Any party that can contain both this writer and this one is clearly worryingly divided (to put it harshly) and pleasingly diverse (to put it how I would). Unfortunately this rather supports the most biting criticism that has been made against the party: that they lack any core meaning or convictions.

I would suggest instead that the disparity is a consequence of the future of liberalism often being one of dour men who hated income tax  and therefore appealing to certain people with a historical understanding of the term. Meanwhile the immediate history of the party is that of being the one which advanced its vote substantially during the last election under an anti-Iraq and pro-tax on the rich platform.

In addition to this there is the rather curious history of the party, which came about as a fusion of the Liberals and the Social Democratic Party. The former are probably the type which Ms. Gore feels most at home in but the SDP were only moderates in their day because the Labour Party seemed likely to be taken over by a coterie of Leninists. We have degenerated so thoroughly in this country that presently being a committed social democrat (instead of the kind that implements social democratic policies only when forced to accept the abject failure of “pure” capitalism by the brute force of reality) is enough to render you on the “far left” of the Labour Party.

So its understandable the Liberal Democrats are ideologically at a loose end, and although I’d much prefer the present arrangement to their being two small parties constantly rowing over third and fourth place they will always strike me as aesthetically aberrant.

In which I find an excuse to ramble about ideology. At length.

On Liberal Conspiracy, a rather vicious comment-war has begun over Nick Clegg’s recent speech on why he was a liberal. I won’t comment on the piece as Sunny has done; it looks more of a speech about Clegg’s own ideology than party policy.

So I’ll comment on that, instead. Or, at least, the section which most exercises my irritation:

Liberalism believes fairness, fulfilment and freedom can be best secured by giving real power directly to millions of citizens.
Socialism believes that society can only be improved through relentless state activism, a belief driven by far greater pessimism about the ability of people to improve their own lives.

A liberal believes in the raucous, unpredictable capacity of people to take decisions about their own lives.
A Socialist believes in the ordered, controlled capacity of the state to take the right decisions about other peoples’ lives.

A liberal believes a progressive society is distinguished by aspiration, creativity and non conformity.
A Socialist believes a progressive society is characterised by enlightened top-down Government.

Bollocks. To associate all socialism with a particular mode of state-control is at best unwise and at worst an actively misleading lampoon of Reagan or Thatcher. Both liberalism and socialism move from a similar origin; an egalitarian concern that individuals should be as free as possible.

Classically, liberalism seeks to achieve this through an abscence of restraint. It accepts, though, the need for some state intervention; individuals will, understandably, pursue their own interests, and so occasionally come into conflict. One individual might see, for example, that they could do well for themselves by turfing another off their land and using it for themselves. This exercise of freedom comes at the clear cost to the freedom of another. An arbiter between these interests, in the form of the state and law, is thus necessary to ensure the wider freedom of all. Liberal ideologues as far back as Locke have accepted this principle. So long as the state treats all individuals as equals, and so applies its laws to the benefit of all, then its existence is less of a tyranny than the potentially endless conflict of absolute freedom. From his Two Treatises of Government:

IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.

Logic dictates that no individual should harm another, as if individuals have an equal right to individual liberty, then to assault another’s liberty is to concede that others can assault your own; a state Locke terms “the law of nature.” Yet a brief observation of reality highlights that this law has no means of enforcing itself, and so the prospect of actually enjoying your absolute freedom varies. Rational individuals might thus come together in a community to ensure the freedom of all is protected.

Socialism merely extends this principle, and accepts that freedom can come under threat from more than just a particularly malicious individual. To live without education would be to risk freedom; how can you compete with those lucky enough to know more, or even advance your own understanding of the world, without one? A universal education provided by civil society thus clearly advances freedom. Conflicts in the exercise of freedom likewise take place on a wider scale than liberalism in its purest form might allow for. An individual, or rather a small collection of individuals, might quite legitimately gain control of an essential service; say, the delivery of electricity. They would be perfectly free, once they did so, to drive up the prices of electricity beyond the point required to cover costs; a drive which would prevent many from heating their homes, or cooking, or indeed living, as they might otherwise. A clear exercise of freedom on the part of a few at the expense of the freedom of many. Surely better, then, for a state under the democratic control of all to control the distribution of electricity, thus guaranteering the wider freedom of all those who need energy?

The state exists in socialism as a means of guaranteeing liberty, as it does on a lesser scale for liberal ideology. But where its intervention isn’t necessary to preserve this freedom, some socialists at least would argue that it does not need to become involved. And where its intervention actively impairs liberty, then a socialist should oppose it; hence the opposition of many who’d consider themselves to be socialists to ID Cards.

This form of socialism is a far cry from that described in Clegg’s speech. Where’s the endless regulation of every individual relationship in every sphere implied in “the ordered, controlled capacity of the state to take the right decisions about other peoples’ lives?” It isn’t there. Liberal ideology and socialism aren’t the mutually exclusive behemoths of Clegg’s imagination, but nuanced and varied systems springing from similar concerns.

Some particularly statist socialists might be considered outrightly illiberal. Likewise a neoliberal fanatic who describes themselves a liberal would be considered an outright enemy of wider freedom by most socialists. But, surely the question here is not whether this makes liberalism and socialism as a whole incompatible, but whether those ideological parodies really qualify as what they claim to be? If egalitarianism can be considered the root of both ideologies, then I would suggest not.

It’s an interesting question that’s been kicking around for some years now: ID Cards. Why?

It’s become increasingly, achingly clear that they’ll be useful for anything. The only determined advocate is someone who stands to make massive amounts of cash out of their introduction. The implementation would cost an immense amount of money that we couldn’t really spare before this recession reduced the amount of money available for the state. And any idea so terrible it’s drawn together Tony Benn and UKIP is clealy not too wise to implement.

But even politically it is difficult to see any advantage. When it was matched by the Tories it was conceivable to see this as a piece of clothes stealing but now they are opposing the policy we are left with the preposterous notion of Labour winning over social rightists. Quite simply this isn’t going to happen. It seemed possible after that “Hug-a-hoody” stuff but since that phrase was quickly traded in for “Broken Britain” they were tucked back into the fold nicely. What Labour is left with is a policy that causes them to lose out massively amongst civil liberties voters. There are two other major parties offerinng to scrap the proposals and for those who this is a primary concern its fairly hard to justify not voting for either in the case of being situation in a marginal.

So either in terms of doing any good or in strategy the policy is dead weight. So why keep it?

Three words: the Lib Dems.

Prior to this identity idiocy there was one major offer Labour could put on the table for this lot if it came to a hung parliament. If they submitted to reform of the one area Liberal Democrats really care about, voting systems, and implemented Proportional Representation they could be assured a coalition. They could also be assured that that coalition was one they would have to get used to, as for the forseeable future a Lib-Lab union would be the only imaginable set-up British politics could handle.

Now this was something which Labour was never really going to stomach, but if you want to know why they are still keen on this daft idea consider this: at the moment the Labour Party partisans have united in a fashion which would have seemed implausible only a year or so ago. Blairite, Brownite, these terms have rapidly become meaningless as factionalism is overlooked. Backed against the wall they stand as one.

Now do you really imagine that after all that pride swallowing they are going to smile and accept that a Third Party will prop them up forever?

It was unlikely that the same people who had enjoyed an overwhelming landslide were ever going to let that happen, but after the amount of disregarding of grudges they’ve had to perform already there is simply no way that they are going to let the Liberal Democrats seize the position of kingmakers. No, the upper echelons of the Labour Party hierarchy wants to maintain the present electoral system: if for no other reason that in some ways the constant threat of the Tories was what this pack of right wingers keep the substantial left at bay so effectively.

So how do ID Cards fit into this intrigue? Simple: they’re both negligible and disposal to Labour, crucial and central to the Liberal Democrats.

To the LDs the proposed database and card system is the epitome of New Labour dependence upon regressive statism. This is the issue which enthuses just about all of them and is one of the very few that is able to unite this inherently bi-sected coalition of social democrats (wondering just when the hell that started being the extreme left) and liberals (wondering why we can’t get back to the 18th century already, as they rather enjoyed that one). For this reason ID Cards make life a lot easier for Nick Clegg.

‘New Politics’ Established Via Sustaining The Status Quo

Clegg hasn’t clearly stated that he’d push for PR in the advent of being a coalition maker. In fact he seems to have waffled about something called ‘New Politics’ when asked about the issue. What this mist of vagueness actually means is anyone’s guess, but hopefully its something other than what it sounds like: the ominously complimentary harmonising with Cameron’s constant calls for a “Change” that we’ve been hearing ever since he stole that line off of someone who actually meant it. Or else letting whichever party’s bigger form a highly vulnerable an ineffective minority government (see ref: Canada). There’s a chance that Clegg does want the policy that lets the LibDems claim the number of seats they’re pretty much indisputably entitled to, but there’s also a (far greater) chance that he’s an ineffectual faffer who won’t push as far and as hard as he can.

In which case…

Brown declares “LibDems! Join ranks with us and I’ll get rid of those nasty ID Cards, since that’s how consensus politics works”. Clegg is able to push for this and maybe another few tokens in some behind-closed-doors mutterings and then can return to his party with a substantial scalp: the ID database has been tossed in the skip. The second most important issue the LibDems all care about has been sorted and hey, who cares about the most since they will be in government (Vince Cable replacing Darling? Perhaps, perhaps…) and thus it seems like FPTP has delivered the goods anyway.

Will they be happy with ti? No. But will that be far more tolerable than if he’d showed up saying “No PR, I’m afraid…But we have got a few cabinet spots and some changes to EU relations legislation which I…” If he did that he’d probably get fucking deposed. Which would rather complicate and extend the formation of any coalition, of course.

So: under this anaylsis Brown maintains a policy he doesn’t really care about since others do and the seats that it’ll lose him are of less importance than the leverage it will grant him if it comes to forging a coalition. And thus the presence of the LibDems endangers our nation’s civil liberties. Without them Labour would have dropped this policy like a stone. With it, they’ll lose some seats to the LDs and Tories but have a last line of defence against PR.

Wit and wisdom suggested here that I should have done some more research for my post. I don’t really think that you can determine the strength and chances of a party from a conference speech, seeing as it tends to be only pre-existing party members, media types, political junkies (this is my category) and those members of the public unfortunate enough to be picked for “Focus groups” who watch them. They can, however, be used to determine the calibre of the speaker and so I thought I might as well offer my views on Clegg’s speech.

If you wish to watch it it starts here:

(At the moment it has only 196 views, rather supporting my view on the public impact of these things.)

Clegg was described in our comment section as “genuine and warm”. There certainly is a warmth to him which is revealed in his surprisingly strong wit. He broke out the constituency anecdotes very early on but although initially it was pretty standard fare he later saved himself with a rather non sequiturious but utterly charming tale of a girl drawing God. This also reminded me of his atheism, which makes a pleasing change from the standard bland faith you tend to find amongst British party leaders.

The main line for this speech was “The future’s bright, the future’s liberal.” The accompanying subtext was, of course, “Labour is dead, Tories are still Tories.” Perhaps as some indication of my political bias I found the final message by far the best executed: when attacking the Conservatives Clegg surely conjured envy amongst the squirming Labour partisans who have been flailing around for years now, unable to land a blow upon the pristine PR of Cameron. The bike with a car driven behind line felt a bit tired but for the most part he staged a strong attack on the Conservatives which felt like apt preparation for the job of constant pounding of their record that will be required of him when they take office. What exactly he meant by calling them “Blue Labour”, though, is beyond me. This phrase left me rather baffled.

It was his attacks upon Labour which were a little lacking. His main line was that they “Labour are finished, it’s over” which presumably was intended to be one of those prophesies where the mere utterance brings about the outcome foreseen. Pleasingly classical but perhaps something of a strategic error: should the widespread assumption that Labour will collapse in itself before tearing itself to pieces on the floor instead of trying to stand up fail to come to pass Clegg has left his party exposed to being overtaken by the Party. This is probably a safe enough gamble, but the fact remains that his argument is somewhat lacking: when mentioning the vast number of CCTV cameras in this country, for instance, he fails to mention that the executive was in no way responsible for this. For the most part cameras are installed either by private firms or as a council measure. In this way what is responsible for their presence is a local populist statism rather than Brown’s clunking fist.

Indeed, the most striking abuses of state power performed under New Labour (Iraq War aside) have largely happened upon a local level with officials using the endlessly exploitable Terror Acts to have their way with the public. If Clegg has any desire to repeal these pieces of legislation or amend them so as to be less easy to use against elderly dissenters and those who prefer their mail unpilfered then he does not express it. Furthermore, if he is actually desiring to restrict the number of CCTV cameras he will, ironically enough, have to overpower local government with the executive. There is certainly a case for doing so, but if Clegg is simply slipping into the habit of identifying problems and suggesting that he should be given power despite neither offering nor having any ideas for amending them then I would suggest he join the Conservatives.

Indeed due to his perfectly presentable tone it is only when his speech is subjected to an inspection of content that it struggles. Take the commitment to a “Green economy”. This sounds similar to Miliband’s mooted “Low-carbon economy”, as well as equally devoid of explicit commitment to environmentally friendly policy so radical and substantial that it reconstructs the entire economic ordering of Britain. Take the most notable example of his rightwards swing of “Tax-cuts for working families”. This slid over my consciousness upon the first hearing, but then snagged after a moment’s consideration. Is Clegg suggesting that we tax the unemployed instead? Or that we make singletons and spinsters yet more miserable by increasing their tax-burden? Or is he saying that the wealthy he presumably needs to tax more heavily to maintain spending without plunging the country into debt are somehow not engaged in “working”?

This is not to say that I am in favour of the fantastically wealthy clinging onto their absurd excess. I simply think that such rhetorical vagueness is immensely intellectually sloppy. Clegg at other points in his speech manages moments of extreme and relieving freshness (suggesting we base our benefits system around what the recipients required rather than bureaucrats desire was a striking and sublime proposal, upsetting as it may have sounded to the civil service) but in mouthing this vapid, vacuous, void filled cliché he left himself with an unstable centrepiece for his economic proposals.

Indeed, although his presentation led to my characterisation of his words as “bluster” as in hindsight being far too harsh the rational value of them is even worse than I had anticipated. Clegg has committed himself at least in part to the “Orange Book” brigade, forgetting that it was while acting as a proper, progressive centre-left alternative to the increasingly and seemingly irredeemably populist Labour Party that the Liberal Democrats ascended in popular support to their greatest heights. The policy of taxing the wealthiest and firm opposition to the war both drew in voters who had no other refuge from New Labour’s relentless lunge towards neo-liberalism.

In other words the Social Democratic elements of the union being stressed served the party well, while Clegg seems interested only in the Liberal.

But despite this he has ambition not voiced anywhere near as explicitly by his last to predecessors. The phrases: “A million doors in Britain” and “Calling 250,000 people” were followed shortly by his description of the party as the “Vanguard” and the “Forefront of a revolution”. These frankly Leninist terms caught me rather by surprise. I still uncertain whether they should be taken as something of a joke or whether he actually is trying to claim the rhetoric of the revolutionary left as the Liberal’s own.

But his follow through actually was decent enough: the Liberal Democrats were indeed earlier champions of equal human rights for homosexuals, opponents of the war, defenders of the environment and prescient over a number of positions that are now consensus pieces and points of unanimity amongst the parties (well, perhaps not the War…).

The difficulty is that the Liberal Democrats are able to lead in this fashion, but not capitalise. They are restrained both by the fact that their opponents will happily and shamelessly steal them of their clothes and this robbery leaves them without a stitch, as well as from the electoral system which favours those with concentrated bases (both other parties, as well as the SNP). This is why towards the conclusion a barn-storming appeal for a “New politics” (I hazily remember him calling for that a while back) which, as far as I can tell, seems to consist of bringing a lot of new people into politics (so that they can vote LibDem) and changing the electoral system totally (so that all the new LibDem votes can get counted and not go to waste).

Really, only the latter would be required for the Liberal Democrats to become a far more substantial force in politics. However, with both the other parties perfectly aware of this and of the two the one with the word Conservative in their party name looking by far the most likely to triumph at the next election the likelihood of the LibDems getting their greatest dream made flesh seems about as likely as Cameron’s hair surviving this decade.

Therefore there is certainly a case to be made that no matter what political ideology they cleave to (and it must be remembered that due to their precarious balancing between disaffected Labour and disaffected Tories to a degree the LibDem hopes of electoral success depend upon cleaving firmly to neither one base of supporters or the other) no political theory will bring about their ascension to power, which has struggled largely due to reasons the political scientists could explain.

In extricating themselves from this awkward position Clegg will be of some utility. Certainly my description of him as “lithium” was overly brutal. But I maintain that he is not a leader that can claim the position the Liberal Democrats could do in their position as the only centre-left party left standing.

Jennie writes here of the Liberal Democrat’s strength due to the presence of Vincent Cable. I would agree with her that a strong shadow cabinet in waiting leaves Clegg in a strong position, but the fact that there are three individuals who would obviously do a far better job than the charisma devoid rightist bluster he is producing (Cable, Kennedy, Opik) is not something which is either to his credit or helpful in his efforts to present the Liberal Democrats as a viable party.

I fear that Clegg may be even worse for the Liberal Democrats than was his elderly predecessor: as well as being roughly as skilled at getting the LDs into the news and dominating the agenda (that is to say: not at all) he has the additional pressure and importance of leading them while the Labour Party is in an obvious and increasing state of collapse as well as the disadvantageous attribute of being too steady a pair of hands to have torn off of the bridge. But there are a number of candidates who he should be dislodged in favour of, meaning that he is a good enough leader to save himself (thus condemning the party) but not a fine enough one to lead them on to claim the position which they could easily take. In this way Clegg’s limited but undeniable talents result in him being just wrong for leadership. The perfect anti-Aristotelian candidate.

Clegg is, in short, lithium for a party in dire need of amphetamines.

That was the only thing I found noteworthy from the latest Metro poll. That the Tories are thrashing Labour soundly is hardly news by now. As ever the more interesting points revealed are missed, both the one Ali made yesterday (although here the Greens are not even mentioned, so perhaps their share was not notable) and the fact that according to this poll the supposed “Third Party” of British politics has overtaken the one which was, not so long ago, digging in to become the New Party of Power is also not noted upon. As far as I can tell a Liberal Democrat spokesperson was not asked to tell their view, despite the fact that if these figures hold up then they will become Her Majesty’s Opposition.

It may will be that the sample size and nature (solely professionals beneath the age of fifty) of the poll has skewed it strangely and left it disproportionate. But the malaise that is eating our party of power, the rot setting into Labour, is now unmistakable and undeniable. Whether the Liberal Democrats are capable of pressing home upon this remains to be seen, as I am becoming sick of typing, but if this poll is to be believed they are at least doing a reasonable job of coming second.

More important than the Metro’s poor presentation and questionable legitimacy, however, are the implications: first and foremost it is madness for Brown to continue his reluctance to introduce Proportional Representation or a hybrid system. With this a Lib-Lab coalition, something that would almost certainly be formed, would require only a mild rise to reach power. With the additional support of the Greens (perhaps at the cost of Heathrow Expansion) a slightly unstable but pleasingly survivalist union could be formed to ensure that Brown remained in power and the LibDems would, finally, get a chance to fill cabinet positions without feeling like traitors.

As it is Labour faces political annihilation. Clinging to the absurd First Past The Post, constituency based system is a tendency which will drag Gordon Brown into his political grave.

It also means that Labour has a new target: not only should they give beating the Tories a go but, as a starting act, are going to need to overtake the LibDems.

Certainly a distinct political landscape from the one that we are accustomed to.

This strikes me as exactly the sort of article that Nick Clegg should be writing.

Emphasising both the total collapse of the increasing failed New Labour project and the unacceptability of the primary alternative {albeit not to my satisfaction with the latter, but to be fair this wasn’t meant to be a rant} Clegg does his best to set out why the Liberal Democrats are the only viable party for the disenchanted leftists of which there are so many. And what language! “A home for progressives”, why, we clearly have here a man atuned to his audience. Homelessness is unquestionably the sensation overcoming British left-wingers who see their intuitive party of choice demanding six weeks of imprisonment for the potentially without a charge or trial. Who read of alarmingly blatant references to “coercion” in internal government documents. Who plunged us into a pointless war that left our forces mangled and fingers blood-drenched then refused to apologise or retreat. Who seemed to pluck the very worst of statism and harness none of the best.

And that fidgeting, incessant longing for change that wafts across the Atlantic, where it seems that earnest leftism of some sort has become unstoppable. While here that momentum is perversely ridden upon by an institution that bears the word Conservative in its very name. That seems delightful if listened to absently but upon closer inspection reveals itself to be almost as foul as it has always been. Just as reactionary, if not more so. Serving the affluent instead of those with any real needs not provided for by the family estates. Threatening to set about fining those that live in family arrangements which displease it. Eying what little good their opponents have done while fingering an ill-concealed blade.

Yes, Clegg has us pinned down far better than even Cameron and judging by this display his ability to make the correct noises is even more skilled at making the right noises to coax our ear. The extent to which he is actually saying anything different to the Conservatives is questionable (see especially the references to the “Top-down NHS” he wishes to reform and cries for further localism) but there is the advantage that Clegg actually seems to be a man in possession of an earnest bone and thus we can expect these to be his genuine views, rather than merely what is expedient.

However if the Tories talking like him can be forgiven, him talking like a Tory can not be. Any politician who uses the phrase “ordinary families” runs the immediate risk of me slapping down the paper in disgust. There is no such structure and has never been. To exacerbate matters he brings tax cuts into it and thus begins basing his economic policy upon fantasy. Hardly a novel criticism to level at the Liberal Democrats, I am well aware, but when considering them as a viable party of power such matters must come under consideration.

Worse still he has bought into the rather peculiar notion of “Choice” being what the state should aim for above all in public services, rather than doing its utmost to ensure that it offers that service well. For instance in the example Clegg uses of emphasising the parental role in deciding schooling the value of assigning further “choice” is surely highly limited: a parent will wish their child to achieve and to be happy. If educational establishments provided by the state allow for as much then there will be nothing to choose. It is only the failures of the system which parents will attempt to swerve around and unless it can be outlined exactly how this will help resolve them this is in no way a solution.

But besides these irksome raw notes {which are what you get when dealing with even the most charming of liberals} there is salvation: Clegg had this reader almost salivating at his utterly unexpected ressurection of the term “Ethical foreign policy”. I once was posted on a parlimentary placement with a member of the Labour Party who, when I questioned him upon the dissappearance of this promise, curtly replied “Robin Cook is dead.” But in Clegg, it seems, his spirit lives on. A glorious piece of knowledge to possess, if not something we can be certain would become manifest were he to take power.

The pledge alone, though, gives me hope and pleasure. I had imagined the concept lost in an ocean of Saudi oil and the cash-for-firearms dollars of a thousand tyrants.

Clegg described it in the print edition as

lost on the road to Mesopatania

but that he at least has found it gives me some spark of desire for once not entirely futile that Cook’s vision be realised.

Something, then, for everyone here. From the easing of the tax burden (as the cutters would have it) on certain families to the statistical ruminations upon the poor to please poverty warriors to the anti-central talk that pleasures localisers to the aforementioned glee it brought about in me concerning matters abroad. It seems that he has gathered the foundation stones for an electoral coalition, here. Certainly enough for a studier structure than the rapidly crumbling edifice of the Labour Party.

Let us see what he builds.

The Tories have (predictably) won in Henley, increasing their share of the vote.  Labour lost their deposit.

I am going to be controversial here, but here goes: it was a brilliant result.  Labour is in disarray, and they deserved the beating they suffered, albeit in very un-Labour territory.  The LibDems should stand to benefit from a seat in which they poll second, and where the predecessor ran away mid-term to get a better job.  But their campaign was disgusting (genuinely, not just reflecting the usual Tory complaints about LibDem tactics…) and should be seen as the real cause for their failure to make ground.

The party has a few good ideas, and is clearly preferable to the Tories, but I cannot say that I would vote for a campaign that behaved in the way the LibDems did.  It is a shame that they have so utterly failed to grow up and debate, not slander.  I sincerely the party learns from this, and Crewe, to play positive politics in the future.  They might actually gain votes that way!

There is also the matter of Nick Clegg’s reaction. Ali suggested that this was simply another example of his inadequacy, another botched response to bad circumstance. However I consider Davis not to be the only one who comes out favourably from a comparison with Jacqui Smith, consider this:

David Cameron must come clean on what has really happened and why David Davis has really resigned.

where she seemingly fails to even acknowledge the possibility of acting out of principle to this:

I think it is right from time to time to signal as a party leader that we are capable of setting aside the pursuit of narrow party-political advantage in the name of that wider principle.

where Clegg realises that this is what has occurred and follows suit. I was expecting the standard opportunism from the Liberal Democrats over this matter, as they delight in by-elections, but instead I witness a non-partisan response that will let the debate Davis requested be carried out with total clarity. The Liberal Democrats were unlikely to win anyway and the minor chance of acquiring another MP {much as they deserve one, having been entirely unfairly disadvantaged by First Past The Post} would not have outweighed the damage done to the public interest by the distraction of the Liberal Democrat candidate.

Perhaps I’ve under-estimated Clegg’s political skills. The media swallowed his line on the results with barely a murmur of dissent. “Thursday night was a success for the Lib Dems,” comes the chorus. “They gained 31 seats nationally, and beat Labour to 2nd place.”

That’s not a success. The Lib Dems dropped from 26% of the national vote in the 2007 local elections to 25% this year. They did not rise to second place. Labour fell to third. If an election were to be carried out now under their beloved PR, the Liberal Democrats would lose out.

Yet the narrative is one of moderate success. And perhaps the reality is too - for Clegg’s spin.

That the party’s poor performance can, in part, be attributed to him, is not. It’s easy to see how the death in the water of his overblown plans to rebrand the Lib Dems, his awkward positioning over Europe and unfortunate personal admissions could have affected performance. Add to this the structural weaknesses of a party neither sure whether it is one thing, the other, or somewhere in between, and I do wonder how they ever hope to move beyond third-party politics…

Ali is absolutely right to say that the Lib Dems need a complete rebrand if they’re to get anywhere. If not, they’ll simply remain Westminster’s resident repository for protest votes - or worse.