Nick Clegg first

I don’t know about you but I nodded along to Nick’s piece in Comment is Free this morning with mounting spluttery agreement before finding myself rather let down.

Yes, expense abuses amongst MPs are appalling. Yes, they are symptomatic of a wider malaise in politics, a point drawn out very skilfully. Yes, ordinary people do want to give politicians “a kicking” and that in many ways was the most powerful line of the whole piece. Politics is indeed broken, and the rise of the far right is indeed a clear danger. (Is he going to talk about PR? I was thinking at this point.) The finale:

Change is difficult when the two establishment parties have every reason to keep the system stitched up between them. As long as they believe that they’ll have a turn at the wheel, they have no interest in opening up our politics to real change, real democracy.

But we’ve got to do something different. And that should begin with urgent reform to the lamentable system of MPs’ pay and expenses. But then it must go much further. We must reform politics itself.

Yes? And?

As one of the commenters put it, is this Part 1 of 2? We within the party have all heard Nick rail against the broken political system before and been highly sympathetic to it. It’s a narrative that fits with our constitutional reform priorities (PR), our natural opposition to duopolies (as to monopolies), and our essential belief that people – and society – are on the whole good and capable. Saying that “politics is broken” sets us up in very clear opposition to the Tories’ belief that “society is broken” and I would have it no other way.

But at some point we have to stop recognising the problem and start mentioning possible solutions. It’s not as if we don’t have policies that might address some of the problems cited in the article – PR and a reduction in the number of MPs among them.

But I get the feeling, as I often have, that Nick is less interesting in tabulating what we’ve already got than in reaching towards a greater truth. It comes back to the feeling-my-way style of communication that endeared him to so many during the leadership election (and lost him my vote). Taking his various references to broken politics altogether, I think he can perceive the shape of something bigger than “expense abuse plus Westminster village plus political apathy”. He gets that there are links to the “faceless Britain” culture, to the irresponsible banking culture, and to the over-centralised nature of the whole system.

But he isn’t anywhere near articulating all that (about as far as I am, in fact, on the evidence of the above paragraph). And yet there he goes using a space in a national newspaper to make his uncertainty about what to do quite clear. I’m not saying it’s not going to be worth waiting for when he has matured his thoughts on the subject – I think it will. But until then, at the risk of sounding extremely boring, I could wish he would stick to the tried and tested beginning-middle-end structure when writing publicly and talk about something he already has finished thoughts on.

This is particularly important when writing for CiF. Regular commenters there will know that the place is stuffed to the virtual rafters with small-l liberals waiting – even wanting – to be impressed. It’s a real breeding ground for liberal conversation, much more so, in my opinion, than Liberal Conspiracy. I know it’s “only” an online column, but it has the most active and ferocious online community I know of with the possible exception of Guido’s horde, and a space there is not to be sniffed at.

A reprisal of the detailed expenses ideas, and Nick’s role in furthering  them to the other two parties that got such a good reception in the Indy would have done very well, for example. What appeared in CiF was very much a process story – this is terrible, we really must do something. In fact it read, of all things, like a blog. Assuming Nick was actually writing, does he perhaps hanker after having a blog to work out his thoughts on? And if so, has anyone told him about Livejournal and its friends lock?

Send in Chris Huhne on your way out, please

The Freedom Bill website, like the Bill itself, was and remains a Good Thing. The “Web team” has responded to various comments left by the punters, which is always a good sign, although even one response from Chris himself would have been even better. I’ll pass over the chaotic nature of the party’s internet presence and the resulting under-exposure of the site, because that’s too big a topic outside Chris’ remit. Generally, I think the site and the drive behind it has done pretty well at what it set out to do.

But time is ticking on. The thread has been taken over by the ubiquitous euro-sceptics of the internet, some of whom still refuse to provide legislative references for their blanket assertions about the alleged powers of the EU in respect of any proposed Freedom Bill.

All very well, and all very easy to explode, but what about the sane, constructive people who commented earlier in this long thread, some over a month ago now? Have their thoughts been condensed and considered anywhere? Will the Bill be revised – or at least rethought – to take account of their criticisms and suggestions? Will any of them – and I am on the mailing list so am in a position to check this point – hear anything about this ever again?

I may be anticipating Chris and said mysterious “Web team”. I very much hope so. But see this as a warning shot. The Lib Dems are in a position to make a uniquely big noise on the internet, out of all proportion to our size, and to do it we simply must follow through on things like this.