Nick Clegg dressed up as Marge Simpson. Now there's a thought....

I hardly ever buy a daily paper during in the week nowadays. It seems silly when you can read so much online or watch it on the box. I do usually buy a Guardian on Saturdays, mainly spurred on by my nearest and dearest's enthusiasm for "The Guide" which is the handiest telly guide around (as well as covering a lot of other stuff which we never read).

Sometimes I miss a Saturday, especially if I haven't yet read the previous week's non-news sections. I then spend a weekend catching up. It is one of my small contributions to the health of the planet.

That is a very long-winded excuse for only now having read the two in depth party leader interviews from last weekend's glossy magazines.

As usual I nervously insist that I did not buy the Mail on Sunday. A relative of right-wing persuasion kindly gave me the MoS glossy Live. This featured Nick Clegg on its front cover and over several pages. The interview is a glorified rehash of the all the little Clegg Cacti arson/30 lovers/don't like to talk about drugs stories. It does, however, enlighten us with the fact that Clegg went to a New York fancy dress party with Marcel Theroux dressed as a female character from The Simpsons. What the article doesn't divulge is which character Clegg dressed as, although it mentions that huge wigs were involved. The next cutting-edge journalist who interviews Clegg really ought to find out which character he was dressed up as. Marge Simpson? I think we should be told. Oh, do let it be Marge! The vision of Clegg as Marge is absolutely delicious. Oh let there be a photo somewhere of this!

Anyway, apart from that, the MoS Live article is mainly notable for some excellent photography by Ian Derry, including the prominent cover shot which I reproduce below.

The Guardian Weekend article on Brown is really very well observed and written, by Katharine Viner. It's worth a read. You have to admire Brown's resilience, but it seems that his very resilience is born out of a lack of self-awareness. He is the ultimate bunker politician. He's not a very good communicator, he admits. That is a problem with a modern Prime Minister. Viner mentions that Brown is totally different in private, where he is very engaging. Well, that's no good is it? We're all good in private, for goodness sake. But if you are Prime Minister you have to C-O-M-M-U-N-I-C-A-T-E. They also said John Major was very good in private. Big deal. He was also useless at communicating in public, which was his main job.

Viner ends with an interesting observation. During several long meetings with Brown, Viner "never once saw him perform that strange, lower-jaw breathing manoeuvre he so often executes in public." That's amazing isn't it? Brown reserves his goldfish impersonation just for the public. Very good of him.

Viner concludes interestingly:

His image is fusty and secretive, but he's the first prime minister to sit in an open-plan office in Downing Street. To me he spoke fluently and with passion. He sounded like a normal person.
The prime minister is a man of such paradoxes. He is now convinced free market solutions can't work, but is still privatising parts of the Royal Mail and the health service. He passes strong legislation on women while appointing few to top positions. He sees himself as a good person, but employs others to do his dirty work. He wants to stay as prime minister, but longs to get out of No 10, govern from a train, become a teacher. As he says himself, "It's a strange life, really."

Old Clegg's Almanack

A sumptuous interview with the Cleggster in the Guardian. Something to bask in.

It is noticeable that Nick Clegg seems to be in the fortune telling business:

"I've got cards up my sleeve," he says coyly, but won't elaborate. Instead, he offers, "Let me spell out what I think is going to unfold. There's clearly something unsustainable about MPs saying, 'We've done something seriously wrong but we are going to hang around until the next general election.' I think for the most serious abuses, instead of having MPs adjudicated by party panels behind closed doors, the adjudication will have to transfer to independent hands such as the standards commissioner. Then I think the demand for by-elections will be overwhelming. If we don't have a general election we're going to have a war of attrition. People won't be satisfied by vague ideas. They're not going to be fobbed off with that."

And then a sentence which reveals Old Clegg at his most all-seeing and Almanackish:

I ask him why he's smiling. "I'm smiling because I know what's coming next."

Ah!

P.S. My other favourite bit of the interview is this, which should be inserted surgically somewhere in the corporate Tory blogo-body:

In all our conversations, Clegg says nothing that could have come from Cameron's mouth. There is little discernible similarity as a character either; any confusion between the two men would require, for one thing, almost total ignorance of our class system, for Clegg's Eurocentric internationalism - his mother was Dutch, his home life is bilingual, he used to work for the European commission - places him on a different planet from the sloaney Englishness of the Tory leader. He is a quintessential Liberal, and on issues from ID cards to the environment can plausibly claim to be ahead of the curve.

Gordon Brown considers LibDem-Lab deal

Well, he can go and boil his head unless he cancels the Summer recess and implements Nick Clegg's full 100 day plan.

Clegg's breathtaking 100 day plan to reinvent British politics

This will induce the nearest thing LibDem nerds get to a simultaneous orgasm over politics.

In tomorrow's Guardian, Nick Clegg proposes a breathtaking 100 day plan to reform British politics. He says that MPs should not go on holiday until their wholesale reinvention of the whole system. His article is entitled "Bar the gates. No summer holiday before the overhaul".

This is great stuff! Nick Clegg knocks Cameron's timid muttering about 'nip and tuck' reforms into a cocked hat. Brilliantly, he describes Cameron's statement thus: "Open source software, new select committee chairs and legislative text messages will not rescue British democracy," he wrote. "They are designed to provide verbal cover for maintaining the status quo."

The whole constitutional reform bag of nuts (or most of it, at least) is in Nick's plan, although controversially, he includes Lord Jenkin's AV+ as the subject of a referendum on "PR" - sharp intake of breath from blogging community!

Nick can certainly be commended for following the motto "carpe diem" in choosing this moment to give Britain the full gamma blast of the constitutional reform menu. He demonstrates the instincts of a radical reformer: "Let's stop all this self-congratulatory hype about the mother of parliaments and get on with improving it."

Together, over the next 100 days, we could achieve nothing less than the total reinvention of British politics. These months could become a great moment in British political history, rather than a shabby footnote to a shameful month of scandal. Let us seize, not squander, the opportunity for change.

It's as likely to happen in 100 days as hell freezing over, but at least it puts down a marker and shows up Cameron's statement this week as the meaningless nonsense it is.

In the first two weeks parliament would agree to accept the recommendations of the review into MPs' expenses and allowances by the standards watchdog, draw up a bill to allow for the recall of errant MPs, and impose a £50,000 cap on individual donations to political parties in any year.
The Clegg plan would then introduce major constitutional reforms:
• By week three legislation would be passed to introduce fixed parliamentary terms of four years from 2010, denying the prime minister the right to name the date of general elections.
• By week four the new Commons Speaker would convene all-party talks to introduce a series of changes to parliamentary procedure that would be agreed by day 100. These include handing MPs the right to decide the parliamentary timetable, ­giving MPs a greater chance to scrutinise government spending and subject ministers to confirmation hearings.
• By weeks four to five parliament would pass legislation to allow a referendum to be held on electoral reform – the alternative vote plus system proposed by the late Lord Jenkins – that would be held on day 100.
• By weeks six to seven parliament would pass legislation to replace the House of Lords with a wholly elected senate.

Commons barracking shows Clegg is making an impact

Nick Robinson says that the extraordinary barracking of Nick Clegg at Prime Minister's Questions today shows that he (Clegg) is having an impact (Gurkhas, call for Speaker to resign etc.) and that the other parties know it

It was noticeable (from the Tweets) that the Speaker took longer than usual to bother to stop the barracking of Clegg. A bit of childish revenge perhaps?

Perhaps the reason Nick Clegg is derided so much by the other parties is because he is at last getting to the heart of the matter: Democratic reform. In both his questions today, Nick emphasised the need for reform across the board "from party funding to Whitehall secrecy" and, in particular, voting reform so that a government cannot be given such vast power by just a quarter of the people in an election.

Hat-tip to the tweeting @CaronmLindsay

Clegg blasts BBC Gaza appeal decision

On Sunday AM Nick Clegg has blasted the BBC decision not to broadcast the DEC Gaza appeal, saying:

My own view is that I think it is an insult to the viewing public to suggest they can't distinguish between the humanitarian needs of thousands of children and families in Gaza and the political sensitivities of the Middle East. It's a distinction which anyone can make and to suggest that the BBC should somehow not allow people to show their compassion for that human suffering because of the wider controversies in the Middle East I think, I am afraid, is a case, in this instance, of the BBC totally getting their priorities upside down...The most disquieting aspect of this was, I think, in a news report yesterday from the BBC itself it was said that the BBC felt they couldn't let this appeal come onto the television screens tomorrow on Monday whilst the story was so high up the news agenda as if the humanitarian suffering of people in Gaza has to wait until the Middle East somehow goes down the news agenda on the evening news. That, I think, is almost cynical."

When presenter Andrew Marr mentioned that the fact that while comment and presence in Gaza is still there that there might be feeling that getting to close to that is getting the BBC too close to people who are on one side of an ongoing conflict, Clegg replied:

I just don't think people look at it that way I think people quite clearly understand that they want to help particularly the children - thousands of children whose lives have been very seriously blighted - destroyed - by the level of violence, without making judgments about the wider politics.

Co-guest Paul Gambaccini (for it was he) then reminded Nick Clegg about Live Aid, when people gave money without taking into political sensitivities, Clegg added:

No conflict is without political sensitivities.

You can see Nick Clegg making his remarks on Sunday AM here.

Clegg: Seen as "down-to-earth"..."someone I could relate to"...not confused with poshie Cameron and better known than Cable...so there!

Some interesting research today in the Independent:

The research concluded that Mr Clegg was the Liberal Democrats' best asset even though he is unknown to many voters. The party's strategy in the new year will be based on giving him as high a profile as possible.

It's the old story. When shown photos and videos of Cleggie, the great British public warm to him. The biggest problem is that they don't know who the Sam Hill he is.

There is a lot of good news for Nick Clegg in this research, which suggests it is an excellent bit of spinning by someone in Cowley Street! (Well done and trebles all round!)

Women, who like him more than men do, regard the Liberal Democrat leader as "nice-looking, presentable, personable and likeable", according to the research. Among men, he is viewed as "down-to-earth" and "someone I could relate to". People saw his body language as "in control" and "welcoming".

The focus groups suggest that, contrary to rumours in the Westminster village, people do not confuse Mr Clegg with Mr Cameron. The Liberal Democrat leader is seen as more forceful and authoritative without being "posh". People wish him well – but want to know more about him and his family.

Nor has Mr Clegg been eclipsed by Vince Cable, the party's Treasury spokesman, who has won plaudits for his performance on the economy and for predicting the personal debt crisis and housing bubble. Among ordinary voters, it seems, Mr Clegg is better known than Mr Cable.

So, Clegg looks set fair to garner the rewards of the high General Election visibility which LibDems always pray for. But, as usual, it's a sort of white knuckle/bungee jump scenario until then!

So farewell then, Lord Spudulike

The departure of Lord (Anthony) Jacobs from the LibDem party is very sad news. He's been a stalwart supporter of our party, and the Liberal party before it, since the early 1970s, including being a PPC. A jovial cove, he has been a regular figure at conferences, making the occasional impassioned speech.

But most significantly, he has been a huge player in keeping the party financially afloat over many years. Indeed, at one point it was wittily suggested that the party should be renamed the "Spudulike party" after one of the businesses which Lord Jacobs ran.

So, thanks for your great support and generosity over the years, Lord Jacobs. We're very sorry to see you go.

Maybe it's because I still have my Sunday head on and have just been checking up on how my Isle of Iona single malt is keeping, but I find Lord Jacobs' stated reasons for leaving the party to be utterly bizarre.

Lord Jacobs,77, told The Times that Mr Clegg was too timid and should offer lower taxes both for the poor and the better off.
Mr Clegg and Vince Cable “feel society wants the rich to pay more, whereas I’m arguing the rich could pay less provided the poorest pay nothing or very little indeed.”

Hang on a minute. Jacobs praises the Treasury front bench team to high heaven, but says he is leaving because of our tax policies. Eh?

And he says we want to tax the rich more. But he sat through conferences for donkeys' years as we voted to tax high earners at 50 pence in the pound. But we recently got rid of that policy and we are promising to take four pence off the basic rate in a package widely described as helping the less well off.

So something doesn't add up about Lord Jacobs' stated reasons for leaving the party.

I suspect he is being nice and actually is going because of general disenchantment, perhaps with the leadership. He is a Paddy fan.

Well, I'm a Paddy fan. And I am also a Cleggy fan and I really don't see how Paddy would do any better a job than Clegg is doing.

More on Nick Clegg's thoughts at precisely 10.04pm on Monday

Now that I am reunited with a decent network connection, I can quote more fully exactly what Nick Clegg was thinking at 10.04pm on Monday (see below). Why, you might ask, was some journo oik phoning up the Cleggster to ask him what he was thinking at such a precise time? Well, apparently it is the precise moment of the day when we are at our most creative (as opposed to 6.25am when, apparently (So I am told), male hormone levels are running riot at their most bullish - but that's another matter).

So a Grauniad scribe assembled the 10.04pm Monday thoughts of a host of the great and the good, including our beloved leader. The Cleggster alleged that he was thinking about some high-falutin' economic/environmental cross-matching-type scenario. Some of the other "great and the good" types were thinking less uplifting thoughts.

For example: Alex Kapranos was discussing ladies' silk underwear. Shami Chakrabarti was having a "tortured and mundane conversation" with her husband about their Christmas holidays. Sebastian Faulks was deciding whether or not to open another bottle of wine. Sharon Horgan was thinking about an episode of "Katie and Peter".

Here's the Cleggster's input:

I was coming back from a dinner with economic experts. I began to think about the danger of the environment being left behind as the economy worsens. High energy bills are an environmental problem as well as an economic one. We have to think creatively. Why is it that people are charged more for the initial amount of energy they use? Turning this tariff structure on its head would encourage people to use less energy and help the poorest who use less already. Now there's a simple idea all economists can surely agree on.

Well done, Nick Clegg!

Order of the brown nose to be sent in a plain brown envelope to Paul Walter, 9 Acacia Avenue......

Well done to Nick Clegg for bringing back the members of the shadow cabinet who voted for the referendum on the EU Treaty. This is an excellent act of leadership....letting bygones be bygones. All the MPs involved are excellent liberals and I am glad they are back in the shadow cabinet.

At the risk of getting oodles of comments from Rusty, I saw the EU Lisbon Treaty/referendum furore as (in the words of French and Saunders) "a lot of stuff and nonsense".

But, I will don flak jacket and tin hat as I know many people felt strongly about it. I just thought it was one of those things and that Clegg acted quite rightly and very strongly during the whole episode.

The Vince Pincer wins it

Well done and trebles all round to Stephen Tall on LibDem Voice for a stonking good service in live blogging from the "Make it Happen" debate at conference.

The amendment was "clearly defeated" (which could be 60-40 - we'll find out later). The motion was passed overwhelmingly with only a few against, which is a MAJOR achievement for Nick Clegg. It went through with great help from a "Vince Pincer" movement (phrase copyright S Tall 2008) - a pincer movement of two speakers (Graham Watson and Lord McNally) intimating that adopting the amendment would be a slap in the face for Vince Cable, Liberal Superhero.

Emotionally I tend to be with the amenders. Evan Harris always brings out the emotional woolly Liberal in me and he was in typical witty and passionate form this afternoon, according to ST. Roger Roberts also turns on my weak-kneed liberal gooiness like a tap and he made some excellent points.

But the big conference guns were out in force: Simon Hughes with his full authority, Vince Cable coming down specially from Mount Sinai, Danny Alexander, Mike German, Jo Swinson, Lord McNally, Chris Huhne....these are the sort of people who swing conference votes.

That Ocado moment

Janet Street-Porter has a go at Nick Clegg in the Independent:

Nick reveals that his wife is "gravitating towards Sainsbury's from Ocado" in order to save money. WAKE UP LOVE! Haven't the Cleggs heard that Netto, Aldi and Lidl are the shopping destinations of thousands of voters who can't even afford Sainsbury's, let alone Waitrose?

Nick Clegg seems have started something. The Telegraph reckons that his revelation that he has, amongst other belt tightening measures, switched from Ocado to Sainsburys for his weekly shop, "must have resonated with families across the country".

The paper compares prices and finds that Nick Clegg's family could get even better bargains elsewhere:

Analysis of 30 popular items from a range of stores, however, reveals he could have saved even more. A typical weekly basket, worth £76.86 at Ocado, costs £70.69 at Sainsbury's, £69.43 at Tesco and £65.67 at Asda.

I am very disappointed that they didn't include Lidl or Aldi, or indeed using the local market for some items, in their survey. Despite having a name for the place that, allegedly, "chavs shop", Lidl is popular with "foodies". Their buying strategy seems to be misunderstood. Rather than selling cheap produce cheaply, Lidl seem to keep their prices down by bulk buying reasonably quality items across Europe in single lines. So, you might only have one choice of sliced meat, for example, there and the label is in German, but by golly it is cheap. Over at Ocado/Waitrose you have 53 choices of different sliced meat but you pay through the nose to shop where Mrs Bucket shops.

'Hard Times' by Nicholas Clegg

The Independent relates how La Famille Clegg is having to tighten its belt:

-No more Waitrose - it's Lidl Sainsburys for the Cleggs now
-Belt tightening caused by a "painful" move from a fixed rate mortgage
-Turning down the heating
-No more hotels abroad for hols - it's shacking up with the in-laws
-An Electric moped used instead of a car ("Hurrah!" on the green front)

It is good to see that our PR girls and boys are bringing this sort of human story into the media.

Overall, I can see people generally being sympathetic to this Clegg story. However, I think the sympathy will be more heartfelt in the Home Counties and the more salubrious parts of the country, than elsewhere.

Having to change from Ocado (the web arm of Waitrose) to Sainsburys is likely to be laughed at in some quarters. We're not exactly talking Skid Row here are we? If Nick Clegg was skulking along on Friday evenings to Lidls to scrape up "passed sell-by date" bargains at Lidl's "reduced for a quickie" shelf, then it might indicate a serious situation.

That said, this Clegg picture comes across as human and sincere. But they are still sitting on some fairly decent equity for a house in one of the most prestigious parts of Putney, with two way-above-average salaries coming in.

So I doubt whether this article is going to excite buckets of tears of sympathy. But I suspect Team Clegg knows that. This does at least bring a little human dimension to the Cleggster.

Members' Clegg ratings - nothing for the Tories to crow about

There was mention in the media on Friday of the LibDem Voice survey where Nick Clegg came lower than a few of his shadow cabinet colleagues in popularity.

What seemed to be lost in the excitement is that the same poll gave Nick Clegg a 68/29 (%age satisfied/dissatisfied) rating.

If you compare that with David Cameron well after he had settled in as leader he got a much worse 58/40 rating in a Conservative Home survey of members in July 2007.

Even if you compare the Clegg ratings now with Cameron at the same stage of his leadership (i.e seven months in) at the end of July 2006, there is a great deal of difference. Cameron was then on 74/25.

An exciting Bournemouth conference in store

Michael White, the journeyman of the Guardian politics department, sets the scene for an interesting time at Bournemouth. He gives Nick Clegg some credit for allowing Vince Cable room to breathe, and mentions the recent LibDem Voice poll:

Cable, effortlessly authoritative on economic matters, is the man the broadcasters want to interview. To his credit the likeable leader - at 41 he is 24 years his junior - does not try to bigfoot Dr Vince. An activist poll by Lib Dem Voice finds two in three satisfied with his leadership.

What has Nick Clegg done for us?

Unlike Jonathan Calder, I am motivated to disagree with James Graham's piece on Comment is Free about Nick Clegg.

James starts by saying that Nick has done quite well in the polls, with his tax cut pledge and with his summer message.

He then goes on to criticise the man.

Well, hold on a cotton picking moment. That's like "What did the Romans do for us?"

Nick Clegg has faced a huge battle to reverse the downward drift of the party in the polls. For a year no one in the party was able to release the secret that we want to reduce the basic rate of income tax by four pence - but Nick has found a way to get that over to the public through the "Make it happen" package. Then came the very welcome summer message of strategically shifting resources to seats where we challenge Labour.

Just hold on a bit and breathe, James. Those are drains, central heating and roads-type achievements!

Can I just say that I am very impressed with Nick Clegg as leader? I think he is an exciting and intelligent thinker and an earnest leader who deserves our full support. In the many conversations I have had recently with activists, candidates and councillors, I have found no one who has voiced dissatisfaction with his leadership. Many have expressed relief that our leadership is no longer an issue in the media. The days of the zimmer frame cartoons have gone. We have a young, vibrant and positive leader. I have certainly noticed how we managed to keep ourselves in the media day after day. It is a very welcome turn of events.

And hey - look at me! I supported Chris Huhne for the leadership. James supported Clegg for the leadership. Perhaps one of the problems here is that of expectations. There were many in the party who hyped Clegg up to be the Messiah (I don't include James in that category, by the way - he was very cautious in his support for Clegg) and who seemed to believe their own hype. Now they seem disappointed. Then there are those like myself who voted for Huhne and weren't sold on the Clegg hype. Now we seem to be the ones who are pleasantly surprised. Perhaps the Clegg hypers should lie in the bed they have made for themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I accept that James has heard from "demoralised" or "disenchanted" activists and applaud him for speaking up on their behalf. I just think we need to get things into perspective. If Chris Huhne had won we'd be sitting here with a different set of problems - dare I say it, perhaps even a worse set of problems.

Chris Huhne would certainly have handled the Lisbon treaty exactly the same way as Clegg (perhaps with the odd tactical tweak) - he said as much in the campaign. And I note that James Graham brilliantly exposed the lie that the Lisbon Treaty was in any way a constitution. From that I conclude that there was no reneging of our manifesto commitment. I also note that Ashdown had the same type of episode over Maastricht.

Internal communication. I am not sure what briefing notes came out before "Make it happen". But if any PPC cannot extemporise a selling pitch for such a brilliant document, then they don't deserve to be a PPC. Are all our candidates wet? Of course, not.

The Bones commission. We get someone from the Henley Management College to look at our organisation. They're used to looking at businesses, among other organisations. Well, knock me down with a feather. They come back and tell us that we need to centralise our decision-making a bit. Staggering. What did people expect? That they would come back and say that we needed to make our decision making more democratic? Get a few more people involved? I agree with the scepticism about the proposals - whatever they are. But I agree that it was right to have such a commission. Clegg is not stupid to enough to think he can steam-roller through such proposals as the chief officers group.

Haltemprice and Howden. James Graham is factually wrong about this. Liberal Action has corrected him.

Finally, I am just a bit uncomfortable about the medium through which James is telling us about all this dissatisfaction. To put it bluntly: Did James sex up his message to provide some interesting copy for "Comment is Free" ? I don't criticise him for doing this. I greatly respect James. It just leaves a little doubt in the back of one's mind.

A false dichotomy and a butterfly

I thoroughly recommend the LibDem Voice members' survey which is accessible over at the LibDem Voice members' forum. The questions are very intelligent and relevant. However, one question, with its two possible alternative answers, had me having to contain an episode of apoplexy:

And do you think Make it Happen's tax-cuts pledge is a tactically smart thing to promise, regardless of whether you agree with the policy?

Yes – the party is right to promise tax cuts as it makes the party distinctive from the Tories, and might help secure Lib Dem seats in southern England.

No – we should seek to replace Labour as a progressive left-of-centre party committed to state-funded public services, focusing on winning Labour seats.

Of course, this is a ludicrous question and answer grouplet. It is possible - and the party should certainly be straining every sinew - to do both the tasks outlined in the answers. The two alternatives present a completely false dichotomy.

What particularly galls me is the assumption that tax cuts are only attractive to voters in soft Tory seats in the South of England. How dumb is that assumption? Our four pence basic rate cut is aimed at lower and middle income individuals and families, and we have a whole slew of fiscal policies aimed at helping the poor. Just because "Make it happen" proposes a £20bn spending cut doesn't alter that.

I particularly don't buy the assumption that you can't be committed to state-funded public services and aim to cut overall spending. With government spending projected to rise to £678billion in 2010-11, it is not particularly far-fetched to propose a 3% cut in this figure. Any business would see this as a reasonable goal. Most business aim to cut costs by figures such as 5% per year while improving customer service. Anyone who has managed a business knows that, in fact, you can make enormous progress with nil net investment or even under an overall environment of net cuts. Pressure on costs often instigates a culture of innovation. Necessity is the mother of invention. For example, the NHS and is the largest corporate employer in the world save for the Chinese army and the Indian railways. No one can sensibly say that no efficiencies, and improvements in service, can be achieved in such a sprawling organisation.

Of course, the LibDem overall tax-take cut proposal would not have been relevant or feasible in 1997 after 18 years of Tory stinginess. Labour have been relatively generous with public spending. Where they have failed is to spend it wisely, or more correctly, to allow it to be spent wisely through more local devolution of spending decisions.

So why haven't the Tories proposed such tax cuts as the ones in Make it Happen? Is the question always posed. If they did, they know they'd give Labour an open goal to criticise them for planning cuts in public spending. That criticism doesn't quite work with us given our very well established commitment to public services.

And let's face it, no LibDem conference is going to approve cuts in public services. Nor should there need to be any to achieve the £20bn tax take reduction. I certainly wouldn't agree to any cuts in hospitals, police, schools etc.

This whole argument depends on where the savings will be made. We should also bear in mind that a net reduction in spending still allows for some increases in spending in certain areas, offset by efficiencies and innovation in other areas. Innovation does take years to put into practice. It's a long term task. It's not about short term swingeing cuts. It's about intelligent management. Look at the examples of continental health systems which Nick Clegg often cites (and indeed, about which he has co-written a book).

The current examples cited by Nick Clegg are sensible ones. Reducing the number of MPs - Hoorah! Abolishing unnecessary government departments and divisions such as the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory reform - hoorah!

And the most under-rated of all the proposals is moving civil servants out of London. This frees up expensive real estate, reduces salaries and expenses and enhances the quality of life for civil servants, thereby potentially increasing productivity. The move would also help to reduce unemployment in the very Labour voting areas mentioned in section 2 of the answer to the question above.

There is also the political side of this. We risk being drowned out by the other two parties. Our four pence basic rate reduction was our best kept secret for a year. The brilliant wheeze of Mr Clegg to stick a cherry on top of this proposal (i.e the £20 billion tax take cut) has metamorphosed our 4p tax cut from a little known caterpillar into a beautiful political butterfly.

Nick Clegg's exciting message

It is great to hear from Nick Clegg that he is upping the ante on Labour target seats by giving the LibDems extra hard cash to fight them. Labour are really vulnerable and this is an historic chance for us:

This is a huge opportunity for us. We've got to seize it. So I'm shifting our resources to put more campaigners and moreeffort into those seats where we're taking on Labour. I've instructedour campaigns chief Chris Rennard to step up our campaigns in the 50seats where we're best placed to beat Labour. We'll be launching aspecial fundraising drive for those constituencies in the autumn, and I hope you'll help.

See Nick's message on YouTube below or here:

Clegg highlights scandal of energy price rises

Nick Clegg is quite right to point out the scandal of EDF energy price rises and their impact on the elderly and vulnerable:

When one company raises its prices the others soon follow suit. At a time when energy companies are enjoying a £9bn windfall, it is unacceptable that they can continue to squeeze more profits out of people who are already struggling.

With rises of the order of 22% and 17%, many people will be left between a rock and a hard place.

High praise for Nick Clegg from Iain Dale

There is high praise for Nick Clegg's tax plans from Iain Dale in today's Telegraph:

I hate to say it, but if they truly mean what they say on tax, the Lib Dems are in danger of being in touch with the overwhelming majority of the British people, who are now feeling overtaxed, over-regulated and over-governed. Clegg has tapped into the Zeitgeist and may reap the electoral rewards. His political opponents, within and without his party, will pour scorn on him and accuse him of populism and worse. The truth is somewhat different. He hasn't just pledged a reduction in taxes; he has promised a cut in public spending, too. Admittedly, it is only £20 billion, a mere three per cent of total government spending, but it's a start. And it's a damn sight more than any other politician has had the guts to do.