Not candidates but leaders: The London leadership hustings

Tonight’s London hustings were excellent, and there is no doubt that the Liberal Democrats, no matter what their individual views, can rest assured that their next leader will take the party forward into a positive future. Having lured many bloggers to the pub, I’m hoping that at lest some of them will have taken the night off and not blogged yet, so I’ll get my comments in first. (Fat chance!).

The more interesting part of the evening was undoubtedly the speeches; the answers to questions from the floor (and this blogger was cruelly ignored) were less (though still) edifying.

Chris Huhne “won the toss” and got to speak first, and started with a (populist, if only because I’ve heard it so often in the last few weeks) “Draft Vince” gag – which, to be (un)fair, is an easy crack once nominations are closed. He then proceeded to give one of the best speeches I’ve ever heard him make, and easily the best I’ve heard this campaign.

Chris started by stressing his liberal values and the need to set the tone for C21st; the Tories and Labour having no big ideas or radical solutions. Brown was the “Patron saint of tax accountants”; Labour had required real talent and hard work to engineer the first bank collapse in 140 years; Labour are a corrupt party, every one of their >£1n donors having received a peerage or a knighthood; he emphasised the David Abrahams case. As for the Tories: David Cameron was a career politician with no background outside politics, unlike Chris, who has an extensive pre-politician career; and Labour and the Tories were now one-and-the-same, and what Britain needed was “not a third conservative party but a first radical party.” He emphasised that a rich society should be a fair society, and that tough choices were necessary (such as abandoning Trident so as to fund our armed forces better). He stressed the need to end child poverty which blights the future chances of all the 3.8m children born into poor families. Sadly, he then re-used a tied old Huhne line: “Not just the open road…. but the fair start.”

Here a pause is required. Both Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne were guilty of re-using old lines. I joked to Mrs. Polemic that Nick would begin his speech by saying that “I want to lead the Liberal Democrats because I want to live in a more liberal Britain” but he surprised me by leaving that quote to the end. Chris cited not only the above well-used line but also the old chestnut (re-cycled from his last bid for the leadership) about changing “not only the faces in the back of the ministerial limo” but also the whole nature of politics.

Chris also pushed the anti-school choice and anti-social insurance line, one which I must admit makes me cross. He stressed “If I am elected leader there will be no question that journalists will be confused about where I stand”. This is a reference to articles about Nick in certain newspapers. Ignoring my own proclivities, this is a clear attempt (used by Chris before) to position himself as opposed to something of which he has accused his opponent, but which Nick has consistently denied supporting. It is therefore a false issue that he is using as dog-whistle politics, and it makes me very uncomfortable.

Chris went on to emphasise his belief that climate change is the “greatest challenge of our time”, and that we were mortgaging our children’s future by ignoring it; it was the central theme of his political life. He noted that the Lib Dems had been setting the political agenda and winning the4 argument on this issue for some time. To conclude he stressed his ambition willingness to take risks, (confusingly) that “boldest measures are also the safest” (I really have no idea what that means) and reiterated (with that limo comment) the desire to change the system.

It was the best I have ever heard his speak, and as I noted to Mrs. Polemic as Nick stood up and had to wait for the applause to die down, “That wasn’t a candidate’s speech; that was a leader’s speech”. I felt like it was Thursday at the Autumn conference. As somebody who was previously strongly in the Clegg camp, I was genuinely impressed and thought that that was going to be a hard act to follow.

So when Nick stood up to speak (without notes), and had to wait for the applause do die down, I did think that something more than the average was going to be called for. What we were then treated to was the most passionate, most impressive and most convincing speech that I’ve heard from any would-be or actual leader (and I attended the leadership hustings in the same room nearly two years before).

Nick started by using the “Friends” line (all speakers at conference seem to address their audience as “Friends” or “Conference” and I suspect that there is a code to it that is lost on me, though I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that one hails from the Liberals and the other from the SDP – if others can correct me I’d welcome the knowledge) and warmed the room with a couple of jokes. He was altogether more jovial, though an MP noted to me afterwards that joking at the expense of the journalists wasn’t his cleverest move.

But, having clearly learned from his Question Time experience, he then launched directly into the passionate politics that has previously served him so well in this campaign. Some of it was a bit familiar, but what was clever was his deliberate use of London as an example: replacing his already-used example of the 14 year life-expectancy gap between Sheffield’s richest and poorest with Newham’s 16 years; the third of London’s children in workless families; and yet the amazing diversity in London (he also referred to the “arrogance about what is wrong” which I totally failed to understand). He was ambitious for our party, and wanted within two years to break the two party grip on elections. But we needed to start from where people were, not where we though they should be; we needed to be a party of hopes and dreams; of ideas and genius.

He then when to define five key policy areas that would shape the future. These were:

1) The “Epidemic of Powerlessness” that saw people shut out by the giganticness of both government and business; where (doing a classic Clegg and citing a personal example to highlight a point) he described the elderly couple that had struggled just to have a phone line in their house moved; where government advises us to shred our bank statements and then loses 26m people’s bank details; and (most importantly) where power should be handed not just “from Whitehall to the Town Hall” but also beyond to individual
2) “Social stagnation and exclusion” that led to unequal life expectancy and school performance based upon starting circumstances, that (and here I confess I’m sharpening his sound-bite) state schools “suck up the disadvantaged kids and pit out disadvantaged adults”; he would spend more money on less advantaged children to ensure that all got a decent education.
3) “Fear”, an issue the Lib Dems may have neglected and which affected the poorest most of all; and which required us to find practical solutions to real day-to-day problems
4) the environment (spreading good Lib Dem policies among Vince Cable and Norman Baker as well as Chris Huhne, diluting his opponent’s record), where we had spent too much time hectoring individuals while business, government and local authorities had to take a lead; and
5) Globalisation, which he noted (correctly) brought both positive and negative effects but which he (wrongly) would seek to “limit and control”. He was correct to note, however, that unaddressed, globalisation could lead to disenfranchisement, thence to apathy and so open the door to extremism. This had to be countered.

Nick concluded by noting that “Liberalism was the creed of our age”, that he was proud of our past but wanted a better future, and stressed that third place was not good enough. It was a winning speech, and the applause was deservedly prolonged.

Inevitably, after two such good speeches, the question-and-answer session was less good, and undoubtedly both need to learn to tighten up their answers. Having waxed above already I may leave that until tomorrow, but the Q&A did not change the overall sense of success – though it helped clarify particular policy issues. It was Nick’s night – no doubt about it – but whoever wins, the Lib Dems will have an excellent leader. Neither of them sounded like candidates this evening; they both sounded like leaders.

Lib Dem drinks: leadership hustings debriefing

Lib Dem leadership hustings debriefing

...because when it’s all over bar the shouting, where better to shout than The Prince Arthur.

Tuesday 27 November, after the leadership hustings and round the corner from the Friends' Meeting House.

Whether you are a Cleggite or a Huhnie, undecided or disaffected, if you can fight your way past the LDYS kids handing out badges and avoid the unprecedented approachableness of the two candidates in the lobby, come to The Prince Arthur at 80-82 Eversholt Street, NW1 1BX and discuss the leadership, the future direction of the party and our electoral chances…

…or, alternatively, house prices, I’m A Celebrity and England’s new footballing lows.

(When I write “footballing” the spellchecker tries to change it to “mothballing” – now there’s an idea!).

Newsnight: Head-to-head with Clegg and Huhne

One of the downsides of being married is that one is never the first person to post about a recent event. (There are fringe benefits, however). So I imagine that the LibDemosphere is already awash with accounts of tonight’s Newsnight, however, where Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne battled it out in a leadership special.

It began pretty painfully. Having shunted us to second billing after Alistair Darling lost the personal and bank details of half the British population, we were then met by the two contenders failing to agree on who should start, so that Jeremy Paxman was obliged to ostentatiously “toss the Euro” to see who should begin.

Chris won, and began with his one minute speech in which he stressed the need to be radical, to give away power, to decentralise, to be “Fairer and Greener” (remember that one!), and stressed his ability to get our message across. He appeared a little hurried; a little tense. Nick was calmer and better prepared, and began by explaining that he did not want to be leader because it was an end in itself, but because he wanted to be part of a liberal society, “to make politics less boring” and to “speak like a human being.” Oh, and make Britain “fairer and greener”. I feel they rested my earlier case!

On the question (so oft repeated) as to whether anybody should care, Chris pointed out quite fairly that his background in economics is extremely germane; we are undoubtedly entering into a period of economic stability where are leader with a sound understanding of economics will be needed. Nick, on the other hand, emphasised the need to reach out to the non-voting 40 per cent, a plea that carries much emotional but little practical weight (remember, three quarters of them weren’t voting 30 years ago, either).

Paxman then resorted to his favourite leadership head-to-head tactic (and one I actually enjoy) which was to ask for straight answers to straight questions: the “yes or no” round. I preferred Nick’s answers for the same reason that I preferred Alan Johnson’s in Labour’s deputy leadership: he gave the succinct answers requested. Nick categorically ruled out in one word adopting school vouchers (the fool!), while both agreed to rule in Trident “right now”, but Huhne waffled whereas Nick was succinct. On tax, Chris stressed the desire to see “broader shoulders bearing more of the burden” (which one assumes is not-very-complex code for more “progressive” taxation) while Nick emphasised the reduction of taxes on income and the shift onto environmental taxation (which some might argue was Huhne’s home ground).

On immigration, however, Nick put a ball firmly in the back of my net and that of many Liberal Democrats: asked whether there had been “too much immigration into Britain” he stated categorically no. He is of course correct. But I was very disappointed by Chris’s answer, that while immigration had been good overall, some communities had suffered from too much, too quickly. It was particularly worrying that he cited workers in his Eastleigh constituency that had had to deal with increased competition, as though they should be protected from outsiders coming into their town to compete with them for business. This had the whiff of protectionism about it, and contrasted with Nick’s explanation that the problem with immigration was that resources were not provided to local authorities by government (which is too slow to recognise population shifts in towns and districts), that they were not required to learn English, and that a lack of exit controls meant that we had a distorted image of who was in our country.

On the Euro, both agreed that Britain should not be a member now – which is orthodox Lib Dem policy – and neither wanted to get dragged into discussing future coalitions. Chris suggested that electoral reform would lead to a more sensible approach to partnership politics, while Nick got a little shirty with Paxman (which I quite enjoyed).

To conclude, both said that they liked each other personally and, when pressed, Nick said that the “Calamity Clegg” dossier was mean but that he could put it behind him, while Chris said that he took full responsibility, that he apologised, but that it had been drafted by a junior member of his team. Both promised a place in the future shadow-cabinet to his opponent.

While not hugely informative on substance (a couple of issues aside) it nonetheless was clear who won on style. This was summed up best by Mrs. Polemic – so far a Huhne fan – who was fairly frank towards the end in recognising that “Clegg’s wiped the floor with Huhne, hasn’t he?” The question was rhetorical, and justifiably so. I don’t know if this performance alone will have swayed her, but it may have swayed some. I’m looking forward to the hustings more and more.

Grab a cigarette paper, I think I can see a gap!

Yesterday, the BBC published a round-up of the policies of the two Lib Dem leadership candidates. I was surprised at quite how close they are to one another. Indeed, it reminded me of John Major’s quip following Tony Blair’s statement that his three priorities would be “Education, education, education”, that the Conservative government of the time had the same three priorities, but in a different order.

So for example, under the rubric Constitution we read that Nick Clegg “Believes coalition government is only possible after electoral reform [and would introduce a] Freedom Bill to roll back ‘unnecessary, outdated and illiberal’ legislation like ID cards…” and would enable parliament to set aside time to consider petitions. By comparison Chris Huhne, along with enabling petitions to trigger referendums, believes that “Proportional representation [is a] prerequisite for any talks about partnership government [and would introduce a] Freedom Bill to repeal ‘unnecessary and illiberal legislation’.” Oh, and they both support a fully elected House of Lords.

And under Housing Huhne believes “Councils should be allowed to build more houses ... Three million homes should be built in next 10 years”, in stark comparison to Clegg’s desire to “Free councils to build 100,000 affordable homes a year, pushing up total housebuilding [sic.] to 3.3 million in 10 years.”

Well that’s helped me make my mind up. I’m off to man the barricades for whichever one has the warmest handshake at the door outside the hustings.

They both also support more money for schools (which makes a pleasant change from the platform of “Less money for schools” which every other politician has cried during their election campaigns) and to reach out to uncommitted voters (the willow-the-wisp of that elusive 40 per cent, the lumpen masses who could sweep us all to power if only they could be motivated by an inspiring leader).

Even where there are differences, they are more minimal than the various camps are suggesting. Nick believes that we need to maintain our nuclear arsenal as a bargaining chip in future multilateral disarmament talks (and he should know, having been a negotiator in previous talks), while Chris believes that we should maintain “a minimum nuclear deterrent...” while at the same time “rejecting Trident” because it would “tie us irreversibly to dependence on the United States”. The BBC list (itself probably drafted by the two camps following a request from the Beeb) places the importance of localism in tax-raising for Clegg and planning for Huhne.

On only a couple of areas do big differences appear to emerge. Nick has already fathered a policy that commits the Lib Dems to more “managed migration” [sound of head thudding repeatedly against wall], Chris appears to have been far stronger is suggesting that he would be tougher on non-EU immigration if it could be shown that this was leading to rapid short-term effects. So shocking do I find this that I feel the need to point out that I have not seen this policy first-hand from the Huhne camp; I am willing (almost eager) to believe that his position has been misrepresented.

But basically the two are disturbingly close together. This was summed up on Question Time when a member of the audience asked what the differences were between them on tax, to which they replied there was none. That was the end of that discussion. Both have of course explained that they are standing for the leadership of the same party and as such are bound to have much in common, but personally I have been frustrated by the lack of really radical thinking and genuine debate. In part I blame this on Chris’ apparent tactics of attempting to undermine Nick by demonising him and those around him for having dangerously liberal ideas: this has forced Nick back towards the party’s comfort zones; back towards the median voter. But I also suspect that even without the alleged dirty-tricks campaign there would have been an inevitable self-censorship by both potential leaders, recognising the sad reality that it is easier to alienate a voter than enthuse one.

The result is that we have missed a golden opportunity to have what the Liberal Democrats sorely need: a real debate about the soul of our party that would clarify that much-needed narrative that we are trying to formulate. Instead we must resort to looking for differences between the two large enough to slip an voting paper into.

Calamity Clegg?

To my intense irritation, I managed to miss the first ten minutes of the Politics Show, which meant that I missed the first half of the Liberal Democrat leadership special, where John Sopel spoke to both Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne in a head-to-head. Others will have to tell me whether I missed the best bit, but the half I saw was interesting enough.

I came in just before Sopel produced a document entitled Calamity Clegg, that he claimed was an attack sheet produced by Huhne’s office in which it accused Clegg of flip-flopping, saying different things to different audiences and of failing on key policies. Chris of course denied any knowledge of it, but then proceeded to argue that much of what it said was true. What is noteworthy is that he did not say “I’ve no idea what that is, John, but it is not something I commissioned, I have nothing to do with it, and as such I have no intention of discussing a document I have not seen and for which I bear no responsibility.” Perhaps that is because he couldn’t. There ensued the bitterest argument between the two that I have yet heard.

Chris accused Nick of being vague on Trident and of refusing to rule out European social insurance and school voucher models. Nick rebuffed these accusations extremely strongly, arguing that Chris’ own stance on Trident was unclear (he suggested Chris supported building an new missile system) and said that he had been entirely clear on the question of social insurance and vouchers, neither of which he proposed. Notably, Nick mentioned at least twice that he had explicitly ruled these out the previous day (Saturday 17 November) in a private conversation with Chris, but that Chris was deliberately ignoring this; Nick also said that he was clear about this on his website and in other sources.

I think this is a shame. Partly, this is because I believe that social insurance and particularly school vouchers are worth examining, so it is frustrating to hear policies that I believe would improve services and empower individuals being dismissed by both potential leaders. Others however might be relived, so what individuals think about the specific policies is not so important. What is a tragedy is that Chris, by using the suggestion of liberal alternatives to state provision as a weapon with which to beat his opponent, has made it now impossible for either leader to ever consider them. Whether or not the policies would benefit people, it behoves our leaders to be open-minded and willing to examine new evidence as it comes in. By closing down even consideration of alternatives because it serves their personal ambition and vanity does not do any favours to the leadership, the party or the people we are hoping to serve.

Nick’s counter-attack was equally ruthless, it must be said. He accused Chris of deliberately inventing non-existent differences between them so as to create avenues for attack: in effect, lying about Nick’s beliefs or campaign. This follows Chris’ efforts on Thursday to damn Nick by association, suggesting that because one of Nick’s main supporters was David Laws, Nick could not be trusted. Interestingly, the document had been produced just after Sopel had asked Chris whether Nick would be a good leader, to which Chris replied “Yes, but not this time.” As a result of this argument, Nick escaped ever having to answer that question.

Overall, Nick was far calmer and in control of the situation today, while Chris looked more on the back foot than he had on Thursday’s Question Time. However, this was at least in part because it was he whom Sopel had accused of underhand tactics. Chris came out of it looking shifty, underhanded and bitter – perhaps because most of the senior party figures and the press favour his opponent. Nick by comparison looked like he was frustrated by the cheap tactics that the Huhne camp was employing and would rather get on with the important matter of… well… leading the party.

Overall, Chris appeared focussed on undermining Nick; and in the process did harm to our reputation as a party. It is interesting that on Thursday David Dimbleby asked Nick Clegg how he would respond to the reputation of the nasty party. Had I been in Nick’s shoes I would have replied “Not being a Conservative I cannot comment on their reputation”, but if Nick’s answer was less quick and less witty it might be because he was painfully aware that after losing (ejecting?) two leaders in two years, and with David Cameron doing so much to appear cuddly that I expect him any day to dress up in a bear costume, that reputation is passing our way. Today, Chris appeared to be pouring fuel on that fire.

If there is truth in Sopel’s accusation, and that document is real, or is indicative of the campaign the Huhne camp is leading, then the calamity Clegg presents is one for Chris Huhne alone, whereas the tactics Chris is employing to win the election render him a liability.

Question Time: Head-to-head with Clegg and Huhne

There were few surprises in tonight’s Question Time. A Liberal Democrat leadership special, it saw Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne answer questions from an audience that was half Lib Dem supporters and half not. Both started by praising the former leaders, Charles Kennedy and Sir Menzies Campbell, and both sought to fight for the middle ground, not of British politics, but of Liberal Democrat opinion.

In fact, in one sense the night was a fascinating example of Median Voter Theory, with both trying to appear most like most Lib Dems, so as to attract the most votes. In this respect, Chris Huhne undoubtedly has an advantage. Nick Clegg has in the past discussed policies and associated himself with more liberal and more individual-empowering (what I would call libertarian and what others might call Right Wing) ideas, whereas Chris, while also having written for the Orange Book and supported some liberal policies, has not allowed himself to be typecast. It was interesting – and discomforting – that Chris tried to damn Nick by association (“We are judged by the company we keep”) by pointing out that one of his supporters was David Laws, who has written positively about social insurance and school choice.

Unsurprisingly, Nick came across as frank and open, while Chris came across and earnest (“We will do thing differently because we are different”). Chris was replete with sound-bites that he had clearly prepared (which I will highlight below). He spent most of his time positioning himself: he was anti-Trident; he claimed to have originated the policy of setting a date for withdrawing from Iraq. Nick was forced onto the back foot early on when David Dimbleby raised a critique he had made of Chris 18 months before.

On the question of coalitions, both were less strong than they could be. Of course both refused to state with which party they would prefer to deal in the event of a hung parliament, but as a result both appeared to be avoiding answering the question, rather than explaining why they could not answer. Nick appeared to fudge, while Chris suggested that a Purple Coalition between the Tories and Labour was a likely prospect, as the two tried to squeeze the Lib Dems out of government. In fact, this is an extremely implausible suggestion for the very reasons that Chris raised when discussing the results of such an outcome: the upshot would be that the Lib Dems would be strengthened by being seen as the real alternative to the cosy Tory-Labour consensus. Nonetheless, Chris persisted in suggesting it was possible, which I think lacked credibility. He kept referring to himself as a “First, Best Liberal Democrat” and noted that our current electoral system “stinks”. Nick argued that the Lib Dems should not be seen as an “annex” of other parties but should seek a more liberal world, and interestingly (though without presenting any explanation) suggested that we might be two elections away from the end of the two party “grip on power”.

Where I think both failed here is that neither made two crucial and honest points: firstly, that decisions on coalitions must depend entirely on how liberal the other parties are prepared to be in the programme they are willing to propose for a coalition government (put simply, we will ally with the party that is prepared to join us in the most liberal coalition), and second that we would have to be guided by electoral reality (if one party won 300 seats and another 200, we would have to at least give the larger party first refusal). Both fluffed this issue, and I was surprised and disappointed that they did.

The first real policy spat started with Trident. Accusations began to fly as Nick accused Chris of being willing to build a new generation of missiles while Nick would prefer to keep all negotiating options open as we go into the 2010 disarmament talks; while Chris denied this and suggested that we would be better spending the money on equipment for troops rather than new nukes. Chris made a bid for the anti-American vote by arguing that Trident wed us to the United States and somehow suggesting a link between this and the Iraq war – a suggestion that does not bear up to scrutiny. But he made a good point about Pakistan in saying that if we support President Musharraf we might end up repeating the mistake we (the UK and the US) made when supporting the Shah or Iran in the 1970s.

The spat over, the question on what the Lib Dems would say to a voter seeking lower taxes was a damp squib. Both agreed flatly that they completely agreed with one another that Lib Dem policy presented a lower and fairer tax burden, and that was that. Dimbleby moved on.

Asked how we should tell them apart, however, both resorted to listing their curriculum vitae, which pointed out that both had lives and careers before politics – a strength which both bring to the House and to the Party and which help make both more rounded people and promising potential leaders. This was Nick’s big moment, as he chose it to deliver his haymaker – a big, impassioned speech about why he went into politics: his “Anger that so many children go through the day without getting a hot meal”, the fact that poor people in Sheffield die 14 years earlier than their rich neighbours, his opposing to the war, the extra money for the NHS that has been wasted, the to 15-20 per cent of children who leave school unable to read and write.

This highlighted one of Chris’ main challenges as a potential leader, which is that while he undoubtedly feels just as passionate as Nick or anybody else, he often fails to express it; to convey it. Nonetheless he did make an emotive plea for the party to prioritise equality (“a fair start and an open road”) as well as liberty and opportunity – a position with which many and probably most Liberal Democrats would agree. He is undoubtedly genuine in this and sees this (whether correctly or not I do not know) as a difference between him and Nick. Where he was less honest, however, was in his criticism of “Top-down market solutions” to public sector efficiency problems. This is a remarkable comment for an economist: the whole point of the market is that it is bottom up; individuals express their will by allocating their resources themselves, rather than having them allocated for them by officials. As a paean for more localism it had a certain internal logic, and will appeal to Lib Dem voters. But it missed the fundamental point that empowering individuals improves the services they and everybody else enjoys.

As the programme wound down, the gaps narrowed again. Both utilised state schools (who, now in politics, does not!) and opposed raising the compulsory education age to 18 (though it was interesting to note that Chris had misunderstood the proposal, suggesting that it would not benefit those like his son who were less academic and would benefit from an apprenticeship, which is in fact one of the government’s routes through training for over 16s). Chris said that he shared Gordon Brown’s ambition to match the average spending on state pupils to that of private pupils – a noble goal, but an impossible one, as private education is largely used by those who are prepared to spend above the average; a rise in state spending will merely reduce the size of the private sector and raise the average cost. Neither was clear enough here: compulsion is a daft idea; all young people should have access to education, but none should be forced. The option to defer that education should also be considered.

On voting ages and the failings of David Cameron, both were in agreement; on the best qualities of the other, a love-in ensued. It ended a bit suddenly and unsatisfactorily. Neither delivered the knock-out blow, though if anything I think Chris Huhne did himself more favours, for while I question much of what he said and of what he did, his deliberate efforts to place himself “to the Left” of Nick and so perhaps closer to the median Lib Dem voter may nonetheless be successful. Only time, Sunday’s Politics Show and the forthcoming hustings will show. Oh, and the vote itself, of course.

Chris Huhne: an unfair society; ruled by a scary computer

It is a good rule of thumb that if the complete opposite of a statement is complete garbage, the statement is not worth saying. So I’m somewhat disappointed by Chris Huhne’s campaign slogan: “a fairer society; people in charge”.

I mean, think about it. On the one hand, Nick Clegg is hardly arguing for a less fair society, and while that may be what the Conservatives and Labour have delivered, they would undoubtedly say that that was not their intention, or even that it was not true.

But it's the other hand (or rather, clause) that really irritates me. People in charge? As opposed to what? Dogs? An all powerful computer? A terrifying fatalism that allows us to abrogate all sense of responsibility?

I don’t mean to make this a partisan blog, so please don’t consider this to be the beginning of a series of anti-Huhne broadsides. But I do get annoyed when politicians state the bleeding obvious as though it was a vision for the future. If Nick Clegg says anything as pointless and vacuous I will happily jump on it.

Instead of “People in charge”, might I suggest to Chris two possible alternatives, either of which would have more meaning but which offer a very different solution to the problems we face. Both would appeal to liberals (I think) because they are significant shifts away from the current Statist, centralised status quo. Yet the solutions they offer are derived from very different strands of liberalism.

Chris Huhne: a fairer society; where people are free – indicating a society where government no longer provides monopoly services, but instead ensures that everybody has the resources necessary to provide themselves with the basic essentials of sustenance, shelter, medical care, education and welfare; and where there is far less legislation and regulation of people’s lives.

Chris Huhne: a fairer society, managed by the people – indicating a society where government monopoly services are controlled by tiers of government closer (and so more responsive) to citizens or by directly elected boards; and where the regulations and legislation that shape our lives are instigated and voted upon through more grass-roots mechanisms (e.g. citizen’s juries; plebiscites; mandatory petitions).

My regular reader will know which I prefer, but I hope that I have fairly presented the two sides. By choosing one (or offering an alternative – comments welcome) Chris would be doing that thing so rare among the political classes these days – telling us where he stands. I hope and trust that over the coming weeks he’ll do just that.

In the meantime, I expect and fear that this is the not last time such vacuous soundbites will be attached to a campaign.

It was the Press wot’ done it

Last night, as Simon Hughes and Vince Cable finished their announcement to the press on the doorsteps of the Liberal Democrats Cowley Street headquarters, a voice from amongst the serried ranks of journalists cried out “Who wielded the dagger?” For the answer to that question, the press might be better looking closer to home.

Sir Menzies Campbell has been dogged by a hostile press since his election to lead the party just 18 months ago. He had had an inauspicious start: the Conservatives had just elected their new leader only weeks before the Lib Dems only leadership crisis, in a competition that at the time was seen as very good for the Tories; the nature of Charles Kennedy’s departure left a bitter taste in the mouths of many voters and party activists (though not as bitter as the gin that was his downfall); and Ming’s early performances at Prime Minister’s Questions were not great.

Yet the story was far from simple. Within months of being elected leader, the Lib Dems scored to a brilliant by-election result in Bromley & Chislehurst: just 650 more votes and the future of both Sir Menzies and the Liberal Democrats might have been very different. The story at PMQs was far from one-sided and by all accounts he had been getting better. And his conference speech in Brighton last month was the best of his career.

And therein lies the truth of his demise. For all that success, the press were simply not interested. It was as if they did not want to hear that Sir Menzies, at 66 years of age, leading a Liberal Democratic Party, might actually have good, important points to make that the British people might want to hear. I thought it was an excellent speech, and so did many of my colleagues. But it had precisely no impact upon the media whatsoever.

For the press, the story had already been written: Ming was too old; the Young Turks were waiting in the wing’s; the Lib Dems were being squeezed (media-speak for our policies being stolen by the other parties); and if we did not dump our leaders soon we would crash to a defeat that would be worse than anything since the SDP merged with the Liberals in 1988. Forget the fact that in both this Summer’s parliamentary by-elections we came second and pushed “David Cameron’s Conservatives” into third place; or the fact that in the previous 15 council by-elections, we gained two seats and the Tories lost one, while Labour merely held their ground; or the fact that in my recent Council election, for example, we polled more votes than Labour and the Conservatives combined. For the press, the story was already written, because they had written it.

Now, the hypocrisy is in full swing. The media are variously saying that Sir Menzies was a nice chap but just overwhelmed by the negative press he’d received (from whom?); that he was getting better at his job but that the public were not listening (because the media weren’t conveying the message); and that he was assassinated (which, if true, may have been because every MP at every interview was asked when Ming would go).

If this dark episode has any silver lining, it is that the Lib Dems can look forward to some heightened media attention as Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne battle it out for the leadership (with, presumably, some others in the sidelines). However, it is unlikely that – when the dust settles – the press are going to be willing to give us the continuing coverage that we deserve, as a party that received a quarter of the votes in the last general election. Our future, with or without Sir Menzies, will be a tough battle in the face of a hostile media. Time to start writing those Focuses.

Why we suffer such terrible, inept government

My blogging life has two dominating themes:

1) bringing interesting Times articles to a largely Guardian/Independent reading audience,
2) commenting on yesterday’s news (often because by the time I’ve written it up it is too late to post it on the day and so I leave it to the following lunchtime to post).

On Wednesday, Chris Dillow wrote a provocative piece on why we put up with terrible, inept government (though actually he had a lot more to say about why government was terrible than why we put up with it). He comes to the shocking conclusion that ineptitude is the inevitable consequence of government (Well, you could have knocked me down with a feather!).

He cites four lines of research that suggest this:

• F.A. Hayek’s (we’ve met him before!) view that information is inherently dispersed and no single person or small group can know as much or be as well informed as the millions of individuals working for their own (enlightened) self-interest;
• Research into “Cognitive Bias” that has given us a list of common blunders that one might recognise from government (Groupthink is strangely missing, as is the “Fear-of-Brown effect”);
• Transactions-cost economics, from which we learn that economies of scale are not the only possible outcome of horizontal and vertical integration, so that sometimes it is more efficient to contract out certain operations (human resources, manufacturing the constituent parts of a whole) than to do everything in-house and direct everything from on high;
• Recent management literature suggesting that leadership and hierarchy are less effective than trust and delegation.

Dillow’s alternative to hierarchical government and the cult of leadership are certainly interesting: ‘flat-rate allowances [could be] paid to everyone rather than [operate] an administration-heavy welfare state; schools and hospitals could become worker coops; we could use demand-revealing referendums rather than look to “leadership”.’

I have argued before that the Government should limit itself to ensuring that everybody is able to access vital services, without feeling the need to provide them itself. I don’t see why schools and hospitals need to be “workers co-operatives” (it sounds like a sop to the Commies, to me!), but if some co-ops want to operate alongside, and compete with, profit making enterprises, social enterprises, charities, municipalities and whomsoever else wishes to provide services, I would welcome the diversity of provision.

However, while I remain unclear as to what he means by a “demand-revealing referendum”, if it is anything like Direct Democracy it fills me with trepidation. I would be happy if just three changes were made to society
1) A greater empowerment of individuals, from which would follow greater responsibility
2) A reduction in the size and scope of the state, which needs to learn to do less, better
3) Devolution of authority over those areas that require collective decision making to lower levels of government.

With a smaller state, stronger local government and greater individual freedom, we would be spared the gargantuan blunders of big government, would be better able to hold decision-makers to account, and would have a more real sense of responsibility over the tiny blunders that we make and suffer every day.

Mr. Dillow’s book, The End of Politics, will be added to my reading list as soon as I have read one of the two feet of books that I have outstanding on my bookshelf, and can thus lift the moratorium on new book purchases that I have unilaterally declared. Others may wish to read it sooner.

Brown in, Reid out

John Reid has told the Politics Show that he will not serve in a Gordon Brown cabinet. However, he avoided attacking the Chancellor, even claiming that Brown had offered him a place in the Cabinet, which Reid declined. Reid has also said that he will back Brown for the leadership.

Speculation will be rife as to the motivation behind Reid’s announcement. One thing is certain: it has become clear even to the “anyone but Gordon” crowd that Brown is going to be the next prime minister. Usually, this would trigger a rush to embrace him before it is too late; few ministers easily give up the ministerial limo. But is may be that for the likes of Reid, serving beside Gordon Brown is too awful a prospect to face.

But why openly support Brown’s move to the leadership (it hardly warrants being called a “bid” anymore). There remains the option of retiring to the back benches, there to snipe and hope to undermine the Brown premiership. Yet Reid was categorical in his refusal to act as a lightning rod for anti-Brown New Labour sentiment (as opposed to anti-Brown old Labour sentiment, for which two lightning rods have emerged). Even from the back benches, he promised to be supportive.

Jaded political analysts among us might wonder whether this is mere window dressing, with Reid in fact planning to join the likes of Alan Milburn and Charles Clarke in fermenting dissatisfaction with Brown. But I doubt it. The Home Secretary is committed to the Labour Party, and may prove to be a wiser politician than either Milburn or Clarke.

I suspect Reid has accurately judged that any opposition to the Chancellor will damage Labour as a whole without necessarily protecting Labour or the country from the worst Brown has to offer. Battles between Brownites and Blairites have been at the root of many of Labour’s most difficult moments. It may therefore be the case that Reid is actually being frank when he says he will retire quietly to the backbenches and support Gordon Brown.

As Thursday’s election results showed, the pendulum is rapidly swinging from red to blue, and as the Tories demonstrated in the 1990s, that is not the time for party in-fighting. Reid may not like Gordon Brown, but he finds him infinitely preferable to David Cameron.

Who is Labour’s mysterious fourth candidate?

According to the Electoral Commission, which among other jobs monitors campaign contributions to party leadership elections, three Members of Parliament have informed them of donations. However, Gordon Brown is not one of them.

Mr. Brown’s camp has no website and, officially at least, has received no money. Others have suggested that a campaign is being run, but that the infrastructure is buried in other organisations.

Meanwhile, the more exciting question (as the idea of the Chancellor being secretive or circumscribing the rules is hardly newsworthy) is who has declared receipt of funds to the Electoral Commission when they have not even declared they are in the race. Michael Meacher and John McDonnell we know of, but who else has been building up a war-chest? We can only speculate.
But as a source at the Electoral Commission noted, “It would be a pity if someone’s campaign was announced through a declaration of funds to the Electoral Commission.” A pity for them, perhaps, but for the rest of us it would be comical!

Labour Party in panic over party funding plans

Sir Hayden Phillips’s second interim report on party funding has been leaked to the BBC, and it contains bad news for Labour.

Sir Hayden appears to be leaning towards capping donations at £500,000, and reducing that cap over four years to just £50,000. This would be hard for the Labour Party, as it has less high income donors than the Conservatives, who have been calling for a £50,000 cap for this very reason. How it would leave the Liberal Democrats is known only to Cowley Street insiders.

However, it is in the following section that Sir Hayden strikes at the heart of the Labour Party. With impeccable logic and no sense of the political ramifications involved, the former Permanent Secretary at the Lord Chancellor’s Department has declared that “I see no reason why donations from trades unions should be exempt from the cap”. This, and another suggestion that trades union members should be allowed to opt out of donating part of their subscription to the Labour Party, could deal a fatal blow to Labour.

Labour has traditionally relied heavily on trades union donations. If these are now capped at £50,000 it will cripple them financially at a time when they are £23.4 million in debt. More importantly, it will break the unhealthy grip that trades unions have over Labour Party policymaking, effectively freeing the party once-and-for-all from the rent seeking of these particular special interest groups.

If proof of the significance of this were needed, it was provided by John McDonnell MP, so far the only Labour member to announce his candidacy for the leadership (his slogan: “Another world is possible” – and he should know, as he must be living on one if he expects to receive anything other than a drubbing).

McDonnell claimed that the party would react with “fury” to this independent review, and that there would be “uproar” at the next National Executive Committee meeting. According to McDonnell, trades union donations are the “cleanest money in politics”, and at a time of Labour sleaze should be welcomed. Presumably, he thinks cash-for-favours is somehow better than cash-for-peerages.

While there are important liberal questions about limiting how individuals dispense with their money, this is probably a good policy. Individuals will still be able to finance their own campaigns that support particular issues and so guide the decisions of electors but their power over elected officials will be greatly reduced. Even if Labour can survive the financial pain these proposals will cause them, Sir Hayden will have provided a great service to democracy.