A reasonable news day for the Lib Dems today.

David Cameron's pitch to the Lib Dems over the weekend has drawn a response in the form of stories in most papers - along with a leader column in The Independent ('Beware the siren voices of alliance')

The Telegraph uses its leader to preview tomorrow's leadership result and suggests that, should Clegg win, "three-party politics will resume in earnest." ('Liberal Democrats' big chance')

The Telegraph also sings the praises of Nicol Stephen, the Lib Dem leader north of the border in 'The redemption of Nicol Stephen'

Assuming that the party gets some coverage when the new leader is announced, the Lib Dems should see a rise in their opinion poll rating from, if nothing else, the amount of copy being written about them this week.

Is Cameron policy light or does is he quietly mapping out a policy revolution?

Steve Richards seems to think that the latter is the case. Writing in the Independent today he argues that 'It's not true that Cameron has no policies.  He has, and they are quite revolutionary'

Putting aside whether or not you can be 'quite' revolutionary, the substance of his article is very interesting.  By looking at a collection of Cameron's speeches over recent months he sees a pattern of themes emerging around decentralisation and co-operation.

Richards suggests the new policy platform would also have a direct impact on the kind of campaign Cameron would seek to run.

"it is possible that shadow cabinet members could enter the next election unable to pledge outcomes in specific policy areas, but instead promising to create circumstances where people will have the chance to take more control of their lives."

This would certainly make a marked contrast to the shopping-list pledges that have become common to all parties' manifestos since Labour's 1997 pledge card.

However, Richards isn't convinced it would be popular enough to win him a majority.  By setting out on this path, Cameron also opens himself up for the charge that he is policy light - as he will have no specific figures to throw back at Labour when they pledge x-million new nurses, bobbies and teaching assistants. And there is the trick of making it all work:

"Do parents, especially poorer parents, have the time to set up schools or co-operatives? Will local accountability of the police improve the service or make it worse? How can a government encourage the creation of local initiatives without pulling the strings, a move that would defeat the purpose?"

There of course many liberal resonances in what Richards suggests that Cameron is trying to do. In trying to found a Conservative Co-operative movement he recalls Paddy Ashdown's farewell speech to the Lib Dems in 1999. There he said that 'mutualism' based on a new working of the co-operative movement was a key way in which liberals could meet 21st century challenges.

Has Cameron now identified what Ashdown thought was crucial to "liberals, in the widest sense, in the years ahead"? And if he has, can he put flesh on the bones and deliver it?

Ed Balls has been busy previewing his plans for Primary Schools.  Compulsory foreign language lessons was widely trailed over the weekend.  The Times clearly received a more detailed briefing today. ('Tailored testing for pupils at primaries') which includes giving schools far more flexibility in deciding when individual pupils are ready to take national tests.

In her commentary Alexandra Frean sets these announcements in the context of the Government's approach to children in general ('Focus on the individual is not without problems')

With the Conservatives setting out their own plans and Lib Dem leadership candidates eager to express their views, it seems that education is creeping up the political agenda to a level it hasn't been since the early days of the Blair Government.

Also in today's news:

Courage and Coalition - Peter Preston in The Guardian asks Clegg and Huhne to commit political hara-kire by being more explicit their likely negotiation positions for coalition deals after the next General Election.

The next decade might just belong to the Lib Dems - Martin Kettle - The Guardian (actually appeared on Saturday 8th Dec)

Away from the donor scandal encircling British politics, 49 countries and organisations are meeting in Maryland in an attempt to re-invigorate the Middle-East peace process. Opinion on the significance of the conference varies.

David Ignatius of the Washington Post sees grounds for hope:

For starters, the document commits the parties to begin negotiations on a peace treaty "resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues without exception." The text unfortunately doesn't specify what these unmentionables are, but negotiators understand that it does mean the two deal-breakers: Jerusalem and the right of return of Palestinian refugees. The prayers of Israelis that they wouldn't have to talk about Jerusalem, and of Palestinians that they wouldn't have to discuss the right of return, have not been answered.

The most contentious passage was the last paragraph, which concluded that "implementation of the future peace treaty will be subject to the implementation of the road map, as judged by the United States." The Israelis won an important concession here, in the understanding that a treaty won't happen unless there is security on the ground, as the road map mandates. But they gave up something important, too, in specifying that America will decide whether the road map conditions are being met.

The New York Times editorial also takes an optimistic line. Nonetheless, profound challenges remain, and as Gideon Rachman points out, the record of Middle East peace summits is almost uniformly one of failure.

Last time I visited Jerusalem, I sat down with a colleague and tried to see how many Middle East peace plans and conferences we could list. Within a couple of minutes we had scribbled down Venice, Madrid, Oslo, Camp David I, Camp David II, Taba, the Rogers plan, the Annan plan, the Reagan plan, the Tenet plan, the Saudi plan, the Mitchell report, the Geneva accord and the road map.

Nonetheless, with moderate arab states concerned about Iran's regional ambitions, and with President Bush desperate for a legacy in the Middle East which is not related to Iraq, could Annapolis offer a new hope?

Meanwhile, elsewhere in US politics, Karl Rove ludicrously claims that the Bush administration was rushed into war by the US Congress. For a full debunking of this outrageous re-writing of history, watch Keith Olbermann and Arianna Huffington here: 'The reason it was untold is because its untrue'.

Its always interesting to compare the opinions of different commentators from different papers on the same story.

Today we get to compare and contrast responses to the Government's current difficulties.  The writers are Bruce Anderson - a Tory writing in The Independent, Jackie Ashley an old lefty in The Guardian and Time Hames, who is quite keen on the Lib Dems.

Bruce Anderson is also clear that the Government is in trouble and things are likely to get worse before they get better.  He wonders why the Tories are therefore not doing much better.

The voters do not know enough about [Cameron's] beliefs and his philosophy of government. It will not be enough for Mr Cameron to assert that his administration will be much more competent than Gordon Brown's. Unless he gives disillusioned voters grounds to believe in him, they might just wish a plague on both your parties.

Cameron must do more to get his message across, even as the Government flounders - Bruce Anderson - The Independent

The depth of Labour's current problems is put most eloquently by Jackie Ashley:

Once utterly loyal Brownite backbenchers, senior ones, tell me they don't expect him to fight the next election. Blairites who kept their mouths zipped through the first months are plotting again to replace him. I have almost lost count of the number of non-political friends who say: "Sorry, I just don't like him."

Summon the courage to be the man you promised us - Jackie Ashley - The Guardian

Her prescription is for Gordo to go back to his magisterial demeanour that he successfully deployed over the summer - ie presenting himself as above politics.

A market exists for an antipolitics politician if someone is slick enough to claim it. There is a chance, therefore, that if Mr Clegg were to wager everything, as he should, on relentless, even reckless, candour – introducing a frankness into public life on every topic, including his party's failings – he could secure an audience. Honesty in politics is the principle that should be his watchword. It also chimes with his personality and his policy instincts.

And on lead guitar and vocals, welcome Nicky Clegg - Tim Hames - The Times

The contrast between the suggestions proffered are interesting.  Labour and the Conservatives are both urged to play the politics game more seriously - the Lib Dems urged to play it more recklessly. An interesting proposition for both Lib Dem candidates to bear in mind over the next few weeks as they both plot out their first 100 days in office.

Iain Martin in today’s Telegraph lauds the Conservatives’ plans for schools.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PBT00JS0UMSG3QFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/11/22/do2203.xml

 The Tory plans for schools…are genuinely exciting: the Tories promise to unleash a wave of reform in our moribund state education system.

 Iain points out that the Conservative’s green paper on education, ‘Raising the bar, closing the gap’ promises:

 a supply side revolution, stripping away the monopoly power of local education authorities, the state monoliths that strangle diversity of provision and competition. Would any parents want to open and run schools, as they would be allowed to under Tory plans? Perhaps. They did in Sweden, when such a scheme was a trigger for widespread improvements.

 From the perspective of CentreForum, however, the most interesting aspect of the Conservative proposal is to recommends a pupil premium: an increased per capita funding for pupils from deprived backgrounds. This measure would incentivise schools to accept less advantaged pupils. This is, of course, the policy CentreForum proposed and articulated in the recent pamphlet ‘Tackling Educational Inequality’. It is interesting and positive that the Conservatives are now proposing a genuinely liberal vision for school reform.

In today’s Independent Dominic Lawson furthers the progressive case for imprisonment which he made at our conference, “Britain behind bars: the struggle for law and order.” http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/dominic_lawson/article3177029.ece As he points out, imprisonment is currently out of favour with many judges.

The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Phillips, has declared that too many people are being sent to prison, and that the system cannot cope. "We can not go on like this"

 This reluctance to pass custodial sentences reflects the lack of capacity in the UK’s prison system. As Dominic argues, there is something troubling with the notion of judges meting out punishment in accordance with current pressures on prison as opposed to basing sentencing on a detached interpretation of the law.

To refrain from giving a custodial sentence on grounds which have nothing to do with the law is not justice but hotel management

 The root cause of this problem lies ultimately with the government’s thinking on crime and punishment. As the column continues:

The government has decided to maintain the approach to dealing with crime pioneered by Mr Michael Howard – "Prison works" – while cutting back on the prison building programme which the Conservatives had planned.

 To alleviate this tension the government must either drop its “prison works” rhetoric or honour it in penal policy. The latter is often viewed as reactionary, but Dominic shows that the distributional impact of funding such a policy means that a progressive case can be made for expanding prison places.

 Crime and its costs fall disproportionately – massively so – on the poorer areas of our towns and cities. Given the undeniable fact that when a criminal is in jail he cannot continue to attack his community, it is clear that an increase in prison spaces is the most dramatic way in which the better off in society can pay to make the lives of the least-well-off more bearable.

The launch of CentreForum’s pamphlet, ‘Globalisation: a liberal response’, provided a platform for Sam Brittan and Vince Cable to sketch out the themes of a liberal perspective on globalisation. The speakers were united in their calls for free trade and relaxed immigration. Sam made a typically cogent justification for allowing EU migrant workers into the UK labour market. Vince in particular urged for an ending of reciprocity in trade:

This apparently ‘tough’ or ‘common sense’ approach conceals a logic of remarkable stupidity: we insist on continuing to harm ourselves unless you agree to stop harming yourselves.

The sound of the royal procession outside reminded listeners that Vince could otherwise have been attending the state visit of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.  Instead he opted to boycott the event on account of Saudi Arabia’s less than impeccable human rights record.

Jon Bright writing on Open Democracy’s  blog  questioned the compatibility of Vince’s boycott and his espousal of economic liberalism:

Is support of free trade compatible with this type of ‘moral foreign policy’ approach? http://ourkingdom.opendemocracy.net/2007/10/30/should-britain-trade-with-saudi-arabia/

In an ideal world, guided by a universal respect for human rights Vince’s gestures would be otiose. However, such an international order bears little resemblance to our own. In the context of our creaking international legal and moral framework it could be argued that such gestures are positively called for. As Philippe Sands and Blinne Ni Ghralaigh assert later in the pamphlet:

There must be a renewed commitment to international law on a national and international level. Its fundamental importance must be reasserted and its reputation restored.

Vince’s refusal to attend the state visit embodies such a commitment, if only on a small scale. Returning to Jon Bright’s question, there may be a superficial tension between advocating free trade and a moral foreign policy. As he suggests, one of the main purposes of visits from foreign heads of states

is to strengthen relations, particularly trade relations.

However when Vince’s actions are viewed in a wider rubric of liberalism, political as well as economic, his actions display consistency. Rather than have an a la carte liberalism he has recognised its economic as well as political prescriptions.

Across the pond, the race to be the democratic nomination for President last night sparked into life. The candidates have previously shied away from direct confrontation with the front-runner, Hillary Clinton, but last night they piled on in spectacular fashion.

A particular point of contention was Clinton's support for 'Kyl-Lieberman', the Senate bill which, among other things, designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organisation. Clinton argued that the bill pushed for more aggressive diplomacy to counter Iraq's nuclear ambitions. Her opponents disagreed, and used it to turn the debate to Clinton's vote in support of the Iraq war.

John Edwards described it as "written literally by the neocons", and that if President Bush took the country to war "are we going to hear 'if only I knew then what I know now'" - a direct shot at the language Clinton uses on the stump when discussing her vote in favor of the war in Iraq.  Chris Dodd followed up, arguing that "What (Hillary) didn't learn back in '02, you should've learned by now".

Clinton's support for Kyl-Lieberman is proving politically problematic with the primary electorate. As a result, she dispatched potential vice-presidential nominee General Wesley Clark - the respected former Allied Commander of NATO, 2004 presidential candidate, and Clinton backer - to defend her vote on the influential blog DailyKos.  His reaction was mixed, reflecting the genuine difficulties of her position.

But, ultimately, the highlight of the debate? Watch Sen. Joe Biden slam Rudy Giuliani here.

Meanwhile, over here, Nick Clegg vows to defy ID card legislation should it be introduced.

Vince Cable, though new into his job, has hit the ground running in terms of attracting the headlines. 

By not attending a dinner held in honor of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia he has muscled his way into one of the major stories of the day ('A dubious ally who devalues our Government' The Independent). 

We at CentreForum are hoping that the Acting Leader of the Liberal Democrats will also be able to catapult our own story into the headlines tomorrow.  We are launching our latest book, 'Globalisation: a liberal response' to which Cable contributed and will help introduce.

The book includes chapters by James Cameron on environment, Philippe Sands on international law, Philippe Legrain on immigration and Anatol Lieven on security.

Tomorrow's event will also feature Sir Samuel Brittan who alongside Cable will debate liberal responses to a globalising world economy.

For more details go to the forthcoming events section of the CentreForum website.

Also in today's news:

'Yes is matters who leads the Lib Dems' Tim Hames - The Times

Huhne: I would scrap Trident (The Observer)

Lib Dems 'too inward looking' (Press Association)

Press Review:

BBC: Clegg joins Lib Dem leader race

Independent: Clegg: We must broaden our electoral appeal or face oblivion

Telegraph: Senior Lib Dems line up behind Clegg

Guardian: Boost for Clegg as potential rival stands aside

The press coverage of the Lib Dem leader's race today is fairly non-descript.

However, it is a blog entry from yesterday on the Times' website which is most interesting, providing an insight into Nick Clegg's thinking on the thorny issue of Europe. Clegg is clearly someone who could easily be branded by the Conservatives as overly European, and, to make the point, one rabid Tory MP failed to restrain himself yesterday in the New Statesman: 

In refreshing Tory tradition, there is always one MP who does not hold back: "Nick Clegg is a screaming Euro-fanatic man-child; he's half Dutch; he should be called Nick Clog."

This sort of attack is unlikely to be damaging to Clegg during the leadership race (and could help him) but it could prove a greater political worry should he win the leadership. Clegg has clearly been doing some of the thinking necessary to carve out a distinctive, pro-European, but not uncritical, position on Europe.

The Times

Huhne and Clegg to go for Lib Dem leadership

First Lib Dem candidate happy to be underdog

The Independent

Huhne: 'We must be radical but rational – you won't see me streaking down the street'

The Iraq effect is far from over in British politics

The Guardian

Paddy Ashdown: My vote is for Clegg

The Telegraph

Better Ming than some of the numpties

Chris Huhne denies plotting against Ming

Chris Huhne: From outsider to contender

With the leadership contest shaping up there has been much speculation over which direction the leader should take the party in. Several opinion pieces make some suggestions regarding both the requirements of the next leader and the party’s broader direction. Writing in The Guardian today Paddy Ashdown notes;http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2193510,00.html

“the party's next leader needs not only to be a skilful communicator who can make the Liberal message relevant to the modern age, but also to possess the intellect and the vision needed to develop and define that message.”

 

As Paddy points outs, being a savvy communicator is a component of being a  leader, particularly in the age of 24/7 rolling news. However by itself, this is insufficient. An effective steward of the Liberal Democrats must produce a coherent narrative in which to frame specific policies.

This narrative must present a  “story” or theme which typifies the essence of policy proposals and is remembered by voters long after the minutiae of the policy is forgotten. The process of constructing this narrative must be both introvert in deciding what the ideological identity of the party will be and extrovert in projecting this identity to the wider electorate.

Adrian Hamilton writing in the Independent today offers a flavour of what the Liberal Democrat narrative should  include;http://http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/adrian_hamilton/article3070532.ece

 “We don't need to follow Iraq with an equally blind entanglement in Afghanistan. There is an alternative to a policy of escalating confrontation with Iran. There is no requirement to isolate and demonise Hamas, or Hizbollah. We don't need to follow a contortionist, cowardly approach to Europe nor a vague, ill-defined policy towards the reformation of international institutions from the UN to Nato, the World Bank and the IMF”.

An additional issue, not mentioned by any of the above articles is the story of the profound inequalities of opportunity in Britain.  A golden thread of social justice underpinning Liberal Democrat policy would not only provide a clear definition for the party, it would also present a message which resonates with large sections of the electorate.  

Wow... quite a lot to go at today...

The Times

Leader - Situation Vacant

Alice Miles - Sir Menzines Campbell wasn't too old.  He was too old-fashioned

Friends and confidants told Campbell to go

The old friends who turned on their leader

Peter Riddell - Roll up for most frustrating job in politics

Whodunnit? It was the socks-obsessed press

Rivalry of former allies began at the Commons

The Telegraph

Two outsiders may run for Lib Dem leader

Dignified Ming's most undignified exit

Ming hoping for a job offer from Brown

The Independent

Leader - A new leader must create space for the third party

Mark Oaten - Ming went because we didn't know what to do next

Challenge for Ming's successor is to find distinctive policies

Campbell hints that Huhne's supporters plotted against him

The Guardian

Michael White - Personality may trump policy this time

Simon Jenkins - The exit poll: why Ming failed the Big Brother test

Speculation and media's age fixation drove leader to quit

Ebbing support forced Ming out

Simoh Hoggart - Ming socks it to 'em

Jonathan Freedland - Now the Lib Dems must decide what they want to be when they grow up

Spot the difference

A farewell to Elspeth Campbell

The Financial Times

Campbell accuses the media and colleagues

The Daily Mail

You’re playing a dangerous game, Sir Ming warns LibDem plotters

Chris Huhne launches his campaign to become Lib Dem leader

PETER OBORNE - Ming will survive but don't be so sure about his party

QUENTIN LETTS - Assassinated in Westminster but where's the body?

GEOFFREY LEVY - The leader who was 10 years too late

Who's odds on to take over?

BBC News

Huhne set to launch Lib Dem bid

Comeback Kid... Could ex-Lib Dem leader Kennedy get his old job back?

Who's who: The contenders

In quotes: Political reaction

Ashdown backs Menzies' decision

Could Sir Menzies succeed Martin as Commons Speaker?

Unsurprisingly, the news of Ming Campbell's departure has been met with a huge splash of media coverage.

Perhaps more surprisingly is the amount of agreement that the different commentators and leader writers manage to muster:

The frontpages and sketches talk about the rather bizarre announcement (see Simon Hoggart in The Guardian and Andrew Gimson in The Telegraph).

There is lots of praise for Ming in the leaders.  Not just for his qualities, but for knowing when to go.  The general impression is that the Lib Dems will do well from it. The Telegraph is typical in saying:

"It is inconceivable that the new leader will prove as easy a target [for the Conservatives] in this respect as Sir Menzies." ('Sir Menzies' exit  is good news for politics')

See also the leader in The Guardian ('A sad but necessary departure') The Mail ('Too decent (and dull) for modern politics') and even the Sun:

"After soaring into a commanding lead by mopping up Sir Ming’s deserters, he now risks losing them to a rejuvenated Lib-Dem Party. Once again, the next election is wide open." ('Young guns')

It must be said, though that such a view is not totally unanimous.  The Independent warned of dark days ahead, describing yesterday as an:

"inescapably... bleak day for the Liberal Democrats, which threw a harsh spotlight on the plight of the third party." ('Cold winds are swirling around the third party')

Some people also express an initial view on the likely candidates.  Those that do are of a pretty similar mindset:

"Nick Clegg is so plainly the superior contender for the post that, if he does not win, the party will have opted for collective suicide after committing two murders. "

says Tim Hames in The Times ('Lib Dem assassins don't have a clue').

The Times' leader column is of a similar view:

"If the mediocre Mr Huhne is anointed, his party is doomed to insignificance, while the clearly more capable Mr Clegg seems to understand that a combination of market economics and social conscience will have popular appeal." ('After the Ming')

In a similar vein is Daniel Hannan - though he is not the kind of endorsement Clegg will necessarily welcome.

Huhne's camp makes what will be an unwelcome appearance in many of the analysis columns fingered as are for destabilising Ming.  According to Greg Hurst:

Allies of Mr Huhne were being accused last night of a brutal briefing campaign to destabilise Sir Menzies and hasten a leadership contest before Mr Clegg’s stature and support base within the party grew. ('Rapid exit of conference hero who defied his critics but not the polls')

This story is repeated by Michael White in The Guardian ('Miserable end to an honorable career as Lib Dem leader falls in the final lap')

But although this can't have been the start that Huhne has had, as the FT points out, his campaign has crucial experience from the previous campaign ('Succession fight between Hughes and Clegg')

I suspect this blog will be rather busy in the coming weeks.

After Charles Kennedy resigned at the beginning of 2006, CentreForum published a briefing note entitled 'The battle for liberalism: ten key questions for the next Lib Dem leader'

As the Liberal Democrats head into a new leadership election, many people will be pondering a similar set of questions. 

What are the new questions that the party now faces? And which of the old questions still need to be addressed?

The reaction to the Government's Set piece announcements is still astonishing a week on.

At the beginning of the new week, it seems churlish to look back at the previous one, but we can indulge as it was such a significant story.

Most notable was Polly Toynbee's reaction on Friday in The Guardian ('This was the week that Labour's leaders left social democracy for dead'). The bitterness is palpable:

The comprehensive spending review every three years is mightily important. There is no company, arts organisation, charity or function of the state that does not hang upon its judgment. It was even delayed several months to get it right... Then at the last moment in a few days of hysteria, it all seemed to be done on the back of a matchbox.

Her column stands in stark contrast to the expectations she and others had of Brown - after waiting so long to get rid of Blair:

This was more than a horrible humiliation for the prime minister. This was the week that social democracy ebbed away in England.

Peter Preston picked up on this theme on Sunday in The Observer. ('The columns start to sway')

There he highlighted the feeling from the columnists in general that things weren't as they should be:

...the past few days have had an impact inside the media village that won't disappear in another febrile week. Those on the left who looked to Brown are looking away. Those on the right who acknowledged his superior intellect are checking their notes again.

The honeymoon is over.

Ming Campbell's leadership of the Lib Dems has come under attack over the last three days in the newspapers.

Both The Independent ('Delayed election revives criticism of Lib Dem leader') and The Telegraph ('Sir Ming warned as Lib Dems seek poll boost') have used rather selective quotes from Lib Dem blogs to suggest that Ming is under coming under great pressure.

Lib Dem bloggers have railed against the highly pejorative use of their good offices.  But clearly all is not well in the world of the Lib Dems.  An IPSOS MORI poll in today's Sun puts the Lib Dems on 11% (-5) with all that support seemingly switching to the Tories who are on 41% (+7). ('Cam gives Gord a poll battering')

Ming Campbell took over the leadership of the Liberal Democrats at a difficult time. Charles Kennedy's drawn out and ugly resignation left the party feeling bruised and vulnerable.

Ming's appeal was to give the party a period of calm and a 'safe pair of hands.' He would give other potential contenders for the leadership time to prove themselves in bigger roles. This has been working well.

But Gordon Brown's election bungle has now changed the political landscape. 

The Lib Dems won't be facing the voters for another 18 months.  

The rules of the game have now changed and Ming Campbell needs to find and articulate a new vision of where and why he wants to lead the Lib Dems.

Ignore the Punch and Judy show of Westminster politics; ignore fusty economic stories about sub-prime mortgages; ignore stories about far away shores.

The real news of the day is that CentreForum was awarded the 'runner up' slot in yesterday's Think Tank of the Year awards.

The award, organised by Prospect magazine, comes after we've only had one full year in operation (according to Prospect's criteria). We were competing against the likes of IPPR with their 72 staff and £4million annual expenditure. (It was IPPR who won the main award).

Yes, its self-indulgent to have a blog posting purely about us, but we're pretty pleased with ourselves and at least its pretty short!

Normal news service will be resumed tomorrow.