In government, a thorn in the Tories’ side

The suggestion comes in his pre-conference assessment here. It’s a fair-minded take that recognises the bruising year the Lib Dems have endured, but also acknowledges why the mood in Birmingham will be more upbeat than much of the media was probably expecting (or hoping). And for two very good reason, which are (in order of importance, I think):

They believe they are making a difference: The Lib Dems tested the coalition to the limit by driving through many of the changes to Andrew Lansley’s health reforms. They are resisting Conservative ambitions to scrap the 50p top rate of tax. They are holding up Conservative attempts to repeal the Human Rights Act. They have secured the abolition of control orders. Their much loved pupil premium is being paid out to deprived schools. They claim they have tweaked Michael Gove’s policy on free schools to make sure they are not just for middle-class parents. They have kept up the pressure on George Osborne to cut tax for the lowest paid. They have a green investment bank.

They are winding up the Tories: Last year Conservative and Labour MPs mocked Nick Clegg as a patsy, a “mini-me” riding on the coat-tails of David Cameron. Now they moan that he is the tail that is wagging the dog. The Daily Mail has anointed Mr Clegg as “the most dangerous politician in Britain”. Nothing is more encouraging for a Liberal Democrat than to read how much their ministers are punching above their weight. Their conference slogan is “In government, on your side.” It could equally be: “In government, a thorn in the Tories’ side.”

It’s a good, succinct assessment — and chimes with an astute article by Steve Richards in the Independent noting how (at least in terms of government influence in the short-term) losing the alternative vote referendum has enabled Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems to assert themselves in government in the last four months:

… for the first time in decades they command attention and wield power. Clegg makes history in a nerve-wracking narrative that will last longer than many expected, however uncertain and potentially grim the ending might still be. He is still standing rather than tottering, an achievement in the stormy brew of coalition politics.

(Though I question the long-term truth of Mr Richards’ concluding sentence: ‘Losing the referendum was the best possible outcome for Clegg and the Liberal Democrats.’)

Nick Clegg’s performance in the first leaders’ debate broke the glass ceiling of British politics and, it seems, caused more than one Tory-supporting newspaper editor to wet themselves in fear.

Then, on the eve of the second debate, the right wing press let slip the dogs of war.

It wasn’t just the Murdoch papers that went for Nick, but they did and they did it viciously. The Sun ridiculed him, splashing outrageous and ridiculous headlines on their front page for days on end. All of a sudden he was a fool, a menace and a risk to the economy who wanted to let asylum seekers eat your children and paedophiles run wild.

Why?

Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems didn’t suck up to Rupert Murdoch. He wasn’t bosom buddies with Rebekah Brooks.

So when it looked like a politician who wasn’t in Murdoch’s pocket might rise to power, or at least hold the balance of power, Murdoch’s minions set out to destroy him.

Don’t take my word for it, this is former Sun editor David Yelland at the time:

I doubt if Rupert Murdoch watched the election debate last week…But if he did, there would have been one man totally unknown to him. One man utterly beyond the tentacles of any of his family, his editors or his advisers. That man is Nick Clegg.

Make no mistake, if the Liberal Democrats actually won the election – or held the balance of power – it would be the first time in decades that Murdoch was locked out of British politics. In so many ways, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote against Murdoch and the media elite.

Or how about the Independent’s Steve Richards yesterday?

Look also what happened to Nick Clegg during the last election. Clegg had never engaged in wooing. In response to his surging popularity, the Tory-supporting newspapers, including most of those at News International, turned on him, again working closely with Coulson.

I don’t want to bore you for long with guff about values and principles and all that. But, just briefly, Liberals by their nature are inherently suspicious of entrenched power and vested interests – we think it inhibits freedom and social progress. Entrenched power and vested interests – that sums up Rupert Murdoch and his media empire pretty neatly.

And before anyone suggests we abandoned these principles on the doorstep of Number 10, remember that while David Cameron was quaffing champagne with Rebekah Brooks in the run up to Christmas, Vince Cable was secretly recorded admitting he had ‘declared war on Rupert Murdoch’.

It is a dreadful, dreadful shame for all of those who want to see Murdoch’s power curbed that the honey trap set for Vince by a non-Murdoch newspaper was so effective.

The exact wording of this rule, disclosed only after repeated inquiries to Liberal Democrats headquarters this week, sets a high bar for clearing “any substantial proposal which could affect the party’s independence of political action”.

A pedant would point out that it was “disclosed” here back in November. Then it was Steve Richards I took to task (for calling the rule – which was debated in public at party conference – “secret”).

Perhaps you should add us to your reading list Tom

Nick Clegg faces a backlash from grassroots Liberal Democrats if he moves his party too close to the Conservatives in a hung parliament.

Well, yes, he probably would. Which is why he won’t. Unless the Tories are prepared to implement key Lib Dem policies. Which they won’t. Can’t put it much clearer, can I?

But back to Messrs Morris and Savage: what evidence do they supply to justify their suggestion that Nick faces a ‘backlash’ from Lib Dem activists?

Three are offered. The first is the most recent LDV readers’ poll result (though they don’t have the grace to acknowledge it): ‘Their centre-left sympathies were made clear in a poll last week which asked activists to choose between Mr Brown and Mr Cameron for Prime Minister after the election. Their verdict was definitive: 58 per cent named the Tory leader as the worst option, with 42 per cent for Mr Brown.’

As I wrote at the time of the 1,000+ readers who voted: ‘I never tire of reminding folk – especially any journos on the look-out for an easy story – [they] may or may not all be Lib Dems.’ The Indy just preferred to assume they are.

The second piece of evidence offered by the Indy was a flawed, misleading, dated poll for the BBC’s Daily Politics which LDV has already debunked in some depth here.

And the final piece of evidence? Some random, de-contextualised quotes from Lib Dem bloggers:

Christopher Lovell, president of Leeds Liberal Youth, said: “A Conservative government will pursue fundamentally different objectives from a Liberal Democrat one and, although there may be an … overlap in policy, many Liberal Democrats would find it hard to support even a small amount of what a Tory government tried to do.”

Jane Watkinson said: “Both parties are a compromise to what we stand for but, if it came down to it, Labour are closer to our values as we do share common ground in aspects such as constitutional reform and taxes.”

A blogger from Norfolk wrote: “Yawning gaps exist between the Liberal Democrats and the Tories on many issues, and David Cameron knows this. So why did he make his statement?”

(I love, by the way, that the Indy couldn’t even be quite bothered enough to find the identity of the ‘blogger from Norfolk’, who will need no introduction to the Lib Dem blogging community as Nich Starling).

No reason they shouldn’t be quoted, of course: all are fine bloggers. But it’s pushing it to suggest that their quotes – or any of the others that might have been filletted from other blogs – somehow constitute a ‘backlash’ against Nick Clegg.

In short, this was nothing more than an over-hasty, content-free and careless cuttings-job. The Indy can do better, much better. Fortunately they still do, sometimes. So let me finish on a positive note, with this clipping from Steve Richards in today’s same edition, And the first-round winner is… Clegg:

Perhaps the struggle to shape credible election winning messages in a recession explains why Brown and Cameron both stress similarities with the Liberal Democrats. For Nick Clegg there is one tiny danger in the love-in. If voters believe Cameron’s tendentious claim that his party has moved closer to Clegg’s they might find it easier to vote Conservative in seats currently held by the Liberal Democrats. But on the whole Clegg should be jumping with joy at this latest twist.

Cameron and Brown flatter him and the media will take note by paying him more respectful attention. Such flattery has not happened to a leader of a third party before. Blair wooed Paddy Ashdown in 1997, but John Major did not do so. In 1992 neither Kinnock, nor Major showed any public affection for the Lib Dems.

Clegg has both Cameron and Brown taking him seriously. Finally he is in the game. As a significant bonus Labour goes into the election calling for a change in the voting system. Some of Brown’s advisers urge him to make more of this, to declare at every opportunity that if Labour wins this will be the last election under “first past the post”.

Brown cannot bring himself to do so with any great enthusiasms because he is no enthusiast. It does not matter. The commitment is made. … Clegg is the winner of these early skirmishes and he has hardly uttered a word.

The second winner, according to the commentariat, is Nick Clegg. Here’s Andrew Grice in today’s Independent:

Which political party leader had the most to celebrate on Christmas Day? Nick Clegg. The Liberal Democrats are the big winners from this week’s historic announcement of three televised debates between the three main party leaders during next year’s general election campaign. … It usually takes a Liberal Democrat leader one election just to “get known.” Mr Clegg’s fatal weakness – that voters simply do not know him – suddenly evaporates. His party’s polling shows that when people see him, they like him. Having watched him at one of his 100 town hall meetings, I can see why. Now about 10 million people will see him up close, and not judge him on a few soundbites on news bulletins.

Jusy by being on the stage, by being so publicly seen to be one of the Big Three, Nick has already won. There is, I suspect, an element of truth in that. The Lib Dems’ achilles heel has always been our supposed lack of credibility: being seen on equal terms as Messrs Brown (assuming he survives to the election) and Cameron is half the battle.

But will it actually matter? Will Nick’s appearance, or the TV debates, in any way change voters’ minds? The Indy’s Steve Richards is sceptical:

I do not expect the leaders’ televised debates to change very much, although they will dominate the election campaign because of their novelty and the media’s fascination of a media event. There will be no “gaffes” from Brown or Cameron in the debates but Clegg will be more vulnerable, unused to the intensity of such exposure. We will learn nothing new because by then there will be nothing left to learn.

He’s right, I’m sure, that the media will self-obsess about the impact of the election debates, with much sport-heavy metaphor talk of ‘knock-out blows’ and ‘no clear winners’. I’m surprised, though, that he thinks Nick will be most vulnerable.

True, he’s the least experienced of the three leader. But as Andrew Grice notes above, Nick has regularly exposed himself to public scrutiny at his town-hall meetings, and also had to hust in front of a studio audience for BBC Question Time when contesting Chris Huhne. Likewise, David Cameron has also appeared at various ‘David Cameron Live’ events, and faced David Davis on TV (who bested him by some margin).

I would have thought the most vulnerable wold be Gordon Brown. For all his world-stage experience, which neither Messrs Clegg or Cameron can match, the Prime Minister has nearly always shied away from set-piece debates, ensuring the Labour leadership race was shut down without a challenge, and avoiding Question Time, even when he was Chancellor. It says something about how desperate the situation is that Mr Brown has, at long last, agreed to a format that he detests.

But Steve Richards hints at the risk which all the leaders are taking by taking part, Nick no less than the others – it’s one that Liberal England’s Jonathan Calder put succinctly back in September:

There seems to be an assumption that Nick will do well in the debates, but will he? From his reaction on live television to the revelation of the “Calamity Clegg” memo in the leadership campaign to his “Our shopping list of commitments will be far, far, far, far, far shorter” in the Independent recently, Nick’s major media appearances have generally contained episodes that could have been put a great deal better. Leading a party in the age of 24-hour media is a horribly difficult job, and Nick has certainly been learning fast, but I do not share this assumption that Nick is bound to shine when placed against Cameron and Brown.

I think Jonathan is a little harsh. Yes, Nick’s mouth sometimes works a little faster than his media savvy – but what the voters see and hear they generally like, even if he’s not always word-perfect. But Jonathan’s absolutely right to note that things can go wrong: the party’s 2005 general election campaign never really recovered from the twin embarrassments of Charles Kennedy’s botched manifesto launch, and his subseqent lacklustre response to a half-hour interrogation by Jeremy Paxman live on BBC1. Though Charles excelled on the live Question Time a few days before the polls (when the three party leaders all appeared independently to be quizzed by David Dimbleby and the audience), the damage had by then been done.

All of which musings bring me to the new LDV poll question: What difference, if any, do you think the televised leaders’ debates will make to the Lib Dems’ standing in the polls?

And here are your options:

• They will be a real help to the Liberal Democrats;
• They will make only a marginal difference either way;
• They will backfire for the Liberal Democrats;
• They will be utterly irrelevant to how people vote.

Let the debate commence …

David Cameron’s leadership of his party is often compared with Tony Blair’s during the period up to the 1997 election. … The comparison is one of the most misleading in British politics. … [Cameron is heading] for the election leading a party that proposes tax cuts for the well-off and married couples, massive spending cuts whether or not Britain is out of recession, withdrawal from the social chapter and a renegotiation of the Lisbon Treaty. … The trajectory of Cameron’s leadership is much closer to another former leader. He might have tried to learn from the New Labour guidebooks on how to win elections, but inadvertently he has followed more closely the course adopted by one of his own recent predecessors. …

Both Hague and Cameron are outstanding parliamentary performers, witty and quick to exploit the weaknesses of political opponents. Both are calm under fire. Both started to shift their positions when they appointed press secretaries to advise them on the media. Amanda Platell urged Hague to adopt more right-wing and populist policies. Andy Coulson has sometimes advised Cameron to do the same on issues such as immigration, crime and tax cuts.

There are of course differences. Cameron is a warmer, more agile personality and has been able to assemble an incomparably stronger team. For nearly all his leadership he has been ahead in the polls, a success that creates confidence and means a less critical media. Tonally Cameron has a wider range, whereas at this stage of the parliament Hague was desperately seeking to retain the support of his core vote, worrying that the Conservatives could perform even worse than they had in 1997. Even so the similarities are much closer than those between Cameron and Blair en route to his 1997 landslide.

Of course, comparing leaders in this way is always, to some extent, false: each leader has to deal with circumstances unique to their time.

Most notably, Tony Blair had the advantage of taking over a party the extreme, unelectable wing of which was in retreat, and the moderate electable mainstream in the ascendant. by contrast, David Cameron has a serious disadvantage that he leads a party whose extreme, unelectable wing is the dominant force within the Tory party. Early attempts to stage a ‘Clause 4 moment’ to assert his supremacy over his party were soon abandoned, and Mr Cameron spends much of his time now appeasing and pacifying his party’s socially conservative right-wing.

There was a telling article – more telling than he intended – by the Spectator’s James Forsyth on the Coffee House blog last night:

… turning these [disappointing Tory poll] numbers around is, I suspect, going to require some policies that show us what David Cameron’s irreducible core is. Oddly enough, I don’t think these policies have to be particularly popular but they have to show the electorate that Cameron stands for something, that he isn’t just another say anything to win politician. Picking a fight on offering substantial recognition to marriage in the tax system might actually be a good strategy for Cameron in these circumstances. It would show that there are some things he will stand up for whatever the risks.

And here we see, in all its glory, the unreformed Tory right’s deep-seated desire to transmogrify Mr Cameron into William Hague. Once again, their argument centres round the idea that the public will respect unpopular policies because of their ideological purity – just as Mr ‘Notting Hill Carnival’ Hague was driven further and further to the right until he ended up desperately pleading with the public to ‘save the pound’ while most voters were more concerned with schools and hospitals.

It is – thankfully, for those of us who are not Tories – all too typical that the Tory party’s reaction to falling poll ratings is to leap for the idea that it’s because they’re not being Tory enough.

In common with everyone else, I have no actual knowledge why the Tories’ popularity is slipping. But I do have a theory: the Tories, and especially Mr Cameron, have lost sight of their strategy of detoxifying the brand.

There has been much self-reassuring talk in Tory circles in the last fortnight that the narrowing Tory poll lead is a good thing because it will counter any sense of complacency in the party. But the complacency is actually at the top of the party: it’s the complacency of the Tory leadership that they have done enough to convince the public the Tories have genuinely changed, and that it’s now safe again to revert to their true, Thatcherite type in order to unite the party.

What was once a depressingly effective Tory strategy of ‘love-bombing the Lib Dems’ – talk big on the environment, civil liberties and democratic reform while promising no policies – has been jettisoned in favour of throwing red meat to the right-wing (blaming ‘big government’ for the recession, and tax-breaks for marriage and millionaires). Thank God.

Instead of sticking to his guns, and determinedly staying the course in the moderate, centre-ground to reassure floating voters, Mr Cameron has felt it safe to shore up his core vote. In doing so, he has reminded those voters, who were slowly being won round to the notion that maybe this time it might be safe to vote Tory (and at the very least get rid of Labour and Mr Brown), that the party Mr Cameron leads is still the same old Tories.

Back in the summer I was one of those who was, I guess, fatalistically resigned to the prospect of a Tory government, even viewed the prospect with some curiosity. Having seen the Tories revert to stereotype at the mere sniff of victory, I now view the prospect with trepidation, and a clear sense that a Tory victory is something desperately to be avoided. For sure, I am not a floating voter. But I suspect that my gut-response is, at least in part, reflected in the Tories’ declining popularity.

No-one who’s observed Mr Cameron’s leadership of the Tory party this past four years can be in any doubt of his tactical nous. There is a very big question mark now over his ability to translate those short-term tactics into a long-term strategy. That proved to be William Hague’s downfall. It might still yet prove to be the un-doing of Mr Cameron.

If there is a hung parliament there will almost certainly be no formal coalition government, even if Nick Clegg and Vince Cable would like to join one. Clegg is trapped by what is known as his party’s “triple lock”, a hidden rule that might become of vital relevance. Before entering a coalition he is bound to secure the agreement of his MPs, other national representatives and the membership.

Credit to Steve Richards for knowing about this rule. But “hidden”? It was decided on at the party’s Spring 1998 conference in a public debate with several hundred people in the hall and in front of the (mostly) massed ranks of the media. Given that the Saturday debate was seen as a grassroots revolt against Paddy Ashdown’s desire for deals with Labour, it was no obscure event. Both the Observer (“Ashdown on leash over Labour ties”) and the Sunday Times (“Coalition blow for Ashdown”) had coverage the following day for example.

Calling something debated in public, in front of the media and then run in national newspapers as “hidden” is using a different vocabulary from me I’m afraid. (I asked Steve Richards for a comment on why he thought this was the right word to use, but he didn’t get back to me before this post went to press.)

The key part of the motion reads:

Conference agrees that:

(i) in the event of any substantial proposal which could affect the Party’s independence of political action, the consent will be required of a majority of members of the Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons and the Federal Executive; and,

(ii) unless there is a three-quarters majority of each group in favour of the proposals, the consent of the majority of those present and voting at a Special Conference convened under clause 6.6 of the Constitution; and,

(iii) unless there is a two-thirds majority of those present and voting at that Conference in favour of the proposals, the consent of a majority of all members of the Party voting in the ballot called pursuant to clause 6.11 or 8.6 of the Constitution.

I remember the events as I was the aide in the debate and it was a long, highly charged debate with a lot of work to be done to smooth out administrative hiccups that could have otherwise distracted from the main issues at stake. I suspect one or two people in the audience may also have been distracted by the chance occurrence that myself and the debate’s chair – Liz Barker – by coincidence turned up in remarkably similar clothes. That and my then hair…

Paul Staines, sole author of the Guido Fawkes’ blog, has had a good week, given ample, respectable print space to repeat a central point he’s been making for years: that those political journalists who are part of the ‘lobby’ system have failed democracy:

Though the fourth estate may not have a formal constitutional role, its task is real. Journalists are to there to “speak truth unto power”, not trade favours for tittle tattle, not report spin as truth. From the start of this era of spin the lobby pack have been willing accomplices. It is hard to name journalists who can hold their heads high.

He’s right on this. The Independent’s Steve Richards this week recounted a seemingly all-too familiar tale – ‘On one occasion shortly before a presenter was about to interview a cabinet minister McBride texted him with the message: “Ask him about his drinking problem.”’ He then had a (deservedly) tough time on BBC Radio 5 Live defending lobby journalists for failing to call time on such snide behaviour long before the exposures of ‘Smeargate’.

The Times’s Alice Miles explained how the whole complicit system works:

On the one hand, as one victim of hostile Downing Street briefings puts it: “If somebody at No 10 is saying that Harriet Harman is having a mental breakdown, journalists are justified in running it.” On the other hand, as another victim of Mr McBride’s sees it: “It takes two to tango – you need McBride and you need the flopsy-bunny journalists who will just take the line.” I think they should be clearer about where the line is coming from, and why.

Do you see what I did just then? I placed in your head the creeping falsehood that perhaps Ms Harman might be having a mental breakdown; because if someone has suggested that No 10 might be saying it, then perhaps No 10 is saying it, and perhaps it is saying it because it might be true?

And you will remember, long after you forget everything else in this article, that someone once told you that Harriet Harman was mentally ill. And that is precisely how the poisoners operate.

This, then, is the current state of political journalism: to hell with policies and ideas, let’s just spew out the latest titbit of scandal we’ve scoffed, and ignore the trail of vomit we leave.

It’s truly depressing, not least because politics has rarely been this interesting. The banking system last year came close to imploding, with potentially devastating consequences; the US has just elected a liberal Democrat as its first non-white President; the next UK general election will be the most closely-fought since 1992. All of which merits some discussion, the application by journalists of some sceptical intelligence. The public is hungry for a grown-up conversation. The acendancy of Vince Cable is not just because ‘he told us so’, it’s because he never knowingly underestimates the public’s desire to understand, and never knowingly overstates that he has all the answers.

So, political journlists have failed us, are failing us. Does this mean that Paul Staines’ Guido Fawkes blog is the solution? No.

There has been an inherent hypocrisy in the past week’s reporting. Journalists, eagerly tripping over themselves to make amends for their embarrassing failures, have placed Paul on a pedestal. Yet the Guido Fawkes blog is a petri dish of unsubsantiated smears. As Paul Linford points out:

Back in 2007, Guido spent months attempting to convince his blog’s many readers that Gordon Brown had been photographed on a rocking horse wearing a nappy, and to utilise the power of search engine optimisation and Google to spread this ridiculous tale across the entire internet. It even made it onto Wikipedia, and when I tried to remove it, some patsy came along and reverted my edit.

He also gave house-room to a sock puppet called “Stanislav” who suggested, in one particularly disgusting post, that the Prime Minister had been steadily driven mad by the strain of repressing his “homosexuality” over many years – part of a deadly serious attempt by the right to fix the idea of Gordon as a “weirdo” in the public’s mind.

Paul Staines is a libertarian who will happily peddle smears that undermine governments, any government and any political party. That’s his role, and one he is eminently comfortable fulfilling.

But those of us who care about politics, the capacity of government to be a force for good (not least by doing a lot less, and allowing individuals to do a lot more), need more than that. We need the media, both new and old, to focus on what actually matters, to quest for the truth. Smears have no place in public life – and that applies to all, bloggers and journalists alike.

Actually the article’s a bit broader than that, and I can’t let the opportunity pass without briefly digressing to agree wholeheartedly with his snipe at the Tories’ two key initiatives of the past week: David Cameron’s ‘apology’ for failing to anticipate the economic crisis until way too late (Steve accuses the Tories of “still playing student-like games”); and yesterday’s gimmicky announcement of a freeze in the BBC licence fee (“in the economic context the proposal is puny, suggesting that Cameron thinks in New Labour-like incremental terms when he leads in an era far removed from the mid 1990s.”).

It’s not even smart opposition tactics, let alone good government-in-waiting strategy. By apologising for the Tories’ recent economic incompetence, Mr Cameron has allowed the Prime Minister to blur his culpability (I’m sure No. 10 has prepared the ‘we all bear some responsibility, as even the Leader of the Opposition admits’ line). And as for the BBC licence fee – well, it’s such a token gesture even that uber-populist Tony Blair would have rejected it as too small for him to be associated with.

But back to ‘Hung Parliaments’, and Steve’s contention that therefore Lib Dems matter now (leaving to one side that we actually do matter now, as almost sx million folk voted for the party at the last election). For some perverse reason, Steve reckons:

For perverse reasons senior Lib Dems never seemed to relish the prospects of a hung parliament, as if doing so would somehow challenge the purity of their uncompromising policy commitments, a purity of impotence.

Surely it’s not so very hard to see why the party and its leadership approaches the prospect with caution rather than relish? After all, last time the third party propped up the government of the day under a first-past-the-post system (the Liberals in 1977-79), it didn’t exactly do wonders for our electoral standing. That’s not to say we shouldn’t as a party be anxious to get our hands dirty pulling the levers of power; but let’s be realistic about the risks, eh? The fear is a simple and potent one: seem to favour either Tories or Labour, and we split our own party and antagonise the voters of the party we didn’t pick. Net result to the Lib Dems: the exercise of a little power for a limited time with the ever-present danger of annihilation at the next election.

More significant is Steve’s confirmation of the party leadership’s policy of equidistance:

For the first time in years the party leadership is genuinely “equidistant” between Labour and the Conservatives. Nick Clegg cannot see how he props up a Brown government, but he is no fan of Cameron’s either. Copying the Tony Blair rule book, Cameron sought to form a relationship with Clegg early on. But Clegg was not interested in playing Paddy Ashdown to Cameron’s Blair and the two of them have little contact.

And, as Steve notes, even if Nick Clegg was determined on a coalition with either Mr Brown or Mr Cameron, he knows the party membership is unlikely to sanction it – as we would have to:

The leadership of the Lib Dems is committed to what is called a triple lock before entering any form of arrangement with another party. The leadership must get the support of its parliamentary party, the executive of the party and the membership. That is quite a lock.

Like Steve, I have little doubt that party members would vote down any deal, unless it came with the promise of propertional representation as a package of reform measures – and that’s not going to be offered by either Labour or the Tories.

But unfortunately that’s where Steve’s article stops – unfortunate because the really interesting hung Parliament scenario is not ‘who will the Lib Dems do a deal with’ (because the answer is no-one). No, the really interesting question is ‘what happens when the Lib Dems refuse to do a deal with anyone?’. And to answer this, can I commend The Times’s Sam Coates’ excellent analysis of last week, which moves us much further along the hypotheticals:

There is an assumption that should the Tories be the largest party in a minority Parliament, the Lib Dems will probably support them in some form. This seems unlikely, at this stage, to be a formal coalition. But they recognise it would be electoral “suicide” to do the reverse and prop up Gordon Brown to keep him in Number 10 if the Tories are the largest party.

What really interests them is what happens next, in the event of a rapid second general election. A Tory minority government will probably only be a short term affair. The Conservatives would govern for a few months, but then go to the country to “seal the deal” like Harold Wilson in 1974. Labour, possible fearing the consequences, will be much more willing to negotiate at this stage. If they do begin private or public talks, this would put pressure on the Tories to enter negotiations too. Having engaged both parties in negotiations, it will be in the words of one Lib Dem, “game on”.

The Lib Dems will not, initially, insist on PR as part of any deal because this automatically gives Labour a huge advantage. However senior Lib Dems are intrigued by the personal position of David Cameron. He is instinctively hostile to PR. But in evidence to the Power Commission on democracy a few years ago, Cameron apparently told the committee that while the First Past the Post system should remain, he believed that of different types of PR, the Single Transferable Vote system was fairer to AV, which Labour would offer. Lib Dems would prefer STV because it’s more proportionate than AV.

They believe there could be constitutional chaos of there is a Hung Parliament. The Standing Orders which govern what happens are complex, contradictory and out of date. Some Lib Dem legal experts think the confusion could even be exploited by Gordon Brown to try and cling on to power even if Labour is not the largest party.

Before we all get too carried away with our game theories, though, I still reckon the Tories will win a (slim) majority at the next election. And let’s hope if and when they do, Messrs Camero and Osborne have put a bit more thought into what they’ll actually do than their recent pronouncements seem to suggest.

The first thing that struck me was how open everything was. The 300 or so people who were there, who included councillors, general activists, MPs and front-bench spokespeople, all intermingled with each other and there was plenty of opportunity in the breaks to speak to people. Everybody was very friendly, and when I mentioned I was new-ish I got lots of “welcome to the party” type comments. I managed to speak to Lynne Featherstone for a few minutes about the Technology Board. She was very friendly and enthusiastic about my comments.

The main theatre sessions were very good in my opinion. To start with there was a keynote speech by Nick Clegg. He came across well and made some interesting announcements. The best one, I thought, was the idea of increasing total parental leave to 18 months per child and allowing the man to take up to 12 months of the time. (I run my own business so I am pretty familiar with the status quo and I have certainly found it odd that in this age of supposed equality, the man gets only two weeks whilst the woman gets up to a year.)

There was then a session chaired by Sarah Teather where Steve Richards of the Independent, Danny Alexander and others debated topics such as how we can get better press coverage. This was a good session although I did duck out half-way through to get my photo taken with Nick Clegg (which might come in handy in the future!).

The afternoon session focused on Social Mobility, and was excellent in my view. Vince Cable was on the panel for this and he demonstrated why his political star is so high at the moment. He seems to be an effortless performer who was simultaneously funny, self-deprecating but also intensely passionate and engaged with the issues, and of course has a total grasp of the figures involved.

There were two optional sessions during the day I attended: by the Health and Home Affairs Team, and “Environmentally Sustainable Living”. The first one was excellent and the topics were debated openly and robustly with views from all ranges of the spectrum represented. The second one was a slightly different format where we were split into groups to discuss various issues relating to the session. The chap leading this had been left on his own due to illness of two colleagues and I thought he did a commendable job of coordinating the discussions all by himself. There was some lively debate on our table where I also got to meet some more members.

Overall it was a very interesting and worthwhile day. My final thought as I was leaving the conference was that I am sure I have joined the right political party for me.

* Mark Thompson is a Liberal Democrat member, and blogs at www.markreckons.blogspot.com.

Well, not in his first year, he hasn’t – as Nick himself fully acknowleged yesterday, commenting: “This is my first year in the leadership, I have enjoyed it immensely. I also know that I am in the early stages of my leadership. If you look back in history it takes a while for all Liberal Democrat leaders to get out and about in the country so that more people can see them. But come the time of the next general election I’m absolutely confident that people will know more about me.” For more comment on Nick’s first year as Lib Dem leader click here.

In retrospect, though, it wasn’t the Paddy/Charles comparison that has been most problematic for Nick. Rather, Vince Cable’s stellar turn as acting leader set the bar high, and Vince’s subsequent high profile throughout a financial year of turmoil has sometimes left Nick in the shadow of his deputy. In fact, Nick deserves a lot of credit for being more than happy to share the limelight with Vince; the cynics may say he didn’t have much of a choice, but still the prospect of the next general election campaign being led by a Nick/Vince double-hander is one that would surely work well for the party.

2. Will the party manage to stake out clear and mainstream liberal policy lines while asserting a more edgy approach to politics?

Opinion on this inevitably varies, but for me 2008 was a year of progress (though not perhaps epiphany). The summer launch of Make It Happen earned generous plaudits both among the Lib Dem blogosphere and the mainstream media. Its effect was a little tarnished by the subsequent confusion caused by Nick Clegg loosely talking of the “vast bulk” of the party’s promised £20bn public spending cuts being ploughed into tax cuts. But this slip was quickly corrected, and the Lib Dems are now in the fortunate position of having a (relatively) coherent policy programme to put forward, one that is gradually being absorbed by the media. The Indy’s Steve Richards caputured a sense of this in a recent article, favourably comparing Nick Clegg’s positioning of the Lib Dems with David Cameron’s positioning of the Tories:

… where Clegg is placed, [is] supporting a stimulus but not the Government’s version. In another anniversary speech he outlined some of the ways the £12bn wasted on the cut in VAT could have been spent. His proposals included funding for insulation and energy efficiency and reopening old railway lines. That sounds to me like a better use of fiscal stimulus on the eve of an era where public spending is going to get eyewateringly tight.

Not so long ago senior Liberal Democrats feared being wiped out by the Tories. Now they are more confident. Probably this is because Clegg is placed where Cameron ought to be if he had modernised his party – pragmatically pro-European, anti-state, putting the case for progressive taxes and some public spending savings.

Clegg has not done his sums. It is not clear yet how he would pay for some of his tax cuts. But in theory at least he outlines a liberal case that could be supported by most Conservatives if they were not obsessed by euro-scepticism and even bigger cuts in public spending, the details of which they have yet to specify.

3. Will Brian Paddick’s London mayoral campaign take off?

The short answer is no. Not Brian’s fault, but that’s the truth. As Lib Dem blogger James Graham put it in an article for The Guardian’s Comment Is Free blog:

Whether there was much Paddick could have done about being squeezed between the Boris and Ken “manwich” is open to question. This was a much more emphatically two-horse race than we saw in 2004 or 2000. It is just possible that if people understood the electoral system a little better, they might have spared our blushes a bit, but ultimately so what? Third place is still third. But with the focus so relentlessly on the mayoral election, a better performance might have prevented the meltdown in the assembly elections.

4. Will May’s local election results show a Lib Dem advance or retreat?

An advance proved to be the answer, against the expectations of many of us in the party and certainly of the media. The Lib Dems polled 25% of the national vote, pushing Labour into 3rd place for only the second time in history, and ended the night with more councillors and control of more councils than when fighting the same set of seats as in 2004, when the party was benefiting most from our anti-Iraq war stand. The party gained Sheffield, St Albans, Burnley and Hull councils, and came within just one seat of gaining overall control in Oldham, Warrington and Cheltenham. The party aso made important gains in key seats like Derby, Colchester and Reading. All in all it was a good night, covered here in some detail on LDV.

5. How will Nick Clegg fare at Prime Minister’s Questions? (Especially in comparison to Vince Cable.)

Let’s get one thing straight: Nick is different from Vince. (And a good job, too; nothing would have fallen flatter on its face than Nick attempting a “Mr Bean” put-down.) But let’s get another thing straight: Nick is probably the most effective leader the party has had at Prime Minister’s Questions. Paddy, Charles and Ming all hated the PMQs experience, and none fully got the hang of it. Nick’s self-assurance at PMQs is even more impressive when it’s remembered that he had been in the House of Commons for less than three years when he stood up for the first time to represent the party in that boorish bear-pit. In reality, Nick’s allowance of two questions allows him very little room for manouevre, still less for genuinely holding the Prime Minister to account. And, like any pace bowler he might do well occasionally to vary his delivery. But he has stuck impressively to his self-imposed brief: to raise ‘bread ‘n’ butter’ issues – fuel poverty, mental health, housing, the Gurkhas campaign – of national significance. Though a handful of repressed Westminster Villagers wet themselves at Nick’s mention of a single mother visiting him at his constituency surgery – Imagine! A single mother visiting Nick “a lot less than 30″ Clegg! Oh, the hilarity! – it is Nick who is having the last laugh: by proving himself well able to excel at PMQs.

Look out for Our starters for 2008 – how did we do? (Part II) tomorrow.

Lib Dem Voice has devoted some space this week to our Media Moron Watch – so let’s redress the balance and highlight a handful of articles which have attempted fair analyses of Nick Clegg’s speech and the Liberal Democrat conference. A couple are pretty positive, a couple less so: but they’re all thoughtful:

First up, the Indy’s Steve Richards, who concurs with yesterday’s LDV view that Bournemouth 2008 was a sucessful conference:

Against the odds, the Liberal Democrats have held a successful conference. Tumultuous events elsewhere meant media attention was limited, but they managed still to convey, with some success, a new message. They wish to be seen as Britain’s new radical tax-cutting party, one that is still committed to social justice. The fact that the message got anywhere at all was remarkable, as they have yet to offer any precise details about how they will cut the overall amount paid in tax. Nonetheless, they have conveyed the same message to themselves as well, the equivalent of conjurors falling for their own trick. … [The party] needs to send out signals in what for them is a highly complex and changed political situation, needing to defend themselves against a more popular Conservative party while seeking to make the most of a decline in support for Labour. At the broadest strategic level, they have pulled it off, with an offer of tax cuts while retaining a commitment to social justice.
They have done it in such a way to make nonsense of claims that the party is moving rightwards. There were two challenges for Nick Clegg as he delivered his first address to the party conference. One related to a question of style. Could he pull off the daunting task of delivering a big speech at his annual conference? The answer was an unequivocal “Yes”. He looked at ease as he wandered around the stage aided by the invisible autocue.
In terms of substance, he more or less pulled it off as well, stressing that he was as committed to social justice as previous leaders and yet outlining a distinctive pitch far removed from the Conservatives and Labour in its current plight. On the stage, although not in all the interviews he has given this week, he looked entirely comfortable, much more so than his immediate predecessors.

These generally warm words are echoed by the Indy’s editorial:

… Nick Clegg, the party’s young leader, has been able to carve out some distinctive policies and, just as important, get them through an unruly party. … the party leadership has produced a package of eye-catching policies calculated precisely to appeal to the middle-of-the-road voters it must gain if it is to hold on to its position in Parliament at the next election. … Much of the credit for this realignment must be put down to Nick Clegg himself, a new leader who, after his gaffe on pensions, gave a persuasive speech yesterday that covered a range of issues with a beguiling tone. The Lib Dems still face an uncertain future when no one can be quite certain which way the votes will fall at the next election. But, given a clutch of Labour seats, it still stands a chance of holding the ring. This week’s conference has certainly helped it on its way.

On the other hand, The Times’s Peter Riddell is far more critical, awarding Nick 6/10 at best:

He does not have the authority or instinctive feel on financial matters of Vince Cable. Yesterday’s speech, like his hectic media activity this week, was mainly about establishing his identity as leader. In that, he has had a reasonably successful week. He has also showed that he is very different from David Cameron. … there was little sign in Mr Clegg’s speech of the tough choices ahead, of the tensions between being green and enhancing competitiveness. Hence public transport expansion is supposed to be funded through charges on road haulage. Moreover, there is no way that energy security can be secured by a big extension of renewables when “dirty coal” as well as nuclear power stations are opposed. This is gesture policymaking. The Lib Dems seek to be a larger opposition party, not a contender for power. Having credible alternative policies is, perhaps, secondary. That means the Lib Dems will continue to be treated as a protest party.

Not so, says The Guardian’s editorial, though, which is much warmer:

[Nick Clegg’s] performance more than passed muster, rattling along with a cheerful confidence that consolidated his position at the end of a successful conference. But his thoughtful passages were hidden among some tinny language. The speech confirmed Mr Clegg’s work of ideological re-engineering. He has moved his party away from an unquestioning faith in the state. … He aims to make his party a plausible alternative to both its rivals, especially on the economy, where Vincent Cable has led the way not just in warning of a debt-driven downturn, but in suggesting what government should do about it. Dr Cable has had a terrific conference, and while some might suggest that should trouble Mr Clegg, it does not seem to. It is surely healthy for the party to appear more than a one-man band.
At its best – as in the debate on taxation and parts of yesterday’s speech – the conference showed the Lib Dems to be distinctive and interesting: more than a vehicle for protest. Much of that is owed to Mr Clegg’s leadership. He is impressively confident about the progressive possibilities of liberalism.

Of course I’ve tended to quote the best bits – but, hey, this is Liberal Democrat Voice. And besides, they’re the bits I agreed with most

I’ve been sent the full transcript, and it looks, on first reading, like the first real stumble by Nick in his campaign so far. Judge for yourselves below, as I’ve filleted some of the key passages. Of course, what won’t come across when you read it is Nick’s emphasis or body language – which might make his meaning clearer, and his performance more impressive. After all, politicians are judged not just by what they say, but also how they say it.

The real question, as James Graham has already noted in his preview, is why Nick didn’t have a much clearer answer ready for the obvious question, ‘How do you pay for your pupil premium?’ Because ‘Er, yes, there’s a black hole’ just ain’t good enough.

Other issues covered below include:

- whether he was attacking Chris Huhne by saying the party needed to communicate better its ‘green tax switch’ proposals;
- whether the campaign has got nasty; and
- is he going to win the contest?

Also covered in the full interview – this Sunday, 9 am – are questions to Nick about the Government’s proposals for increasing the number of days suspects can be detained without charge, and on a referendum for the European Reform Treaty.

Interview transcript extracts follow:

Steve Richards: So just to be clear about [the pupil premium], if you become leader you will propose that schools in more affluent areas lose some of their budget so poorer schools can have more.

Nick Clegg: Let me be very clear. What I’m proposing is – the figure is £2.5 billion extra – extra! – there’s no taking away money from the current school budget whatsoever. Extra money, which will be allocated directly to those children. Not in terms of the areas where they live but to them, and then, if you like, the school which is educating those children gets that double amount of money in order that they can have smaller class sizes, particularly at primary school level. ….

SR: And where would that money come from? It’s a big additional spending commitment.

NC: I agree. £1.5 billion will come from taking above average families out of the tax credit system altogether. And we’ll take that £1.5 billion out of the tax credit system, or at least we’ll take families on above average income out of the tax credit system, use that money to give to the kids from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. That leaves a gap of a million… of a billion, sorry, and it would be one of the first things I would do as a leader to say to the party that we will have to find that extra billion, so that the total sum of £2.5 billion is a fixed pledge by the time we go to the country in the next general election.

SR: You’d accept that you’ve got a black hole there. You haven’t found where the money’s going to come from, the other billion.

NC: Er, yes, but I mean there are other ideas. For instance there are other ideas, I mean for instance I’ve also this week been floating ideas for how I think we should introduce a 10% tax on the non-domestic earnings of so-called ‘non-doms’. In that particular case that raises about £1 billion. I would like that to go to alleviate the burden of Council Tax on those in Band A and band B properties, those on the lower rung of the property ladder, if you like. But it’s just an example of where we can be creative in trying to find that extra money in order to fulfil that pledge, and I’m absolutely confident that we will under my leadership make that fixed pledge by the next general election.

SR: By one way or another taxing the better off, presumably. Because it has to come from somewhere.

NC: Yes, er well no, hang on, or, sorry…

SR: You said yes, so tax increase?

NC: No, no, let me correct that. I think there is plenty of scope to cut back on some of the waste in government, some of the duplication in government. I think there is a strong case to look at how government expenditure’s been duplicated in many areas. Everybody is familiar with the general degree of waste in public expenditure in the last few years, so I have given you if you like a fluctuating answer precisely because I think that I’m not fixed in my own mind about where that money would come from, but absolutely confident that with political will that money will be found.

SR: While we’re on schools, your opponent Chris Huhne has asked you a very direct question. He hints, or suspects, that you have been interested in the idea of school vouchers and wants you to say unequivocally, one way or another, are you for the introduction of school vouchers as part of letting schools go and forming their own relationship with parents, or are you against?

NC: I’m against vouchers. I’ve never mentioned vouchers in my life and I have told Chris this on several occasions personally.

[…]

SR: … Chris Huhne when he was here last week … was quite specific, he said that you had claimed that the party had not done enough on the environment, and he actually came up with endless statistics to show how much he had personally done on the environment. Was he right to pick up the fact that you were criticising him on this or wrong?

NC: My feeling is that many party members in the Liberal Democrats are anxious about why it is that our leadership on policy, on setting out detailed policies about how we protect the environment, how we move to a zero carbon economy, doesn’t seem to be translated into real political leadership on this. Why is it that David Cameron appears to have stolen such a march without any substantive proposals on the environment? Why is it that the green agenda has been hijacked by this very superficial appeal from Cameron? I think that is a very serious political question. It’s certainly not directed personally at Chris. It’s an issue for the party as a whole…

SR: There are clearly many advantages for you and your party in having two candidates battle the contest out. The last one candidates were dropping out and all sorts of silly things going on. There is potentially one disadvantage: it gets all a bit intense and nasty when there are just two of you. Are you a bit worried about that?

NC: Well I’m seeking to avoid it altogether. As I’m trying explain to you here, I think there are big crises facing Britain. Why don’t we have a more liberal, socially mobile society. Why are people so fearful? Why do people feel so powerless in their everyday lives? Why is the environmental cause not resonating with those people who don’t care about… All of these issues, I keep returning to those themes. I’m going to keep returning…

[…]

SR: Can I finally ask, you’ve been travelling the country, presumably you have a better idea of this than most – are you going to win it?

NC: I hope I will – but it’s still early days, the contest will go on for a long period of time. I get the impression people are responding very well to above all my sense of ambition for the party. I’m just passionate about what I think are the really positive prospects for the Liberal Democrats but to do that, we need to unite, that’s why I’m so pleased that I’ve got the vast majority of my members in the parliamentary party who work with Chris and myself most closely, onside. We’ve got to create a renewed sense of unity, we’ve had a rocky time in the parliamentary party over the last couple of years, and create a renewed sense of excitement that the liberal democrats are the gathering point in British politics for anyone who wants a different kind of politics, going beyond the old left-right, stale two-party politics of Westminster.

On Chris’s comment that the Lib Dems mustn’t become a third Tory party:

CH: What I see in British politics, which I think is very disappointing to a lot of people, is a sudden Gaderene rush towards the same solutions being offered by all of the different political parties, and there will not be a future for the Liberal Democrats unless we’re prepared to stand outside that consensus and say where it’s failing and why the political process is held in such disrespect and disillusion, frankly, by so many people, and I think we’ve got to re-inject into our message that sense of being the anti-establishment party that actually wants to change the whole system, not just change the ministerial faces on the back seat of the limousine, and if we are there as just seen as another potential participant in another consensus government of blancmange, Tweedledum and Tweedledee, we’re not going to make any progress.

On what distinguishes his candidacy from Nick Clegg’s:

CH: Well, I just think that from that point of view we’re both energetic, we’ve both got a lot of verve and vigour, and I think that if you look at the track record, and I think that many, many people have said that the party could do well with either of us, and I certainly think that Nick would make an excellent leader. My position is simply, not this time. So I think that we’ve got great opportunities, but I think that we need to have clear dividing lines from the Tories, clear dividing lines from Labour, and not get sucked into a cosy consensus on things for example like use of market solutions, where they don’t work in public services.

On whether he’s the ‘left-wing’ leadership candidate:

CH: I’m emphasising very clearly the tradition in our party which goes back to the great Edwardian Liberal thinkers like LT Hobhouse and TH Green, which is the social liberal tradition, which actually says it’s not enough just to talk about equality of opportunity, because actually by then it’s too late. Once a child has been born in poverty, and we have 3.8 million children born in poverty and living in poverty in this country today, once that’s happening you’ve basically given them a life sentence in terms of reducing their chances of prospering in future, so you’ve also go to have a fair start as well as the open road, and I think that’s a very important part of our policy message as a party.

On the majority of Lib Dem MPs, including now Simon Hughes, backing Nick as leader:

CH: In fact one of our most successful leaders, Paddy Ashdown, was elected with only a third of the parliamentary party supporting him and with the support of people in the country, and I’m also… I merely point out exactly what Simon said, which is that overwhelmingly MPs who are backing Nick, and me frankly, are saying actually we’d be quite happy with either of you because you’re both very good, so I think the issue of communication is very important.

On whether Chris or Nick is the better communicator:

CH: If you look over the last year, I’ve consistently been ahead in terms of media coverage of my Tory opposite number, and that’s one of the reasons why I think that we’ve done so well in terms of public perception on the environment. Now we’re going to be in a tough old situation over the next few years. We’re going to have some sharp elbows and get into the story. Now if you want somebody who’s been there, done that, 19 years as a journalist, passing the so what test, going to the newsdesk and saying well, hang on, what is the surprise factor in this story? What is actually going to get us noticed with the key Liberal values and Liberal messages we need to get across. Well, I think it’s going to be me.

Mr Cameron’s answer? He had none, pleading the politician’s equivalent of the Fifth Amendment – that he won’t answer hypothetical questions. Here’s how the BBC’s Nick Robinson described Dave’s defence:

What do we want? Power to the people. When do we want it? Now but, er, not necessarily in the future… because that’s a hypothetical question. That, in summary, was David Cameron’s answer to repeated questioning at his news conference this morning.

Why the refusal to be drawn, you may ask. After all, when Jeremy Hunt, a Tory shadow cabinet member, was asked by Jonathan Dimbleby on BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions last Friday, “Will the Conservative Party offer a retrospective referendum to approve or disapprove this particular treaty?” Mr Hunt’s answer was unequivocal: “Absolutely.”

So why has Dave come over all coy? Adam Boulton’s blog tells us why:

… the Conservative leader was repeatedly pressed to commit himself to a public vote even if the new treaty is ratified. That would mean repealing an existing treaty – a defacto renegotiation of Britain’s membership of the EU. This would doubtless delight some on the Tory right, but DC knows it would be crazy politics.

But for how long can Dave paper over the cracks in his party’s policy on Europe? While he tries to play safe and steer a mid-course, his party is constantly urging him to lurch starboard. As Steve Richards wrote in today’s Independent:

I recall the frenzy among some Conservatives in the build-up to the Amsterdam Treaty. It was so intense that a pathetic John Major pleaded with them during the 1997 election not to “tie my hands” in advance of the summit. Consequently, Tony Blair signed up to Amsterdam and the fuss soon subsided. The fuss will subside over this treaty by the time of the election. Yet it will not have done so in the minds of some Tory MPs. That is why Mr Cameron should be worried as he dances in apparent joyful harmony with voters and Rupert Murdoch.

At last night’s Independent fringe, Steve Richards chaired a meeting at which the pair were the only speakers. While they have spoken from the same fringe platform before, the crafty Indy hacks had asked only the two of them. (Something they seem to have forgotten to mention to either Nick or Chris when inviting them.) This was therefore billed by the paper as the first-ever live debate between Chris and Nick.

Not to be outdone, we have temporarily given in to the personality obsession of the media, and snatched a couople of moments with both the MPs for a few questions. Chris spoke to us as The Grand’s porters cleared away chairs from the Indy fringe, and we managed to grab Nick in between press interviews on his immigration motion today.

Today we’re showing the first part of the interview, in which we asked:

What do the Liberal Democrats stand for? and
Who should the Lib Dems go into coalition with?

Tune in tomorrow to discover how Chris and Nick answered our second set of questions:

Are you an Orange Booker? and
Do you want to be Lib Dem leader?