Skip to main content


Cicero has yet to come to a final conclusion about the Liberal Democrat leadership contest. It is a shame that Mark Oaten was such an uninspiring figurehead for the so-called "right" of the party. There is a case for "tough liberalism", that is to say that not everyone gets prizes in our society, but Mark did not make such a case with particular conviction. He was also mistaken on the smoking issue- the reason for regulation of smokers is the damage that they do to others through secondary smoking, not the damage that they do to themselves which, higher healthcare costs aside, is not a concern of the state. So all in all his campaign began in confusion: the cringe-making response to Andrew Neil's charge: "Four words: unlimited ambition, limited ability"- Oaten: "That's not four words" ,is best put behind us. I therefore welcome his sensible decision to withdraw.

Simon Hughes, the supposed standard bearer of the "left", has been suprisingly good at articulating the Liberal vision: that there are things that the state should not do, indeed must not be allowed to do. However I have two concerns, one of perception and one of reality. Firstly voting for Simon will be portrayed as a "move to the left"- although even if Simon actually is more of a social liberal, I detect only a question of emphasis rather than fundamental changes compared to the current regime. Yet I do think that perception is everything, and I am reluctant to take this risk at a time when British politics is so fluid. More fundamentally Simon struggles to articulate, in an effective and pithy way, his vision. This suggests disorganization, and the comment that I heard at a Liberal Democrat gathering last night: "Simon would miss more meetings sober, than Charles did drunk" may not be too wide of the mark. It is certainly noticeable that his Parliamentary colleagues have been less enthusiastic about a Hughes leadership than one might have imagined that they would be.

The candidature of Chris Huhne I do find interesting. His undoubted intellect and experience have marked him out as a potential star for some time. Despite his weaker Parliamentary majority, he is clearly respected by many who are close to him, and I appreciate his strong grasp of key issues. The fact that he has chosen the environment to be the ground to lay out some genuinely radical ideas is also both bold and appealing. However, as I have examined his ideas more closely I find that, while his diagnosis of the problems of the environment is substantive, I am nervous about his solutions. I am by no means convinced that the solution to pollution is taxation. The majority of the press in any event characterize the Liberal Democrats as a high tax party, even though this is not true, since we have indicated that we intend to cap the proportion of National Income that is due to the State. However, I would have preferred to see such ideas as carbon trading and polluter fees brought more to the fore in the mix of policies-taxation may not be the most effective way to control the undeniable problem.

Menzies Campbell remains the man to beat. To a certain extent I regard his age as a positive. Firstly he has considerable hinterland- he is not a kid politician and has achieved many things in life away from politics. As far as image is concerned he is certainly credible as a future Prime Minister, especially when one considers that many of our great Prime Ministers, Churchill and Gladstone to name but two, were even older when in office and at the height of their careers. I like the idea of experienced gravitas showing up the callow weaknesses of "Comrade Cameron's Conservatives". Nonetheless, I still have some qualms about his political agenda. His support for "the project" in the mid 1990's was a sensible strategic positioning at the time, but the failure of Labour at both Westminster and Holyrood gives us some clear lessons- I would like to hear Ming articulate what these are.

I retain an open mind and am optimistic about the way that the debate is going. What the press seem to forget is that whether "social" or "economic"- which in any event I do not regard as mutually exclusive- we are all "political" Liberals, and far more unites us than could ever divide us.


Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and

We need to talk about UK corruption

After a long hiatus, mostly to do with indolence and partly to do with the general election campaign, I feel compelled to take up the metaphorical pen and make a few comments on where I see the situation of the UK in the aftermath of the "Brexit election". OK, so we lost.  We can blame many reasons, though fundamentally the Conservatives refused to make the mistakes of 2017 and Labour and especially the Liberal Democrats made every mistake that could be made.  Indeed the biggest mistake of all was allowing Johnson to hold the election at all, when another six months would probably have eaten the Conservative Party alive.  It was Jo Swinson's first, but perhaps most critical, mistake to make, and from it came all the others.  The flow of defectors and money persuaded the Liberal Democrat bunker that an election could only be better for the Lib Dems, and as far as votes were concerned, the party did indeed increase its vote by 1.3 million.   BUT, and it really is the bi

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo