lib Dems in these circumstances. Having worked as his deputy in the House of Commons since I was elected, I have seen for myself his enormous political and personal strengths. A man who held the 100 metres UK record for seven years, rose to become a QC, defeated cancer, dissected Blair's ill-judged decision to rush into war in Iraq, and remains one of the most respected MPs in the country, has the steel and flair to give the Lib Dems the clout to win.

Meanwhile, in The Independent, Vince Cable is toying with some interesting ideas on taxation.

Podcasts

2006-01-20T07:25:00.000Z

by Peter

The Campbell campaign has launched a podcast and promise that it is the first of many. I read the other day that Martin Tod is the power behind the Campbell website - that suggests it will be good quality (which it is - but I suspect there is more to come).

The last couple of days have gone pretty well for the Campbell team, but also for the Lib Dems as a whole. Nick Clegg has been making the running on extraordinary rendition (the rumour has long circulated that the Government were economical in their reply to Kennedy on 7 December). And there was a by-election win in Ely (the candidate was not Clement Freud this time).

How much did Blair know about torture flights?

2006-01-19T22:05:00.001Z

by Peter

It's good to see that holding a leadership election has not stopped Liberal Democrats from holding the government to account.

This is the story the BBC is running:

Tony Blair is facing calls for a public inquiry into America's use of UK airports to transport terror suspects.

The Liberal Democrats accused ministers of "crude" spin after a leaked memo advising them how to avoid questions on the subject from MPs was revealed.

How much did Blair know about torture flights?

2006-01-19T22:05:00.000Z

by Peter

It's god to see that holding a leadership election has not stopped Liberal Democrats from holding the government to account.

This is the story the BBC is running:

Tony Blair is facing calls for a public inquiry into America's use of UK airports to transport terror suspects.

The Liberal Democrats accused ministers of "crude" spin after a leaked memo advising them how to avoid questions on the subject from MPs was revealed.

Mark Oaten backing Ming? - Updated

2006-01-19T16:32:00.000Z

by Peter

That was the message from the Guardian. They said

Sir Menzies Campbell promised to be the Liberal Democrats' "bridge to the future" as he formally launched his leadership campaign.

Flanked by Sarah Teather, the Lib Dems' local government spokeswoman, Nick Clegg, Vince Cable and Baroness Shirley Williams, Sir Menzies said he wanted to lead a "strong, distinguished" party that would be "serious about politics".

He also received the backing of Mark Oaten, who this afternoon withdrew from the leadership race after only one MP publicly backed him.

But now they have amended ttheir story.

Stephen Tall has a nice piece on Mark Oaten on his blog.

And then there were three

2006-01-19T11:47:00.000Z

by Peter

Well I am glad I did not make that post about Mark Oaten now. My original line seems to have been the better one:

Some MPs are apparently about to support Mark Oaten because they want a contest. I wonder if there is really room for both Oaten and Huhne in this contest.

Now the Guardian reports that he is pulling out.

I'll be sorrier than most. Many Lib Dem bloggers had decided that he was fourth in my preferences - and that was my view last week.

His ambition is an advantage in my view - and has led him to question the party's approach to good effect in the past. But his launch statement was not the polished document one might have expected, and queries about invisible support, the secret seven, and the hired guns are telling against him. At this moment he seems to be trailing the pack. I have him at fourth preference (ie blank). but there's plenty of time

But I had him inching into third place until the latest stories erupted.

UPDATE: the BBC has this:

Lib Dem Europe spokesman Nick Clegg, a supporter of deputy leader Sir Menzies Campbell, told the BBC Mr Oaten had come "to a mature decision ... clearly the support among MPs was never there".

Asked if he expected Mr Oaten to now come out in support of Sir Menzies, he said: "We haven't had any contact with him yet, but he would make an extremely strong member of the front bench team."

Stephen Tall takes the MatGB challenge

2006-01-19T11:43:00.000Z

by Peter

Stephen Tall has a very good post on who he has chosen to support in the leadership contest and why.

And they say a week is a long time in politics - updated

2006-01-19T09:03:00.000Z

by Peter

Yesterday I was preparing to write an update (prevous post here) on the leadership campaign which was going to offer the controversial view that Mark Oaten had not had a bad week really, and might be advancing. My argument was going to be that the further from Westminster and Cowley Street you were, the better Oaten looked. The leak about the Kennedy e-mails in the Independent struck me as a bit of a wild-card - not really in Oaten's best, long-term interests.

And then the news broke of this police involvement and the Kennedy denials broke - very bad news for Oaten.

Today the newspapers reflect this. The Independent writes that

Mark Oaten's leadership campaign descended into farce after it emerged that he enjoyed the public backing of only one MP.

Of the seven MPs who formally nominated him for the leadership, only his campaign manager, Lembit Opik, remained publicly backing him yesterday.

Meanwhile the Times has this:

As Sir Menzies Campbell shone in the Commons, the ‘Oatengate’ scandal was unfolding outside it

THE race to lead the Liberal Democrats took a bizarre twist as one of the candidates said that documents had been stolen from his Commons office and called in the police.

Mark Oaten, who appears to be trailing in fourth place, said that an e-mail, apparently showing how Charles Kennedy was helping his campaign, was removed from his office and leaked to the media.

The row intensified as Mr Kennedy’s closest aide accused Mr Oaten’s own team of being behind the leak in an attempt to boost his chances by claiming that he had the former leader’s backing.

Personally I thought it better that Oaten particpates in the contest. But it is hard to see that he can continue to do so on this basis.

The other politican who is beginning to take a few blows is David Cameron. This is what the Times had to say on Prime Minister's Questions:

Ming was better than David Cameron. For the first time at PMQs, the Tory leader seemed fuzzy and lacklustre. He spouted the same barbs that Michael Howard used to and it sounded tired. Also Mr Blair, who had been so meek with Ming, was razor sharp when dealing with Mr Cameron.

Mr Blair is never in a hurry when he sizes up an opponent. For the past few weeks, he has been biding his time, trying to get the measure of the man who is Dave. Now it is clear that Mr Blair thinks he has nailed him as a chameleon.

He kept demanding to know what Dave’s policy was on this and that. Mr Blair never does anything by chance and, finally, the Tory leader took the bait and snapped back that Mr Blair was not the one who was supposed to be asking the questions. The PM allowed himself a secret smile and hit right back. “I do apologise for asking these policy questions,” he said with deadly sweetness, “but the fact is that your policies change so very quickly, on almost a day-to-day basis, that sometimes it is good to inform myself to keep up with where you are at any one time.”

We can expect a lot more of that in weeks to come. Over on the Lib Dem benches, King Ming was looking relieved. For yesterday his cup runneth over and he was grateful for it.

PMQs updated (twice)

2006-01-18T17:15:00.000Z

by Peter

After last week there has been a little too much attention focussed upon Prime minister's Questions today.

This is how the Guardian reports it:

12.10pm

Sir Menzies Campbell asks simply how many of Sir Michael Bichard's recommendations have been implemented since his report of over 18 months ago. Mr Blair admits he cannot say.

The Lib Dem stand-in leader asks when the relevant police computers will be operational? Again Mr Blair cannot say exactly. A good double blow from Sir Menzies - rival candidate Chris Huhne is sat behind him, nodding furiously.

UPDATE 2: The BBC

[Ming's] Lib Dem leadership hopes were probably riding on today's show. And after this outing, the game is back on.

Firstly, he chose a subject which virtually ruled out any of the schoolyard braying, sneering and sniggering that greeted his last, fumbled question over schools who couldn't find permanent heads.

The sex offenders crisis is about as serious a subject as it gets and he delivered a brace of well-targeted questions that went to the heart of the matter. And, as a result, he was heard in near silence.

Secondly he produced two embarrassing "don't know" answers from the prime minister - over how many of the Bichard recommendations following the Soham inquiry had been implemented, and when a police computer checking system for offenders was going to be completed.

Lastly, he managed it without looking like he was going for cheap political point scoring (even though it had the same effect).

UPDATE:
And here is the transcript
Sir Menzies Campbell: "Following the tragic murders at Soham, Sir Michael Bichard in a report published over 18 months ago made 31 recommendations. Can the Prime Minister now tell us how many of these have been implemented?"

The Prime Minister: "I can't tell him precisely how many ... err ...have been implemented since Michael Bichard produced his report. But I can say this: that we will ensure there is legislation introduced implementing his report and I would just quote from what Michael himself said the other evening which is that 'The Department of Education and Science has been working hard since the enquiry in producing a single barring scheme and they've kept me in touch with what they're doing and I'm very impressed with the work they've actually done'."

Sir Menzies Campbell: "The Prime Minister will know that one of the key recommendations of the Bichard Inquiry was a police computer system designed to share intelligence about sex offenders. Can he tell us why the Impact computer system is now reported to be three years behind schedule and can he tell us when he expects it to be fully functional?"

The Prime Minister: "Um...I cant give him that reason off ... off the cuff but I will... I will write to him and tell him. I can say to him, however, that since 1997, I think this is an important point that should be made in light of all the recent and perfectly understandable controversy, since 1997 there has been a tightening and not a loosening of the system and it also worth pointing out that people have taken these types of decisions in very difficult cases going back over many many decades and so it is important of course that we introduce both the recommendations that Sir Michael Bichard has put forward and I also think my Right Hon Friend will be talking about further safeguards that we will introduce tomorrow and I very much hope they will command the support of the whole house."

The MatGB challenge

2006-01-18T14:43:00.000Z

by Peter

In the comments to this post MatGB issued a challenge.

Lib Dem bloggers have 6 days to persuade him

(a)to rejoin the party and

(b) to vote first choice for Ming and second choice for Chris (actually other combinations are possible, but why make it harder than it need be?).

Here are a few clues on the sort of thing he's looking for:

Isn't joining a waste of my money?
If I do join, who should I give my first and 2nd preferences for
And "he's such a really nice guy" is likely to dissuade me from voting for someone, I don't want nice, I want effective. I want to see them make their case, fight the fight, win the debates and assert their position.

A government more authoritarian than Thatcher at her worst. A Tory party trying to steal the LibDem clothes but, it seems, missing the point entirely. I liked Charles, he's obviously a nice bloke. But, well, the needed (and expected) breakthrough in May 2005 didn't happen, the open goal over ID cards and the Terrorism Bill hasn't been exploited, the constructive/real opposition hasn't happened. I think, when it came down to it, that he wasn't up for the job, regardless of his alcoholism. Will any of the new bunch put the case the way they need to?

You have 7 days. Persuade me to join, put up decent arguments why I (and others) should. I'll link to good ones, or you can comment here.

More details and an application form over at Not Little England.

My starting offer is that if he rejoins I shall buy him a drink next time I'm in Torquay - but no treating for votes!

New Blogs and Liberal Review

2006-01-18T14:22:00.000Z

by Peter

Simon Mollan is highlighting the merits of some good new lib dem blogs.

And a belated welcome for the Liberal Review. Let's hope this project grows and prospers! Rob's latest thoughts on where it might be heading are worth reading.

Ratings for the candidate web sites

2006-01-17T17:37:00.000Z

by Peter

MatGB at Not little England (does everyone in Torquay blog?) has a piece on the candidate websites. A good read for the techies among you.

That Sky debate

2006-01-17T10:08:00.000Z

by Peter

I haven't seen it yet - but here are a few thoughts from the newspapers and my mother.

The news concentrates on the silly story about the car (and I hope Ming keeps it - it is important that our leader looks as if he enjoys life and is not condemned to wearing a hair shirt. If he has to, voters will assume that they will have to if we win any influence. Then we're stuffed).

Oaten and Hughes both made errors in setting specific seat targets. From the Scotsman

Sir Menzies Campbell, the party's acting leader, followed Mr Kennedy's usual line by not specifying any target. "There is no glass ceiling for the party," he said. "We should aim to maximise our number of seats, maximise our votes."

Mr Hughes used that to jibe at his rival, declaring: "I'm clearer than that. If we're serious about this, we have to say to our members we ought to have 100 seats in parliament."

Mark Oaten, the party's home affairs spokesman and Mr Kennedy's preferred candidate, said the party should ultimately be aiming for 300 seats in the 645-seat House of Commons.

Supporters of Chris Huhne have assured me that his past pronouncements will not be used against him by his opponents. I hope they are right but the Times says this

Chris Huhne, only eight months an MP, has shown impressive boldness in standing, and the contest is better for his presence. However, it is hard to see why such a dogmatic pro-European would improve the party’s electoral chances.

while the BBC says of Ming's suggestion that he might give up his Jag that

The shock was so overwhelming that it almost completely overshadowed Mr Huhne's pledge to raise domestic fuel bills.

As for my mother (in her early seventies, and a habitual, but not committed Lib Dem voter), she told me that Mark Oaten was very good, Ming was good. Hughes seemed a nice young man (there's a "but" hanging in the air). And? And that's it. She hardly noticed the other fellow. Extrapolate wildly that her views are not wildly different from those of many semi-detached west of England members and you might think that Oaten is going to do much better than many super-activists and bloggers believe, and that Huhne is going to do much worse.

The Business Press and Cameron

2006-01-16T13:35:00.000Z

by Peter

Continuing this occasional series, today John O'Sullivan - formerly an advisor to Thatcher - steps up to take aim at Cameron in the FT.

His thesis is that Cameron is attempting to fool all of the people all of the time. And he says so with some style:

The activists are trying to convince themselves that he is pulling off a brilliant trick. He is presenting orthodox Tory ideas in glittering centrist garb – or, if not quite that, adding new ideas to the existing corpus. For instance, asking Bob Geldof to help forge a world anti-poverty programme may be a roundabout way of undermining the Common Agricultural Policy.

This is too hopeful.

Meanwhile

A smaller group of modernisers, perhaps including Mr Cameron himself, is in the grip of a more subtle delusion. They see the new leader deliberately “dissing” traditionalist supporters in order to win over LibDem voters.

Finally

That leaves the party faithful. The Tories think they have elected Hugh Grant. In doing so, they believe, they have solved a nagging existential problem. Until the mid-1980s, the Tory faithful felt themselves the natural party of the middle class. But since then they have drifted apart as the Tories became Thatcherised and the middle class changed its self-image, political opinions and sensibility – became, in a word, “Curtisland” after Richard Curtis of Four Weddings and a Funeral, Notting Hill, and Love, Actually, in which a multi-faith, multi-ethnic London middle class swears terribly but is otherwise awfully nice and holds excruciatingly nice opinions. This is a global phenomenon as parties across the English-speaking world change composition with blue-collar workers moving right and others left. But the Tories don’t know that and would like to be accepted in Curtisland once again.

All of which brings to mind the thesis of the elusive GHD.

And of course it would not matter all that much if the policies were good. BUT O'Sullivan concludes that

None of these spells, alas, has anything to do with the actual or potential problems facing Britain in the coming decade.

Answer to first leadership quiz

2006-01-16T10:03:00.000Z

by Peter

Thanks to all those who took part in the quiz.

The author of that spirited evocation of Liberals past and present was...

...Adair Turner (aka Lord Turner). Turner is better known of late for his report on pensions (a report which upset Gordon Brown). The paragraph quoted is the closing paragraph of his book Just Capital. (Here is a review by Samuel Brittan).

Who needed to say something like this? I think Simon Hughes needed to say it - and indeed he has said he no longer believes in 50% Income Tax. So perhaps there is hope for Simon yet.

Leadership Quiz (3): Who went where?

2006-01-16T09:41:00.000Z

by Peter

This shouldn't be too difficult for you - which candidate went to which school?

a) Llandaff Cathedral School
b) Westminster School
c) Queens' School
d) Hillhead High

Two concepts of leadership

2006-01-15T10:33:00.000Z

by Peter

As I did not attend the hustings yesterday, I have been greedily reading the opinions of those who did.

The general view seems to be that Huhne was rather heavy and humourless, and that Oaten was rather light. People seem to think that Campbell or Hughes had the better content. Views differ radically on how well they spoke.

John Hemming has the text of Ming's speech. As usual with Ming, it has some good soundbites (I particularly like "Our liberalism is not a struggle between those who wish to modernise and
those who do not. To be a Liberal Democrat is to be a moderniser. What were
Lloyd George, Beveridge and Grimond but modernisers?"). This ability to say something memorable will count for Ming - they will get him the press coverage he needs.

How did he say it?

James Graham thinks

Ming: good content, below par delivery.

Richard on Militant Moderate has a similar point of view

The second half saved Menzies, because he started out very poorly, probably because of the sound problems with his mike

Yet Edis Bevan sees it very differently

The revelation was Campbell. Ming was alive in every word of his speech, clear emotion backing up every position. I have never seen him like this before. Forget the careful buttoned down image of TV shorts interviews. Ming looked unchained, full of energy.

For Hughes the consensus is that it was a good stylish speech. But then everyone says they expected this. James Graham says:

Simon: if I didn’t have strong reservations about Simon’s positioning and his chaotic and autocratic style which I observed first hand while we were both on the Federal Executive, this speech would have really tempted me.

Edis says

Simon Hughes – well it was a Simon Hughes speech which means good and he knows exactly what to say to rally a LibDem audience.

And Richard has

Simon Hughes: Without a doubt, the most stylish performance... but he is already established as the slick and charming candidate. What we didn't see was any evidence of heavy-weight policy. A great showman, who will be in the final two, I am sure, but could, on this performance, once again be pipped to the post.

My view on Simon was that we all knew that if being Leader was just a matter of making speeches, then he would walk it. But it isn't.

Stephen Glenn has come up with a nice piece of textual analysis - from which I arrive at the opposite conclusion.

Here's Simon

The easiest thing for me to do now would be to run through all the policies I support, trying to mention everything that might appeal to every section of the party. But that isn’t what this leadership contest should be about. Because in our party, it’s not the leader that makes the policy, it’s the members – and I am determined that my leadership will be as consultative and participative as this process has been.

And here's Ming

I believe in leading not following; setting goals and objectives; shaping events not being shaped by them; taking responsibility and discharging it; being both candid and confident; neither dictatorial nor prescriptive, but consultative and committed.

Stephen is happy with Simon's formulation. Many will be. But I see it as a declaration that he intends to be a Chairman rather than a Leader. Ming's is an advocacy of Leadership.

Without wishing to be too Hegelian about it, I believe that parties like our own, which preach decentralisation, and involvement need strong leadership. Of course we should have particpation and debate, but we also need leadership. Princes to build the city, republics to defend it as some Italian had it.

The most thoughtful take on the election in the Sunday papers seems to be Andrew Rawnsley in The Observer.

Leadership Contest - Sartorial Matters

2006-01-14T18:14:00.000Z

by Jabez Clegg

Vivienne over at Forceful and Moderate has noticed that three of the four leadership contenders were wearing the same pale blue tie at today's hustings. What she doesn't comment on is Mark Oaten's tie. It was silk, and dark blue with a fine gold stripe. It looked much like a school, college or Regimental tie (perhaps it belongs to Mark's alma mater). He was also wearing the same tie on Question TIme on Thursday evening.

My tie antennae tell me that, whether he made a conscious decision about it or not, this tie is sending out subtle signals. Firstly, it is reassuringly Tory (and follows the first part of Thorpe's "Look Right, talk Left" dictum). Secondly, the colour scheme sends the same message: Tory dark blue with a thin stripe of old Liberal yellow.

The Independent's Pandora column picked up on this earlier this week, when it reported Mr Oaten had made a visit to upmarket shirtmaker TM Lewin:

Mark was being measured up for a rather fetching salmon-coloured shirt," I am informed. "He was also looking at ties. He clearly feels the need to smarten up and look a little more statesmanlike."

This is something that seems to come more naturally to fellow contender Chris Huhne. The former economist is reported to be a martinet when it comes to appearance:

Huhne once carpeted a colleague for coming into the office wearing jeans. "You should always dress as if you are going to meet the Governor of the Bank of England," he barked.

As for myself, I believe you should judge a man by his shoes. Something from George Cleverley, polished to a parade ground sheen, and you can't go too far wrong.

The Car's the Star - Leadership Quiz 2

2006-01-14T14:15:00.000Z

by Steve Travis

See if you can match the car to the contender, then write us an interesting explanation as to why they drive what they do. The best one will get its own article!

1 1968 Jaguar S-Type
2 Saab
3 Toyota Prius
4 London Taxi

A Simon Hughes
B Chris Huhne
C Ming Campbell
D Mark Oaten

The leadership quiz

2006-01-14T00:14:00.000Z

by Peter

One of the themes of this election is the combination of different strand of liberalism

1. Which of the leadership candidates is most likely to say this?

The fundamental issue is how to reconcile a dynamic economy and the liberating effects of individual economic freedom with the objective of an inclusive society, recognizing that totally free markets will not achieve that end. This is not a new issue and we are not the first generation to consider it. It intrigued John Stuart Mill and John Maynard Keynes. Its philosophical and political implications were explored by Karl Popper, its economics explored in depth by James Meade. It is a theme frequently present in the writings of Paul Krugman, Samuel Brittan and Ralf Dahrendorf. And in the world of practical politics it found its first expression acrosss Europe in the social insurance schemes and urban improvements of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and in Britain in the liberal welfare reforms of 1906-14 and in Lloyd George's budget of 1909. From the rigorous but limited principles of Gladstonianism, a liberal tradition has been in a continual process of development, even if not always overtly called by that name, and even if political liberals were often forced into alliance with purely conservative forces. The precise policies pursued need continual fine-tuning to meet changing economic realtiy. But the core philospohy does not need a new name because it exists already. It is called liberalism.

2. This sounds like Steve Travis, but is not. Who wrote it?

Week one: where do they stand?

2006-01-13T12:44:00.000Z

by Peter

Mark Oaten: Mark did quite well on Question Time, but is perhaps more enigma than charisma. His ambition is an advantage in my view - and has led him to question the party's approach to good effect in the past. But his launch statement was not the polished document one might have expected, and queries about invisible support, the secret seven, and the hired guns are telling against him. At this moment he seems to be trailing the pack. I have him at fourth preference (ie blank). but there's plenty of time.

Simon Hughes: Simon opened his campaign with great gusto - but we all know he can make a good speech. What is more, he seemed to offer an opening to an agenda less wedded to the priorities on the Lib Dem insiders, more to the public as a whole:

We now have to demonstrate that we can make the right judgments over other issues which matter to the British people: their finances; their homes; their pensions; their security.

So far, so good - and I predict that he will do well tomorrow. The Meeting the Challenge meeting is his sort of event. I've a lot of time for Simon - and I gave a lot of my time to getting him elected in 1983. Many a time I have wondered whether he was a future leader of the party. If all that was required was speeches, he would walk it. But there is more to the race than that. I'm not convinced that he will live with the pace, and in a way I have the feeling that we don't know enough about Simon. His support from the parliamentary party is pretty patchy too.

Chris Huhne - Chris has emerged with great impact this week. As he is a former journalist I imagine he will get a good press (they stick together). Lynne Featherstone has made the best case I have heard for Huhne

Chris is an economic expert - so he's the man to take the fight to Gordon Brown on the central issue that decides elections. An ambitious, successful party needs to win the national debate on economic policy.

We need to talk about not just what to do with this country's wealth but also about how to create more - to lift more people out of poverty, to improve our public services and to have the resources to protect and improve our communities and our environment.

I agree with that. But there are some questions about the limited time he has had in parliament - and indeed almost all of his supporters seem to be new MPs as well (Howarth, Featherstone, Horwood, etc). I think he is the candidate for technocrats, policy wonks, and people who value conventional measures of credibilty. That is me in part, and so at this moment in time he would bet my second preference.

Ming Campbell: Ming started the week as firm favourite, and ends it merely as one of the favourites. That may mot be worst place to be - there is plenty of scope for a recovery stock. Funnily enough, the man who has made the arguments that most encourage me to vote for Ming was Howarth, in an article meant to make people think again. He descirbed Ming as a gut Liberal and pointed to his statements that the party had got too fond of banning things. Well I'm a gut Liberal too (just take a look!) and I agree that we have got a bit too keen on banning things. Ming himself has come up with a couple of good soundbites:

I know liberals. I have worked with liberals. David Cameron is no liberal.

adapting the putdown of Dan Quayle (mine to worked there)

I'm more for open minds than I am for open-neck shirts.

and

What I am in favour of is using the tax system to maximise opportunity - not to penalise initiative or aspiration.

If Iran is going to be a big issue in the months and years to come, that strengthens Ming, in my view. He remains my first preference in the leadership battle by some margin.

Anyone else? If Nick Clegg were to enterthe contest he would, I think, do very well.

What about the competition? I don't think we should take them for granted, but I am not at all convinced that Cameron is really such a threat. Maybe more of an opportunity.

Please use the comments to let me know if I have got this all right or all wrong, and to support your candidate. But let's have a clean contest: No negative campaigning!

Huhne proves he's not chicken

2006-01-12T21:53:00.000Z

by Steve Travis

Only German speakers will spot the awful pun in the title, but I am glad that one of the young(er) generation of MPs has broken cover. Huhne has a CV to die for. He also has a reassuringly deep voice, and on the occasions I've heard him on "Today" comes across with Gravitarse (tm Graham Productions 2006). Even if he is ultimately unsuccessful I see him vying with David laws for Treasury and wiping th efloor with squeaky George. The blogosphere is warming to him too.

One man one vote?

2006-01-12T14:08:00.000Z

by Peter

If there is one thing that is annoying me about this contest it is the phenomenon of mulitple nominations.

At least four MPs seem prepared to nominate anyone and everyone. Candidates are not exempt from this, as John Hemming reveals. I like John, but this sort of behaviour should be discouraged.

Disgusted
Tunbridge Wells.

Flying with both wings

2006-01-12T09:19:00.000Z

by Peter

Lynne Featherstone is pushing for Chris Huhne to enter the leadership race. I think this might be a good idea too, although there are some obvious arguments against a new MP with a small majority. But Lynne's reasoning shows why she is well up my list of impressive new MPs

An ambitious, successful party needs to win the national debate on economic policy.

We need to talk about not just what to do with this country's wealth but also about how to create more - to lift more people out of poverty, to improve our public services and to have the resources to protect and improve our communities and our environment.

I think I said something similar at the end of last year.

One of the themes of this leadership election according the press was going to be thesis and antithesis: "left" versus "right". But a lot of people in the party are talking in terms of synthesis. Here's David Laws

The Orange Book, which I co-wrote, was an attempt to persuade the party to value all the liberal strands - including the economic. The book was caricatured as an attempt to turn the clock back to some dry Gladstonian liberalism of the 19th century. It was never any such thing. But I accept my responsibility to show that I and my Orange Book colleagues are as committed to social liberalism, or social justice, as they are.

Here's David Howarth.

There are...important aspects the party needs to hold on to. One is that we can be both economically and socially liberal.

Here's Mark Oaten.

And this contest is not just about modernising the party. But it is about the issue of whether it is left or right, or social economic or liberal economic.

And I believe that in fact those are the wrong phrases. We need now to merge those ideas together and create a modern Liberal party for the 21st century.

(I don't want to be negative about any candidate. But one certainly has the impression that this last statement might have been drafted at 2.30am. First it is a choice and then it is not. Very confusing.

Some MPs are apparently about to support Mark Oaten because they want a contest. I wonder if there is really room for both Oaten and Huhne in this contest. One way this might happen is by some MPs nominating more than one candidate. I hope they don't: i can think of anything more likely to bring us into disrepute.)

If we are to tackle this debate properly - and fly with both wings - we probably do need an economist in the mix.

Back to The Business

2006-01-11T16:57:00.000Z

by Peter

I have remarked before how few friends Cameron seems to have in the business press.

A search for the origins of the Major story (below) brought this piece from an article in The Business to light (thanks to Stephen B):

let us not be fooled into thinking the Conservatives, for 15 years Britain’s leading regicide specialists, are united behind their new, youthful leader. Most Tory MPs voted against Cameron even when it was clear he was going to win.

It is not with universal delight that Tory MPs learn they are to be whipped into voting for Labour’s Education Bill. Applause is not uniform when rich kids like Zac Goldsmith are appointed environmental advisers. But these are minor irritations compared to what happened last Friday, when Tory MPs heard Cameron declare they “are on the same side now” as the Lib Dems on the Iraq war. There remains a large chunk of the party for whom this is the deepest of insults.

Cameron’s enemies hope their young leader is making a naïve mistake and hope to explain to him the irreconcilable differences between the Lib Dem and Conservatives on the war on terror.

A Major Error

2006-01-11T10:34:00.000Z

by Peter

Someone with thirty quid to spare might like to tell me how this story ends:

"SOME time ago, John Major's government made an audacious approach to a prominent Liberal Democrat who looked and sounded like a Tory. Would he defect, if a Cabinet job was guaranteed?"

Localism and Housing

2006-01-11T09:41:00.000Z

by Peter

I know people only want to know who Mark Oaten's backers are at present, but once the election is over we have to start preparing for...well, we'll have to start preparing our manifesto.

So here are a couple of useful pointers.

In Public Finance, Profs Jones and Stewart have discuss localism. They say

Despite New Labour’s apparent conversion to ‘neighbourhood government’, the talk in town and county halls across the UK is of ‘super councils’. Ministers believe that bigger is better, and they are starting to use the dreaded ‘R’ word again. Reorganisation is back in fashion. But it would be a costly distortion of the energies and resources of both central and local government.

It is clear that the old technocratic urge for bigger councils still throbs in central government, and in parts of local government. While the 2004 referendum in the English Northeast was a setback for those wanting to impose standard regions, appointed regional quangos continue to suck up functions from local authorities. Champions of regionalism are also promoting a reorganisation based on city regions, forgetting that the city regions of the 1974 reorganisation, such as Avon and the metropolitan counties, were the least-accepted parts of the new structure.

and that

Mainland Europeans have found ways of combining small-scale community local government with larger-scale arrangements for delivery. They have recognised that local authorities do not always have to provide services themselves. They can use other institutions, such as central government outposts, or other, bigger local authorities, or consortiums of local authorities, or private-sector firms, or voluntary bodies, or combinations of them all.

There are probably still some fans of regions around in the Lib Dems. But some of our best minds (I refer to Steve Travis) have moved on. This articles provides a useful message for us.

In the Guardian, Malcom Dean has been looking at housing, on the basis of a book by Chris Holmes

Holmes, who has spent 30 years working in housing and homelessness organisations, sets out some important lessons: do not sacrifice quality for numbers, as happened in the 50s; seek to diversify communities; and do not believe that social housing gives too much priority to housing needs. "The problem is not that people who are poor live in social housing," he argues. "It is that they are too often all housed together on the same estates."

His aim is not to produce another era of mass housing projects, but rather much more diversified housing types and tenure, including: self-built homes, shared ownership, market renting and socially rented, resident-controlled cooperatives and tenant managed homes, as well as owner occupied.

Liberal sort of ideas, in principle. Personally I would add to this mix some provision for shops and other business. Social segregation is pretty bad. Segregation from economic activity may just be worse.

Who should be deputy?

2006-01-10T17:07:00.000Z

by Peter

At this stage I'm backing Ming for the leadership. And if it isn´t Ming it will be Simon or Mark, I suppose (I can't quite see John Memming pulling it off).

But who should be deputy leader?

David Laws - love him or hate him, an intellectual powerhouse

Ed Davey - bright young man, inconspicuous at education

Lynne Featherstone - impressing many in her early months in Parliament

Nick Clegg - most people's hot tip for next leader

Andrew George - a radical voice from the south west.

UPDATE

anonymous (she gets everywhere, doesn't she?) suggest I add

Chris Huhne - the new MP with the longest cv

Susan Kramer - the lib dems Valerie Singleton, I always think (this is a compliment)

Vince Cable - the man who is making us credible on the economy

This is (definitely) one contest where we are spoiled for choice. I could make a good case for each of them. Let's hope the leadership contest - and its aftermath - provide them with greater visibility.

You can say that again...(Updated)

2006-01-10T16:59:00.000Z

by Peter

There is a piece on Ming on Guardian Online. One phrase caught my eye

Many in the party are tired of being caricatured as sandal-wearing intellectual lightweights: Sir Menzies is neither of those things.

Somehow one can't picture Ming in sandals.

Elsewhere, Nick Robinson has resurrected an old interview on his newsblog.

One passage caught my eye, when Ming is quotes a famous - er - Jamaican philosopher who said "what do they know of cricket that only cricket know?"

and goes on to adapt it

"what do they know of politics that only politics know?"

Someone on the comments thinks the quote comes from Kipling (and indirectly it does). More directly it comes from C L R James (The "er" was needed - he was born in Port of Spain).

A politician who can quote C L R James and thinks there is more to life than politics is ticking a couple of my boxes. But I will be asking Mark Oaten a few questions on the political writings of John Arlott (who at least came from Hampshire).

That Gladstonian touch

2006-01-09T13:30:00.000Z

by Peter

This is Ashdown on the leadership contest:

Lord Ashdown, who is now a diplomat in the Balkans, admitted he had not made public a preference at the last leadership contest, to replace him.

He said: "Last time I thought it improper that as the departing leader of the party I should support anybody.

"I think that is probably right. But now that I am the last leader at one remove I suppose I can come among you unmuzzled and say who I am going to support. The short answer is Menzies Campbell."

I liked that Gladstonian bit.

Disunity in liberalism 2010

2006-01-09T11:31:00.000Z

by Peter

At the risk of upsetting regular leaders, I have to reveal that I didn't entirely go along with the appeal launched by Steve Travis, calling on Paddy to resume the leadership.

But it was good to hear Paddy on the radio this morning, and Steve is certainly correct to judge this a most fortunate time for Paddy to become available for renewed service. I hope that he will be visible in the months to come, a reminder of Lib Dem continuity.

Let's hope he is wrong

2006-01-09T11:23:00.000Z

by Peter

There is an unusually thoughtful analysis of the threats and opportunities posed by the current situation in the Times this morning. Peter Riddell writes that

The myth of betrayal is being fostered...{as}...the thrust of a populist platform appealing to ordinary members against unrepresentative and treacherous MPs.

He goes on to say

The “treachery” case is nonsense. Most of the MPs who turned against Mr Kennedy last week had not only previously been among his closest supporters but had covered up, and suffered the consequences of, his drinking. The critics felt, reasonably, that their patience had been pushed too far and that Mr Kennedy was failing to offer a firm lead.

His conclusion is a little grim. He suggests that Liberal Democrats run the risk of being embroiled in a civil war, with demagogues seeking to set the Parliamentary party against the membership. I hope he is wrong about this.

Blaming the messenger

2006-01-08T16:36:00.000Z

by Peter

It is always difficult to break bad news - worst of all when the recipient does not wish to accept the message. Richard Allen (who is better placed to know than most of us) has this message on his blog

the other side of the sympathy coin is a backlash against "wicked Lib Dem MPs" for "kicking him when he was down". The party will inevitably suffer damage from this public impression. There is another side to the story but this may well not emerge.
(my emphasis)
Comparisons with the Conservative overthrow of Thatcher have been drawn and are, perhaps, not entirely inappropriate. Thatcher was still popular in the country but had progressively lost the support of those at the centre of the Conservative party. The fact that Charles had a personal problem is incidental to this core political fact but does, I am afraid, seem to be dominating the coverage.

Gentle reader, if a leadership candidate comes asking for your vote and blaming others for the way things happened, ask them first what they would have done. And then ask them why they didn't do it.

Cameron's critics on the City pages

2006-01-08T12:27:00.000Z

by Peter

Not everyone reads the City pages, but those who do have seen a number of attacks on Cameron. Jeff Randall in the Telegraph gave him quite a kicking the other day (I reproduced some of the juicier attacks here). Peter Preston has returned to this in his Media column today.

A few pages earlier, Frank Kane joins in the fun.

I never thought I'd see the day when the head of Tesco was able to put up a better defence of capitalism than the leader of the Conservative party, but that's exactly where we are now.

Sir Terry Leahy, the man many think is the most powerful in Britain, can explain precisely the role of the big corporations in the modern world, and how these capitalist giants can be agents of social change and improvement. Leahy, a friend of Labour by background and inclination, may have been forced into serious consideration of these issues by the anti-Tesco lobby, but he has at least given them serious thought, and come up with persuasive arguments.

David Cameron, by contrast, seems ready to abandon the Tories' longest held political beliefs at the drop of a hat. His exhortations to 'stand up to big business' and condemnations of capitalism left most business friends of mine giggling with embarrassed disbelief. 'He's only doing it for the votes, don't worry, he doesn't really mean it, you'll see' was the typical reaction, but it was all said with a worried little laugh.

The case against Cameron is slowly taking shape: he´ll say anything to get votes; he was ...poor in business himself; he was Lamont's right-hand man y'know; he can´t be trusted with your daughter's pocket money...

Better still there is a case for the Liberal Democrats being made elsewhere in the finacncial press. Here is the FT.

The Conservative party has a new leader and Tony Blair will not be leading Labour into the next election. Now the Liberal Democrats are set for a change at the top following Charles Kennedy's admission that he had been treated for a drink problem - treatment he had repeatedly denied receiving. The change in leadership will offer an opportunity to carve out a distinctive role for Britain's third party...

...As with the Conservatives, the election of a new leader is an opportunity for the LibDems to go beyond a change of faces. The strategy of outflanking Labour on the left while presenting an image of moderation to the right has reached its limits - as the modest gains in last year's general election showed.

Happily for the LibDems, there is a gap to be filled in British politics. A party is needed that is strong on individual liberty, distrustful of big government and in favour of local democracy. It should be low tax and pro-market - using market mechanisms to curb public spending while promoting welfare.

The Tories could adopt such a platform, but their coalition includes cultural conservatives uncomfortable with such unbridled liberalism. That should be no problem, however, for a party whose origins in the Liberal party of the 19th and early 20th centuries ideally position it to fill the gap.

Okay, not everyone is gonig to agree with all of this. And the challenge for people (like myself) who generally go along with it is certainly to show how the market can delver more for poorer people. Nor do I entirely agree that the leadership change is going to lead directly to a great change in direction for the party. As Alex Sweet has said on this blog, it is impossible to imagine that this party is going to ditch one half of its philosophy.

But this is a good moment to get such an endorsement. And thinking it through, a further line is emerging to be used against the Tories. With the election of a semi-aristocratic leader, they look less than ever like a business party. The Goldsmith move is of the same kind: his "ecological" vision has always seemed backward-looking and semi-feudal. Perhaps this is the emerging shape of Cameron's tories.

Not so much who but how

2006-01-07T14:21:00.000Z

by Peter

I´m writing this before hearing the 3pm statement. I can only believe that this will be a resignation statement. It will be a sad end to a successful period as Leader. I hope we will see Charles on the front bench very soon.

Two questions arise: who will lead us, and how?

My preference is Campbell, and if not Campbell, Clegg. Either we take the fight to a new area where we can win (gravitas) or we find someone who is younger, better-looking and smilier than Cameron. But all of the candidates have their merits. And as Alex Sweet has said (see below), the idea that one or the other will lead the party in a distinct direction is probably overdone. We all believe that the State has some role in helping people, and we all believe taht you can have too much of it.

How do we go forward? It is traditional to hope for a more collegial style of leadership - and I´m a traditionalist. We have a huge amount of campaigning resources available these days: many more elected officials and researchers. Many more people who command the attention of local and regional media. We could be doing a lot to get this pointing in the same direction.

It is also traditional to want a strong leader - and I´ll go for that too. I want a performing economy to be part of our platform - and that will mean saying that some things just can't be paid for.

Finally we need a leader who will reach out and expand the number of people who feel themselves represented by the Liberal Democrats. We have a great deal of talent in the parliamentary party. I´m optimistic for our future.