Just about the first people I ran into on leaving the leadership hustings yesterday were Stephen Tall and Rob Fenwick (moving spirits of Lib Dem Voice past and present). They asked if I felt inspired.
“Not really,” I said. “We have heard most of it already”.
But this morning (rising early to catch a flight) I found that I did feel inspired after all.

I won’t try to report on the proceedings in detail. Rob Knight has already done this for Manchester (scroll down the page). The three of us spent the rest of the evening in a pub that was heaving with Liberal Democrat bloggers and many of them seem to have reported what went on with quite impressive consensus. Alix, David, Tom and Rob all seem to agree that Clegg was better on the speech. On the question and answer section there wasn’t a clear winner but Andy Strange summed up my feelings on the session:

On a number of occasions Huhne was able to give a response that seemed to push the buttons of the activist dominated audience. He may have just shaded it on the clapometer. However, Clegg was from time to time able to deploy a rather neat turn of phrase.

Why did I feel inspired this morning? Three reasons really.

First I thought further about the Clegg speech – initially by wondering about the structure. It is essentially a list of five items: fear, powerlessness, social stagnation, globalisation, and the environment. I work with a lot of people influenced by ENA presentation styles, and they would never use a list of five (a division into two or three every time for the ENA/Grandes Ecoles people). So I notice things like this.

You could easily turn Clegg’s speech into a list of three if you wanted. Fear, powerlessness, and globalisation could be turned into one. But think about it: as a party we are big on logic and moral principles: if a mix of logic and moral principles were the way to victory, we would have won every election since 1979. But they aren't - not on their own. And here is a potential leader who frames the debate in terms of people’s emotions (three of his five headings). It isn't what we are used to, but I suspect it is what we need.

Second was the question and answer session. The questions (as David Boyle has pointed out) were a touch dull, and just a little quirky. Chris Huhne answered in best hustings style, trying to appeal to the tribe. Nick answered as if he were already leader (avoiding the charge of party arrogance), thinking through the ways we are going to have to adapt to move forward. One example of this was the reply to the question about what we had to do attract the youth vote. Nick didn’t try to go into detail, or hang a gimmicky policy onto the question. Instead he said (and I paraphrase) that there were a huge number of things we had to do, too many to discuss in detail, but that a lot of it had to do with having a more positive message.

I was never in much doubt that I was going to vote for Clegg. But I am now one hundred per cent convinced that we have a potential leader who understands that the way we communicate is going to have to be qualitatively different. I have had my James Graham moment":
I trust his instincts and am enthused by his questing nature; he is concerned that as a party we don't merely adopt the right policies but ensure that they resonate with the public.
I understand now that his talk about how the party needs to move outside of its comfort zone is more than empty rhetoric but carries behind it a well thought out programme for how the party must communicate its message more effectively.

Jetzt bin ich auch ein Cleggkopf!

I will be controversial now: I had a third reason for feeling upbeat as I walked through the chilly morning air to catch my flight. It seemed to me that Chris Huhne had effectively conceded that he wasn’t going to win the leadership contest. I had to replay the evening in my head to identify the moment – and let’s be clear, I am not suggesting that Huhne said he won’t win, or has even admitted it to himself. But the moment came when Huhne ended one of his own replies to a question by a quite detailed (and acknowledged) paraphrase of a section of Clegg’s speech. It struck me as an unusual thing to do, and the body language - at least from up on the balcony - clinched it for me.

I probably wouldn't have mentioned this if it weren't for the interesting piece that Antony Hook posted on a psychologist's take on the proceedings.

Of course the actual result may be different. But after the London hustings, for all the good qualities Chris displayed (and he is a better candidate this time around and clearly someone who can play a big role within the party), my personal view is that we would be making a big mistake if we didn’t go for Nick.

Near the beginning of this campaign, before I had made up my mind, an MP told me that we had a once in lifetime opportunity to pick Nick and realise our potential. At the time, this struck me as hyperbole. Now I think it was spot on.

But I don’t think it means that we just elect Nick and expect magic. Whoever wins this election, there is a lot of hard work ahead. The opportunities, though, are very great indeed.

The hustings was in the very impressive neo-Gothic Manchester Town Hall, and the event was well-attended; not quite overflowing, but there was a large and enthusiastic audience who had turned out on a very rainy Manchester morning.

I sat near the back of the hall, but was able to hear every word of the proceedings and took the opportunity of making notes as the two candidates spoke; I'll try to use these notes to recollect the key points raised as accurately as possible.

At this stage in the contest, both candidates will have given the same or similar speech to audiences up and down the country, so my expectations were that they would both give polished speeches. And, indeed, that's what they both did.

Nick Clegg's speech

Chris Huhne won the toin coss, so it was Nick Clegg who spoke first. He started by mentioning some of the established themes of the party – the need for a law-based international order, for example – but quickly moved on to his big theme, the need to 'meet people where they are', rather than where we hope they are or where we'd want them to be. A focus on people is the key, according to Nick, and much of his speech reaffirmed his credentials as a 'people person'. He talked about the importance of favouring people over institutions, being – although this was not his phrase – on the side of the 'little guy' who just wants a fair deal. He talked with genuine passion about his feelings of anger at power imbalances, including over-centralised government.

But this was just the warm-up, and he moved on to describe what he regards as the five defining political issues of the age:

Powerlessness

Nick used a phrase that I've heard from him before; he talked of an 'epidemic of powerlessness', a feeling that people have of being unable to influence their own circumstances, of being caught up in systems beyond their control or comprehension, systems which are either incapable of responding, or unwilling to respond, to the needs and desires of individuals. He talked about his own experience as an MP, and how 80% of his time is spent trying to get various branches of government to listen to the needs of his constituents. It's an old Liberal Democrat theme; the centralised bureaucracy that makes the Secretary of State for Health the first elected (and thus directly accountable) person in the NHS chain of command, but Nick did a good job of injecting some urgency into the call for reform, pointing out that real harm is happening to real people. Nick was quite clear that whilst some people are capable of playing the system to their advantage, a great many people aren't, and they are often trapped in their dealings with state institutions which won't give them answers.

This is not limited to interactions with the state, either. He also mentioned a story of an elderly couple who moved from a third-floor flat to a ground-floor flat due to the husband's worsening medical condition. They were unable to have their phone line transferred to their new address, being batted back and forth between BT and their phone provider, with neither able to give them an answer. Nick described this as a 'computer says no' situation, where real people's lives are blighted by decisions they can't influence, and where it's almost impossible to get an actual person to deal with the problem. I don't think that there was necessarily any political relevance to this anecdote (Nick doesn't, as far as I'm aware, advocate renationalisation of the phone network), but it serves as a good (read: easily understood) example of powerlessness. Overall, the message here was good but the practical details were lacking. Nick wants empowered people, but that's motherhood and apple pie stuff; how he means to empower them is less clear, and he verged on the Cameronian idea of influencing the world by making speeches rather than influencing the world with actual changes to the law or political structures. At times he seemed to meander a little; his concern with power imbalances is creditable, but to be a proper rallying cry there needs to be a real policy behind it. Some might have liked to see education vouchers as that policy, but that has already been ruled out comprehensively.

Social Stagnation (inequality)

'Social Stagnation' was a phrase I hadn't heard before, but it was used only once at the beginning of the speech. This is presumably to be contrasted with social mobility, and represents as good a means as any of talking about these issues without falling into the semantic arguments about the use of the term 'equality'. Nick made it clear that he regards education as being at the heart of his vision, and made reference to his own long-standing commitment to the field. He mentioned his past study of various European educational systems, and went on to praise the party's 'pupil premium' policy. He talked about how he had seen similar systems work in other countries, with class sizes for poor children smaller than those from wealthier backgrounds.

He also mentioned directly the figure of £2.5bn as being the cost of this scheme, with the intention of increasing funding for the poorest 15% of schoolchildren. If Nick's first point hadn't quite set the audience alight, the points about education went across a lot better and won him his first round of applause.

Fear

A somewhat odd choice of heading, and I'm not sure that what followed had all that much to do with 'fear' as a problem in modern society – not that this detracts in any way from what was said. Nick made the point that fear tends to affect the poorest most; their lives are the most insecure and they live at the mercy of the decisions of others to a greater extent than most. It might have been possible to detect the beginnings of some very radical arguments here; say, for the introduction of a citizen's basic income as a means of alleviating that dependency. But such speculative discussion hasn''t served Nick well in the past, and he moved on quickly. Returning to the theme of powerlessness, he said that it's important that government gives people answers and keeps its promises, so that we are not exposed to fears caused by uncertainty.

At this point, Nick seemed to digress from his 'fear' heading, and talked about liberal policies on crime and prison. I suppose that this is nominally related to fear of crime, but the link was not explicit. At this point, I should note that Nick's was a broadly positive speech, full of 'we can do this' arguments and relatively little direct criticism of the government. Nick could have accused the government of stoking up a culture of fear with its attitudes towards various criminal matters, but focussed instead on identifying the problems that need to be solved. Whether this approach works or not probably depends on the audience.

One thing that struck me was a phrase Nick used – the need to be 'smart' in tackling crime and in determining prison policy. Has he (or someone in his campaign staff) been reading Charlotte Gore's blog? This was good stuff, and he pointed out the absurdity of a justice system which imprisons people for minor offences alongside hardened criminals, leading to 'universities of crime', the graduates of which have a 92% reoffending rate.

Environment

The most obvious and predictable theme, but whilst the party might be tempted to be self-congratulatory at having seen the importance of green policies ahead of the other parties, or perhaps indignant at their attempts to claim the green mantle for themselves, Nick pointed out that only 6% of people in Britain regard the environment as the #1 issue. Given that this percentage is much higher amongst Liberal Democrats, it's clear that we still have a lot of work to do in terms of getting out and persuading people that a) this issue matters and b) something can be done about it.

He pointed out that government often sends out mixed messages, talking about the need to adopt green policies but rarely leading by example. He espoused the need for a 'covenant' between government and the people, and an end to the 'hectoring' approach adopted by some campaigners. People won't 'go green' if they feel that they're mugs for doing so. All in all, a sensible contribution and an astute observation of the extent of the work still left to do.

Globalisation

Nick described globalisation as an ugly phrase which encapsulates many different aspects of the increase in global trade and communications. He again referred back to his theme of powerlessness, observing that global economic forces can also be a source of powerlessness for individuals. If that sounds like it might be a concession to protectionism, it was not; Nick's point was that liberals need to engage with these issues in order to provide a better answer to people's fears than those provided by nationalists. This tied in with his earlier comments about fear and the need for people to have confidence in the government to be honest and reliable.

He finished by, having sketched out a liberal response to these five issues, pointing out that there is no clear division along old-fashioned left-right lines. His belief is clearly that the liberal answers are better than anything that Labour or the Conservatives can manage. For his final conclusion, he said that the objective for the party should be to break the two-party deadlock within two parliaments. I think he succeeded in making this seem like an attainable goal.

Digression: I've transcribed about two pages of my notes now. Only ten pages to go...

Chris Huhne's speech

I had been impressed with Nick's speech, and was, by this point, beginning to suspect that a decision was forming in my mind. So, Chris had a hard sell to make. He proceeded to make a very good start, winning his first round of applause within a minute of taking the podium, by praising the job done by Vince Cable as Acting Leader. The warmth of the applause was, of course, for Vince rather than Chris personally, but I thought that it was a nice touch. Chris went on to speak briefly about the connection between Manchester and liberalism; nothing spectacular about that, but he was striking up a good rapport with the audience.

He began with a clear line of attack against Brown and Cameron, both of whom he described as 'conservative'. This was a contrast with Nick's speech, which made relatively little mention of the Labour or Conservative parties directly; Nick spoke about 'the government', but Chris was clearly gunning for specific individuals. For me, this was definitely more rousing although I wonder how it plays outside of the politically-aware constituency.

Because he spoke second, it was inevitable that my first impressions of his speech would be shaped in contrast to Nick's. Chris's vocal style is considerably different, in fact he sounded almost hypnotic in contrast to Nick's bubbling enthusiasm. But he also knew when to turn up the volume and how to deliver a good line; referring to the Northern Rock crisis, he attacked the government's incompetence for allowing the "first banking crisis since this hall was built!". In the Victorian neo-Gothic surroundings this carried real weight, and demonstrated an ability to craft a line for the occasion. Round of applause #2.

Chris didn't lay out such a specific outline to his speech, but he moved swiftly across the key topics. He set out his view that the economy will be a key battleground, and made the point that the economy is something that is very real to ordinary people. He argued that making a living in the present economic circumstances is getting more difficult and that economic worries are the 'bread and butter' issues that political parties have to address. My notes on exactly what Chris said here are a bit sketchy - he seemed to hit his points more quickly than Nick did, which made note-taking harder - but I believe he expressed the view that our lack of an established reputation for economic competence is a 'glass ceiling' on the party's ambitions. Or, put another way, if we are to succeed then we must be able to win the trust of the people on economic matters; no matter how good the rest of our policies are, this is a fundamental issue that we cannot afford to ignore.

This focus on the 'real world' is part of Chris's unique selling point - he has run a business and knows about the practicalities of doing so. He contrasted this with David Cameron and was scathing about the fact that Cameron's only 'real world' experience is limited to a few years working in PR. Memorable phrase: 'David Cameron has never created a job in his life'. Chris also expressed the view that he thinks that this focus on the real world can appeal to 'common sense' Conservative voters, who merely want economic competence, sane government and so on - those who vote Conservative by default, rather than by conviction. This was interesting and reinforced the view that Chris is thinking in terms of how to win the political battles. However, he went on to reiterate his line about 'not being a third British conservative party, but being a first British radical party'. Can the appeal to small-c conservative voters be squared with this radicalism?

There was little time to ponder the question, as we were off again with a blistering attack on Trident. Chris does have a soothing, deep voice which, as I mentioned, can be almost hypnotic. But if anyone in the hall was lulled into a trance by this point, they will have been abruptly awoken by the genuine passion shown in opposition to Trident renewal and the consequences in terms of money spent, nuclear proliferation promoted and the long-term strategic lock-in to the global policy of the US. Looking back, I think that this showed a good sense of when to be impassioned and when to be calm and clinical; on the economy, Chris epitomises the 'safe pair of hands' appearance that one would expect from someone whose background is in economic risk analysis, but on issues like Trident Chris is clearly capable of genuine anger when he feels that something is wrong. I think he edges this slightly over Nick, who tends to appear more generally impassioned; an ability to change gear every now and then works in Chris's favour. Chiming with the latest stories in the news although without mentioning them directly, Chris pointed out that expenditure on Trident might be why British military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are under-funded (I will return to this point later, as it was referred to in the question-and-answer session at the end).

Onwards again, with the need for 'clarity' in our policy positions. Back to the calm, surgical precision and the need to be very careful in what we say in order to win people's trust. Yes, this could be interpreted as an attack on Nick's more 'feeling his way' approach to discussion of policy, but it was no less true for that. My notes on this section of the speech are a bit thin; suffice it to say that I agree with the gist of Chris's argument here. The Tories lost the public's trust over public services largely because people were no longer sure what might happen next, what unsuitable privatisation scheme might be foisted upon an unwary nation (following such misjudgements as the Poll Tax and the botched rail privatisation). Chris didn't refer to these specifically, but I think his argument was that we can only gain votes if people think that they can rely on us, and they can only do that if we are clear about our intentions. No more kite-flying, however much fun kite-flying can be.

Chris moved on to cover the civil liberty issue of detention-without-charge, and was back in combative mode (I didn't latch on at the time, but I think this alternation was deliberate; if so, it was a clever move). He quoted Benjamin Franklin's old dictum about 'those who trade liberty for security lose both and deserve neither', or whatever the quote actually is. This was a bit of a weak line; I've heard various versions of that quote, but the version Chris used was quite long-winded and lacked punch. He did something similar in the Question Time debate, using a Ronald Reagan quote. If I could advise Chris of one thing, it's to steer clear of quoting other people. For whatever reason, he just doesn't seem to get the delivery right, and I simply don't think that these quotes are necessary. Maybe it's just the fact that all of his quotes come from American Presidents? (Franklin, Reagan and Clinton's 'it's the economy, stupid'). Anyhow, combative Chris was entirely unimpressed with the government's case for extending detention without charge, and pointed out that when the extension was made from 14 to 28 days, 14 days was already the longest such period in any modern democracy, and was only passed due to Conservative collaboration with the government (OK, he didn't use the word 'collaboration' but that was very much the implication).

On to the predictable climate change discussion. I say 'predictable' simply because we already know what party policy is on this issue and there's relatively little new that can be said about it. Chris used a few emotive lines here - 'stealing the future from our children' and how 'as a father' he felt that this issue needed to be addressed urgently. My only other note on this part of the speech is simply 'a bit biblical' - I think he did overdo it slightly on the language about the calamities we are set to endure as a result of unchecked climate change, but maybe that resonated better with others. No quibble at all with the sentiment expressed though.

Leaving the environment until last led smoothly into his closing remarks. He pointed out that, despite the green makeover of the Conservative party, under his spokesmanship the Liberal Democrats have extended their poll lead on environmental issues over the Conservatives to its highest level since 1993. This is worth reiterating: his claim is to have delivered a crushing defeat, in polling terms, to the Conservative party on one of the major issues of David Cameron's leadership. The details may bear further investigation, but it was a forcefully-made claim. This practical ability to outgun our rivals forms the centrepiece of Chris's pitch for the leadership. He proceeded to reiterate the qualities which he felt would suit him to the job: his understanding of calculated risks and the need to take them, his ability to cut through difficult issues and resolve confused messages, and his ability to be radical. He called for the most radical party agenda for a generation, although I do have to wonder if there has been a Lib Dem leader who hasn't made the same call at some point. Still, when your opponents are the present Labour and Conservative parties, Chris's agenda quite clearly qualifies as radical.

Phew, so that's the speeches over with.

Q&A

I'll try to summarise the question and answer session as best I can. I didn't make precise notes of the questions asked, only the general theme.

Trident

Chris argued that we shouldn't scrap Trident now, rather that we should not replace it with a similar system when the time comes to decommission it. He was dismissive of the idea of using Trident as some kind of bargaining chip in international negotiations, but left open the possibility of nuclear disarmament if the 2010 talks achieve more than presently expected. In his view, the most likely favourable outcome is the replacement of Trident with a smaller, independent nuclear system, more suited to Britain's role in the world.

Nick pointed out that he had voted against Trident renewal and indeed went quite a bit further than Chris in arguing for full disarmament. He leaves himself open to accusations that this is unrealistic; what you make of his views will depend largely on your own assumptions. He is against the idea of ordering a renewal of Trident now, since the disarmament talks have not yet taken place. I am left confused as to how Chris has had the appearance of being more radical on Trident; Nick's disarmament rhetoric is much more strident (come on, you have to forgive me the one bad pun in 5000 words!).

Nuclear Power

Chris would rather spend the money and effort on renewable energy. No surprises there. Interestingly, he doesn't absolutely rule out nuclear power, but rules it out on the practical grounds of cost and the vast subsidies required. He points out that nobody has built a new nuclear power station since Chernobyl without hefty subsidies.

Nick raised two specific objections to nuclear power. The first is cost: for the money spent, better results could be had from other means. The second argument against nuclear is the difficulty of disposing of the waste. His answer here was very much in the 'ordinary well-informed bloke' style - he said that he wasn't an expert on nuclear technology, but as far as he knew the technical problems with nuclear waste disposal remain unsolved. In light of this, support for nuclear power would be wrong.

How do you intend to get our message across?

Nick talked here about the need to be 'smart' in our campaigning. He suggested that it might be a good idea to merge or coordinate the media and campaigns operations of the party for maximum impact. He also suggested that chasing the support of the Murdoch papers may be pointless, and that we would do better to focus on other media. He was very keen on the use of local or regional media, pointing out that people often have far greater trust in local media than national media. He praised the individual talents of the Lib Dem Shadow Cabinet, but argued that greater coordination is needed so that messages are reinforced by all. He also worked in a reference here to the fact that he has the most support amongst MPs.

Chris gave us a good anecdote about a remark made to him by an unnamed Conservative MP to the effect that, although the Conservatives have many more MPs, the sum total of genuinely talented individuals in both parties was comparable (he actually made this into a rather good line, and my recollection does him a disservice). He argued that we need to be less apologetic and more confident in our stance as a real political force and that we are now at a tipping point, with great possibilities ahead. He also went on to talk about how individuals often rely on a 'gut feeling' about what parties stand for and that, for example, Labour voters see their party as standing up for the underdog regardless of the reality. This was really a quite insightful point; he acknowledged that the appeal of Labour and the Conservatives might not be obvious to us, but must exist for the people who vote for them. He also pointed out that there is a very large number of people who do not vote at all, and we need to figure out how to push their buttons (my phrase, not his, but I hope I have the gist). Finally, he mentioned the importance of visual imagery: seeing Charles Kennedy on the anti-war march was more effective than any number of speeches.

The inevitable hung parliament question

As this question was read out, there were groans around the hall. Chris went first, with his well-rehearsed lines about the need to change the terms of the debate, pointing to Labour-Tory coalitions in councils, and the 'grand coalition' in Germany. He pointed out that he didn't spend 25 working for a political cause just to have to choose between Labour and Conservative. He also argued that coalition would have to be contingent on a different political culture, involving things like fixed-term parliaments. He cited the possibility of being invited to join a coalition, but receiving only the most difficult posts; once Lib Dem ministers had made unpopular judgements, the Prime Minister calls a fresh election. This was a good answer and provided a useful rebuttal to the cynical 'power at all costs' view of Lib Dem coalition talk. He finished by reiterating the party's individualism and was rewarded with strong applause.

Nick's answer covered much of the same ground. He set out to illustrate four issues of principle which would need to be considered in any decision over a coalition. Firstly, the fact that voters are in charge and would not respond well to the idea of a carve-up between politicians. Secondly, he echoed Chris's argument that the Lib Dems are distinct party, not an annex to Labour or Conservative. It felt like he was expecting a round of applause, but having followed virtually the same line from Chris, he didn't get it. He went on to talk in similar terms to Chris about how the political culture would need to change in order for coalition to be viable. My notes here are not terribly flattering though; Nick seemed to get a bit lecturer-ish here. Maybe it's my fault for not keeping accurate notes, but I'm afraid that I don't recall what his fourth principle was. Maybe Nick fell a bit flat here, or maybe everyone has heard this rather tedious question answered so many times that nobody was terribly interested in hearing it again.

The North West question

The hustings being in Manchester, there was a question about what more the party should be doing in the North West of England. Nick went first, pointing out that he represents a Northern constituency and has worked outside of London extensively. His answer here was quite interesting - he clearly identified Labour's Northern seats as the 'front line' for the Lib Dems. This is a big shift away from the 2005 approach, where Conservative seats were seen as better targets. He talked about this front-line battle lasting for 10 years, a clear indication that he sees the party's strategic objective being to win over present Labour supporters.

Chris made specific mention of a few key North West target seats, demonstrating his awareness of the top priorities. However, he pointed out a need to hold on to those seats won from the Conservatives, and suggested that he is well-placed to do so (in fact, given his wafer-thin majority, he has to be). He also promised more commitment than ever before to campaigning in the North West, committing himself to personally spending more time here. Of course, he's hardly likely to have said anything else!

Defence spending

Chris mentioned the recent attack on the government by the former Defence Chiefs of Staff. He also said that he was unsure about spending a greater overall amount on defence, but hoped to divert savings from Trident renewal cancellation to the rest of the defence budget.

Nick was quite a bit sharper on this question. He talked about how the anger amongst the defence establishment was an 'open secret' at Westminster. He suggested that money in the defence budget should be ring-fenced for the purposes of taking care of soldiers and their families. He disagreed with Chris's view that Trident made any real difference to the defence budget and instead suggested that the problem for the military was overstretch due to commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words, there would be problems even if money could be diverted from Trident and in any case it wouldn't be as simple as just moving the money around. He also pointed out that no full review of defence spending had been carried out since 1998 under George Robertson. He advanced the plan of asking Ming to chair a new commission to review defence spending and provide the basis for a new 'covenant' between soldiers and the government.

Northern Rock

Nick led with the accusation that the government's original plans for Northern Rock now look shaky - the money may not be repaid in full and the 'punitive' rate of interest may not apply. He talks about the importance of listening to expert economic advice, and mentions by name Willem Buiter (who, as well as being an expert economist is also a rather good blogger at the FT!). Nick's favoured plan is temporary nationalisation in order to protect taxpayer's money, with no other viable alternative existing at present. Once the situation is stabilised, Northern Rock would be sold back into the private sector.

Chris began with a brief history of how the crisis came into being; I suspect that this was to demonstrate his grasp of the economic issues. He did make some unique points though: he referred to Northern Rock's spectacular growth rates, explaining that as a risk analyst his professional opinion would have been that this growth was unsustainable. Overall, he gave a strong impression of understanding the issues. He attacked the government's reforms of credit regulation (the tripartite regulatory system of the Bank of England, Treasury and FSA) and pointed out that one of the government's stated reasons for not joining the Euro was the ability to manage these things ourselves. He also attached the blame firmly to Gordon Brown, under whose auspices the roots of the crisis began. He also said that he expects this to be a live political issue for at least another year, with very large sums of money in play. Like Nick, he advocated temporary nationalisation.

Trains and public transport

Chris went first on this issue, and argued in favour of current party policy. He talked about raising money for rail investment using road freight tolls, and talked about investing in a high-speed North-South rail link (always likely to go down well with a Northern audience). He also mentioned the problem of overcrowding on the rail network.

Nick started with a rather startling statement - that, were it politically possible, he would quite like to re-nationalise the rail system. This was an odd point to make, and I got the sense that he was doing so in 'bloke in the pub' mode; he was expressing a sympathy for the idea rather than an active desire to follow through, which is either a clever means of eliciting support or a foolish bit of kite-flying, depending on your perspective. He also used a bit of anecdotal evidence, talking about his own experience of the rail system. He went on to place the blame for the problems of public transport with the Treasury, for its commitment to analysing public transport purely in terms of financial costs, ignoring the wider implications: long-term financial costs, quality of life, environmental impact. He attacked the 'obsession' with privatisation as a cure-all, although he did make it clear that he is all in favour of private ownership in competitive marketplaces. Where there is no competition, privatisation offers no advantage.

International Intervention

Nick spoke broadly in favour of international intervention, but stressed the need to work within international law. He voiced fears about the possibility that Gordon Brown might support military action in Iran. He also said that whilst the party fully backs international law, this does not mean that we want to stand idly by when genocide occurs.

Chris said broadly the same thing; he spoke in support of military intervention in Kosovo, and criticised the failure to engage in Rwanda and 'perhaps' Darfur. He said that we need to resolve the double standards in international law and bring clarity about what is a valid intervention and what isn't. He also suggested that Kosovo might return to the international agenda due to the ongoing independence debate there, and spoke in support of the principle of self-determination. He raised questions about the effectiveness of the UN in this scenario, due to the Russian Security Council veto being used to prevent anything which might harm Serbian interests, and suggested that the EU needs to take a stronger role, offering positive incentives for maintaining peace.

What is your top issue?

Chris: climate change.
Nick: education.

How will you promote diversity?

Chris spoke in support of greater gender and ethnic diversity within the party, but expressed doubts about the way the 'diversity fund' is being used. In principle a good idea, it might be being misused by being spent on front-line campaigning rather than the stated purpose of direct financial aid to candidates who need it (e.g. to cover childcare costs).

Nick showed some passion on this subject and described the current state of diversity in the party as 'not on', which in Clegg-speak is about as damning an indictment as one can imagine. He spoke at length about his idea for an academy for candidates, and the work he is doing with Jo Swinson and Simon Hughes (both, he pointed out, supporters of his). He also gave another anecdote, about a visit he made with Simon Hughes to an inner-city school in London, where most of the pupils were entirely dismissive of politics. He explained that, after a lengthy discussion, it became possible to engage with these students about political issues, but this required the conscious effort to reach out. He suggested that there are a great many people who simply don't see politics as relevant, and that part of the academy's remit would be to reach out to these people to identify those who might, in fact, make good councillors or representatives of the party once they have realised that they can work within a political framework.

And that's a wrap!

So, where does this leave me? Before the hustings, I was undecided. If forced, at gunpoint, to make a choice I would probably have chosen Nick Clegg, but I have quite consciously avoided getting into the frame of mind of having a chosen candidate who I am bound to support in partisan fashion. So it would not be wrong to say that I had no real preference for either candidate before today; my view of their strengths and weaknesses resulted in almost perfect balance.

I'm still finding it hard to make a choice. I honestly can't say that either man would make a bad leader for the party; many of the 'big picture' strategic opportunities will still be there for either man to exploit, and I would be confident in either of them to do so.

I think that I have a decision forming in my head. I'm going to sleep on it now, and I'll post my decision tomorrow!

Growing up in the 80s and being a half-decent chess player (that's not false modesty, I really was just half-decent), the name of Garry Kasparov was always familiar to me. For years he was famous as the greatest chessmaster in the world, and although history may remember him as the first chess champion to lose to a computer ('Big Blue' in 1997), this says more about the tremendous strides made by computer technology than it does about his undoubted talent.

More recently, he has become well-known as an opposition politician in Russia, a critic of the Putin regime. He has been active in support of 'Other Russia', a political coalition dedicated in opposition to what they regard as Putin's autocratic and anti-democratic direction. Two months ago, he was selected as Other Russia's candidate in the Russian Presidential elections, elections which will be for Putin's successor. Of course, Putin has every intention of making sure that he gets to choose who wins the race, and there is even speculation that Putin will take up the office of Prime Minister after his (constitutionally limited) term of office expires.

Today, during a rally attended by around 3,000 people, Garry Kasparov was forced to the ground, beaten and then detained by Russian police. He has been charged with resisting arrest and organising an illegal protest. Reports are that trouble began after protesters clashed with police; the protesters were attempting to protest outside the electoral commission, which has barred Other Russia's candidates from the upcoming elections.

That Putin would move so blatantly against a candidate for the Presidency, and one as well-known as Kasparov, is a sign of his determination to exercise political control at all costs. If there was any doubt, any doubt whatsoever that Putin is a dangerous anti-democrat, this should dispel that notion for good.

It is often said that Russia 'needs' a strong man to keep the vast country in line, or that the Russian people have a secret craving for such autocratic rule. Those who want to look away from what goes on in Russia will often use this excuse; it's not so bad, the people don't mind so why should we? Of course, it's hard to mind about the suppression of democracy when minding about this can get you arrested. And nobody dispelled this notion better than Kasparov himself, in this interview:

Watch the whole thing. This is a very brave man who deserves our full support.

Via Devil's Kitchen, I am reminded of this animation. I've seen it before, but it's worth watching every now and again just as a timely reminder of some of the fundamental principles of liberty. It's often too easy to forget some of these things, given how used we are to liberty in this country and how arcane political debates can become.

Of course, the view of liberty being promoted here is still open to some interpretation; by a particular reading, it could be taken to say that all taxation is theft. Undoubtedly there are times and places where taxation is theft, where it used to unfairly appropriate the property of some people for the benefit of others (or merely for wasteful ends that nobody benefits from). It's always important to remember just how dangerous the levers of government can be in the wrong hands, or merely when the exercise of power becomes so broad that it is no longer possible for individuals to resist or control it.

If you don't want to sit through the whole thing (and I don't really blame you, it doesn't exactly move along at a great pace, although this does give greater opportunities for thought about the message), there's a transcript at Devil's Kitchen (see the link at the start of this post).

...it is that The Liberal isn't much good.

The latest issue seems to be an improvement though. As we don't have a leader at present (or atleast just an acting one) it doesn't waste time on telling us why he ought to resign (is there another way for Ben Ramm to get publicity?)

And there is pretty good review of Liberty: Is the future of liberalism progressive?, an IPPR book that was launched (an more or less sunk) at Harrogate. The theme of the editors is that liberalism is clapped-out and past it, and the importatn thing these days is to be progressive (which seems to mean NuLabour). Simon Kovar (for it is he) exposes much of what is wrong with the book and wraps it up like this

Today’s Liberal Democrats require above all a coherent liberal philosophical definition, and a narrative in continuity with the party’s rich and radical history. One positive aspect of this volume is that the strands of liberal thought are evident in the contributions of politicians as diverse as David Laws and Steve Webb: the nourishment of individuality, a critique of political and economic privilege and monopoly, and the fostering of liberal-democratic citizenship. Each of these strands has a social dimension, beginning with a commitment to education (a striking absentee from any collection claiming to strike new ground). Implicit in the subtitle is a question about whether the future of liberalism may be termed ‘social democratic’, or whether, at the very least, liberalism ought to concede the mantle of forward-thinking to social democracy. Is the future of liberalism progressive? No, it’s liberal.

You can read the whole article here.

Chris got off to a poor start, telling us that we should vote for him because of his cv. Clegg told us what he wanted for the party. As a long time advocate of more hope and optimism in the Liberal Democrat message, I was impressed by this.

Chris then had to apologise for his dodgy dossier. He had clearly seen this one coming, and played a fairly effective routine (aided by Paxman) then using the old "break up the NHS" line to suggest that Clegg was causing confusion. However he had to concede that Clegg does not support a social insurance approach (at least I think he did).

But then - surprisingly - Huhne floundered on the economy and in responding to a question on Ming's (unfortunate) "soak the rich" remark. It was left to Clegg to produce the key point about cuts in income tax.

To the question "has there been too much immigration in the last five years" Clegg answered first: "no". Huhne then said "maybe" at some length. I thought he made some valid points, but it was hard to see what his overall point was.

Clegg then rejoined with the observation that "there are more Britons living abroad than foreigners living in Britain" and that there was no way the Liberal Democrats should be chasing the anti-immigrant vote.

This was the most interesting part of the discussion and I scored Clegg ahead on it - but I can well imagine that some will find Huhne's position more appealing.

On the inevitable coalition question undertandably neither wished to discuss terms. I thought Clegg did best in terms of listing issues and attitudes that he thought another party would have to take on board (and suggesting that no party willing to accept them existed). Personally I would deduct a mark for talking of a "a whole new style of politics" which doesn't seem to mean much to me. But Huhne failed to trouble the scorers on this one.

Do they like each other? Yes they do (or so they say).

What will stay in the casual voters mind? Well I doubt that many people have started looking for the Lib Dem website to sign up, but Clegg's message of optimism came over, reinforced by his emphasis on lower income tax for the lower paid, and his refusal to moan about immigration.

For Huhne I suspect the lasting impression will probably be his apologies for the dodgy dossier (he had to do this twice and literally put his hands up over it). He landed some sort of a blow on the NHS, but my impression was that he didn't leave voters with any clues as to why they ought to vote Liberal Democrat.

Overall I scored this a pretty clear win for Clegg - and possibly the best television exposure for the Liberal Democrats to come out of this campaign. But perhaps I am underestimating the force of negative messages.

Surely ID cards are now finished, dead, deceased - an ex-policy? There's surely no way that anyone can believe in the idea of a central database of our most important personal details, to be administered by the government, after this:

Discs containing the personal details - including, where relevant, bank account details - of all the families in the UK receiving child benefit have gone missing, after being posted from HM Revenue and Customs to the audit office.

There's not really much point in excerpting the rest of the story. This is quite possibly the single biggest data protection failure in the world, ever. Nearly half of the entire population of the country is now at risk of fraud due to their personal details being simply 'missing'. There's almost no words for the scale of the mistake here. It is now clear that nobody, absolutely nobody, for any reason whatsoever, can continue to support the idea of ID cards and the accompanying database any longer, given the very clear risks demonstrated.

But if there's one thing - increasingly, it's starting to look like the only thing - that this government is really rather good at, it's ploughing full steam ahead with a disregard for facts, experience and common sense. This is the same government that thought that 1999 would be a really good time to sell off half of Britain's gold reserves, that tax credits so complicated that nobody can work out their entitlements would be a jolly good idea, that the credit bubble was entirely benign and could never go wrong. On the last point, the government persisted despite clear warnings from economists, amongst them current Lib Dem Acting Leader Vince Cable.

The same pattern is becoming apparent throughout government policy. On Iraq, military and intelligence doubts were brushed aside; economic advice was ignored prior to the Northern Rock collapse, and on ID cards, even criticism from the Information Commissioner has not been heeded.

As someone who works in an IT-related field, I feel that I know just how often IT systems can fail. And that's before you even consider the even greater possibility of human failure. The lesson that systems engineers have learned is that a bit of paranoia can be a healthy safeguard, and that to trust anything to a single system is utter boneheaded stupidity of a kind that would have any self-respecting systems administrator laughed out of the room by his peers. But, of course, the government has little concern for the opinions of people who might actually know what they're talking about, whether they're doctors, soldiers, economists, lawyers, teachers or just ordinary people. And so, the detachment from reality continues, until it becomes as obvious as it did with the Major government. And we all know what happens next...

Clegg's speech on why he had got involved in politics – focusing on unequal health outcomes in Sheffield – was the first point at which the debate reached beyond our internal obsessions to touch the concerns of the wider electorate.

And when Huhne was forced to offer the evidence for linking Clegg to this claim

I don't go along with those Lib Dem MPs who propose American-style school vouchers or replacing the NHS with privatised health insurance.
(from Huhne's first campaign email)

all he had to say was "Well David Laws is one of your close supporters".

It was a weak point. Laws is one supporter among many (Phil Willis, Steve Webb, etc), has not been an advocate of "American style vouchers" in the past, and isn't proposing them as Education spokesman at present (his Orange Book chapter spent a great deal of time dismissing the Tory "patient´s passport" proposal). In any case, Huhne's historic views (from his time on the public services policy commission) were not far from the Laws position in the Orange Book.

In those days, Huhne wanted to see public services that were accountable to elected local bodies, but was happy to see provision of services coming from public, private, or "mutual" bodies. (Personally I always saw the "mutuals" element as a figleaf, but perhaps I am just cynical). The core of the proposals was the creation of a clear purchaser/provider split. The purchaser was to be a regional, elected body. The provider might be anyone.

David Laws took this one stage further in the proposals he floated in the Orange Book. He kept the purchaser/provider split that Huhne had backed, but also offered a choice in purchaser. Essentially every citizen could choose once a year which organisation would use their taxes to purchase their healthcare.
Just how close Huhne was to this can be seen from his 2004 article in Liberator. While restating his preference for the policy commission conclusions, Huhne wrote that

"David Laws suggests that people could opt in to a range of different providers rather like US style Health Maintenance Organisation (HMOs). Quality would be ensured by competition: if someone was dissatisfied with their HMO at the end of the year, they could switch to another.

"This is certainly a health model that a region could try out if it wanted to (and the commission stressed the importance of experimentation as a key reason for decentralising the giantist NHS)."

However Huhne was fairly dismissive of the HMOs, suggesting that their impact is limited and that insurance results in litigation costs. This is perhaps the big question about the Laws' proposals. HMOs are often seen as doing well in terms of encouraging preventive medicine (they have an incentive to keep down future health costs) and in encouraging innovation among health providers. But it is clear that the cost of disputes is an issue (at least in the US, it would be interesting to have more information on the Swiss experience).

Sadly Huhne's earlier commitment to public sector reform seems to have evaporated (see James Graham for an interesting take on this). His recipe for the public services now seems – according to his manifesto - to amount to little more than a wish for elected control. And this is nothing more than a Liberal Democrat piety. It is hard to resist the thought that Huhne has trimmed on this out of fear of upsetting that section of activists which still believe that there is nothing wrong with our public services that spending more money wouldn't put right.

Will this do?

No – and for reasons that Huhne knows full well.

If we are going to attract extra support – to become credible – voters are going to need to believe that we have proposals to improve public services. As Huhne himself has accepted, you can't push the tax take much above 40% of GDP, so there are only two ways to provide better public services: grow the economy faster than other parties, or improve the efficiency of the public sector (both is best, of course). (Improving efficiency upsets some people - but it is not about simply cutting costs. It is about providing the scope to keep services up to date).

There are only two available models for seriously improving the efficency of health services. One is to make use of a system of targets to compare performance and spread best practice. The second is to introduce some decentralised control of performance through some kind of market mechanism.

Liberal Democrats dislike the way both solutions have operated in practice – this one included.

Local control would be a good thing. But on its own it is not going to lead to more efficient services. Indeed, it might well lead to more conservative decision-making (where is the local politician who will close even those hospitals that really should be replaced?) it may very well lead to decreased efficiency. If it ever happens, expect to see it accompanied with a similar set of performance measurement to that we see in the NHS at present, or in local government, allowing Whitehall to pressure local politicians into making the unpopular decisions.

So we will need more to say on public service reform – and this is the point on which Clegg's commitment to look further at how public services are delivered is the harsh truth if we are serious about pushing for extra votes. The Clegg proposals for a pupil premium, mini-schools, and increased parental choice is a move in that direction in education (in this case accompanied by substantial extra expenditure).

Whether we have the courage to propose effective measures on health is another matter.

But the NHS would benefit from effective reform. One of the reasons so many small health units have been closing is that the NHS is addicted to large hospital schemes (the way we set up PFI schemes is part of the reason). Other European countries are much more focused on small, flexible and innovative health providers. We are probably already falling behind in ways that we won't identify until far too late – despite all the extra money Labour have pumped into the NHS. Liberal Democrats have everything to gain from an examination of all the options - and nothing to lose from having the debate.

Alix Mortimer has written an excellent post calling for both 'sides' in the leadership debate to show a bit more respect for each other's opinions. I generally agree with her argument and recommend that everyone involved reads it and listens to what is being said.

This is important because politics can be a very tricky subject; in fact, as one of my favourite blogs argues, Politics is the mind-killer:

People go funny in the head when talking about politics. The evolutionary reasons for this are so obvious as to be worth belaboring: In the ancestral environment, politics was a matter of life and death. And sex, and wealth, and allies, and reputation... When, today, you get into an argument about whether "we" ought to raise the minimum wage, you're executing adaptations for an ancestral environment where being on the wrong side of the argument could get you killed. Being on the right side of the argument could let you kill your hated rival!

Quite simply, arguments about politics cause us to cease being rational (or, at least, as rational as we ever can be). Once we've nailed our colours to the mast, our brain's internal programming takes over and we start seeing things, if not in black and white, then at least in much sharper shades of grey. This, to me, explains much of why Nick Clegg's supporters are quite so engraged at Chris Huhne's apparent opinion of him. Chris's negative briefing about Nick might have been a bit aggressive, but these are grown men who we expect to send out into the world to do battle on behalf of our political cause; if either of them are incapable of handling this kind of situation then they have no business in standing for the leadership. Clegg's wounded and 'saddened' (to use his own phrase) demeanour at the apparent attacks on his candidacy is just as much a part of the tactical calculation as Huhne's original attack. And who was it who gave the 'Calamity Clegg' document to the BBC? Could it have been - dare we speculate - a Clegg supporter? Did Nick know that this was about to go public? If he's half the politician some people seem to think he is, he certainly should have done!

The point is that getting outraged about the other side's behaviour is actually quite pointless. As an official neutral in the race, I'm almost more turned off by the cries of unfairness coming from some Clegg supporters than I am by Huhne's attacks. Why? Because that kind of emotional, gut response isn't the way to make an important long-term decision about the future of the party leadership. It is not wrong for someone to point out what they think are Nick Clegg's flaws, even in robust language. I might still vote for Nick, but I have absolutely no desire to see him shielded from the strongest possible criticism, because I need to know whether he deserves my vote a lot more than I need to see a false 'unity' between the two candidates. There will be plenty of time for everyone to rally around the flag once the contest is over, but in the meantime we need to hold both candidates to very high standards of scrutiny. Getting offended when people criticise you is not a sign of strength.

The final word on this goes to the post from Overcoming Bias which I quoted at the beginning:

Politics is an extension of war by other means. Arguments are soldiers. Once you know which side you're on, you must support all arguments of that side, and attack all arguments that appear to favor the enemy side; otherwise it's like stabbing your soldiers in the back - providing aid and comfort to the enemy. People who would be level-headed about evenhandedly weighing all sides of an issue in their professional life as scientists, can suddenly turn into slogan-chanting zombies when there's a Blue or Green position on an issue.

I must admit, I'm glad that I didn't declare support for a candidate in the current Lib Dem leadership election. I'm still undecided and have, until now, found it quite hard to get worked up about what either side has been saying.

The Question Time debate between Clegg and Huhne was only mildly interesting, and I suspect that even that interest was sustained only because I'm a lot more interested in the issues than the average man on the street. I gave my comments on the debate in the Lib Dem Voice open thread on the subject.

My comment at the time:

I’m not sure that the programme is a good one to base judgements on. Nick came across badly, but Dimbleby gave him far tougher questions to deal with. Twice he brought out obviously pre-prepared ambush questions, one right at the start of the programme, and both were directed at Nick. In contrast, Chris escaped relatively unscathed, although I do get the sense that his unflappability meant that he simply couldn’t be ambushed.

I did wonder quite how and why it was that Nick was caught off-guard by David Dimbleby, and why that negative line of questioning seemed to be directed more at Nick than Chris. It seemed somewhat unfair that, only minutes into the crucial head-to-head debate, Nick was forced into defending or disowning alleged comments he had made about Chris in the past. I do think that he fluffed his response quite badly, but it was a surprisingly hostile question. Why did Dimbleby do it? As the assumed front-runner, I supposed that it was only fair that Nick had to field tougher questioning than Chris. However, after both men appeared today on the BBC's Politics Show, another theory has presented itself. In this show, the roles were reversed; it was Huhne's turn to be ambushed, and he was ambushed by the appearance of a document entitled 'Calamity Clegg', which had come from the office of Huhne's campaign. Huhne's denial of knowledge of the document was somewhat undermined by the fact that he repeated several points from the document in his criticism of Clegg; he might not have seen the title, but he was certainly aware of the opinions expressed. Given that Huhne's campaign has been distributing a dossier of criticisms of Clegg, it seems feasible enough to assume that his campaign was also behind the material used by Dimbleby in the Question Time debate.

I'm not sure what to make of it. The Cleggites are up in arms; Linda Jack is incensed, Charlotte Gore regards Huhne's approach as 'sad'. More damaging for Huhne is that even his own supporters aren't impressed; Bernard Salmon thinks that Chris should 'cut it out'. The general analysis seems to be that this is a big mistake for Huhne: Jeremy Hargreaves and David Rundle both argue that Clegg is looking stronger and Huhne weaker and that Huhne's negative attacks are the last roll of the dice for an underdog candidate who needs to make some impact.

As I said, I'm not convinced either way. I still haven't decided on a candidate (I'll be attending the Manchester hustings on Saturday and will make my decision after that), so I don't feel a need to support either man. It's obviously not good to see the candidates engaging in negative campaigning, but it's worth examining that sentence closely. It's not good to see it happen. I'm actually quite happy to know that Chris Huhne is determined to win and is determined to ensure that, if Nick Clegg does beat him, it will not be without a fight and a very tough challenge. Allowing negative briefing documents into the public domain, on the other hand, is a mistake that will haunt Chris's campaign. The Lib Dem leader does need to be someone who can make an impact and ruthlessly deal with opponents. Against Gordon Brown or David Cameron, such an ability to focus on their weaknesses would be invaluable. Even the deployment of such tactics in an internal leadership election is something that grown up men and women in politics should expect; the problem for Huhne is that he has been caught red-handed doing it.

Part of the problem here is that Nick hasn't done much else to build up his own standing. Whilst his billing as the 'great communicator' has unfortunately created the unrealistic expectation of a cross between JFK, Bill Clinton and the early Tony Blair, he has thus far failed to present much of a reason for following him. He's a nice guy and passes the 'would like to go for a pint with' test comfortably; he's obviously not short of passion or commitment, and he seems to understand the importance of relating liberal principles to people's daily lives. But he has an infuriating air of confusion around him, one which might be a good thing if it prevents him from getting bogged down in side issues, but in the absence of any 'big ideas' makes him look rather shallow. Jock Coats wrote an excellent post today extolling a vision of economic change in a liberal Britain; I'm sure that Clegg has the skills to sell this kind of vision if he chooses to do so. Clegg does have the potential to illuminate genuinely big ideas in terms that people can understand, and if he can do this then he will leave Chris Huhne's tactical differences over Trident or school vouchers looking like minor details in a far bigger picture. But, right now, he hasn't done this, and as a result Chris has been setting the agenda, to Nick's detriment.

I'm a little bit concerned at how much this scenario reminds me of the last leadership election. Huhne then ran an effective, organised and ambitious campaign, but lost out to Ming because, despite Ming's inferior campaign, there was a sense in the party that Ming would do better once safely installed in the job. The opposite turned out to be the case. Now, as then, Huhne seems to be running the more effective campaign, but also seems poised to lose to a man who, we are assured, has greater talents than we have witnessed in the campaign itself. This is why I did not declare in favour of Nick right at the start. Everything I've heard about him suggests that he should by my first choice, but what I've seen and heard myself isn't as convincing. If nothing changes, I'm going to be faced with an agonising choice between Nick's greater potential, and Chris's greater impact in the here and now. And, given that Nick is 13 years younger and could feasibly still lead the party a decade from now, it might make more sense to go with the more effective candidate now.

All in all, I'm not sure and I am giving myself another week to make my mind up. This is one vote that is still up for grabs!