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!