Nick Clegg’s piece today is a calculated attack on Chris Huhne: Hughes is damned with faint praise, while Nick has almost nothing to say about his own candidate except accept make excuses for the poor campaign and more willy waving about the number of MPs. Thank goodness for the sub-editor who opted for a less beat-around-the-bush approach.
One of his arguments is that Ming is supported by “the party’s two leading environmental spokesmen” Norman Baker and Chris Davies. I don’t take issue with the latter, who has done a very fine job in the European Parliament. It has to be said however that environmental policy at the EU level is a very different kettle of fish from the UK. In the European Parliament, Davies deals with regulatory instruments and setting targets for the Euro-region to follow. It doesn’t deal with the sort of taxation policy that Huhne has been advocating.
If we’re being frank though, I have to say that I’m not impressed by the job Norman Baker has done over the past few years with the environment brief. He has tended to do what Phil Willis was always accused of doing: sing to his own interest groups. For instance, he has followed loyally behind them in opposing energy from waste policies, a stance that has at time been appallingly NIMBYish.
And he’s been extremely bad at the big picture environmentalism, of the kind that Chris Huhne has made an issue of in this campaign. This has got the party into trouble at times. Back in early 2004, we started to get quite alarming feedback from environmental groups and journalists about the lack of substance to the Lib Dem’s green agenda, following a keynote speech by Kennedy. The Green Lib Dems (I was Vice Chair at the time) were so alarmed by the feedback we had received that we lobbied Kennedy to do a second speech six months later, spelling out a more strategic approach. It worked, but it was frustrating to see us slipping back to the same uninspiring style following the general election (something which I commented on here).
Norman Baker bears responsibility for this, so you will forgive me if I am unperturbed that he isn’t backing Huhne for leader in favour of a candidate that advocates nonsenses like road user charging.
But back to Clegg’s article. What is clear from it is that he now sees Huhne as the target. This can only be a good thing from Huhne’s point of view. Is it significant that we are still Waiting for YouGov? If Guido’s “leak” proves correct, then it rather looks as if Camp Campbell were somehow involved in this poll and are sitting on it. Either way, the new poll today should, presumably commissioned by someone else, should stop that game.
As for the excuses regarding Ming’s campaign, I’m afraid I’m not convinced. Yes, Ming couldn’t afford to attack the other candidates in the way they have gone for him (slightly ironic, given that most of the really negative stuff has come from individuals within Camp Campbell), but he could have fought a massively more positive campaign to the one we have. People are frustrated at the fact that Ming seems to turn up to fewer hustings than the other candidates. The fact that, for example, the Mingcasts are now all from people eulogising about the Great Man and not the Ming himself, is starting to become apparent. Aren’t we important enough for him to waste his time on?
People have always respected Ming – that has never been an issue. What they have been less sure about is if they like him, particularly after the Kennedy debacle. Ming has chosen not to tackle that issue and that, more than anything else, is why he has been losing so much ground.
UPDATE: Mike Smithson has also been leaked the poll. He has this to say:
My informant tells me that the survey was commissioned by a wealthy backer of Ming Campbell who is also a big donor and he told me his name.
I was given the figures of Campbell 40%: Huhne 34% and Hughes 24% on first preferences. My information is that while the Hughes second preferences would split in Huhne’s favour they do not split enough for him to win.
Come on “mystery donor”, show us what you’ve got. The damage has already been done and every day you delay you just make your own man look even more stupid. It does raise the question though: why has Ming chosen to surround himself with such overexcitable fools who have done so much to damage his campaign? Once again I’d remind you that this is a question of leadership.
Nick’s piece is unlikely to disuade anyone from supporting Chris and is actually very useful for Chris as it provides a helpful recitation of all Chris policy positions, which have proved popular with the party.
I find Ming easily the most likeable candidate – and I’ll admit that my opinion of him has risen and risen as I’ve heard his supporters wax lyrical about his good qualities. He’s straightforward, principled and grounded, and the best person to ensure that we don’t lose out in the likeability stakes now that Kennedy’s gone.
“the Mingcasts are now all from people eulogising about the Great Man and not the Ming himself, is starting to become apparent. Aren’t we important enough for him to waste his time on?â€
I think this pretty unfair, James. You can bet if Ming had made all the ‘casts himself, a load of bloggers (not necessarily you!) would have been decrying the fact that Ming thought it was “all about himâ€.
I know you slate the ‘Team Ming’ / ‘Bridge to the Future’ approach. I am still utterly baffled why. Liberals should be team-builders first and foremost (it was one of CK’s great strengths, though he took it to an extreme at times). I would be very worried if Ming was conducting the kind of ‘me-first’ campaign you seem to be urging on him.
To declare my interest: I’m a Ming supporter, who is happy to place Chris 2nd, and would be quite happy if he Chris were elected.
I didn’t say all of them had to be by Ming – indeed some of them are pretty effective. But he’s vanished altogether over the past fortnight. Most leaders disappear into their bunkers at least a couple of weeks after they’ve been elected.
And the reaons I don’t like the Team Ming approach is that it is a mythic construct (I know many prominent Ming supporters support him by default and for no better reason because I speak to them) and a divisive one. The party should be the team, and when leading supporters from one campaign declares that if any of the other candidates were to win they’d have to spend the next year “looking over their shoulders” we should view it as the blackmail that it is.
The campaign should be about Ming, because he is the candidate. I’m sorry if that is too radical a concept for half of the parliamentary party to deal with.
It’s not just Nick Clegg but the Guardian as a whole which is making a calculated attack on Chris Huhne.
Today’s piece comes hard on the heels of yesterday’s leader in which Huhne was described as “patronising.”
I think the Guardian has got it in for him for some reason – as often happens with ex-journalists who go into
politics and then find their success is resented by their old colleagues.