A reason to be cheerful that Chris Huhne did not win the Lib Dem leadership ?

It was interesting to read that a front page for the Lib Dems main website had been prepared in case Chris Huhne had won the leadership instead of Nick Clegg. Though given what was produced, it should be a blessed relief that he did not win.

After all, did we want a leader called stuttering Huhne ? After all a leader whose welcome includes the classic phrase "I'm proud to lead a a(sic) party" would have hardly made an auspicious start.

Why do I get the impression Iain Dale would have written this no matter what the result was ?

Iain Dale claims today that the real loser from today's Lib Dem leadership election is "The Liberal Democrats". I'm sorry Iain, but what ever the result, this story from you might have been predicted in advance.

Of course it has given Iain's Tories readers the chance to comment on the posting with the usual claptrap about Lib Dem splits, the end of the Lib Dems, disunity in the party, etc, etc.

The problem is for the Tories is that they fall for their own propaganda when it comes to the Lib Dems. They genuinely want to believe the Lib Dems re like them, a very centralised party that is reliant on national swings, whereas in reality any political analyst worth their salt (and I include Iain Dale in this group) knows that the Lib Dems have a very decentralised system that is reliant on local activism, not national swings.

Sorry, Iain, I strongly disagree with your analysis. I think today's result shows the Lib Dems have a strong team and will allow the Lib Dems to really promote Chris Huhne too as a big gun and kill the lie that the Lib Dems have no policies. I suspect Iain that whatever the result had been today you were hardly going to write anything in praise of the Lib Dems.

Well done Nick Clegg

Well done to Nick Clegg on his victory as party leader today.

Whilst some will say it was only by 511, I think this shows clearly that there were two fantastic candidates to choose from.

I am sure Nick will win over quickly the Huhne supporters who I feel were never really anti Nick, just more pro Chris.

What the new Lib Dem leader should do - Think outside the box like Vince Cable

Anyone outline plans for a nationalisation of a private company would until recently have been laughed out of any debating society, and a politician demanding such action might have been expected to be regarded as a dinosaur of the Labour left representing some former mining area of the country. yet acting Lib Dem leader Vincent Cable is demanding such action at the moment and increasingly more and more people are accepting his arguments.

Okay, so it is an exceptional circumstance. Who would have thought that a major UK financial institution would suddenly suffer such crippling financial problems as those suffered recently by The Northern Rock ? But then who would have expected that a major political figure, as Vince Cable has quickly become, would have the sureness of feet and the economic arguments to make clear that nationalisation is , although not an option anyone would wish to take, the least worst option and probably the only way that tax payers will ever get their money back.

The fact that Labour so quickly dug a hole for themselves by claiming Vince Cable's plans did not make sense and were not an option they would consider makes the problem even worse for the government and the taxpayer. The chances are, if the Virgin Money deal falls through, which all the signs are that it might, that the government might never get back the vast proportion of the cash they are putting in to Northern Rock. if that is the case, you can forget about the Tories economic disasters when they wasted £3.4 billion of tax payers money on Black Wednesday. No, the government's current potential losses in Northern Rock are around £25 billion pounds. More than the UK's cost of the entire Gulf War and continuing presence in Iraq.

The government might not look so isolated were it not for the fact that the Tories, the architects of the undoing of the nationalising tendencies of past British governments are now too starting to come round to the opinion that nationalisation of The Northern Rock might be the least worst option.

Could the Conservatives have agreed with the Lib Dems on this if it had not been proposed by Vince Cable many weeks ago ? It is highly unlikely. After all, what would the newspapers have made of a Tory proposing nationalisation ? But in recent weeks, articles, experts and correspondents have all warmed to Vince Cable's ideas. What was once a slightly odd idea, is now the accepted wisdom.

Whilst nobody likes management buzzwords and phrases, Vince Cable has show that "thinking outside the box" can change minds, can win over the press and can soon become the accepted wisdom. Something any new Lib Dem leader should muse upon for some time.

The Telegraph on the Lib Dem leadership race - What is the point ?

Reading Andrew Porter's blog on The Telegraph's website tells me nothing new about the leadership campaign, but in being so vague it actually makes me wonder he is actually trying to point to the Huhne camp being misguided thinking it is so close or the Clegg camp is wrong to assume it is all sewn up.

Read it and tell me what point you think he is making ?

I'm getting fed up with all the reading between the lines of the leadership race

Today it is Vince Cable's comment that the Lib Dem leadership race is very close and he would be happy to work with wither of the candidates. I saw the interview on the Andrew Marr show this morning. I saw it as a bland statement which in essence gives nothing away, still gives everyone an incentive to vote, and favours no one candidate over the other. Yet upon this statement being made, team Huhne are using it as further justification of their assetion that the result will be very close.

I personalky don't see it the same way.

Vince Cable has not been in either campaign team, he does not have access to inside information, he would not know any details of voting patterns so far. So he knows nothing other than what is in the media. And since the media is full of stories from team Huhne saying how close it is, he is merely repeating their own lines back to them.

If Vince had said anything other than what he said, it would have been seen as biased towards Nick Clegg, so he avoided that and said the diplomatic thing.

I would suggest team Huhne stop trying to read between the lines as there is a very real danger they might make themselves look very silly when the result is announced.

Time to come off the fence and use my vote for ...

I've left my ballot paper long enough and have now filled it in. I did though um and ah for sometime before marking my cross.


The were a number of factors that swayed me.


Personality:

Nick Clegg has a warmth, a sense of being very normal that I like and I can see the electorate warming to. Chris has less natural charm, but I actually think he comes across with more authority on issues and has more gravitas, so for me neither of them outscored each other in this aspect.



Policy:

I have to say I think that Chris won this area of the debate. I back Chriss views on Trident and feel Nick Clegg is not wise to remove our bargaining position on nuclear weapons before the next round of talks on nuclear disarmament. In general, I felt there was obviously a general agreement on most issues but Chris huhne has shown that he has from the front bench been able to get his ideas across as party policy really well and this meant he outscored Nick on policy.



Campaigning:

There are two aspects to this, both dominated by Chris Huhne. I feel the Huhne campaign has been better in almost every respect, both in terms of literature, which I have had more of from Huhne plus an obviously localised Focus style "Riso" style leaflet which appears to campaigning hacks like me. But also Chris' leaflets have focussed more on issues than on style, which again I find appealing.



The aspect I didn't about Chris Huhne's campaign was the negative tone of his campaign. His constant attacking Nick Clegg on whether Nick supports school vouchers (which I gather he has said he does not on several occasions) and the disastrous personal attacks on Nick Clegg and the whole "Calamity Clegg" affair, which I felt Chris dealt with poorly and offered a poor excuse over.



In contrast Nick's campaign has been bland and a little too safe.



In conclusion:


For me, there were two deciding factors. I tarted the campaign feeling Nick was the warmest and had the most appeal with the electorate, and I have not altered my opinion of this in any way. I felt Chris' attacks on Clegg were uncalled for and were over the top for an internal election, and this undid all the excellent campaigning he has done. in the other key area, policy, Chris' successes over the last two years should mark him out as a leader, but for me they show that we don't need Chris as a leader in order to get his policies.


So I voted for Nick Clegg so we can get the warm likable leader who speaks with a passion and conviction whilst we get the excellent polices of Chris Huhne coming through from our front bench.

If the Richmond Formula showed a 12% lead in an election, you'd be over the moon

For the uninitiated, the "Richmond Formula" is a formula used by the Lib Dems (and now copied by other parties) based on a system pioneered by Richmond Lib Dems in the 1980's which saw them take raw canvassing data from knocking on doors, and using the formula to extrapolate a potential result.

At the time that Richmond lib Dems developed the formula, they worked out which seats were "in the bag" from applying the formula, and then went to help in more marginal areas.

So what would Richmond Lib Dems have done with the 12% lead that Nick Clegg has over Chris Huhne (according to a Sky News poll) ? My guess is they would assume there is a clear winner.

I have to say, when i have run local elections I have assumed a 12% margin to be fairly accurate.

Another positive spin-off of the leadership election

Before the Ming stood down we had the same old problem that we had had for many years. A complete lack of knowledge by the general public of anyone on our front bench. Aside from Ming and Charles Kennedy, only the politically interested could name any other Lib Dem front benchers. This has started to change.

Firstly, Vince Cable has stepped up to the mark, gained good publicity for his expert knowledge on Northern Rock and for the way he highlighted Gordon Brown's Mr Bean qualities. Take with the knowledge now that Vince also wants to have a go at Strictly Come Dancing, he now has a profile with the press and is known about and respected by the public too.

Then there are the leadership contenders themselves. Who ever wins will obviously have a higher profile, but we can also take it as read that the loser too will have a very high profile too and will be labelled in peoples minds as a senior Lib Dem and will be someone who is recognised and known about.

Aside from the contenders and the stand ins, the leadership election as also given lots of our MP's the chance to have their say in their local press and in the national press too. This has further boosted the name recognition of Sarah Teather, Lynne Featherstone, Steve Webb, Norman Lamb, Julia Goldsworthy, David Laws and other Lib Dems who fall in to the category of getting stuff regularly in the press, but do not yet have a national profile. Whilst the leadership election has been on the press have been much keener to run Lib Dem related stories, which has helped our MP's and our opinion poll ratings too.

Then we have the old hands in the party. Charles Kennedy must be set for a return to the Lib Dem front bench and despite the fact that he was ill suited to leadership, Ming has a real talent for foreign affairs which should not be wasted. With Simon Hughes also remaining a recognisable face, we do, as a party, boast probably our most recognised and heavyweight (not in the Sir Cyril Smith sense) front bench in the Liberal Democrats history. This is another great thing for our leader to inherit.

Who won the Lib Dem leadership debate on Newsnight ? Nick Clegg

I was surprised to read such wide ranging and varying accounts of the Lib Dem leadership debate on various Lib Dem blogs today.

Last week I agreed with those who felt Chris Huhne won the Question Time debate, although I felt he won it only narrowly. Those supporters of Nick Clegg who declared a clear win for their candidate were way off the mark.

However, last night, unlike the Question Time debate, and in quite a role reversal, Clegg started with the passion and the desire whilst Huhne was lacking in passion and quite laboured. He was also on the defensive over his team's smears of Nick Clegg, and for me this set the tone for the remainder of the debate.

So, having called the Question time debate for Chris Huhne (just), this debate was a little more decisive in favour of Nick Clegg.

What does it say about the BBC that they are still using the old Lib Dem party logo !

On Newsnight tonight, on for the leadership debate, the BBC are using the old pre 1999 slimmer Lib Dem Party logo.

Presumably (one would hope) somebody from the party (perhaps one of the two candidates) will tell the BBC that we changed our logo 8 years ago ?

Imagine the fuss if the BBC used the wrong Tory logo.

Still time to rescue things for Huhne

After today's disastrous turn of events for the party and for Chris Huhne's campaign, some people are suggesting it is all over. However, I still think Chris can show some metal and retrieve things.

If Chris sacks, fires or removes whoever was responsible for the "Calamity Clegg" dossier passed to the BBC, it will draw a line under things and show people that we do not accept this kind of campaigning and it will show Chris has the backbone to be leader.

Come on Chris. The clock is ticking.

A new banner for Team Huhne

After today's showing from Huhne, he has got to prove that this banner is not true. He is in danger of losing a lot of votes over this, and furthermore is in danger of losing the party votes.

I was swinging towards Chris after Question Time, but on the basis of today, I cant but feel that Chris will do or say anything in order to win. That's the moral equivalence of New Labour or Cameron's Tories.

We'll have to see if heads to roll in the Huhne campaign in the next couple of days to see if Chris really is committed to fighting a clean campaign. My vote is still up for grabs, but only just.

If Chris Huhne cannot control his own campaign team, how can he run the party and the country ?

I was deeply embarrassed watching Chris Huhne being exposed Jon Sopel on The Politics Show. As a Liberal Democrat it was embarrassing to see a leadership candidate deny he had said something, have a complete lack of knowledge about what his campaign team were issuing on his behalf and then, to top it all, then make the allegations again.

Jon Sopel produced a briefing document with used the title "Calamity Clegg" at the top. this document had been produced by "Team Huhne" and had been sent to the BBC.

This sort of rubbish is an absolute gift for our political opposition and sadly shows that some people in Huhne's team really are not fit for senior positions. If they can produce this rubbish, seemingly without Chris' knowledge then it says a lot for those who surround Chris and Chris himself.

I would hope to see some sort of apology and people leaving "Team Huhne" camp over this because if not it says that Huhne endorses this personal negative campaigning or that he did know about it but lies on TV. Either way, someone has to go if Chris is to show the electorate and party membership that this is out of order.

You can watch it again HERE. Perhaps the Huhne team could be made to watch it 50 times as a punishment. When Huhne supporters make reference to their telephone canvassing campaign, I really does worry me what they might be saying about Nick Clegg on the phones !

The Great Debate - Huhne "Edges" it ... just

I've just been watching the Lib Dem Leadership debate and felt that Chris Huhne just about edged it over the length of the whole programme.

To start with Chris exuded more confidence, spoke in a more measured and controlled way thatn Nick, his fluency was clear in the way he got his message across and by contrast nick seemed flustered and a little edgy.

The first questions were, I felt, a poor way to start the debate and concentrated on negative comments made. Chris did well and sounded more controlled when asked about his comments likening Nick to Cameron whilst I felt Nick let his anger show when asked about comments that he made about Chris last year. I could completely understand why Nick was angry, but he needs to show more control. Chris did this better.

I think that Chris did particularly well on the issue of "Who would we work with in a coalition". I love the way he attacked the dreadful David Dimblebore over why he never asked the Tories or Labour who they would work with, and he made Dimblebore look an arse when Dimblebore suggested that the Tories and Labour might night be able to form a majority together. Likewise, his statistics and evidence of the Tories working with Labour was excellent.

Nick too answered well on this subject, highlighting the hypothetical nature of the question and sought to make clear the fact that he was a Lib Dem and was not interested in endorsing other political parties. I still felt though that Chris had the edge.

On Trident, Chris won me over, with a clear and concise explanation of his view that we do need a deterrent. I didn't like the fact that Nick tried to explain Chris' policy before he had a chance to explain it himself. I felt it was a little bit negative, but actually I think this worked out better for Chris in the end.

Suddenly though, in the second half, I felt Nick was fighting back. When asked what made them different from each other, Nick suddenly showed the charisma and charm for which he is noted. He spoke with anger and passion about the closing of hospitals, the life expectancy of people in poor areas, the war in Iraq, indeed, I felt that had Dimblebore not interrupted him (and well done Nick for insisting that he finish), he could have spoken on this topic for hours without any problem. Chris outlined his experience and made a good account of himself, but Nick had the edge here.

And from that point, I actually felt Nick grew in confidence. I loved it when the both completely agreed with each other on the economy. The rather incredulous put down from Chris towards Dimblebore "We do actually want to lead the same party" bought a smile to the audience as well as me at home.

If Nick had started as he finished, he might have won the debate. For the whole second half of the debate I felt Nick was getting more applause, more nods and looked far happier himself. In many ways it was as Chris had peaked to early. However, due to Chris' excellent start to the debate, the way he handled himself under fire and his better put downs of Dimblebore, I felt he edged it (just).

Well done though to both of them. both a credit to the party. I hope that both camps will now go and spread the positive message about their candidates and not go around bad mouthing each other.

As Nick said towards the end "Sometimes similarity is a good thing." In this case, I agree. Either of them would make a great leader.

Just how low will Huhne's supporters go ?

I don't believe I am the only person who is being put off greatly and perhaps narked off at the same time by the antics of "Team Huhne". Perhaps the biggest example of this has to be the constant diatribe of personal and negative attacks on him by Lib Dem bloggers who should know better.

Take for example Paul Walter, who has written the most terribly biased and one sided accounts of a hustings meeting ever, with little or no attempt at balance or fairness. Reach comment of praise for Nick Clegg is instantly destroyed by some negative comment. For example, he said of Nick Clegg

"Brilliant soundbite. But really, not very much substance to back it up"

and

"on the subject of immigration, to be fair, one spate of what seemed like real passion"

note, just the "one" spate.

And then there is the next backhanded compliment

"I can't remember any mention of the economy by Nick Clegg, Apologies if I missed it."

Come on Paul, are you really sorry ? After all, it would have been one less thing to attack him on.

I wasn't at the meeting, but if I pick out some choice comments that are typical of the article Paul wrote.

"Nick Clegg said that he is "liberal to his fingertips on immigration". Oh. So he's not liberal to his fingertips on anything else, is he? Strange thing to say. It's the kind of thing you leave someone else to say."

Oh dear Paul. It's like me asking you if you have hit your wife. If you reply "No", I am then left to assume that you have beaten your mother and children instead. This type of comment from "Team Huhne" has been used before too. It's a very low form of attack. Cynical, nasty and unwarranted.

Paul Walter repeated this line too when he made reference to a questioner asking

"Aren't you just Cameron-lite?" - asked one questioner of Nick Clegg, to applause and the odd groan.

Perhaps Paul the odd groan is because people are sick of this sort of attack ?

Then there are the attacks on Nick's charisma. Something that people of all parties have agreed he has in spades. A friend of mine (a Tory) went to the North Pole with Nick last year and always speaks highly of his charismatic charm. But no, Paul has an attack on his personality in this respect too.

"Except that Chris Huhne's speech was interspersed with applause several times. Nick Clegg's wasn't. At all. Except at the end when he had finished. Clegg paused for applause on at least one occasion but you could hear a pin drop."

And this is not the only reference that Paul makes to cardboard, no doubt wanting the Tories to pick this up as a theme should Nick win, Paul uses it again when he says

"Nick Clegg did a sort of cardboard passion"

And to think Paul was one of those critical of me for attacking Ming's record as leader. I don't think I ever tried to do a character assassination of Ming before he had been given a chance !

There are, of course, lots of other examples of people criticising "Team Huhne" for their personal attacks, but I notice virtually no accusations of attacks from "Team Clegg" on Huhne. What does this tell us ?

So please, let's start rationally debating policy and stop the dreadful negative, biased and personal attacks. Stop giving the opposition ammunition.

Chris or Nick ? Does it matter as we may not receive ballot papers anyway

Having posted a story an hour ago asking why I received no ballot paper for the European elections or any candidate information, it appears that it is not just mewho has been denied the opportunity to vote.

Already commenters are saying that this has happened elsewhere in the country and there has been a cock up.

So does it matter who I vote for in the leadership elections ? Let's face it, if we cannot organise internal elections for Euro candidates properly, in all likelihood I won't receive a ballot paper for the leadership election anyway !

Nick Clegg wins the e-mail battle over Chris Huhne

I have been rather busy this week and have not been that diligent in checking my e-mails. I sat down this evening to go through all my e-mails from various e-mail accounts and was surprised to have received an e-mail from Nick Clegg on Monday, but not from Chris Huhne.

So I sat down to write an e-mail to the Lib Dems asking if the party was giving preferential treatment to one candidate over another. Before I got more than two lines in to my e-mail, I realised I ought to read all my mail and check that I hadn't received one from Chris Huhne too. After close examination, no I hadn't. So I started to write more of my e-mail, and then I realised I had a few e-mails in my Spam filter, which I hadn't checked.

And what did I find ? Microsoft Outlook had decided that the e-mail from Chris was Spam, but the one from Nick was not !

I wonder how many others have had the same thing happen. I know there are plenty of people who ignore what is in their Spam filter and never check it.

Is Nick Clegg's team doing something clever to avoid the Spam filter or has Chris' team done something wrong ? Either way, one nil to Nick Clegg in the e-mail battle.

Tell Chris Huhne to lay off the negative campaigning please !!

I cannot be the only person who is concerned about Chris Huhne's apparently "negative" words used against Nick Clegg, can I ?

Did Chris Huhne really need to say "Britain does not need a 3rd Tory party" ? After all, isn't one of those questions that does not need to be said unless you are trying to imply something ?

What ammunition this will give to Labour supporters who could go around saying, if Nick Clegg wins, that the Lib Dems are becoming another Tory Party, so don't vote for them. Talk about making a rod for your own back too with the press. How many times will Chris be asked by the press, if Nick wins, "So are you a third Tory party ?"

I know supporters of Chris will say that he didn't mean it as an attack on Nick Clegg, but if it was not an attack on him then who was it aimed at ? Was Chris having a dig and Ming ?

Whoever is advising Chris ought to tell him to stay positive, gives no crumbs of encouragement to our political opponents and keep away from the negativity. After all, I think this is more likely to put people off him then make people coming flooding over to him.

P.S. I know I write yesterday that I had nothing to say about the leadership as I am totally un-aligned, but I thought this needed saying.

Nothing to say about Nick or Chris

Having just looked through a number of other Lib Dem blogs, it appears that I am the only one who is not writing about the Lib Dem leadership contest.

Is it just me or has it been a little dull so far ? in any case. i am thinking of getting a new banner made for this blog so that it is the "Official I don't care who wins and won't be writing about it" Blog.