Alex Wilcock on the Leadership Candidates

10.00.00am GMT Sat 11th Feb 2006

Alex Wilcock

Alex Wilcock has started a new blog, linked below, on it he examines each of the Leadership Candidates, I have reprinted them below. Hopefully I can describe Alex as a good friend, Alex is a true Liberal if I was to be asked to name one Liberal it would be Alex. Anyway his views are below - in alphabetical order (by surname), I may agree with it all but Alex's views are normally spot on:

Let Ming Be Ming

Ming Campbell for Leader? Well, in many ways he's the most presentable candidate, the sort of Prime Minister your Grandad might have trusted, and a gut Liberal on a lot of issues; I even agree with the lectures he's been making to the party in the past few years about being too keen to ban everything. The press have been saying how good he is for years, making him probably still best-placed to swiftly establish Lib Dem 'credibility'. He also has the rare ability to sound righteous without sounding merely self-important. So what's my problem with him? 'Charles Kennedy', in two words.

My other half has been convinced throughout that Ming was up to his neck in plots to remove Charles. Who had motive, who had opportunity, who benefits and who does all the circumstantial evidence point to? Hmm. I won't be voting him down just as a result, but I see the point.

I notice the YouGov poll today rates Ming highest on honesty, which makes me unimpressed at the nous of my fellow Lib Dem members. They seem to be damning the painfully honest Simon Hughes for dithering about his sexuality; to me, the question of honesty in this campaign is for Ming. I simply don't believe his very late, very lacklustre protestations that he wasn't behind the downfall of his predecessor. Yes, I was unhappy about how it happened, but I have slightly more respect for those who are at least honest about it and made the case that it was necessary. Those who, by an uncanny coincidence, almost unanimously lined up to back Ming. The only notable exception is Chris Huhne, who appears to be getting support for the honesty of at least stabbing Charles in the front, while Ming looks like a grubby schemer who wanted rid of Charles but still won't admit it.

Remember the way Ming kept so silent while every briefing said he wanted Charles and the horse he rode in on out of town? Remember the way that immediately after Charles's statement, News 24 broadcast the unedifying spectacle of a dozen MPs who'd signed the deadly letter turning up to swear undying loyalty to the Emperor Ming, followed swiftly by Ming launching his leadership bid with indecent haste, just an hour after Charles resigned (and several days before anyone else)? Gosh, I wonder who they could all have been plotting with. I'm not saying Ming unquestionably has blood all over his hands, but if this was a whodunnit every reader would be jumping up and down crying, "It was him! It was HIM!" It makes it near-impossible not to believe there was an orchestrated plot to a) bring Charles down and b) scare off any other challengers with a rush to crown Ming, attempting to bypass the members entirely. If there wasn't a contest, he wouldn't have had to answer any impertinent questions. I can't help feeling much of the situation we're in is because he's an ambitious man who was gagging for another chance; of course he should have stood when Paddy went, but he knew no-one would vote for him over Charles and bottled it, and never forgave Charles for having the guts to stand. As one of his stated reasons for not standing in 1999 was that it would be too tiring, I do wonder if he has the stamina to do the job now he's seven years older - and it would be ironic if we replaced a Leader known for his 'good days' and 'bad days' with another Leader who has days when he's not up to it but who's less appealing than Charles when he's 'good'.

I don't intend to make the last leader my only guide to how to vote on the next. But I remember discussing him with Richard later on the day that Charles went, and joking that 'he's probably the most competent candidate, but also the most evil'. After a few weeks of him as Acting Leader, I'll not claim that he's the most competent. I'm still astounded that someone with his experience could lack the most basic political nous in making his Prime Minister's Question Time blunder about temporary headteachers. Admittedly David drop-every-policy-and-pretend-I'm-a-Liberal Cameron calling Mr Blair a flip-flopper yesterday was far more stupid, but Mr Cameron is a vacuous opportunist who's only drifted on top with the support of media hot air. What's Ming's excuse? And since then, of course, he's played it safe and simply been ignored.

I was expecting by this stage of the campaign to be deciding whether I could go for a competent patrician who I don't especially like but comes over well and won't cock it up, so I can't understand how he's had so many disasters. Just about the only thing I've seen of Ming that's come over well was his second campaign launch, surrounded by masses of people and speaking well, but even that made me think, "Hmm, he only needs a second launch because he did his first in such a rush," and "I'd rather have Jo Swinson." Ming seems to be scared of coming across as the scary - I'm sorry, I mean 'respected' - and aloof Ming that everyone's impressed by, and trying to be someone else. My eyebrows raised when I first heard his newly-discovered set of priorities as Leader: "Tonight, Matthew, I'm going to be… Simon Hughes!" On Any Questions with Simon and Chris, I thought he came across astoundingly poorly, probably the least impressive I've ever heard him, and that time because he was trying to be like Charles; warm and approachable. Ming is our 'Michael Howard' candidate. He's feared, not loved, and like Michael Howard his attempts to sound warm and approachable are rather less successful than those of a boa constrictor. I defy anyone who heard his Uriah Heep act on the first question (along the lines of 'I'm so humble, I hate to put myself forward') followed by the whiplash of arrogant scoffing that "I don't take orders from Simon Hughes" not to have squirmed. It was clear which was the real Ming.

I served on the Federal Policy Committee for ten years, and few MPs treated it with such disdain as Ming on his rare appearances. He was impressive, knew his stuff, was hugely self-assured and even had a sense of humour, but had next to zero interest in other people's views. If there's one issue where I don't see him as a gut Liberal, it's party democracy. His attempt to engineer a coup - I'm sorry, coronation - is just a part of that. It's noticeable that he's speaking up far less than the other candidates. With so many thrusting, ambitious people supporting him and seemingly doing most of the speaking out for his campaign, I've started wondering where Ming is, and why; is it because he's too grand to make his own case, or because other people are telling him what to do?

It's a cliché that Leaders gradually retreat into their own bunkers, but it's… innovative to spend your leadership campaign already inside one and let your 'young captains' fight all the battles. The trouble is, they're doing it very badly. Whoever attacked Chris for not standing by his support for Ming - and in doing so supplied proof that Ming's campaign was plotting to replace Charles back last Autumn - wants their head examined. After assassinating Charles, too few of them have said they'll serve under whichever leader the party picks, raising the spectre that they might do it all over again if the membership gets it 'wrong'. James Graham is crass, boorish and more a bruiser than blogger for Chris, but still compulsively readable and asks very penetrating questions. Nick Clegg never managed to answer those James put about internal democracy. Nick's piece in the Guardian on Tuesday attacking Chris and Simon was only the latest of hugely unwise and nasty-seeming public gaffes. I've seen Nick on policy working groups and in public. I like him. He's personable, talented and shares with Simon a naïve habit of saying things in public without engaging his brain first. I've heard him deny that he's interested in being leader. And I have three pieces of advice for what Nick should say next: "First, Ming is fantastic and I have no doubt he'll be a great Leader. Second, if he's not elected, of course I'll be happy to serve under either of the other candidates, who while not my first choice are also excellent. And third, er, that's it." Nick, dear, tape your mouth closed until March and stop making Ming look like you've got his pet rabbit held hostage. The same goes for the rest of them. I remember a dreadful old Star Trek episode in which some aged leader only appeared for brief statements while his ambitious young deputy made all the real decisions. It turned out the old guy was locked up, drugged and just held as a figurehead. Ming, I'm not interested in a Leader who wants to order the party around on every issue, but I'm vehemently opposed to a figurehead leader who lets someone else order the party around on every issue while you are unable to exercise any control or leadership over them. Tell your backers to stop sounding as if they're making all the running, and speak for yourself.

So after all that, what would make me likely to support Ming? I'm never going to view him as a soul brother. I'm never going to think he's a nice guy to chat to. I'm not alone in that. So play to your strengths, Ming: put some stick about. Remind people why you were trusted by the public and terror to the government on Iraq. Stop letting yourself look like a figurehead for a bunch of younger, stronger, more aggressive people, and stop trying to be liked. Sound strong, make yourself feared again. If you're going to win, it'll be as Francis Urquhart with a high moral tone, not the man from the Werthers Originals ad.

Simon: Think Before You Open Your Mouth

Simon Hughes for Leader? He's got the most Parliamentary experience, he's fluent and passionate, and he seems to have unbounded energy. He's probably the best constituency MP in Britain. At his best, he's the only candidate whose speeches have previously inspired me with his vision, and his credibility on the environment (perhaps the most important issue for us to make our own) is unrivalled. He's committed to bringing in people who haven't previously supported us. He's the candidate I've seen most of over the years, and, personally, I like him. So what's my problem with him? 'Judgement', in a word.

I've found this one much more difficult to write than the last, because I know and like Simon, rather than judging him coldly. So I've let myself be distracted by the splendid Technicolor plotting of The Prisoner of Zenda in the background, and it's taken longer than I was expecting. Here goes…

My big problem with Simon has always been the "Oh, Simon!" factor. I used this term when explaining why I couldn't give him my first preference back in 1999, and I've noticed other bloggers using similar words as headlines this time. I use it to express the way in which so many people who've known him for any period of time will become so aghast at his sheer flakiness that they feel the urge to grasp him by the shoulders and shake him, exploding "Oh, Simon!" A friend of mine told me one of the really big frustrations about this leadership election was desperately wanting to enthusiastically support a Hughes leadership bid - but not actually being able to do so. That hits the nail on the head. He's simply not as credible as Ming. And that's not because I've read it in The Guardian; it's because I've seen them both in operation.

I know that my instincts are often in tune with Simon's. I'm just not confident that I'll know where his instincts will be taking him from day to day. On policy, coalitions, his disturbingly top-down attitude to party organisation and much else, the problem with Simon is that I've just heard him being so inconsistent, so often, that I fear what hostages to fortune we'll be left with. On Any Questions with Ming and Chris, I thought he won hands down in terms of performance, but he also gave the most scarily unpredictable answers. I've seen Simon on the Federal Policy Committee over the years, and worry.

On ID cards, to take one example, he's roused the troops by promising he'd rather go to prison than carry one - but has frequently said he's got no problem with a 'voluntary' card. He was one of those who insisted we water down our opposition with the word 'compulsory' for the 2001 Manifesto (check it against the line in 1997 to see how mealy-mouthed it is). It's an attempt to sound moderate that's merely naïve, and that's not unusual for him. Even the Government claims ID cards will be 'voluntary' for 10 years, but it's merely to smooth the way of the compulsory cards to follow, and still means you'll need a multi-billion-pound National Identity Register, and there are many people for whom they won't be voluntary at all. If you want a passport, or a driving licence, they'll be compulsory. If you're on benefits. If you're a young black guy, driving the wrong sort of car. If you live in a poor area and want to write a cheque or rent a video. It's already socially excluded people in places like Bermondsey that will be hit hardest by the so-called 'voluntary' ID card. It's no compromise at all, and it's the epitome of Simon simply not thinking things through.

In party organisation, he has grand ambitions and no idea of how to fulfil them. Take the London mayoral campaigns. Then unknown Susan Kramer won 12% of the vote as London Mayor. With higher opinion poll ratings, more name recognition, more media attention, more money and the gilt off Ken after his first term, Simon won just 15% four years later. Facing a more anti-establishment candidate, Simon couldn't even run as Livingstone Lite, but as a policy-free zone. He shares with me the unfortunate distinction of having been a failure as President of the Lib Dem Youth and Students, in his case by picking sides at a time when the organisation was split and badly needed a unifier. As President of the party, most of the way through his term of office there's been no growth in our membership, despite his aim of overtaking Labour; and I can't be the only Liberal Democrat worried by his decision to just appoint a bunch of Deputy Presidents, without elections or even a constitution. If Leader or Prime Minister, what makes that different to charges of 'Simon's Cronies'? As it happens, I like most of them; but in a democracy, that's not the point.

His speeches are both famous and infamous. When he's on form, he puts across what we stand for superbly. He can be charismatic, passionate and uplifting. But he's also the only candidate who's given a speech I've sat through that was so long and rambling that several members of his audience fell asleep. I've never forgotten the Liberal Revue sketch of the party as 'Allo 'Allo: in through the window comes 'Ughes, of the Resistance. "Listen very carefully - I shall say this only 47 times." When you never know from speech to speech whether what he'll say will be uplifting, bonkers or so monumentally tedious that by the end of the forty-seventh point you still have no more idea of what he's saying than when he opened his mouth, he's a bit of a gamble (people might say the same about me, but fortunately for all concerned I'm not standing). I will defend his famous lateness, though, another unfortunate tendency I share: when I was a Parliamentary candidate, I remember being dragged roughly out of a meeting by my driver to make sure I got to the next one. Leader's aides are more than capable of doing the same for Simon, so I don't believe it'd be a problem.

On the bright side, I do think he's the only candidate untainted by the downfall of Charles, though he still didn't exactly cover himself in glory. I don't believe he did any plotting; the spectacle of him equivocating uselessly on Channel 4 News the night of Charles' announcement about his alcoholism was so painfully self-defeating it can only have been honest. Not that that's the most outstanding example recently of Simon being painfully naïve and self-defeating. Of course The Sun was vile, back almost to its '80s level of homophobia, and almost the whole rest of the press have been unforgivably horrendous. I know it can't have been easy, but it's gobsmacking that he'd had all this time and not thought of a proper answer. I feel huge sympathy for Simon, who's genuinely nice and rock-solid on gay rights. But I can't help feeling exasperated too.

Simon's decision to obscure the issue with a technically truthful but misleading remark that he wasn't gay was astounding in a politics after "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"; that he told The Sun rather than just going public to everyone else when The Sun tried to fling mud at him was breathtakingly naïve. Did he really expect careful handling from arguably the most viciously homophobic and viciously anti-Lib Dem paper in the country? And days later, he was still refusing to use the label 'bisexual' to explain why he hadn't lied, with every news outlet reporting the 'fact' that he was a liar, because (in his own words) he didn't want to be labelled. Sorry, Simon; once you're public about something that can be labelled, either you choose a label or someone else will choose it for you. He wasn't mendacious - just clueless and woefully lacking in judgement. Simon has said since that this was a leadership test. Sorry, Simon - the test wasn't whether you could stand up to the storm once you'd been stupid enough to set it off. It was whether you had the elementary nous to see the storm coming, or whether you'd just say the first thing that came into your head. And you flunked it. I often worry that Simon's wish to bring religion and 'faith groups' more into politics is a slippery slope for a party of individual freedom; it takes rare talent to mishandle something so badly that both the religious and the lesbian, gay and bisexual constituencies think you've let them down. A Leader has to realise that not everyone will want to believe the best of you, and know how to explain things so that they do.

So after all that, what would make me likely to support Simon? How do you recapture 'good judgment' in one bound? Well, try this. Talk about the big picture and make people feel good about what things could be like with the Liberal Democrats. Make people believe, and don't do the details for now: stop making up policy and organisation on the hoof. Say we're a democratic party and you're there to proclaim its message. Don't believe you're always right and people will always understand. Listen to advice, and take it. And don't overcompensate for the press saying 'the Lib Dems are losing'; stop talking about landslides and talk about building from our local roots - sound plausible, not laughably optimistic. A huge number of councillors are backing you, so don't just use them as 'supporters'. If you're going to win, it'll be because you can embody the party. Sound like the Leader of a force that's credible in councils across the country, and sing the vision thing that unites them all. If you open your mouth without thinking and speak only for yourself, you'll be left on your own.

Chris: Fill in the Person, Not the Policy

Chris Huhne for Leader? He appears to have the big mo, and creating momentum out of nowhere is a very useful trick for a third party, as is forcing the other two to fight on his territory. He's very bright, writes very persuasively, and was effective in reaching a policy consensus on public services without making it simply bland. I agree with much of his policy 'vision', and he seems the most capable of giving a succinct and effective answer. He's also putting across an impressive set of non-Westminster experience. So what's my problem with him? 'Dull', in a very unkind word.

Like almost everyone else, Chris is the one I know least about. So my main view of him boils down to 'relatively sensible policy wonk, but zero charisma'. It's unfair to call someone dull when his policy programme has shaken up the campaign, but politics is an unfair business. He looks all right (as purely presentational issues go, he has the advantage of hair), but when he opens his mouth I'm reminded of Tom Baker's withering assessment of Jeremy Irons: that he'd have been a great silent movie actor, but his voice is just so boring. Chris has got quite a nice voice, actually, but he seems unable to modulate it. He looks and sounds stiff. Don't worry; I'll have some 'policy wonk vs policy wonk' stuff in a minute, but I'm sorry to say that politics is shallow, and how you come across to people is important. Ming, at his best, has statesmanlike gravitas. Simon, at his best, can be passionate, or friendly and at ease. Chris, at his best, is… succinct. Unfortunately, he writes much better than his spoken delivery, and the election will be settled on television rather than through pamphleteering. Who is he going to appeal to? Yes, he can seem solid and serious, but does anyone really think he'll come across as more solid and more serious than Gordon Brown? He really needs to work on sounding human, and I suspect hardwiring his massive brain to a virtual Charles Kennedy is as yet beyond the party's budget for CGI.

Another issue for me is his seat. After Jackie in '99, I vowed to myself I wouldn't back another first-time MP with a tiny majority. After the European Parliament I can just about let him off the one, but a 500 majority? What is he thinking? Though he'll probably hold it, there'll be no other story than 'Will the Lib Dem Leader lose his seat?' for us in the run-up to the election. So I worry. My other half is more sanguine, I should point out: "If the Tories want to make the issue of the election whether they can manage to knock down the tiniest of Lib Dem majorities, let them," he said earlier. "The last election was about the Lib Dems trying to fight it out with the Tories for second place. If the Tories want to make the next one about fighting it out with the Lib Dems for third place, I doubt it'll help them."

His lack of Westminster experience isn't necessarily a disadvantage; 'the outsider coming in to clean up town' is a powerful message. Unfortunately, that goes right back to the presentational issue: he doesn't look or sound like an outsider. 'The outsider from Brussels' is a less helpful narrative, while 'journalist' probably beats even 'MEP' as a job description to go down like a lead balloon. On the other hand, the other two are lawyers, so it's probably evens. Still, it makes the appeal that 'As far as I know he doesn't have the baggage of the other two' (which some unkind observers might say makes him sound like the Liberal Democrats all over) weaker than it might otherwise be. And how did we come up with two out of three whose names sound like "Who"?

In fairness, his work on the Public Services Commission (or as it modestly became known, the Huhne Commission) was certainly impressive at bringing people together, and though he seemed a little high and mighty when he presented it to the FPC, he did the best job of promoting his policy paper round the party and media of any policy group chair I've seen. Obviously that meant self-promotion too, but he promoted the policies so well I was still impressed. The other side of his dealing with people, however, is his obvious ruthlessness, which is unattractive; perhaps he needed to from third place, but he's been much more ruthless in person to the other two leadership candidates than they've been (their entourages are a different matter). He was quite open about being one of those to bring Charles down, too; I didn't like it. Though it's more attractive than plotting without holding the knife. And if he's such a good team-builder, I do wonder that his team and following is mostly made up of people on whom he's made a good first impression, rather than known him for a while. It's striking that there are so many more MSPs, for example - as far away from him as possible - than MEPs who he worked with for years on his list of supporters.

I'm interested in the minutiae of policy. Even for a Liberal Democrat, this makes me unusual and strange. Chris is a policy wonk too, and not with just the first wild and wacky things that come into his head. I've read his manifesto, and I'll not bore you with an in-depth analysis (that might be another post). However, as Chris' campaign is the only one that is more clearly policy-driven than it is personality-driven, there are some I want to engage with. If you're a policy wonk, people will pay more attention to your policies than to the others', and some of them may come unstuck.

There's good and bad here, and I have to declare an interest; I proposed pretty much exactly what Chris is saying about environmental taxation before the last election and got nowhere, so I wish at least that part of his programme well. However, where I disagree is on strict fiscal neutrality, something he appeared to endorse earlier on but seems to have backed away from in later answers. It's because I do think income tax is the best we've got, but allowances are the key things to cut if we're going to. That leaves me wary that less tax altogether will be raised through progressive sources if we follow the apparent Chris plan to drop the 50p rate. Dropping road pricing, too, and only going with one eco-tax, also seems a mistake. Easy for someone else to nick; over-prescriptive; inflexible; and most of all, as with other fiscally neutral policies it doesn't bring in any extra money. I've sat through three General Election Manifesto costings rounds, and a wholly fiscally neutral platform would be a disaster. Things like the '50p' and the '1p' weren't about clobbering people, nor even just about bringing in cash; the hypothecation gave us a financial credibility nothing else ever will. Basically, say "We'll cut bureaucracy" and no-one will ever believe you. Say, "We want this so much here is one specific tax that will pay for it," and people reckon it's true because they all know it's brave.

Skip the italics if you're not interested in my thoughts on environmental taxes, presented for the final and most strongly argued time (after earlier unsuccessful attempts) to the FPC for to a discussion of our finances in October 2004:

There is one issue in particular that I am concerned we must resolve. Our attitude that, aside from the 50% rate on earnings over £100,000, our tax changes are revenue-neutral, should make us relatively flameproof, but there is one area where that message is not as clear as it must be. The derision the Tories have faced for claiming "We'll give you tax cuts, but we won't tell you what they are" means we must not hoist ourselves on the same petard...

There is one issue on which we must press for clarity. At present, we envisage a range of environmental taxes which will all be offset by corresponding tax reductions elsewhere, leaving the whole package fiscally neutral. This is a well-established and effective policy direction, but as yet we have not identified the taxes we would cut. This "We'll tell you the pain, but not the gain" approach is missing an open goal, and is increasingly reckless as the election approaches. In the past, this has always been a contentious issue, but tended to be resolved in favour of reducing NICs. With our policy now to earmark National Insurance for the NHS*, we have firmly denied ourselves that option.

My preference instead would be to resurrect a '90s policy that has fallen by the wayside purely for lack of funds: sharply increasing allowances, to benefit all ordinary taxpayers and take the lowest earners out of tax altogether. It is an obvious complement to our 50% top rate policy, in defence of which we point out that the highest-paid 20% have a tax rate of 35% to the lowest-earning 20%'s effective marginal rate of 40%.

However, whatever tax reductions we call for, we must decide on them - or press Vince to decide them - very swiftly in order to establish the message with our campaigners. We would be deluding ourselves, and ignoring attacks which have already been already circulated, if we believe that "We'll cut some taxes too, but, um, er, we're not sure which ones" is going to be a sufficient answer on either the doorstep or Newsnight.

We never did decide which taxes to cut, of course, which was an opportunity thrown away in the last General Election. Even if I don't end up voting for Chris, I'm grateful he's made a start.

*That reminds me. Earmarking National Insurance was a brilliant wheeze from something called the Huhne Commission, of which you may have heard. It resembles several other brilliant wheezes being widely trailed at the moment, and was adopted by the FPC because the Campaigns Department begged us to, saying how sexy and saleable it was. You may not remember that 'headline' policy now, as it was later dumped by order of the Campaigns Department, because it was impossible to sell. Hmm…

The other policy issue for me is that it feels very individual - which reads well, but makes me worry that it's just one person wanting to write the party's entire programme. Both Paddy and Charles had their advantages for policy as Leader (a crude characterisation would be King Stork and King Log), but Chris' attention to the minutiae comes across as a bit too prescriptive. Paddy was brilliant in many ways, but I remember him treating every policy issue as a fight to the death, which wasn't a healthy way to run the Policy Committee. Unlike Ming's, Chris' is a campaign that would benefit from having more of a team to it, and from making lots of moves about consulting the party.

So after all that, what would make me likely to support Chris? Keep plugging your policies - they got you there in the first place. But do more of the 'vision thing' than tying yourself to every specific, or you'll carry on sounding mechanical and potentially dictatorial. Relax a bit more. Move your face. Sad to say, the time I got the most positive feel from you on TV was launching your campaign at the National Liberal Club, surrounded by women wearing very vivid colours. Vivid colour is what you're missing. Instead of promoting yourself as 'the man', make it more of a team - if you aren't charismatic, borrow it. If you're going to win, lighten up. Get people to tickle you under the table during Question Time if you have to, but show you're human, for goodness' sake.

Related Link:

Visit Alex's website