Clegg’s passable speech tries to distinguish his party from the Tories while also toeing the Coalition line

By Peter Hoskin
Follow Peter on Twitter

After — what was it? — two, three, four weeks, the Liberal Democrat conference has finally come to a close with Nick Clegg’s speech. It was, in the end, a strange sort of address. The words read as though they’re meant to be forceful and defiant, but they just didn’t come across that way. The Liberal Democrat leader seemed to be split between so many messages — to his party, to wavering voters, to Labour, to the Tories — that he couldn’t put his all into any one of them.

Where Mr Clegg was strongest, I thought, was in those areas of mutual Coalition agreement. Deficit reduction was presented as non-negotiable: “we need to regain control of public spending,” he said. And he went out of his way to attack Ed Balls and Labour — not, specifically, Ed Miliband — for how they have handled the public finances in the past, and for how they propose to handle them in future. But the Liberal Democrat leader did tell this story differently, with a greater human emphasis, from how David Cameron or George Osborne might. The deficit reduction programme isn’t as harsh as some claim it is, he suggested — and it’s being done to overcome a situation in which “we now spend more servicing the national debt than we do on our schools.”

There were other passages that brought Tory rhetoric, as well as substance, to mind. Mr Clegg began his speech with that lesson from the Olympics that Mr Cameron related several weeks ago: that success can only be achieved after much hard work. And one of his attacks on Labour — “So let’s take no more lectures about betrayal. It was Labour who plunged us into austerity and it is we, the Liberal Democrats, who will get us out” — closely resembled one made by Mr Cameron, over poverty, in his own conference speech of 2009 (and one that he should repeat more frequently, in my opinion).

Lib Dem conference rolling blog - highlights of the party's anti-Tory positioning

Wednesday, 12.30pm:

It’s the final day of the Liberal Democrat conference, and so the final day of our intermittent live blog totting up all the anti-Tory positioning going on. And, in terms of rhetoric, it’s probably the quietest day so far: the overriding theme of Nick Clegg’s forthcoming speech is that the Lib Dems are now a “party of government”, and so his colleagues are on best behaviour this morning. Even Simon Hughes has been talking about the need for a decade of austerity.

But that isn’t to say that, in terms of substance, the Liberal Democrats have refrained from causing trouble for the Tories. In fact, they have passed two particular conference motions dismissing government plans. The first came last night, when they voted against the Justice and Security Bill, and particularly its proposals around “secret justice” courts. The second was this morning, with a resounding vote against Eric Pickles’ proposal to relax the planning laws around house extensions (the prospect of which Harry wrote about here). The Lib Dem councillor Chris White took the opportunity to swipe at Mr Pickles, as the BBC reports:

“Councillor Chris White, from St Albans, has delivered a stinging rebuke to Communities Secretary Eric Pickles, the minister responsible for the reforms. Mr Pickles harbours a ‘shoot-from-the-hip, issue-a-press-release-for-the-Sunday-papers attitude’, Mr White says. 'It is time to say enough is enough, let's try to get it right.'"

None of this is necessarily fatal to the government’s plans —people about the Lib Dem leadership are talking about these votes being advisory, rather than binding — but, at the very least, they increase the headwinds that Mr Clegg, and the Coalition, are operating against.

The Lib Dem leadership race has started

By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter

In last Monday's Times (£) I wondered if electorates would start to turn to politicians with a little more grey hair (or a little less hair generally) in these tricky times:

"Americans, like voters in other parts of the world, are wondering if today’s politicians are somehow smaller than those of a generation ago. They are certainly younger. Obama was 22 years younger than Reagan when each first became president. Margaret Thatcher was ten years older than David Cameron when both began their premierships. Both of today’s transatlantic leaders have 20 years’ less life experience than China’s President. Previous leaders used those 10-20 extra years to run a business, command men in uniform or raise a family. I don’t think we look back at previous leaders through rose-tinted spectacles. We see them as better performers because they were better prepared. In benign times politicians could get away with simply looking and sounding the part. Today, when the challenges are so great, we are ruled by leaders who have spent their whole shortish lives doing little else other than preparing press releases, speeches and attack strategies."

Vince Cable seems to have taken this to heart. He didn't stand for the Lib Dem leadership when Ming Campbell stood down because he thought he was too old. No longer. He told the FT that “the worship of youth has diminished — perhaps generally — in recent years” and voters have a renewed respect for “people who have had some insight into what is going on”. Some polling today suggests that he might be correct. Asked by YouGov who should replace George Osborne as Chancellor if he was reshuffled and the Lib Dem Business Secretary is voters' top choice. 22% choose Mr Cable versus 16% choosing William Hague and 9% Clarke. The numbers don't just suggest that Mr Cable has overcome the age issue they suggest he's quite popular too.

Before Lords rebellion, Clegg said there was no link with boundary review. Now Ming says there is.

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

Sir Menzies Campbell appeared on the Andrew Marr Show this morning to discuss Lords reform and the Coalition Agreement. During his interview, he said:

"Let me put it this way: if you’re a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament whose seat has been pretty substantially carved up as a result of the proposals for a review of the boundaries, then the idea that you would simply march into the lobbies in support of the Conservative Government’s particular anxiety to obtain this piece of legislation is one which may be very hard to swallow. I don’t believe that it can be accepted that we will simply form up in the way that some people think. I think there will be a lot of hard talking going on. I don’t regard it as a threat – I think these are two prongs of the same agreement, the Coalition Agreement, and I expect the first to be honoured, and I expect the second to be honoured as well."

Sir Menzies should be reminded of two facts. Firstly, the Coalition Agreement does mention a two-pronged deal - but it doesn't include Lords reform:

"We will bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the Alternative Vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. We will whip both Parliamentary parties in both Houses to support a simple majority referendum on the Alternative Vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum."

Lib Dems attempt to make Tories vote for Lords reform by saying it's linked to boundary review. But Clegg says it isn't.

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

An interview with Richard Reeves, who stepped down from being one of Nick Clegg's senior advisors this week, in the Independent today has attracted some interest. Reeves' main comments focus on the ramifications for the Coalition's blue half if Tory MPs do not vote to cut off debate on the Lords reform Bill coming before the House. Reeves says:

"There would be broader consequences for the government's programme, particularly around political and parliamentary reform. The idea that failure to deliver a government commitment on Lords reform would be consequence-free is for the birds."

Lords reform, he says, "goes to the heart of what coalition is about – making and keeping deals ... Anyone who thinks Nick Clegg will shrug his shoulders, say 'never mind' and 'everyone tried our best', will be in for a rude awakening. That is not going to happen. A deal is a deal."

Reeves seems to be implying, as other Lib Dems have said over the past weeks, that it would be unreasonable for Tories to rebel against something that was in the Coalition agreement. That's a defensible argument. Until you re-read the part of the Coalition Agreement in which Lords reform is mentioned:

"We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motion by December 2010. It is likely that this will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely that there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers. In the interim, Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.."

As figures reveal Lib Dem membership has shrunk by 20% we also learn that Cable speaks regularly with Ed Miliband

By Tim Montgomerie
_{Follow Tim on Twitter}

One of the more remarkable things about the Lib/Con Coalition is the absence of disunity on the central project of deficit reduction. I would also have predicted that a Lib Dem backbencher might have defected by now. Despite real tensions on the government benches it hasn't happened. What is happening, however, is a big fall in Lib Dem membership as party activists give up on Nick Clegg and his cohabitation with the Conservatives.

One big sign came before the recent local elections when the Lib Dems struggled to field candidates in crucial wards. Now the Independent on Sunday is reporting that party membership has fallen by 20% since the formation of the Coalition:

• Membership is falling fastest in seats held by Government ministers - offering an interesting counterpoint to the general view that the Lib Dem vote is holding up better in seats that they currently hold.
• The minister who lost most members was Sarah Teather in Brent. 42% of her members fell away.
• Membership is also down particularly sharply in Scotland where the drop equals 26%.
• The Lib Dem student movement is half the size it was before Nick Clegg's spectacular U-turn on tuition fees.

The Left of the Liberal Democrats may be looking for an escape route via Labour. The Sunday Telegraph reports that a variety of Nick Clegg's colleagues are in regular contact with aides to Ed Miliband and the Labour leader himself. "One Labour source revealed Mr Cable and Mr Miliband spoke regularly by telephone". Other communicants include Ming Campbell, Tim Farron, Simon Hughes and serial trouble-maker Lord (Matthew) Oakeshott.

A sign of Lib Dem leaflets to come - "Liberal Democrats stopped Tory tax cuts for the richest"

By Tim Montgomerie
_{Follow Tim on Twitter}

The energetic Lib Dem blogger Mark Pack has published what he calls an "infographic" summarising what his party has achieved in government. What is increasingly clear is that the junior partners in the Coalition will go into the next election with the dangerous claim that they humanised what would otherwise have been a heartless Tory government. See point 2 in Mark's list of achievements, claiming Lib Dems "successfully blocked Tory plans to give the richest a double round of tax cuts by dropping the 50p tax rate and changing inheritance tax." I don't think this Tory-bashing will boost the Lib Dems that much (it might). More significantly, however, it risks retoxifying the Tory brand and aiding Labour's eternal claim that we are the party of the already-haves.

Lembit Opik calls for Clegg to stay as Deputy PM... but for a new Lib Dem leader to be elected

By Tim Montgomerie
_{Follow Tim on Twitter}

I know it's a Lembit Opik idea but just because of that it doesn't deserve to be dismissed out of hand. The defeated MP believes that Nick Clegg should continue as Deputy Prime Minister but should stand aside as Lib Dem leader - allowing a successor to begin the task of winning back the left-wing voters that the party has lost to Labour.

I'm quite keen on the idea because I proposed it myself! This is what I wrote more than one year ago:

"My hunch is that the "Liar Clegg" thing is now stuck in the public imagination. He'll be a huge handicap for his party if he is the leader at the next election but he should stay until 2014 (partly because he can hope things will change) but also because, to change leader now, would mean his successor will get the blame for the many difficult decisions to come. A gracious resignation speech as party leader, twelve or so months before the next election, will revive his own reputation somewhat (resignation speeches always do) but allow his party to choose a leader who isn't connected in the public mind with broken promises and a close relationship with the Conservatives. He could stay as Deputy PM until polling day, again allowing his successor some distance from the government."

The key thing is when Clegg does step aside. Too early and the Lib Dems will become too detached from the Coalition's mission. Too late and the new Lib Dem leader will struggle to establish a post-Clegg identity.

Tim Farron's proposal for permanent coalition-negotiating teams will shift the Lib Dems to the left

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

David Singleton at PoliticsHome reports an interesting development: The Lib Dems' President, Tim Farron, has drawn up plans to establish a "reference group" made up of grassroots party members, which would oversee coalition negotiations if the 2015 election were to result in another inconclusive result. The proposal is set to be debated at the Lib Dems' spring conference in Newcastle - and if approved, the proposal would be permanently added to the party's constitution. 

Under the proposal, when a Lib Dem leader appoints a negotiating team (which must now be selected "with due regard to diversity"), the team would have to report to a "reference group", which will be appointed jointly by the party's policy committee and executive - containing elected activists - and the parliamentary party. The negotiating team will then give "regard to their respective views".

Lib Dem MEP says it will serve City right if UK's banks suffer from EU veto

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

Below is a selection of prominent Lib Dems' reactions to David Cameron's veto at the European summit this week.

Sharon Bowles, the Lib Dem MEP who chairs the European Parliament's Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, has made several strange remarks yesterday and today. In an interview yesterday, she said she wants to take up Irish citizenship, in order to be a citizen of a Eurozone country. This morning she tweeted:

"Media frenzy continues. The UK veto will hit negotiations on financial dossiers hard. The City will suffer. Maybe serves them right."