Liberal Vision

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

Lib Dem love-in IS on its way

Well, Well.. No sooner is my ink dry stating that a Cameron Mockumentary is on its way,  I am told that we are to get a Cleggfest too, courtesy of good old ITV. Having deployed Piers Morgan and Sir Trevor to cover the other party leaders, we must surely expect an interrogator of the fairer sex to cover Nick Clegg’s softer side (might as well tick gender balance while you are at it ITV). So will it be the uber sexy Katie Derham or Mary Nightingale perhaps? 

No tx date yet but watch this space….

(UPDATE: Word is its Mary )

Tags: ITV, Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg

ITV’s inevitable cave-in to Tory pressure

aka “When Trev Met Dave”

Following on from the lucicrous Piers Morgan “interview” with Gordon Brown, Andy Coulson’s badgering of ITV (pre and post interview) has paid off.

This Sunday we get to see “ITV Fuck Up - Part II”, as Sir Trevor McDonald does his ITV duty and provides the Tories with a reciprocal “soft touch” mockumentary about Tory leader David Cameron.Word has it, its all Samantha telling us why Dave’s her man, and various lovies concurring that ”Dave’s the man”….with lots of “exclusive access” words all over it. Er yeah right.

Hmm….You see what happens when the Light Entertainment boys are let off their leash ? The rest of ITV are left picking up the pieces.Still, I bet Mr Coulson’s laughing. Gordon gets sleazy Morgan, Dave gets SIR Trev no less. Nice one.

So the only question remaining…… How effective were the media guys and gals at the Lib Dems at extracting their pound of media flesh? Who is the man at Cowley street beating down the door of Peter Fincham demanding their hour loved-upness  from ITV? Nick Clegg - multi-tasking, parent extraordinaire (in 5 languages no less) must be on its way, surely….

Tags: Andy Coulson, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, ITV, Nick Clegg, Piers Morgan, Sir Tevor McDonald

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

A masterclass in risk-taking from the New Orleans Saints

Big occassions need big men. Men that will rise to the challenge, galvanise their team and take some big risks - when it really counts. When history is in the making you dont want Mr Timid knocking at the door. Opportunity rewards the bold and the brave. So it was with sheer delight that I watched the underdogs - the New Orleans Saints- scoop the biggest prize of all - the Superbowl.

If you did not watch the game, this may mean nothing to you - go watch it. But Sean Payton (the Saints coach) proved himself to be one of  the gutsiest coaches ever to come to a Superbowl game.

The Colts came into the game clear favourites. The first quarter went  as expected. It was all Colts; at one point they were leading 10-0 and many thought, I am sure, that it was game over. The Saints seemed to be taking too many risks - like going for a touchdown when a field goal could have been banked.  But by the end of the second quarter the Saints had fought their way back into the game not by changing their game plan - but by staying true to it. By half time it looked clear to me that the Saints could only win if they DID take those risks - and by jove that is what they were doing . With the score standing at 10-6 to the Colts (and much of the money on the Colts) I put my money on the Saints.

Coming out at the opening of the second half - Sean Payton did the unthinkable - he took another, huge, risk calling for an onside kick to keep posession with the Saints. Yes it was risky but it proved to be as brilliant as it was unexpected. From there on in the Saints never really looked like losing. Nor did they lose their willingness to take risks - going for a two point conversion, with all the risks that entailed (and challenging the call when it was ruled foul). These boys were going for it. They kept the brilliant (arguably the best ever ) Colts quarterback Peyton Manning out of the game for over an hour and that probably proved decisive. When he did get onto the field they kept the pressure up - eventually winning that well deserved (and brilliantly taken) turnover. Actually I think the Colts were technically the better team on the night but they had no answer for the passion, the risk-taking and team spirit of the Saints. The Saints won 31-17.

So what has this to do with politics or the Liberal Democrats ? I think that Nick Clegg can learn a great deal from the Saints coach Sean Payton. And I urge all Liberal Democrats to go watch the game. It is a masterclass in leadership - of stepping up to the plate when the big game is on - of taking risks - of having faith in your team and your team having faith in you - giving them the belief and the tools to win - and win when it mattered.

After 43 years of mediocrity these first time finalists had not fared too well in recent years. They had been the also rans for too many years. So when opportunity came knocking, boy were they hungry for it. Second was not enough.

Offensive tackle Jon Stinchcomb said “You know you’re going to be competing to win, ” …. “..You want to know that Coach backs you, he has faith in our group, and he’s going to put us in situations to be successful.” ….”So those aggressive points -(risks!) - he’s putting the ball in our court, saying, ‘Go make a play, guys. I’ve got faith in you. Go make me right.’ That’s exactly what you want.”

Linebacker Scott Fujita agreed “(The coach) came in playing to win this game….You like that… He’s got a certain swagger about him, it carries over to the offense….Now you’ve got a lot of guys playing aggressive, playing confident”

Thats what we want to see from Nick, (ok not the swagger but) but  leader of men that says “go for it” . We will take risks, because playing it safe is not good enough - and the prize is worth winning. This is the best chance we have had in a very long time so lets not have regrets later about where we should have been bolder. Lets be brave.

Ok we can’t win the Superbowl (can you imagine Vince in shoulder pads?) . We can’t win the election. But we can make history. We can change politics forever - and thats our Superbowl. I am not sure who our quarterback is, but Nick needs to be our Sean Payton. Please go watch the game Nick.

Tags: Liberal Democrats, new orleans saints, Nick Clegg, sean payton, superbowl

A demand for a withdrawal from Afghanistan on the cards?

At PMQ’s today Nick Clegg questions were focused onthe Chilcot inquiry. Is this another sign that Nick is moving towards a demand for a full withdrawal from Afghanistan?

Tags: Afghanistan, Chilcot inquiry, Nick Clegg, PMQs

Clegg ups the ante - how will Cameron respond?

Nick Clegg today announced that he is scrapping some of the Liberal Democrats “big ticket” spending pledges in a move that looks designed to up the ante on David Cameron and Gordon Brown to finally speak out on where they will put the axe.”We have stripped away everything that is not essential because the country cannot afford it” he said.

The following have gone from the Lib Dem manifesto according to the leader :

The committment to providing free childcare to everybody

The committement to scrap tuition fees in one parliament. It will now be rolled out over six years - year group by year group - starting with final year students.

 The commitment to a new citizen’s pension. This will no longer be a firm commitment in the Lib Dem manifesto.

The committment to free personal care has also gone.

He reiterated his pledge to a whole list of things -most of which I have listed later.

Its not a perfect speech -I still struggle to see how the mansion tax is fair - but that - as the Lib Dems have argued in the past-  local tax is unfair (both based on the value of your property) - and the “rebalanced green economy” talk still comes across as wooly and pie-in-the sky stuff. (And for the life of me I cannot tell whether is was genius of gaff to criticise the Gina Ford books on babycare just hours before such an important speech).

But if his plan was to highlight David Cameron’s deception in NOT telling us where the axe will fall under the Tories - then he has probably achieved that.

 

Of course, some will argue that David Cameron can easily continue to evade this question - and plough his own furrow, ignoring the Lib Dem as an irrelevant side show. What’s different this time around are the leaders debates. Nick has been given the gift of being put on an equal footing with both Brown and Cameron on three separate programmes - where the partys (or at least their leaders) can and will be compared on a like-for-like basis. And whilst the chance of a hung parliament is still an outside chance at best, Cameron’s overtures to Lib Dem voters suggests he does at least count it as a possibility that Lib Dem voters will matter at the upcoming election.

The activists are expected to complain bitterly about the down-scaling of their beloved tuition fees policy. I would say to them “hold your fire”. Nick might just have caused the Tory party a headache or two they hoped to avoid. Let’s see how they respond.

And here’s the list of stuff that he reiterated today (none of this is new as far as I can tell)….

a 10% levy on banks profits as long as they are underwritten by the taxpayer;

no to the like-for-like replacement of Trident;

an end to tax credits to above average income families;

cancelling the Government’s Baby Bond scheme;

a £400 cap on all public sector pay increases;

closing of loopholes for the richest (whatever that might actually mean);

introduction of a tax on mansions;

no-one to pay income tax on the first £10,000 they earn;

reduction in the number of MPs by 150;

devolving power over the police and NHS to local communities;

changing the voting system to abolish safe seats;

giving constituents the right to sack corrupt MPs;

Tags: general election, Nick Clegg, tuition fees

Nick Clegg inscrutable at PMQ’s

Am I reading too much into it ?

Or is the purple tie sported by Nick Clegg at today’s PMQ’s  an indication that he is determined not to give away any hints as to whether he is leaning to the reds or the blues. Purple, in these circumstances, will do nicely. I hope he got a lot of purple ties for Christmas.

Tags: hung Parliament, Nick Clegg, PMQs

Nick Clegg shows some nifty footwork as the election campaign kicks off

Most will now have read Nick Clegg’s article in the Times (if you haven’t its here). What did you make of it ?

Naturally we all read it (well some of us did) looking for clues as to which way Nick Clegg is inclined to lean in the event of a hung parliament. Yes folks groan….the hung parliament question. (oh come one - it’s not going away anytime soon - especially while the Tories tie themselves up in knots over simple stuff like tax bonus’ to married couples…)  

So what did it tell us? On face value, some say, not a lot. The New Statesmen was one of many groaning at the lack of clarity… “Despite the fighting talk that “the Liberal Democrats are not for sale”, Clegg remains frustratingly reticent” .

But I think I can see the clever tactician in Nick Clegg emerging…… In his article Nick says that the actions of the Lib Dems (in the event of a hung parliament) will be governed by their commitment to four central principles: fair taxes, a fair start for children (with smaller class sizes and a “pupil premium” favouring poorer children), a sustainable economy, and fair, clean, local politics.

When asked on Radio 4’s Today programme “Is this a centre left agenda ?” he said “It’s a fair agenda, yes.”

But ~ and perhaps crucially~ he also wrote in today’s Times article that the Lib Dems intend to “respect the will of the public” …” The voters are in charge and the decision is theirs. If voters decide that no party deserves an overall majority, then self-evidently the party with the strongest mandate will have a moral right to be the first to seek to govern on its own or, if it chooses, to seek alliances with other parties.”

(I am not sure what he means by ” the party with the strongest mandate” .. is that number of votes or number of seats ? hmmm).

I think it rather nifty piece of footwork from Nick this early in the skirmish. He keeps the activists happy and off his back with open talk of being centre left - and helpfully nodding to those Labour party voters “oop north” who will be comforted by Nick’s words,  and might just be prepared to  vote tactically if push comes to shove. Well at least it can be spun that way to Lib Dem activists fighting the “target Labour seats”.  Box ticked.

It is however frankly very difficult to see the Labour party emerging post-election as “the party with the strongest mandate” . So whilst he may pitch the party as “centre-left”  it seems perfectly clear that in the event that the Conservatives don’t secure sufficient seats for an outright majority - he is willing to do business with them.  That also might be enough to keep his sitting Lib Dem MP’s fighting the Tories a good enough story on the door steps.

It should also be noted that coming off the back of a year where politics took more than a bit of a battering - the line that there will be “no under-the-counter deals” is a good bit of positioning for the Lib Dems. A subtle reminder that we are the clean honest party (well ok a Lord or two excepting …we certainly came out a whole lot better than the other two).

And of course, IF we face the Conservative minority scenario his hands will be clean with his own party - he can look innocently at them and say it was the voters who forced his hand - the activists can groan all they like but they will just have to put up with it.

On balance pretty nifty I think.

Ok Ok yes it would be nice to see a more definitive “liberal” agenda, some strong narratives and a couple of catchy headliners - but we are 16 weeks or so out from a general election.  A bit of pragmatism must be called for.  He may still have a campaign headliner or two up his sleeve…. my friends on the news desk still expect a more assertive “get out of Afganistan” stance from Nick before this campaign is over. And let’s hope his team have him well-drilled for the TV debates….

But - given that we are where we are - I think it will do. For now.

Tags: general election, Nick Clegg, The Times

Confused Liberal Democrat seeks help…

Having successfully recovered my pc from a near fatal crash (note to self to actually DO backups rather than think about doing it from time to time)…. I am back.

So what’s been happening whilst I have been off line? More hung parliament discussions (if I hear one more Noddy “explanation” as to “what that means in laymans terms”  I’m tempted  to do some real damage to my pc backup or no backup), more thoughts and declarations on Copenhagen, and, yes, the Lib Dem tax launch.

It was, of course, almost impossible to cut through all the headlines about “u turns” or “backtracking” on the original mansion tax policy to get to what the meat of the Liberal Democrat tax plans were. But they were there if you persevered.

But it’s all been about that mansion tax. That was originally, you will remember, the 0.5 per cent of value of property above £1 million, announced by Vince Cable at conference in September , without reference to the front bench, or the media team, seemingly - leaving open mouths from some, half-baked attempts at explaining by others and general chaos all round.

Vince’s original plan would have affected some 250,000 homes in the UK - many of them doubtless in the London commuter belt where the likes of Susan Kramer would be fighting for her political life (against the non domicile- thank you Zac Goldsmith).

That was catastrophically managed. But, as we said at the time, it won’t end there. And it didn’t… The mansion tax has been “tweaked” . Now its 1% on all properties over £2million.

And all the headlines on Monday’s tax launch  were “Lib Dems rethink their top housing tax policy”…. “Clegg denies U-turn over ‘mansion tax’”…. “Liberal Democrats backtrack over ‘mansion tax’“…. “Vince Cable forced to water down ‘mansion tax’“…. And so on…

Let’s put aside for a moment whether the Mansion tax - at whatever level - is a good idea or not. And consider the half-baked way this has been handled. It has dented Vince Cable’s reputation, it has allowed opponents the opportunity to question Libdem’s grip on financial matters, it has confirmed the “off the cuff nature” of the original announcement (how many times have I been told that one of our strengths was the “considered” nature of our proposals?), and perhaps most importantly stopped us from getting our message across.

I have been told that it’s not as bad as I think….that actually if you read the meat of the articles and listen to the interviews, then the LibDems did much to explain the full package of taxation proposals and that the Mansion Tax was only the headline. ONLY THE HEADLINE ? Don’t people realize that the vast majority of the voters ONLY READ THE HEADLINES? Not as bad as I think?  It’s probably worse than I am actually stating.

Someone please get a grip ….

I suppose the one good thing about the Mansion Tax fiasco if there was one, was that it largely distracted most commentators from asking whether the Lib Dems were doing the Hokey Kokey? Right foot in, right foot out …Left foot in, left foot out, … liberals moving towards small efficient government (all that talk at conference of those savage cuts) or lefties looking to milk the anti fat-cat sentiments?

And I don’t think I can answer the question “so are the Lib Dems for property tax generally?”.. “Well um…Yes”…,”Yes now”  (but only to get the country out of this financial mess?) “No not really” ?. After all we were the party of the “fair tax campaign” which we were running vociferously a while back (are we still running?) - where we stated that “The Council Tax is an unfair tax, based simply on outdated valuations of property and with no link to ability to pay. It should be scrapped and replaced with a system based on people’s ability to pay” . And which still apears on Lib Dem websites up and down the country.  Have we managed to square that with the mansion tax? If we have I am afraid it was buried under the “u-turn” headlines and I could find no mention of it in the published “liberal Democrat tax plans“. I was sure that I heard Vince say somewhere once that the mansion tax was a kind of emergency measure that would be replaced by a local income tax in due course. Did I dream that - or was that off the cuff?

I am so confused. How can the voters be anything but likewise? And that, quite frankly is not good enough. As I said. Someone please get a grip.

Tags: Axe the tax, mansion tax, Nick Clegg, Vince Cable