Those Charles Kennedy Rumours

Charles Kennedy and Nick Clegg on campaign trail in Glasgow
Your writer is just to the left of shot with other candidates

Yesterday evening as we were travelling the rumours of a Charles Kennedy defection to Labour started to circulate.

Charles Kennedy was one of the early SDP success stories taking the Ross, Cromarty and Skye seat in the 1983 General Election: just after a young Liberal, named Simon Hughes, was elected in a by-election in Bermondsey. Charles is the last incumbent Lib Dem MP who was elected on an SDP ticket and I like the fact that both he and Simon are becoming the spokespeople for the conscience of the party. They are two of the senior members who came from different perspectives to rise to the top.

However, the rumours appear to be either Labour led or some are suggesting from right-wing bloggers to destabilise the coalition. Looking back at that January day in 2006 when Charles resigned the leadership there were no rumours that that was the step he was going to take that morning. I know I was caught up in the media circus being phoned to come to the studio for an interview before the speed of change overtook that. So I don't think he's allow rumours of this kind to get out, he'd make the move and do it.

But I don't think he'd make the move. At his first PMQ deputising for Cameron Nick Clegg reasserted that the party opposite had gone into an illegal war in Iraq. That is the view of the vast majority in our paty, including of course Charles Kennedy. I don't think he'd feel at ease sitting shoulder to shoulder with the Labour members who voted for that war. The same goes for other former Labour members who are now part of the Lib Dems, who I suspect are the "rumoured colleagues" that Charles Kennedy will bring with him.

Life within the Liberal Democrats is often a tightrope of ideological struggle between the various strands of thoughts on issues. Liberal Democrats are used to fighting for their corner and their point of view even with their colleagues. We don't give up that fight easily and after 100 days of coalition government and looking around the blogosphere and see that after initial trepidation the party is starting to speak its heart and mind once again.

That is why I think Charles and Simon and others will act from within the party and not seek to do things from elsewhere. Also there is the comment made earlier this week Nick Clegg:

"If we weren't in a coalition now I don't think people would take any notice of the Liberal Democrats.

"If we were in a coalition with Labour arguably our identity crisis would be even worse."

Also if you are dissatisfied about the way the Government is doing things the easier way to bring about that change is from within that Government rather than from the other side of the House, which currently after 13 years of leadership is merely leading the league in whinging.

If Charles Kennedy is to be a figurehead within the party for the social liberal agenda being heard I'd be more that happy to man the rigging or scrub the decks for that good ship. I'm not, however, for lowering the flag of liberalism to raise a flag of convenience of any hue.

Read also: Not always you see Tom Harris defending Lib Dems, he is often doing just the opposite, but he is defending Charles from some totally unfounded claims.

Hughes Right Sentiment Wrong Solution

I love Simon Hughes dearly but his call today for a 'coalition veto' while the sentiment is grounded in the right place his solution is all wrong.

We are 100 days into a coalition, so we cannot yet say that decisions have been made without consultation. The deal was taken to the Federal Executive and Parliamentarians, with the exception of Charles Kennedy they agreed to it. Even the special conference of party delegates passed it.

However, as far as being able to veto something divisive that the Tories may foist upon the Liberal Democrats yes we should have that. But we shouldn't need a veto to do so. What we do need to address is the so called 'Britvic Clause' the fact that it requires 55% of the Parliament to bring down the Government. This should not be changed it should remain as the simple majority 50% plus one.

That way the senior coalition partner will have to tread carefully with the junior partner. Knowing that if they push things too far they could find their backs up against the wall. There has been coverage that the Tories are getting far more out of the deal than the Lib Dems. The Tories are getting the glory while the Lib Dems are soaking up the blame.

Maybe they are, but if the threat over them no longer having that support and no longer having the ability to push things through more aggressively that agreed, they may have to tread more carefully. The threat of a no confidence motion when they are being particularly divisive may well focus Tory minds on partnership and the fact that this time they are not governing on their own.

It isn't the veto that Simon suggests. Policy will be decided at cabinet level and I trust that if our people in there have misgivings they will voice them and steer the course to a more liberal approach. But if Nick has the option for saying I cannot guarantee our support, in fact I feel we will have to vote against this, then there is the power.

Of course with such power comes responsibility and we entered this coalition in a responsible way to deal with the mess that Labour have gotten us into. So we need to show a degree of responsibility in how we move things forward and not be like these two.

Cartoon from Imageshack

Simon Fires First Warning Shot 'Cross Coalition Bows

Yesterday the newly elected deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats Simon Hughes fired the first major warning shot across the coalition's ship bows.

It's all coming down to the matter of fairness. Having been canvassing members for the past three weeks there was a noticeable shift in their line of questioning come Tuesday. The reason of course that instead of the speculation of what the budget would bring we had the detail. Simon highlighted one of the concerns the welfare system in this case the pensioners. It's bad enough that many may have to wait longer for a state pension without other benefits being hacked into as well. As he said:

"The coalition deal is a deal. There cannot be any unpicking of items in that deal, otherwise the whole thing risks falling apart."

One key element of that as far as Lib Dems are concerned is that yes we need to tackle the deficit and we need to do it fairly. Impinging VAT increases (although noted bringing us in line or behind most of Europe) , benefits getting frozen while inflation continues and not properly tackling the tax loopholes as we promised are some of the areas of concern. The raise in the personal income allowance and the aviation taxes does offset some of that. Making it a less regressive budget than the Tories had promised during the campaign, but does it really make it a progressive budget?

Of course it is hard to be fully progressive when you have not one but both hands tied behind your back by the level of debt left by Labour. I've heard the Labour arguments that their investments were required to bail out the banks and to secure jobs. Securing jobs is fine but they could have and should have looked at the whole mentality of public sector expenditure before now. At the end of each spending round there are always inventive ways to use up to budget so as not to lose any for the next year. Yet Labour and the SNP are both saying there is no more room for efficiencies. There always has been, and unless something is done always will, the mentality of the public sector is to spend money rather than to save it.

You only have to look at the attitude of many of the MPs caught out over expenses. Some did use the defence it was needed, but the majority claimed it was within the rules as if it was an entitlement rather than a provision if required.

So yes Simon is right to sound a warning shot, and that is all it is, we Lib Dems are prepared to make tough calls on expenditure just as long as you are fair to the poorest in our society when you are doing so. Don't exacerbate their problems for the sake of expediency.

I'm a Bit Disappointed with Nick Clegg

Bet that headline has shocked some of you.

Yeah I know I can hear the Nats saying "Nick? Don't you mean Tavish?". I can hear certain Labourites going blah about time. I can also sense certain Lib Dems are working out how to do me in. But bear with me and let me tell you why.

Nick has just sent an email to all the Lib Dem supporters asking "What are you doing tomorrow?". Well I have a very good answer, do you? He then goes on to invite me to join him and Simon Hughes. I'd love to, I haven't spoken to either of them since Bournemouth and would love to catch up. However, he also tells me this is my last chance to take action.

What I'm disappointed with is that Nick seems to think that I can only take that action in London at the Copenhagen - The Wave demo in London. Well I'm not going to fly down there to take part in a Climate Change demonstration.

What I am doing tomorrow though is getting on a bus and heading to Glasgow. No I'll not be shopping in Buchannan Gallery or at the Fort or anywhere. I'll be marching through the streets of Glasgow as part of the The Wave march north of the border, see you don't have to be in London to make your voice heard.

If you are not able to get the London though here is Simon Hughes who you won't see in Glasgow telling you how important tomorrow is.



So therefore as you can imagine I'm only a bit disappointed with Nick, thankfully many of his colleagues are giving equal billing to both marches.

How Green are Our Copenhagen Delegates?

I see that Prince Charles is to 'attend' the Copenhagen conference on Climate Change. I say attend, he has been invited to make an address during the opening of the conference, in total he will be in the Danish capital for all of four hours.

Which asks the question how will he be getting to conference? Is this a flying visit in both the literal and figurative senses? Indeed how will anyone be getting there? Obviously some of the long haul delegates will have to fly, but with High Speed Rail links across Europe surely the Europeans should be making every effort to get there by using less CO2 and letting the train take the strain?

That is just what George Lyon Scotland's Lib Dem MEP and Simon Hughes representing the party at UK level are doing. Of the 38 UK delegates 19 of the 38 have so far confirmed that they will be flying. Why? Simon Hughes says his train ticket cost him £398, the cost so far claimed for travel with not all travel costs claimed by the delegation is £17,500 averaging £420. So no only is it costing the planet more in CO2 it is costing the taxpayer more as well.

Indeed it is estimated that the total CO2 cost of the conference will come to 41,000 tons, approximately the annual emissions of Morocco. Surely we should expect more of our own delegation. Indeed Eurostar give advise on how to get to Copenhagen by train. It is no more arduous that some trips made by Scottish MPs on a weekly basis for work. Yet somehow when we have a chance to do something practical as well as merely talking about it half our delegation at least are not looking into greener options.

As an aside I know that Prince Charles does his best to carbon offset his travel emissions, but how many of the other delegates will be doing so?

Scottish Hustings Pulls In The Crowds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Important is Your Leadership Vote?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Are Last Years PPC's Backing?

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

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

Sir Menzies Campbell has 72 backing him for 37.7%

Simon Hughes has 60 - 31.4%

Chris Huhne has 59 - 30.8%

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

Qualities of Leadership

I did a quick search on google for a list of leadership qualities and found this.

1. Good communication skills: Nobody not even Simon's opponents and Critics deny that he has good communication skils. He is able to get his message across to people one to one and from a platform or television screen with equal ease and impact. The one differnece that I notice about Simon from Ming and Chris is tha the is able to engage and move people along with him sharing his contagious entusiasm.

2. A leader has honesty: People may criticise Simon for not being totally open about his past, however, looking at the reaction that the press are still giving someone with such a past can anyone be surprised that something that had no effect on his ability in his job and a private matter was best left that way. However, now that he has been honest about it it has not affected his standing with anyone I have met.

3. A visionary outlook: Simon has a vision for our party to grow by at least 66% to over 100 seats at the next general election. He also has a vision for our party to remain distinctive and not take the easy option of moving to the ground occupied by new Labour and new Tories. That's why he lauched his Agenda for Fairness in Bristol on 2 February.

4. Selecting a good team: A good team around a leader will make up for the skills that the leader lacks. Simon has not ruled out any of his parliamentary colleagues from forming part of that team, nor has he upset any members of other camps causing friction in how he has led his campaign thus far. If any of the leadership candidates is capable of utilising all groupings within the party to best of their abilities that man is Simon Hughes. Sure the young turks might have to wait longer for their chance at the leadership, but think how much better they will become for the the greater experience gained in the interim. Simon has also shown through the years that he is natual at seeking to have this party Reflecting Britain. The cross section of support shows just how broad he does reach.

5. Action speaks louder than words: Many of the promises from other candadates have yet to be backed up by action. Ming has laready been embarred in the Sky News debate over his concern about the environment while enjoying his Jaguar petrol guzzler. Chris Huhne has disproportionately reflected on a green agenda something which he was far less keen on while an MEP. Simon has not changed his spots he is standing for what he has also stood for a socially liberal country. At Meeting the Challenge he said:

I want a country which enables people to achieve their potential, not one which leaves them frustrated and unfulfilled.

I want to work with you, fellow Liberal Democrats, and to lead you, to inspire all those in Britain who believe in a fairer society, not only within our party but well beyond it.

6. Ability to motivate people around: Any member of the party who has come into contact with Simon knows that he is able to do this. I have seen him greet every one in a campaign headquarters and then get stuck straight in to whatever needs doing, whether writing addresses, stuffing envelopes or putting stamps on envelopes, all the while chatting away to the volunteers. Of course he will have been brought in for the change to meet the public but he will not waste any time while that next event is getting organised. He also can chip in ideas to increase the effectiveness of that campaign based on his own long experience and practicle knowledge.

7. Consistency: As I have said above Simon has campaigned on what we have laways known him to be. He is standing on his long held principles and is standing so that hte party will continue to stand on it's long held principles and seize the day and stride on forward as a result.

8. Ability to stand against critics: One of the highlights of the campaign was Simon's reaction to the news that broke that Thursday morning he was scheduled to appear on 'Question Time'. Under the circumstances it would have been understandable if he has decided not to appear to handle a live studio audience that evening. As it was he turned up and faced criticism in the first question and answers from others on the panle. It did not deter him and the subsequent interviews have shown him to be strong in this current heated situation. In time this will be old news but other criticism will arise about him, the party, our policies. Having seen what and how he has handled himself, especially in the last few weeks, I know tha the is more than capable of handling his critics and when it arises in the House of Commons he is more than a match for any of them.

It is for these various reasons that I decided as long ago as 13 January that Simon Hughes will get the first preference on my ballot paper when it arrives in the next few days. I have been unstinting in that support and would encourage others to not be swayed by current trends but look at the long term picture. Simon has the energy, passion and experience to take our party on to the next general election and beyond and to achieve even greater heights that we acheived under Charles Kennedy.

Annette Brook MP for Mid Dorset said:

"Simon is a great asset in winning votes from Conservatives in seats like mine"

Norsheen Bhatti who stood in Battersea last May added:

"In cities, towns and country, Simon knows how to connect with all our communities."

A Leader Who Will Listen

The Liberal Democrats are a democratic political party. It is our party conference that decides policy and each member of the party has an equal say in the leader of our party. Therefore the views of the membership are not something to be taken lightly.

The members of the party want as much information about the leadership candidates as possible before making up their mind. Not every member attends conference and therefore has like me seen each of the candidates in action on a number of occasions up close. Not every member has worked in a target seat and two by-elections in recent history to see the attitudes of the candidates when the party is doing all it can to win seats.

Therefore hustings are an important way for many ordinary members of the party to gauge which leader is right for the party. Many hustings events are springing up all over the country but not all are gathering all three candidates to give the attendees a balanced view. Also not all members are able to reach one of the hustings events either due to distance or possibly due to prior engagements.

Simon Hughes has promised to attend as many of the hustings meetings as possible in the coming weeks and already shown that this is what he is going to do. He has also set up an e-hustings on his website where members can ask him questions. Simon is only candidate to use the Internet in this way, allowing the every day folk to get the answers to their questions.

I wrote earlier last month that the reason I finally realised that Charles Kennedy could no longer sustain his leadership was that while he had support in the country he had lost the support of his fellow MPs. Sir Menzies Campbell is starting to have the adverse situation, a lot of the young MPs have signed up to his campaign yet Ming is not attending far more of the hustings events than other candidates. The party needs someone that they know cares for them by not giving them a chance to see you without just cause they feel remote.

I've said all along that the number one reason I am backing Simon Hughes for leader is that he is best able to lead the party as a whole and be the greatest electoral asset at the next and subsequent elections or those standing. His attitude to the party and his willingness to engage with us shows that he really is the only choice that the party can make.

Apply here to Become an MP. Not!

I've been catching up on the blogs I've missed over the last few days. Almost all of them mention this article about Simon Hughes' plans for the party. Most round on his comment that we should apply for Parliamentary Candidates through the press.

Having recently gone through my development day to become an approved candidate for the party nationwide (I was only licenced for the recent General Election) I would like to say this is one idea I will be voting against at the conference in Blackpool or whenever it comes before us. To increase the spectrum of candidates we don't advertise for them we need to reach into those communities for members then encourage, train and motivate them to become candidates.

We already have some very able candidates from all sorts of minorities. Groups within the party EMLD, DELGA and GBTF along with the PCA and ALDC are doing what they can to encourage more. Those minorities includes three Bangorians, that is North Down not North Wales, one of the others I happened to back for the role of President.