The two contenders for the Liberal Democrat leadership – Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne – go head-to-head on tonight’s special edition of Question Time (broadcast on BBC1 and online from 10.35 pm GMT).
The pressure will be on. Though Question Time’s audience is not large (a couple of million, or so), it’s likely that a high proportion of Lib Dem members will be tuning in; many times more than will attend all the hustings events combined. For many of the so-called ‘armchair membership’, their assessment of how each candidate has performed tonight will decide how they choose to cast their vote. Ballot papers will be sent out next week.
If you’re watching, and want to say what you think of how it’s going, feel free to use the comments thread. But please do keep the discussion reasoned and reasonable; abuse or ‘trolling’ will be moderated.
121 Comments
Not just armchair members, I’m pretty sure tonight’ll decide it for me too. Still, I have a laptop, a working TV, a working wireless connection and “a hot-water girlfriend” sat next to me. So we’re good.
I’m just annoyed it clashes with the new series of Mighty Boosh on Beeb3…
“People sometimes forget that politicians are human beings,” says Nick.
Eh? 🙂
HAve the recent leadership issues had a negative effect?
Jennie’s answer: “Yes, there we go”
Nick’s answer: “Yes, can’t be denied, voters drifting away, we need to reach out and get them back” “not a question of taking responsibility, politicians are human beings, need a renewed sense of purpose” Jennie wants to chop his waving hands off already.
Chris’s answer: “no point in disguising we’ve had rocky times, job of leader is to unite partt and reach out” Jonathan asks if he thinks Nick is “stunt double”, Huhne ducks question, not very well. Good answer.
Johnathan turns to Nick about ‘nasty party’ and accusations of opportunism. Nick can’t remember saying it, “honestly can’t remember context”. Jennie thinks Clegg reminds her of Hugh Grant.
Clegg: “different context, hauling up quotes from last year irrelevent”. Chris: “delighted, 3 of 4 themes of last contest now party policy”
Chris wins Q1 (just) on points?
Eek, Dimbleby has skewered Clegg with a quote attacking Huhne. Nick dithered in his answer and came across looking rather bad. I think he was almost trying to be too ‘nice’.
I wish Chris would get a decent hair stylist. Nick wins easily on the hair tonight.
Funny, I’ve been looking down at the laptop and just listening to what they’ve said. Hadn’t noticed the hair…
What the hell is this “Charles was a great leader” thing? I just don’t get it.
@ Stephen. Virgin on Demand solves everything.
Audience interjections on former leaders, both praise Ming and Charles, Nick very strong on Charles’s strengths. Chris second, has to just agree with Nick as he’s said everything needed. Now being questioned on Ming and why he was forced out, I think Chris is handling it well, better than Nick?
Lots of support for Charles in the audience—damn shame he’s not a candidate?
[sigh] why do QT leadership specials always bang on about the CK issue? So dull.
Look, I’m going to say this one last time. You simply cannot have the trembling hand of an alcoholic hovering over the nuclear button.
The audience member seemed to be suggesting that alcoholism made Charles “one of us.” I’m not sure that “we’re a nation of pissheads” is such a great campaigning slogan.
But it would be true, Laurence 🙂
Punchy contribution from Chris. I like that.
What a waste of question time, the Liberal party are a joke and even when some of their members were offered proper jobs in government they backed off, having thought to themselves “work for a living, WHY! I have this nice cushy job doing nothing and getting payed for it”. We need to get rid of MP’s that don’t do anything, like they want to get rid of teachers that don’t perform. Give them some targets, see what happens then.
Q2 Hung Parliament Coalition.
Chris: “Blue and Red in face”—not a bad joke. Fought both Tories and Labour, want more Lib Dems in Parlt, up to electorate to decide, clear option in many local councils, deals with Lab/Con to keep Lib Dems out, as they’re now so similar, etc.
Me: Tories wouldn’t go into coalition with us anyway, Cameron would have a clear option of a minority Govt if largest party anyway.
Huhne: Partnership politics needs preconditions and electoral reform and fixed term Parlts.
Jennie: Well done Chris, initiative seized.
Chris: Real problem with our democracy, it stinks.
Nick: Up to other parties, more liberal policies, no illegal wars, ID cards, reinvent politics, end to tweedledum/tweedledee. Not an annexe. Camera looking at Chris nodding. Nick wants to break two party politics within two elections (Mat: yes please). Never allow ourselves to be discussed as an addition and campaign on reinventing politics.
David says ducking question. Nick says can’t imagine entering govt, Chris interjects to ask why this question is never put to other parties, they could ally (I agree with him for the most part on this).
Other two have more in common, we want change—neither really answered the question, both changed subject well to system, but not well enough. Nick stressing reform better?
Q2: Nick just on points I think.
It’s really no use Chris or anyone saying that Labour and Conservative are all the same. It’s not as though we have any policies that I would call seriously radical. Audience member has just agreed with me!
@ Paul (14). Strange, Lib Dem MPs have a tendency to win award for “hardest working MP”, and those I’ve met are in no way in ‘cushy’ jobs.
Tory troll again guys?
Chris is winning it so far for me. Much more assured in his answers. As I’ve seen before Nick gets flustered. Nick is a lovely guy and very attractive but I have yet to see what it is that is getting him so much support.
Wish Chris would stop pulling strange faces though!
The reason your question hasn’t been answered darling is because it’s utterly tedious. We’re nearly at the top of the hour and nothing interesting has happened yet.
“We need to be the little boy pointing out that the emperor has no clothes,” says Chris. OK then Chris, let’s hear it. Tell us that you’re going to abolish the Monarchy.
Clear win for Chris on Trident thus far; not surprising considering that it’s ‘his’ topic.
Don’t worry, Laurence, we’ll still have Norman Baker to do that for us 🙂
Matgb @17 says “@ Paul (14). Strange, Lib Dem MPs have a tendency to win award for “hardest working MP”, and those I’ve met are in no way in ‘cushy’ jobs.
Tory troll again guys?”
Tory troll? Could be right. Reads like Paul Seery Grammar to me.
Q3 Trident
Nick: Need to defer decision until after negotiation, can’t say what he wants to do as that binds hands in treaty talks. Now attacks chris’s policy, Chris shakes head, multilateralist.
Chris: Trident aimed at non-existent threats. We need a system to deal with Ahmedinajad and Kim Jong Il. He wants a new system and break treaty obligations? David interjects to ask this. Chris: We need to see how the land lies after 2010 negotiations, would rather have nothing but may need minimal deterrent. 50 years ties to US, break of national interest.
Jennie: Showing pasion there Chris, “bloody hell”.
Nick: I want to see Trident go.
Chris’s answer less palatable but more pragmatic, not a nice answer but possibly the right one?
Don’t think Chris wants to do what Nick says he wants to, Nick seems to regurgitate talking point attack and not listen to what Chris actually said?
Have to agree with Chris there. Hooking up with the religious fruitcakes of the USA has not exactly been an unmitigated success.
I think that Nick should relax a bit. Chris has started well, but he’s very long-winded.
Yes, Nick looks like he’s trying too hard sometimes.
Agree with Rob @ 21, Chris won that one clearly.
Jennie wants to meld them together, Chris’s brain in Nick’s body. Pretty + substance…
Appeal to voters over tax cuts.
Chris: Clear policies to appeal to voters, green tax switch and taxes on the better off…
David interjects if they have any differences, both say “I doubt it” at same time.
Chris handled that incredibly well.
“How would you appeal to voters who want tax cuts?”
Give them a tax cut I suppose. Are we going to get one intelligent question tonight?
It says something when I have to admit to being so bored that I’m finding designing the Eynesbury Hardwicke Focus far more interesting; O God no, someone has asked Nick Huhne and Chris Clegg was the difference is between them.
Dimbleby is an amazingly glib chair – interruptions to no purpose.
How do we tell which is which?
Nick: Tie colour joke, then shoehorning in regret of lack of female candidate. Turns to what leader needs to do, and reach out to those that don’t care about politics.
Chris thanks audience member for “which pretty face” comment. Now answering, streses background, experience, business success, etc. Restates, take on “hollow myth” of Gordon’s economic competence, endlessly complicated tax system, end of pension scheme, etc.
David asks Nick to strees experience, “too British to roll out CV”, looks a bit “modest”, hard to say if genuine, think it was. Making good point about children born in poverty, anger about differences in Sheffield, etc. Angry at illegal war.
Jennie: once again Chris makes less palatable but right point, Nick making populist point. I concur.
Clear win to Chris on this? To me anyway, Nick needs to up his game to get me back to undecided.
Nick just got angry… Is he a YL Red Guard in disguise…?
I think this is awful – a lacklustre affair with a terrible audience to boot. I’m sick of watching Nick glaring at Chris but then I always am bored by QT…
OK, I’m going to try saying something that may be unpopular: The way to end child poverty is not to give birth if you are poor.
Gosh swoon aren’t you dead clever and all ironic…and a tory…
Nick was very good on public service reform, in my opinion.
Chris is sounding a little utopian…
Laurence (36) I agree, but we as a society still need to deal with those born into poverty due to parents, etc. The parents may make poor choices, but you can’t blame the kids for that.
Damn… I thought I’d stopped floating as a voter, but Chris is really pulling me back away from Nick… an excellent performance thus far.
Thanks Jo. But I’m not a Tory.
Why so long on this issue of public service reform? Both candidates are clearly giving the same answer.
So you think poverty can be bred out of society?!!! I’m aghast!
Undecided hitherto, but Chris speaks with conviction and passion.
This inverted snobbery which demands that our politicians must use state-run services is so tedious. It’s like saying that you should drive an old banger of a car.
Raising school leaving age
Chris: No compulsion, encourage them to stay in using vocational training, compulsory post 16 education not a good idea.
Nick: Aspiration good, bad implementation. Crisis in educaton is 15-20% of kids failed altogether. Need to copy Dutch system and pour money into early years.
Both well I think. Score draw?
Votes at 16
Both say yes, both good.
Has Cameron cornered market on inexperienced leadership?
Nick asks why David is looking at him as he repeats the question.
Nick: Same age as Cameron, appalled by Thatcherism when growing up, Cameron became one of her footsoldiers. Nick fundamentally disagrees. Using the “politicans are human” line for the third time? Another talking point?
Chris: Straight onto attack on Cameron, scoring some good hits, all an act, etc. Well said and done.
I’m going off to tell all my poor friends and colleagues to breed like bunnies…
So you think poverty can be bred out of society?!!! I’m aghast!
Er . . . well that’s what we have been doing for ages. As a nation we are getting wealthier all the time. But if you mean relative poverty, then no we can’t get rid of that. That’s communism – it’s been tried and it doesn’t work.
I started out undecided, and I’m still undecided! Neither put in a bad performance and both had some strong moments (Chris on trident and relations with the US, managing to be passionate but also sane at the same time; Nick backing up the ‘people in charge’ message by talking about real people).
Getting bored, but it’s almost over.
Best qualities:
Chris says Nick is warm and competent, will have strong role in leadership.
Nick says Chris effective, David accuses them of love in (not in as many words).
All over. Switch to QT extra? Nah, This Week.
Jennie: If a member, I’d still be undecided, personally like Huhne, but Nick good line in populism and do well in media.
Me: I think Clegg fluffed more than Huhne, Huhne knows journalists and Clegg is overrated. Clegg’s “main strength” didn’t come across so well to me in that, and Chris had passion and made his points well.
Huhne won on more than points for me overall I think. Anyone want to persaude me otherwise?
My take: no clear victor; but neither was the loser.
Those who say otherwise are simply projecting their own pre-conceptions.
Overall, this was a good result for the Lib Dems: two intelligent, articulate liberals putting forward coherent and passionate views.
What a poor show. BBC at its worst I’m afraid. Glib, predictable, and tiresome.
Stephen, I agree. However, I was surprised by the one quite nasty comment about Clegg from Chris, where he mentionned Laws. I thought that was a little low.
Two good performances. Chris better than I expected, but Nick still has my vote.
Chris was excellent on Trident, totally understands the critical issues, Nicks argument that he doesn’t want to show his cards before the negotiation is entirely flawed by describing his cards on national TV…
Nicks little chat about joe and his bus reminded me of the thick of it… It seemed a desperate attempt to persuade viewers that he’s a man of the people despite both candidates highly privileged backgrounds. He obviously share CK’s ability to talk like a normal human being!
Chris’ final comment to welcome Nick into his shadow cabinet was very interesting especially as it wasn’t reciprocated by Nick, despite his stated attempt to return the compliments…
(does anyone else think the alcohol expert on This Week sounds like a drunk?)
Pretty much with John @ 54 here; Chris’s answers were detailed albeit somewhat prolix, but delivered with more passion than I’ve seen from him for a while. Can’t see his answers on Trident playing too well outside the Party membership though, much less green taxes. Decent enough performance from both candidates, spoiled somewhat by Dimbleby’s offhandedness, not for the first time on QT. Very valid point from Laurence @ 45 too; far too much of that kind of questioning in the media.
Very much like the Bristol Hustings – but Clegg was more passionate tonight.Chris breaths confidence – the way he dominated Dimby by finishing his answers.Chris now – Nick in ten years is my conclusion.
Interesting, considering that Nick has based his campaign around being ‘the great communicator’. I went in thinking Nick would win in, but ended up thinking Chris just pipped it – seemed like a potential leader and able to face up to Brown. Not yet convinced on Nick but will see how he does on Newsnight.
Chris now – Nick in ten years is my conclusion.
Well of course that’s a very important consideration. Given our track record, we obviously need to have a backup leader. If we go for Nick, then when he’s caught with his pants on his head, we’ve got nowhere to go.
Not a great set of questions to answer (CK and coalitions) and not much between them for the first half of the show.
But Clegg’s answers on what got him involved in politics was a turning point in my view. It was certainly the most outward-looking section of the programme, and I thought Chris faded after it. The Reagan quip was rather ill-judged, for example.
I may be projecting my preconceptions (52) – but my reading of it fluctuated during the debate.
Chris edging it for me but no knock out blow.
Wish someone in Chris’ team would tell him the current leader of Wrexham is a Lib Dem.
Thought Nick got off to a very shaky start and was made to look rather shifty at times over his historic positions.
Trident exchange was useful in clearing up real rather than portrayed positions and makes me more comfortable than before with Chris.
For party as a whole a positive slot with some better sound bites on our core policy.
Was annoyed that Chris was shut up as he started to lay out our tax plans.
I’d hoped to declare my intent after today I think I’ll dwell on it over the weekend though
What was the Reagan quip? And how could a Reagan quip possibly be misjudged?
62 It’s the way he told it…
Agree no knockout but I do think Chris won it pretty clearly (although I was supporting him before so perhaps I’m biassed). Some uncomfortable questions for Nick from Dimbleby – on breaking up NHS quote, wooing by Tories, thinner cv – unfair but they are questions he’d have to get used to if he won.
“Chris now – Nick in ten years is my conclusion.”
That’s my conclusion too.
Aye, I was always closer to Chris but not decided, and I think they’re both great potential leaders in many ways, but Nick didn’t do the “great communicator” trick very well, and Chris showed passion and belief very well. Chris to win this time, Nick clear favourite to replace him after two elections and we’ve seen both in the real cabinet.
Chris was the clear winner. He’s upped his game from last time and injected some passion into his performance. He’s still however dull and technocratic (and a social democrat not a liberal).
I really don’t get the ‘Nick Clegg Great Communicator’ thing. He was for at least the first part of QT pants (although not helped by Dimblebore), he did raise his game in the second half, but he did nothing to shake off the impression he is the poor man’s Cameron.
I’ve despaired of this contest from day 1 – there are at least a dozen MPs in our party better than the two we’ve got standing – yet none of them stood.
At least if Webb stood we’ve had had some sort of debate about issues…
“I’ve despaired of this contest from day 1 – there are at least a dozen MPs in our party better than the two we’ve got standing – yet none of them stood.”
As a non-member and fairly floaty voter, I agree with Dan here. But yeah, Chris was better tonight.
I agree that Chris won tonight, and he has now done enough to persuade me to vote for him. I thought he dealt with any pressure far better than Nick, who rather squirmed when put on the spot by Dimblebore over some of his previosu comments.
Stephen (52):
My take: no clear victor; but neither was the loser.
Those who say otherwise are simply projecting their own pre-conceptions.
Who could you mean? :oD
It was not Nick’s best performance but he is still by far the best option for the party.
I despair at how many of our members are contemplating voting for Huhne. He is a good politician, not a great leader. Think how he will be presented outside of Westminsiter; dull, gray, technocratic.
Clegg’s bodylanguage and discourse is exactly what the party needs to revive itself and the only means by which our policy will actually reach those we need to be reaching.
If Clegg doesnt win, the party is dead in the water. It is as simple as that.
Chris was winning when the baby and I nodded off. I am so cheesed off that I missed it. Lesson – do not breastfeed whilst watching Question Time!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nick got off to a shakey start. Thought his answer to why he got involved in politics in the first place was brilliant though.
I too will quote my non-member but LD supporting girlfriend, Chris “is John Major”
“62. What was the Reagan quip? And how could a Reagan quip possibly be misjudged?”
The Reagan line, when Reagan originally said it, was:
“I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”
I don’t think using this line, albeit in summarised form, can be called “ill-judged” because the quip is by its very nature, self-deprecatory for Chris – i.e making a remark about Chris’ age.
It didn’t get a laugh because Reagan, despite being an all-round bar steward, knew how to deliver a line, and Chris didn’t do it justice from a comedic viewpoint.
I thought both of them came across well against Dimblebore at his most boorish. Most of the questions were quite internal (when has Question Time had a question about electoral systems, I ask you!).
Each was best when displaying passion and conviction.
Oooh number 72, what a time to come in to an exchange of Chris supporters and those who are “leaning” towards Chris. Chris is “John Major” now there is a contrast with Chris’s Cameron stunt double quip! In all honesty I have never seen Chris so animated, we actually began to see him speak with passion. Great – but sadly in the passion/engagement stakes he is still way behind Nick. The other problem is that he not only needs to win arguments (and I am not convinced he did last night) he needs to win hearts. I am still afraid his leadership would be hugely divisive in the party and he has done and said nothing to disassuage me of this.
Chris possibly stole me away from Nick. Chris performed far far better and when the big strength of Nick’s campaign has been the whole commnication agenda, he just didn’t communicate so well and I am sorry to say throughout I just thought he had the mannerisms of Blair and Cameron and I don’t think our message will be communicated well in that guise.
Chris had real conviction and I have to say echoed so many of my feelings on issues – Trident, Vocational Education, Hung Parliament.
I can’t trust Nick on electoral reform. I trust Chris to make PR a definate condition.
Sorry Nick – maybe next time.
Oops *shaky*!
Oops *definite* plus too many ands!
73 Paul, this was the sense in which I thought it was ill-judged. Reagan used it against Mondale, who could be quite grey and leaden, while Reagan had some sparkle.
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 think both of them suffered from what was – for them – an adrenaline-charged contest but what was for the rest of us a rather dull set of questions.
I haven’t changed my mind since last night; Nick was good on public services, Chris was significantly better than I expected on foreign affairs, neither answered the coalition question correctly (an unforgivable mistake; any LD leadership candidate has to be able to answer that question in their sleep). All in all, I think both will have a big role to play in the future. The ‘Blair/Brown’ comparison is not one that anyone will enjoy, for obvious reasons, but we can’t ignore that it worked on an electoral level. I’m looking forward to seeing both of them turn their guns on Brown and Cameron, and am less bothered than ever about which one happens to become leader of the party.
As a Conservative (trying not to be a troll) I am going to agree with Dan Fachikov (67) – saints preserve me!
I think Huhne won that pretty hands down, although I have to say I did not think it a ‘great’ debate. When they did the Tory and Labour debates there were more than two of them. Having a slightly odd candidate helped spice up the argument a little.
I have now idea why but at times this evening you could see Clegg drifting off into the middle distance, almost as if he had something esle on his mind!
Already a declared supporter of Mr Huhne.
My view was that Chris won on points but he needs to be wary of his contorted facial expressions when listening to others. Nick made excellent use of his hands. Will happily support whoever wins.
Amen to that.
76. I think the strength of Nick’s communication lies in the way he explains things, as well as the original way in which he looks at the issues, and that was on good display last night. It’s a style that appears less overtly political, and does mean he occasionally ums and ers, but that’s a small trade-off.
I think both Clegg and Huhne performed well last night – the debate was an excellent advert for the party – but I prefer the way in which Clegg performed and think his approach will pay us dividends both in levels of support and quality of policy.
I was going to vote Clegg on the basis of his communication ability, but I didn’t see any of that last night. So I too am swaying towards Chris Huhne.
Last night made up my mind. I am glad I watched it.
It shows the power of television. A hustings, both have been to my constituency in the last 12 months, a phone call from each, mass lobbying from every party activist that I know, emails, facebook groups, celebrity endorsements. None of it could fully make up my mind, but good old Dimbleby does it. The man is a hero!
I’ve posted my comments in the members forum…
Last night, Chris Huhne put himself in the position he should have been had it not been for the intense media bias of the past few weeks and the preferences of Parliamentary Party colleagues.
Chris showed himself to be the more substantial politician. Forthright, articulate, firm about his values, and specific about policy.
Perhaps Lord Ashdown can explain to us why it is essential to the party’s survival to have Nick Clegg as leader.
Nothing I saw last night leads me anywhere near to that conclusion.
It’s clear that the programme makers were only interested in finding issues where Nick and Chris had a slightly different point of view in an effort to make engaging TV. It was therefore a rather surreal situation in that most of the time they were agreeing with each other. There is no doubt Chris performed better on the night and has a more animated presentation style than during the previous leadership election (when I saw him at 4 leadership hustings). However when Nick was actually allowed to get his points across he did come over as passionate about liberal democracy. I also think his face fits better (although he looked very tired last night) in terms of how the party looks to the electorate.
It was a good platform for the party to get our policies across even if the acoustics were awful.
both did well I thought – passion from Nick, experience from c.h. ; the clapping at the end of the programme was much louder than at the beginning.
QT wasn’t great. However, maybe party members shouldn’t complain that members of the audience asked different questions from the ones that we might have done.
We need to be electing a leader who can inspire and enthuse the public at large, arguably *more* so than they can appeal to the party faithful.
I’m increasingly tending to support Chris: despite the good looks and the occasional burst of passion, Nick seems to get flustered too easily.
I’m not convinced that a Nick victory won’t cause some splits in the party; but I do also have concerns about Chris holding his own seat next time.
I’m still pondering… but whoever wins really ought to invest in some non-grey suits.
71 Members are compenplating voting for Chris because they have seen both of them in action and have come to a different conclusion from you!
Neither candidate will leave the party’dead in the water’ and for supporters of either candidate to argue this is over the top and off-putting.
92 – all the indications are that Chris is digging in well in Eastleigh.
I don’t see how you can give Chris a win on Trident. I’ve still no idea from his answer – even after Dimbleby questioned him further – whether he is more of a disarmer than Nick or less.
If more, why do you want to invent a new nuclear weapon system?
If less, why are you spinning it as anti-Trident?
If “about the same”, why should we care, why make it an issue?
Nick was right about negotiations. I just wish he had stuck the knife in by adding that you do not go into negotiations behaving erratically – cancelling one nuke and building another.
—
Yes QT is always pretty dire, they choose bad questions. I had put one in on the environment, I’m sure many went in on detention without trial etc, but the BBC do not want us seen talking about the issues, because that is when we are effective.
The first half was pure tedium on coalitions and ex-leaders, the second did improve a little, if anybody was still watching. And I think Nick improved a great deal in the second half, when there were real issues to tackle that he is passionate about. Chris, I’m sorry to say, just sent me back to sleep.
I did not find QT at all inspiring. Having now just discussed it with a couple of local activists, I’m even more despondent. We desperately need a really impressive, dynamic, articulate and quick-witted leader. Surely, there’s one in the party somewhere? I’m not convinced we’ll make much progress with either of these as leader – just continue to stagnate/consolidate.
Chris passes the policy test and the Lib Dem member test. Nick passes the normal person test, he took a while to warm up in the Question Time arena though – something he needs to work on.
Nick leading with Chris in policy would be a winning combination.
I thought that Chris Huhne comfortably won the Question Time debate. Clegg lacks credibility and I think that he also lacks intellectual rigour and would prove gaff prone. Why don`t Libdems champion the fact that they are the only mainstream socially democratic party? They should be proud of this.
97- Completely agree. Chris has much more message discipline and plays well to members, Nick is more ‘unscripted’ and plays better to the public. If we could simply make Nick more ‘prepared’ but not lose the sense that he is being honest and upfront and speaking from his heart, then we’d be perfect. Huhne seems like the perfect Shadow Chancellor to me.
99 What evidence is there that Nick plays better to the public?
Agreeing with Sam at 100 Simon, one of the influences over my decision was that of my fiancéé, who’s not a member—she couldn’t stand Nick’s hand waving, and found Chris better overall.
The media says he’ll play better with the public, is that actually true? I don’t think it is—the John Major comments may be meant as an insult, but he got the Tories more votes than any other leader, and a higher percentage than either Thatcher or Blair ever managed. I think Huhne’ll do better with the GP.
98 – We are not social democrats, we are Liberals! hence why we would not “champion” social democracy but Liberalism!
Mat, the John Major comment was meant as another viewpoint of someone in the same position as your fiancéé (not an insult, but rather her impression!).
I found Chris more impressive than I thought I would (more impressive than last time round?!) but her view is interesting as she is not party political.
I don’t think she was thinking of Major’s 1992 victory, but his demeanor. Earnest, a little odd perhaps (maybe an acquired taste) and giving the impression of being a little dull . . . ;o)
I don’t think John Major has degrees from Oxford and the Sorbonne.
Ruth Bright Says:
November 16th, 2007 at 5:03 am
Chris was winning when the baby and I nodded off. I am so cheesed off that I missed it. Lesson – do not breastfeed whilst watching Question Time!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I note Ruth posted this just after 5am – is that when her and they baby woke up??
@ Big Mak: I’m a liberal and a socialist (but not a Marxist, a Millite), and while I’m not a social democrat, liberalism and social democracy aren’t incompatible—we have a chunk of members from the SDP tradition, and we can’t just deny they’re there. An element of the broad church that is the Liberal Democrats is a number of social democrats, just as there are also liberal socialists, liberal capitalists and other branches. Using elements of our broad appeal to reach out to potential voters isn’t necessarily a bad idea. I’d hate to think under an FPTP system that we become beholden to just one wing, electoral suicide.
@ Grammar: Apologies then, it’s rare I see comparisons to Major that are meant in a good way, despite his obvious actual success—not his fault the electoral system was stacked against him after we’d figured out our targetting policies.
Having watched Brown on BBC Parlt this afternoon while eating lunch (security policy questions I think), then Earnest, a little odd perhaps … and giving the impression of being a little dull sums him up quite nicely. The Tories elected a good foil to Blair, I think Huhne’ll be a better foil to Gordon, both have similar strengths and weaknesses, but I think Huhne’s good enough to take him on and win, and it’s Labour we’ll be taking the most seats from next time, I think we’ll mostly be defending v the Tories. Plus the Cameron Project will derail again now the election pressure is off.
I was a little perplexed at some of Clegg’s answers, particularly over Trident, but I have always been impressed by Chris and cannot understand why there seems to be an undercurrent of some real anti-Huhne feeling running through some influencers in the party. I voted Huhne last time and on this display, will definitely go with Huhne again.
As others have said, Clegg in 10 years time perhaps. For now, it’s time for Chris Huhne
98/102/106: Ok Big Mak, lets not get hung up on terminology. I want to support a party which agrees with the principle that government should temper capitalism`s inequalities. I`m fed up with Tory and New Labour surrender to free markets. Who shall I vote for then?
@Stocky: The problem with both NuLab and the Tories is not that they’ve surrendered to markets, but that they’ve surrendered to corporatist capitalism. Capitalism and markets aren’t synonymous, markets are a fair tool if not abused by those in positions of power.
So you should vote for us, because for the most part we recognise this and want to remove vested interest and allow the equal access that is currently denied.
Of course, Big Mak is from a completely different wing of the party to me, so may disagree with some of my analysis of the problem, but we both agree on a truly liberal solution. Markets, if used right, promote equality, not inequality. That they’re currently failing isn’t the fault of the principle, but of the unequal access and unfair practices promoted by those in power. Once you’ve ‘won’ the competition, you want to finish it and stay on top, that’s what causes the problems.
As an avid watcher of QT I was rather disappointed with this one as an event!
I was hoping both candidates would show more passion and use the occasion to highlights their personal strengths when pitted agianst those of the other.
For me they only managed to demonstrate what qualities they have in common
That leaves me still undecided.
Let us see which one comes up with the perfect formula to lead multi ethnic multi cultural Britain at the forthcoming hustings
As someone without a preference prior to QT, I believe that Huhne came across with more clarity, conviction and, most importantly in a prospective leader, authority.
Didn’t think there was a outright winner – neither did themselves any harm, but neither came through as the obvious winner. THey’ll both have to get slicker over the tedious coalition question. The answer lies nearby – inScotland. The existence of a semi-proprotional system ensured that Labour wouldn’t get carried away and claim they woud win by a landslide and the partnership agreement locked them into a compulsory 4-year term, virtually ruling them out of the Snap election option.
MatGB/109: you say that you are a socialist, so shouldn`t you agree with me that free markets concentrate resources and therefore don`t protect people. How can you be a socialist and also advocate free markets, and presumably the concept of a meritocracy. Listening to Chris Huhne, wouldn`t he regard himself as a social democrat? How are you going to get the money from those who have won the competition? What do you mean by a truly liberal solution?
MatGB: and another thing, I`ve been reading the blogs all afternoon and I`m puzzled as to why the bookies have Nick Clegg as such a strong favourite. The blog comments are far more pro Huhne. Do you think that the bookies have got it wrong?
Stocky; because bloggers and other activists tend to be more left-wing than either armchair Liberal Democrats or the rest of the public. Huhne appeals to those people naturally and his pitch has been based towards activists: the policy on trident, pushing PR and talking about not being the third tory party. We saw it in the last leadership election where he was the favourite amongst the online activists too.
This doesn’t mean the bookies have got it right though, but we do need to recognise that the type of people who blog about Liberal Democrat stuff might actually be quite a homogenous group and not necessarily reflective of the wider party.
It is important to say though that we are an activist party. At least 50% of my local party’s members are active to a greater or lesser extent. I don’t think we should underestimate – or overestimate – our importance, but in the Lib Dems at least, we should be more confident of the importance of activists than ‘elsewhere!’
You’re lucky Martin – not only is my local party’s membership low, also a low proportion of it are active – I think there’s prob a high proportion of activists in areas where we’re strong, and a low proportion outside of that. In many places we’re not that strong
Coming on to the spat on today’s (Sunday)”Politics Show” – after somewhat lukewarmly repudiating the “Calamity Clegg” e-mail, Huhne damaged his cause by taking up the issues apparently raised by this rogue communication, thus giving it an undeserved legitimacy. He shouldn’t have done this.
Also the contribution by the former Lib Dem spin doctor which prefaced the studio debate was pretty pathetic in defining a “Liberal/libertarian agenda” as being about “lifting the smoking ban,more casinos and 24-hour drinking”. These are exceedingly peripheral issues compared to the need to roll back the police state that the Government is pushing inexorably towards, with its latest raft of so-called anti-terror measures which are r eally just an attempt to terrorise the population into submission.
What a shame the party is so focussed on the minutiae of the leadership contenders opinion. When it comes to leadership, we need someone to develop a “main thrust”.
What we do not want is a Blairish leader, who simply fashions the party to suit himself. Someone who finally knocks the idea of collaboration with New Labour on the head would be good.
Power seeking pragmatists are ten a penny in politics. I hope the new Libdem leader is not one.
For those that might be interested, the blog that got me interested in blogging, Iain Weaver’s much under-rated non-partizan The Snow In Summer has written a review of the debate thanking us for our liveblog efforts. Although I’m not sure about the ‘bungalowheads’ thing.
I also think he’s wrong about the way the other two parties would split, but that’s a discussion for another day.
I think I’ve given up on this contest. Apart from the two contenders bickering about detail, these two committed eco – warriors have decided to match each tonne for tonne of tacky junk mail. I would really like to see some creativity and radicalism in the contest. What we are getting is grey – suited mediocrity. These guys are looking and sounding more like New Torylabour airheads than Liberal. They are proclaiming their superiority in almost every way possible, like speaking five languages!!! Well who cares? I think we are all(the members) disappointed. I think Chris Huhne will win, but does he deserve it? I don’t think so.