Is a referendum on AV enough?

At 5.32pm I asked whether the Liberal announcements this afternoon were “Calamity or canny politics” .

 Well it would seem that the moves by the Liberals did indeed enhance Cameron’s hand such that - regardless of all those Tory back bench MP’s comments through this the day about preferring a minority Tory government to a Lib/Con agreement - the Conservative parliamentary party are, following their meeting, now backing an offer of a referendum on AV to the Liberals. And fixed term parliaments - though I thought that was already on the table - perhaps not!

There are questions that remain to be answered… WHEN would the referendum be held (ie soon?) andwill they put the legislative process in place beforehand, such that IF the referendum is passed by the voters - it goes onto the statute book a week or two after…. No long grass….

But then just as I am about to hit “publish” …I get a call to say that the Labour party have now privately offered the Liberals legislation on AV anda referendum on PR. Aution-orama…

The Liberals have invited talks with the Labour party - and I suppose to turn around just 3 hours later and say “oh sorry guys we were just using you to get the Tories to the position  we needed” might not be diplomatic. So I guess an hour or two or talks is necessary to save face.

But the lib/lab alliance would NOT be stable…it cant work… and would be a disaster. It’s a small step from being canny to over-egging it . Get this sorted soon.. Tie up the loose ends…do the deal with the Tories…..4 days is enough and people are beginning to tire of it now.

Tags: AV, coaltion, Conservatives, hung Parliament, Liberal Democrats, PR

A Lib/Con coalition is the only route. But….

After what was a very long night - and a couple of hours sleep - what’s the conclusion?

First it strikes me as somewhat amusing that all three party’s bloggers are disgruntled… Labour boys saying Brown’s got to go, the Tories asking how the hell did the Tories not win and that their strategists should go…and Liberals asking wtf happened to the so-called surge that left us with less seats than before. Lots of disgruntlement all round.

There will be a time and place to analyse the Lib Dem strategy and be in no doubt serious questions must be asked. But that is not for now. Now we have to ask what the Liberals do over the next 24/36 hours?

Nick did very well to make the statement when he did concerning the Tories. He looked decisive and in command. In reality he had no option but make that statement. A Lib/Lab coalition is not numerically possible unless it hoiks in all manner of smaller groups (all who seem to be demanding sack loads of cash for their support). A Lib/Con coalition does work numerically.And the Tories have more votes and more seats than any other party- though with only about a third (36%) of UK voters backing them, the Tories have no mandate to do anything.

Cameron recognises this - hence his expansive offer to the Liberals, an offer explained in some considerable detail (given the circumstances) on national TV,  on areas where he thought there was common ground - civil liberties (lets take him on face value for now), green issues, pupil premiums etc..Added to that John Major (who Cameron talks to a good deal we believe) has hinted that “seats in cabinet” might be on the table. What are we looking at 2/3 seats? Clegg/Laws/Cable ???? Probably.

On some issues he was less conciliatory. He disagrees with Liberals on Europe (though how many real decision have to be made in the next few years is questionable). He disagrees with Liberals on Trident (though this is down to cash and scales of resource and I guess not a deal breaker). The supposed differences on the timing of spending cuts are fewer than have been made out and immigration is unsortable by any party - so I am sure compromise can be found on all these issues.

On the issue of political reform Cameron has, however, put up a road block. His offer of an all party committee on political reform shouts of “kick this one into the long grass”…his suggestion that the Tory preference is a change to constituency boundaries shouts “kick this into very very long grass” .

He surely knows that this would be unacceptable to the Liberals - so is this just his opening offer - or does he really think he bully/face down Clegg on this issue? 

He is very wrong, if he thinks Clegg can roll over on PR.

Whilst a Lib/Con coalition looks like the ONLY way forward right now, Cameron & Clegg MUST find a deal on PR that they can both sell to their respective parties AND THE WIDER ELECTORATE.

At the moment, Liberals want PR now. Tories dont want PR at all….There is a solution here that both parties may find palatable. 

Agree to put the question of PR to the people in a referendum

Say - in the Autumn - with no whip involved. Tories can campaign against - and explain why. Liberals can campaign for. The will of the people decides.  

By now we all know about the Liberal “triple lock”  - Nick has to get any coalition deal through his party - and as we speak Labour high command are beavering away to make sure that a Lib/Con deal breaks down. Phonelines are hot as they call senior Liberal MPs and activists to put pressure on Nick NOT to do a Tory deal - using the “Tories wont give you PR , we will” line.  How do I know - I had a call from a “mate” from the other side asking me who in my opinion were the big guns on the Federal Executive (oh how I laughed).

So Cameron and Clegg need “to get real” fast. 

The Liberal parliamentary party (who must agree the deal) meet tomorrow (Saturday). The Liberal Federal Executive (who must also agree the deal) meet on Sunday. tick tock tick tock.

Tags: cameron, Clegg, coaltion, Election, election results, hung Parliament, lib/con coalition

Bit of a wobble ?

It was to be expected that at some point the Liberals would wobble a little. That moment seems to be now.

I am not referring to the polls - though a couple of the most immediate ones do open up more of a lead for the Tories. I am referring to the immensely confusing mixed-message that we are hearing about who the Liberals will and won’t do business with in a hung parliament.

Watching Nick on Sunday -  Nick seemed very clear, very bold, very statesman-like in his position that, in the event that Labour polled the fewest votes of the three main parties, the idea of the Liberals propping up Gordon Brown in the position as PM would be preposterous. Here here. Simple, straightforward - how can any one disagree? And it took the sting out of the “Vote Clegg Get Brown” line.

Yes yes I know…what gives Nick the right to dictate to Labour who their leader is etc etc. But he was not saying that he would not seek to interfere in other parties business. (And as I heard it a good number of senior Labour figures agree with Nick).

As I saw it, Nick was EITHER

(A) in the event of coalition with Labour : angling for the position as PM (and why not - he takes on the roll - giving Labour time to have an election get a new leader in etc?) or he was

(B) edging slowly but surely toward a coalition with the Tories.

(C) Dismissing the vote Clegg get Brown line (or a combination of the above)

Why ever he said it,  he said it - outloud.

Then came the  briefing from one of Nick’s ”advisors” attempting to “clarify” the situation.

Er oh…. as these things always do, the “clarification” just muddied the waters, sending  journalists into mini-hysteria on the possibility of a disagreement within the Liberal High Command. 

Has there been a falling out? Did one of the lefties in Liberal Shadow Cabinet throw a wobbly? Did Mandy throw a wobbly? Did Nick not mean to say that? Is Clegg deliberately taking the agenda in his own party up a notch? Come on someone must now why an advisor was told to go forth and clarify !!!  

Sometimes you just can’t UNSAY what’s been said

And like your handy SATNAV  you have to plot a new route from where you are - not try to retrace your steps to where you were on Saturday, and start over.  Those advising Nick would do well to take that on board the next time they feel the need to “clarify” what he says.

So the last 24 hours has seen journalists hungry to find the split, prise it apart, get at what the problem is. Nick managed the questions well today - but this was damage limitation at best.

Nick needs to get a grip - take charge - let his words stand - and please oh please - don’t let advisors explain to journos “What Nick was actually saying was this…”. 

Nick was perfectly clear on Sunday. The confusion is of the Liberals own making.  Here’s hoping this is a little wobble and no more.

Tags: coalition, hung Parliament, Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg

Cameron gets it wrong again

I read on the BBC website this morning that David Cameron is stating that “a vote for Nick Clegg could leave Britain “stuck” with Labour”.

Some one needs to take David Cameron to one side and give him a sharp talking to. Because he is just plain wrong.Wrong on sentiment.Wrong on tactics.

First and foremost the current poll of polls puts the Tories on 33% with Labour and Liberal Democrats on 29% each (and who knows where this will end). Yes, on the “just for fun” BBC Election Seat Calculator this gives the Labour 280+ seats and the Tories about 240+ seats. 

It’s a rough and ready estimate….But its clearly in the right ball park …at least for now…. And yes it looks like it would have to be coalition with the Liberals- no other group looks to have enough.

Now on the face of it, as things stand, this puts Labour looking pretty. But (and it is a big “but”) the Liberals are SERIOUS about political reform - and a change to the first past the post system….I don’t see how they CAN opt for coalition with the Labour Party with more seats (won through the defunct old system)- over the Tories with more votes. Surely we have been saying for years that it’s the votes that count? We are the party that has the demand for a fair, proportional voting system at the heart of its manifesto.

So, currently, and assuming Mr Cameron can get his act together, in hung parliament land, its gotta be the votes that count - and therefore highly probable that the Liberals would indeed be talking to the Tories about coalition.

But herein lies the problem. Mr Cameron shows no sign of getting his act together. Not on his own campaign - not on his relationship with the liberals.

At the moment the Tories seem all at sea. Private recriminations internally about why Cameron did so poorly on the TV debate last week; unleashing their pet newspapers on Nick and the Liberals (which will incidentally only drive more voters to the Libs - the more you knock us the more the public will flock to us - cheers guys!); and of course, yet more talk of the disaster of a hung parliament, despite the fact that it’s clear the majority of voters WANT a hung parliament (recent Times poll says 53% are FOR a hung parliament with only 37% against). Come on Mr Cameron - you can’t keep saying that you (and the city) know best and the common voters are stupid (which seems to be your message right now).

“We know best” just isn’t a very smart political line in an anti-political age.

 

And what of the Tory campaign? Throughout this election, indeed throughout Cameron’s leadership we have seen the Tories lurch back and forth in all directions.  From the “hug a hoodie” party to the “bang ‘em up” party with seemingly no pause for breath. They claimed to be the party of harsh realistic spending cuts that needed to be implemented NOW,  a few weeks later they were handing out tax giveaways like Father Christmas on speed. “The Big Society” was their self-confessed big idea for the general election (even if many of us really don’t get what that really means). Yet in the TV debate, David Cameron did not mention it once. Nor did he mention the flagship education policy for “free schools”, (which will allow parents or other providers to set up their own schools) during the education part of the debate. And the lack of any numbers in their manifesto had everyone scratching their heads. You just don’t seem to be able to get a real fix on them.

And for a party of optimism and change all we seem to get are threats…first it was that a hung parliament will cause financial meltdown in the city and now a hung parliament will let Labour back in.. Did talk of a hung parliament cause the volcanic ash cloud too?

The Iraq war, the excesses of the political elite and their rich mates, the constant lecturing tone..they have dripped into our psyche. We have had enough. For most, Cameron looked like the only option to rid us of the dreadful Labour party- but Tory arguments have drifted all over the place. The electorate are not that stupid. Yes they wanted a change. But they wanted authenticity too. And that just never emerged with the Tories. And in marketing terms..

 

“Authenticity is the benchmark against which all brands are now judged”

 

In spite of this Cameron was the main man when there was no real competition. But competition has arrived. When millions saw Nick on TV on the leaders debate (for all his faults and the party’s faults), they saw something that is authentic and different. People get that.  Cameron really IS “Clegg-lite”.

So in the time that’s remaining, someone needs to tell Mr Cameron to “stick to the knitting”.  At the very least talk about policies and ideas and stop trying to badger and terrify us into voting Blue. It’s just not going to work.

As for Mr Cameron’s relationship with the liberals. What makes anyone think we would be willing to work with the Tories right now, even if they were first choice coalition partners?

 

All the Tory talk over recent weeks has been wholly anti-coalition and very definately against the kind of political reform that the Liberals are proposing. Any suggestion of change to the current voting system has been met with obstinate refusal. If David Cameron wants to be on the Government benches next month he may well need to rethink this, big time. Otherwise he might find himself spending a few short months on the opposition benches before the old Tory guard get their knives out.

Tags: David Cameron, Gordon Brown, hung Parliament, Nick Clegg

Stingray politics: Anything can happen in the next half hour…

 If a week’s a long time in politics - how about ninety minutes?

 That’s all it’s taken to turn this entire General Election on its head - boosting the LibDem vote share to 30%

 What happens next?

At a guess…

 

1. Labour plod on.

2. The Tories dog whistle (the Cameron vote share is now down at Howard/IDS levels)

3. Nick and the LibDems come under immense scrutiny (probably on personalities, not policy)

We’re way beyond hung parliament territory now. We’re into WTF territory. The LibDems are now just 14/1 to be the largest party after May 6^th.

Perhaps David Cameron should be asked what he’ll do if he holds the balance of power and whether he’d be willing to serve as junior coalition partner in a Clegg government?

Tags: general election, hung Parliament, I agree with Nick, Leaders Debate, Liberal Democrats

Hung Parliament and the value of the £ - part 2

Well, Nick might have thought the discussion about hung parliament and the value of the £ had been put to bed with his comments last week. Not so. Here is a short extract from Tuesday night’s Newsnight - an interview with Lord Steel and Terry Smith (from brokerage Tullet Prebon).

Rarely have I seen anyone praise Vince Cable as highly as Mr Smith. But note the recurring theme we are hearing from many on the business side of UK plc - that the cuts being proposed by ALL three main parties are simply insufficient for the scale of the problem.
Come on Nick, let Vince off his leash to tell it as it really is.

Tags: hung Parliament, Liberal Democrats, Lord Steel, Newsnight, Terry Smith, value of £, £sterling

Coalition: Chris Huhne confirms - the Cyberlock applies

Last night’s Newsnight (see below) led on the LibDem protocols in the event of a hung Parliament. Chris Huhne stood up to the plate to answer Gavin Esler’s questions off the back of a pretty jaw dropping package by Michael Crick.

 Chris said that he understood a conference resolution passed in Southport in 1998 applies to the party post-May 6^th if there’s no overall majority in the House of Commons.

 This would mean that Nick would require a 75% majority of BOTH LibDem MPs and 75% of the Federal Executive before (according to Crick) Nick could “do a deal”. And ”not just coalition”. Nick would need this support before signing up to “any substantial proposal which could affect the party’s independence of political action”.

 Brian Orrell – who seems an all round nice bloke, and used to play a Cyberman in the old Dr Who TV series – may play a decisive role in virtue of his role as Federal Exec Vice President.

If Nick Clegg fell short of these hurdles, I gather that he could choose to convene a conference by the seaside or conduct a members’ ballot or something equally insane.

(Bear in mind that the total membership of the party is now measurably less than the number of registered voters in ONE parliamentary constituency and the number of LibDem federal conference reps would be less than the electorate in a standard Parish council ward…how democratic is that?).

If we want to claim that a hung Parliament is not necessarily a bad thing and that the markets needn’t panic, we at least need to have our own rules sorted out. And these rules need to be both sane and practical.

If these really are our rules, it’s hard to argue that the financial markets should show any confidence at all in the likely LibDem response to a no-majority situation at Westminster.

Let’s hope Nick makes it very plain in his leader’s speech that he will totally disregard the Southport rules, made quite clearly for a different age.

Watch the full Newsnight programme here.

Tags: coalition, hung Parliament, Liberal Democrats, Southport Resolution 1998

A hung Parliament and the value of the £. Discuss.

In response to emails asking to see the Newsnight piece (3rd March 2010) about the relationship between media headlines on the growing (?) possibility of a hung parliament and the value of the £ and specifically that reference to the Liberal Democrats being unable to enter “formal” coalition without the support of 75% of MPs and “top party brass”. Here it is…..

Tags: hung Parliament, Liberal Democrats, Newsnight, £sterling

Nick closes one can of worms. But has another one just opened up?

Nick Clegg is the media darling today. Following his interview with the Independent , everyone is speculating that the possibility of a Liberal coalition (with the party “with the  strongest mandate”) is back on….

Well, perhaps not quite… What he appears to say is that all options are open  “including a formal coalition with Liberal Democrats sitting in the Cabinet..”. That did not seem to be feeling coming from Lib Dem high command previously. So a subtle shift towards the possibility of coalition (taking into account the 4 steps to fairness)? Certainly looks like it.

Another interesting twist offered today - picked up on by many media commentators - is the possibility of a deal with either Tories or Labour. There was a time when a “deal” with this morally bankrupt disgraceful government looked impossible. But the polls suggest that Labour are not so down and out as they once were.  And several commentators see Nick’s statement today as win for Labour.

But what does Nick’s Interview really tell us?

Not that much in my view.

1. We still have not addressed the issue of whether Nick CAN go into formal coalition with either Labour or the Tories. Last weeks Newsnight (March 3rd) stated that for Lib Dems to go into formal coalition with any party, it required 75% of MPs and “top party brass” to agree to it. If correct, it’s  not his call to make. More on that later….

2. In his interview today, Nick launched an all out attack on the Tories. He described warnings by David Cameron, George Osborne and Kenneth Clarke about market instability in a hung parliament as “an act of economic vandalism and a political protection racket“. As I stated, some pundits have suggested that this is a hint that the Liberals are more inclined to do a deal with Labour. But this can just as easily be interpreted as Nick firing a warning shot across the bows of the Tories. Play dirty with me sunshine and you will know about it. It must surely strengthen his negotiating hand if he shows now that he wont be bullied by the Tories. Or indeed perhaps a way of keeping activists within the party at bay. Ruling out a deal with the Labour party a couple of days before Lib Dem Party conference would be interesting to say the least..

 3. Protocol. In the event of no outright majority being secured by any party, it is the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown who gets first dibs on convincing HRH that he can “command the majority of the House of Commons”  i.e. he gets to talk to the Liberals first. Brown’s move toward a new electoral system, and his obvious determination to remain PM what ever the cost, suggests that he WILL try to do a deal with the Liberals. BUT… Nick has committed that Liberals actions ”will be shaped by the mandate given by the voters”. As it seems most likely that the Conservatives will overtake Labour at the election, it is hard to see how Liberals can justify a deal with Labour to the public (as tempting as the promise of electoral reform might be).

So if Nick has to politely decline, and Gordon Brown cannot command the House, the Queen will send for someone else to form a government. In theory, that could be any politician, but in reality that will be David Cameron.

Cameron looks extremely unlikely to bow to the fourth of Nick Cleggs demands (a change the voting system). So the most likely outcome is that a deal, falling short of full coalition, will emerge. One that gives Nick enough such that the Liberals allow the Queens speech and the budget to pass but keeps the Liberals firmly on the opposition benches. Then Cameron will run to the country as soon as the polls look like he will secure an outright victory - 6 months/12 months in?

So it looks like Nick WONT BE ABLE to do a deal with Labour and the Tories WONT WANT TO do a deal with Nick (or indeed not actually need to if they election strategy returns disproportionate votes in the key seats).

What has come out of todays interview with the Independent is that Nick has shown himself to be a man not to be messed with and has set out the terms of a deal. He has subtley shifted the onus onto the other two party leaders to say what THEY will do in the event of a Hung Parliament. Or has he ?

The questions for Nick wont go away. With the tanatalising prospect that the Liberals might do the coalition thing, the media, Labour and Tory strategists and uncle Tom Cobley will now all be clamouring to find out in what circumstances Nick CAN do the coalition thing. Hacks up and down the country will discover a new found appetite for crusty old Lib Dem resolutions about who’s, the hows and the when’s the Liberals can go into formal coalition. The next bout of questions will be about “What are the internal protocols and rules concerning coalition?”, ” How long will it take to get 75% of MPs to support it - an hour, a day, a week?”, “Who exactly are the “top party brass”. And so it will go on…. cans of worms will just keep opening up.

Nevertheless this is a good day for Nick. Some in the party will roll their eyes and say he should not talk about it…. ever…keep talking policy and refuse to countenance any conversation on the “C” word. Those that work in the media know that is simply not an option. He has shown great leadership and subtlety in how he has managed the debate thus far. He now needs to hold his nerve and be ready for the next barrage of questions.

Tags: coalition, deal, hung Parliament, Independent, Nick Clegg

Coalition or chaos - it’s your call, Nick

So now its a real fight. Who do we choose? On my left I give you the bullying, bullshitting, bad tempered - bad man of politics - GORDON BROWN. He who wants to be judged on his moral compass yet surrounds himself with unpleasant characters who intimidate and smear his political opponents, from whatever party, at every turn. He who talked up “Prudence” whilst on the biggest spending binge ever, who raided pension funds, sold our gold at its lowest level for years and who invested more of his time and effort undermining the then Prime Minister, than he did keeping watch on the finances of this country. Hmmm.

On my right I give you the smiling snake oil salesman -the suave, the slick - DAVID CAMERON.Yes the one with the airbrushed photos and dyed hair who beams benignly and promises his party has changed but who cannot be pinned down on anything of any substance. Who talks about being liberal and wanting government with ” a lighter touch” but then brings the full force of his party heavyweights down on his own party regional offices if they dare defy him. The man who has talked such a lot - delivered polished speeches to perfection…and yet said so very little. A man who surrounds himself with friends in Notting Hill kitchens (Coulson, Ashcroft, Osborne and co) no matter how dubious their actions, history or levels of competence best that can be said of him is that he is not Brown - the worst that he is another Tony Blair. Been there done that.

Added to this we have seen what happens when one party wields total power - with a huge majority. The party whips rule; minsters all powerful; bright intelligent MPs sidelined because they challenge the leadership; loyal and dimwitted MPs more likely to end up in the cabinet; debate stifled; decisions taken behind closed doors with little or no scrutiny; laws rammed through.

Why would you want either of those leaders in power? Why would you want either party to win a landslide election when we have felt the pain that they bring, one too many times ? No wonder people are confused. No wonder the polls are erractic.  No wonder, people are talking …correction.. welcoming… the prospect of a hung parliament. None of the other checks and balances have worked. Maybe this one will.

BUT!  The prospect of a hung parliament - without a clear view about what that will mean for the finances of the country - is going to send the markets into tail spin. Why? Because they assume that we will end up with a fudged government with no power to make the cuts necessary, fighting day to day to get each tiny bit of legislation through, and almost certainly resulting in another election within twelve months. What the markets want is certainty and that is not what it looks like.

Of course at the moment we don’t have a single party willing to be honest with us about the economy - the severity of cuts necessary. We all know we are being lied to. And every day our debt gets bigger. So it could be argued that it is not clear that any party will do what is needed.

So we are standing on the brink of disaster. Nick, its time to bring some honesty and forthrightness to the debate. Specifically on (1) the economy and (2) what you will actually do if there is a hung parliament.

1. THE ECONOMY : Be honest about the level of the cuts necessary. Vince Cable is the most trusted politician there is on financial matters. He was the lone voice of caution in the boom years. Yes he was derided by both Tories and Labour (and the media) when he told us bust was waiting round the corner. But he was also proven right. So where is he now? We seem to be arguing about the small stuff . Is it green enough, are we too reliant on banks. Maybe, maybe. But can talk about that when we have an economy worth squabbling about? Where is that beacon of light - that honesty now when we need it ? Show us the real Vince. Show us the real plan - not the sanitised one.  

2. HUNG PARLIAMENT: If we were in “the boom years” Nick, you could fudge what the Liberals would do in the event of a hung parliament. If Britain had cash sloshing around in our coffers, if we had a strong £, if we had shrinking unemployment, if we had financial institutions that were lining up to invest in Britain, if our AAA rating was not hanging in the balance yes then Nick, you could get away with it. And it would probably be the right strategy. The dangers of speaking out are immense and caution might be wise.

But country is not in that position. This country is in dire financial straits. The £ is stuttering at the news of the possibility of a hung parliament. Don’t play politics with our lives and livelihoods.

This country needs a strong Lib Dem party to tell us where it stands. Not a sit on the fence - play it safe - we haven’t planned for hypothetical situations - Lib Dem party. (What ? you only make your plans AFTER the event?). We need a bold and brave - forget the past - lets start a new period of politics- tell it how it is - get the country out of this mess  Lib Dem party. 

At the moment no one is at all clear what “working with” the party with a “mandate from the voters” means. Not me. Not the voters. Not the markets. Stop talking Westminster speak and tell us what you mean. Coalition or not?  The Guardian says you are planning to rule out coalition “because aides and senior MPs argue it would be highly dangerous for the Liberal Democrats to become minority partners in a coalition government”.

That would seem to suggest that , in the event that no party gets an outright majority, you allow either party to pass a Queen’s speech if it makes some concessions to your four prioirities (fair tax, investment in education, a rebalanced economy, political reform).

But whispering tit bits to the Guardian is not the same as telling it straight. OK you’ve let the Queen’s speech go through… Will you abstain or vote through the budget ? Shove in loads of amendments to make it more to your liking? How will you vote the next week or the week after that? Will a weak minority Government lurch from one deal to another as you stand by mildly and meekly watching sterling plummet, and the stock market nosedive? Is Vince Cable destined to spend the next 12 months commentating on the news or making the news?

The country goes to the wall because some of your aides and MPs care more about their political careers than the state of the nation? Maybe they just dont like the idea of actually being in power.

Or perhaps it’s that you can’t go into coalition. With all the will in the world you dont have the power to make that decision? The BBC reports that you “would have to get a formal coalition deal past (your) members” . If true then change the rules at next week’s conference. Tell them you can’t run a party on that basis right now. 

Cowardly or castrated. Which is it ?

The madness is, from what I have seen, you are neither. You started slowly (not a bad thing) but it looks for all the world that you are just hitting your stride. Perfect timing. You have the honesty, integrity and personal belief to make a difference. To change politics. So what’s stoppping you?

You will be dogged by these questions and many others of a similar vein over the coming weeks. Constant reference to a 4 point plan is not going to cut it with the voters, with the media or with the markets. Come on Nick. Step up to plate. The Liberals have to piss or get off the pot. If we are not prepared to take up coalition - to take up the reins of power when the country needs it most (now) then we don’t deserve to be the third party. 

I think I am right in saying that both you and Vince have said publicly that the country’s plight is more important than petty party politics. Prove that you mean that. Give us some honesty. Show us your mettle. I think if you will do that, you will win the hearts and minds of this country. Hell, maybe even save it.

Tags: coalition, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, hung Parliament, Nick Clegg, Vince Cable