So is it down to two?
January 26th, 2006
-
So what are we to make of the incident-packed Lib Dem leadership race now?
Each day something new seems to be happening and keeping up with the betting has become a nightmare. After switching big funds into Hughes yesterday I became part of the exodus early this morning.
In the aftermath of Mark Oaten I felt that the loser would be Hughes - only to have that view confounded by yesterday’s ICM poll.
Now, as every bulletin focuses on this morning’s revelation, the only thing going for the party president is that the serious media is leading on the Palestine election but with him only a bit behind.
I cannot see Hughes recovering from this. The only question is what will be the impact on the voting with the AV system that the party employs.
The betting has swung to Ming with Huhne back in the second favourite slot. My guess is that Hughes will now come in third place with 20-25% of the first choices. Huhne will get 30-35% with Campbell on 40% plus.
The leadership will be decided by how Hughes’s second preferences split. Huhne will need the majority of them to be for him and he could just do it.
But who knows what will be in the Murdoch press in the coming days?
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
From the people I have spoken to, some of whom are Liberals and some of whom are not, I must say that people seem quite unaffected. I guess because this has been in the pipeline for so long. Doesn’t seem to have much “sticking power” with regards deception (although anyone claiming that he has been “strengthened” by coming clean is I think living in cloud cuckoo land). Business as usual.
Ming has this wrapped up bar a health scare/expose - surely not even the LDs can pick Hughes.
I agree that it’s business as usual - just that the usual business was that Ming is unbeatable. I’m amazed by Mike’s breakdowns of votes. I know little of the way that Lib Dem minds work but surely Campbell get’s more than 50% at the first round?
Disagree with your take, Mike. Three reasons:
1. people always ‘mis-underestimate’ Hughes. He’s one of our best known figures, and that will count for a lot with the membership who know him far better than Huhne.
2. the sympathy vote. Personally, and for no other reason than to stick it to our pathetically homophobic media, Hughes would now be my No. 2, behind Ming. (Don’t even bother with the ooh-er missus comments.)
3. it now seems the only ’scandal’ the media had on Hughes was that he’d once phoned a gay chat-line. Frankly if that’s all they’ve got, he’s far less risky than some (take a bow Guido) were implying.
I agree. A total non-story. I would be surprised if it made the blindest bit of difference, and it certainly shouldnt. I agree that Simon Hughes is frequently underestimated and unlike many on here I see little compelling evidence he would be an ‘electoral disaster’.
From my interactions with “non-political” people today, the whole thing is just a bit of a joke - it’s yet another reason why the race is making the Lib Dems look like a shambles. Several people have said “I bet they wish they still had Charles Kennedy now”.
A big surprise in yesterday’s ICM poll was that the well-known Campbell was being beaten by the newcomer, Chris Huhne.
Even given the caveats about the poll this was za sensational finding.
There are some pretty smart people handling the Huhne campaign and this fact will be got over.
7. Mike - the ICM poll showed Ming Campbell beating Chris Huhne - 29% for Campbell compared to 20% for Huhne.
7 - I am surprised by the number of people who are going Huhne 1, Campbell 2 and treating Huhne as a bit of a throw-away vote for the outsider. It may not be as throw-away as they imagine. It is so hard to gauge, but your numbers feel about right to me. The trouble for Hughes has little to do with today’s news and more to do with not having a satisfactory answer to the question, “if I didn’t vote for you in 1999, why should I do it now?”
7. How much activity is there on the leadership campaign? Are the candidates reaching the members to similar extents?
Got to say, I disagree with the article Mike. Sorry- but I think with an appearance on QT pending this evening, and an official campaign launch imminent Simon Hughes has a chance to build some very strong momentum in the next 24 hours even assisted by his confessions- which are nowhere near as damaging as the headlines appeared to imply.
Hughes represents tremendous value.
Being gay/bi might lose you votes in a Tory leadership contest, but it’s hardly likely to in a Lib Dem one! Especially when most LD activists have known/guessed it for years…
I don’t think that Hughes is out of this yet. But the impressive list of supporters here is probably an indication of where the contest is headed.
I can’t see why he’ve to drop out of the race.
14. Maybe because he’s proved to the world that he’s naive and incompetent in his dealings with the media?
13 - You are too kind, Peter. But as well as myself there are also a huge number of Parliamentarians there from across the generations! I know sometimes candidates pile up the endorsements but don’t ultimately “connect”, but the fact that those who have worked most closely with all the runners overwhelmingly have greatest confidence in Campbell is actually a very significant consideration.
13. Isn’t that 50% of Lib Dem members already!
17. Time for a bar chart, surely? ‘Only Hughes can win here’
16 Yes, James. Obviously the key to Campbell campaign was to get you signed up. But he will also take comfort from having the public support of all those MPs.
I find it interesting that so many of the MEPs are backing Ming (5 I believe). Only two had declared for other candidates the last time I looked. Grahama Watson and Chris Davies almost rival James as influential lib dem figures.
18. Next to a picture of The Admiral Duncan perhaps?
Well, another interesting day to be an LD. A whiff of homophobia notwithstanding, I do agree with those who say that while the current revelations about Simon Hughes aren’t that damaging, the fact that the by-election campaign in 1983 did use Peter Tatchell’s sexuality against him does in my view put Hughes up there with Oaten in the hypocrisy stakes.
Of course, 1983 was a long time ago and the atttitudes and mores of that time have, in many ways fortunately, changed. There does remain a strong feeling of, if not homophobia, than a reluctance or wariness to accept the openly gay man or woman in senior roles in public and even private life. How much for instance would people be prepared to accept an openly gay Monarch (no Queen jokes please ?!).
As I’ve said before, Simon Hughes was my least favourite option of the three contenders. It’s hard to believe listening to the gossip about the leadership election that not a single vote has been cast yet.
21. Stodge you are right. Becoming party leader means being a potential PM, and I do not think the public are ready for an openly gay PM. This means Hughes’ leadership bid is doomed I’m afraid.
I’m surprised at the glee of the Tory supporters following the discomfort of the Lib Dems. In polls before the last election Lib Dem voters said that in a choice between Tory and Labour by 2 to 1 they said they would vote Labour. Therefore it follows that the more damage done to the them the larger Gordon Browns majority at the next election. The Lib Dems taking Labour votes are all that stand between being an ineffectual opposition and extinction.
Or have I missed something?
re 7. Your figures are for supporters of all parties. Amongst the section of those surveyed who were Lib Dems the split was Hughes 62: Campbell 18: Huhne 20.
Here’s the latest on the leadership election.
“Becoming party leader means being a potential PM, and I do not think the public are ready for an openly gay PM”
Are you serious?? Any country that has put up with Margaret Thatcher for ten years is hardly likely allow a small thing like sexuality make a difference. The Tories almost chose a bi-sexual leader in Portillo. And he certainly wasn’t rejected for his sexuality.
Surely a solid performance tonight from Hughes, favourable audience replies and a chance to explain this situation will see his odds be cut again? Thus QT may have a real affect on this volatile batting market? Or is my assessment just wrong?
If SH isn’t dead in the water now, there must be some on here who don’t read the Sun. Is that unfair and irrational? Obviously yes, but thats how it is.
As far as unknown names to the floating voter (FV), there are currently 3. The fact that Ming is known to say 8% and SH to say 4% and CH to 1% should mean nothing. Come the next GE, the LD leader will be known to 75/85% of FV, so the current differences should be immaterial.
22.”Becoming party leader means being a potential PM, and I do not think the public are ready for an openly gay PM”
if the tories have really to win an election in the future, I would love Alan Duncan as PM
23. Interesting point, and if that line of argument is correct, perhaps even more pertinantly - why is the Murdoch media pursuing this line now? Does he want the dour one and all his regulation for six or seven years?
Huhne will take the lib dems into the wilderness, unknown, uncared for and irrelevant to all but a bunch of purists, much like the labour party of the eighties. They lose my vote if they go down that track for a start. Either all of this is only being said to improve betting positions or many people are turkeys voting for Christmas.
As Stephen Tall said this will play well for Hughes, he’s well known and comes across to voters positively in the first place and hardly anyone who would be put off by his sexuality would vote lib dem anyway.
Labour are the party to attack, all the whinging and backbiting you are seeing here at the moment between tories and lib dems, if it were transposed to a national scale with Cameron and whoever, would be disastrous for the country. Fighting a similar patch of ground will let in new labour with an increased majority and you’ll only have yourselves to blame.
Steve Richards in the Independent today says it’s back to two party politics. Sad, but true. Nick Clegg must be wishing he’d stood this time.
I hope the Lib-Dems can drag themselves back to 20% in the polls by 2009. Otherwise it’l be the boy Cameron in No.10 with a majority.
Mike, I don’t understand why you “put big funds into Hughes” yesterday on the basis of that meaningless poll, and i don’t understand why you are charging away now. If he doesn’t win it’s because he was never going to win, not because of these revelations.
Re: 22 - I fear so, Fred. We can accept openly gay backbench MPs and even Cabinet Ministers but, as you say. possibly not Prime Ministers (however remote the prospect for Simon).
On the royal subject, there was plenty of media gossip about Edward at one time (and William Hague was also the subject of mischievous gossip too). I just wonder what would have happened if William or Harry were or turned out to be less than wholly heterosexual.
34. uhm, to be honest I don’t know.
You haven’t really have any openly gay MP with serious prospects to become PM.
Unless you were ready for a Peter Mandelson’s government…..oh god, what an horrible thought!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4651640.stm
“Lib Dem leadership contender Simon Hughes has said the way he has handled media pressure after admitting gay relationships is a mark of his courage.
He said it showed “he was not afraid of dealing with things” - a quality “which might be a leadership criterion”.
Couragous!
32 - not to put too fine a point on it: rubbish.
In 1951, Lab and Con got 93.1% of the vote. In 2005, they got 67.6% of the vote. Anyone who thinks that historical dealignment is about to go into reverse on the basis of the last two months’ dodgy headlines is being silly.
As for dragging ourselves back to 20%, the last ICM poll put the LDs on 19%. So we’ll see if we can’t claw back that 1% in the next 3 years.
The story about Hughes is a non event. Nearly everyone within the Lib-Dems have known this about him for over 2 decades. What I am surprised about is that this mornings stories make you take your money off Hughes Mike. Within the party he is still the main 1st Preference. The real decider will be who comes 2nd/3rd. If Ming comes in 3rd then his surporters will mostly go to Huhne and he will win. but if Huhne comes in 3rd then most of his 2nd prefs will go to Simon Hughes.
So If I were you Mike I would put the money back on Hughes now the market has bottomed out. And as people should know from my track record on these things I’m very rarely wrong when it comes to predicting outcomes
35. “You haven’t really have any openly gay MP with serious prospects to become PM”.
Portillo- missed by one vote
39. Roger, Portillo wasn’t an openly gay MP.
He claims to be straight. Diane Abbott thinks he’s bi (she’ve to voice her opinion about everything).
35 - I think Peter Mandelson was undone by his own personal insecurity. He had more than enough political talent to get to the top himself, but he preferred to use those for patrons rather than himself, and had little concern about offending people in the service of his boss at the time. Had he been more ambitious, he’d probably would have achieved more.
Have to agree with the sentiments that the damage to Hughes is limited here. I’d take very short odds-on that SH gets his usual rousing reception on QT tonight, and after that there will be no more questioning on what most people will see as a private matter. Alternatively, many Lib Dems might start to wonder which camp is responsible for all these leaks.
I agree strongly with Roger’s 5.46 comments. It seems as if a significant faction within the party is completely unaware of the profile of Lib Dem voters. Having painstakingly carved out a niche on the liberal left, adopting centre-Right policies under an old-style patrician like Ming will result in the party being crushed. Or they could go for Huhne and his increases in motorist and air passenger taxes…..another big vote winner I’m sure.
I think this might gain Hughes a few votes. Speaking as a straight white man who did once win a Lib Dem internal election, I can say I don’t think Lib Dems like voting for straight white men when they can do a little something for equality by voting for someone else. One member told me he was voting for a black candidate because in a mixed constituency it was important to elect black candidates where possible. Against that there are no doubt some members, as anywhere, who are a little prejudiced. And some might count it against him that he hadn’t always been honest. Personally I think it’s none of the media’s business unless he volunteers the information or does something hypocritical - and the ‘the straight choice’ headline is very much regrettable.
I wonder whether Simon came out BECAUSE he calculated that it might help his campaign within the Lib Dems?
My hunch is still for a Cambell win on the first round, but I agree it’s very hard to call. We have very little actual evidence.
O/T, but if anyone would like a results package for Canada, including results seat-by-seat and by province, as well as an internet link to a results map, please drop me a line at electiongame@yahoo.co.uk & I will send you one.
The problem for the Lib dems is the culture of dishonesty that now seems to dominate the party. First the donations by dubious means to the party’s general election funds and Charles kennedys office. Then senior Lib dems covering up kennedy problems until such time as it suited them to get rid. Then Mark Oaten parading his family in such a manner when he must have known the risks.
Now the stupid interview by Simon Hughes saying “i am not gay” now he is saying he has had gay relationships. It all creats a very clear patten of dishonesty.
I love the Lib dem posters frantically defending Simon over Bermondsey. There have been unsubstatiated rumours of Liberal campaigners being involved in the O’Grady campaign.
How do the Lib dems on here justify the leaflet used in the Brecon and Radnor by-election with the heading “the only candidate from a stable family background” big row in the press and the leaflet was “withdrawn” after 10,000 or so were delivered. The person responsible for the leaflet told me “great result all the publicity from the press got the family issue home to more voters than our leaflet would have”. The Libs believed the unmarried Tory candidate was gay and the Labour candidate was divorced.
In the words of Max Boyce “I know cos I was there!” helping the Liberal campaign.
45 - I don’t see any constructive point in mentioning rumours which you admit yourself are unsubstantiated.
Well it’s nearly 7.00 in the morning after Burns Night and I can’t believe I feel so great so soon.
……Still all is not so wonderful chez Jack W as I’m expecting to get my collar felt by the feds on noise abatement grounds …… the sound of the pipes at 2am isn’t to everones taste …..will I be the PB.com member with an asbo and tag !!
So ….. small sexual earthquake in Bermondsey …… did the earth move for you ????????? …….. and so the paint dryingly dull, speak your weight machine swings both ways. Frankly this is the worst kept secret since the Hilda Handcuffs caught Julian and Sandy without frock billong lallies in a glory hole in Tom Driberg’s local cottage - Fantabulosa !!
Is it time for breakfast yet ?????????????
Re: 42 - But in what is supposedly a crowded centre ground, how does ANY party strike a dixtinctive tone ? You fall into the age-old Left/Right trap because it’s easy and doesn’t mean you have to think. I don’t believe on the basis of one 12-minute speech in London that Huhne is some mad tax raiser. He raises some important points about the environmental cost of aviation. At least he’s raising the issue…you won’t hear much from Cameron except for platitudes until his much-vaunted Commission reports.
How do we reconcile the demand for travel with the proven environmental damage that travel causes ? It is difficult but do we back away from the issue because it loses a few votes ? In any case, it’s one tiny part of the overall package. As I argued on Monday, the LDs need to stake out a distinctive position from the other two parties. I simply can’t see MIng getting us to that point. To be fair, the LD contenders agree on most things - it’s that distinctive policy - the Iraq of this Parliament if you will - that we need. It may not matter if we don’t have it yet - the issue may arise which enables us to present the distinctive policy.
I like the way I don’t need to read to the bottom of your posts to see who wrote them, Jack
47.”small sexual earthquake in Bermondsey…. did the earth move for you ????????? ”
well, Jack, here the snow started to fall, I’m almost frozen myself coming back home and I was full of snow.
Don’t know if the 2 things are related!
25 years yesterday since the Gang of Four Limehouse declaration launching the SDP.
Why does this seem like such a low point for the centre party compared to the early 80s?
51 - well, it’s not all downhill, at least David Owen is not involved these days.
49 book value. Thank you … I think.
Have you made up with Andrea yet ??? …… it all got a bit tetchy today …… I’m glad I was asleep …… not that Tabman should be suprised about the Bish, I did heads up him (Oh ducky) on Tuesday night !!
50 Andrea. “… I was full of snow ….”
Tempted … dearly tempted.
51 Printz. Are you on the meths and tizer dear chap ….. low point
….. we’ve 3 SDP’s now !!!!!!!!!!!!!
46 fair enough. What about the Brecon and Radnor leaflet? if you were around at both the by-elections you may be aware of the connection between the two.
55 - I don’t know much about Brecon and Radnor so I can’t comment one way or the other on that.
23. Spot on.
30. It seems to be generally accepted on this site to describe the ‘best ever’ Chancellor of the Exchequer as ‘the dour one’ but I find this offensive and entirely out of place with non-metropolitan thinking (have you see how they love him on TVam?). There is a huge core Daily Mirror vote that adores Mr Brown so Murdoch is not essential but, if you follow the Randall interview, Murdoch loves Mr Brown’s ‘Calvinist’ tendencies. Either way it is absolutely the case that the natural Lib/Lab majority in this country will break decisively in Mr Brown’s favour and all betting should be on that - the new baby is simply the icing on the cake!
Some of you seem very ungrateful for the abolition of betting taxes!!
Re 48 - Stodge. I don’t disagree with Huhne about this, but am talking about electoral realities. Some Lib Dems are anxious to bin the higher-rate of tax for 100K earners policy, which affects a tiny minority of the country and an even tinier minority of Lib Dem voters - on the grounds that it is unpopular. Yet with a very clear progressive tax message, they have had three consecutive successful elections.
And many of the same people see no contradiction in Huhne’s message, which as rational and principled as it may well be, affects vastly more people than progressive taxation and will be misrepresented in the press. Can’t you just see the “Air/Car taxes to double under the Lib Dems” headlines in the press, let alone the other parties’ propoganda?
I mention the right-left issue, not because I particularly believe in it, but because Hughes is under constant attack from his own colleagues for being left-wing! It seems some people have identified some mythical centre-ground in between the Tories and New Labour. I can’t think of a single policy that could fit in this tiny space. Yet tax is the one area where the left/right axis is clearly still relevant, and on this it seems the Lib Dems I mention seem happy to surrender ground made to Gordon Brown.
55 - Was around for the 1985 By-election and was one of the more TAME elections I’ve taken part in this past quarter century. Am surprised it made such an impression on you - PC only coming home with 400 odd votes and all…
53.”Have you made up with Andrea yet ??? ”
Jack, what have I done now?
35,
The Lib Dems, could do with his talents at the moment in dealing with the media.
He also certainly had the talent to go further in politics, however he made the choice of supporting others.
Maybe he made a conscious decision to do this because of his sexual orintation.
How many more in the same position have made this self sacrifice.
A lot of talent in all parties will have been lost no doubt.
Mike this analysis is rubbish (and I suspect you might know it too) as it will undoubtedly affect some of the odds.
Chris Huhne is going to come third - look at the last election. The armchair members vote for the ‘big’ names - only the activists get enthused by the details of particular policy stances that are offered by the newbies.
The number of MPs (and their status) supporting each candidate is significant too - Hunhe is third out of three and has only one non 05 intake backing him (Gidley). His campaign smacks of him being the shop steward for the new boys making a point to the old guard.
Other things being equal it will finish 1. Ming 2. Simon and 3. Huhne - and it could need Huhne’s second preferences too. (Assuming no more exposes by that old enemy of liberalism News Corp).
261. I read somewhere (probably an article reviewing a biography about him) that Mandy thought that being gay would have excluded him from being PM material.
60 Andrea. The question is what haven’t you done ….. and with whom ??????
57,
Not me proffessor,I am pleased he did that.
He is also a hero to many of the elderly with the £200 heating allowance, everyone gets at sixty.
For many of the poorest, it is a god send, something many tory posters on here fail to understand.
Mike , I think you are wrong in writing off Simon’s chances because of the Sun article . If the people voting were the typical Conservative member generally old with an anachronistic view to life then yes you would be correct but the voters are members and activists in the Lib Dem party and by definition they will have an above average toleration and understanding that people men and women can have a sexual leaning that varies from outright gay through bisexual to solely heterosexual .
For my own part my indecision as to how to vote is firming up to give Simon my first preference but I will wait and see how he performs in QT or I won’t as I am playing Bar Billiards tonight but I will be able to judge the reaction . Yes there will be some people in the electorate at large who may be disgusted by Simon’s sexual orientation but they will tend to be hard core Tory and possibly UKIP right wing who would never vote Lib Dem anway .
I saw Hughes’ interview with Jon Snow on C4 news. The problem isn’t his private life, it’s about his flexible honesty - he’s as much as admitted that he wouldn’t have fessed up now if it hadn’t been for the press (oh, alright, the Dirty Digger) any more than he did in 1999. What I saw was a lonely man who, sadly, needs to take a break from front-line politics as much as Charles Kennedy does.
64 Jack, what have I missed to do?
Not so sure Mark. Thinking about a place like Bushey (inside the M25) I should think quite a few regular Lib Dem voters there might not be too keen on Hughes sexuality.
Some old people may be grateful to Gordon Brown, but their voting intentions suggest the large majority aren’t.
Some people on this site are on halucinogenic drugs if they think Simon Hughes has any earthly chance of winning the leadership. His ‘unspun’ persona has just been shot to bits. He was asked if he was gay. He could have said ‘Yes, and I’m not ashamed of it’. He could have said ‘Mind your own business’. He could even have said ‘It’s a bit complicated’. But, oh no, he had to go and lie and claim to be heterosexual - as if being gay was something to be ashamed of.
Then, a few days later, the scummy Sun approaches him and says they intend to publish proof he’s been calling ManTalk gay chat line and Simon suddenly changes his tune - and expects to be given credit for it.
It’s a total joke. He’s finished.
I don’t think it helps him, Liberal to a Fault. That said, it’s not as if he had spent years campaigning against homosexuality, or parading his wife and children in election literature.
I think he would have done better though just to say it was a private matter, last week, and leave it at that.
Finished, this is the LibDems we are talking about, who knows what they will do?
Came home drunk after recording podcast last night and went flat on Betfair (after cashing in on Celebrity Big Brother). Gutted.
Can’t see Whuhne winning here, but if you say so…
68 Andrea. I daren’t think.
66 Mark. I have to agree with Mike. Apart from the fact that I find Hughes achingly dull …… in the Steve “interesting” Davis class or the IDS School of Charisma division, for pragmatic reasons I think Hughes is now down the pan. Lib Dem swing (both ways !!) members will surely not risk a Hughes leadership and this further reinforces the Merciless one as clear favourites.
Thoughtful idealists like you are thin on the ground, even in the Lib Dems ….. the “nice party” will bare its’ teeth and plump for Ming.
Is it a political nono to be exposed spending your evenings ringing chatlines?
69,
Sean, I would agree with that.
However,New Labour, d`ont seem to emphasise what they have done, for, how should I say the Dickensian term, `the deserving poor`.
Nevertheless when the Blair, period ends, and a Brown premiership begins, this might change, and they might put this on the agenda a lot more.
As Brown with his calvinist work ethic, might champion, the hard working poor.
I saw Simon Hughes beening interviewed on Sky News and I thought he was a sad and loney figure.
The Lib Dem’s have two problems
1. They have lost their credibility. (ITN were very hard on them this eveing even suggesting that their is more to come)
2. None of the leadership contenders have leadership qualities.
70 - You need to look at the bigger picture liberal to a fault. There are a LOT of members out there not willing to vote for Ming due to the following reasons:-
a. His age.
b. His lack of genuine support for Kennedy a few weeks ago.
c. That the people backing him played the main role in forcing Kennedy out.
Now although we are not the tories when it comes to supporting the old leader to the end, the way Charlie Kennedy was removed leaves a very bad taste in the mouth and will cause a fairly high proportion to blame Ming and his supporters - be that fair or not, it doesn’t matter.
This gives both Huhne and Hughes a good chance to win. I would not write either off.
Good to have the professor back. We need the odd socialist on this site, to keep reminding us who are the masters now.
If he thinks GB abolished betting tax as an ‘idea’ of his, he does little punting. GB was forced, late in the day, to abolish betting tax, as most of the bookies had located off-shore. If GB had seen which way the wind was blowing, he would have looked more in control and rather less re-active.
57, 56: There is a (small) Gordon fan club on this site, including me & Andrea & a few others.
On Simon Hughes: first, I’m on record on this site as saying it would take alot to make me vote Lib Dem again, but I really feel for the party at the moment. A Lib Dem civil servant friend of mine is spitting blood, and quite rightly- all the unctuous, self-satisfied comments from some Tories, especially (not so much on this site), when all the parties (and especially the Tories) have multiple Mark Oatens and Simon Hughes of their own, from all one hears (and I’ve heard this from a number of sources). It’s a hypocritical witchunt, and politics will be the poorer at the end of it- it ill becomes any of us to gloat over the Lib Dems because they were the ones who got caught (and I say this as someone who hates their style of campaigning in general and totally disapproves of Hughes’ comments on Scotland in particular).
But from what I know of Lib Dems, this might actually work out in Simon Hughes’ favour. The party contains a large number of gays who will see Hughes as the victim of typical hostile homophobic and anti-Lib Dem press attention, and also contains large numbers of people who always support an underdog if they can find one. Hughes just needs to present himself quietly as a martyr to the cause of the Press’s hate for third-party politics and for minorities, and perhaps above all to the hypocrisy of the Tories (I mean the ones in the papers shedding crocodile tears over the demise of the party), and the sympathy vote will be huge, I would imagine. I expect the loser will in fact be Huhne, who’s rather vanishing from sight at the moment.
Dunfermline and West Fife by-election full list of candidates:
Catherine Stihler(Labour)
Willie Rennie (LD)
Douglas Chapman (SNP)
Carrie Helen Ruxton (Con)
John McAllion (Scottish Socialist Party)
Thomas Minogue (Abolish Forth Bridge Tolls Party)
Ian Borland (UKIP)
James George Hargreaves (Scottish Christian Party “Proclaiming Christ’s Lordship” )
Dick Rodgers (The Common Good Party)
Recent events have reminded me of Hague’s joke (one of many such jokes) at the Oxford Union about the SDP being ‘the heterosexual wing of the Liberal Party’.
81. were Hague and the tories too busy trying to teach Chris Bryant to keep his pants on at the time?
79,
Sara, it maybe a (small)Gordon Brown fan club on here, icluding myself.
However its worthwhile, to give some balance and a differing perspective.
80 - John McCallion is a very strong candidate for the SSP. They desperately need a respectable showing to keep things on track ahead of 2007. Especially given their latest loony-lefty plan to get rid of the Scottish flag.
84. Max, who do you think will get the last place?
76. I think that is right - it really is a weak field of candidates now. Hughes has made himself look foolish and is effectively out of it. Huhne is an uncharismatic nonentity. That leaves dear old Ming, who strikes me as a slightly more geriatric version of David Steel; decent Scots type but not exactly inspirational. He will win, I think, faute de mieux, but will probably take the Lib Dems back to their pre-1981 position.
A small point of pedantry, but Simon Hughes hasn’t actually said he is gay. He said he has had sex with men and women, and later said to the BBC that his denial that he was gay was “not untrue, but was clearly misleading.”
He is bisexual.
In the nineties, the right wing press, tried to put rumours in the public domain regarding GB.
Also seem to remember Sue Lawley giving GB a difficult time, regarding his personal circumstances.
Maybe this was the final factor, why he stood aside for Blair.
In that Blair was the family man, and this would be an asset, in electing a new labour government.
x86. Given that the Lib Dems didn’t exist in 1981, that would be a rather difficult feat Fred.
86 - Hard to say but I really hope that that’s the Common Good candidates real name! UKIP will probably poll very few votes - I’m very surprised their isn’t a Green though.
I thought Hughes did well in all his interviews during the day. All sackcloth and ashes but he cut a sypathetic figure. If he quits the race it’ll be his decision and he should get quite a bit of sympathy.
I found it characteristically opportunistic of Peter Tatchell to put the boot in and accuse him of hypocricy because of his homophobic behaviour comments in ‘83. It should be remembered that Tatchell was also a hypocrite in that he wouldn’t ‘come out’ during that by-election.
Does anyone think that the LibDems having so many scandal hit politicians right at the top of their party is an unfortunate by-product of “too much democracy”. More than in either of the other major parties, LibDem “heavyweights” will often hold their status because of their apparent appeal to their electorate. Until very recently, almost anyone could become a LibDem candidate and with hard work, and a bit of luck, could hope to become an MP. And after becoming a liberal MP it is a very short step to the top of the party. Mark Oaten was the most obvious example of that.
The small no of MPs meant that the party could never be too picky about worrying about their private lives.
In other parties there a far more levels (pre-Cameron!) that a person has to go through to the top and they have to prove themselves at every level - becoming a candidate, becoming an MP, impressing on the backbenches, senior politician’s bag carrier, minor frontbench role, major frontbench role… etc.
And informal structures within the parties may work against anyone with “secrets” going too high.
Re. 82, good question. Hague’s line in such jokes (including his most recent, that he wouldn’t want a reverse gear if Peter Mandelson was standing behind him) is all the more bizarre when he used to share a house with Alan Duncan. You’d think a heterosexual who had shared a house with a gay man (and had other gay friends) wouldn’t tell such jokes.
50 - “And I was full of snow”
Andrea - that can have interesting conotations in a tabloid sense …
91.”I found it characteristically opportunistic of Peter Tatchell to put the boot in and accuse him of hypocricy because of his homophobic behaviour comments in ‘83. It should be remembered that Tatchell was also a hypocrite in that he wouldn’t ‘come out’ during that by-election. ”
Roger, where have you heard it?
I read his statement and he hasn’t accused SM of hypocricy. Infact he said Hughes has never voted hypocritically in parliament.
94. Tabman, I’ve realized it after clicking the “send” botton!
55 - Mark it’s a bit disingenuous of you to take that sanctimonious line against Lib Dems over Brecon and Radnor. You will remember better than I do that the leaflet was withdrawn, that Richard Livsey admitted it was a mistake, that there was general unhappiness in the party over the leaflet and a closer watch was kept over the by-election team thereafter.
I doubt if any Lib Dem would seek to justify the leaflet. You helped the by-election campaign and stayed in the party for many years afterwards. I doubt if it was a delayed reaction to the Brecon and Radnor by-election that caused you to join Plaid. So his isn’t a great issue for you to be holier-than-thou about.
91 - Yes how opportunistic! Taking advantage of the media interest to declare that he thought Simon Hughes was the best candidate!
88 - Also seem to remember Sue Lawley giving GB a difficult time, regarding his personal circumstances.
Yes. Good job there are no stories about her in circulation.
88 Dez. That’s one of the reasons I am also a member of the Gordon fan club. Sue Lawley did everything short of saying “ADMIT IT MAN!!” but even though he had a girlfriend at the time, which wasn’t public knowledge and he wasn’t gay he refused to deny it. He just said that it was nobody’s business except his own……
And of course my other reason for being a fan is that he’s been the best Chancellor this country has had in living memory!
86 - time and again we hear this, fred. It’s boring. Pre 1981 position blah blah blah…
Do you mean we may go down to the 19% we got in 1974? Remember, we have been at far lower ebbs. Having a former leader on trial for conspiracy to murder was not good; nor was it good when we went down to 4% in the polls in 1988. Stop spinning!
(Yes after a love-in all day, it’s offically Tory / Liberal bitch hour again…)
99 = Phil
“Fact me … ” 
Andrea 95. He was on TV news tonight. He just can’t resist having his face infront of a camera
Alex 98. Sorry I assumed you’d seen Tatchell on the channel 4 news this evening. He certainly did NOT say he was the best candidate unless there’s another meaning for hypocrite!
103. well, Roger, I like him. Sometimes too OTT.
Re. 92, only ten years ago, no LD MP had the luxury of being a backbencher. I remember a comment in Crewe and King’s book on the SDP that, at one point, anyone but a rapist could become a Liberal parliamentary candidate.
Then again, to be fair, I also remember reading (in a book by either Paxman or Marr) the jaundiced comment by a Tory Whip that, once those who could be trusted to shave themselves and get out of bed in time were counted, there was a very thin talent pool for posts starting from parliamentary under-secretary and moving upwards. There are also, of course, the revelations in Gyles Brandreth’s book about the waifs and strays in the Parliamentary Conservative Party, including one MP who was in such a bad way (mentally) that the Whips booked him into a monastery, transporting him to Westminster and back for divisions.
104 Roger, he said many times this week that if he was a Libdem, he would have voted Hughes in this leadership race.
How do the Lib Dems here expect the policy of their party differ if Huhne became leader from the policy of a Campbell-led party?
“104 Roger, he said many times this week that if he was a Libdem, he would have voted Hughes in this leadership race”.
In that case in addition to being a hypocrite he has also changed his mind!!
I suppose it’s possible he thinks the other two would be even more duplicitous!
101. Well I’m sorry. I know, that when the Tories were in trouble in recent years you gentlemanly Lib Dems exercised remarkable restraint in not having a pop at us. Like hell! to quote my dear departed Grandad ‘tha’ doesn’t like it when boot’s on t’other foot, does tha?’
209. ROger, I can’t get Channel 4, but here’s an article about Tatchell’s reaction and I don’t see anything which could make think he has changed his mind:
http://ickent.icnetwork.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16631198&method=full&siteid=50102&headline=i-thought-hughes-was-gay—tatchell-name_page.html
93. Have you heard the one about the politically correct comedian. No? Neither has anyone else.
Hague tells the jokes because they’re funny (as the prolonged outbreak of playground humour on here after the Oaten story broke shows).
108 - to be honest, none of them would vary that much. It would be more in emphasis than anything else. Certainly I can’t see Ming and Chris varying much on fiscal policy, nor Simon (contrary to what many would think). Chris would play the environmental angle more, Simon the social angle, and Ming the foreign angle.
99 = Phil “Fact me … ”
Really!!!
13 - “Ming the foreign angle” - well, he is a Scot
108 - I think the transition to NuLibDem will be slightly more gradual under Campbell; I’m sure Campbell will win, but a good showing for Huhne will mean that his environmental, fiscal and decentralisation ideas will be taken on board, albeit more slowly, and probably diluted a bit.
The biggest material difference in the long run is that if Campbell wins, there will be another leadership battle in a few years - and it is among the contestants there that the real talent lies.
114 - roger, I don’t believe you work in the media if you haven’t heard the Sue Lawley story!
This is my take on Simon Hughes. For more go to my blog http://www.iaindale.blogspot.com
“And then there were two. Only Chris Huhne and Ming Campbell remain as serious contenders in the LibDem leadership race following Simon Hughes’s outing in today’s Sun. It’s not the fact that he’s gay that’s the problem. It’s the fact that like Mark Oaten and Charles Kennedy he has lied. Although you wouldn’t know it from his comments on the media today. Let’s be clear, when questioned by The Independent he didn’t hedge around the question, he said quite categorically he was not gay, not once but twice. He repeated the answer in another newspaper. That, in my book, is a lie. I was on Radio Five Live this morning talking about this with gay LibDem MP Stephen Williams. He seemed outraged that Simon Hughes could be accused of lieing. Indeed, he said that Charles Kennedy hadn’t lied over his drinking. He must be living on a parallel planet. To people out in the real world the fact that politicians don’t tell the truth is far more serious than what they get up to in the bedroom. As I said on 5 Live this morning, the most damaging aspect of the Oaten and Hughes sagas is that young men all round the country who are firmly in the closet, will probably remain there for that bit longer because Simon Hughes’s behaviour indicates a feeling of shame. The other aspect to this is Simon Hughes’s behaviour during his by-election campaign against Peter Tatchell in 1983. I heard Tatchell on 5 Live Drive this evening and he was quietly impressive in his protection of Simon Hughes. He accepted his apology and praised him for his voting record on gay rights and human rights issues. Hughes was a young man at that time and probably didn’t control the direction of his campaign, which included the infamous SIMON HUGHES - THE STRAIGHT CANDIDATE POSTER.
There’s no question that Hughes is a man of courage. At great personal risk to himself he appeared in court to give evidence against a gang of thugs and contributed to them being put away for a long time. He received threats of physical violence and I am told death threats. Despite this he persevered and justice prevailed.
We must also remember that he is 54 years old and for him to come out now will have been psychologically trying for him to say the least. I know myself the traumas one goes through when one ‘comes out’, particularly with regard to the reaction of one’s family and friends. When I decided to go into politics I came out before being selected as a candidate. I remember having to tell friends of twenty years standing something they may have suspected but we had never talked about. Without exception their reaction was amazing and it made me think I should have done it years earlier. But I had regarded it as no one’s business but my own. But if you go into politics you know what can happen. You know that journalists are always looking out for a saucy story, and being gay still provides them with the salacious headlines they love. I made up my mind that the only way to avoid the 7pm phone call on a Saturday night from the News of the World was to be open. If people couldn’t cope with it, well that was their problem. But Simon Hughes couldn’t have done that in 1983. Since then he has been circumspect and avoided the issue. Many people in Parliament suspected he was gay and he had been seen in gay bars and night clubs. Apparently in his constituency it was an open secret. And that’s how he would have preferred it to stay. He didn’t want to worry his ageing mother with it and his Christian activities mitigated against making any form of public statement. I totally understand that. Where he went wrong was to give interviews to two newspapers where he told an untruth. Or perhaps where he went wrong was to stand for the LibDem leadership in the first place, if he wasn’t willing to be open. But we also have to face the fact that if Mark Oaten hadn’t been outed on Sunday, Simon Hughes probably wouldn’t have been today. My great fear now is that the media smell blood. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there were further revelations between now and Sunday. If I were an MP with a personal secret I don’t think I’d look forward to answering my phone on Saturday.
So is Simon Hughes finished as a leadership candidate? I think it’s difficult to tell, but if I had to fall off the fence, I’d say yes. I am not familiar enough with the grassroots LibDem members who have the vote to make a judgement on whether being gay will lose him any votes. I suspect it may cost him a few in rural areas but the issue of having told a lie will cost him more. Alternatively, depending on how he copes with the next few weeks he made get quite a decent sympathy vote. Time will tell.
But just spare a thought for two other men tonight - firstly, Charles Kennedy. He can be forgiven if he has a slight felling of “serves ‘em all right”. And finally, Mark Oaten, who has reportedly been told by his wife that their marriage is over. No one can derive any pleasure from seeing a man’s life fall apart in the space of 5 days, no matter what he has done. I just hope he has some good friends to count on.”
112.”Hague tells the jokes because they’re funny (as the prolonged outbreak of playground humour on here after the Oaten story broke shows). ”
according to newspapers some people present at the dinner where he made the Mandelson-reverse gear joke were appaled by his joke.
110 - refreshingly spin free post, thanks fred.
92 And informal structures within the parties may work against anyone with “secrets” going too high.
What you mean like Mandelson, Aitken, Hamilton, Blunkett, Davies (Ron), Yeo, Parkinson, Stonehouse, Mellor… I’m sure we could think of a few more.
119 - He wasn’t funny on HIGNFY. Indeed some people went so far as to draw the conclusion that he was using it as a convoluted way of publicly ruling out any return to frontline politics.
Tabman 114. Sorry it was a bit of vulgar schoolboy humour. I read your post with a Cecil Parkinson accent
121 - half of that list never reached positions of any real importance, half committed their offences after they reached their peak office.
Also the theory must contend with the reality laid out by Richard (above) - namely that a shortage of talent make it difficult to work properly.
88 - and fellow members of the gordon fan club,
GB’s bachelorhood was certainly a factor in stepping aside , but he also was percieved as having a closeness to gay activists in the labour party ( staying in the same hotels at conferences ).
Also people often forget that while he eventualy backed Blair for the leadership Mandelson was also originaly a stong ally of Browns as he and Blair were dubbed YAKS ( young able Kinnokites) in the early 80’s when Mandelson was looking for ‘Modernisers’ to help Kinnock.
Apart from the dreaded ‘focus group’ reactions , another factor was Browns Closeness to John Smith ( scottish + Shadow budget blamed by some for labour losing 92 election)
121. what was Mandelson’s secret? Being gay?
well, he’s probably the most outed man in the world.
He was outed back in the 80’s by NOTW in a kiss and tell with a headline which sounded like “My gay love for Kinnock’s aide”. Then he was outed by Edwina Currie in her radio show. Then by Parris in his infamous Newsnight’s appearance. So Parris took the blame, but it was done by others too. The only difference was that no-one recalled the 80’s NOWT piece and that no-one pay attention to Edwina anymore.
I agree with Ian that Hughes lied. Even now he refers to affairs with women and men. I wonder whether that is being wholly frank about the ‘balance’ of his sexuality. Be that as it may he gave an interview to the BBC in which he came across in a dignified way. I can’t see him winning but he may yet come second among activists far more forgiving than are Tory activists ( still). In addition he has not betrayed and humiliated a wife in the way Oaten did. From the Lib Dem’s point of view they’re better off playing it safe with MC for the time being but the future is plainly Nick Clegg ( who by the way has a charming, attractive and intelligent Spanish wife). I still wouldn’t rule out his emergence before the election if ill health or the age issue do for MC.
125: Are you suggesting Gordon is gay? I’d be pretty surprised. I think it’s more that he hails from the deep-rooted Scottish homosocial tradition (Max- I appeal to your cultural knowledge on this one!), and it took him a while to move in to the more modern heterosocial world, though I think he has now.
As for Hague’s ‘reverse gear’ joke, I thought no-one over the age of 13 found that sort of thing funny any more…
In response to Iain at 118, is there any evidence that the ‘infamous Simon Hughes the straight candidate’ poster actually existed as opposed to the familiar ‘it’s a straight choice’ slogan which was in general currency at the time and used in the context of ‘clear’ or ’straightforward’?
Although I didn’t help in Bermondsey, the people I know who did would have certainly refused to deliver a leaflet or poster with a message along the lines Iain suggests.
When I joined the Liberal Party in the mid 1980s the folklore among activists was that we did have a case to answer over the Brecon and Radnor by-election, but that in Bermondsey the ‘dirty’ campaign had come from ‘Real Bermondsey Labour’.
More on this on my blog at http://www.eatenbymissionaries.blogspot.com
127 - I wonder whether that is being wholly frank about the ‘balance’ of his sexuality.
What, is he meant to give percentages?
127.”. I wonder whether that is being wholly frank about the ‘balance’ of his sexuality”
blue moon, he could be genuinely bisexual.
Or he could be in phase 3 of a coming out.
230. Book Value, is there a test to discover your %? I would be interested to discover mine
I remember reading in Seldon’s Blair biography that Brown’s standing aside in 92 served to reinforce the rumours.
I suppose he wasn’t helped either by Nick Brown, his surname-sake and Vicar on Earth, being gay (which was well-known at Westminster long before the tabloids outed him).
Talking of Nick Brown, I wonder if he (and not either of the two Eds) is The Professor? Or, maybe, as with the rebarbative Sarah J, The Professor is some composite, with Brown’s little helpers taking it in turn?
130 - is he really bisexual, or were his hetero experiences youthful indiscretions / experiments? And who are these women he has proposed to who turned him down? And does any of this matter?
128.”Scottish homosocial tradition ”
Sara, what is the Scottish homosocial tradition?
132 - There are some out there on the internet (probably not very scientific) but I can’t find them with a very quick google.
128 - I know what you mean by that and its probably quite true but unfortunately I can’t relate to that as most of my friends are women! I always thought that GB was the same - certainly from his time at Uni where I think both of his flat mates (at Uni) were female. One of my tutors tought GB and I remember him referring to a girlfriend so I don’t know how much substance their is to the rumours - although he also mentioned a scurilous rumour about Lady T and a Labour MP so I’m not sure if he’s a reliable source!
[118] Excellent post, Iain. As the incomparable Alan Watkins has been saying for years, “politics is a rough old trade” (no innuendo intended, AFAIK). It is of course a compliment to the Lib Dems that the media should bother with them - but they have only themselves to blame for not getting more of their best people into the right candidacies before last year.
134. As much as I usually like sex “scandals”, all these info about Libdems sex lives are becoming boring.
Now I almost know more about their sex lives than about mine!
22 - Hague was funny on HIGNFY, that’s why he’s been invited back twice. Indeed it’s his appearances on HIGNY and other TV that has boosted his popularity making him the asset back on the front bench that he is.
Re. the campaign waged by Real Bermondsey Labour, I remember John O’Grady had a very colourful song about Peter Tatchell.
…Must …. have… odds… only … have… phone… can’t see betfair…please…help
118 Iain D. I heard you this morning on the wireless before I went to bed
…. you are becoming a media tart …… and as for being young at 40 !!!! well I suppose those lycra shorts take years off you and your lunchbox.
I said I wonder; obviously I don’t know but it seemed to me that he was trying to ‘come out’ as someone who kicked both ways rather than someone who was basically gay and had had a few heterosexual experiences. The only reason I make the point is that he might be accused of thinking that the former is more acceptable to the public than the latter. It’s the tactic of minimal disclosure when you’ve been caught out rather than full disclosure but you expect the credit for being brave and candid. But maybe I’m being unfair.
144 - possibly, I’m not sure public opinion will be much affected either way though.
142- James F. Campbell 0.7/1
Huhne 2.6/1
Hughes 5.4/1