Peter Riddell in today's Times ponders why the election contest for Labour's deputy leader is so unedifying. ("Reinventing new Labour is essential but it will not be easy")

As if answering his call, David Miliband has ridden to the rescue with an interesting piece carried in both today's The Telegraph and The New Statesman.

Judging by the comments on the bottom of the Telegraph blog Mstr Miliband has a long way to go before he endears himself to much to the Telegraph readership. One also has to question his judgement about putting out such a piece this week.  After all, it began with Tony Blair and Peter Mandleson stirring up the 'will-he/won't-he' stand (against Gordon) stakes for all they were worth.

Indeed it starts off by making his argument very personal. He gives a politician's answer to the 'will-he/won't he' clamour by saying 'I can':

"Politics requires many virtues... But chief among them is the hardest to define: that elusive sense of being in tune with the times... I am convinced that a fourth election victory... are possible precisely because a more demanding, educated, savvy population want the power and control that modern progressive politics can offer." David Miliband.

If that's not Miliband's pitch for being able to take on Cameron better than Brown could manage, I don't know what is. Indeed, The Telegraph rather cheekily title their story "I'm in tune with the 'I can' generation - whereas I suspect Miliband's preferred title is used by the New Statesman.  The rather more prosaic "My vision for the future"

There are some low points in the article - very reminiscent of any number of meaningless Tony Blair speeches:

"Creating institutions closer to citizens, open and accountable to their communities, able to reconcile conflicts and competing demands, is the way to tackle the sense of powerlessness that can seem pervasive. That means we need to fight the instinct of bureaucracies and political parties to hold on to power. One hundred towns and cities with the leadership, confidence and power to lead British economic, social and cultural renewal should be our aim. New Labour has joined together the twin drives to meet needs and to fulfil aspirations."

"One hundred days to prepare for 1000 years", anyone?

But in the middle of this he makes some interesting points about what the British electorate is looking for in the early 21st century.

"Since 1997, Britain has changed in some ways more fundamentally than new Labour promised. It is a different country - richer, fairer, more confident. I also think it is being driven forward by a new spirit. I call it the politics of "I can". The era of "I can" is the culmination of the long decline of deference and automatic authority. It is the late flowering of individual autonomy and control. It is, in other words, one of the founding ideas of left-of-centre politics: to put power in the hands of the people. In the "I can" era, people want to be players, not just spectators. They want to be contributors, not just consumers."

Whether his 'I can' vision is a founding idea of left-of-centre politics or the heart of liberal philosophy, clearly we need to debate with Mr Miliband. But the fact that yet another politician is making a pitch for a liberal point mindset means that we might be destined to live in interesting times.

Also in today's news

Following on from our theme of yesterday, The Telegraph's Liz Hunt describes the mating rituals of the SNP and the Scottish Lib Dems prior to election. ("Suitor seeks ways to bring about a love match")

The Times makes big play today of its Scottish poll ("Labour faces meltdown as SNP heads for power") which predicts the SNP getting 50 MSPs, Labour 43, Lib Dems 19, Tories 18 and Conservative 1.

This prompts the paper of record to print not one, but three comment pieces which are all virtually identical (There's Magnus Linklater with "SNP ready to plant their banner in Labour’s heartland"; Angus Macleod with "Labour will be left to watch the dust settle after this political earthquake"; and the leader, "Borderline - Labour has five weeks to save itself")

Its difficult to find good coverage of the Scottish elections.  There is the excellent Scotland Votes for a variety of facts and figures - though comment is avoided.  The dedicated section on The Guardian Unlimited website also has some useful bits.  Let us know though if you come across any good blogs.  The ones we've found on offer include the reasonably good but sporadic Scottish Political News and Scottish Blogging Roundup - though it should concentrate a little more on the politics rather than debate the merits of different blogging software.

Whilst on the subject of polls, there is a CommunicateResearch poll in the Independent which has the Conservatives on 35% (-5), Labour on 31%(+2), Lib Dems on 20 (+3) and Others 14 (+-0).  Communicate Research don't have a great track record when it comes to accurate polls.  Indeed their own polling has put the Lib Dems over the last few months variously at 14, 17, 14, 21, 17 and now 20.  It is surprising therefore that it has not only been picked up by this evening's Evening Standard, but even more inexplicably given the first part of today's blog, The Scotsman. Communicate Research will need to do some more convincing before the Independent's headline ("Tory lead slips as voters welcome Budget") beings to ring true.

Also in today's news

• Nick Clegg writes a good piece for Guardian Unlimited entitled "No more Mr Tough Guy"
  

The higher education funding debate continues to hold media interest.  An article titled 'The price of knowledge' in today's Economist picks up on a CentreForum issue that we tackled in a pamphlet last year ('Open Universities') and again in an event just a few weeks ago (imaginatively called 'The university funding system')

Since holding our event it has emerged that the education history of an applicant's parents will be made available to admissions officers. This is part of the ongoing laudable attempt to increase stalled social mobility.

The Economist points out, however:

The evidence, though, is that the real stumbling block for poor would-be undergraduates comes much earlier. With the same exam results they are as likely to apply, and to be accepted, at university as the well-off are.

The Economist

Government should be targeting its resources at much younger children in order to maximise educational opportunity before they get anywhere near university age.  In fact, good quality education in the very early years of a child's life seems to be key in delivering life chances later on. 

Exactly how these opportunities could be made available for those traditionally excluded is the subject of a forthcoming CentreForum publication.  Watch this space for news.

Three economists went out hunting, and came across a large deer. The first one fired, but missed, by a metre to the left. The second one fired, but also missed, by a metre to the right. The third economist didn't fire, but shouted in triumph, "We got it! We got it!"

Not entirely sure where that takes us, but the FT has got three economists to give quick and dirty reactions to the Chancellor's budget (Deanne Julius of  Chatham House;  Martin Weale of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research; and regular CentreForum guest speaker, Robert Chote from the Institute for Fiscal Studies)

The newspapers take their economic shots at the budget from the left and the right too.

There are those that are sceptical/hostile:

• Daily Express 'Tax cut: its just a big con';
• Telegraph 'Brown's tax cut trick';
  
• Daily Mail 'What Gord Giveth, Gord taketh away: The truth about that surprise 2p cut'.

Those that seem supportive

• The Mirror 'No.10 this way';
• The Sun 'Reasons 2p Cheerful';

• The Times 'The twopenny budget'.

And the sitting on the fence

• The Independent '2p or not 2p'.
• The FT 'Brown gives and takes on tax as he heads down the road to No10'
  

Or the more-interested-in-something-else

• Daily Sport 'Lesbo secret of Lee Ryan's new babe'.

Why, one wonders why it was the two New International papers that joined the Mirror in being most supportive.  The Times heaps praise upon the astute Scot "the Chancellor has displayed unexpected intellectual and political flexibility alongside admirable boldness and that should bode well for him as he assumes the post of prime minister." Whilst the Sun flips into toadying Labour loyalist mode with Gordon's most ringing endorsement "This was a remarkable economic farewell for a Chancellor with precious little room for manoeuvre. Mr Brown can now hand over the national finances, satisfied he has presided over a record period of growth, stability, jobs and low inflation. And concentrate on his even tougher new job as Prime Minister."

No conspiracy theories, please.  After all, the editors of the Sun and the Times are free to throw their adulation on whichever future Prime Minister they like.

Probably not the build up to his last budget that Gordon Brown would have wanted. In an interview with the FT, Lord Turnbull, former permanent secretary to the Treasury, talked about the Chancellor's "Stalinist ruthlessness" and how he treats cabinet colleagues with "more or less complete contempt".

Then again, the Chancellor has had reason to look more statesmanlike of late - is this all an elaborate publicity stunt?

Probably not, and it detracts from the real question of the day: what surprises are in store tomorrow?

A quick glance at the papers gives a bewildering list of demands, predictions and condemnations from all sides of the political spectrum.

Daniel Finkelstein, in the Times (Budget for Brown), starts by calling for lower levels of taxation and spending:

"Britain is already a high-tax economy. It cannot afford to remain so... Brown must be realistic about public spending and public services. What he may sincerely believe is a one-off step-increase in expenditure acquires a life of its own... the only way pressure will ultimately be contained is if the State begins to shrink back to a more reasonable share of national income"

The Telegraph also wants, unsurprisingly, a reduction in the public sector (Will Budget No 11 do the business for Brown?). On only day 2 of its "Bash Brown" week, it describes the Chancellor's legacy thus far as:

"A bloated state apparatus which persistently fails to deliver value for the billions of taxpayers' pounds it consumes"

But while Finkelstein fails to pinpoint exactly where these pruning is to come from, the Telegraph is much more specific, urging the Chancellor to make:

"a significant cut in company taxation tomorrow"

The Independent, on the other hand, is more concerned with ensuring that public service reform (Brown commits to Blair's reforms with 'personalised' public services) and the NHS in particular (Steve Richards: The challenge for Gordon Brown is to put Labour ahead on the health service again) is kept on the agenda.

The theme for tomorrow's budget remains unclear; at first it was the 'education' budget, then the 'Budget for business'. Or is it the 'environmental budget'? It seems that Brown, too, is concerned about his legacy - and well aware that any promises now will carry ramifications for the next general election.

As for tomorrow - given today's coverage, Brown will be doing well to please anybody, let alone everybody.

Liberal-minded readers have several different topics to go at in today's papers.

Julian Baggini has surveyed contemporary British opinion in his new book "Welcome to everytown".  This has prompted Andreas Whittam-Smith to write a piece entitled "The danger of believing England is a liberal place".  Mr Whittam-Smith says that the book has forced him to confront a number of his own assumptions about class and identity (surely though only Mr Whittam-Smith is surprised that he is resolutely upper-middle class)

But it was when I read Mr Baggini's analysis of working-class beliefs that I began to see that I have grown up with a different value system. I share England's tradition of toleration, what Mr Baggini calls its dominant philosophical concept. Let us all be English in whatever way we choose, and as long as your Englishness doesn't threaten mine, it doesn't matter if it's different. Yes. However, it turns out that English toleration has its limits. The "we" which is the English mainstream has no problem with illiberal measures that infringe the liberties of "them" for the sake of "us". Andreas Whittam-Smith

All the papers are now rushing to report the Bayrou phenomenon in the French Presidential elections.  The FT run a piece ("French rivals fear Bayrou more than Le Pen")  as does The Guardian ("Tractor-driving 'son of the soil' ruffles election tactics of his French presidential rivals") Also an early contender for longest-headline of the week.  The Telegraph ("French voters discover the third way") has the most interesting quote though for those of us trying to work out if he is a liberal or merely a centrist can at least chew on the quote that 'he feels closest to the Liberal Democrats, "many of whom are my friends"'. That hardly settles the matter (as a fly on the wall of any Lib Dem discussion will tell you) but interesting nonetheless.

The 50th anniversary of the EU is also prompting comment about the state of the EU.  Last week's Economist led on the issue and The FT and The Independent run pieces in their opinion sections today.

Finally, there were some new and generally dispiriting polls over the weekend.  The always interesting PoliticalBetting Blog has gathered them together for easy analysis.

The situation is Zimbabwe is terribly, desperately sad. But yet more depressing is that no one in the international community is taking action.

We, the colonial oppressors of old, cannot just go romping in like we did in Iraq (spurious though the rationale for that may have been) as pointed out by The Belfast Telegraph:

Mr Mugabe has responded to every British criticism of his government by reminding his followers of Britain's past as Africa's colonial master - a line which British ministers frankly admit has resonated with other black Africa leaders... Speaking in London, Mrs Beckett said yesterday: "I am sorry to say that in many parts of Africa, Mugabe is viewed as a kind of hero of the revolution, and if it comes to a choice between the hero of the revolution and the colonial oppressor, they know whose side to be on."

Beckett writes in today's Times (Please don't take this personally, Mr Mugabe...) in support of the Zimbabwean people and peaceful change, and stresses that democracy and human rights are the issue here, not Mr Mugabe himself. But, you know, I suspect he won't read it.

Hope of action from the rest of Africa was briefly stirred by Agyekum Kufuor, the Ghanaian President and African Union chairman's comment that: “The African Union is very uncomfortable. The situation in [Zimbabwe] is very embarrassing.” (The Times) However, neither the AU nor South Africa will take a formal position on the Zimbabwe problem.

Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the opposition movement MDC, writes in today's Independent of his beating at the hands of the Zimbabwean police and asks for international pressure to be maintained against Mugabe's regime, but so far the bloggers of the world are the only ones who have heeded this call (BBC news).

Also in the news:

• Candidates from Bash Street Comp will now trump those from Lord Snooty's Academy as university applicants must now disclose the details of their parents' education - see the comments on this article in The Telegraph.
• The Economist on why reforming council tax is a Vote Loser.
  

The notion of a centrist politician breaking the "mold of bipartisan politics" is one that often fills newspapers politics pages in the middle of a campaign.

However, in France the "Third Man" story has rather more legs given the impact he is having on the polls.  Also this time, it is not the far right Le Pen who is elbowing his way to the front of the polls - but centrist Francois Bayrou.

In the latest polls he is just 4 points behind Segolene Royal in the first ballot.  He has been just one point off within the last week.  Also virtually all polls are showing that he will beat any other candidate as long as he makes it into second round.

The campaign he is fighting is in many ways unoriginal.  His basic pitch is not based on any issue - but instead he is appealing to the 'plague on both your houses' movement.  Around the world it certainly has resonance. You can compare it with Ariel Sharon's Kadima movement in Israel, or the "Bring us together" rhetoric of every American Presidential election for the last 30 years (what they have done in office, of course, is a different matter).

There are important differences too though.  Kadima had a very specific policy programme linked with the peace process. Bayrou will have to articulate something more than a grand coalition if he is to maintain his impressive leap in the polls. We will be watching which issues he will pick.

• The Telegraph, The Guardian and The Times are running special areas of their sites on the elections.

• More in depth coverage is available from France 24's dedicated "Observer" website
  
• "On the fly" translations of the candidate's sites can be viewed via these links for Sarkozy, Royal and Bayrou
  
• The blog world has some great coverage including French Election 2007 which describes its coverage as from an American perspective and France Decides 2007 are two of the best English language ones. The political betting blog has some good insights - but is keeping its focus squarely on UK concerns. The Guardian's Colin Randall is also keeping Guardian Online readers regularly up to date.

• Alan Cochrane in The Telegraph doubts the Scottish Lib Dems' commitment to local income tax (Lib Dems stage a tactical withdrawal)
• And finally, yesterday we wondered how much credit Ming and his team would get for splitting the Labour party - it would seem not a lot.  Of course its fair to say that Labour was split already, however, it was never certain that Ming Campbell could credibly sit alongside many of the Labour rebels.  The fact that he was able to fashion a line that didn't retreat from his well publicised previous support of a nuclear deterrent and recalled the Lib Dems' stance on the Iraq war was clever steering indeed.
  

The question will be put this evening as to whether MPs want to replace Trident - or more specifically - the submarines that carry the Trident.

Much of the comment in the papers today is rather predictable.  The Telegraph's leader backs the Prime Minister (Defending ourselves in an unpredictable world); The Guardian a couple of days ago urged holding back from making a decision now (Labour's looming rebellion).

However, the leader in the FT today reads like it was written by Nick Harvey - endorsing pretty much fully the line espoused by Ming Campbell and Nick Harvey in the Lib Dem's Trident debate in Harrogate a couple of weeks ago.

"Extending the lives of the current submarines would save money. Even if that proves impossible, delaying a decision on replacement until 2010 would allow it to be taken after the next review conference on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. After that, the government may need to back a replacement nuclear deterrent. But it has failed to convince that the decision is needed now." The Financial Times - Leader

It will be interesting to see how much credit Ming and his team will be able to get for the moral victory of a close vote in tomorrow's papers.  It won't be easy.  No matter what Labour MPs think about the issue - the idea that they they might be giving Ming's team a boost will no doubt keep many with the Labour whip.

Also in today's news

• The Telegraph are watching YouTube to see how the US primary elections are playing out.

The battle to become Britain's greenest party reached fever pitch this morning, and gosh wasn't it exhilarating? The Guardian gets particularly overexcited (Miliband launches landmark climate change bill), telling us that:

"Britain's first ever climate change bill is published today, setting legally binding targets on the reduction of carbon emissions for the first time."

And just to prove how young and hip he is, David Miliband even launched the bill on YouTube.

This follows yesterday's twin announcements from Gordon Brown and David Cameron on how best to preserve our planet, whether it be through carbon limits or increasing air passenger duty.

We also found out, in the Times (Two rival visions that put the planet at the heart of policy), that Gordon Brown turns his TV off standby in the evening and Cameron's new home will have both wind turbines and solar panels, so I for one feel in safe hands.

However, wasn't there something missing from all this? It seems the green battle is only two-sided. As Liberal Democrats, we are used to the right-wing media prioritising certain political parties over others, but it's particularly needling when both camps seem to be following policies originally set out by the Lib Dems. Chris Huhne makes a rather feeble attempt to redress the balance in the Indy (We must monitor carbon targets annually), broadly supporting the Bill, but trying to distinguish himself by supporting annual targets (over 5 year ones) and suggesting that we may have to increase the 60% target. The environment used to be a Lib Dem stalwart, but increasingly this position is faltering.

If, as looks likely, the next election is fought largely over environmental policy, the Lib Dems need to prove their credentials, and quickly.

Also in today's news:

• Trident revolt grows as minister resigns (Independent)
• Compulsory language lessons to return (Telegraph)
  

Climate change tax policies seem to be the order of the day, as everyone compares what the Tories have said with what Brown will say in the next Budget. The FT says

David Cameron and Gordon Brown will on Monday set out sharply conflicting visions of tackling climate change, with the Conservatives proposing a raft of new taxes to penalise air travel while the chancellor prefers a carrot rather than stick approach.

Brown criticises the plans, obviously, as “ill-conceived, short-termist, unworkable and unfair”:

However, Mr Brown’s attack may have been blunted by praise for Conservative plans from Matthew Taylor, Tony Blair’s former political strategist, who likened them to ideas being developed by David Miliband, the environment secretary.

Now, hang on a second! Regardless of whether Miliband or Cameron stole them first, aren't these Lib Dem ideas?

The entire subject was thrown up in the air by Channel 4's programme "The Great Global Warming Swindle", aired on Thursday night, and I was curious to see how the pieces would fall again. I'm all for hearing every side of the debate, but programmes like this are self-indulgent, conservative poison that give people who already don't care an excuse to be as irresponsible as they like. So I was heartened (in my self-indulgent, liberal way) to see The Indy's article Climate Change: An inconvenient truth... for C4 about how the director of the piece was already acknoelwedged to be dodgy in the worst possible, fact-distorting way.

But even if the programme happens to have it right and our carbon output has not contributed to global warming, there is no excuse to go on as we have, without considering our environment. Alternatives to fossil fuels must still be found, endangered species must be protected (whether from human predators or changing habitats), waste must be reduced and recycled etc etc.

I hope and pray that this one programme, and the associated band of grumpy, climate-changer deniers, does not turn the impressive tide of environmental responsibility that has gathered pace over the last few years.

The Independent has set out its stall very strongly this morning. The 3 recent controversies concerning Patrick Mercer, David Coleman and that Sheffield policeman have provoked a storm of debate over racism in Britain. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, certainly, is unequivocal (Where is the shame over this tide of filth?):

"Racism is now becoming legitimate... the filth of racism has washed back, but now there's no concern, there's no shame, there's no opposition."

To recap - Patrick Mercer, the Conservative Homeland Security spokesman, seemed to defend the existence of racism in the armed forces, as well as describing many ethnic soldiers as "idle and useless". Mercer was swiftly removed from his position by Cameron and relegated to the back benches. Secondly, a petition was launched by Oxford students last week demanding that Professor Coleman be sacked for his involvement with the immigration watchdog, MigrationWatch. Professor Coleman has come out fighting in the last couple of days, defending his involvement, and claiming that:

"the net contribution by immigrants to average national income per head was equivalent to about a Mars bar a week." (Academic hits back in migration row)

Finally, shocking CCTV footage emerged yesterday of PC Anthony Mulhall beating up a young black woman outside a nightclub in Sheffield. Not a great week for multiculturalism in Britain, perhaps.

However, to play Devil's Advocate for just a moment. It seems there is little reason to suspect that the policeman's actions were racially motivated. The woman had, by her own admission, become violent and agressive; the PC claims he did what he had to in order to subdue her.

As regards Professor Coleman, there is certainly an issue of free speech here. The local Lib Dem MP, Dr Evan Harris, condemned the petition, arguing that:

"he had every right to express his views without fear of retribution from his employer".

Finally, to Patrick Mercer, probably the least defensible of the 3. Nevertheless, he was attempting to make a valid point, albeit very poorly. He argued that it is possible for ethnic minorities to hide behind the taboo of racism, much like a critic of Israel is immediately labelled as anti-Semitic. His chief crime seems to be more in the language that he used, than the content of his remarks.

No, I don't really believe that either. However, I do believe it is important not to get swept up in the latest media storm. If I remember correctly, yesterday's Independent front page warned of the apocalyptic fate approaching Britain's hedgehogs.

Also in today's news:

• Alastair Campbell to make more than £1 million publishing his diaries. He tells friends "I'm not in this for the money" (Guardian).
  
• Some murderers are being jailed for too long, according to Lord Chief Justice Phillips (Times).
  

Today’s press leaves me supremely uninspired.

More than faintly disgusted with John Reid, faintly amused at Nick Clegg’s comparing him to Alf Garnett, but not shocked enough by ‘tough talk’ segueing into bigotry to rant about it. Likewise ‘Tory front-bencher sparks race row with “black bastards” gibe’ and ‘PC admits using “brute force” to arrest woman’. So far, so depressingly routine.

Camilla Cavendish in The Times caught my eye though, with ‘Will someone look beyond their nose?’ This is the latest of several recent musings on short-termism. My first encounter with the subject was a speech by David Willetts MP on intergenerational fairness. The essential point was crystallised in the idea that no one these days can resist a biscuit now in order to achieve two biscuits later. We live in a culture of instant-gratification, live-now-pay-later, high-yield, selfish short-termism. Our children are miserable, our government will not commit to genuine, sustainable climate change policies, consultation is substituted for change on infrastructure and the personal debt storm is building, ready to break over our heads. Etc, etc.

All this may seem to have little to do with today’s big story on Lords reform but the slow progress of democracy does give me some hope. When a 700 year old, previously unassailable edifice of undemocratic privilege finally falls, with overwhelming support for a wholly elected second chamber, it demonstrates a recognition that long-term change is possible. It remains to be seen whether anyone can translate the idea from revising the past into preserving the future.

Also in the news:

• Brown plumps himself down on the other side of the fence to Cameron on family policy.
• The Telegraph officially becomes the most depressing read today as Professor David Coleman defends MigrationWatch and the readership defends Prof. Coleman.
  

My, the Telegraph is really sticking the knife in these days. Sir Menzies is the first target (Ming's problem isn't age: it's Ming himself):

"Sir Menzies Campbell does not lie about his age, but I suspect that he would if he could. At a reluctant 65, he comes across like a headmaster at the school disco, ever ready to jackknife his knees and start doing the twist, just to show everyone how square he ain't."

But, we are assured, Ming is still the best man for the job, in a superbly backhanded compliment, he is:

"surely a better bet for the Lib Dems than some of the ragbag at Harrogate last week; troubled folk with a range of issues that include alcoholism and that difficult matter of homosexuality within heterosexual marriage."

But it didn't stop there. In a splendidly titled article, Why Conservatives must stand up for the deserving rich, Simon Heffer lambasts Vince Cable's most recent tax proposal:

"In his capacity as the Lib Dems' Treasury spokesman, Dr Cable gave the lie to the notion that there is no scope to tax the British people further. He advocated a one per cent tax, levied annually, on what he called "obscenely large" property investments... in the happy little world of the Lib Dems, the sort of "obscenely large" property investment that will attract this annual one per cent tax starts not at £84 million, nor even at £35 million, but at £1 million. This means that, should your house be worth £1 million, you will pay the Exchequer an annual sum of £10,000 a year out of your already significantly taxed income. This is what, for want of a less accurate name, we call a wealth tax."

Like Mr Heffer, my first reaction to this announcement was one of disappointment. I've always admired Cable as an economist and a policymaker, and the Lib Dem's tax policy is one of its most commendable. Nevertheless, this latest proposal for, effectively, a wealth tax has given me cause for doubt. The Lib Dems have always stood for economic equality - a progressive tax system to benefit the worst off in society. However, a wealth tax, or a property tax, goes against this principal. Ignoring, for the moment, the distortionary effects such a tax would have on the property market, we should consider the "asset-rich, income-poor".  A minority of householders, to be sure, but a £10,000 annual levy on one's property is significant to those with even median incomes. At first glance, this feels like a snap attempt to redress any redistributive tendencies lost by the abandonment of the 50% top rate of income tax.

However, first impressions can be misleading. Digging a little deeper, Cable's motives are a little more laudable. The proceeds, an estimated £1 billion, would be used to cut inheritance tax and stamp duty. Inheritance tax has always been a bit of an anomaly - intended to redress the perceived inequity of large bequeathments, it actually has a surprisingly regressive impact. Those it attempts to tax, the very rich, are those wealthy enough to afford expert advice, and thus avoid paying the tax. It is those on middle incomes who are most affected.

Despite these admirable motives, I am inclined to stick with my first impression. A wealth tax, whatever its intentions, is inequitable, unjustified, and deeply unpopular. I am, however, happy to be converted.

• Trident: 100 Labour MPs to revolt (Independent); the rest want answers (Guardian)
• Home Office to implement tough new immigration enforcement measures, including texting (Guardian)
  

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that coverage and comment on the Lib Dems has almost entirely petered out today, but the one piece that there is (Steve Richards in The Independent) refreshingly grasps the correct end of the stick.

Worryingly, it seemed the media had collectively managed to look without seeing at conference. That or they had all promised to be friends with the new boy if he let them copy his conference homework. Either way, everyone wrote the same PR-confusion story.

However, Richards focuses on the real substance of Ming's speech. Challenges to Gordon Brown need to cover the all-but-guaranteed two years of his premiership and electoral reform will not feature on that agenda; the point of the five tests is that -

"They give Sir Ming ample wriggle room to keep his distance from Labour's next prime minister if he chooses to do so ... but if Sir Ming decides that he wants to move closer to Labour Mr Brown will not be a million miles away from meeting the five challenges."

The positioning with regard to Labour is subtle enough here, which makes the overt rejection of the Tories all the more telling. The politic position, given the possibility of having to co-operate with one or the other after the next general election, would have been to extend that subtlety to David Cameron, but the grass roots reaction to the Tories is so vehement and the threat from the Tory invasion of Lib Dem territory so disquieting that one must suppose no relationship is possible. And at least Ming got to address some strong words to someone...

Also in the news;

• Frank Field, Labour minister for welfare reform 97-98, accuses the government of missing its big opportunity for radical welfare reform in The Telegraph (Less carrot, more stick).

• And David Cameron treads that fine line along the fence over the EU, trying not to offend anyone and offending everyone in the process, according to the FT (Cameron comes under fire over pledge to seek EU reforms).

No, not West Ham against Tottenham, but yesterday's other unlikely finale. 

Following Ming's decisive intervention in the Trident debate on Saturday, it seemed his fortunes and reputation were, finally, on the up.

What a difference a day makes.

A quick perusal of the broadsheets this morning does not augur well. According to the Indy, "the party was in a state of confusion over its commitment to proportional representation" (Campbell drops Lib Dems' insistence on electoral reform), the Grauniad follows suit with "PR precondition in reversed then reinstated" (Campbell sets Brown tests for Lib-Lab coalition)and the ever impartial Telegraph announces that "the party was plunged into disarray" (Campbell is ready to make a deal with Labour). Probably not the media reaction the leadership was hoping for. 

The source of this confusion? The eternally anonymous "senior official".

This does all seem a bit bizarre. Did anybody actually come out of Ming's speech in the certain knowledge that he was preparing for coalition talks, the price of which was dropping electoral reform?

It now seems likely that, barring another remarkable turnaround, the Harrogate conference will be remembered for all the wrong reasons.

The Lib Dem Spring conference is not the kind of event that is guaranteed to get the scribblers going.  Its therefore not surprising that therefore there is only limited coverage today of the key event yesterday - the trident debate.  The Telegraph has a straightforward, but quite objective report ("Sir Menzies flexes his muscles over trident"), and the Guardian mentions it in a story focusing on parliamentary aspects of the issue ("Blair stifling Trident debate, say key MPs").

However, there's a fair amount of stock taking going on in the papers.  Andrew Rawnsley does a whither-the-lib-dems type of piece which ends up being quite positive ("Take note.  The Lib Dems may hold the key to Number 10") The Telegraph implies that not only is Ming too old - but that Nick Clegg and David Laws are also essentially past it in its leader ("The mugging of Menzies")

All this attention might give the party a little poll boost.  However, another clutch of stories on the back of Ming's speech today (Sunday) is needed in order affect the current figures. Can he sustain the energy and vigour of yesterdays 3 minute speech in the Trident debate over a 30-40 minute leaders speech?  And if he does, will people write about it?