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!

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!

When I wrote this post arguing against early declarations of support for either Clegg or Huhne, I was worried that I might have to embarrassingly retract it shortly afterwards, having come down decisively in favour of one of the candidates. So it's with some relief that, nearly two weeks on, I'm still undecided.

I haven't been much swayed by the arguments on policy so far. Trident was never going to be a deciding issue for me, but I confess to being disappointed by the general tone of Huhne's campaign thus far. He talks a lot about the need for boldness and brave ideas, but his ideas thus far don't seem to be terribly bold. This post by Jonny Wright highlights Huhne's stance on drug policy, which appears to suffer from the same problem. The rhetoric is all there; talking about "the courage of our convictions", but his actual proposal seems to be that the government should take more medical advice, and he appears to oppose any liberalisation of drug laws. If anything, he seems to be advocating a tougher line on alcohol!

As for Nick Clegg, I see less to disagree with, but that's mostly because I see less full stop. At the moment, I'd say that Nick is ahead on points, but he needs to land some knockout punches to secure my vote. In the last leadership election, I voted for Ming because I believed that he would be better once securely in the job, and ignored the fact that Huhne ran a far better campaign. I won't be doing that this time, and if we approach the finishing line with Huhne having run the better campaign, he'll get my vote. Much will depend on how the candidates perform in the hustings, including the BBC Question Time special next week.

Over the next few days, I'm going to try to get a better understanding of the two candidates and I'll be documenting my thoughts here.

In this excellent post, James Graham implores the Lib Dem leadership candidates to get down to basic principles. In the post, he reinforces the view that there is, at heart, a fundamental difference between Chris Huhne and Nick Clegg's aims:

Huhne’s manifesto contains two core elements that he should push home as much as possible over the next few weeks. The first is the People’s Veto - a brilliant populist move which happens to also be a democratic one. The second is his defence of equality. The latter guarantees that the likes of Andy Mayer and Tristan Mills won’t vote for him, but it marks him out as a centre left politician and contrasts with Clegg’s emphasis on meritocracy. It is an issue of principle that he can stand or fall on. For me - and others - it makes Clegg’s exhortation of liberalism sound hollow.

The gist of this argument is that Huhne places a greater emphasis on creating a society where there is more 'equality', whereas Clegg is implicitly opposed to this view, based on his championing of 'meritocracy'. What you take this to mean will largely depend upon your own assumptions. Some of you will read 'equality' as 'punitive taxation, levelling down, stifling of aspiration', whereas others will read it as 'protection of the poor, restraint of runaway greed and power, challenge to entrenched privilege'. Some of you will read 'meritocracy' as 'devil take the hindmost' and others will read it as 'opportunity to succeed according to one's talents and efforts'. Personally, I doubt that Chris Huhne favours a socialist society where success is to be looked upon with distrust and envy, and I also doubt that Nick Clegg wants to lock the poor into poverty on the basis that they deserve to be poor, but in leadership campaign situations even minor differences of opinion can appear to be inflated to these proportions.

Charlotte Gore takes Huhne to task over his focus on equality:

Is it ‘Left or Right’? It’s Left, there’s no doubt in my mind - certainly it’s way to the left of the mainstream these days. He has committed himself to Equality itself, essentially the nearest a Lib Dem will ever come to declaring himself on the ’socialist’ wing of the party.

Is it ‘liberal’? He uses the word but for me this is continuation of the ‘liberalism’ that has defined the Liberal Democrats certainly as long as I can remember. It is the same mish-mash of liberalism and socialism that has everyone scratching their heads and asking us to make up our minds about what we believe in.

I think that Charlotte is right, and that 'equality' is too vague an aim. As liberals, there are certainly some kinds of equality that we stand for unequivocally: equal treatment by the law, equal votes, equal rights, equal access to public services and with our commitments to education and fair taxation, we stand for equality of opportunity too. In my view, to go beyond this is to go further than we need to.

The problem is that I'm not sure that Huhne is really proposing this. Nobody is proposing absolute equality, a situation in which everyone is guaranteed equal wealth, equal income etc. It's politically, practically, morally, intellectually and in almost every other sense absurd. In fact, I think it's possible that Huhne is using 'equality' as shorthand, to demonstrate an awareness of the fact that some problematic inequalities exist in society today. 'Equality' is his catch-all term which covers such issues as equal votes (votes are not equal in a FPTP system), equality of opportunity (something which needs to be improved) and material inequality between the richest and poorest.

For me, Huhne's problem in communication here is that he is using technical language which conveys moral meanings to some people. When he says 'equality', it triggers reactions in his audience. Some reactions are favourable, others are not - as I outlined at the start of this post. But 'equality' (or, more accurately, inequality) can also be an objective fact. We can measure the inequality between rich and poor based on their incomes or their assets. And if we observe that this inequality is increasing, we might infer that something needs to be done about this (or that something which is presently being done needs to be stopped or done differently). In saying that he wants to 'promote equality', Huhne might be saying nothing more than that it is necessary to tackle a range of inequalities (I mentioned unequal votes already), and is certainly not implying anything much stronger than that. If he's merely saying that, by failing the poorest, we have allowed some people to slip too far behind, then I can agree with him. If he's suggesting that we should merely redistribute from the wealthy to the poor, without addressing the causes of the increase in inequality, then I can't support him.

Let's look at what he actually said on the issue of inequality of pay, in his manifesto:

It is not enough to speak of equality of opportunity, aspiration and level playing fields. If 'meritocracy' means that individuals will receive the rewards their abilities and work deserve, it produces a very unattractive society in which complacently successful people constantly look down on their less able fellow citizens, whom they firmly believe to deserve less. We need more than that. In R.H.Tawney's phrase, we need both an equal start and an open road. It is right that people should have the opportunity to climb up the ladder, which is why, for example, we should continue to support the idea of that education should be free up to and including first degree level. We should celebrate success and energy. But no one should ever lose their entitlement to self-respect or to sufficient income, wealth and health to function as a citizen simply because they have fallen off that ladder.

This is a problematic paragraph for me. The attack on meritocracy seems to me to be ill-founded and ill-judged. I think that it is only right that people should receive rewards for their abilities and work and I don't see anything unattractive about that. His closing sentence is also confusing; I do believe that everyone has an entitlement to a role in society, but I don't believe that the state can adequately guarantee 'self-respect'. He makes no mention of personal responsibility here, and that seems to suggest that, in his view, anyone who is poor or who 'falls off the ladder' does so because they have been failed by the state or society. This is, unfortunately, not always the case. Self-respect comes from finding a useful purpose for one's own life, and that is not something that can be granted by the state.

On high rates of pay, Huhne is actually much more sensible:

Part of the problem of inequality comes from the sheer lack of shame of so many of those who award themselves extraordinarily high salaries. There is everything right with top rewards for risk, effort and hard work. But the ratcheting-up of pay for corporate bureaucrats is a different matter. Thirty years ago, the average chief executive officer of a FTSE-100 company earned ten times more than the average shopfloor worker in that organisation. Now the figure is more like 77 times. As each company tries to pay more than the average, on the grounds that they need above average managers, the pay difference has soared. More publicity for very high salaries is essential, and shareholders should be asked to vote formally on corporate remuneration.

Whilst this actually reads as a stinging attack on 'extraordinary' rates of pay, in practice he proposes nothing more than social pressure - 'publicity' and shareholder votes - as a means of correcting it. Personally, I'm fine with that because I don't really regard such high rates of pay as being the fundamental problem. Or, put another way, I don't believe that the poor are being impoverished by the success of others. If my concern lies with helping the poor, then I should focus more on how best to improve their situation rather than how best to reduce the success of others. Huhne appears to agree.

In summary, he says:

But we need to think more about inequalities. We should be asking, for example, whether it makes any sense for a person on the minimum wage to be paying income tax, or whether a very rich person who inherits an estate should be liable to the same inheritance tax as a person with nothing who inherits the same estate. In an era in which it is all too easy to move income and wealth around, we must also revive thinking about land values as a source of fair tax revenue. If the public sector invests in infrastructure such as tube or tram lines, should it not be able to recoup some of the cost from the increased land value that flows from the investment? We are committed to rebasing the business rate on land values, but we should consider too land value taxation as a replacement for other personal taxes.

There's really nothing there that I can disagree with. I'm left feeling somewhat confused. Most of the practical measures that Huhne talks about - cuts in income tax for the poorest, land value taxation, social rather than interventionist measures to tackle 'too high' pay, a redoubling of the commitment to education - these are all things which I can, as an 'economic liberal' support wholeheartedly. It's not Huhne's policies that I disagree with, it's his rhetoric.

This post at Stumbling and Mumbling (a blog I highly recommend) provides a timely reminder of the risks of leader-worship. It's important to remember that a leader is dependent upon many other individuals and many situational factors go into determining his achievements.

This can be added to my reasons for not declaring in favour of a candidate just yet. Candidates should be evaluated on their performance, not some intrinsic 'gift' for leadership that can inspire a following out of thin air.

Both Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne's campaigns boast considerable rosters of declared supporters. Am I the only one who hasn't made his mind up yet?

The most recent YouGov poll suggests not - of Lib Dem members, just 16% are said to back Huhne with 14% choosing Clegg. This means that the overwhelming majority do not yet have a preference, although we might want to question just how effective YouGov is at polling on Lib Dem-related issues.

Such a high level of indecision is not a bad thing. There are good reasons for holding off from making a decision - at least a public decision - until much later on.

Both candidates have a lot to prove

In the last election, we had two candidates with long track records - Ming Campbell and Simon Hughes. Mark Oaten and Chris Huhne were, in relative terms, unknown quantities. Nobody knew how they would turn out when placed under the spotlight. Huhne emerged with his reputation enhanced; Oaten emerged with his in tatters. I would argue that Huhne is still relatively unknown, and that Clegg is in a similar position. Both are undoubtedly intelligent, sensible and have a good degree of presentational skills. But there must be a lot about both men which we don't yet know. Common sense dictates that we wait and see what they have to say for themselves before making a judgement.

Declaring support makes you a partisan

As much as we may try to avoid bias, there is a strong tendency for anyone who has publicly declared support for a candidate to continue to support that candidate even if that candidate performs poorly. It becomes easier to ignore a candidate's failings, and if the candidate's weaknesses become too apparent, there is a temptation to compensate for this by attacking the rival candidate. Many psychological studies have shown that we become biased in favour of our earlier stated opinions, even if we would no longer make the same choice in secret. It's very easy to say 'I will support candidate X'; it's very hard to say 'I have changed my mind'.

Candidates need criticism, not cheerleading

This is a truly pivotal moment for the Liberal Democrats. The usual caveats about wild opinion poll swings aside, the next election looks like being a very tough one. Whoever is leader, they are going to face a harsh environment; the media will be all too happy to ignore the Lib Dems entirely, and both Labour and Conservative leaders have made Lib Dem voters their target. The new leader is going to have to stand up to criticism and give a good account of why anyone should listen to him, let alone vote for the party. I'm confident that both Chris and Nick are capable of this, but I want to know who can do it best. To that end, we need to put both of them through a very tough process, almost a trial by ordeal, to see who emerges intact.

To do this, without descending into negative arguments, requires a degree of impartiality which might be at odds with public declarations of support for either candidate. I'd be very wary of leading bloggers and others who might be expected to play a role in scrutinising the candidates becoming cheerleaders for either side. Of course, there's nothing wrong with having a preference and explaining the reasons for that preference, but I think it's best to leave open the possiibility of a change of mind too.

So far, we know a few things about the Liberal Democrat leadership race:

It's a head-to-head

Unlike the last election, which featured four-ish candidates (depending on whether or not you count John Hemming, and whether or not you count Mark Oaten), this is a direct head-to-head. Much of the early coverage has stressed the similarity between the two men, and in public they are careful to highlight the fact that they both back most of what makes up current party policy. A four-way race would have given us a more diverse field of candidates, but it might have encouraged the early front-runner (presumably Nick Clegg) to have run a 'safe' campaign in the same style as Ming Campbell's successful campaign in 2006.

Additionally, a four-way race would have meant that some elements in the party would have largely favoured particular candidates from the beginning. People with a passion for a particular issue (or group of issues) would have known who 'their' man or woman was from the start, and would have had fewer reasons to engage with the other candidates. In a two-horse race, both candidates need to reach out to all parts of the party, and everyone's vote is up for grabs.

It's a close race

The early polling isn't giving much of a lead to either Clegg or Huhne. On the one hand, Clegg probably has more support amongst the MPs and the general party 'establishment'. On the other, Huhne has the advantage of his run in 2006, giving him a base of support and an experienced network of supporters. Neither candidate is going to be a walk-over, and neither looks likely to implode under the spotlight in the manner that Mark Oaten and, to a lesser extent, Simon Hughes did in the last race.

This reinforces the message of point #1. Both men really do need to do their utmost to convince Lib Dem members to back them. Last time around, Ming Campbell could point to a long record, experience and his excellent role in holding the government to account over the Iraq war. When he stood for the leadership, he had twenty years of Westminste parliamentary experience behind him, and a whole lot more. Neither Clegg nor Huhne can point to visible political achievements, having been in Westminster since only May 2005, though both had earlier roles in the European Parliament. This is not to disparage either man's experience or contribution to the party and political life in general, merely to point out that much of that work is not always visible to the membership at large.

Winning will require some risk-taking

A lot of the coverage of the 2006 election was dominated by negative issues. The race itself came about due to the very public exposure of the weaknesses of Charles Kennedy. During the leadership race itself, Mark Oaten was forced out by negative coverage of his private life, and Simon Hughes' campaign suffered greatly from the consistent questioning about his sexuality, linked to (in my view, entirely spurious) allegations of past homophobia. Even Chris Huhne was dogged by suggestions that he lacked experience and that his constituency majority was so slender that it posed a severe risk of the Liberal Democrats losing their leader's seat at the next general election. Ming Campbell was able to trade on his gravitas and respect to elude such scrutiny, but it could be argued that he won quite a few votes on the basis of being the 'least worst' candidate.

This time around, the only way to win is to be the best candidate. This requires some risk-taking, and both candidates will need to say some things that run the risk of losing some support in return for gaining larger amounts of support from other quarters. Both candidates will need to show what they are standing for, not what they're standing against. As a party, I think we're helped here by the fact that both men are, so far as I can tell, well-liked, affable and good-natured. Neither candidate is likely to attract a significant negative vote against them personally, which means that any votes cast will have to be positive votes, based on positive identification with the views and aims of the candidate.

So, with all of these things in mind, I think it's important that the candidates are held firmly to account on their views. Last time, the party failed - entirely understandably, given the traumatic situation and the truncated timetable - to properly explore and discuss the views of the candidates. Ming - and I say this as someone who voted for him and stands by that decision - won almost by default. Now, there cannot be a victory by default. Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne both have to tell us what they stand for and how they want to make it a reality. Like a lot of Lib Dems, I'm undecided about who to vote for; I'm waiting for a candidate to give me a reason to pick him.