Thoughts on Tonge and Huhne

Two Lib Dems have been in the news for the wrong reasons today.

First up looking at the case of Baroness Tonge. Do we know that Israel, or any country will exist forever? Simple answer is no we don't. Look at the map of 1980s Europe

Who would have thought when Maggie Thatcher came to power that by the time she left power that the Soviet Union would have split into its component parts. That the same would happen to Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, or that Germany would be reunited.

In the rest of the World since then Yemen has unified a Palestinian State has been recognised as had Eritrea and East Timor.  Also, while there is talk of when Puerto Rico might become the 51st state Palau has gained independence from the superpower. So nobody can say what countries will be around in 20 years time.

Baroness Tonge

However, Baroness Tonge's crime is not being unable to predict history but to say "Israel will lose support and then they will reap what they have sown." 


If we are to have influence in the world we should be striving to make Israel realise how they are seen by many in the world.  Along with Spain we in the UK have experience of dealing with conflict resolution and expertise that we can use to have influence in the Palestinian-Israeli issue. Peace walls are coming down in Northern Ireland, interfaces are being opened up after decades of being closed between communities. We are actually the position closest to that facing the West Bank and Gaza Strip today. What we should be doing is helping in the dialogue to enable Israel and Palestine to co-exist side by side.


Tonge is wrong and the fact that she has failed to realise that as Lib Dems we should be at the forefront of helping that region gain a lasting peace is illiberal and she had rightfully had the party whip removed.

Chris Huhne

The issue with Huhne is different, he has stepped down in his own words to defend what he says is his innocence. If he had been sacked or resigned for another reason he would have been entitled to his severance pay as any other employee with such a scheme has. The difference is that the minister in question has to put in the claim for it. I'm not sure if there is a time restriction on being able to claim this money, however I suspect that there might well be. Huhne is facing a court case the end date of which he does not yet know so he may have been unable to claim it after the case is settled.


So here is a solution.


Chris Huhne should set up a blind trust, over which he has no contorl, to handle the three months ministerial pay that he is entitled to as severance pay, with the proviso that if he is found guilty that all money and interest is returned, but if he is found innocent the monies in the fund are transferred to his control. That seems like a sensible and equitable solution just in case the accusations are those created by an ex-wife spurned making something out of rumours from the past.


I don't expect everyone to agree but I'd like to hear of an alternative that maintain the premise of innocent until proven otherwise in that situation.

Huhne and ex-wife to face charges

So the Crown Prosecution Service have announced that charges of perverting the course of justice are to be brought against the Environment Secretary Chris Huhne and his ex-wife Vicky Pryce.

So with his cabinet position untenable who will take over this Lib Dem position. Not because he has been found guilty of anything, but because his resources or time and energy will have to be directed to defending himself. Therefore the ability to carry out his Government responsibilities would be limited as he is facing a criminal charge.

Who will be replacing him? There was talk of David Laws making his return. However, the BBC seem to be implying that Norman Lamb who is currently a senior adviser to Nick Clegg will be coming in, or Ed Davey.

Update: People are talking about the option of Davey going to DECC, Lamb to replace him at Business and Laws to become the PPS to the DPM.

Update 2: The above is mostly correct except for the fact that the PPS to the Deputy Prime Minister is actually going to be Jo Swinson not David Laws. In a rather nice loop in my own personal life, shortly after I went to University the MP for the seat entered the Cabinet as Chief Secretary to the Treasury and later a second promotion within the department found him as Chancellor, now the man who replaced him with Kingston as part of the seat name is in the Cabinet.

The Politics of the Gutter - Or #No2AV This is Your Campaign

For many weeks now I've been getting angrier and angrier with George Osborne and David Cameron's actions and word in the AV referendum .

Before March 16th when we had the deal that would to the referendum we have spend the last 15 hours voting on David Cameron was insistent that he like Nick Clegg were not going to be heavily involved in the front line of the debate themselves, but would get on with leading the Government in this very trying time. All seemed to be sweetness and light if in different corners on the substance of the debate.

But the No campaign then went into personality attacks on the leader of the junior partner in the coalition government. David Cameron had made a promise to Nick Clegg that it would be a reasoned argument on his part, but Cameron and Osborne quickly joined in on the mudslinging at the man they have to work with in Government rather than arguing the merits or otherwise of the two systems that were on offer.

The worse thing was that they joined in with the lies that the No campaign were spurting out. There were questions in the House to try and get the truth to be acknowledged. As nobody can accuse another Member of the House of being a liar this had to be done through the formality of asking questions. Of course I and many others were shouting lying at the TV screen at any point that the lies were being re-iterated, any time that a loaded question from Conservative or Labour No MPs were asked in PMQs, especially the Labour ones as they wasted a chance to hold the government to account.

Cameron has actually taken liberties with the actuality in the House by stating some of the downright lies that have been part of the No Campaign's strategy. Two months ago they were trailing in the polls. So they started, as they had already been doing but with people like the PM in the starting line up now, to get these lies out. The problem is when the PM tells a lie it takes a long time to counter it.

The PM says there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq many people believe him.

The PM says that there will have to be voting machines to count an AV count many people believe him.

The PM says his Deputy once said the words miserable little compromise, solely about AV, not the lateness of the offer, or whom it was aimed at, or the desperation of the outgoing previous PM to cling to power and of course it was a miserable compromise it came 12.95 years into a 13 year term of power.

But to stand by posters that attack a member of your cabinet. To stand by an referendum broadcast that talks about broken promises (aimed squarely at one party in coalition) instead of what actually as you said last year of coming together for the common good of the country, both putting things on the shelf. This is shoddy politics from the man who claims he has a good working relationship.

If I had been elected last year I do not know how I could have sat on the same benches as some of Conservatives who were repeating this bile. I may very well have crossed the chamber to sit as an non-Coalition Liberal Democrat, giving my friend Alistair Carmichael a headache in how to discipline me. Maybe it has been because for the last six months I have been living, breathing and making decisions for the Yes Campaign rather than politics as a whole that I feel this way that some colleagues in Westminster haven't got to the stage Chris Huhne allegedly did in cabinet on Tuesday.

Whatever happens tomorrow I know that we have faced the dirtiest opponent in my entire political career. That is probably because most of my other opponents know they will have to go to the polls again within 5 years. The No campaign don't have that constraint on them, they only had to win once, they only had to stop a change. They didn't offer anything positive, some of what they tried to offer was better reform.

If they have won what they have done is kill any hope of electoral reform before I reach the age of retirement maybe even before I reach 100 (and that is two generations away).

Note I told you I'd let rip, bet you didn't guess this early.

Is Labour Control of Information to Blame?

This morning in the Independent we learnt that the the Youth Justice Board are not publishing their figures on youth crime as scheduled but in 6 months time. An official at the government agency has said that the reason for this is official "purdah" period. The former Civil Servant in me is screaming Gordon hasn't gone to the Palace yet he can't be suppressing reports under the election "purdah" period, that is unless the politico in me has missed the actually calling of the General Election (and I know that hasn't happened).

We also have Helen Goodman Labour MP for Bishop Auckland crying out:

"The police have talked to me about [mephedrone] and have really made the case for a legal ban on it.

She said it should for two reasons: "One is that it would send out a clear message to young people about how very dangerous it is.

"Secondly, it would mean that the police have more powers for dealing with it.

"The police have told me that there are people standing outside the primary school in one of the villages in my constituency trying to push that to people under the age of 12.

"We need to educate young people in the dangers and risks of taking drugs, but I also think we need to have a proper legal framework.

"Ideally, as well as looking at this one particular drug we'd have a new legal framework that would ensure you couldn't just go away, tweak it, and come back and sell something that's incredibly close."

On point one tobacco can be dangerous, alcohol can dangerous, indeed any alien item in the human body can be dangerous. Heck tasers can be dangerous, on people with minor heart conditions could be fatal.....oh hang on the police want to use them not ban them. I don't hear Labour MPs crying out for a complete ban on any of these to send out a clear message to young people, and the police, how very dangerous these are.

Also this is the same police force that have called out for ID cards, random stop and search, rights to detain for 90 days without charge, rights for fully exposing search at airports all of which, and more, have been pandered to by authoritarian Labour, without consideration of civil liberty considerations.

But then it all comes back to information, or more to the point Labour's control of information should I say. Just like we have a Youth Justice Board providing information to the Government about youth crime (even though the rest of us won't get that info for six months) how about a similar body for drug usage. Let's see let us call it the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), that'll work says exactly what is says on the tin. Lets appoint some experts in that field to that panel and let them look into things such as new drugs on the scene, just like methedrone. They could advise government based on scientific evidence just how dangerous the various drugs in our culture are.

Guess what? The ACMD does exist.

Guess what? The ACMD had a sub-committee looking into legal highs.

Guess what? Labour didn't like what the Chief expert Dr David Nutt had to say about cannabis in October so the Home Secretary sacked him.Other members of the panel also resigned.

As a result of losing the six experts Home Secretary Alan Johnson has said he would not pre-judge decisions on drug classification ahead of the committee issuing advice. However, we have Labour and Conservative members of the house now wishing to jump just such a gun before scientific opinions are made.

As Chris Huhne Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary points out:

"If the Home Secretary hadn't meddled in the work of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs we would already have had their advice and the Government would be able to act.

"The failure to classify mephedrone is a direct consequence of the Government’s interference in the independent advice of its scientific advisers.

"If the Home Secretary hadn't meddled in the work of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs we would already have had their advice and the Government would be able to act."

So it is all very well Mandelson saying a review into mephedrone should be "speedily, carefully" carried out. Thing is that process was stalled by Labour own stubbornness to accept scientific fact. They'll happily accept scientific 'fact' when it suits them, weapons on mass destruction in Iraq springs readily to mind, but not when it goes against what they have already said.

Is Now the Time for Balanced Election Coverage?

The bias of the media towards two party politics has been highlighted and condemned by Chris Huhne writing in the Independent today. It comes after Jeremy Hunt, the Conservative Party's media spokesperson accused the BBC of Labour bias and demanded they employ more Conservative-inclined reporters.

Chris point out:

"A hiring policy that sought out particular views in people who are meant to be professionally impartial would be a dangerous step towards a Berlusconi-style system. It would probably be illegal under anti-discrimination law."

What is needed is not a biased load of journalists for one of the big two parties but to a genuine impartiality. As Chris points out in all bar one election since 1979 the Liberal Democrats have climbed in support from the opinion polls one month out; the average increase being 3.9%. This is due to the media at that point having to drop their two-party view of politics in the UK and becoming more impartial. If the same happens again this time, on current opinion polls it would result in 22 more Lib Dem MPs.

At the heart of Chris's piece is the message that the media are already prejudging, indeed helping to ensure that General Elections in this country will return one of two parties as the main party and the other as the main opposition. He says in conclusion:

"Britain's broadcasters should not prejudge the voters, let alone the electoral system. The only fair approach, at a time of heightened political sensitivity, is to apply the rules as they would be applied in the general election.

"After all, both Labour and the Conservatives have recently announced their election campaigns have begun. It is time for broadcasters to begin election-style fairness too, and let the contest of ideas begin."

There has been a lot of discussion lately about the fairness of not of the proposed leadership debates prior to the next Westminster election. Alex Salmond even says it is unfair to exclude him from such a meeting.

However, one thing that Salmond doesn't have to contend with is being sidelined or excluded from mainline political discussion in the years between elections, here in Scotland the SNPs views are widely covered on Scottish news and politics shows. Yet the Lib Dems are often fighting for a voice on the national stage.

How often do you find Labour or the Conservatives not having a representative on Question Time? Never, but the same applies to the Lib Dems on a regular basis. Following that every Thursday you get This Week which has Michael Portillo and Diane Abbott as the two main foils to Andrew Neill, the Lib Dems get the even more infrequent guest slot on that.

It is an issue that Alex Salmond and his SNP don't really encounter, they are included on Newsnight Scotland and the Politics Show Scotland and therein lies an essence against Alex's argument to be on the UK-wide debate. The BBC already does make allowances for the SNP here in Scotland, indeed to some extent here too they focus on two party politics only this time between Labour and the SNP, there is however less exclusion of the others but it still occurs subliminally on the amount of airtime or positioning of the parties.

So with the main two parties, and for that matter the SNP declaring at the weekend that the General Election race is now on, why must we wait until the election is called to get fair representation of views in the media. For five months the Lib Dems could, on past evidence, be losing ground where they have been so close in recent times to overtaking Labour in the popular vote.

Lib Demming Across the Universe

Who says Glee Club is a waste of time? It certainly seems to inspire the songwriters amongst us Lib Dems. You may have read my posting from last night, this one is buried by anonymous commenter on Jennie Rigg's blog, I feel it needs a wider audience. Whoever wrote this is a genius, though as Jennie says 'has WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much typing time'.

Lib Demmin' across the universe,
On the Starship Libbyduck under Captain Clegg.
Lib Demmin' across the universe,
No longer coming third because Labour's polling worse.

Lt. Swinson, report.
There's defectors on the starboard bow, starboard bow, starboard bow;
there's defectors on the starboard bow, starboard bow, Nick.

Analysis, Mr. Huhne.
It's P.R., Nick, but not as we know it, not as we know it, not as we know it;
it's P.R., Nick, but not as we know it, not as we know it, Captain.

There's defectors on the starboard bow, starboard bow, starboard bow;
there's defectors on the starboard bow, starboard bow, Nick.

Lib Demmin' across the universe,
On the Starship Libbyduck under Captain Clegg.
Lib Demmin' across the universe,
Only going forward, still can't find reverse.

Polling update, Mr. Davey.
It's worse than that, we're stuffed, Nick, stuffed, Nick, stuffed, Nick;
it's worse than that, we're stuffed, Nick, stuffed, Nick, stuffed.

It's P.R., Nick, but not as we know it, not as we know it, not as we know it;
it's P.R., Nick, but not as we know it, not as we know it, Captain.

There's defectors on the starboard bow, starboard bow, starboard bow;
there's defectors on the starboard bow, starboard bow, Nick.

Gunnery officer, Hilary Stephenson:
Ah! We come in peace, Focus to kill, Focus to kill, Focus to kill;
we come in peace, Focus to kill, Focus to kill, men.

It's worse than that, we're stuffed, Nick, stuffed, Nick, stuffed, Nick;
it's worse than that, we're stuffed, Nick, stuffed, Nick, stuffed.

Well, it's P.R., Nick, but not as we know it, not as we know it, not as we know it;
it's P.R., Nick, but not as we know it, not as we know it, Captain.

There's defectors on the starboard bow, starboard bow, starboard bow;
there's defectors on the starboard bow, scrape 'em off, Nick.

Lib Demmin' across the universe,
On the Starship Libbyduck under Captain Clegg.
Lib Demmin' across the universe,
Only going forward, and things are getting worse!

Engineer, Mr. Alexander:
Ye cannot change the manifesto, manifesto, manifesto;
ye cannot change the manifesto, manifesto, Nick.

Ah! We come in peace, Focus to kill, Focus to kill, Focus to kill;
we come in peace, Focus to kill; Hilary, beam me up!

It's worse than that, we're stuffed, Nick, stuffed, Nick, stuffed, Nick;
it's worse than that, we're stuffed, Nick, stuffed, Nick, stuffed.

Well, it's P.R., Nick, but not as we know it, not as we know it, not as we know it;
it's P.R., Nick, but not as we know it, not as we know it, Captain.

There's defectors on the starboard bow, starboard bow, starboard bow;
there's defectors on the starboard bow, better calm down!

Ye cannot change the script Nick.
Och, #!*& Nicky.

It's worse than that, it's national swing, Nick.

Bridge to engine room, deploy Cable.

Och, if I give it any more she'll blow, Cap'n!

Lib Demmin' across the universe,
On the Starship Libbyduck under Captain Clegg.
Lib Demmin' across the universe,
No longer coming third because Labour's polling worse.

Lib Demmin' across the universe,
On the Starship Libbyduck under Captain Clegg.
Lib Demmin' across the universe,
Never passed a policy the leader can't reverse.

Telegraph Trying to Big Up a £119 Trouser Press

So the Telegraph have this morning got around to looking at Liberal Democrat MP's expenses saying that they "have made claims just as questionable as their Labour and Conservative counterparts". But as the BBC have said on BBC Breakfast none of it amounts to the kind of claims that have been seen from the other parties over recent days.

First off they make no mention of second homes outwith their constituency or Westminster base. There is no accusation of flipping for financial gain. There is no moat cleaning, stable charges, swimming pools or the like.

There is the dubious nature of the occupancy of Andrew George's flat. But claiming that the Sheffield based leader, who has a growing young family should not be allowed to claim a full second home's allowance without giving reasons (such as the above) why that hay have been the case this years. Also while they attack MPs ludicrous amounts for upgrading their house can they at the same time accuse an MP of more than 20 years from claiming significantly less for refurbishing his London flat? Indeed Menzies Campbell refurbishment is on a leased property not one that he has purchased so no personal gain then. As for £1000 for a King Size bed, if it has the most ergonomic mattress like the one I slept on during 2005 that is about right. As a 30 something ex-athlete it sure helped my aches and pains heaven knows what something like that may do for a 70 something ex-athlete.

So apart from George, Clegg and Campbell all claiming housing allowances it is then the level of 'abuses' that is far less that the other parties. We not talking the thousands of pounds that Conservatives have already promised to pay back in fact in many cases the headline price is not included probably because it isn't as exciting as the items. But £119 for a trouser press for Chris Huhne which when you are constantly living out of suitcases yet needing to be smart. Lembit Opik stupidly claiming a whole £40 for his summons for non-payment of council tax. Nick Clegg's mobile phone calls to family in Columbia and Vietnam £100.


The main worry is that the only leather rocking chair I can find find on Heal's website is in Lib Dem yellow which is fine for standing out in a crowd but surely not in Julia Goldsworthy's London flat. She should probably pay that back on the grounds of taste let alone the luxuriousness and unnessecariousness of it. Update: Although Julia has Tweeted "frustrated the papers didn't report that the furniture was bought ahead of moving into an unfurnished flat, & I didn't claim the full costs". If that is the case clearly the Telegraph are expected the MPs to live in monastic spendour in cells beneath Portcullis House. Though if that is the rocking chair in question my comments on taste still hold.

None of this, with the exception of dubious nature of the George flat and that rocking chair, is hardly as questionable as the other parties claims on numerous luxuries. However, the Lib Dems yesterday were also the first party yesterday to say that no MP would benefit financially from their expenses.

Why is Effective Knife Crime Reduction Model Not Copied?

Writing in today's Times Chris Huhne asks why the simple, commonsense approach started by one Cardiff based cosmetic surgeon has not been repeated across the board?

The premise is simple without breaking patient doctor confidentiality the surgeon provides the location, day and times of the attacks on those victims he has to work on. The police have been able to use the anonymised data to target hotspots at the right time and the 40% reduction is the proof in the pudding.

But it hasn't been taken up in other health trusts despite backing of both The National Policing Improvement Agency and the General Medical Council. It is also part of of the Government's Tackling Knives Action Programme (TKAP). Not somehow it is not a matter of course across the hospitals in the country. As the Lib Dem Home Affairs spokesman says it would seem to be a fairly commonsense approach. I mean look at any crime series on TV or film, they using mapping of serial events to try and close in on the suspect. I mean knife crime is not happening on every street corner all of the time. It is happening primarily in certain areas and possibly at certain days in the weekend and even maybe at certain times.

Looking into this sort of information is a far more effective use of police time and resources in helping reduce crime, deterring it from happening is better than then having to try and deal with the consequences. As Chris points out the scheme was dreamed up by a healer as part of what he saw as his duty as part of a National Health Service rather than merely a cure service. Surely we should be looking at ways like this of the police being part of a Crown Prevention of Crime Service rather than merely as part of a prosecution service.

Are We a Democracy in Disguise

The worrying news of the arrest and questioning of Damien Green, the Conservatives' Shadow Immigration Minister, over Home Office leaks yesterday raises serious questions about the execution of the anti-terror laws that Labour have brought forwards in recent years.

All through the process there has been concern raised that such draconian measures in the wrong hands could lead to major concerns over the democratic process. But who would ever have thought that those wrong hands would actually be those of the Labour party. A party that themselves were often under investigation for communist leanings, as any reader of Tony Benn's diaries will be aware. As Chris Huhne the Liberal Democrat Shadow for Home Affairs said:

"Receiving information from government departments in the public interest and
publicising it is a key part of any MP’s role. This is the most worrying
development for many years, with the potential to shift power even more
conclusively from Parliament to the Government. It is also extraordinary
considering Gordon Brown himself as Shadow Chancellor received and publicised
many leaked official documents."

When the civil rights of an opposition Member of Parliament to carry out his role of scrutinising are threatened because of information he may or may not have become privy to how can we effectively have a parliamentary democracy? Are we any better than that Zimbabwe? As David Davis put it on the Today programme:

"None of this put in any way national intelligence, national security, or international relations at risk - yet we end up with a situation that is in some way reminiscent of Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, with an Opposition spokesman being arrested for nine hours. It is extraordinary, frankly."

Where is the government moving the line to? Are they deliberately trying to hinder scrutiny? If so, what do they have to hide?

There are a lot of questions about such legislation being used against a legislator and this latest incident means it is definitely time for the powers invested in these areas are properly addressed. This is just another step along the wrong path where too much alleged need to protect is impinging on civil liberties to go about as normally as possible.

We Need a Third, or Should That be Second Way

We now have our second, white, middle classed, Westminster and Cambridge educated, Englishman, both of whom are economic liberals and contributed to the Orange Book. Not that I'm holding any of that against any of them. I've met both in person and have had conversations with them.

What I, and it seems a number of fellow Liberal Democrats, have issues with is just where is the voice that represents me and where is the difference going to come from. Now I've watched the Consevatives who I used to pillor in Kingston move closer but not that close to my opinion and I've watch Labour (with the occasional exception of some of my MP's views) who I now face move through my position and out the other side, I must have blinked at some point.

Now if all we have to offer after all my time in the Liberal Democrats, roughly the lifetime of the party in its current form, is a shift in the same direction as Labour and the Tories have shifted what is left of those principles that I once so staunchly defended in Economics and Politics tutorials. Now I know from the traditional left/right graphs of where our party has aligned at General Election times that the last time we were this right of centre in outlook we were looking at lean times. Though we have made our gains over recent elections by being seen as being left of centre; so where is that voice? Is it left crying in the wilderness or possibly at a Westminster AA meeting? (And yes readers of this blog will recall that I was called by the BBC on the day of the previous resignation of a party leader was imminent because I was still supporting him)

For the moment put me down in the undecided column, not because I don't know who would make the best leader of our party at this time, I'd had a short list of three, but because I don't know yet which of the two slices of white bread on offer are must digestable.

Well that was short lived

Well it looks like my post this morning was being written at the same time as Steve Webb was preparing to announce he would not in fact be standing in the leadership campaign.

It looks like the campaign will now be shaping up into a two horse race unless something is stirring under the waters of which nobody has yet caught a sniff. Let us not forget that at one point the last leadership campaign looked like being a coronation of Ming before Simon Hughes, Chris Huhne and briefly Mark Oaten took up the challenge. So maybe Messers Clegg and Huhne shouldn't be preparing just yet to face just the one opponent.

Although to be honest at present after all the declarations of non-intent it is becoming harder to find out just where a serious challenge may yet come. Having said that many of didn't expect or know much of Chris Huhne in early 2006, yet look at what he acheived back then. Still a couple of weeks yet until nominations close and there are still plenty of MPs who have not committed to one candidate unlike the hoardes around Ming early on last time.

After Weighing up the Options

Much as I like both Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne I think they are much of a muchness as a choice for party leader, they are from similar groupings within our diverse party. As my dear friend Caron puts it the current choice is like picking between Red Leicester and Cheddar. So where is the Gorgonzola or Brie?

Simon Hughes was to some extent that the last time around but he has already ruled himself out of contention. John Hemming is just too ripe a cheese for many of us to consider as leader, no offence John. Charles Kennedy although not ruling anything out seems to suggest that it would take a Damascus Road moment to bring him around. So where is the variety going to come from?

That brings me to look at who the press are already considering the third potential serious candidate in this embryotic contest, Steve Webb. He has already blogged that he has consulted Parliamnetary colleagues and has enough backing to throw his hat into the ring. Unlike Cameron who has turned his back on the manefestos he has writen Steve would not have that problem as our policies are ultimately decided by the party members. What we need is a leader to communicate those views to the public rather than railroad over the memberships views, from what I've seen of Steve his is capable of that and diverse enough from both Brown and Cameron to stand out.

For the sake of igniting the debate, without all the sexual revelations and ageism of last time, I would encourage Steve to take that step and if he does he would have my backing.

There is already a Bloggers4Steve site up and running and I have added his button to my blog.

Scottish Hustings Pulls In The Crowds

The start of the Scottish Hustings in the Liberal Democrat leadership contest at Dynamic Earth, Edinburgh got off to a delayed start this afternoon. This was not due to any of the candidates turning up late all of them were present in the hall in plenty of time, no the reason was that approx 530 Scottish members turned up, out of a membership of 4200 what about 1/8th of all members. In deed an MEP, MP, MSPs and councillors were either left standing at the back of the hall of forced to retire to the hastily arranged overflow room elsewhere.

The contenders were drawn to speak in alphabetical order before having to whizz of to the secondary meeting to give the same opening remarks again. I forgot to take a pen so I am writing from memory.

Sir Menzies Campbell started with local Scottish anecdotes, tried to name check as many Scottish members as possible but laid out his stand on liberty, the environment (although through the afternoon he referred far too often to his Jag) and how he had to campaign hard to win NE Fife. He also reiterated the point that he does not want to set a deadline for troop withdrawal despite this not being his opinion this time last year. The fact that he has again stressed this point when I have heard him say otherwise in the flesh is something I don't like about his current quest for leadership. at this point he lost any chance I had of giving him my second preference.

Simon was next up and started by emphasising the importance that Scotland had led the way. Our strong general election result moving into second place in Scotland. That we had shown the way we can be trusted in power through what we had achieved through Holyrood and that we will be making another change with Proportional Representation for local government next May. He stressed his human rights and environmental background. The fact that he grew up in rural constituencies and chose to work in inner city ones. Stressing that unfairness existed in both. Land Value Taxation was supported in throwaway line which people not au fait with this policy could easily have missed.

Chris Huhne gave a very good, very sound speech but it was more like an economics lecture than a hustings stump. However, he started by mentioning Dunfermline, of course this raised the roof, at least where I was sitting in front of some of the newest members to acquire a Lib Dem MP. Fortunately Gordon Brown was not amongst them. He stressed his involvement in the bread and butter areas of policy he has helped to shape through the years. Chris earned a big round of applause when he made no apology for being a Europhile. However, as other bloggers had mentioned he did attempt to mention as much as possible his experience in business and journalism and Europe.

The time for questions was limited, due to the excessive turnout, and didn't really get into any potentially divisive issues. The only possible spilt was over the question of how to attract more young people into the party. Chris answering first referred to the fact the we had the youngest MPs, all women, in England, Wales and Scotland. Ming going next said that he would gratuitously mention that all three were backing him. While Simon picked up the youth cultural reference in the question and using it and other references in his answer. In other words I know the party attracts young people, young people are attracted to me and I can speak the language of te young people.

All in all if all I was going on was this afternoon's performance I would have no difficulty in picking any of them as a leader with ideas and vision. My problems with them were Ming had home field advantage, he did try and utilise this but it wasn't enough to convince me. As I've said earlier I'd heard the change in Mings stance on scheduling a withdrawal, now he appears to be in denial. Chris gave a very sound performance but then I'm a fellow economist. I'd heard him try and expound land valuation tax and it didn't connect at a normal level. Which leads to Simon, he gave the simplest explanation of LVT I have ever heard. I was sitting in a largely hostile section of the audience and he was getting fair comments from those around me. He conveyed more passion than the others. Although as he sometimes does extrapolated and extended the ending a little to long. I think I was ready to finally applaud his opening remarks on 4 separate occasions before another sub clause was thrown in.

Afterwards Ming left first and Simon and Chris were still talking to departing members for a while after he had left.

My first preference will be going to Simon with Chris second and Ming third.

Mind you the biggest and only standing ovation of the afternoon went to Willie Rennie MP, and yes us Scots are still smiling about having him at Westminster.

How Important is Your Leadership Vote?

Earlier today when Barrie Wood posted that our voters wanted Simon Hughes as leader it sparked the following response from Jock Coats that our voters don't get a vote in the leadership election. This is a valid point. However, that makes the decision of us political anoraks and insiders all the more important.

One thing we all agree on is that we want to see our party make real progress in future elections. To do that we need someone who is able to quickly convey our party ideology and emphasis in the short sound bite attention span of the modern media. Therefore while Chris Huhne is a brilliant mind he takes to long to wamr up in all the debates I've seen to get his message across. Anyway the people who get our message across in most depth are the actual candidates on the doorstep answering hte particular inquiries of the electors they meet.

Most of us activists actually miss the media converage of the election campaign because usually we are out in our constituencies getting hte message across the hard way to people on their doorsteps. However, there is very little discussion of policy on the television what there is is reduced to sound bite sized chunks and then a focus on where the leaders were for the day.

Therefore while Chris is excellent at coming up with ideas is he able to convey those in the short time that the media will allow him, if leader, at the next general election. I'm not sure.

Of the other two candiates who is able to give a piffy one liner that sums up our ethos on a event, news story or policy? As leader, and come to guy of the press core, this is what they will end up doing on a daily basis. Simon definitely has that skill in abundance.

Maybe some of us are thinking too intellectually about who can lead our policy forward and not looking at who can present it. After all it is the party as a whole that leads our policy forward. There is nothing wrong with Chris Huhne presenting a policy at conference when he'd have more time than the rest of us with our 4 or 3 minute allotment.

The leader is the public face of the party, the person they connect to. We have a lot of deep thinkers in the party machine I wouldn't want all of them to be our top target seat candidates as some of them lack the people skils to be a constituency working and listening MP, however I do love to hear some of these people contributions on conference debates. They can sometimes pour new light on something that seemed so straight forward before.

If I was to look at the three candidates objectively as someone outside the party machine; as someone who lends us they support come election time but no more, or even as someone who is thinking of voting for us for the first time. Who would I be most likely to vote if I only saw them on TV, only had a brief second of their time during a target seat walkabout? Undoubtedly my answer would be Simon Hughes as he would enthuse Liberal Democracy at me in that fleeting moment.

I've still to finalise where my second preference is to go. No doubt I will make up my mind after the Scottish Hustings on Sunday.

Who Are Last Years PPC's Backing?

So everyone knows who the Mps are backing what about the other candidates who stood shoulder to shoulder with those who got elected. After all if we are to move on as a party some of these people are going to be in Westminster next time around and will want to have a leader they can trust to firstly get them there and then work with in the Commons.

The three leadership websites list the opinions of 191 of our PPCs from May last year.

Sir Menzies Campbell has 72 backing him for 37.7%

Simon Hughes has 60 - 31.4%

Chris Huhne has 59 - 30.8%

So while Ming has a slight advantage is this group it would be all to play for in the race to reach the second round. However, from what I am picking up the majority of Hughes or Huhne voters are looking at not putting Ming as their second preference so it really is anybody's race on these stats.

Channel Faux Pas

It appears that Channel 4 news are getting their Lib Dem MPs mixed up.

Their news story about Mark Oaten quitting the leadership race says:

Mr Oaten, who has only been an MP since May.

Whoops that would be Chris Huhne then!

Mark has of course won 4 elections to Westminster for Winchester; the first in 1997 by 2 votes, before taking the by-election with a 21,556 majority. Then of course getting re-elected in 2001 and 2005.

The Prime Ministerial Voice

Ok so I was watching The West Wing repeat, Freedonia, on More 4 last night and Amy Gardner was preparing Santos for debate and telling him he was lacking the Presidential voice.

In light of our four candidates’ performances on Saturday morning do any of them have a Prime Ministerial voice. The real test will undoubtedly be on the doorsteps in 3-4 years when our Parliamentary candidates, hopefully including myself, are standing on people’s doorsteps asking them to vote Liberal Democrat.

So what do the grass root activists and the general public expect in a Prime Ministerial voice? Surely it goes a lot further than merely the voice. The voice needs to demand authority, trust and respect, but at the same time this has to be backed up with actions. So it is not so much a Prime Ministerial voice but a whole persona we are looking for. Each of the four candidates has something of the Prime Minister about them, after all you don’t get elected to Parliament especially in a seat which the party did not hold if they didn’t. This applies to most of the candidates as only Chris Huhne has succeeded in a held Lib Dem seat.

So maybe we should all be looking three years down the line when we are once again out almost every night on doorsteps talking to the non-Liberal democrats we meet. Imagine you are trying to convince them that we are the real alternative, that we are going to form the next government. Who do you want to be heading up that message?

Of course as Josh Lyman later reminded us you have to be elected President (Prime Minster) to be able to use the Presidential (Prime Ministerial) voice. So lets go out then and look at ensuring we have a Lib Dem who will use the Prime Ministerial voice, persona and wear it well.