Why Vince would not be a good leader for the libdems and why Huhne wont do either.
libbysd Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:56:27 PM GMT 
Facebook
Nobody seemed to like my last post about liberalism very much (or atleast they were apathetic enough to ignore it) so I decided that although blowing social liberalism's trumpet is not really an adequate topic for a dedicated Labour site (I am labour, but liberal labour and thus dislike Brown and Blair with an intensity) perhaps certain Labouritsis would enjoy reading something a little bit more critical of the party I'm currently affiliated with (the lib dims is apparently what their called around her (very clever)). Anyway if any of you are looking for a rather biased self critical analysis of the libdem leadership contest from the inside you've come to the right place, enjoy!
Wow Vince sure is doing swell (did I just use that word?). His performance at PMQs has apparently been witty and incisive. He's been both acute and opportunistic with recent events while maintaining a high level of integrity. I am even by the law of party loyalty forced to admire the Mr. Bean quip as the greatest line of the century (c'mon it wasn't that funny). Some are therefore asking 'Why shouldn't Vince be leader?'. Well, there are quite a few reasons I can think of.
Number 1: Vince is being over-hyped, I'm sorry but its true. The minute the media start paying attention to us our party members suddenly think we've struck gold. It reminds me almost of yes minister, we shouldn't be caring about how much media attention we get (unless of course winning elections is what you truly care about in which case I congratulate you and your wing of the party for taking so much time to make sure we have enough pointless bland glossy leaflets with fake polls on them fluttering about but haven't actually bothered to spend any time showing people why a lib dem candidate for the area would be better for us all). We should be caring about showing people a clear message as to why we would be better in power than the other lot. I'm not saying Vince hasn't done this but the fact that he's getting a little bit of positive media attention is appealing to those persons who simply don't seem to care about that sort of thing and thus making them think he would be a good leader as a result. Not really a good thing to go on in my view when selecting a potential prime minister but absurd yet shameless power hunger does appeal to some people.
Number 2: Vince is not a good public speaker. Sure he's acute, precise and especially brilliant when it comes to financial matters but I've seen Vince give talks alongside Paddy Ashdown, Nick Clegg and even Chris Huhne and the style is totally different. He lacks the vocal capability to be passionate and all embracing about a subject. He might be witty and thoughtful but without the ability to communicate with persons on the same mental level as bored apathetic teenagers he lacks the ability to communicate our message to 'the masses'. When he spoke at conference he was dry, intelligent and, well, correct. When Paddy spoke he would stand up and walk across the room drawing people in with his speech. When Nick spoke there was a light and near cheerful character about him punctuated by moments of clear passion and zeal. Huhne was dryer and harder (for some reason middle aged lib dem members like a 'hard man' (no homo-erotic pun intended)) but not as dry as Vince.
Number 3: Vince is a specialist, a knowledge man, a policy wonk, a guy to go to if you've found a problem with your spreadsheet. I have never seen him talk about an over arching vision for a liberal social-democratic Britain. It's not that he doesn't have one, its just that he's better at forming ideas about dealing with real problems (which is a much more important ability for a Chancellor), he also seems to be much better at communicating those sorts of specific ideas than others in a very simple way but strangely at the same time bad at communicating simple but non specific ideas like liberalism.
I still admire Vince, I just despise the fact that because the media is paying attention to him people are starting to wish he would stand for leader. I'm not inspired by him, I'm just impressed that's all and the two are very different things. I suppose I'm just trying to make it clear what Vince is and what he isn't. What he is is the most well qualified possible Chancellor this country has (sorry Alistair Darling fans (although his eyebrows are pretty awesome)), what he isn't is someone who could reduce me to tears in a speech, or get the masses to switch to liberalism by the power of his ideas alone and start the revolution this country so badly needs.
This gets me on to the second part of my post, Huhne. The same reasons apply as they do to Vince along with the fact that he's trying to present himself as on the left of the party (he bloody well isn't). However, because Huhne has recently been a bit clearer than Clegg when questioned and has appeared in one or two news articles for calling a policeman everybody on the lib dem blogosphere seems to be falling over themselves in praise for the man. I don't care what Huhne has done in the last two weeks, I care about what he's done in the last two years and what he would be like as leader of our party. Huhne has already lost the vote of 3 or 4 potential lib dem voters in my university (owning 256 houses 12 mansions and half of Switzerland tends not to appeal to left leaners) which is an amazing feat for someone who isn't even leader yet. I don't think Huhne is a bad public speaker, I just don't think he's very good. I recently saw a post from someone on the blogosphere directed at anyone who didn't believe Huhne was passionate showing a video of Huhne making a speech. By the end of it I was still wondering where that passion was. I don't doubt he's got passion it just doesn't seem to ebb from the man who once wore tweed on television (ohh dear I'm falling victim to fashion). There is also something more fundamental and serious as to why I don't think Huhne is all that brilliant and that is his integrity.
'But John' I hear you all cry (for my sake if you haven't already please do cry this out), 'Huhne is a hard man, a tough man, a strong man, a man who could defeat Brian Paddick, Mark Oaten and Simon Hughes in a sodomising contest through sheer will power without even seeming slightly gay!' Maybe, but that does not mean he isn't the sort of man who would create fictional differences between him and a certain opponent in order to look good or, say, invest huge amounts of money in what one could describe as incredibly unethical firms (or tossers as I would call them). Huhne is competent and wants the leadership like a dog wants its stick but that doesn't mean I'd vote for him no more than I'd give a flamethrower to a kid who just really wanted a flamethrower (during my childhood I did rather unashamedly fall into that camp). I suppose I could compare him to David Owen but that would be unfair as I do not yet consider Huhne to be a complete and utter wanker. What I do consider him to be is a clever, tough and incredibly hard working little man who would make love to Anne Widecome in order to get his hands on the leadership. Like Vince however he does not move me or inspire me. His toughness and hardness work against him when it comes to turning people on in politics and the fact he cares so much about the leadership have made him do things which seem to me a little dishonest, oh and at certain times he also looks like the O RLY? owl of internet legend (although that's kinda cool).
His owlish looks aside Chris Huhne's rhetoric is not the sort of rhetoric that signify the direction I want our party to go in. I want our party to be outward looking, to appeal to people and break down the barriers of politics. Huhne on the other hand seems to want to do exactly the sort of thing Clegg is warning us about doing. We are to be radicals, to be the party of the anti-establishment, the ones who care about voting reform, human rights and drug legalisation (yehh far out man!). The problem is we already do those things and a lot of people quite frankly don't give a stuff. We need to talk about the things other people are interested in and tell them how we'd deal with them in a liberal social democratic way, not lock ourselves into a bloody hypothetical argument about nuclear disarmament (I can already hear voters falling asleep at the sheer mention of that debate). That doesn't mean we'll be any less radical, it just means our radicalism will be in the mainstream where it needs to be. This isn't a choice over who's got the best campaign (Huhne wins) its a choice over where we want the party to go. I want us to go places and kick the arses of the other parties on their own 'traditional' home turf. Huhne just doesn't seem that interested in that sort of thing (plus he looks like an owl). I voted for Nick Clegg, so there, and there's nothing you can do about it Land Value Tax reformers, people over 50, amateur economists and all you other Huhnites!!!.
(John would like to apologise to all the owls and owl worshippers he may have offended by comparing Huhne to the elegant beauty of the owl)
Number 1: Vince is being over-hyped, I'm sorry but its true. The minute the media start paying attention to us our party members suddenly think we've struck gold. It reminds me almost of yes minister, we shouldn't be caring about how much media attention we get (unless of course winning elections is what you truly care about in which case I congratulate you and your wing of the party for taking so much time to make sure we have enough pointless bland glossy leaflets with fake polls on them fluttering about but haven't actually bothered to spend any time showing people why a lib dem candidate for the area would be better for us all). We should be caring about showing people a clear message as to why we would be better in power than the other lot. I'm not saying Vince hasn't done this but the fact that he's getting a little bit of positive media attention is appealing to those persons who simply don't seem to care about that sort of thing and thus making them think he would be a good leader as a result. Not really a good thing to go on in my view when selecting a potential prime minister but absurd yet shameless power hunger does appeal to some people.
Number 2: Vince is not a good public speaker. Sure he's acute, precise and especially brilliant when it comes to financial matters but I've seen Vince give talks alongside Paddy Ashdown, Nick Clegg and even Chris Huhne and the style is totally different. He lacks the vocal capability to be passionate and all embracing about a subject. He might be witty and thoughtful but without the ability to communicate with persons on the same mental level as bored apathetic teenagers he lacks the ability to communicate our message to 'the masses'. When he spoke at conference he was dry, intelligent and, well, correct. When Paddy spoke he would stand up and walk across the room drawing people in with his speech. When Nick spoke there was a light and near cheerful character about him punctuated by moments of clear passion and zeal. Huhne was dryer and harder (for some reason middle aged lib dem members like a 'hard man' (no homo-erotic pun intended)) but not as dry as Vince.
Number 3: Vince is a specialist, a knowledge man, a policy wonk, a guy to go to if you've found a problem with your spreadsheet. I have never seen him talk about an over arching vision for a liberal social-democratic Britain. It's not that he doesn't have one, its just that he's better at forming ideas about dealing with real problems (which is a much more important ability for a Chancellor), he also seems to be much better at communicating those sorts of specific ideas than others in a very simple way but strangely at the same time bad at communicating simple but non specific ideas like liberalism.
I still admire Vince, I just despise the fact that because the media is paying attention to him people are starting to wish he would stand for leader. I'm not inspired by him, I'm just impressed that's all and the two are very different things. I suppose I'm just trying to make it clear what Vince is and what he isn't. What he is is the most well qualified possible Chancellor this country has (sorry Alistair Darling fans (although his eyebrows are pretty awesome)), what he isn't is someone who could reduce me to tears in a speech, or get the masses to switch to liberalism by the power of his ideas alone and start the revolution this country so badly needs.
This gets me on to the second part of my post, Huhne. The same reasons apply as they do to Vince along with the fact that he's trying to present himself as on the left of the party (he bloody well isn't). However, because Huhne has recently been a bit clearer than Clegg when questioned and has appeared in one or two news articles for calling a policeman everybody on the lib dem blogosphere seems to be falling over themselves in praise for the man. I don't care what Huhne has done in the last two weeks, I care about what he's done in the last two years and what he would be like as leader of our party. Huhne has already lost the vote of 3 or 4 potential lib dem voters in my university (owning 256 houses 12 mansions and half of Switzerland tends not to appeal to left leaners) which is an amazing feat for someone who isn't even leader yet. I don't think Huhne is a bad public speaker, I just don't think he's very good. I recently saw a post from someone on the blogosphere directed at anyone who didn't believe Huhne was passionate showing a video of Huhne making a speech. By the end of it I was still wondering where that passion was. I don't doubt he's got passion it just doesn't seem to ebb from the man who once wore tweed on television (ohh dear I'm falling victim to fashion). There is also something more fundamental and serious as to why I don't think Huhne is all that brilliant and that is his integrity.
'But John' I hear you all cry (for my sake if you haven't already please do cry this out), 'Huhne is a hard man, a tough man, a strong man, a man who could defeat Brian Paddick, Mark Oaten and Simon Hughes in a sodomising contest through sheer will power without even seeming slightly gay!' Maybe, but that does not mean he isn't the sort of man who would create fictional differences between him and a certain opponent in order to look good or, say, invest huge amounts of money in what one could describe as incredibly unethical firms (or tossers as I would call them). Huhne is competent and wants the leadership like a dog wants its stick but that doesn't mean I'd vote for him no more than I'd give a flamethrower to a kid who just really wanted a flamethrower (during my childhood I did rather unashamedly fall into that camp). I suppose I could compare him to David Owen but that would be unfair as I do not yet consider Huhne to be a complete and utter wanker. What I do consider him to be is a clever, tough and incredibly hard working little man who would make love to Anne Widecome in order to get his hands on the leadership. Like Vince however he does not move me or inspire me. His toughness and hardness work against him when it comes to turning people on in politics and the fact he cares so much about the leadership have made him do things which seem to me a little dishonest, oh and at certain times he also looks like the O RLY? owl of internet legend (although that's kinda cool).
His owlish looks aside Chris Huhne's rhetoric is not the sort of rhetoric that signify the direction I want our party to go in. I want our party to be outward looking, to appeal to people and break down the barriers of politics. Huhne on the other hand seems to want to do exactly the sort of thing Clegg is warning us about doing. We are to be radicals, to be the party of the anti-establishment, the ones who care about voting reform, human rights and drug legalisation (yehh far out man!). The problem is we already do those things and a lot of people quite frankly don't give a stuff. We need to talk about the things other people are interested in and tell them how we'd deal with them in a liberal social democratic way, not lock ourselves into a bloody hypothetical argument about nuclear disarmament (I can already hear voters falling asleep at the sheer mention of that debate). That doesn't mean we'll be any less radical, it just means our radicalism will be in the mainstream where it needs to be. This isn't a choice over who's got the best campaign (Huhne wins) its a choice over where we want the party to go. I want us to go places and kick the arses of the other parties on their own 'traditional' home turf. Huhne just doesn't seem that interested in that sort of thing (plus he looks like an owl). I voted for Nick Clegg, so there, and there's nothing you can do about it Land Value Tax reformers, people over 50, amateur economists and all you other Huhnites!!!.
(John would like to apologise to all the owls and owl worshippers he may have offended by comparing Huhne to the elegant beauty of the owl)
Why Vince would not be a good leader for the libdems and why Huhne wont do either. | 7 comments (7 topical)
Why Vince would not be a good leader for the libdems and why Huhne wont do either. | 7 comments (7 topical)
