“Fairness” when utttered by a UK politician is vulnerable to the interpretation of meaning the opposite – one person’s fairness is another person’s unfairness – however it does give an overall theme, does fit Liberals well, (with its fig leaf resemblance to ‘Justice as Fairness’) and does, as Stephen suggests, indicate a willingness to portray ourselves as an alternative home for disillusioned Labour votes. Quite a shift from the earlier determination not to get to the left of the Tories.

There is also evidence of a new confidence that we *can* campaign for change. Previously they begged that this was the preserve of Cameron. Now one can begin to detect a willingness to challenge the Tories – “can’t trust ‘em, got it wrong on every key economic decision and they don’t really want reform especially as it would mean losing their sugar daddy in the House of Lords.” Again an important shift.

Also underneath the slush is some hard campaigning potential:

1. first £10,000 you earn tax-free.
2. cuts to class sizes, a pupil premium, an extra £2.5 billion to our schools
3. £3.5 billion for investment in creating a sustainable economy
4. Radical reform of political system
5. Protecting NHS services from cuts:
6. 3,000 more police officers
7 Scrapping student tuition fees
8. An immediate up-rating of the basic state pension in line with earnings
9. And some crude flag waving towards service pay increases

We are still weak on the balanced parliament issue. There is again no definition of what ‘strongest mandate’ means in our stated position that “If voters decide no party deserves an overall majority, then the party with the strongest mandate will have a moral right to be the first to seek to govern on its own or seek alliances with other parties”

To answer that “the British voters will make it demonstrably clear what ‘strongest mandate’ means” would not hold up for 10 seconds under a Paxo cross-examination.

Overall, though, this all shows considerable change in thinking and considerable progress.

We are getting there.