Today's Guardian contains a very thought provoking article by Larry Elliott and Dan Atkinson, that argues, much like Will Hutton's The State We're In, that unaccountable elite stateless bankers are destroying the fabric of our society.

Elliott and Atkinson want to fight back, however, and this is their plan:

"None of this will be easy. Some of it may involve abrogating Britain's signature to various international agreements, not least the various European treaties. Nor does much of this New Populism appear to be immediately in prospect, despite the darkening clouds over the world economy. It could move rapidly on to the agenda should the crisis worsen markedly, but it is also possible that it will take time to piece together a Populist coalition.

We have touched already on some of the elements that might join such an alliance: small business people and farmers (if there are any left); independent professionals and shopkeepers. Then there are those filling the basic supervisory roles that ought to be the backbone of society: railway station managers and their equivalents in bus depots and motorway service stations, police sergeants, prison officers, high-street store managers, noncommissioned officers in the forces and similar. We would seek to add two significant blocks of members: manufacturing and export businesses and trade union members. Industry and those working in it have been the biggest losers from the Olympian experiment as productive capacity has been destroyed and millions of manufacturing jobs wiped out. Those owning, running and working in industry know better than anyone the virulence with which New Olympianism has blighted the economy. Both union members and managers have much to gain from a more sensible attitude to industry."

There are areas of their argument that touch on Liberal values, but the sort of coalition described above contains many elements that would never see themselves as Liberal in a million years. So good politics for us?

This question begins in America, with Jon Stewart's first – and last – appearance on CNN's 'Crossfire' programme. Indeed, it was one of the last appearances made by anyone on the show in its long-running format – it was cancelled as a result of the fallout from Stewart's appearance. Live on air, he used his appearance to accuse Crossfire of 'hurting America' with its take on US politics. What Stewart was referring to was the established means of 'doing politics' on TV, where Beltway insiders of both parties (and never anyone from outside the big two) would score points against each other, interpreting the politics of the day as though it were an amusing parlour game at best.

Stewart visibly struck a nerve with the show's presenters, and his remarks struck a chord with the American public and the more forward-looking members of the US broadcasting community. Once someone had come out and said it, everyone could admit that, actually, Crossfire was a farcical excuse for political debate; not merely annoying, but actively harmful to the existence of informed and intelligent understanding of the issues. Whatever one thinks about politicians – and I personally think that we're all entitled to poke a lot of fun at them – there does come a point where we have to question why our media seems incapable of taking issues seriously.

This leads me neatly on to the BBC. Thursday night's election coverage was, by popular opinion within the group of people who actually bothered to watch, pretty dire, on the whole. Particular ire has been directed at the sequences involving Jeremy Vine, whose attempts to out-do Peter Snow lead to him prancing about holding pictures of Mr Bean (in a tired re-run of Vince Cable's original joke which, funny as it was, has surely passed its sell-by date), attempting a dreadful imitation of a 'cowboy' accent for a sequence that apparently had something to do with Nick Clegg, and generally making a prize arse of himself in front of a bewildered nation and a bemused studio panel.

The one innovation that the BBC introduced for the coverage that didn't fall flat on its face was the decision to include a panel of bloggers to give some input. OK, at this point I have to admit that 'political blogger being in favour of more influence for political bloggers' is one possible interpretation of my argument, but I hope that it's not taken that way as that's certainly not how it's meant. And it was the inclusion of the bloggers which did allow the closest thing the BBC will probably ever allow to a Crossfire moment – when Alix Mortimer was able to repeat, live on air, the comments that the viewers had made regarding Jeremy Vine's antics. Emily Maitlis moved the debate on swiftly, but the point was made.

Admittedly, it was hardly on a par with Jon Stewart's Crossfire appearance. A few seconds of criticism of the BBC was allowed before we were off to another inane feature or unenlightening interview. But it got me thinking, and it might have got a few other people thinking too: “Hang on, I always thought that I was the only one who really hated this stuff, but if other people do too then maybe the BBC should do something about it”. And it's not just election night coverage. Many of the criticisms of Crossfire also apply across the range of the BBC's political output – the insiderness, the reliance on canned confrontation between partisans, the belief that a bit of verbal sparring can create an informed public debate, the ever-increasing dependence on gimmicks – these are features of almost every flagship BBC programme. We have long passed the point at which serious analysis of football matches is easier to come by on the BBC than serious analysis of a political issue. The level of insight and debate, not to mention the seriousness of its conduct, on “The Apprentice – You're Fired” exceeds anything you'll see on “This Week”. “The Daily Politics” is pretty atrocious too, and sometimes there doesn't even seem to be an attempt to hide it. Question Time is OK (and, funnily enough, the QT immediately before the election coverage was actually rather good), but the standard varies depending on how good the selection of panellists is. The worst part of it all is that people like Andrew Neil are perfectly capable of doing in-depth, thoughtful interviews (such as his Straight Talk series on News 24) but seem to end up fronting contrived, dull or clichéd shows. I can only assume that this is what the BBC thinks we want to see; we have to make it clear that it is wrong.

My point is this: much of the BBC's political programming has now become actively harmful to political debate. It's a shame that Jeremy Vine is getting the stick for this, as he seems like a decent enough bloke whose main crime is simply a willingness to do what's asked of him even if it's a bit stupid, but his election night appearances really do sum up what's wrong with the BBC. The reliance on gimmicks and ludicrous metaphors has reached the point where it makes no sense: the metaphors serve to confuse more than they enlighten, surely a sign that something has gone badly wrong somewhere.

My hope is that the reaction from the blogosphere will serve to strengthen those who think that the BBC can, and should, do a hell of a lot better when covering politics. The time has come for the emperor to realise that he's not wearing any clothes and, frankly, we don't want to see a naked emperor prancing about on our TV screens.

News that Tim was taking over the Agriculture brief sent me back to his article in Liberal Democrat News last week. It was a campaigning piece - his aim is to make the liberal democrats "the party of choice for UK farmers". And that is a great idea as far as I am concerned. One of the things I have found annoying over the years is our failure to communicate to farmers just what our policies are. There is a hugely important trade press for the farmer sector and we have many ways to get into it.

But (telephone) canvass farmers in many areas and you will find they don't know where we stand on the big issues like CAP reform. This is partly because we don't have a very clear or informed stance on these issues (and I will come back to this on my Euro blog). The big problem is that we haven't been great communicators. Tim can change that.

Sadly, Tim got a few things wrong in that article though.

He kicked off with the bold assertion that "if you want to see hard evidence of the failure and unfairness of the free market, then you need look no further than rural Britain" (meaning farmers, in practice).

This isn't my sort of language, and the idea that farmers operate in a "free market" seems pretty suspect to me. According to DEFRA statistics (sorry, no link to this) all the key categories of farmers except dairy farmers received (on aggregate) EU subsidies that exceeded Family Farm Income in 2003/2004 (the most recent year I have to hand). The situation is rather different for pig and poultry farmers who essentially fall outside the CAP. But a classic farmer with fields and a tractor was surviving (nominally at least) thanks to public subsidy.

Dairy farmers seem exceptional in terms of subsidy income - but this is because the support mechanism for dairy was the quota system - a massive scheme to restrict output (and thus maintain prices) across the EU.

So I find the whole idea that farmers are in the free market a little odd.

The second point Tim got wrong came in his second paragraph where he wrote of "the conclusion of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) that there had been price-fixing and collusion between major supermarkets and the big dairy companies and that this price-fixing had led to profiteering to the value of £270 million at the expense of consumers and farmers".

This is a myth gaining credence in all polticial parties. But in fact the supermarkets were fined for getting together to pay the farmers more. This is from the Times report:

J Sainsbury said it would pay a £26 million fine to the OFT, which it said would help bring the investigation to a conclusion.

"We are disappointed that we have been penalised for actions that were intended to help British farmers, but recognise the benefit of a speedy settlement with the OFT," Mr King said.

"The price initiatives in 2002 and 2003, which were widely and publicly reported at the time, were designed to help British dairy farmers at a time of considerable economic pressure and public debate about whether farmers were getting a fair price for their products," he added.

In a statement, Asda said: "Everyone at Asda regrets what happened, particularly as we are passionate about lowering prices. Our intention was to provide more money for dairy farmers, who were under severe financial pressure at the time."

There may be scope for demanding more from the supermarkets (and changing the law) because this is not normally the way they behave. It is a relatively easy policy to explain at least. But if we are really going to face up to the realities of the predicament of farmers, we are going to need a critique of the impact of the (old) CAP and an understanding of the structural problems facing some parts of the industry.

Production-based subsidies (all but gone in the UK) encouraged farmers to produce more and so guaranteed a supply to wholesalers. Their impact can perhaps best be see with sheep production. Sheep farmers increased the number of animals they kept (the subsidy was paid per ewe of breeding age) leading to an overall increase in the national flock of about 50% between accession and the end of the millenium. And prices responded just the way they do in economics textbooks. Arguably the result was overgrazing in large parts of upland Britain.

The current situation seems to be that farmers are responding to the change in the subidy by reducing the number of animals they keep. This might lead to increased prices in the medium-term, but in the short-term destocking also serves to depress prices. The moral is that intervening in markets can cause as many problems as it solves.

But I don't seek to argue that going back to the market will solve the problems faced by all farmers. Arable farmers seem to be doing well out of the freedoms provided by a decoupled CAP and rising world prices. UK Dairy farmers have failed to gain anything much from the movement on world prices.

And some upland sheep farmers now seem to be only slightly linked to the business of food production. The main function of those Herdwick sheep that moved the hearts of the nation during the big BSE crisis is to keep the Cumbrian mountains clear of scrub and trees and to appeal to tourists - their owners are often tenants of the National Trust. They are not part of free market agriculture at all. They are in the entertainment industry.

So, I've been tagged, and therefore must now reveal the contents of my desktop to the world. Upon realising this, my first thought was "hang on, what does my desktop look like?". I normally have so many windows open that catching sight of the desktop itself is a rare occurrence; normally only when the computer first boots up.

Having reacquainted myself with its contents, I should now point out that asking people who work in IT to show the world what's on their desktops is a very bad idea. Why? Because you get something like this:

(click the above image if you really must see the full-size version).

The explanation for the enormous desktop is that I have two monitors, one off to the left and one central. So, my 'main' desktop starts somewhere about 40% of the way in (1280 pixels in, to be precise). It's thoroughly boring, functional and, well, it's grey. No wonder I can't remember what it looks like. The contents basically consist of icons put there by applications obnoxious enough to not give me an option to avoid having the desktop icon, and a curious zip file entitled 'everything', which must have once been very important, to have merited being put on the desktop to gather dust rather than gathering dust somewhere less visible.

Now, I must tag other people:

1) My co-blogger Peter Welch
2) Rob Fenwick, who may outdo my geeky desktop
3) Will Howells, ditto
4) John Hemming, because we really need to know what MPs have on their desktops

Less than a day into the job, Nick Clegg is doubtless receiving plenty of advice, but he's unlikely to receive much better than this from James Graham:

In particular, Clegg needs to hit the road, catch a dose of initiativitis and take steps to ensure that even if the national media choose to ignore what he has to say, he is using every tool at his disposal to ensure that it comes across anyway.

But, as if to underline the scale of the challenge, the comments in reply to the post show that Nick is going to have to overcome considerable scepticism, even cynicism:

So out of the two white, westminster public school educated, right wing candidates, it was bosses' man, pro-privatisation, anti-union Clegg that won. At least big business and the rich will be happy and feel safe. - Nihon

Who knows, with a hung parliament they could swing the vote one way or the other and make a real difference. But if they are NL in pale orange ties, who's going to bother voting for them? - WillDuff

Now we have right wing Tory, centre-right Lib Dem and NuLab, and half the country are disenfranchised. This is a bad day for representative democracy for vast swathes of the population are unrepresented. I don't know where to turn. - Howie

Now, as a Lib Dem I obviously disagree with the sentiment of these commenters - that there's nothing much different between the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Conservatives. But this is a truism; if I did believe that, I wouldn't be posting here. The interesting question is "why do other people believe it?".

Some people probably just are cynics. They're happiest lambasting all sides and no amount of persuasion is going to make a difference. But the majority of people are not like that, and therefore we must accept that their view of the Lib Dems as "just another political party" is genuinely held. Nick Clegg's challenge is to overcome this.

What I'd like to see from Nick is some of the radicalism that was talked about during the leadership campaign. Nick can learn from Chris Huhne's boldness, and if he can ally that with his natural instinct for framing issues in human terms, he will be in possession of genuine political dynamite. And nothing less than dynamite will unseat the two-party consensus that dominates Britain today. I can only speak for myself, but I think that the core message of liberty is a powerful one and a radical one in today's political environment. If Nick can make people see how this will affect them, he can win new converts to the party and its cause. Can we explain to people that liberty isn't just an abstract idea, but something that will give them new power in their own lives?

Above all, Nick needs to demonstrate that there is something real behind all of this. We already have genuinely radical policies which the other parties would never emulate, but we need to make people believe it, in their guts as much as their heads. And, perhaps, we might need more such policies. I hate to talk about policy so much, simply because 'policy' bores most people, even the politically aware. But policies are nothing other than principles given expression, and people can only make sense of our message when our policies and principles are aligned. Perhaps we have to be bolder in all areas if we are to make this connection clear.

One of the most frustrating things about reading criticism of the Lib Dems for being too timid or too similar to the other parties is that I know how many people in the party are here precisely because it's the only place that will give them the space to explore radical ideas. The intellectual life of the party remains vibrant; bloggers like Joe Otten and Jock Coats have been exploring the policies and principles of the liberal tradition for a long time now. Yet on forums like Comment is Free, people still regularly accuse the Lib Dems of lacking vision, radicalism and distinctiveness.

Nick Clegg isn't going to find it easy. There are plenty of people who don't want to give him a fair hearing. He needs to deliver the goods, in presentation, policy and principles. Anything less than this will be a failure. But he's got a chance, and, despite the narrowness of the result, he has a party behind him which believes in those principles and is impatient to see them play a larger role in British political life. It's a chance, and he's got the best opportunity to take it that any liberal leader has had for 80 years.

So, the result of the Lib Dem leadership is to be announced shortly.

Since I haven't declared it yet, I ended up voting for Chris Huhne. But, in the final reckoning, I'm sure that both candidates are capable of doing the job that needs to be done. I could never get worked up in a partisan way about this campaign, simply because I can easily imagine either man leading us to success. The questions that interest me are not questions of the leader's personality. The situation of the Liberal Democrats as a party matters a lot more than the characteristics of the leader, especially when the choice is between two able, presentable and intelligent candidates.

Despite the occasional arguments about negative campaigning, there hasn't been a great sense of negativity about the election. Both Nick and Chris have talked about the need for ambition, and I suspect that they're going to have to work together to meet those ambitions. And, of course, the party will have to unite behind them.

It feels like a time of change now. Gordon Brown's government is growing increasingly discredited, and they have missed the opportunity to set themselves on a more liberal course, by continuing with ID cards and proposing an unnecessary extension of pre-charge detention. So, as we approach the changing of the seasons with Yule a few days away, we also approach a changing of the political season, with the New Labour era firmly drawing to a close. 2008 must be the year that the Liberal Democrats fight back, and put the liberal agenda squarely at the centre of British political life. To do that, we'll need to unite as a party, behind whoever emerges as leader later today.

A few weeks ago, the Liberal Conspiracy website launched, with a bold claim of representing the 'liberal left'. This provoked a less-than-enthusiastic response from those who felt that 'liberal' was not the right word. I meant to write this post while the question was a bit more topical, but now is as good a time as any: just what is the liberal left?

Any analysis of this problem tends to suffer from semantic confusion: there's little agreement over what 'left' really means in a political context, or even what 'liberal' means. So, if this question is to be answered meaningfully, we'll have to define the terms.

Liberalism is a broad concern with human liberty. It is a belief that individual decision-making is important and that, insofar as it is possible, people should be free to control their own lives. Liberals tend to believe that the only good reason for coercing a person - preventing them from taking a course of action - is to protect the rights of others. Liberalism rejects the notion that we need to be commanded from above by wiser, cleverer, richer, more powerful, more articulate or more organised groups; instead, liberalism favours free association and voluntary arrangements wherever possible.

'Left' is a broad political term which has changed in meaning over the period of its use. I think it's fair to characterise 'left-wing' as 'concerned about improving the conditions of those who are suffering most from the present arrangement of society'. Yes, that's a long-winded way of saying it, but it's better to be long-winded than to leave anything open to interpretation. So, a left-wing perspective on economic issues might involve concern about poverty, or the status of mistreated workers, or the effects of imbalances of power on those with the least power to control their own lives. Left-wingers are primarily concerned with promoting the interests of the weak.

So, what does 'liberal left' mean? They say that a picture is worth a thousand words, so I'll try to illustrate by use of a diagram:

Put simply, 'liberal left' is that area in which 'liberal' and 'left' overlap. (I apologise if this is a bit obvious; As I said earlier, there's so much confusion about this issue that it pays to be clear).

So, there are some policies and beliefs which are both liberal and left-wing, some which are liberal but not especially left-wing and some which are left-wing but not liberal. For example, a left-winger could advocate state control of the major national industries on the basis that this would (in theory) enable them to be run in the interests of all. A liberal would reject this idea on the basis that it would create monopolies, thus denying people choice and control, or that it would simply create a new concentration of power in the hands of politicians and lobbyists. Alternatively, a liberal might suggest drastic tax cuts in order to give people more control over how their money is spent, whilst a left-winger might reject this because it would, in the extreme, lead to greater inequalities; the poorest might not be able to afford healthcare if it was not tax-funded.

So, to call oneself 'liberal left' or 'left liberal' requires that you be willing to rule out ideas which fall outside of either liberalism or left-wing sympathies. It means that you can't support paternalist policies which take control away from people even if your intention is to help them, and it means that you can't advocate greater liberty if it only means greater liberty for the few. Jock Coats has an insightful post today about how liberal economic ideas must benefit everyone if they are to be popular; to me, this illustrates the issue perfectly. It is possible to achieve left-wing aims - a better deal for the poor and the powerless - without resorting to illiberalism and paternalism. The challenge for the liberal left is to demonstrate that there is a complete programme for government within the sphere of liberal left ideas.

So, this might be 'left-wing' politics, but not as we know it. The insistence on liberty as a guiding principle should win the support of those who want to see a more equitable society without wanting to surrender control over their own lives, and the insistence on a care for the interests of the weak - already an idea most liberals will instinctively subscribe to - will ensure that liberty is not just the freedom of the strong to exploit the weak.

Forging this kind of movement will not be easy. It's tempting to subscribe to the 'bloggertarian' viewpoint, and damn all government action as unjustified meddling. It's also tempting to propose that this particular government intervention is justified, even if it results in a loss of liberty. Both views are in tension with each other, and have to be balanced. Many of the discussions on Liberal Conspiracy so far have demonstrated that tension. But I don't think that liberalism and leftism are irreconcilable; now, more than ever, with both New Labour and the Conservatives occupying the centre-right, a progressive centre-left has a great opportunity. We need to promote liberty as a virtue and not a weakness, and explain how liberty can bring society together, not drive it apart.

Iain Dale sees it as too close to call. The overall figures (all those mentioning a candidate) were 56% for Clegg, 44% for Huhne. In principle it is a sizeable lead but not out of reach.

The complication is that many people have already voted. YouGov put the figure at about 50% - and calculate that Clegg has a 58% to 42% lead among those who have already cast their vote.

If this is correct it suggests that Clegg has a lead of around 5000 votes in the urns (assuming around 32000 people have voted). So to win, Huhne needs a lead of more than 5000 from those voters still to cast their votes. What makes it difficult is that
a) they won't all vote (turnout last time was 72% - there are probably only 16000 votes to be cast in the election
b) Clegg still leads among those who haven't cast their votes (by 54% to 46% if one excludes the don't knows).

So if you accept the poll as representative, Huhne now needs a massive vote from the last remaining voters - he would need more than two-thirds of the vote from this bunch of voters. This poll cannot be used as evidence that the result is in much doubt (and this is the way Sky now report it).

You can of course discount the poll completely. No one knows how representative the Liberal Democrat members in the YouGov database are. and the poll last time around was hugely innaccurate (leading questions may have contributed to this). I'm normally a critic of YouGov, and perfectly happy to join in.

But some of the details of this poll ring true. The turnout to date looks about right, and I believe both leadership campaigns have identified a higher Clegg score in votes cast already. And I see that Mike Smithson responded to it by putting as much money on Clegg as the bookies would accept.

I'm a Clegg supporter and will be happy enough if the poll is correct. Indeed I think we will have had a pretty good leadership campaign: an attractive new leader who will worry both Labour and Tory parties, a credible opponent who has raised his profile, and of course an absolute blinder from the interim leader. We haven't had the tabloid coverage we had last time around. But hey, you can't have everything...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jetzt bin ich auch ein Cleggkopf!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nick Clegg's speech

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

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

Powerlessness

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

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

Social Stagnation (inequality)

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

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

Fear

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

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

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

Environment

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

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

Globalisation

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

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

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

Chris Huhne's speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phew, so that's the speeches over with.

Q&A

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

Trident

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

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

Nuclear Power

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

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

How do you intend to get our message across?

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

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

The inevitable hung parliament question

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

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

The North West question

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

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

Defence spending

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

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

Northern Rock

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

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

Trains and public transport

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

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

International Intervention

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

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

What is your top issue?

Chris: climate change.
Nick: education.

How will you promote diversity?

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

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

And that's a wrap!

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

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

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