Did Brown Do Enough?

The man even told a few good jokes. Well, good in a political context...

The switch in the Sun’s support to the Tories has got to be one of the most underwhelming and entirely predictable stories of the year. They have spent years now bashing the Labour Party, and all we’re seeing is a cynical, and successful, operation to divert attention from Brown.

Why would they do that? Well… there was the small matter of his speech yesterday: a thunderous hour-long affair which went down well with the conference. Then again, the previous day they had lapped up one of Mandelson’s most entertaining speeches, filled with political handbagging and extremely camp gestures. Nobody does it better!

So the fact that they liked Brown’s speech was no surprise. And, to be fair, it was a decent speech. It certainly did the job of rallying the troops, putting a little fire in their belly. That’s what Labour needed if it’s going to survive this next seven months in the run up to the election. Seven months which are bound to be the most difficult they’ve ever faced, if the polls are to be believed.

The most striking aspect of it to me, though, was the fact that Brown seems to have thrown all caution to the wind. The list of pledges was long: a new National Care Service, more free childcare, a fund for industry, more spending on benefits and international aid… as well as moves on electoral reform, the House of Lords, ID cards and the right of recall for MPs.

There was one thing missing from his speech though. A price tag. There was some vague promise about how it would all be costed, but I can’t possibly see how some of these things, particularly the pledges of personal care for those who need it most, can be met without very large sums of money.

And so, it seems, Brown has decided to gamble the election on one very last spin of the roulette wheel. There was a little talk of cuts and savings, but it’s clear Brown is going to Carry On Borrowing. The plan appears to be to offer a vision of a future, a vision that was indeed rosy and utopian, and hope enough people buy into the idea, rather than get swallowed up by the sometimes depressing rhetoric of both the Tories and the Lib Dems about the dark days of frugality ahead.

So the speech scored very highly for boldness and policy. There was a small amount of grandstanding about past success: but I think Labour have finally learned that elections are not just about the government’s record. They are essentially about the future, and Brown did a decent job of articulating his new agenda in that way he does best: a canny oratorical mix of assertion, delusion and haste.

Overall, I would say he has just about done enough. Brown will be the man fighting the next election for Labour, and Labour will go down to defeat.

But, perhaps, after this week, it won’t be quite so historic…

Bypassing The National Media

Instapolling at its finest!

Following on from yesterday’s thoughts about why we Lib Dems have to be brave in the face of a media that, let’s face it, just doesn’t like us, my mind turned to what we ought to be doing about it instead.

To aid me in my quest, I turned my memories back to several hazy middle-of-the-night alarm clocks, ringing defiantly in my ear, telling me it was time to get up. At 2am. The reason?

Why, none other than the US Election 2008 Presidential Debates! Events that I wouldn’t miss for the world.

Though my body was saying no, my brain was saying “Dear God, oh yes!”. Politics at its most elevated. Two candidates slugging it out for the presidency of the biggest nation on Earth. Unmissable.

Why is this relevant? Well… there are some lessons to be learned from the Obama campaign in terms of using the internet, text messages, YouTube, Twitter, a rapid response network on the blogosphere, and all other forms of new media. But they aren’t going to do the trick. Look at the miserable number of viewings our videos get on YouTube. Fact is, the audience isn’t there.

No. I’m fairly confident that the internet is not the answer. We just don’t go in for all that here. The internet may now be ubiquitous in the UK, but it’s far from being on equal terms with the mainstream media for being the place to absorb political debate. Besides, the big key to the internet’s use in the American elections was the greater mobilisation of the youth vote, rallied by the call to change. There is no such equivalent here.

Anyway, I digress!

The real reason for bringing up the American campaign, and specifically the Presidential debates was the remarkable thing that kept occurring after each one.

Each time, the media commentators and “blowhards” (to coin a marvellous American expression) would declare the debate either a finely balanced score-draw or, more often than not, a win for McCain. Even Failin’ Palin managed to rack up a great deal of praise.

There was one problem, though, that upset the media urge to crown McCain. It came in the form of an opinion poll, much like the way opinion polls have made us all reassess the success of the Lib Dem Conference.

CNN and others conducted live-reaction polls. Even Faux News had famed Republican pollster Frank Luntz carry out one of his usually entertaining focus group sessions.

The bad news. All of the polls, even Luntz, came up with the same conclusion. Obama had won. And not just edged it either: the public were convinced of his confidence, calmness, professionalism… his presidentialism. They were sold.

All of a sudden the media had to adjust their narrative. The debates were almost all given to Obama either convincingly or narrowly by virtue of these instant reaction polls. It completely recast the context of the post-debate reaction.

If only we’d had instant polls during the Conference. We could have shut the likes of the smarmy, arrogant Quentin Letts up.

Of course, the commentators didn’t like it. Suddenly they were being held to account. The normal time-lapse which allowed for their failed predictions to disappear into the memory-hole had gone. Now those very same judgements they were being paid so handsomely for were, at last, being found to be way off kilter with what the public actually thought.

Now: I’m not saying that instant-polls are the answer to the Lib Dems problems. But what I am saying is that if we are confident in our message, confident that it will appeal to the public… then we must plough on, regardless of the shitstorm the media kick up, regardless of their attempts to make us look like we’re “out of touch” with the millionaires in their mansions.

We must ignore their attempts to throw us off beam.

Obama has always succeeded when he was at his boldest: with a crystal clear message, repeatedly rammed home at every opportunity, ignoring what the pundits and the media editors think.

That is a lesson that we need to learn quickly.

Lib Dems Should Ignore The Media Echo Chamber

Libby after eight cans of Stella

Over on Lib Dem Voice there was a thread a few days ago bemoaning the “disaster” that was the recent Lib Dem Conference.

The only problem with the crux of the article is that, since conference has ended, there have been no fewer than four polls putting us up between two to five points.

I’m not going to criticise the author, though, because I had broadly shared his opinion. I had watched the conference fairly closely this year, but I mostly viewed it through the eyes of the media.

A media which, it seems, are extraordinarily hostile to the Lib Dems. My vehicle of choice was usually The Daily Politics, and one particular morning Andrew Neil was chatting to Steve Richards (Independent) and Matthew Parris (Times) – and both of whom did their level best to tell us that the conference had been a disaster. Andrew Neil joined in the attack. It made me wince. A disaster for my party. I shed a small but not insignificant tear.

The problem was the consistency. Those two journos had both said the same as Quentin Letts (Mail) and Simon Hogg (Guardian) the previous day. It was all adding up to be a confused mess of conflict and miscommunication. I even picked up the theme a little and criticised Clegg for it in his final speech. It all turned Andrew Neil into his miserable best, attacking every Lib Dem representative that came on the programme for presiding over such a shambles.

Meanwhile, the press were having a field day. Any chance to dethrone Vince Cable could not be missed. The headlines were pretty negative, and the above writers wasted no time in repeating their TV opinions in print form.

But, it seems, we were wrong.  Four polls, all pointing in the same direction, don’t lie. The chances of them all being a statistical anomaly are very small.

Why are the media so hostile to us? Is it because we’re a distraction for them? Is it because we’re an inconvenience to the coronation of David Cameron? After all, media narratives work best when they have a binary opposition. We upset that, and it doesn’t fit neatly into yet another Lab-Con story, tacking on a rent-a-quote moment from the Lib Dem spokesperson right at the end of the film/article.

Or are they just lazy? Are they filled with the usual cynics (like me!) who think we’re never getting into power and so what’s the real point in bothering?

Polling and elections have shown time and time again that when we get our fair share of coverage, the public respond. OK, maybe we would have done even better if we’d been truly united and consistent in our message. But – come on – we’re Lib Dems. That was never going to happen!

What we need to start doing is attempting to go over the head of the media. More on that next time…

Old Parliaments Die: And This Is Why

Last Saturday I wrote about the key political concept of legitimacy: what it means, where it comes from, and what happens to it.

The goal of any political reform must always be to enhance legitimacy. That is obvious from common sense: no democrat would argue for a reform that would damage the legitimacy of a system. Not intentionally, anyway.

But what is important is that legitimacy, within a political culture, is quantifiable in a theoretical way. What does that bullshit mean?

Well, it means that for any elected body (the only institutions that can have a genuine claim to 100% legitimacy)  we can put a rough value on just how legitimate it is.

Better still, using some formula jiggery-pokery, we can make a reasonable guess as to how legitimacy declines over time. Because legitimacy, being derived from election, must inherently diminish as time goes by from the last election to that institution.

Let’s imagine that an election takes place to the House of Commons. On day one, it could be assumed to be 100% legitimate, being an accurate (ignoring the question of proportional representation) reflection of the will of the electorate who turned out.

Click for a closer look

As time goes by, that legitimacy slides away. Slowly at first, so much so that after 12 months still 96% of the population would deem the Parliament to be legitimate. But 12 months later, that has dropped to 86%, and 12 months further still, it has dropped to 68%. Click the graph to the right for a closer look.

At what point is a new election desirable? Should we wait until dropping below 50%? Or is it better to nip the decline in the bud by going for slightly earlier?

Why is respect for our current Parliament so low? It’s not just the expenses scandal. I would argue that it’s because of how long it has been since the last election, almost 54 months. That would give a legitimacy rating of just 30%. Most people, when questioned, would like an election almost immediately. Does that lend credence to such a low legitimacy rating?

Indeed, by the next election, some 60 months after the last one, I would argue legitimacy would be as low as 14%. The way the formula works is that, the further away from the election you are, the faster the decline (because of its logarithmic nature).

This is an extremely basic formula, but I would argue with some tweaking it could be adjusted for turnout: the idea being that the lower the turnout, the lower the starting point should be, and the faster the decline. It could also be adjusted for political culture: for example, elections to the US House of Representatives are every two years, so the decline would be much steeper.

Using this we can make a case for when the “ideal” time for an election should be. Five years is far too long, and risks the kind of fag-end, lame-duck administration we’re seeing now. Four years is better – but at 44% I would still say it’s a bit too late, as towards the end such a Parliament’s age starts to show.

I think three years would be better (the Australian Parliament seems to have this right)… but why must we always deal in exact years? Why not 3.5 years (at 57%)? Just before the majority of the country get fed up, and round enough to be nice and predictable.

Of course, all of this is a creation of my over-active imagination.  There is no scientific basis behind it; only a guess based on hunch and instinct as to how Parliaments decline in the eyes of their electorate.

But I think, with the proper study and testing, it could be revised and enhanced to cope with more variables (like turnout and electoral system), and it aids understanding as to why we need a regular supply of elections, and when they should occur.

Bercow “Gets It”, But Do Other MPs?

See? I told you he's been waiting. He's been standing there all summer, parading with the Mace. He told me he wants to get the Speaker's Procession "just right".

At last! Having enjoyed a nice summer, thank-yew-very-much, Speaker Bercow has decided that it probably should be the last.

I can just imagine him in Speaker’s House, sitting there all summer, “smart but unfussy” black gown hanging neatly in the wardrobe, twiddling his thumbs waiting to get back into action, laying the smackdown on errant MPs and ministers. Seeing all this political activity buzzing around him in conferences up and down the country, and yet powerless to do anything about it.

But it’s not just the summer recess that he wants to truncate. No, he’s got big plans.

The good news for those of us who like manifestos and mandates is that Bercow was elected on a pledge to try to bring these into action. In other words, he’s going to attempt to keep his promises.

“Attempt” is the strongest word we can use, though, as it’s all going to be down to whether his fellow MPs take his lead and bring about some of these changes.

They’re nothing too revolutionary… but they are a very welcome start to try to make the House of Commons more relevant in the modern age. Tacked at the end of the above linked article is probably the most important one: the chance to give backbenchers the opportunity to call a vote. This was a power they used to have, but one they desperately need if we’re to avoid a debacle like the one we saw which eventually led to the demise of Speaker Michael Martin.

Following that too would be the institution of a business committee, like the Scottish Parliament, that would mean the government no longer controls the agenda of the Commons. That is important to strengthen checks and balances.

But the other reforms are just as sensible, and will do an excellent job of at least bringing the Commons into the 20th century, e.g. bringing peers before the Commons is just “common sense” – forget the arcane rules that currently don’t allow MPs to hold Lords Mandelson and Adonis to account. He also listed other reforms, but the level of detail is dull. Suffice it to say that each one on their own is useless, but as a package they will improve the ability of MPs to do the job they should be doing: i.e. holding the government to account.

It is good to see the Speaker using his mandate in this way. He promised he would get out in public and make speeches, even appear on television. That is absolutely right in this modern age. The people aren’t going to come back to the politicians willingly. Alas, they are going to have to go out and re-earn the respect they once had.

The big question is as I said earlier: will the government and opposition frontbenchers (because they’re going to be the next government!) be willing to subject themselves to more scrutiny? Do turkeys vote for Christmas?

And will those Tories who think Speaker Bercow was just one big Labour conspiracy support this agenda?

Cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face is a remarkably popular behaviour in Parliament. I wouldn’t bet against it.

(Bercow’s speech to the Hansard Society is not yet available, but most of the key points have been twittered)

Purnell: “Send In The Goats” (apparently)

What does he look so happy about? He's jobless isn't he? Oh no, hang on, he was magically given the job as director of "Open Left". The result of a free and fair selection process, I'm sure.

… says James Purnell:

British politics is better for the appointment of Mervyn Davies, Stephen Carter, Mark Malloch Brown and indeed Baron Mandelson. We should make such appointees accountable to the Commons so that this becomes an accepted way of attracting people with recent real life experience of politics.

One might think this is James Purnell coming out in favour of more appointments to the House of Lords who then become ministers, which is an entirely undemocratic process for our political system, especially when those same ministers later resign/retire and then become a burden on the House of Lords for the rest of their days thanks to cronyism. But wait…

peers should be elected and given the task of amending legislation

Well… it seems the Guardian headline doesn’t quite match the story. As usual, suckered in by the media.

Instead, what Purnell’s article in Progress Magazine is actually about is the question of democratic renewal and the best ways to achieve it. Number one on his list is my old friend, the open primary. He reckons that this is the way in which we will usher in a broader range of people from different backgrounds into politics. He moans about it being:

almost impossible to get selected as a candidate of one of the main parties unless you’re a political lifer. As an ex-special adviser and councillor, I’m not against people who’ve worked in politics becoming MPs, but we should be a smaller share of the total.

… which is an easy thing to say but rather difficult to achieve in practice. I’m not so sure the trend towards “professional” politicians is that bad; as long as our MPs are extremely empathetic individuals with a great deal of emotional intelligence, they will be good at seeing the world from the perspective of others no matter where they come from. That’s not to say I want a Parliament of career politicians, but they do have their role to play.

So what is Purnell’s real point? Coming out in support of an elected House of Lords is always welcome, but Labour won’t be delivering it any time soon. Neither will they be ushering in an era of open primaries, or party funding reform (Purnell suggests parties should be state funded), and suggesting the era of collective responsibility for Cabinet is dead and may it rest in peace.

All very nice. But Labour have had 12 years to do all this and spectacularly failed. The obvious conclusion is that there is clearly no appetite for his ideas in the party.

In other words the only way any of this is going to happen is if: a) Cameron does it; or b) Purnell becomes the leader.

So is that the real point? Is this merely a little piece of fluff to rebuild his reputation with the dying breed of radical reformers on the centre-left? A long term plan to not be the next leader, but the one after that?

Or should he just defect to the Lib Dems now, where it sounds to me like he’ll be more at home?

Well, we are supposed to be the party of all the talents. POATTs doesn’t quite have the same ring to it, though.

Nick Clegg’s Speech: Liveblog

At least it was a yellow tie...

So, here we are once more… another year, another Lib Dem Conference draws to a close.

This year is rather special, however… simply because we know it is the last one before a General Election. That should have, in theory, focused minds. But will it have done so for Nick Clegg? I listed what I wanted to see in my previous post, but I’m sure Nick won’t be paying much attention to me.

Below is my final conclusion, and below that is the liveblog as it happened. Enjoy, if possible…

Conclusion: it had some policy, enough to make me a little happy. But it skipped the difficult bits. Where was the defence of his plans to axe our pledge on tuition fees? Where was the defence of the expensive homes tax plan?

Nevertheless, it dealt with some of the major issues, and how the Lib Dems would apparently be more honest with the public over what kind of spending cuts are needed (hint: public sector pensions) and what kind of change is needed in society if we’re to achieve our environmental vision.

But we’re just going to have to do better at consolidating our message into a crystal clear few sentences. There was nothing really in this speech that could be boiled down in that way, except perhaps the repetition of Tory “fake change”. Is that good enough to make voters think again about the Tories though?

It was also a bit too personal in its attacks on Cameron. He should have turned his fire more on the generic target of the party behind him. Cameron may look and sound different to normal Tories, but behind him is still the same old people, the same old party machine. That’s what we need to be wary of, that would have been an easier target, particularly for those in Con-LD marginals.

As for Labour-LD seats… playing up our genuine internationalism will help, as too will an appeal to the working classes regarding jobs, lower taxes for them, higher taxes for the rich, etc. Is it going to be enough though? We need to bang the drum extraordinarily loudly on this: in which case Nick’s idea of putting taxation policy as number one issue on the doorstep is probably a wise choice.

Finally, the delivery was good and the presentation style was typical Nick Clegg: i.e. passable but not setting the world on fire. A little sense of amateur dramatics at times, but it feels fairly sincere.

Overall… he deserves a chance. And one with enthusiastic backing. We’ll give it a go, no doubt. But I’m no less worried about our prospects now than I was before he articulated this vision.

It’s going to be a very interesting eight months!

---

2:30pm: The warm up act is the party awards, accompanied by extraordinarily cheesy synth. I hope they didn’t pay much for that from the music library…

2:45pm: Well, we’re still waiting. Much cheers for the latest award recipient. Polite applause. The wait goes on with great sincerity from Party President Baroness Scott…

2:48pm: I’m beginning to think I’ve started watching a home shopping channel, such is the nature of Baroness Scott’s delivery.

2:50pm: It’s like the credits list of a film now. Come on Ros!

2:51pm: A shot of Ming the Merciless looking bored out of his skin. That glassy stare doesn’t fool me.

2:54pm: Urgh. How rude of Baroness Scott to hand over to Tim Farron. But at least he’s more entertaining. And now he’s asking the Lib Dems there to stick their hands in their pockets. Apparently the Lib Dems manage to run their conferences at a profit. But that might be just an urban legend.

2:57pm: Getting closer now. And the jokes are getting worse. This isn’t getting me into a very charitable mood for the speech! And now the microphones have gone quiet. Typical Lib Dem professionalism in action, it seems!

3:02pm: It’s still not safe for Nick Clegg to emerge. This is all a distraction while they sweep the hall for sniper rifles. Very clever. Tim Farron doing a marvellous job of ad libbing.

3:07pm: Tick tock. I’ve got computers to fix, don’t you know?

3:08pm: Here we go. Opening video, cheesy music in the background. Lots of smiley faces saying they’ll be voting Lib Dem too. Not much of a surprise at a Lib Dem conference.

3:09pm: Sound levels appear to have been sorted out. BBC News Channel join the action. They’re skipping the video though, the delightful Laura K (unspellable surname) talking over it. A cacophony of voices in my headphones. Argh! Insanity will soon follow.

3:11pm: Nick Clegg in da house, accompanied by shit dance music. The crowd on their feet for a miserable 30 second ovation.

3:12pm: Clegg immediately makes the whole thing incredibly somber by talking about the deaths of British service personnel.

3:13pm: Some red meat on Afghanistan perhaps? Talking of failure, the need to change course. Says he may support troop withdrawal if we don’t change course. Not bad.

3:14pm: “You cannot win a war on half horse power”. Not going to set the media alight, Nick…

3:17pm: Starting to talk about Lib Dem priorities now. It’s all too general though. All could have been said by David Cameron.

3:18pm: on the side of the weak, not the powerful, apparently. Well. There’s a revelation.

3:19pm: addressing the disunity of the conference. Turning it into a positive, how he’s leading a democratic party, etc, etc. “We are in this together” appeal for unity. Fair enough.

3:20pm: “let today mark the beginning of real change in Britain”. Umm. Why?

3:20pm: change of tack, now listing the problems of the UK. “We need an extraordinary government”. Would that be your one, by any chance? Well, it’s certainly not Labour or the Tories, who get a good smashing.

3:21pm: criticising the old “red-blue” politics. We might call it Wispa politics. What else is red and blue?

3:22pm: attacking Labour as betraying the best hopes of a generation.

3:23pm: The country wants change. So what change is on offer? Criticises Cameron, and the message of “fake change”. Britain deserves better, says Clegg. Point made, now move on.

3:24pm: Wants the Lib Dems to “earn power” as opposed to the easy route for the Tories. Well, there’s no other route for the third-party in British politics.

3:25pm: It’s Nick’s wedding anniversary. Easy round of applause.

3:25pm: Back to Cameron. “There’s less to him than meets the eye”. Spending too long on the Clegg v Cameron comparison now. It’s not going to win any votes I’m afraid.

3:26pm: Listing historic achievements of the Party now. Possibly a useful thing to do to answer the age old question of “What is the point of the Lib Dems?”. We need to remind people that the third-party does have some influence. And runs councils the length and breadth of the country.

3:27pm: easy round of applause by praising Vince Cable. But where’s the beef?

3:28pm: attacking the Tories again. Has he been looking at that dodgy Daily Politics poll? Or is it those numerous Tory-Lib Dem marginals that are going to fall at the next election?

3:29pm: “there is only one party that will bring real change to Britain” – but what is the change, Nick? We’re waiting for the actual narrative, not vague promises.

3:30pm: rejects immediate spending cuts, but “tight spending” in the future. Not quite the “savage cuts” of previous speeches/interviews.

3:31pm: trying to emphasise that fiscal discipline has a purpose, no other way to build a fair society if the country is bankrupt after all.

3:32pm: attacking Conservatives again. “We remember and we say never again” as he talks of their previous spending cuts. Lib Dems will do it differently, he says.

3:33pm: Obama-like rhetoric. I recall during a presidential debate Obama talking about how he would save money by a line-by-line examination of the budget and removing programs that don’t work. That’s what Clegg has promised. Nothing too ground-breaking though.

3:35pm: laundry list of cancellations to save money. Decent stuff.

3:36pm: talking starkly to the public sector workers about the difficult times ahead. I like this. It’s what the country needs.

3:37pm: discipline on pay is the way forward rather than mass redundancies. No one could disagree though.

3:38pm: addressing my generation now and youth unemployment. It’s a very good issue. But the youth just won’t vote, the ungrateful bastards. Trying to get there by-proxy by appealing to their parents though.

3:39pm: decent rhetoric though, but is he not going to let the young people down by supporting tuition fees? That’s been glossed over so far. Instead, it’s all about how to get youth unemployment down. Expect most of these ideas to be stolen by the next election by either Labour or Conservatives. Why? Because they aren’t ideological.

3:41pm: getting more aggressive… attacking the useless VAT cut, money could be better spent elsewhere. Indeed.

3:42pm: “to build a fair society you have to start with children”. Fairness is the better theme to this speech. But it needed to run throughout the whole thing, not just picked up now.

3:43pm: tax system now under the microscope. same theme of fairness. Policy being re-emphasised, which is good. It’s only by continuing to repeat it again and again will the media finally realise what we’re saying.

3:44pm: the rich now getting a hammering. The affluent are only going to vote Lib Dem at the next election if they have some sort of social conscience, it seems!

3:45pm: “taking these difficult decisions is the price of fairness”

3:46pm: the one policy that he wants to emphasise? “We will deliver fair taxes”. OK – so he’s decided the key message. He’s targeting the back pocket. Higher personal allowance thresholds.

3:47pm: turning now to the expenses scandal… and he’s right. We’ve had a disaster in the political system and nothing really has changed. Will political reform resonate on the doorstep? Or is this just to placate the audience?

3:48pm: First Past the Post now getting attacked. “Nearly half of Britain’s constituencies have elected the same party in every election since I was born?” Is this rhetoric about electoral reform turning into a pre-condition for coalition or confidence negotiations?

3:49pm: now praising all his Shadow Cabinet. Imagining what would happen if the Lib Dems won power in their own right. It’s just all a liberal wet dream, Nick!

3:51pm: an attempt to make people realise what the Lib Dem Shadow Cabinet would be like in power is an interesting idea. But this is all going to end up on the cutting room floor.

3:52pm: turning now to climate change. Easy territory for the party. But is he going to be honest about the serious challenge ahead? Reckons no one but the Lib Dems will be the best to represent the party internationally. Attacks Labour: “has undermined Britain in the world”. May persuade some Labour voters.

3:53pm: Now the Tories turn… what would they be like on the international stage? “the most insular and self-defeating of modern times”. This is good for us Lib Dems, but I don’t think it will be winning Tories over.

3:54pm: Getting to the point now… Lib Dems would be better at it, of course. International law, heart of Europe. Real change for Britain. Fairness? It needed a link here!

3:55pm: now trying to appeal to the voter directly. “if you like what you hear, if you share our vision… then go with your instincts. Vote Liberal Democrat”.

3:59pm: “choose the party that is different. Choose the Liberal Democrats” is the final rallying cry. You’ll have to excuse me, I missed the last couple of minutes due to a phonecall. Bah!

4:01pm: As the customary standing ovation begins, the BBC News Channel have moved to the UN. Such typical bad timing for us Lib Dems.

4:02pm: Well… unless I missed something spectacular in those three minutes, I’d rate it at no more than a B+. There were some good moments, some knitting together of the key themes. But fairness ought to have been the central issue, and referenced in every single bit of policy discussed.

Coming Up – Leader’s Speech Liveblog

The floor is yours, Mr Clegg...

Just a quick one this morning to say that – assuming my schedule works out right for today – I will be in a position this afternoon to liveblog Nick Clegg’s conference speech at around 2:30pm.

“How exciting!” is the cry of joy I hear in response. Yes, it will be unmissable.

What I’m looking for today is a credible narrative to join together all the threads of the past few days. There’s no time like the present: the election is looming, and Nick Clegg will not get a better opportunity to frame the big issues ahead in our terms.

I’m not looking for an attack on David Cameron. It’s too late for that. The public have already decided they kinda like him. What I am looking for is a cogent and incisive case against the politics of the Conservative Party.

Meanwhile, there’s no need to go to town on Gordon Brown either – but the message needs to be clear: Labour are finished, and your best chance of achieving a genuinely progressive centre-left agenda after the election will be by voting Liberal Democrat.

This is an election address and must be treated as such. And so, above all, at the end of it, its key themes must shine out. We must be able to boil it down to a handful of choice phrases and pledges that are going to resonate on the doorstep.

There is no need to bother with rallying cries, or calls for party unity, as that is a given in the run up to an election. Everyone is prepared to give Nick the backing he needs to run a good campaign.

Today, it’s all about the substance of the message. I’m hoping he won’t disappoint.

I hope you’ll join me at 2:30pm for the fun and games.

Conference Call

Does Bournemouth really look like that? I wouldn't know...

It would be wrong of me to let the Lib Dem Conference pass without some comment on the kind of things that have been coming out of it since it started. After all, it’s ending tomorrow!

The first point of “excitement” to the media came when Nick Clegg downgraded the tuition fee policy to no more than an aspiration. That got Charles Kennedy a little worked up when he suggested it may damage the “heart” of the Lib Dems.

The one worry I have about this change of party position is that it has been justified by the terrible economic position the country is in. But, in fact, one could justify tearing apart the entirety of Lib Dem policy on the basis of the recession.

No… there is something suspicious about it. After all, there have been rumours in the past that senior Lib Dems have been trying to distance themselves from the policy. It now almost seems too convenient that it has been one of the first policies placed on the bonfire as a victim of the credit crunch.

It’s the same feeling that I have when I hear Cameron talking about cuts. I suspect he is a “cutter” by instinct anyway, like most of the Tory party. They’ve been desperate to give the public sector a serious slashing ever since they left office. Now they’ll be able to do it with the most wonderful of covers provided by an economic backdrop that no one can deny.

I fully expect other Lib Dem priorities that are a little costly to join tuition fee abolition on the shelf.

My real problem though is what it does to future recruitment of the party. If we want to grow, we must continue to work hard on the youngest generations, the students and youth, to convince them to choose us. Catch ’em while they’re young, they say. It worked for me.

Meanwhile, other policy planks have included the over £1m property tax… which I think is broadly a good idea. It was quite amusing to watch Andrew Neil yesterday try to defend the poor, downtrodden elderly who might, unbeknownst to them, be sitting on a property goldmine. I don’t think these people actually exist other than in the minds of our opponents on this policy. And even if they do, they will be able to escape paying it as that’s part of the plan.

Then there’s a little something today which might just be a game-changer. Are we really going to call for an end to the Afghanistan war? That’s what the headlines are going to say even if the detail is much more complex. The public would be on our side for sure. But it’s one of the most difficult international issues we’re going to face in the modern era. I really don’t know what the right answer is.

Otherwise, conference hasn’t been all that exciting. A frippery here or there on airbrushing, raising pay of soldiers, some “savage” cuts… it’s all much of a muchness for Lib Dems these days.

But hey, I guess that’s what Conference is all about. It’s not really about selling policy to political geeks like me. It’s about trying to get some airtime for the party’s agenda to the people who are switched off from it most of the year.

The jury’s still out on that one…

Pre-Conference Polling

Insert generic opinion poll-related image here...

It would seem an opportune moment, just before the conference season fully gets underway, to make sure our Monster’s Poll is bang up to date.

The sad thing is that the pace of polling is so poor at the moment that our calculations are still being skewed by some seriously old polls. But, there has been movement, and the index now stands as follows…

• Conservative: 40% (N/C)
• Lib Dems: 22% (-3%)
• Labour: 21% (+3%)

Disappointingly, this movement is somewhat out of date. Nevertheless, I am still confident that the Lib Dem methodology will prevail when an election is upon us. Conventional wisdom shows they improve their standing during an election campaign, and I’m certain it will happen again.

The real test is going to be whether Labour will perform as per the Mike Smithson Golden Rule – that the most accurate poll is the one that has Labour in the worst position. It has form in almost every election in recent memory… but could a serious election campaign motivate the core Labour vote to get out there?

I’m starting to think it will. This may go down as a poor prediction, but I believe that if Labour spin it right, that it will be a closer battle, they will get sufficient quantities of their voters out to avoid a truly astonishingly bad performance in vote percentage.

The real test they will face, however, is that there is no benefit in piling up the core vote in constituencies they’ve already won. In other words, we could still get a better than expected Labour result (e.g. above 30%), but a worse performance than might be expected in terms of seats simply because of vote distribution and the magical workings of our appalling electoral system.

Meanwhile, the Tories are immovable objects at or around the 40% level. At these kind of numbers, victory is certain. But will they go any higher? I would say their ceiling will be 43%. I think they’ve almost picked up all the supporters they’re likely to already, and that support is rock-solid. It will not be switched or persuaded otherwise, no matter what the campaign from now until the election day turns up.

That means the real electoral questions will simply be whether the Lib Dems can continue their pattern of gains during the election, and if Labour can get out their vote in sufficient numbers to avoid huge embarrassment.

In other words, all to play for!

(Note sarcasm in previous sentence).

Our next look at the Monster’s Poll will come after the conferences have all wrapped up in about three weeks time. There is sure to be plenty of polling between now and then. I hope…