The Tories were today forced to recall a consignment of hybrid policies following widespread complaints that their economic model failed when it encountered bumpy or slippery surfaces. The party is already facing criticism over the recent recall of many of its other policies, including marriage tax-breaks, which have been affected by the potentially dangerous acceleration towards an election.

The Tory leadership of David Cameron and George Osborne are due to give details of their latest recall today, and on most other days leading up to 6th May. “We’ve tried applying the brakes,” they admitted, “but the end product was a disastrous U-turn.

The party is battling to save its economic reputation, where it faces mounting criticism of its handling of the crisis by the Tory grassroots and Daily Telegraph.

Analysts accused the Tories, which waited weeks to discuss the model’s defect after the first complaints were reported in the media, of being in a state of denial. “The problem is,” explained one, “that the party never road-tested its economic model. Cameron and Osborne just hoped nobody would ask any tough questions. The problems date back years, and no-one has seriously addressed them. They just hoped better marketing would con the public.”

He added: “The real worry must be their loss of market share, especially with competitors like Nick Clegg and Vince Cable proving more robust and reliable, knowing when to brake and when to accelerate. Put it this way: who would you trust? The Tory party whose economic model isn’t road-worthy and has to be recalled at the first sign of trouble. Or the Lib Dems whose steering has proved so accurate?”

The Hampshire railway town is 11th on Mr Cameron’s target list; the Liberal Democrats’ majority of a little more than 500 should be easily within reach.

But is it really?

… the Tories are by no means certain to win Eastleigh. Lib Dem strategists believe Chris Huhne, the sitting MP, will easily hold the seat – a view privately shared by some Conservatives. …

Eastleigh is the kind of seat that defies the traditional “swingometer”. Like many Lib Dem MPs, Mr Huhne has dug in, building a reputation in the national media and as a local campaigner. He says he has dealt with 13,000 pieces of casework since the last election. “I might not always be able to help, but people know I’ve tried,” he says. The party has a ruthless local organisation and almost complete control of the local council – a factor often underestimated by the national media.

Mr Huhne argues that the absence of a strong local Conservative councillor base in his constituency seriously reduces their ability to campaign on the ground. “There is only so much you can do with an air war,” he says, referring to national media campaigns.

I’m on the record as saying I will eat my hat – and it’s a very nice hat – if Chris doesn’t retain Eastleigh. The FT mentions Chris’s strong campaigning record, and the Lib Dems’ sustained record of success on the council (one of the few Lib Dem groups to continue to make gains even when running the council). Add to that the first-time incumbency bounce Chris should achieve – not least thanks to those 13,000 pieces of casework – and it would be a brave person who bet against the chances of the two-time leadership challenger.

2 Must-Read Blog Posts

What are other Liberal Democrat bloggers saying? Here’s are two posts that have caught the eye from the Liberal Democrat Blogs aggregator:

• Blah blah who would you do a deal with blah blah blah.. on Steph Asley’s Dib Lemming blog.

Really, really, REALLY tired of every time a Lib Dem has any airtime, the only thing the interviewer keeps asking is what the party would do in the event of a hung parliament.

• Why don’t the Conservatives trust local democracy? on Nich Starling’s Norfolk Blogger.

Why should an MP for Surrey East be allowed to make planning decisions about things in Norwich?

Spotted any other great posts in the last day from blogs that aren’t on the aggregator? Do post up a comment sharing them with us all.

2 Lib Dem Stories

Lib Dems reveal £63bn PFI bill for the NHS

Figures released by the Lib Dems have revealed that the NHS is facing a £63bn bill for PFI hospitals which are only worth £11bn. The figures also reveal that:

· The first payments for hospital PFIs began in 1999 and the NHS still owes £58bn on 106 PFI contracts over the next three decades
· The NHS will have to pay back £7.3bn in PFI payments over the next Parliament alone (2010-2015)
· The most expensive PFI contract was for Wythenshawe Hospital where the NHS will pay back 16 times the original capital value

Lib Dem shadow health secretary, Norman Lamb, had this to say:

“These figures reveal the disastrous reality of Labour’s stewardship of the NHS. We’re entering into one of the most difficult financial periods in the NHS’s history and this Government’s legacy will be a mountain of debt.

“Despite the enormous amounts of money we owe for these hospitals, many of them will never end up in public ownership. Hospitals all over the country are mortgaged to the hilt and there are serious concerns that these repayments will lead to cuts in vital services. We need a new approach to public services in this country. By setting up an infrastructure bank the Liberal Democrats will ensure that key projects get access to the funding they need to revitalise our economy.

“The Liberal Democrats will change the way the NHS works so that money goes further and patients come first.”

Kirsty to probe ‘abusive’ Lib Dem Welsh AM claim

From Wales Online:

WELSH Liberal Democrat leader Kirsty Williams yesterday pledged to uncover the facts behind allegations Montgomeryshire AM Mick Bates verbally abused staff at the University Hospital of Wales. She said that Mr Bates had no memory of such an incident and was continuing to suffer problems from a severe head injury he sustained when he fell over in the street.

Ms Williams, speaking on the last day of her party’s spring conference in Swansea, said: “We don’t know the facts – we need to get to the bottom of this. My understanding is that Mick was knocked unconscious and suffered a severe head injury – which he’s continuing to have problems with.” …

The former science teacher plans to stand down from the Assembly at next year’s elections but the outcome of the investigation is likely to determine whether he can remain chairman of the sustainability committee. It is understood he met early with his Welsh party leader yesterday before leaving the Swansea conference. He was unavailable for comment last night.

Update: Paramedic claims Lib Dem AM Mick Bates assaulted him (BBC News)

- whether you think the end of the recession will benefit Labour;
- will the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war be a ‘whitewash’;
- John Terry’s sacking as England captain;
- what the Lib Dems should do in the event of a hung parliament;
- whether you think the Lib Dems should include a manifesto commitment to an in/out Euro referendum; and
- what you think of Nick Clegg’s leadership and the performance of prominent Lib Dems and the shadow cabinet.

It should take no longer than 5-10 minutes to fill in. All registered members of the Forum should by now have been emailed with a link to take you to the survey. If you haven’t been yet, or if you are signing up to the Forum now, please drop Ryan Cullen a line at

We’ll publish the results within the next week or so. You can access the results from our previous LDV members surveys by clicking here.

Don’t forget, by the way, you can now sign up to receive the Golden Dozen direct to your email inbox – just click here – ensuring you never miss out on the best of Lib Dem blogging.

As ever, let’s start with the most popular post, and work our way down:

1. Election Results 4th February 2010 on John Hemming’s Web Log.
Two losses to Labour, two gains from the Tories.

2. THE WORKING CLASS CAN KISS MY A***, I’VE GOT A LABOUR SEAT AT LAST on Wit and Wisdom.
Not a fan of Austin Mitchell: “a selfish, small-minded ’socialist’ of the old school”. And on Mark Oaten: “the image of the good LD activist”.

3. Vince predicts gains in North on Birkdale Focus.
Vince speaks

4. Standing Down and Defection on Stephen Glenn’s Linlithgow Journal.
Lib Dem PPC Fred Mackintosh’s hopes in Edinburgh South grow; while the SNP lose one of their own to Labour.

5. Iain Dale: Churlish or Rattled? on Simon Wilson’s blog.
You mean we have to choose?

6. Vince tells of Tory abuse on Birkdale Focus.
A reminder that the Tories were more united in support of the Iraq war than Labour.

7. By-election news: Where we mess up, we lose by John Bridges on Lib Dem Voice.
Some bad local election news in a “dreary February week”.

And now to the five blog-posts that come highly recommended regardless of the number of Aggregator click-throughs they attracted. As is now traditional we’re using the LibDig bookmarking website for party members to select some of the posts from the seven days in question which you’ve most ‘dug’. But, remember, if you want to highlight a Lib Dem blog article published in the past seven days – your own, or someone else’s – using the steam-powered method of e-mail all you have to do is drop a line to (providing the web-link and author, and any tagline comment you care to have published).

8. Will libertarian bloggers ever grow up? on Jonathan Calder’s Liberal England.
“A call for libertarian bloggers to grapple with the Big Issues – education, foreign policy, social services – and drop their alcohol/gambling/smoking “get out of my room Mom!” obsessions.” (Submitted by stephenftall via LibDig).

9. Tories Twitter Rules for Twits on Andrew Reeves’ Running blog.
“Andrew Reeves highlighting how the Tories are trying to implement a command and control structure regarding social media for their parliamentary candidates. Doesn’t that sort of defeat the purpose?” (Submitted by MarkThompson via LibDig).

10. Conservatives Caught Lying About Crime on Andreas Christodoulou’s blog.
“In other news, water caught flowing downhill and cows have been caught eating grass. You can catch Chris Grayling on BBC iPlayer talking about this, by which I mean squirming out of the fact that he’s blatantly just been lying through his teeth.” (Submitted by a.christodoulou via LibDig).

11. Southport Conservative Civil War-the story so far on Birkdale Focus.
“Sit back, grab a hot chocolate and follow the story…” (Submitted by mark.pack via LibDig).

12. By-Election In Owlsmoor Includes Mark Reckons on the Bracknell Blog.
Very good luck to Mark Thompson in is by-election on 25th February.

And that’s it for another week. Happy blogging ‘n’ reading. And join us next week as the Golden Dozen enters its fourth year.

Featured? Add this to your blog post!

<a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/top-of-the-blogs-the-golden-dozen-155-17859.html"><img src="http://www.libdemvoice.org/images/golden-dozen.png" width="200" height="57" alt="Featured on Liberal Democrat Voice" title="Featured on Liberal Democrat Voice" /></a>

A hung parliament might frighten the markets, but according to Vince Cable, Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, the concerns are “completely and totally irrational”.

The Lib Dems point out that many of the world’s leading economies, including Germany and Italy, hold elections that almost always produce results where the leading party has to do deals with smaller parties. They add that some countries with single party governments, such as Greece, have some of the worst records in dealing with fiscal crises, while multiparty coalitions, such as the one in Sweden in the 1990s, conducted fierce fiscal controls.

The paper quotes Vince saying, “Our own approach to fiscal policy is at least as robust as that of any other party.” It also notes the Lib Dem deputy leader’s advice that having a broad political consensus will be vital for any government trying to push through the inevitable painful cuts of the next few years.

The FT makes a fair point of its own, mind. The uncertainty the markets fear is not that the Lib Dems if allowed into government will let control of public spending rip; rather “the possibility that a minority government would be forced to hold another election within months”.

True enough. Of course, there’s an easy solution: proportional representation combined with fixed-term parliaments would be more likely to allow the formation of a stable coalition which commanded majority support and able to govern for up to four years. Now if only there were a party proposing such a policy …

Nick Clegg answers the top 10 questions posed by Reddit.com users as voted by users of the site. (You can see all of the questions posed to him here).

(Also available on YouTube here).

BBC reports Tory shadow home secretary Chris Grayling gets into trouble for using misleading crime statistics. Sara Bedford covered the story for LDV here).

And, finally, Boris Johnson does the hokey-cokey … seems he always wants to go one better than his party leader, who preferred to stick to the cokey:

(Also available on YouTube here).

Here, in chronological order, are the results of the four polls published in January asking for the public to rate the three major party leaders:

Cameron: 46.0 approve, 39.0 disapprove: net +7%
Brown: 30.0, 61.0, -31%
Clegg: 39.0, 28.0, +11%
(11th Jan, Angus RS: Do you approve or disapprove of X’s performance as Y?)

Cameron: 56.0 well, 34.0 badly, net +22%
Brown: 32.0, 64.0, -32%
Clegg: 47.0, 26.0, +21%
(17th, YouGov: Do you think (name) is doing well or badly as (position)?)

Cameron: 46.0 approve, 40.0 disapprove, net +6%
Brown: 29.0, 63.0, -34%
Clegg: 39.0, 29.0, +10%
(29th, Angus RS: Do you approve or disapprove of X’s performance as Y?)

Cameron: 43.0 satisfied, 40.0 dissatisfied, net +3%
Brown: 33.0, 59.0, -26%
Clegg: 42.0, 26.0, +16%
(30th, MORI: Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way X is doing his job as Y?)

Which gives us an average net popularity – and, yes, I know how unscientific such averages are – compared with December’s as follows:

• Nick Clegg +15% (+2%), Gordon Brown -31% (+7%), David Cameron +10% (+1%)

Nick maintains his lead, therefore, as the most popular of the three main party leaders, with an average net rating of +15%. Of the four polls, only YouGov had Nick behind David Cameron – and even then by within the margin of error. It appears c.70% of the public have formed a view of Nick, and so far they are breaking significantly in his favour.

David Cameron’s slipping ratings appear to have stopped their slide, at least for now. As recently as September 2009, his average net popularity was +20%. But the last two months have seen a plummet which must surely lead Tory campaign HQ to wonder if it really is such a good idea to centre the party’s campaign around Dave. It’s true, as Anthony Wells’ UK Polling Report blog notes, that Mr Cameron is still seen to be more likeable than his party – but not by much.

For Gordon Brown, January saw a pretty substantial increase, albeit from the lowest of bases. Whether it was public sympathy for the failed coup attempt, or some credit that the recession is finally drawing to a close, or perhaps the improved media he’s had (helped by some less dour performances at Prime Minister’s Questions) – or a combination of all those and more – he will be relieved to see his ratings improve. Indeed, he’s more popular (or less unpopular) than Tony Blair was this time two years ago, when he was polling -41%. So take comfort, comrades, it could be worse for Labour.

Here are January’s polls in chronological order:

• Con 40.0, Lab 31.0, Lib Dem 17.0 (7th Jan, YouGov)
• Con 42.0, Lab 30.0, Lib Dem 16.0 (8th, YouGov)
• Con 40.0, Lab 30.0, Lib Dem 18.0 (10th, ICM)
• Con 40.0, Lab 24.0, Lib Dem 20.0 (11th, Angus RS)
• Con 41.0, Lab 28.0, Lib Dem 19.0 (12th, Populus)
• Con 42.0, Lab 29.0, Lib Dem 19.0 (17th, ComRes)
• Con 40.0, Lab 31.0, Lib Dem 18.0 (17th, YouGov)
• Con 38.0, Lab 29.0, Lib Dem 19.0 (24th, ComRes)
• Con 40.0, Lab 29.0, Lib Dem 21.0 (26th, ICM)
• Con 40.0, Lab 24.0, Lib Dem 19.0 (29th, Angus RS)
• Con 40.0, Lab 31.0, Lib Dem 18.0 (31st, YouGov)
• Con 40.0, Lab 32.0, Lib Dem 16.0 (30th, MORI)
• Con 38.0, Lab 31.0, Lib Dem 19.0 (30th, YouGov)

All of which produces an average rating for the parties in January as follows (compared with December’s averages):

Tories 40% (n/c), Labour 29% (+1%), Lib Dems 18% (-1%)

Let’s take a look at the figures from each of the main parties’ perspectives …

The Tories … Well, the month could scarcely have started better for the Tories, with Labour almost imploding within the first week, as those most unlikely of regicides, Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt, tried to stick the knife in Gordon Brown’s front. And missed. The swift collapse of the coup should have been a tonic for David Cameron: the deeply unpopular Mr Brown was left in post, but weakened. Yet somehow the Tories managed to turn the fire back on themselves. Mr Cameron’s marriage tax gaffe didn’t help. But, more important, was the unshakeable sense that the Tories’ seem to feel entitled to have power bestowed upon them without working for it. They’re probably right. But if they’re going to try and win with such anaemic caution – failing to give anyone a reason to vote positively for the party – the polls could tighten still further.

Labour … What could have been a month of hell has, in fact, triggered something of a fightback, albeit one which displays only the slightest of upward flickers in Labour’s ratings. That 29% is viewed as something of a success speaks volumes for the expectations of the party under Mr Brown’s leadership. Labour has now spent 17 of the last 21 months polling below 30%. Prior to that you have to go back to May 1987 to find even one single poll which placed Labour below 30%. Much may depend on the progress of the economy, perceived and actual. A further quarter’s positive growth might help rescue Labour. But if the economy slips back into negative growth, what might that do to Labour’s chances in May?

Lib Dems … It’s slightly disappointing to slip back even 1%. But as I never tire of reminding Pollwatch readers, the party’s ratings remain historically strong for this stage of a Parliament. Let’s look at the party’s January ratings prior to a general election down the years:

Jan 1992: 15%
Jan 1997: 12%
Jan 2001: 14%
Jan 2005: 22%

True, we’re down a notch compared with 2005: we no longer have the Iraq effect, at least not as strongly. Against that, though, we have a better opportunity in the forthcoming campaign to increase our vote from its current poll standing, not least thanks to the televised debates. In 2005, our poll ratings were relatively high, but we gained little traction during the campaign. Could May 2010 see the party match our 22% of five years ago? Who knows, but our current standing gives cause for optimism.

Coming tomorrow in Pollwatch – The State of the Leaders.

Here’s what David Marquand had to say in a recent issue of the New Statesman:

The truth is that the left commentariat’s default position – social permissiveness combined with economic regulation; toughness towards bankers, but softness towards cannabis hawkers – was always incoherent and has now become disastrous. Of course, the right’s alternative – economic permissiveness combined with social regulation – is equally incoherent. But for the left to rely on that kind of yah-boo retort only deepens its current malaise. After all, the right has been out of power for the past 13 years; and however unfair it is for David Cameron to blame our “broken society” on the present regime, his charge rings bells with large parts of the electorate. The truth is that our society is broken, and by pretending that it is not, the left merely proves that it is in denial.

The beginning of wisdom for the battered and bewildered left, as it approaches what may be an electoral disaster, is to acknowledge openly that casino capitalism, family breakdown, asset stripping, binge drinking and welfare dependency are all part of a single web; and that the crisis of capitalism which has overwhelmed the global economy is part of a wider social and moral crisis.

Is Professor Marquand right? Are we in a social and moral crisis? Or is this an hysterical over-reaction? After all, for every family breakdown and boozed-up teen drop-out, we can point to a more racially tolerant and less homophobic society.

Agree? Disagree? Comment away …

The tables which follow are based on data from the list of expenses
miscreants provided by the BBC.

Total expenses to be paid back based on party affiliation:

Labour: £446,416.28
Conservative: £449,821.83
Lib Dem: £42,945.18
Others: £38,575.96
Total: £977,759.25

MPs per party who have been called on to pay back expenses:

(not including those who have successfully appealed against Sir Thomas Legg’s ruling in their individual cases)

Labour: 180
Conservative: 108
Lib Dem: 23
Others: 18
Total: 329

Percentage of MPs per party or grouping who have had to repay expenses:

Labour: 51.6%
Conservative: 56.0%
Lib Dem: 36.5%
Others: 43.9%
Overall: 50.9%

Amount to be repaid per MP based on the total number of MPs per party or grouping in the House of Commons:

Labour: £1,279.13
Conservative: £2,330.68
Lib Dem: £681.67
Others: £940.88
Overall: £2,971.91

Goupillon’s calculations do not take into account the 3 Labour MPs who were rumoured to be under threat of prosecution as these MPs do not appear to be on the BBC’s list. He freely confesses there
may be errors in the calculations – if anyone spots these, please do .

The ‘Others’ grouping includes the Speaker and Deputy Speakers, vacant seats, DUP, SNP, PC, SF and Independents.

Frankly there’s not much comfort for any political party to draw from this saga. But, still, the figures do bear out the folllwing statements of fact:

• Lib Dem MPs have had to repay just one-tenth of the expenses that either Labour or Tory MPs have racked-up;
• Lib Dem MPs are the least likely to have had to repay any expenses (one-third of our MPs had to make a repayment; more than half of Labour and Tory MPs had to);
• Lib Dem MPs’ average repayments were far lower than for either Labour or Tory MPs (about half as much as Labour’s, one-third of the Tories’).

But, still, I wouldn’t reckon on printing “we’re not as bad as the other two” too large on your Focus leaflets.

Well, that’ll learn me to be careful what you wish for. Because what do we have to look forward to on tonight’s QT panel? The following: an official Labour representative (Lord Falconer), and two former Labour MPs (Clare Short and George Galloway); and, for balance, an official Tory representative (Theresa May), and professional right-wing agitpropette (Melanie Phillips). Deep joy.

As Love and Liberty’s Alex Wilcock acerbically notes:

It’s not as if the Liberal Democrats have anything distinctive to contribute about tonight’s topics of Iraq and electoral reform. I’m sorry, what?

And as House of Twits’ Luke Richards points out:

This is not just an injustice to the Liberal Democrats, the decision to drop the Lib Dems from the panel will severely undermine the quality and value of tonight’s debate.

Luke also makes the point that it’s not the first time the BBC has pulled this trick: Lib Dem MP Jo Swinson was dumped in the week the Iraq inquiry started: apparently, as Lib Dem blogger Mark Thompson exclaimed, the BBC regards the Lib Dems as part of “the central political consensus”. Which is a bizarrely subjective judgement for a supposedy impartial broadcaster to make.

Anyway, there’s no point just getting cross by shouting at the TV screen or the Internet. Jonny Oates, the Lib Dems’ Director of Communications, has already outlined here on LDV what Lib Dems need to do when blatant media bias rears its head. So don’t get angry, get complaining (phone number and online form here).

PS: Mark Thomspon will be hosting his weekly BBC QT live chat over at his Mark Reckons blog – you can join in the conversation here.

Montgomeryshire MP Lembit Opik was ordered to pay back £900 he claimed for a mobile phone bill. Sir Thomas Legg, the retired civil servant auditing MPs’ expenses, said the Liberal Democrat MP should not have been able to claim for the phone bill. But Mr Opik won an appeal against the ruling.

Intriguingly, this leaves the taxpayer in debt to Lembit:

The MP, one of almost 80 MPs to challenge Sir Thomas, has actually repaid £195 in total, so is now technically owed £40 by the Commons authorities.

Now there’s an ethical dilemma for an MP just months away from seeking re-election.

Menawhile, here’s a brief clip of Lib Dem MP Norman Baker talking about the publication of Sir Thomas’s report.

(Hat-tip: PoliticsHome).

A missed opportunity. That was the consensus, inside and outside the Liberal Democrats, on the party’s general election results in 2005.

The disappointment was the greater as realisation dawned that the unique set of circumstances of that election – an unpopular government and an even more unpopular opposition – might never again be repeated. What could have been the Lib Dems’ breakthrough yielded only an extra ten seats.

What, then, can the party look forward to at the 2010 general election?

Some media commentators (and pessimists within my own party) believe we will be doing well to avoid a wipeout. Though the Tories’ ratings have slipped significantly since the summer of 2008, David Cameron’s party is polling regularly at around 40%, while the Lib Dems hover in the high teens. That represents a swing of some five per cent towards the Tories since 2005, enough to see off many Lib Dem MPs, especially in the south and south-west of England.

And yet few actually expect the party’s parliamentary representation to be decimated. A seemingly well-sourced article in The Times in December 2009 reported that the Tories were withdrawing resources in some seats they had been fighting hard; cited was the Lib Dem seat of Cheadle, in Cheshire, which would fall to the Tories on a swing of (yes, you’ve guessed it) five per cent. The paper went on to add that ‘some incumbent MPs, particularly Lib Dems, are putting up fiercer-than-expected resistance’.

This anecdotal data has polling evidence to back it up. In summer 2009, YouGov conducted the largest yet survey, of some 240 marginal seats with a sample of around 35,000 voters, for PoliticsHome.com. It forecast the Lib Dems would win 55 seats, a decrease of eight on the party’s current standing.

This is, in my view, an under-estimate for two reasons. First – and it’s an especially relevant consideration when looking at Lib Dem MPs and the party’s target seats – it is the ability of a local party to organise an effective ‘ground-war’ campaign which often marks the difference between a successful hold or gain, and a near-miss. Such battlegrounds go largely undetected by opinion polls.

And secondly, the party’s poll ratings nearly always increase during the course of a general election campaign: by an average of 3.9% in every election since 1979 (bar the ill-fated 1987 ‘Two Davids’ Alliance campaign).

There’s a very simple reason for this. The news media – which for four years and eleven months of each Parliament is generally happiest ignoring the Lib Dems – is at last obligated by law to give the party a fair crack of the broadcasting whip.

The London media’s obsession with referring to ‘both parties’ must seem a bizarre 1950s’ anachronism to the four-tenths of the UK where the Lib Dems are in either first or second place. For instance, in Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield, Liverpool or Oxford – to name just five cities – the Tories have not been able to elect an MP or a councillor for many years.

This levelling of the media playing field has an especial pertinence for the 2010 general election campaign: it will be the first ever in which there have been televised debates between the leaders of the three major parties.

This is a fantastic opportunity for Nick Clegg in his debut election as party leader, and one for which his two predecessors, Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy, would have given their eye teeth. Of course, there is the chance of a gaffe, a ‘mis-speak’, which will derail the party’s campaign. But the potential rewards of appearing at the top table – of being regarded by the public as an equal citizen with Messrs Brown and Cameron – vastly exceed that risk.

In fact, Clegg starts 2010 as officially the most popular of the three party leaders: all polling companies which measure the party leaders’ popularity have the British public ranking him ahead of David Cameron (just) and Gordon Brown ( by miles). But up to one-third of voters have yet to form an opinion, either positive or negative. After a solid year building his profile – on issues ranging from the Gurkhas, to MPs’ expenses, to Afghanistan, to calling on the Speaker to quit – he has emerged well from the shadow cast by Vince Cable’s political superhero status.

It will be a big moment, too, for the individuals at the top of the party structure in what will be the first general election in the modern Liberal Democrats’ history when Lord (Chris) Rennard, the party’s chief executive who retired last year, has not been in the campaigning hot seat. Interim chief executive Chris Fox and director of campaigns Hilary Stephenson will be key players, along with former MD of Saatchi’s John Sharkey and ex-Bell Pottinger director Jonny Oates; while Lib Dem MPs Andrew Stunell and Danny Alexander will provide the links in to the Parliamentary party.

For all its newness as a general election team, this is a talented, experienced and demonstrably successful group of professional campaigners. Great results can (and will) be expected of them.

My prediction?

This will be the first change-making general election since 1997, and I’ve a hunch the Lib Dem result may well resemble it, at least in one regard: the party’s share of the popular vote declined slightly compared to the previous 1992 election, yet its parliamentary representation increased.

There will, no doubt, be losses to the Tories in 2010 – though I’d expect at least one surprise victory, and many resilient holds – but these will be more than offset by gains from Labour: the scale will depend both on the month-long campaign itself, but also on the months-long campaigning already taking place up and down the country.

The prize at stake is huge. Yes, there’s the chance that the 2010 election will produce a hung parliament, with the Lib Dems in the role of so-called ‘kingmakers’. More importantly, there’s the chance to usurp Labour in its so-called ‘heartlands’, establishing the party’s opportunity to turn even more of the electoral map gold at the election-after-next.

Nick Clegg’s stated aim is for the Lib Dems to replace Labour as Britain’s leading progressive party in opposition to the Tories. This could just be his moment.

And then later last night came the news that Labour will put to the Parliamentary vote next week proposals for a referendum to be staged as a step towards replacing the ‘first past the post’ system.

Chris Huhne, the Lib Dems’ shadow home secretary, issued what might be termed a stinging welcome:

If this is confirmed then it is a deathbed conversion to electoral reform from a party facing an historic defeat, which is why scepticism is warranted.

“The Alternative Vote is a small step in the right direction, but it is not a proportional system and it does not give voters real power over both the party and the person elected as MP.

“Only the Single Transferable Vote in multi-member seats would abolish MPs’ meal tickets for life, and we will fight to amend this proposal to give people a real choice for a more significant change.”

But it still leaves the question about Gordon Brown’s leadership: why does he always leave it so late, too late, to act decisively?

He failed to become Labour leader in 1994 because he hesitated; he failed to become Prime Minister from 2003 until 2007 because he hesitated; and he’s failed to become a successful Prime Minister because he’s trapped in perpetual hesitation.

The party’s terrier-like Treasury spokesman Lord (Matthew) Oakeshott has welcomed the Government’s announcement:

I have introduced 4 bills over the last 5 years to ban non-doms from the House of Lords with no support from the Government and with serious obstruction from the Conservatives.

“Now, with an election looming, I am delighted that the Government has had this last-minute conversion and adopted my Bill almost to the letter in their amendment.

“It’s outrageous if people who sit in our Parliament do not pay full British taxes like everyone else. They must pay up or pack up.”

The Government, in the person of the almost-tautologically named Baroness Royall, has sent a letter to all peers today explaining how the new law will affect them:

20100102 All Peers Letter

Well done to Matthew for his perseverance.

That’s a big jump, unsurprisingly, compared to our December ‘09 figure of c.28,000 – and is up some 60% on the equivalent figure for January ‘09 of c.24,000.

This brings our absolute unique visitor readership for the last year to date (1 Feb 2009 – 31 Jan 2010) to 309,123, over 40% higher than the equivalent figure for 2008-09 of 218,360.

The 5 top-read stories during the month were:

1. Revealed: the Lib-Con pact election poster (34) by Stephen Tall
2. EXCLUSIVE: Standards Commissioner rules four journalists broke Parliament’s rules (6) by Mark Pack
3. What do we want? Section 63 of the Metropolitan Paving Act 1817 of course (22) by Mark Pack
4. Gina Ford vs Nick Clegg (16) by Mark Pack
5. Opinion: UK Border Agency plunges colleges into crisis (20) by The Voice

And the top 5 traffic sources for Lib Dem Voice in January were:

• Google
• Twitter
• Guido Fawkes
• PoliticsHome.com
• Lib Dem Blogs aggregator

Whether you’re a regular here, or an occasional ‘popper-by’, we’re delighted you looked in.

• If you want to keep up-to-date with LDV in the future, then why not sign up for our daily email alerts: easy-to-navigate links to LDV articles delivered to your inbox every morning;
• If you enjoy reading LDV, why not try writing for LDV?
• If you’re a party member, don’t forget to check out our private members’ forum;
• And if you value LDV’s work throughout the year, please consider making a donation to our running costs: this is a not-for-profit blog, and the whole team donates their time and effort free of charge. Any money you choose to give will help make LDV even better in 2010.

* Google Analytics’ term: it broadly means people using almost 300,000 different computers visited LDV at least once. Some people may be counted more than once (eg, home and work computer),whilst some people may not be counted (eg, two different people use the same computer, or someone reads the site through a feed reader without ever actually visiting it).

So far, so yawn. Or as Vince Cable put it today:

Labour and the Tories are accusing each other of being confused and contradictory on the economy, and they’re both right. The fact that they insist on this political bun fight shows they have failed to understand that the British public and the markets want a clear picture of what the next Government will do.

“The Liberal Democrats are the only party that has had a consistent approach.

“We’ve been very open about the scale of cuts required and setting out where our priorities would be, while recognising that the timing must be decided by the strength of the economy. That is why we have set out five tests for when and how we start to cut.”

And here’s a reminder of those five tests to form an objective judgement of when it’s safe for the British government – whether gold, red or blue – to start cutting public spending:

• evidence of sustained economic growth;
• employment growth;
• overseas demand (especially in the EU);
• monetary and credit conditions in the UK; and
• the market cost of government borrowing.

And in case you’ve not had your fill of Vince’s common-sense, here’s a 30-second video pointing out the Tories’ economic muddle:

(Hat-tip: PoliticsHome).

The Conservative leadership is today accused of being “evasive and obfuscatory” over the tax status of Lord Ashcroft, the party’s deputy chairman and biggest donor, in a ruling by the information commissioner that sharply criticises the secrecy over where he is resident for tax purposes.

The Cabinet Office has been ordered to reveal within 35 days the nature of the undertaking Ashcroft made to become domiciled in the UK when he became a peer in 2000. … Ashcroft made a promise to become a permanent resident of the UK as a condition of his ennoblement in 2000, a year after he was rejected as a member of the Lords by the political honours scrutiny committee, a rejection he believed was partly based on his residency at the time.

The paper quotes the ruling by the commissioner, Christopher Graham, who is highly critical of the secrecy surrounding Ashcroft’s position.

Since Lord Ashcroft’s ennoblement, the question of where he lives has continued to be raised, leading to speculation that Lord Ashcroft has not satisfied the undertaking he gave. Statements by senior politicians concerning Lord Ashcroft’s undertaking have been evasive and obfuscatory and have served to compound this speculation.

“Lord Ashcroft could have ended the speculation about his residency by making a public statement to that effect. He has chosen not to do this. He has furthered the speculation by stating that it is a private matter and, as stated on his website, ‘If home is where the heart is Belize is my home’.

“In the commissioner’s view there is a legitimate interest for the public to know more about Lord Ashcroft’s undertaking. This flows from the legitimate public interest in understanding the process by which Lord Ashcroft’s peerage was awarded, knowing the details of any conditions placed upon that award and knowing whether Lord Ashcroft has met what appears to have been a condition to his award.”

Lord Ashcroft has repeatedly refused to clarify his tax status in Britain, while successive Tory leaders have dodged the question when posed by interviewers. Now the information commissioner has put them on the spot, will the media now demand genuine answers from David Cameron and William Hague instead of their customary evasion and obfuscation?

2 Must-Read Blog Posts

What are other Liberal Democrat bloggers saying? Here’s are two posts that have caught the eye from the Liberal Democrat Blogs aggregator:

• Six stories that won’t make Iain Dale’s Daily Dozen: Nich Starling reports.
• Cameron’s Chilling Words show Tories’ True Colours: Caron Lindsay finds “it quite scary to hear such nonsense coming from somebody who thinks he’s going to be Prime Minister in a few months.”

Spotted any other great posts in the last day from blogs that aren’t on the aggregator? Do post up a comment sharing them with us all.

2 Big Stories

The Tories’ confusion over how the minor matter of how they would run the economy – covered here on LDV at the weekend – continues to dominate the headlines. Here’s Vince Cable’s verdict:

George Osborne and David Cameron seem to be at sixes and sevens on the crucial question of how the deficit should be addressed.

“The Liberal Democrats have been arguing for some time that there should be five tests on when and how we start to cut. This must reflect the position of the economy rather than political expediency. The public must understand that we take the deficit very seriously. But it has to be addressed in a way that doesn’t put us back into another round of recession, resulting in job losses and an even larger deficit.

“The time to cut the deficit is when the private sector is ready to take the lead in growth and job creation. We are clearly not at that point yet.”

That the Tories have found themselves in such a muddle on an issue of this importance is a severe embarrassment – expect the Lib Dems (and Labour) to make the point.

How many football clubs will survive the recession, asks Vince

The Independent reports the warning of the Lib Dems’ economic sage:

Football’s economic model is broken and many clubs are in danger of following banks and construction companies into oblivion, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, Vince Cable, has warned.

Cable, an economist and, according to a recent poll, the most trusted politician in the country, said Crystal Palace going into administration could spark a chain reaction.

“Football is a sector of the economy that simply hasn’t faced up to the realities of the crisis, they’ve just gone on as if the world hasn’t changed,” said Cable. “It’s a combination of extraordinary financing arrangements, and players who are paid absolutely ludicrous salaries which are clearly beyond the means of all but a handful of clubs to pay on a sustainable basis.

“If the FA and the clubs have any sense they will deal with this matter now, otherwise we are going to see a major upheaval as clubs discover they simply cannot function with very high leverage [essentially borrowings against future earnings]. Interest rates are currently low, but they will almost certainly rise, and a lot of this debt will not be payable.”