I dont’ think there was a clear winner this week. Once again, the sheer fact that Chris Huhne was able to perform on an equal footing with two others who have been MPs much longer demonstrates that time spent in the Commons isn’t everything.

Campbell and Huhne were well matched, with Hughes further behind. Campbell benefited on Iraq from a couple of audience members who agreed with him, but it was telling that Huhne got a big cheer for mentioning the YouGov poll (on Dimbleby’s prompting) that put him in the lead.

Simon seemed caught out over some of his comments (although his team have already refuted that) and Ming was a bit too defensive about his “naive populism” remarks, snapping that he certainly didn’t say that…about Simon – before clarifying that he’d never say that about his colleagues. Both Campbell and Hughes cracked some ropey jokes.

I was happy with Chris’s performance and he remains my first choice. I think he came across as the most likeable and – to use the Kennedy criterion – the one I’d most want to have a drink with/be stuck in a lift with. Ming performed much more strongly than Simon and I will probably give him my second preference. I can see both Chris and Ming as successful leaders in their own ways; I find it hard to see Simon in that way any longer.

Scottish hustings are Sunday week. My ballot paper will be sent on its way shortly afterwards.

(Via Nick, some more comments. I agree about the walk-on…)

I might as well take advantage of the newly-acquired interweb technology. Question Time liveblogging – latest entry at the bottom.

First question: If Charles Kennedy was standing, would he win?
Campbell: He would do very well. It was right he stepped aside. Praises Kennedy’s dignity and courage and emphasises that it was CK’s own decision to stand down.
Huhne: He’d probably have a very good chance. CK has left a powerful legacy.
Hughes: He might well win. The public still love CK. Didn’t want CK to stand down. There were difficult issues and people made different judgement calls. Criticises anonymous briefings.

What if there was a write-in for CK?
Hughes jokes about the constitution. Campbell quips about an international commission.

Is Kennedy’s honesty a problem for them?
Huhne says his uncle was an alcoholic and he recognises the difficult issues around it, and the party is a family too. Hughes doesn’t regret supporting CK rather than outing his drinking problem.

Second question: Have scandals causes damage?
Huhne: Yes, but not permanently. As the party gets larger, some foibles are more likely. LibDems don’t moralise on how people should live, therefore not hypocritical. Party has made huge strides in last 25 years.

Party has demonstrated poor judgement.
Hughes: I was dealing with a difficult personal matter. Begins to list his own constituency record. Electors want to know what we’ll do for Britain.

Did Hughes lose credibility over the gay thing?
Hughes: Possibly. Confronted the issue, didn’t go to ground. Should be judged on record and party on plans for the country.

Campbell said Hughes wasn’t as forthcoming as expected.

Campbell: That’s fair and hasn’t caused a rift. Party realises there’s a serious political agenda. Polls are not too bad and LibDems took more votes in local government elections in January than Labour or Tories.

Should Bermondsey by-election be an issue?
Dimbleby: No!

Did Hughes think Huhne should’ve stayed in?
Hughes: No, and he quit the election over lack of support. He stood down, rightly, from the frontbench and could return in future.
Huhne: Oaten is fantastic constituency MP.

Third question: How can Britain withdraw honourably from Iraq?Hughes: We said we’d stay until elections, which have now happened. Let region take over. Invasion was illegal and Ming agreed. Mentions that Huhne wasn’t in Parliament at the time.
Campbell: UN makes presence legitimate. Cannot impose deadlines. Must restore public services in Iraq. Would damage our interests if Iraq split in three.

Did Campbell accuse others of “naive populism”?
Campbell: I’d never accuse my colleagues of that.
Huhne: Iraq is different from other peacekeeping type roles. Many Iraqis don’t welcome our presence. We’re part of the problem. Is reasonable to set end of year deadline. Deadlines valuable in business or things don’t happen.
Campbell: This isn’t business.
Huhne: You need to prepare for a proper handover so a deadline is ndeed.
Hughes: Brother has been to Iraq. Anxious about troops.
Campbell: Constituents are there. If there was anarchy at the end of the year, would the others pull out overnight?
Huhne: Government is already talking about this. Setting a date concentrates minds. Not a naive position. Robin Cook was prepared to set a date and he had been foreign secretary.

Tired of hearing about illegal war. Agrees with “Menzees”.

Can’t set arbitrary date. Iraq must be stable.
Hughes: Why can’t other people from the region take over?
Huhne: History of UK and US troops means we are tarred, at least as far as Sunnis go. If that means swapping with other countries elsewhere that is fine.

Childish to set a date for return – agrees with “Sir Campbell” – but how is it different from Labour?
Campbell: Because we’re open. No enthusiasm from other countries to take over.

Why are troops going to Afghanistan then?
Huhne: There is a UN mandate. We should have respected UN on Iraq.

Fourth question: Preamble supports widest distribution of wealth. How would they make that happen?Huhne: Proportionately, wealthiest 10% pay less tax than poorest 10%. That’s scandalous. Use green taxes to take poorest out of tax. No income tax on minimum wage. Continue with fairness commitment that richest should pay more, and more than now. Tax commission will decide how. Maybe look at pension tax relief which helps the rich most.
Hughes: Carries preamble sentence in his pocket. Quotes preamble. Country is unequal. Use tax system to correct. Higher rate at top end. LibDems are principled, unlike other parties.
Huhne: May be a policy difference with Simon. Believes in fair taxes. Doesn’t believe taxation overall needs to be higher.
Campbell: Was happy to defend 50p rate. Suggests Dimbleby would pay it. Poorest have worst education, worst housing. Points out large number of empty houses available. Abolishing VAT on housing refurbishment would encourage people to bring houses up to scratch. Maintain existing tax burden.

None of them answered the question. Discussed income not wealth.
Hughes: Mentioned capital.
Huhne: Generally, if you’re very wealthy you have a high income.

What about unequal inheritance of wealth?
Huhne: Hero is David Lloyd George. He believed best time to tax someone was when they were dead.
Hughes: Can tax income, assets or wealth transfer. Need to protect those who are struggling so they’re not paying more.

Sounds Labour lilke. Are you moving to the left?
Campbell: No. We’re a party of the centre left. Grimond brought him into the party – he was radical, not of the left. Radicalism would fill Blairite vacuum. Cameron is a management company.
Huhne: Not left of Labour. Centre ground could look crowded. Very proud record being honest about tax rises when necessary. Difference in style from the other parties. Need to be as honest about environment, localism, fairness. Why vote for a copy when you can vote for the real thing?

Would they increase taxes on second homes?
Campbell: Already policy. Second homes causing housing shortages.
Hughes: Must let councils decide council tax. Just because other parties go to the right doesn’t mean we must.

Fifth question: Would you cooperate with other parties if there was a Hung Parliament?
Campbell: Would banish the words “Hung Parliament” from the party dictionary. Mustn’t be distracted. Maximise votes, maximise seats. Talked about alliance with Labour in 1997 as landscape was different and country wanted the Tories out. Labour and Blair were different then.
Huhne: Experience as MEP was working with other parties to deliver LibDem agenda. No fear of that. Not become a LibDem to be Labour or Tory. As many LibDem plans into effect as possible. Fight for maximum seats and votes as that provides best chance.

And if there was a Hung Parliament…?
Huhne: Issue will come up. Important to ask why Cameron and Brown why they won’t get together as they’re getting so close.
Campbell: Doesn’t see that happening. Says he has friends in other parties (Brown, Rifkind) but that doens’t mean he’d work with them. No to coalition, no to cooperation. Would vote down a minority Government’s Queen’s Speech and prompt a General Election.
Hughes: We got more than a fifth of the vote and won 62 seats. 4/10 didn’t vote – we need to reach them. Aim for more than 100 MPs. No coalition, but would cooperate on positive issues like dealing with climate change.

What about local hung council?
Hughes: As in Scotland, judge that it’s the right thing to do. Decide locally.
Campbell: Proportional representation in Scotland. Fair votes mean coalitions make sense. Achieved concrete policies as a result.

Doesn’t PR cause weak government?
Huhne: We’re the only country in Europe that doesn’t use PR. No new democracy in Eastern Europe uses our system. The US has separation of powers. House of Commons doesn’t consider long term issues. Too much legislation.

Would you abolish unelected regional assemblies?
Hughes: Answers previous – strong government is not the same as good government. Look at poll tax. Only place where there is democratic regional government is London. Decisions must be democratic.

Sixth question: Is experience of parliamentary politics a help or a hindrance?
Huhne: Six years as a parliamentarian is more than Cameron’s four years. Can’t have it both ways: either moan that not enough people have a background outside Westminster – 19 years as a journalist, team-building, creating a business from scratch – that is relevant experience. Can’t say you want experience from outside but then complain that they don’t have enough experience outside.
Hughes: Ming and I have both had lives outside politics. Campbell and I have dealt with Thatcher and Major. That experience does matter. Quizzing ministers is important.
Huhne: Was quizzing ministers as a journalist before Hughes stood in the Bermondsey by-election.
Campbell: Parliamentary experience gives you judgement for activity in the Commons. Good judgement is at a premium and wouldn’t stand if he didn’t think he had it.

Are you a member of a club that Huhne isn’t in?
Campbell: It used to be a bit like a gentleman’s club but parliament has changed. It’s not a club it’s a forum and you know it best if you’ve been there.
Hughes: Parliamentary experience is valid but people think we don’t live in the real world. Need to be more in touch with the real world.
Campbell: PR would help.

Hughes accused of criticising other two
Hughes: Not sure I did.
Dimbleby: They’re in your manifesto.
Hughes: No they’re not.
Campbell: Flintoff has the safest pair of hands in Britain. Also need energy, values and judgement. No scope for caution or consolidation. Preamble values must be modern and relevant.
Huhne: Must be relentlessly positive about putting our principles into power.

All have stated they will work together. We need a team and experience is very wide.
Experience isn’t the critical thing, it’s results that count. Members will get behind whoever wins to fight elections.
If you’ve been challenging Thatcher, Major, Blair… We don’t want another election if there’s a Hung Parliament. You must work together.
Campbell: If Queen’s Speech is OK, we’ll vote for it, if not, we won’t.
Huhne: Can work on an issue by issue basis. Has experience of working with others to build majorities and creates better legislation in the long run.
Campbell: Inconceivable that we wouldn’t vote down a Queen’s Speech that reflected last Tory manifesto.

Dimbleby: Those remarks, Simon Hughes, are on you’re website if you want to take them down.
Huhne: Frontrunner’s have to accept that they’ll be attacked.
Dimbleby: Are you the frontrunner?
Huhne: So a YouGov poll claims.
Campbell: Isn’t he modest?
Huhne: I’m not criticising anyone else.
Hughes: I’ll wait for the members’ votes before I decide who the frontrunner is.

Seventh question: What’s been your biggest political mistake and what did you learn from it?
Huhne: Assumed European Parliament would be like British Parliament. Caught himself attacking another MEP’s personality and realised that working together and not Punch and Judy politics was important.
Campbell: Believing rational argument would always pervail. Need MPs too.
Hughes: Had a shopping list of politics in 2005 but didn’t make core values clear. “Freedom, Fairness, Trust” in draft but didn’t make final manifesto.

I don’t usually watch Question Time, but I’ve been tuning in recently as each of the LibDem leadership contenders have taken turns on the panel. (Next week will see a debate between all three.) Last night, it was Chris Huhne’s turn so I was particularly interested, and expectant.

I wasn’t disappointed. He was calm, collected and confident, in marked contrast to Simon Hughes who seemed – understandably – on edge last week. He was fortunate to be first to answer and immediately seemed in command of both the issues and the panel. None of the questions tripped him up and he put forward the LibDem case on issues from freedom of speech to Iraq with ease.

Once again the panel had two Tories, but only one openly so (Adam Rickitt, who seemed uncomfortable and a little out of place, was credited as an actor, just as Zac Goldsmith was identified previously as a magazine editor – both are on the Tory approved candidates list). Rhodri Morgan, Welsh First Minister, was the panel’s most obvious big hitter, and there was also a Plaid Cymru AM. Morgan got himself into hot water with the audience by refusing the state his position on Iraq on the basis that he isn’t an MP, and wasn’t at the time of the vote to go to war. Huhne pointed out that he hadn’t been an MP either at the time but that hadn’t stopped him from holding the view that the war was wrong or from going on the big anti-war march in London.

I’m not just saying this because I’m backing him: Huhne ran rings round the other panellists. Of all of them, he seemed the most statesmanlike, the most knowledgeable and – of course- the most liberal.

For the next week, you can watch the episode on the Question Time website.

How long does Sir Menzies Campbell think our troops should be in Iraq?

Just over a year ago, he co-wrote this article in The Times, calling for occupying forces to aim for withdrawal in what was a year’s time – around now. Under the headline “Our troops must quit Iraq when the UN mandate ends in a year” and the subhead “We need to fix an exit timetable”, Robin Cook, Douglas Hurd and Ming wrote:

By its actions our Government has imposed on all of us, supporters and opponents of war alike, an obligation to the people of Iraq. But that obligation cannot be open-ended. The costs of our presence — financial, political and human — rise every day. We can give the people of Iraq an opportunity but they must take it: we cannot take it for them. The British Government cannot long delay reaching a judgment. Donald Rumsfeld’s four years are not an option for Britain, with our more limited troop numbers.
[…]
The UN mandate expires in a year’s time with the completion of the timetable for direct election of a representative government under an agreed constitution. Both Britain and America should inform the assembly elected this weekend that we expect to leave by the end of that UN mandate. Both the assembly and the occupying forces must then each do its part to fulfil the necessary political and security tasks to meet that timetable.

In May, just after the General Election, he spoke to UPI:

Sir Menzies Campbell, foreign affairs spokesman for Britain’s anti-war Liberal Democrats, said there was “compelling evidence” the presence of coalition forces was “as much a part of the problem as the solution.”

“A substantial number of those parties that fought the elections at the end of January, fought on the basis of the withdrawal of the coalition forces,” he told United Press International. On April 9, the second anniversary of the fall of Saddam, 300,000 people demonstrated in Baghdad demanding coalition forces withdraw, he added.

“I think it’s pretty clear what the attitude of the Iraqi people is on this topic,” he said.

Earlier in the week, Chris Huhne followed these comments up with a call for a proper timetable for withdrawal:

Liberal Democrat leadership contender Chris Huhne has called for British troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of the year. The move comes as vigils are taking place following the death of the 100th member of the UK’s armed forces since the conflict started three years ago.

Mr Huhne, a Lib Dem Treasury spokesman, said withdrawal this year was “well within the bounds of what is feasible”.
[…]
Mr Huhne said: “The important thing is to hand over to Iraqi security forces and we’re not going to be in a position to do that unless we concentrate minds by setting a very clear deadline.

“So I’m not obviously calling for immediate withdrawal. We have to recognise our responsibility.

“But it has been recognised for some time that a timetable that sets the end of this year is well within the bounds of what is feasible.”

Ming Campbell would support this. Wouldn’t he?

The Liberal Democrat leadership candidate and bookies’ frontrunner, Sir Menzies Campbell, hit back at his rival Chris Huhne today over green taxes and for calling for an early withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

A spokesman for Sir Menzies told Guardian Unlimited that Mr Huhne’s call yesterday for a complete withdrawal of British troops by the end of the year was “naive populism”.

Hmm.