In financial hard times, a means of reducing expenditure and charity is to be more discriminating in your provision. The trick is to make the case: either resorting to demonising a sub group, or making the case that too many will suffer with over stretched resources. The last that you do not have responsibility for them.

So we turn to Oxford where “homeless tourists” are attracted to the beauty and splendour of the city. Help will be offered to those with a personal link to the city; others will be given a one way single train ticket out save if they would face violence on their return.

My first instinct is to be alarmed where rights are diminshed for any group, and I will know the cause that takes their rights away for fear that my rights may too be taken, and that my rights are worth less when the rights of my fellow citizens are diminished.

Those without property or fixed abode may be ordered out of a city. Shall we deem that a local authority has an arbitray power to exile people from their boundaries because their personal history is not linked to the town?

By this logic local authorities can evict “home tourists” who buy holiday property, denying locals accommodation and increasing the price of housing. Residents without personal links to the city could be asked to leave.

The right to live where you will are not dependent on your ability to own property. Oxford are stating that homless citizens have less rights then the population because of this, and that being local has a quasi privledge for a citizen.

That idea needs challenging – the rights of people are not subject to local considerations. The birthright of a citizen is to live and reside where he can. Being homeless is not a crime that makes these rights less; it is a national scandel that any response is anything less than solving this social problem, but to say here is your fare, on your way.

Nationally we need to tackle the issue of homlessness. We have a civic responsibilty not to condone our citizens living in cardboard boxes. A moral responsibility not to send them on their way.

The police want to search premises that you are responsible for. Even without legal expertise it would be pertinent to enquire the reason and whether a warrent has been issued.

That neither the sergent at arms or the speaker thought to ask about a warrent or consult a legal team looks beyond carelessness. A member of parliament was detained and his office in Parliament searched on the basis that a civil servant had been breaching confidentiality by leaking. An annoyance to government, but not a matter of national security.

Damien Green MP has been accused of grooming the mole – a civil servant that had run for public office as a Conservative. That has the mark of spin – Green is not in a position to offer such high favours. Perhaps like Ratty he could have offered Moley a trip on a rowing boat with a picnic. Leaking is more fun when fine dining and wine has been consumed.

In the debate in the Commons the mood will have to be seen if the Speaker or the Sergent At Arms will be held to account or if MPs will focus on Parliamentary Privledge being reflected in new proceedures to cover future police requests..

I have more sympathy, not usually the case, for the Home Secretary who kept her distance from the operation for concern that it would be seen as a conflict of interest between politics and gathering evidence for a leak investigation.

The modern day issue is the conflict between the executive and parliament. The speaker, not taking responsibility and blaming others, does not inspire confidence that parliament will be served. An over mighty executive needs an effective speaker.

He should go.

ADDITION:

The government sets up it’s own committee, stuffed with Labour MPs, to investigate the incident when the police investigation into the leaks finish. This going against the speakers own attempt to have a cross party investigative group.

I wonder that the main reason MPs did not criticize the speaker in the debate today is that they fear the government would choose a right toady to replace him.

Parliamentary democracy is something that may not excite the general populace. It however is a concern for those that realize that power is best served in the public interest when it is accountable. If the population will not, our only hope is our elected representatives.

That is why the arrest of Damien Green and the search of his Parliamentary office should worry us.

Phill Woolas, Immigration Minister, saying how it is

Well, if you mean 50 years, Woolas commented:

“Disestablishment – I think it will happen because it’s the way things are going. Once you open debate about reform of the House of Lords you open up debate about the make-up of the House,” he told the newspaper.”

“It will probably take 50 years, but a modern society is multi faith.”

So who is in the way of allowing people to choose their faith or none without the state privledging one over another?

A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said: “The Church of England is by law established as the Church in England and the Monarch is its Supreme Governor.

“The government remains committed to this position and values the establishment of the Church of England.” [BBC]

Woolas’ point – which along with a Sunday Times interview have come to haunt him in his new role as Immigration Minister – was that reform of the House of Lords was needed. Once that happens you cannot ignore the unelected Bishops of the Church of England there. Nor the role the monarch plays as head of an established church to which the majority of subjects are not actively a part of.

The reason why this is not a government priority:

The Government has reassured the Church of England that it will not embark on any move towards disestablishment unless the Church asks it to do so. With the Church bogged down in disputes over gays and women clergy, the last thing that it wants is a row over disestablishment. In Lambeth Palace and Whitehall the issue is considered political dynamite. [The Times]

It has the hallmarks of passions being stirred on all sides of the debate. The thing is that the best arguments are not on Lambeth or Westminster’s side. Citizens should be free to pursue their religious belief without having one privileged over another. The question of belief is an entirely a private matter. You do not have to believe in hell to be a member of the Church of England. That is not a question of belief but a matter of law on the statute book by parliament.

There is however a danger that rather than going ahead with disestablishment, the Labour Government will actually try to have religion encouraged in the public sphere. Sharia Law is already being practised for civil cases via Sharia Councils in Britain:

The councils do not involve themselves in criminal law or any aspects of civil law in which they would be in direct conflict with British civil codes. The vast majority of their cases cover marriage and divorce. By consent of all parties, they may also arbitrate issues of property, child custody, housing and employment disputes, though their rulings are not binding unless submitted to the civilian courts. [source]

The issue here is the nature of the consent by all parties, and whether all parties know about access to British civil codes and how to abject. This really must be stressed when you consider the number of women that may be subjected to Sharia Councils who do not speak English. By what token are we assured that they know their rights under English law?

Meanwhile the report Moral, But No Compass, backed by the Church of England suggestion is to have a Minister for Religion. As if 26 Bishops in the House of Lords was not enough representation. As one blogger commented:

the moment this minister sets foot in a church, the Muslims would demand visits to their mosques with increasingly-taller minarets, and then the Sikhs would want a visit to their shining new gurdwaras, and thence to mandirs, and viharas. And at some point the minister would have to make statements in the House about the status of Scientology, and feel obliged to celebrate Yoda’s birthday at the House of Commons with the Jedi Knight fraternity, if only to win their endorsement and votes. [Cranmer]

Hopefully the Conservative Humanist Association can ensure that the Minister for Religion idea is not one adopted as Conservative Policy – though it could be a move to gather back Anglicans feeling slighted by the Labour Government. Despite the fact that this government is very much in favour of faith based initiatives – signalling them out for special praise in the Goldsmith report.

The real reason is that the government sees the whole issue as a Gordian Knot where the monarchy, Church of England and House of Lords all intertwine. To sever one is to unravel them all, in a way that the government fears it could not control. A church that would be free to be political, rather than just a public servant. An elected head of state with executive power independent of the Cabinet. An elected House of Lords with legitimacy to take on the lower chamber more often.

It could also be one of those things that power is only ever given away when it is expedient too or the institution that has it cares not to have such exercise of authority. The political problem though remains. The issue is one that has to be advanced on a human rights front. The state cannot effectively favour all religions, nor should it use taxpayers money to privilege one over the other. Giving religious civil courts sanction to make rulings over citizens is a breach that all are the same under the law where legally unqualified people will render verdicts based on their interpretation of holy texts – which do not favour the equal treatment of people regardless of gender, and have a notion of property rights inconsistent with moder law.

The feminists should be burning Korans, and the government should be having an almighty headache over the dalliance with organised religion. Right now it bears the harlot upon it’s back – when will the beast shake itself free of the rider that feels secure debauched on the legitimacy of their union on the statue books? Some may say it would mark the end of the world, a new world order (a book on Revelation interpretations would be how many volumes?). What it should mean is the sovereignty of belief resides in the private minds of the citizens, and not a matter of the government who should protect the freedom of religion and speech by advocating those human rights values, rather than religion being able take them away and make them their own, with the complicit government allowing it’s citizens to be unequally treated in civil cases.

OTHER BLOGS:

Secularism – why it is good for us all

The newly formed Conservative Humanist Association means that now all three main political parties have a humanist society for members to be part of. Though that did not go down completely well with everyone; John Gummer MP, former Agriculture Minister, on seeing them at the party conference denounced them saying the Conservative Party was God’s party. Still, I did not like the man when he fed his infant child beef in front of the press when we had our first BSE scare, and this does nothing to mend his image. The irony is that on Gummer’s website he talks about representing people in his constituency irrespective of party. It seems when it comes to his own party, God is a dividing line.

Richard Dawkins spoke at the launch event (YouTube video) in Birmingham during the party conference. Secular values cross party lines, so while I may not trust that the Conservatives on social justice and free markets benefiting all and not the few, this is something that can only help in making the case for Britain to be more secular when it comes to faith schools, Sharia Law or Bishops in the House of Lords.

Mind you I am in good company – Richard Dawkins has not voted Tory in his life.

At the Council of Ex Muslims of Britain (CEMB) I met up with two people (far right of photo) involved with the Conservative Humanist Association, and we went to a nearby pub to talk about the association. They also referred to the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group – which hopefully will grow; a number of atheist MPs (especially Conservative) tend to keep a low profile. However, a number of prospective parliamentary candidates from the Conservatives are humanist – so if the polls are anything to go by their number on the benches of the Commons will increase.

Left to right: Adrian (thanks for the photo), John aka Homo economicus (pint in hand - lubrication of the mind), Pedram, Oliver

OTHER BLOGS:

International Conference Council of Ex Muslims of Britain (CEMB)

Humanist and Secular Liberal Democrats - UK

Returns on savings – that’s why councillor’s gone to Iceland.#

Only things is that millions of pounds for local services are now at risk in default banks. Chancellor Alistair Darling has said that individual savers are the priority first – as if the government cannot handle multiple tasks urgently. Thing is, the ability of councils to manage their finances is going to be difficult if this is not resolved soon.

From BBC News:

More than 20 councils are thought to have invested in banks in Iceland

The Tories and Lib Dems are urging ministers to “clear up the uncertainty” about hundreds of millions of pounds councils invested in Iceland’s banks.

Chancellor Alistair Darling has protected Britons’ savings in banks which are now in default.

But at least 20 councils in England and Wales are known to have deposits in Landsbanki – some of tens of millions.

For the Tories, Eric Pickles said local government finances were at risk as they were not covered by the guarantee.

Levels revealed

Kent County Council alone has £50m in Iceland-based banks, while Westminster City Council revealed it had deposits totalling £17m.

Sutton Council in south London confirmed it had exposure totalling £5.5m, and Havering Council in east London said it had investments worth £12.5m.

North Lincolnshire Council has £2m invested with Landsbanki and £3.5m in the firm’s UK bank, Heritable. North East Lincolnshire Council said it had £2.5m on deposit with Landsbanki.

Hertfordshire County Council has £17m invested, while Buckinghamshire has £5m – the same sum as Cornwall County Council.

The Local Government Association (LGA), which represents councils in England and Wales, says it has identified more than 20 councils which are believed to have deposits in Landbanksi or Heritable.

It is still trying to work out the sums involved but believes councils had in the “single figure millions of pounds” but others had deposits “running into the low tens of millions”.

The Conservatives say their own research has identified at least one London council that had banked £40m, one in the South East which had a £30m deposit and others with £20m or £25m.

The LGA says it does not expect “significant financial problems” in the short term as town halls put money in a wide range of institutions and vital frontline services should not be affected.

My number one concern though is to make sure we protect individual savers Alistair Darling Chancellor

But it wants the same protection as private savers, saying money had been prudently managed in line with the government’s own guidance.

LGA chairman Margaret Eaton said: “We are today seeking an assurance from the chancellor that councils’ assets will be protected in the same way as personal assets. Town halls invested in Landsbanki as a reputable bank with a solid credit rating.

“In the short term, these councils are confident that they will have sufficient funds to tide them over for a considerable period of time.”

‘Urgent clarification’

For the Lib Dems Julia Goldsworthy said there was an “urgent need for clarification” and urged the government to “make clear how local authority funds will be protected”.

“Ultimately this is council tax payers’ money at risk and these are funds which are essential for the delivery of local services,” she said.

For the Conservatives Mr Pickles said no council could have foreseen the collapse of Iceland’s banks and said people would be worried about their council tax bills and local services.

Earlier in the Commons, he asked the chancellor whether he was “wholly content” that councils’ investments would not be covered and the burden “should now fall on council tax payers”.

The chancellor replied that he was aware of the problem and it was something he would look at. But he added: “My number one concern though is to make sure we protect individual savers and I’m sure we are at one on that.”

# Iceland is a supermarket in the UK, with low prices,  with advertising slogan “That’s why Mum’s gone to Iceland.”

Come back Peter

A reshuffle sounds like a conjuring trick. You think the deck is changed fundamentally from what it was before, but the dealer is still there and what matters is how he plays his hand rather than the cards he has chosen. The win is in the betting.

Peter Mandelson is back. Sent to Brussels (the political equivalent of Siberia) for misdemeanours that had him twice resigning from cabinet – once for accepting a cheap mortgage from a Minister that was under scrutiny of his department without declaring a possible conflict of interests; the second advocating citizenship for businessmen, under investigation by the Indian government,  that had given money to the Millennium Dome that he was responsible for.

Mandelson, who will be promoted to the House of Lords as he is not an elected MP to be in the Cabinet, has said third time lucky on the announcement that he will be the Business Secretary.

Meanwhile Margaret Beckett, caretaker leader of the Labour Party when John Smith died before Tony Blair was elected and under him going as far as Foreign Secretary – not so much for her talents but because so far out of her depth she would probably agree with what Blair wanted – has sunk down to housing. Is this anything to do with lack of ego, or to stay in the Cabinet (as an attendee not Cabinet Secretary) no matter what is offered?

The same cannot be said of Des Browne. The former Defence Secretary and Scotland Secretary, he apparently turned down the job of Scotland and Northern Ireland Minister to resign from the cabinet. Not unreasonably, he had been against having another job eating into his time as Defence Secretary – surely the straightforward issues of Iraq and Afghanistan are enough without the complex cultural and logistical nightmare that is Scotland to contend with as well?

The new defense secretary John Hutton will at least not have Scotland on his plate. The army though were hoping for one Minister to stay around for continuity and planning purposes. With Des Browne calling for more resources for the armed forces – in particular calling for £500 million from reserve funds for 600 armoured vehicles – maybe the offered demotion was more about preventing future collateral damage to Gordon Brown. It will be interesting to see what Browne will say and Hutton will do in the coming months.

Or it could be that having three people called Brown in government would have been confusing. Nick Brown, a very personable former agricultural minister has returned to government as chief whip. The hapless Geoff Hoon having faced insurgents at Defense, and more recently in the Labour Party as Chief Whip has been moved to Transport. Both he and Beckett seem to be travelling in the same direction.

Ed Milliband heads the new department of climate and energy, while his brother David remains Foreign Secretary, despite seeming to want Gordon’s job (something that made A.C. Grayling excited because of his atheism). It seems that while he may want it in this life time it will be as a successor to Gordon rather than acting as Brutus.

Back to the Future

With Mandelson back, a key Blair ally, Brown is sending a fig leaf out to the Blairites in the Labour Party. Whether this will mean a change in direction for the party’s fortunes is another matter, but putting out the fires of rebellion in his party is a must for Brown’s authority, and to have a united party against the Conservatives at the next election that has to be held by 2010. With the economic outlook looking like it could last till for at least another year or so tough time are ahead for the country. An undermined Prime Minister would lack the authority necessary to lead in these troubled times.

However, Mandleson does pose risks as well. Having twice fallen from grace, there is nothing to suggest this will not happen again. This may be more about desperation than reconciliation. Having shuffled the deck and dealt, Brown has gone all in. This could make or break him.

OTHER BLOGS:

Whispers in dark places undermine Gordon Brown

The Conservatives are having their conference in Birmingham this week, and despite Brown’s speech last week closing the gap the Labour Party is still on course for the worse drumming in an election since Michael Foot was leader in the 1980s with a manifesto described as the longest suicide note in history.

However, it is easy to be popular when you tap into people’s resentment. The real question is what policy alternatives do you have? Whether this is just a gimmick to engage the public or they really do not have a clue on this is unclear. They have opened up policy discussion on their blog to make suggestions for what policy might be on the Conservative Website. Just as Gordon Brown borrowed from America his wife introducing him before his speech, this idea comes from Obama’s website.

George Osbourne (Conservative Shadow Chancellor) made the point in 2006 on blogs:

In politics and in the media we’ve both assumed that we do the talking and the people listen. Now the people are talking back.

It’s exciting, liberating, challenging and frightening too.

There are 57 million blogs and the number increases by 100,000 every single day.

Over 125 million people have created their own MySpace page – and 250,000 new people do so each week.

This is not quite virtual democracy, uniting the world. The majority of the world’s inhabitants do not have access to global communications. In 2006 only 57% of UK households had access to the internet. The other point is the impact by which using this medium has on the political process. Organising could not be easier – just start a facebook group, send some chain e mails around. Contacting elected representatives is as easy as a few key strokes. You can write a blog, with no one to edit your content. Political parties are encouraging people to target blogs with comments.

I can see where this is heading. Regime change by blogging, and commenting. It could even be used to encourage dissent, rather than by supplying money or arms, by positive comments to a blogger to keep on undermining a government with their criticism. Or creating blog accounts to coordinate rumour mills in the digital internet age to shape events in the real world through cyberspace. Blogs written by covert agents of the state to influence people both foreign and domestic.

The power to inspire goes beyond the grave

On the one hand a force for good, but also one for conspiracy. Just another medium for the propaganda war. The real significance of what the Conservative Party is doing is making existing activists feel more motivated to take part, and garnering publicity. They can perhaps dream of the website contributing to party funds the way it did for Obama. Cameron lacks the inspiring qualities that make people jump up from their seats and extend their wallets to be part of a movement for change.

Are we too cynical to think change is ever going to happen, or do we just lack a charismatic leader that could inspire us that way here in the UK? Well we did have such a politician that knew how to raise the roof, and in many ways it made me a political activist because I could see the things that needed change. That was Tony Blair, and in many ways I think it is easy for us to forget how popular he was when first elected as we remember him now for Iraq and unfounded public loyalty to George Bush defending the indefensible.

In a world full of bloggers you will not please them all, but you will get widespread opinion out there. But the person busy typing away is still a human being. One motivated to get their message across to people, or vain enough to think people will read and take notice of what is said. The internet offers new opportunities – it does not however change the nature of the political animal.

If politics has taught us anything though, it is that governments have their own agendas often shaped by things beyond the public’s control. It is not so much us the people that influence policy as legitimise a group  to formulate and enact them on our behalf. We have the power of veto by removing a government for a particular bad policy. However, with George W Bush and Tony Blair reelected after sending troops to Iraq and  the incompetence and human rights violations that entailed I do not have the confidence in the electorate being relied on to exercise that veto. But if it is business as usual when you change the faces then what real power do you have?

If you want change it is not enough to just change the people in office:

‘Those who have changed the universe have never done it by changing officials, but always by inspiring the people.’ (Napoleon)

It is often said that power ultimately rests with the citizen if only we exercised it. Perhaps that is where blogging may work in communicating ideas. The change it gives birth too though may be as effective as writing down your frustrations and grievances in a notebook which you keep under your pillow. It makes you feel better having got it off your chest – but are you actually using it as a call to action on others, to inspire others to change the universe?

It is a battle of ideas, with cynicism being the barricade on the way to progress. But that cynicism is not just other people, but what we can have ourselves. Because sometimes we may think even a small thing will not make the difference, and that a blog is no more an instrument for change then a notebook under a pillow. Yet we can do more then dream on them:

Each time a person stands up for an ideal,
or acts to improve the lot of others…
he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope,
and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring,
those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. (Robert Kennedy)

I suppose the real secret if you can inspire people is not to get killed for doing it.

Sarah Brown surprised by introducing her husband

Expanding nursery places, and the personalisation of the NHS (National Health Service) – fairness being extended in Britain as it is coded into our DNA and the reason the Labour Party existed. A commitment to end child poverty by 2020 – he also spoke of how blindness threatened him after playing Rugby made him blind in one eye, but the NHS was there. Free health check ups for the over 40s. Free prescriptions for cancer drugs. He also spoke about extra tuition being made available to children who fall behind.

Attacking the Conservatives, listing achievements “We did fix the roof while the sun was shinning”. He attacked the Shadow Chancellor for saying that in market downturns people make money out of other people’s misery. “I’m all for apprenticeships; but this is no time for a novice.”

Whether talking about Conservatives cutting public spending will have the same effect when people have less disposable income we shall see. “The Conservatives have changed their tune but have not changed their minds”.

The speech was an upbeat talk of Britain, and the hard work people do – that Britain was not a broken society, but the best in the world. Stronger together as the United Kingdom, but with devolution planned for Northern Ireland. The best armed forces in the world. Working together, not just for compassion for the vulnerable but for globalisation to be successful for the challenges both diplomatic and economic.

He mentioned speaking  up for justice for the children of the world. “Fairness at home, fairness abroad – the new settlement of our time.” Staying true to himself, he said what ever the cynics throw his way the job was worth doing if it helped one child, one community (though I personally hope it would benefit more) because he wants to make a difference, helping someone in need and not passing by on the other side. All of us united we are a great movement, that where each of us can say this is our country, Britain, we are making the fair society for the sake not of the Party but of the country.

The speech played on those traditions that make Labour the party one of social justice. It even borrowed from America having his wife introduce him (unheard of in British politics). However, with the economic downturn and a lack of assured confidence over recent events the question is will Gordon Brown be back or stabbed in the back?

The song at the end “(Your love keeps lifting me) Higher and Higher”. Using some of those lyrics, the question is whether they want to take up his offer of “Quench my desire and I’ll be at your side, forever more”.

Bill Meets the Mayor of Loughborough, Cllr Stephen Campbell

Bill Newton Dunn, member of the European Parliament for the East Midlands, visited my home town today. In one of those small world coincidences he was in the same class as Richard Dawkins at Chafyn Grove school, in Salisbury, where he remembers Richard often starring out of the window. I also have him to thank for many a British Government essay, as he was the first person to use the term “democratic deficit”  when discussing political European institutions.

One person that we met in the town market (Mary) wanted to have a go at politicians for saying one thing and then doing another. Bill’s wife Anna made the point how one person did not want to hear how policy was created at the European level. I sometimes wonder whether people actually knowing how the system operates is a separate issue from people wanting to hold their elected representatives to account. In many ways both these issues are answered by transparency – a key part of the democratic deficit.

That however does depend on people like Mary, who on her crutches charged at Bill to bend his ear while shoppers dived for cover. That spirit is vital; if people could only knew just how active people are on their behalf then perhaps it would take the edge off the cynicism that allows people to feel they have a valid excuse for not getting involved. Or ignore someone like me handing out flyers.

Today was “In My Town Without My Car” day, and Bill and the rest of us met up with the Mayor of Loughborough who bused into  town. I do find these things a bit gimmicky, hoping that my bicycle was secure outside the Cinema. To help with that John Catt was about, who is involved with Action For Charnwood keen cyclist and trustee of the British Humanist Society (I could go on but if you need a definition of pluralism in action it is John) gave me a security tab for my bike and a cycle map.

After talking to Bill about Richard, the junior years, and finding out he advocates the disestablishment of the Church of England from the State (the only time I have ever discussed such things in a McDonalds) we moved on to a garden party generously hosted by Councillor David Walker and his wife Claire.

Among things discussed with people were Michael Reiss and The God Delusion, with a late Summer’s day beating down on us, with puffs and wine providing sustenance as we discussed meta physical frameworks of reality, and politics. It made me appreciate just how many things are going on behind the scenes whether at the local or international level.

David and Claire Walker, at their home

For American readers there is a tale for you. Bill’s son spent 6 months working for a Congressman in Washington DC, and just before leaving he tried to arrange interviews with people on the Hill to have something to bring back to the UK. No one seemed interested talking to a nobody Brit. The last day before he was due to finish he got his one and only call back, from a Senator that had a spare hour to discuss anything he liked while on a long drive.

That person was John McCain. In many ways it is that kind of character that makes me wish that his politics were not moving so far right in the Presidential Campaign. We discussed that if he can separate himself from the Bush administration he has every chance of hanging on to his lead in the opinion polls.

All the best to Bill for the forthcoming European elections in June of next year, and thanks to David and Claire for hosting the garden party.

Nick Clegg’s speech closing the Liberal Democrat Conferencecan be found here.

Representing a compassionate, greener, more democratic country. And the Dalia Lama.

Even an atheist can use god to make a point, in his speech about children:

Children are inspirational.

Miriam and I can’t wait to be parents again.

I love the way children see the world.

There was a great story I heard recently about a little girl, doing a painting in class.

The teacher comes over and says – what are you painting?

And the girl says – God.

So the teacher says – But no-one one knows what God looks like.

The girl says – they will in a minute.

Children don’t see barriers.

When you’re a child – everything is possible.

Labour is a zombie government ” a cross between Shaun of the Dead and I’m Sorry I Haven’t A Clue” while on David Cameron “You have to admire, I suppose, the sheer gall of someone who worked for Margaret Thatcher claiming he cares about poverty.”

He compared New Labour of 1997 to the “Blue Labour” of the Conservatives now. It seemed that he was pitching for traditional Conservative voters that went to Labour from 1997 but are thinking of going back to the Conservatives. Contrasting Conservative anti-EU feeling with an increasingly belligerent Russia and the need for increasing international cooperation was just one example of contrasts between Conservatives in what they said and what they planned to do.

He spoke of the Liberal Democrat party:

We grow every year.

We’ve been in government in Scotland. In Wales.

We run more big cities in England than any other party.

At the last General Election we won 6 million votes, more than any other liberal party in Europe.

Together we will double our MPs in Westminster.

And at the next general election we’ll take a giant leap towards that goal.

We can do it because we are the vanguard of British politics.

We have been at the forefront of a revolution in ideas.

The first to fight for women’s rights, gay rights, human rights.

The first to understand the problem of climate change.

The first to see the economic crisis on the horizon.

The first to see the vital role of liberal interventionism in international affairs.

And the first to see its limits – and oppose the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Realistically though the question is what will the Liberal Democrats do if they hold the balance of power? Would they form a coalition government as they did in Scotland and Wales (with Labour, though out now) or be independent forcing through it’s manifesto? The latter has usually been the policy line.

That need not be a hindrance if the Lib Dems can create a policy identity. One that says fairer taxes, less taxes for the lower paid, an education system that frees teachers to teach without bureaucracy putting their hands behind their backs, and puts decision making in the hands of the community rather than Whitehall.

However with the £20 billion promised in spending cuts, and in particular talking up Vince Cable (who by Conservatives is perhaps the most respected Lib Dem) in economic management it seems that the emphasis is not being squeezed by the Conservatives rather than a focus on replacing Labour.

The next election will see if this strategy works. The only thing that seems certain is in opinion polls people have gone from Labour to Conservative. While Lib Dem candidates can be second to Labour or Conservative incumbents, the question is that being all things to all people is not working. Clegg spoke about social justice and cutting taxes at the bottom and to be the most redistributive tax policy of any party. The aim seems to be appealing more to would be Conservative supporters compared to the past.

Policy is one thing, but you need to be in power to enact this. Whether the Lib Dems have the strategy to do this, and the resources to have key tactics in place at target seats is unclear. On that I am skeptical. That is ok – because it’s liberal to be skeptical according Nick Clegg. But to make the changes that need to happen the Lib Dems need to be a force to be reckoned with either in terms of a poll bounce or actual seats won at the next election.

It was a good first speech by the new Liberal Democrat leader. But as the last leader found out Clegg needs to do better in opinion polls soon. Otherwise Dave Cameron’s quip that his favourite political joke at the moment is “Nick Clegg” will stick. Certainly if Clegg targets supporters moving from Labour to the Conservatives and it backfires it will be. With the left in British politics being drowning in the deep blue.

Also the 250,000 people that apparently are being phoned for “market research” on behalf of the Lib Dems may land the party in trouble over cold calling rules. That together with Nick Clegg getting the weekly pension wrong does not bode well.