Has Huhne found the weapon to beat Clegg?
October 28th, 2007
Could the “no” to the Trident replacement help him and his party?
After a period when the main complaint about the Lib Dem leadership race was that both contenders appeared the same the man who came second last time, Chris Huhne, has put a new issue on the table - should Britain spend the billions on replacing Trident and maintaining its independent nuclear deterrent?
In an interview with the Observer Huhne declared it would be ‘ridiculous’ to spend up to £15bn updating the UK’s ageing submarine-based nuclear arsenal. This was he said “a Cold War relic”
I think that this is a very significant move that should resonate well with largish sections of the party membership - which is probably a lot more left-wing than most of those who vote for the party in elections. Clegg, meanwhile, has suggested that he would strongly support the Trident replacement.
For more than half a century the issue of Britain’s independent nuclear capability has been a major fault-line in the nation’s politics and the need to replace the existing system means that it’s still there. If the left-winger John McDonnell had managed to find the nominations to challenge Brown for the Labour leadership then Trident would figured largely in that race.
Not replacing Trident and the total reliance on the US that it implies also fits well with the Lib Dems opposition to the Iraq War. A Lib Dem party following a Huhne policy could cause problems for Labour as it seeks to attract and retain those supporters who switched in 2005.
I’ve now got more than £100 on Huhne at average odds of 2.82/1. That seems the value bet.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Mike - you need to turn your clock back one hour!
PLEASE NOTE - I’ve now moved our server clock back - but it could mean that posts appear oddly ordered for the next hour.
14. From a partisan Tory perspective, the Lib Dems retreating into a left-wing ghetto with policies like this is great - it will help peel off some of the pacifist/muddlehead/handwringer voters Labour has won back since 2005, and split the left-wing vote.
But for the Lib Dems themselves it will be the blindest of blind alleys - condemning them to a perpetual existence on the fringe of British politics.
Last year 72% of then 72,072 LD Members voted in the Leadership election.
At the end of 2006 the LD Membership was 68,743.
If turnout is also 72% then unless membership has dropped/risen since the end of 2006, 49,600 votes will be cast.
“While the Tories and Labour are arguing whether they can afford an annual 3 billion cut in IHT, the LibDems get to make a saving of 15 billion right there that they can use for tax cuts and spending increases.”
I don’t think they could do that. Unless you’re talking about spending increases on Defence. Not that it would save that much money anyway. Presumably the bulk of the £15billion quoted is a one-off cost or otherwise spread over many years.
It may well go down especially well in Guardian land if Huhne won. John Leech could sleep a lot more soundly. But will it appeal as well to Lib/Con waverers in the South. Is there Polling evidence. In addition is Huhne now completely unilateral disarmament or simply against replacing Trident, i.e simply extending the life of of the existing system. There is a big difference between the two and full unilateral disarmament support would IMHO seriously hurt the Lib Dems v the Tories
We outsiders should defer to Mike on LD members’ views. It’s a bit of a stunt, though, since Parliament has already voted to renew the submarines and the likelihood of the LibDems being able to change the outcome on the missiles is microscopic unless one of the other parties changes its mind. If he said that he’d make no post-election agreement with either party unless they agereed to drop Trident, that would be a very different matter, but not sure he’ll go that far.
Test: what fr is saying is that the YouGov poll, showing a 3% Tory lead, finished a day after the MORI poll, showing a 1% Labour lead. Because the methodologies are different, it’s usually best to compare each institute’s findings with its previous survey. In the case of YouGov, the result is the same as last time. For MORI, it’s changed from a 3% Tory lead two weeks ago. There is also a query about whether MORI has used the same sampling methods in both cases. All that we can really safely say is that the two parties are around equal, and (rather surprisingly) that the poll that tests for certainty to vote is this time marginally more favourable to Labour - but that could be a random quirk.
lol Mike. You really should have done that at 2am!!!
13 but that’s yg, not mori
Let me get over to Wells and see if I can get an answer
‘Not replacing Trident and the total reliance on the US that it implies also fits well with the Lib Dems opposition to the Iraq War.’
Er, Mike, if we don’t replace Trident we will rely totatlly on either the US or France to supply a nuclear umbrella if we ever need one
I bet that Jon will say that this is another attempt to puff Huhne, in about half an hour.
If LD turnout is 72% (same as last time). Huhne could gain if the anti-Trident members are more motivated to vote.
Scenario, 49,000 voting (of 68,000 Members).
Huhne gets an 83% turn out of 30,000 = 24,900
Clegg gets a 65% turn out of 40,000 = 24,700
Oh dear. Just heard Harriet Harman on the radio arguing against the Tory alleged plans on “English votes”. Not sure it’s on message to give credence to the SNP’s claims that Scotland are paying more than their fair share thanks to “Scottish Oil”.
MIKE, I KNOW IT’S IRREGULAR, BUT COULD YOU JUST DELETE ALL THE POSTS AFTER THE SWITCH? IT’S JUST TOO CONFUSING OTHERWISE.
Test @ 9
This is my original post:
“This poll was taken from 18th to 23rd. The last one with the 3% Tory lead was 22nd to 24th. So they really should have come out in reverse order. What would the “narrative” have been then ? ”
I’m sorry if that led you to think I was talking about 2 Mori polls.
The stance adopted by Chris Huhne can only advance his cause and that of the LibDems.
I understand that the SNP are not in favour of Trident and the savings are helping health and education north of the border.
As far as Iran goes the USA and Israel are more than capable of coping.
Nick Palmer thanks I see what you mean - yes we must compare like with like.
Nuclear weapons ‘worked’ in a rational world. MAD (mutually assured destruction) was a concept that had traction in the days on the cold war.
But are Iran or Korea intimated by US (let alone UK) nuclear weapons?
With whom are we going to create a stand-off, or stalemate, or even just buy time, because of an up-dated trident? Whose behaviour will we seek to alter through an ‘independent’ nuclear capability?
It may be possible to paint Huhne as a ‘loony’. But not on the basis of this suggestion.
18
I for one would feel a bit nervous if I knew Iran had a deliverable bomb.
11 If only I could use the 1 hour time machine to make real bets!
Please can you delete the posts Mike? I’m sure people will remake any decent (or rubbish) points anyway
Another attempt to puff Huhne! Can’t fault you for talking your own book.
Perhaps an article on why Stephen Williams (who was big in the Huhne campaign last time - agent IIRc) is now backing Clegg apparently would be in order?
seanT where are you!
So UK gives up bomb at time when Iran gets theirs. Mmmmm, that should go down well on the doorstep.
I presume this implies that pbc is backing Huhne
I agree with you on this Mike.
Repeated from the end of last thread, can you clarify for us whether that Mori poll’s fieldwork was in fact earlier than the Mori poll that showed a 3% Tory lead?
FR suggested it was, which if so reverses the narrative.
This is madness by Huhne - unilateralism sank Labour without trace in the 1980s, and in today’s dangerous world where countries like Iran are trying to go nuclear scrapping Trident will be seen by most voters as crazed.
It looks like a desperate pitch to the Lib Dem left to try to stop Clegg’s strong momentum.
13. The government’s position on this is unsustainable really. They do really have some cheek to suggest that English-votes-for-English laws would permanently ‘damage the union’ when it was they who presided over the granting of powers to Scotland and Wales!
They come across as sounding terribly anti-English and illogical. Do they support devolution or don’t they? Oh my mistake, they don’t support devolution where there’s a chance the Tories might end up in control! Typical NuLab…
Also I’d like to address Harman’s point that allegedly the English public want more “regional” accountability. I don’t know where she got that one from. The regional assembly in the North East was voted down decisively and, from what I can see, there is a move towards people wanting to assert their English identity.
NuLab cannot keep pedalling this line of “We can’t give the English devolution as this would destroy the Union” when they started the whole process in the first place!
Watched Huhne being interviewed at length last night, and if he wins, the Conservatives will have no problems keeping hold of any Lib Dems that have switched to them.
Waiting to see Clegg in action, but looks like a one man contest to me if they have got any sense.
The concept of deterrence, has changed radically since the end of the cold war. The UK no longer needs a nuclear deterrent as such, but it needs a nuclear option.
Cruise missiles, can provide that option, they offer a fexibility that the Trident system cannot offer, they are also cheaper.
Cruise can be fired from a variety of launch platforms, air, land and sea, so they could be shared amongst the services.
The main criticsm of cruise is its speed, a valid criticism, now! but not in 10 or 15 years time. Hypersonic cruise, (which should be available by then) will be capable of 3/4000 mph, fired from an aircraft or ship, (surface or submerged) a 1000 miles from target, launch to contact 20 minutes, slower than an ICBM but I would have thought acceptable.
Cruise also has the advantage, that a submarine for instance, could carry a mix of conventional or nuclear missiles as well as torpedoes. That submarine could also perform a hunter killer role, and not be tied entirely to its nuclear role as is the case with Trident.
PS mike don’t you need to change the PB timestamps? Clocks went back
Please can we focus debate on here about how this will affect the Lib Dem race not the merits/demerits of Trident.
Is there any research into the views of Lib Dem members about Trident?
Also when I raised this matter on the other thread, I speculated that the anti-Trident LD members may be more inclined to vote than others.
5
YouGov/Telegraph 2007-10-24 41 38 11 3
Ipsos-MORI/Observer 2007-10-23 40 41 13 -1
As posted by A. Wells
6 With the other two parties being pro-Trident, the LDs have an opportunity to pick up the voters who are anti-Trident. Just like Brown and Blair used to be!
But, this issue depends on the views of LD Members.
Political suicide if you ask me.
I would entirely expect it to strengthen the Huhne hand amonst a decent sized section of the party’s activists - but not the majority of the armchair members or indeed the voters.
This is exactly the sort of thing the LibDems need to be doing.
It appeals to voters in the big open space on the left that Cameron and Brown are both ignoring, but is perfectly acceptable to sensible people from the centre to the centre-right.
(For example, here’s Matthew Parris:
http://tinyurl.com/2mdkuz )
While the Tories and Labour are arguing whether they can afford an annual 3 billion cut in IHT, the LibDems get to make a saving of 15 billion right there that they can use for tax cuts and spending increases. And since the thing is bound to overrun what the government is saying it’ll cost right now, it’ll be the gift that keeps on giving.
I’ve now moved our server clock back - but it could mean that posts appear oddly ordered for the next hour.
And so the tear in the time/space continuum is mended.
39 Not as long as “Q” us still around to harangue Captain Jean Luc Picard it isn’t !
Matthew Parris implicitly thinks this is an astute move by Huhne.
One of the main justifications of trident is that it shows to the US that we are ’standing shoulder-to-shoulder’ with them. Post Iraq, why anybody believes that that is a politically vital gesture in 2007 remains a mystery.
You mean Chris Huhe is going to take the Lib Dems down the Michael Foot route and consign them to oblivion at the next General Election..? Do you really think the Lib Dems are going to vote for that ? Well, maybe they might, because it might relieve them of the burden of ever getting anywhere near the levers of power..
re 39. fr - that’s a bit deep for a dark wet Sunday morning.
42 Wine Lake, the issue is what will the Lib Dem members vote for?
In July 2006 ICM asked You may have seen or heard that the government is considering plans to replace Britain’s nuclear weapons system, Trident, which is coming to the end of its operational lifetime. Do you think Britain should replace the nuclear weapons system with a new one or should it no longer have any
nuclear deterrent?
Overall the sample split 51% - 39% in favour of replacement.
Tory supporters split 62-31%
Labour supporters split 52%-42%
Lib Dems opposed it by 52% - 43%
As a voting member this “one” issue though important would not make support or otherwise Chris Huhne. After all we are not a single issue party so anyone that voted as such is really doing themselves and the party a disservice.
Its the whole package that anyone should look for and hence I will vote for Clegg.
It seems Mike’s blind hate for Nick means that until voting day we will get these stories from Mike trying to ramp Huhne up.
Really kind of unfair as it could sway the market when ddep down Mike knows Clegg is well ahead with both MPs and at grassroots.
While many would like Huhne they know that CLegg will just give us that little more so like the Tories they will bitr the bullir and vote for Nick….thats if the want the party to ever even “look” like they may win/hold balance of power one day.
Chris “might be” the members darling but so was DD for the Tories and look what happend to him, vote with your heads people NOT with your hearts!!
Nick [10] But we do rely on the US now! You cannot uninvent the Nuclear bomb. We could keep a few if it would make you happy and use DHL to deliver them if required!
I read somewhere once that the way Trident works we would actually need the Americans permission to fire one. Can anyone clarify this for me?
Test
48 - The US, if it chose, could shut off the missile guidance system for Trident. But the missiles could still be launched unilaterally, although less accurately - unless, of course, the US has installed some ultra-secret device for sabotage in such an eventuality.
Isn’t Huhne just doing what any ‘party party’ should do to justify it’s existance. We have two main parties who agree on so much that they exchange personnel and swap policies. Surely, there is no point to a third party unless it is radically different. Huhne’s commitment not to replace Trident and his wholehearted commitment to green issues ( taxes on air traffic, no expansion of airports, anti-car measures and a massive spread of windfarms) is just the sort of ‘out of the box’ thinking that we need. More power to the man.
45 - I guess some LDs will have a battle between heart and head as to who they vote for.
CND say The UK relies on US satellite navigation, intelligence and targetting information
50
If the US has installed some ultra-secret device for sabotage we will have to get a 13 year old boy to sort it out for us.
re 46. I don’t have a blind hatred for Nick - you should read my recent posts when I’ve said that “I am warming to Clegg”.
In terms of damaging the contenders I’ve probably hurt Huhne more through what I’ve written about the “unusual” betting patterns last time which has been picked up by the MSM.
Mike Smithson
Stjohn
It’s simple. Mike is a fifth columnist.
48
Not strictly true.
Trident, under normal conditions would be part of NATO, therefore would come under American control.
There could be however circumstances when the UK could operate unilateraly, although, however this is unlikely.
It is inconceivable that the UK would launch Trident, without clearance from the US, or as part of a US response to a direct attack. An attack on the UK with nuclear weapons, would be considered an attack on the US. After all there are still American bases here, as well as huge American investments, and thousands of US citizens live in the UK.
I supported Trident when it was needed as part of MAD in the 70’s-80’s-90’s. It is no longer needed. The logical, reasonable, and obvious place now for the LDs is to oppose replacement (which was defeated only by 40 odd votes after a personal plea by Ming Campbell). Huhne is simply reflecting the majority opinion of the activist base. About time too.
The odds on Huhne are waaaaaaaaay to long right now and there is serious value in taking them.
45 thanks admin, If 52% of Lib Dem supporters oppose it then probably (at a guess) it means that >60% of actual LD Members oppose Trident.
This blogger (for Clegg) agrees that grassroots Lib Dems are against Trident.
http://tinyurl.com/255phj
51 - Well that’s the LibDem’s problem, isn’t it? 15 years ago this would be a nobrainer - advocating radical and distinct ideas (whilst never getting the political credit when those ideas were implemented) clearly was a part of their raison d’etre. But these days their purpose is far less clear cut. The last few years have opened up the tantalising prospect of becoming a governing party in their own right (even if as a significant junior partner in a coalition), which gives a whole different outlook to the whole thing.
This is a welcome move. Nuclear missiles are only needed if you ever intend to use them, I presume that all those who espouse their retention would feel comfortable if they ever were by this country on another, I certainly wouldn’t. This opposition to nukes in the Liberals/Lib Dems goes back years, I have heard that in Alliance days there was a real possibility of the Alliance breaking up due to the distinct possibility of the Liberal assembly voting for UND. I suppose we just don’t see the use of thermonuclear weapons as very…. Liberal!?
The whole scrapping of the system would save heaps of cash that could be spent on the conventional military & other programmes in government (even though I have a friend who would probably lose his job at Aldermaston!?). Many voters here in Portsmouth support the abolition as it would put more money into the conventional navy, & as you all know, Pompey has a hign military vote.
Off topic, Lord Carlile now on BBC1, just said there were circumstances where he would support extn to the 28 day detention rules.
I wonder at what point the Liberal Democrats will cancel his party membership?
On this issue, many LibDems will be mindful of the line taken by the much missed late Lord Garden, whose knowledge on Trident and almost all other defence matters as a former Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff was without parallel.
IMMIC, on balance, he was both in favour of retaining an independent nuclear deterrent and renewing Trident.
Don’t think Lib Dem policies matter that much to the general voting public - Iraq was perhaps the exception but its more a matter of tone.
Clegg = Cameron-lite; support Clegg’s Lib Dems and you get a Parliamentary pressure group, support Cameron’s Conservatives and you get a government. If Cameron came out as a Neo-Con, right winger then Clegg might be an alternative but that’s as likely to happen as Brown really being an avuncular uncle figure.
Huhne = Different from both Brown & Cameron which is a plus but first impressions are he’d be the activists darling and might attract the Guardianistas back from Labour (especially as Brown ploughs his Christian Democrat furrow and quotes conservative philosophers) but Lib Dem losses have been more to Conservatives than Labour. In Scotland the SNP have already got this prospectus so why vote Lib Dem in Scotland? Huhne though would keep Lib Dems as a distinctive looking party and that might be best in a squeeze situation.
Test again (checking if timestamp fixed)
If Huhne were elected LD Leader and had no Trident replacement as party policy, it is quite clear that he could attract a significant number of Labour supporters, possibly some Labour MPs who at present have nowhere else to go.
This issue has the potential to change the political landscape.
61. Alex you make a good point. But there is an equal and opposite point that also has to be made politically, which is the rebirth of liberalism as the major strand of British political discourse. On Thursday, Brown made a speech where he argued strongly for the British values of liberalism, and the benefits they concur on our country. He then retreated from his own conclusions. Equally, Cameron has made a big play that he is a liberal Conservative, attempting to position his party on a centre right platform. But again, when the smell of elections was in his nose, he moved back to the rhetoric of traditional toryism - families, immigration, and redistribution of wealth from the extremely wealthy to those who wish to join them.
With a weak leader, this concentration has led to a suffocation in the support of the Liberal Democrats, as those who see the logic of the liberal case were cut off from communicating with the party that shares their approach. The real fear for the other two surely must be a Lib Dem leader who is able to reconnect with those voters who have become the focus for political discourse in this country. The raison d’etre of the Lib Dems then becomes to uphold the principles of liberalism that both other leaders are talking up, but that neither has the conviction or instinct to follow through on. A strong Lib Dem leader, rather than suffer an old fashioned third party squeeze can use this to his advantage. Any good general would tell you he would rather fight a war on ground he knows well rather than on hostile territory.
61. I see, so we should cancel a party membership ’cause he has an opinion that runs contrary to one party policy. No party would have many members left if that was how we did things!?
A welcome move by Huhne, if only because the issue gets back on the agenda. Salmond and the SNP have new Labour over a barrel on this one - much opposition to Trident in Scotland and also in Labour’s ranks @ Westminster. Even more so in wider Party. GB must have thought he’d seen this one off. Glad not so.
Sorry, the above was a reply to 63.
47. Fine, but my point is that whatever we do we’re going to be dependent on the Yanks or, worse, the French.
64
The late Lord Garden’s commonsense when it came to defence matters is sadly missed.
Rejecting Trident does not mean rejecting the ‘nuclear option.’ Nuclear weapons as part of a mix of offensive weapons, offering a response to a threat, other than MAD.
The Eurofighter for instance carries Storm Shadow, a cruise type missile, whose development started in ‘97.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2882597.stm
The next 15/20 years is going to see a radical improvement in such weapons. It is ludicrous to commit the UK to such an expensive option such as Trident, without fully exploring the alternatives.
I think we jumped on the Trident bandwaggon for too early.
62 - That’s a silly argument. I doubt you could find more than a handful of people, supporting the retention of Trident, who would be “happy” to see nuclear weapons used.
The whole point of a nuclear deterrent is that they don’t need to be used.
69 khanuap, Carlile is actively acting in ways that help the Govt against a stated core LD policy.
It is worse than speaking or voting against, he is colluding in the activity.
68 “Brown made a speech where he argued strongly for the British values of liberalism, and the benefits they concur on our country.”
I think Brown claiming he is Liberal is like Ghengis Khan claiming he is a member of CND. It is just ridiculous.
Cameron is against ID cards and against extension to 28 day detention. He is sceptical about the Childrens database and spy in the sky road-pricing and is sceptical about most authoritarian measures. Therefore I think his liberal credentials are very good.
Actually if you compare against the Lib Dems who were pro road pricing and are refusing to give the people a say on the European constitution. In the traditional Liberal sense he is more Liberal than the semi socialist Lib Dems.
This is the reason why I like Huhne and would prefer him as leader to Clegg. I feel Huhne might be able to advocate some more interesting policies than Clegg who, as another poster mentioned, is likely to be a Cameron-lite, Tory pressure-group leader.
This is awkward for Huhne. I actually agree with him entirely and wish the other parties had taken such an approach - redeploying the saved money on conventional expeditionary forces. The trouble is that, as Nick Cohen says, this only works if you accept that the Americans will act as our ultimate nuclear guarantor. Which, by the way, is what they are.
46. Always fun to read the more intemperate Lib Dems ranting against Mike.
But it’s not likely is it HF?
76 HF That is just nonsense and I suspect you realise that yourself .
It may well go down especially well in Guardian land if Huhne won. John Leech could sleep a lot more soundly. But will it appeal as well to Lib/Con waverers in the South. Is there Polling evidence. In addition is Huhne now completely unilateral disarmament or simply against replacing Trident, i.e simply extending the life of of the existing system. There is a big difference between the two and full unilateral disarmament support would IMHO seriously hurt the Lib Dems v the Tories I think
77. Look at his speech again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFlNyqeeifA
I think you’ll see that things haven’t changed that much.
I have always found the aguments advanced in favour of nuclear weapons difficult to understand when those that advocate them , generally, seek to deny those same weapons to other countries!
If we in the UK need them for our own defence how can we - with any moral conststency - condemn Iran for wishing to possess the same weaponry? Such an approach is , surely, pure hypocrisy.
I do not for a minute trust Iran - but neither do I trust the USA or UK!
65 Ted, who says there will be a squeeze situation in 2- 3 years time? It is impossible to know what can happen betweeen now and then.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Trident replacement I agree with those who look to a third party to question the cosy Tory/New Labour consensus on this and other issues.
83 That was brilliant and its a shame Rowan Atkinson has ended up as Mr Bean. Compare not the nine o’clock news with the drivel that Bremner comes out with to see that things have changed and not for the better in political satire terms.
80 and 81, let the matter rest on Carlile working for longer detentions, because Lib Dems on here seem ok about the contradiction.
If a Conservative Lord was working for Govt to implement a core Conservative policy such as implementing the EC Treaty today they would be kicked out.
I think the LD’s would be commiting sucide if they backed unilateral disarmiment. It is a proven election loser! Even the Labour party have learned the lesson of keeping the most potent miltary weapon as an option.
I have respect for the Labour party and some of their posters despite our divergent views. The individuals yesterday who started personal abuse have put me off the LD’s for ever. I would vote BNP before the LD’s. Gallowglass, your a F*cking Cn*t. Don’t compare me to a sh*ting animal on a university lawn.
To start the Hallam debate again: Mark started out by saying that the tories were in trouble there as their accounts were not filed or any good. Like any fair minded person i put up the LD accounts, they were not the rosy uplands Mark suggested. He then went on to say that membership money went direct to the LD central party. That is fair enough, how does he know that the Tories in Hallam are not similar? He does not.
The Sheffield Hallam LD membership is delibratly vague “about” a specific number. It either is or is not!!!
:lol: 
As i said yesterday the LD’s could legitamtly put lapsed members in it, it depends how you define membership.
84 - the situation with Iran is fairly simple. There is a suspicion that they want Nuclear Weapons to use as an offensive weapon. Or at least the threat of their use.
It is also pointless to talk about “logic”. Countries ultimately act in their own interests on an International stage. There are no circumstances where it can be considered to be in our own interests for Iran to have nuclear weapons, however “justified” they may be in seeking them.
Oh great, Martin’s back. Not for long i guess on the evidence of that post.
88. Maybe the LD’s would benifit from an electral commision investigation to the Hallam constitiency or a newspaper exclusive?
And you lost that stupid argument on the Sheffield Hallam LibDems conclusively, I’m afraid.
88 - not backing TRident is not the same as unilateral nuclear disarmament. For what it’s worth I agree that replacing Trident is a waste of money. So do a lot of people I know in the forces.
We should be boosting our conventional forces and nuclear arming cruise missiles. Trident is a one-trick system that we are never likely to use. What we need is a nuclear trip wire that makes potential enemies think twice not a system that could obliterate half the inhabited world!
84-”I have always found the aguments advanced in favour of nuclear weapons difficult to understand when those that advocate them , generally, seek to deny those same weapons to other countries!”
Me too
90. Let me say i am really disappointed in someone like you behaving like Gallowglass.
To put it bluntly i am extremly offended by the 3 charecters from yesterday. If somebody can talk about Nuclear weapons proliferation, the economy, International relations and politics in general: they are far from stupid.
If you disagree with someone fair enough, you and your 3 mates crossed the line not me. Truely i think you do a great diservice to the LD’s and the left of centre. Your argument is wrong, just like Mark’s assertion of the tories in Hallam.
93 That is how it would be portrayed though. Both Brown and Cameron know this.
BTW What is this Bradford West Story. Who has had their collars felt
92. Did i, can you prove the current membership and define how it is put together? No you cannot.
If you think my argument is wrong fair enough, don’t be abusive and mock people.
Mark has consistently advocated that the tory membership has collapsed, when advised that a lot of people joined centrally he dismissed this. Then, when presented with the facts in the LD accounts he magically says LD’s join the central party. I do not have a problem with that and they probably do. But to make a party political point as he does and then get abusive when rumbled is not the way to participate in a debate.
It’s armchair members who won it in the last two contests (for Charlie and Ming) and it will be armchair members who win it for Nick Clegg. Huhne is a smart operator and this is a canny pitch for the activist vote - the same vote he went for last time. It got him fairly close last time - but ultimately not really that close.
Clegg is best off sticking with his “the party must stop talking to itself” outward looking big-tentism. From what I hear from deliverers locally, he will be fine.
Mark didn’t say anything about the Tories in Hallam. He just pointed out that they hadn’t filed any accounts so something must be going wrong. Something which you clearly agreed with since you said that you would “speak to Tory HQ and get them to sort it out”. You thanked Mark for pointing out Tory problems.
Your arguments about the Sheffield Hallam libdems were ludicrous. You continued to assert on no evidence that the fact that the (limited) subscriptions declared in their accounts was evidence of their membership falling. Despite numerous far more informed posters pointing out why you could make no such assertion. You went on to claim that the statement of accounts saying that membership was static was a lie (a probable libel), (based on your misreading of the subscription figures) and COMPLETELY IGNORED my pointing out that the Accounts had referred to membership declining slightly in the previous two years (whilst in 2005 subscription income rose).
And Mark etc are not my “mates”. It’s certainly the first time anyone’s accused me of being a LibDem. You constantly refer to your disability, but unless it’s Tourette’s syndrome, I don’t see any excuse for some of your language.
Whatever UKPaul might say.
I propose ingnoring Martin Day from now on, not to even acknowlege him in future.
There were quite a few weaknesses in the white paper which preceded parliament’s vote - a major one being around the supposed independence of the UK’s deterrent whereas it is indeed (58.) inconceivable that the UK would fire Trident without clearance from the US.
The vote in parliament was taken because new subs were supposed to be ordered right away, but as far as I know nothing has been done about it yet.
88 Why do you want to restart a debate that ended yesterday with you looking completely stupid . How can saying a membership figure static at about 320 be deliberately vague , no number of stupid smiley faces or personal abuse can make a post of yours correct without facts to back it up .
99. It now seems thread after thread is going to be filled up with attempts by one poster or another to get others to apologise for ‘abusive’ or ‘rude’ postings, or by attempts to provoke such postings…the inevitable result of the Nick Palmer/Test bleatings of recent weeks.
Ridiculous - we will have people ‘demanding satisfaction’ next…
89 At the end of the day the interests of humanity should come before those of a particular state? Why should British interests be more important than those of any other nation?
It all seems a case of ‘do as we say’ not ‘ do as we do.’
104 - I don’t see why it is in the interests of humanity for Iran to have nuclear weapons. You are effectively arguing that they should have them, not in the interests of humanity, but in the interests of fairness.
It all comes down to whether Iran genuinely want nuclear weapons for their own protection (from the US/UK etc) or if they want them to advance their strategic position and potentially use them to threaten others.
If you believe the latter, then their desire to acquire them will not diminish if we give them up.
As a complete outsider Humne certainly seems to be making the running. I am unaware of any thing new from Clegg.
This is a good issue for the LibDems. Many voters are unconvinced of the need to replace Trident. Its not another Iraq for them but it will play well.
I think the nuclear argument was summed up rather nicely by Tom Lehrer about 40 years ago:
First we got the bomb and that was good,
‘Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that’s O.K.,
‘Cause the balance of power’s maintained that way!
Who’s next?
France got the bomb, but don’t you grieve,
‘Cause they’re on our side (I believe).
China got the bomb, but have no fears;
They can’t wipe us out for at least five years!
Who’s next?
Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that’s right:
One for the black and one for the white!
Who’s next?
Egypt’s gonna get one, too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel’s getting tense,
Wants one in self defense.
“The Lord’s our shepherd,” says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb!
Who’s next?
Luxembourg is next to go
And, who knows, maybe Monaco.
We’ll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb!
Who’s next, who’s next, who’s next?
Who’s next?
…..and meanwhile British universities are training up to 60 Iranian students in how to make nuclear bombs.(ConHome)
Top news for lovers of the Electoral Calculus. Martin Baxter has updated his model to account for LibDem incumbency. They’re up to 16 seats. We may never see the prospect of the Viscount losing his seat ever again!!!
108 - note no mention by Lehrer - an American - of the UK having an independent nuclear deterrant.
105 My point is that any objection to another state having nuclear weapons should be based on the interests of humanity - rather than those of a particular state.For the UK and USA to object is pure hypocrisy - national interest or not - particularly when a blind eye has been turned to Israel , India and Pakistan.
Is anybody experiencing problems getting access to the Polling Report website?
112 - I don’t think that’s fair. The whole point of opposing Iran having nuclear weapons is ultimately in the interests of humanity! This doesn’t have to conflict with our national interest. Admittedly Western Interests due to Oil are fairly major as well, but it’s all mixed up together.
Was a blind eye turned to India/Pakistan? Isn’t the truth that that was just a massive intelligence failure? Israel is of course significantly more problematic. The point in all cases, however, is that once a country has nuclear weapons the pressure that can be brought to bear is significantly reduced. That is why everyone is so desperate Iran doesn’t get them in the first place.
99. unless it’s Tourette’s - No i refer to it as i have been abused about it before. Whilst i don’t have a problem with Nick Palmer at all and would concede i had been provocative to him - He did it and has had to put pictures of him supporting Dyslexic groups on his website.
People have said i have bad spelling and puntuation fair enough: I feel i have advised of the reasons for this too often and will castigate any “stupidity remarks” or yesterdays “Brains” as disability harrasement.
To the person who said they would ignore me, that is your prerogative. It is also the only time i have noticed your contribution.
Liberal Democrats in Eastleigh are in trouble they have not posted a set of accounts since 2004!
:lol: 
:lol: 
They have obviously given up!
Last submission:
27 Apr 2004
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/templates/search/document.cfm/9489
How do you feel about that Mark?
:lol: 
:lol: 
118 - “They have obviously given up!”
Ah, our old friend “obviously” again. Like its close relation “clearly” it indicates a healthy dose of spin!
Mark Senior - have been catching up and saw your comment at 104 on yesterday afdternoon’s thread on ‘inane comments by Ave it’!
May i remind you that the only inane comments made on this site are by desperate LDs such as yourself! (+ Labour posters etc!!)
46
‘While many would like Huhne they know that CLegg will just give us that little more so like the Tories they will bitr the bullir and vote for Nick….thats if the want the party to ever even “look” like they may win/hold balance of power one day.’
What little bit more will Clegg give you?
Having read Clegg’s speech at the national Liberal club last week it was full of vague generalilities and it could easily have been a Brown or Cameron speech.
At least with Huhne there seem to be some very clear direction,whearas with Clegg it just comes accross as empty thetoric.
115 No - no problem getting Polling Report
90: OOOOOh I hope we are not going to see nasty language used on here!
LDs (oops sorry no bad language) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Why is Waller saying that Teather is standing in HH & K. I thought she was confirmed as candidate in Brent Central. Is he having a senior moment..
I have to say that most of the time Martin Day posts far more sense than his critics on here. Mark Senior is a pompous individual who likes to draw profound sounding conclusions from the flimsiest of evidence, which he often clearly does not understand. His postings on Reading in Vote 2006 were proven to be way off the mark when the election results came in this May and he didnt understand the impact of the 2004 boundary changes. I usually ignore his puffed up postings now and suggest others do the same!
Watching The Mighty Huhne going head to head with Andrew Neil on News 24 in the early hours of this morning (I assume this was a repeat not a decision to schedule the first showing in this key slot…!), there was a clear olive branch held out to Cameron in a hung parliament scenario where the Tories had most votes and seats - seemingly on the condition that DC agreed to fixed term parliaments, nothing about PR. Not what I expected from the man I assumed most likely to jump into bed with Brown. Wouldn’t have heard that from Charlie or Minger.
And yet Cleggy Boy is reported yesterday as saying his primary focus as leader would be on “stuffing David Cameron” (I paraphrase a little..). Again, contrary to my expectations as I’d seen him as someone the Tories could do business with next time.
Is Cleggy trying to play down membership concerns that he “looks like a Tory, sounds like one, and probably is one” by appearing keener than he really is to take on the Tories? Is Cleggy Broon’s more likely bedfellow?
I’m confused!
Either way, I’m beginning to think a Huhne leadership could result in a “win/win” scenario for the Tories.
127 Why are you confused. Both are fighting to defuse ‘negatives’ Clegg that he’s just a Tory boy in disguise and Huhne that he is just a Labour patsy who will haemhorrage seats to the Tories. So both are going against their perceived typecasting. Triangulation baby..
128 - kind of ironic that Huhne is seen as a Labour patsy when it is the Tories who have nicked Huhne’s environmental ideas…
112: With the Lib Dems anything is a possibility, even thinking a policy that gives the Tories an open goal is a good idea.
118 Martin give up while you are losing the plot . Eastleigh LibDems have accounts published for every year on the electoral commission website here is the link to the 2006 ones http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/files/dms/EastleighLibDem_25563-18988_E_N_S_W_.PDF
You can take some comfort that Ave It and his inane smileys and Rik W and his 3 LibDem MP’s going to defect postings are giving you some support - on 2nd thoughts time for you to give up .
131: BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Has that scared you off, now go away
131 - if you believe some of what the Tories here pretend, the LDs would be on 2 MPs next election, all 5 of which would defect to the Tories.
132 Another post that really demonstrates the subhuman level of your intelligence .
129 I’m not saying they are. That is the media image. Whether it is fair is besides the point. They both know that. Therefore they must fight it
134 LOL.
If I didnt believe in avoiding unnecessary personal abuse I would call you a #.
Now get back to your bar charts.
134: Well that’s a silly turn of phrase.
I really don’t know what’s more amusing about Martin Day, his total lack of repartee or his lapses into abuse when people get sarcastic back at him.
Not a very bright boy me thinks…
When is the next poll due?
131 And of course , it is Eastleigh Conservatives who have failed to publish accounts for the first time in 2006 , their accounts in 2005 showed membership falling below 300 .
140 you still here?
the next GE will show that Mr Huhne can retire when Con gain Eastleigh by 8,000
The Lib Dem problem is simple, they are the party where people protest vote and with the two large parties popular they are getting squeezed.
The only protest votes left are on the left of Labour and the right of the Tories, and of those two the left of Labour would seem the best bet. Ironicaly Huhne’s policy might help the party but hurt his chances of re-election
142 The 2 large parties are not particularly popular at the moment . In the Mori Poll the government , Brown and Cameron all have net negative satisfaction ratings , the task for the new LibDem leader will be to attract those dissastisfied with Labour and the Conservatives .
143 - I’m preparing a guy for a bonfire party at the moment. I’m in a Conservative area so its not banned to celebrate an English tradition!
I would like to use the effigy of a minor politician for the guy - can you nominate which LD person would be best??
144 - How about Alex Carlile?
145 LOL TY - is he still around?
144 - no good, the public won’t know any of them.
ofc he’s still around Ave it and to add to your pleasure he’s one of Browns’s ‘Special Advisors’
145 - well Lord Carlile of “nice little job backing up the authoritarians in power” as he is now. And to think, before he became a joke of a LD, he used to be MP for Montgomery.
I wouldn’t really want to burn other LDs. Do they still burn the Pope in Lewes - Norman Baker’s seat?
148/149 - TY. Useful contributions.
Ah yes Montgomery, perhaps Lembit could help here. Or the 5 LDs hanging on in SW London who will all be looking for a new job soon…….
Just to clarify: LDs = LOL
He’s also a Lawyer so that’s probably another good reason to put his effigy on the pyre.
149…Lol
Yes SBS that pope burning stuff in Lewes is rather amusing. Amazing they still get away with it in these politically correct times!
Mark where is your comment? Or are you too busy cutting up the orange sticky back paper for the latest bar chart?
95.I agree RikW, and I also get the feeling that support for Trident within the Conservative party grassroots is not as strong as it might once have been.
Any Labour posters want to burn Kate Hoey or Gisela Stuart?
Or Tories who actually want to burn Cameron and replace him with Liam Fox? Come on, we know you are out there!
In the Eastleigh Lib Dem 2006 Accounts noted that the multi millionaire, Chris Huhne, made the local party a loan believed to be £5,000. He also personally paid for £1,000 of telephone canvassing.
Separately, according to the electoral register he made donations that year totaling £2,000 to Eastleigh Lib Dems.
Without this support Eastleigh Lib Dems would have financial problems.
I suppose that its Pope Paul V rather than Benedict XVI does make a slight difference!
Now now SBS we know that Ave it has such warm feeling for Mr Cameron and his brand of ‘liberal conservatism’ that he would never dream of burning his hero in effigy.
Mark Senior “The 2 large parties are not particularly popular at the moment”
That is a classic Lib Dem piece of spin in the face of the facts. They have the combined polling support of over 80% of the voters which is one of the highest totals for many years!
It is now a two horse race between Labour and the Conservatives!
160 We all love Camo…..
And he will have a special statue in front of Westminster after he wins 5 elections in a row….
Camo PM 2009-2034
160 - of course, Guy Fawkes was not burned. He was stretched on the rack till he confessed. Perhaps a lesson on how to deal with the Archers / Aitkens / Hamiltons of this world.
Then Guy was hanged, I believe.
O/T again… but does Guido still bother with his blog? Have not looked for a while as it had badly lost its way. Bit like here recently.
Of course you do Ave it.
162 - five lots of five year terms! Must have gone for Huhne’s precondition of fixed term parliaments as part of the deal of entering a LD coalition in 2009.