As the dust begins to settle, some of us holding our collective breath in anticipation of a Boris-run London - and Gordon licks his wounds and wonders if this was all to do with the abolishing of the 10p rate - I thought it may be a good time to start thinking about notions of equality. I wanted to start by looking at the commitment all the main parties have made to ending child poverty.

Last Monday I attended the 4 Children/Barnados conference, addressed by, among others, Nick Clegg (Lib Dem), Michael Gove (Tory) and Stephen Timms (Labour), where a pamphlet, ‘Turning up the volume on child poverty’, was launched. With contributions from Labour’s Ed Balls, Michael Gove and our own David Laws, the pamphlet calls for clear policy commitments from all three parties.

Nick’s speech focussed on education and the relationship between social mobility and parents’ income. He argued for a more flexible system, better maternity/paternity benefits and higher quality childcare available to all.
He proposed extending the childcare tax credit to workless families – “moving money from subsidies for the well-off to support the poorest - instead of the other way around.” And argued that language was a barrier for many immigrant children and that developing English language skills should be a priority for them.

Michael Gove suggested that child poverty was a relative term, his definition was being “excluded from the good life” he was interested in creating a society that was “more cohesive and more equal” and spoke about “moving away from social justice” - whatever that means. He referred to a new Tory metaphor (borrowed from Polly Toynbee) of society being a caravan moving through the desert; the important thing was that those at back did not fall behind. His vision was of a society where people were brought out of dependency, able to take control of their lives. He put a lot of problems down to absent fathers and reiterated that the Tories would “reward commitment”. He lauded the success of Academies and bemoaned the scandal of children not reading by age six. Tories would reward talent and enterprise and create a more meritocratic society.

Stephen Timms welcomed the strength of the End Child Poverty coalition. Labour had committed to the abolition of child poverty within a generation.
He emphasised the importance of a job as a route out of poverty. He also talked a lot about what the government had already done to take children out of poverty.

For me the most challenging speech came from Lisa Harker, co-director at the Institute of Public Policy Research.

While acknowledging that Labour were the only party to have implemented any policies to end child poverty, she criticised the party’s approach as being highly centralised and putting more effort into getting people into work - rather than looking for more flexibility in the workplace.

The Tories, she suggested, were interested in messaging rather than policy, identifying the root causes as addiction and family breakdown, rather than understanding the complexity of issues that lead to child poverty.

She took Liberal Democrats to task for having a hybrid model, focusing on education but with no significant pressure to tackle the wider issues, in particular redistribution.

She identified what she saw as the major barrier to change, namely deep underlying inequalities in society. For her the problem was the underlying
winner takes all culture; a place where working hard is just not enough.

Her solution was to redistribute to tackle the underlying inequalities. Sweden, for example, redistributes through the tax system (and in a much-publicised Unicef Report last year came 2nd in the league of child wellbeing in rich countries, compared with our bottom place).

Lisa saw a real problem with the need for public support which had hardened against the poor, 1 in 3 believing poverty is the result of laziness or lack of will power. Her concern was that in reality tackling poverty is just not a vote winner, although she speculated whether the outcry over the 10p rate would mark a shift in public attitudes.

Finally she challenged us all that we have a great opportunity to up the pace of change, but recognising that there is not a quick fix solution and that any solution requires public backing which is just not evident at the moment.

I left feeling exasperated. As a party we do have a commitment to improve outcomes for children, the pupil premium, more affordable housing, higher child benefit, but there is so much more we could do. The government’s Every Child Matters agenda looks at improving the wellbeing of children and young people across a range of indicators, but equality is not one of them.

I know it’s not a popular position, especially after our recent Tax Commissions, but I honestly believe we need to have a good hard look at what more we can do to contribute to ending this scandal. What was it Nick Clegg said about being radical and taking risks?!

* Linda Jack blogs at Lindyloo’s Muze.

Before we knew who was to be our new leader I rashly penned a piece on what I thought he should do in his first 100 days. Having been asked to reflect on how I think he has done, I went back to elements of my original musings.

Having taken a military perspective, I suggested that our new leader needed to have

* A thorough understanding of our ‘enemy’ - it is after all the ground they currently hold that we wish to take;
I think we have begun to see Nick’s strength in this area, although there is a way to go. He tells a good story about the shortcomings of our opposition, but I think we all need to gather more intelligence on the ground. A few more pre-emptive strikes wouldn’t go amiss! All too often Cameron in particular makes wild claims that are not challenged.

* A realistic appraisal of what, with small (but I would argue effective and fleet of foot) numbers and limited resources, he can achieve;
Nick has demonstrated his own fleetness of foot over this first 100 days, he has attracted a lot of media interest, often against the odds. I like the way he is taking the battle to the enemy!

* A clear strategy;
Nick’s conference speech began to tell a good story, this now needs backing up with the strategy. If we are to take ground, where, how and when? Do we stick to our old target seat strategies? As the party of PR should we be considering more carefully what the strategy looks like, for example in the Euro elections? Are we going to continue to try to be all things to all people, or are we going to be more focused, clearer about what we stand for, and, where necessary, more disciplined?

So our multi-task leader, in his first 100 days, needs to establish his Int Corps, lead his SAS (demonstrating very quickly just how brave he is), motivate the Infantry - and to boot be a good recruiting Sergeant!

Now I am not sure whether the Intelligence Corps has been established (possibly it is so secret we don’t know anything about it!), but I do believe Nick has shown some of the courage of the SAS commander. He has been prepared to lead from the front whilst also supporting his troops.

And, despite the fact that I didn’t support his position on the Lisbon Treaty vote, I think he has shown real leadership there too, well evidenced by the way that even those who “rebelled” against him were still very supportive of him as their leader. Nick has talked about us being anti-establishment, taking risks and being radical. Again, there is already lots of evidence of this, but of course…….I would like to see far more!

In terms of recruitment, early days, but if my non-typical Lib Dem children are anything to go by, they left Liverpool (their first conference) bowled over by Nick’s speech and convinced that if his message could get wider coverage he would win many many people over.

Nick has the presence, energy and passion to attract members. His Town Hall initiative is great. I will be interested to see whether recruitment is already on the increase. I would, though, have liked to see him move more quickly in terms of demonstrating his undoubted commitment to diversity in the party - but I trust that will be rectified very soon.

In general, I think Nick is taking the long view. For example he has not thrown himself into trying to make a name for himself in PMQs - he has been competent and in time I trust he will relax and be able to naturally combine some humour. But, in most new jobs it is wise to spend some time getting to grips with the task. Certainly in his conference speech I had a real sense that here was a man in it for the long run, someone who was prepared to listen and develop and ultimately grow comfortably into the role.

Personally I will continue to disagree with him on some of his preferred methodology and reluctance to accept that sometimes real change also needs adequate funding, I would also love it if he had a Damascus Road moment and revisited scrapping Trident …………… but as I have said before and will no doubt say again, he is a man with whose big picture objectives I totally agree and to use a biblical analogy (with apologies to Laurence Boyce, Joe Otten, et al!), I believe he is the Joshua who has what it takes to ultimately lead us into the “Promised Land”!

* Linda Jack blogs at Lindyloo’s Muze.

Like most people I spoke to after Spring Conference I was very impressed by Nick’s speech. I absolutely, 100%, agreed with everything - well almost everything - he said! I even whole heartedly agreed with his promise that if we had money to spare we would give it back to those most in need of tax cuts. Where he lost me a little was over the notion that we could realistically be in a position to maintain public services in the current fiscal climate and be swimming in an excess that gave us such scope for tax cuts. Even Cameron (God bless ‘im) has acknowledged that the party of tax cuts can’t promise any such thing in the next parliament.

Having sat on FPC for a couple of years now, I know only too well the plaintiff cry when new spending is proposed (for example in investing in youth services which is my particular interest) that there is no money available. Nick has promised to find £2.5 billion for the pupil premium, even before we can realistically look at tax cuts. And then there are the other issues we, as liberals must surely see as priorities. The scandal of mixed sex wards, particularly horrendous when it comes to mental health units, the overcrowded prisons and the lack of investment in tackling the drug addiction and poor literacy that leads to the revolving door for most offenders, poor housing, child poverty… need I go on?

I do get frustrated when those of us who argue that we have a responsibility to invest in improving the life chances and quality of life for all our citizens, get tarred as “tax and spend” fruitcakes. Actually, I always want to ask, what on earth is the point of taxing if it isn’t to spend? We need a grown up debate in this country about what sort of society we want to live in. We can have a society with those who can afford to get access to the best services (both public and private) and those who can’t and continue to be pushed to the bottom of the pile. Someone has to be brave enough to say that if we want a world class integrated transport system, excellent education for all our children, an NHS that is yet again the envy of the world, less crime on our streets and a better quality of life for all (including those living in gated communities for fear of being contaminated by the outside world), then it costs.

Put simply, to tax or not to tax, that is the question; whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous Post Office closures, potholes and sprouting trees, or to take arms against the continuing cuts to our public services, and by opposing end them. I long for the time when politicians stop pretending we can get all this for for next to nothing.

But, I do agree that there are places where savings can clearly be made, scrapping ID cards, abandoning PFI, abolishing unaccountable quangos, reducing the reliance on highly paid consultants, reducing red tape and nanny state targets: but would that release enough for the pupil premium and tax cuts? So, in order to be helpful, here are some suggestions for Nick, which I think may release a fair bit of dosh, though, I confess, may need an updating of party policy:

Of course he could also have a word with the Bank of England, they seem able to come up with the odd £5-55 billion at the drop of a hat!

In a week or so’s time, the Lib Dems will have a new leader - either Nick Clegg or Chris Huhne will have succeeded Ming Campbell. Lib Dem Voice is inviting party members to tell us what you think should be his top priorities. Paul Walter got the ball rolling yesterday. Today, it’s Linda Jack’s turn…

Paul Walter has certainly set the bar high for any other of us to contribute anything fresh to the 100 day debate. However, never one to duck a challenge, I have chosen to approach the question from a different perspective.

Following on from Paul - and strongly agreeing with him and with some of the comments he has attracted - I would suggest the following (with apologies for the military analogies but hard as it is to believe I did used to be a soldier!)…

We are in a battle – our leader needs to have four things clearly in his mind

· His objectives, tempered by points below;
· A thorough understanding of our ‘enemy’ - it is after all the ground they currently hold that we wish to take;
· A realistic appraisal of what, with small (but I would argue effective and fleet of foot) numbers and limited resources, he can achieve; and
· A clear strategy.

At this stage we are a guerilla force. To try to be some Napoleonesque army ain’t gonna work! So we have to operate as a guerilla force would. We need our leader to be our very own Che Guevara!

In order to do this I would put number one on the list, investment in our ‘Intelligence Corps’ (OK, tad biased there!) – let’s know our enemy, how they think, feel, their plans, their codes, their weaknesses and their strengths. And why would the people in the lands our opponents currently occupy want anyone else to govern them?

Then we need our ‘SAS forces’, led by a brave and inspirational commander, exploiting every opportunity, taking risks, doing the unexpected, continually employing the element of surprise, attracting attention for sheer bravado.

Then we need our ‘bloody infantry’ - a huge band of foot soldiers - willing to go out in all weathers, with little or no recognition, our faces in the community, delivering, delivering, delivering.

So our multi-task leader, in his first 100 days, needs to establish his Int Corps, lead his SAS (demonstrating very quickly just how brave he is), motivate the Infantry - and to boot be a good recruiting Sargeant!

He will also need to clarify objectives - both in terms of where we are going (do we want to be all things to all people; or will we be a clear liberal voice, prepared to sacrifice some votes for the sake of others?) and what we are saying. To refer back to my Risk analogy - to ultimately take over the world you have to be prepared to make sacrifices and consolidate. So, some clear policies underpinned by the elusive narrative we all keep banging on about!

Then to articulate the strategy, one that the whole party can coalesce around, understand and be excited by.

Above all our new leader needs to be seen, all over the place, to have the opposition so preoccupied with reacting to him they will have no resources available to be proactive in attacking us.

Whoever wins next week, I trust they already have their game plan… if not, we may well be in for another rocky ride!

* Linda Jack blogs at Lindyloo’s Muze.

If you would like to submit an article for publication on LDV answering the question, ‘What should the new leader do in his first 100 days?’, please click here, then e-mail your article to .