What will the impact be of the Lib Dems running on a tax cutting platform?
Let's assume for a moment that anyone, aside from activists and wonks, notices the switch Nick Clegg has made. This, I think, is a pretty heroic assumption. But let's make it anyway.
Let's also assume the strategy doesn't come apart in Nick Clegg's hands.
This is a still more heroic assumption. The plan is preposterously incredible. And even those bits that don't look ridiculous may look threatening. Quite a lot of people are being told that they will face extremely large tax increases under the Lib Dem plans.
It is, from my own direct experience developing such "costed" programmes, quite likely that losers will feel angry and alienated, while winners don't believe a word they are being told.
But these assumptions having been made, there are really two possible ways that Clegg's big move will alter the landscape.
The first is to make life difficult for the Tories. The Libs are puffed by everyone as having outflanked the Conservatives, making Simon Heffer even crosser and activists worried. Then Conservative votes begin to seep to Clegg.
This was the political logic of Orange Book Liberalism. And very strong it was.
Unfortunately Clegg has implemented it a few years too late. There was a moment, after 2001, when Orange Book Liberalism posed a mortal threat to the Tories. That moment came and it went, and they missed it. So right strategy, wrong time is my reaction to Clegg's speech.
But that doesn't mean it won't have an impact. Because there is a second possibility.
Clegg's big move on tax changes the centre of the debate on tax and spend. It isolates Labour and makes it harder for the noises the Tory leadership is making on long term spending trends to appear harsh and right wing.
For the Liberals to claim there are billions of pounds of efficiency savings to be made lends political support to those of us who agree that public spending has been increasing too rapidly.
I think, therefore, that Clegg's move is very significant. It's just that I am not sure that it is very significant for him.
What about Chris Rennard?
I ask this question because while everyone is concentrating on Labour's fifth place, I think the Liberal's performance in Henley is actually more interesting.
A tepid second place in a seat so promising that the Tories were worried about calling the by-election in the first place.
I understand that the relationship Chris Rennard enjoys with Nick Clegg is not as close as that he has had with previous leaders and - though this rumour may be wrong - I've been told there was a disagreement over the choice of candidate in Henley with Clegg insisting on the man from out-of-town over Rennard's protests.
Rennard's a talented guy who has made a big difference. There are people who'd pay good money for him. Maybe now for the first time he might think of saying yes.
Could this be the end of an era?
 Iain Dale links to Brian Paddick's diaries as published in the Mail on Sunday. He is right to do so. They are fun to read - though they don't cast Paddick in a good light at all. They make him seem a very small person. Arch, snide and lightweight.
Can I match this by making a petty point of my own?
The first entry in the diary has him inside Lib Dem HQ calling Lib Dem members to ask for their support in the internal party election for Mayoral candidate.
Were the other candidates allowed this access? Do the party's rules permit the use of the HQ (and thus presumably party funds) to canvass in an internal election? And do the data protection laws allow the use of membership lists for this purpose? I thought that was what Frank Dobson got in trouble for eight years ago.
Just asking.
With all the coverage about Nick Clegg's girlfriends, you might have thought that was all there was in the GQ interview.
But actually it was a car crash on every bend in the road.
Nick Clegg, for all his obvious charm and intelligence, seems incapable of seeing an interview question coming and incapable of gently deflecting it.
Read this extraordinary exchange on Iraq: Piers Morgan: Was the invasion of Iraq illegal?
Nick Clegg: There's a strong case to suggest it was in breach of UN resolutions, yes.
PM: So, assuming it was illegal, would it be justified for Iraqis to exact revenge on Britain?
NC: I don't think you remedy an act of violence like that.
PM: If Iraq had invaded Britain illegally, you would have said it was morally justified for us to attack them back, wouldn't you?
NC: Yes, I probably would.
PM: So why is it not morally justified for them to attack us back?
NC: I wish it was that simple.
PM: If it is morally certain one way, surely it has to be the other way, too?
NC: No, you are repeating the error of Blair and Bush, this Old Testament view of moral rigidity that says you compound one thing with another.
PM: If Iran illegally bombs London next month, should we retaliate?
NC: Of course we should.
PM: But you say it is not morally justified for Iraqis to attack us?
NC: Because foreign affairs cannot be driven with absolute moral precision.
PM: I don't understand why Iraqis don't have a moral right to attack us if you say we illegally invaded them.
NC: I can see how people could construct a moral justification. But I don't think the morality of invading Iraq is expunged by them attacking us.
PM: I'm baffled. If Iraq invaded us, you would say it was morally justified to strike back, but it's not morally justified for them to do it to us even if our invasion was illegal?
NC: If you are invaded illegally, then clearly you feel you have a moral justification. But that isn't a sensible way to conduct foreign affairs. Bush and Blair waged war on Iraq through misplaced moral certainty.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
Three Line Whip raises an interesting question - what if Nick Clegg comes out for an overall upfront tax cut?
They point to this in Clegg's Spring conference speech: So if, before the General Election, we find we can deliver our objectives with money to spare, we shouldn’t look for new ways to spend it. We should look for new ways to hand it back, especially to those who need it most."
So they're right. He might indeed try and play the tax card.
I asked Andrew Cooper of Populus, my guru on public opinion, how he thought such a move would go over. Wouldn't it dish the Tories, Andrew?
His verdict: It would make life very difficult in terms of holding the line internally. But it wouldn’t wash with voters who would think it shows great cynicism.
Such is the lag effect of political communications, most voters have only just digested the Lib Dem policy of putting a penny on tax to fund improved public services – which is regarded as a rare example of a party being honest – so tax cut promises would confuse people, and harm not help Clegg
I almost missed this. You shouldn't.
Sam Coates is a good colleague and a top blogger. But on Red Box he says: Liberal Democrat Spring Conference in Liverpool promises to be an interesting spectacle.
No, Sam darling, it doesn't.
Tucked away in one of Dominic Lawson's (almost always excellent) columns is this story: I'm told that after Gordon Brown had decided to abandon the Blair commitment to a referendum Shirley Williams, now Baroness Williams of Crosby and former leader of the LibDems in the House of Lords, had threatened to resign and rejoin the Labour Party, unless Ming Campbell likewise abandoned the dangerous policy of giving the British people a vote on the Lisbon treaty.
Maybe you all knew that, but I didn't.
Amusingly, Mrs (as she then was) Williams was incandescent when David Owen decided not to join up with the Liberals. She thought him a splitter.
Now she seems prepared to quit the party over a single (frankly medium sized at best) issue.
I was pretty frightened by this report from the great D'Ancona on how he spent his Saturday morning: I spent the morning at the LSE, listening to Nick Clegg’s first big speech at Lib Dem leader and then participating in a panel on the issues he had raised.
What fun.
Yet he was, at least, rewarded with a top class speech from Clegg.
I was very critical of Clegg's leadership campaign. I thought it unconvincing and ludicrously cautious. In the process, of course, he almost lost. But this speech is a great improvement.
Should Tories be worried by it? Not at all. For my hope for Clegg is that he will help tip politics in Britain to the centre right. With both Liberals and Conservatives standing for smaller central government and much more choice in public services the debate will, hopefully begin to change.
The question marks are over Clegg's ability to resist pressure from Liberal activists and over whether his choice of big issue to make his mark will be a centre right issue or a more traditional centre right one.
When we know the answer to those questions we'll see whether Clegg is willing not just to make this speech but to live by it.
 Red Box goes from strength to strength.
My Times colleague Sam Coates notes that George Osborne is now talking about a Pupil Premium, pinching the most adventurous of Nick Clegg's policies.
The idea is to give a weighted voucher with extra cash to poorer pupils in poorer areas.
The adventurous bit is that this is expensive if it's going to make much of a difference. If it isn't expensive it either isn't much of a premium or isn't being paid to many people.
Now Nick Clegg has explained how he is going to pay for it, or at least most of it. He is going to withdraw working families tax credit from middle income earners. This will be very controversial because those are not families who feel well off.
Perhaps the Libs can get away with it because no one thinks they will actually do it. But the Tories?
Part of the answer is that Nick Clegg had to identify a pot of money to pay for his pledge because he stressed that the Premium would be available immediately. Osborne may be planning to phase it in.
So a difference between the two parties would continue.
So. Nick Clegg.
This is a bit MSM of me - I should have blogged on this two days ago. But I've been thinking about it for a couple of days is all. Is that allowed?
When Mr Clegg picked up his Liberal Leader of the week trophy the other day he set himself three tasks. He said he would unite his party, be ambitious to win and listen to voters.
These are all bad ideas. They sound good. But they aren't.
What Nick Clegg should do is come out with sharp ideas on choice and reform that his party will find difficult to swallow and then battle through to an impresive victory over his internal critics.
These ideas should have strong appeal to some even if that group is limited in size. He should use the fact that the Libs can't win a majority, treating minority status as an asset rather than a problem.
And he should challenge voters, winning them round through argument rather than simply responding to their whims.
I am sure he has the intelligence, imagination and charm to make such a strategy work.
But does he have the bottle?
This from the Media Guardian: The Liberal Democrats have calculated that over the three-day Christmas holiday, the number of repeats on all channels is up by 25% on last year and the proportion of children's programmes already shown at least once is 80%.
This leaves a question. Why? Why did the Liberal Democrats calculate this? What's it got to do with them? Are they suggesting that the scheduling of Porridge and Dad's Army should now be determined by Parliament?
Somebody get these people a new leader.
 Given how critical I have been of Nick Clegg during his leadership campaign, it would be churlish if I didn't link to his Social Market Foundation speech on public service reform.
It's really good and pretty radical. I wonder if the Liberals will support him on it. Certainly it does what I hoped for when he announced his candidacy - suggest the possibility of a policy alliance on the centre right in favour of public service reform.
Worth reading.
(via Robert Sharp)
 Over on Comment is Free James Graham has been blogging thoughtfully, sharing his dilemma over the leadership race.
He now seems to have come out for Clegg.
Explaining his decision he says: For better or worse, the Huhne (53) we have now is the definitive article. Clegg (40) is more of a work in progress, something which carries obvious risks but enormous potential benefits as well.
Well, maybe.
I generally subscribe to what I call the Billy Beane theory of politics. Billy Beane, by coincidence in London this week, is the General Manager of the Oakland Athletics baseball team. He built his side by ignoring the traditional scouts' view.
Scouts like to pick players with potential in the hope of improving them. Beane determined that this was an illusion. What you see is what you get, he decided. So he picked flawed players fully aware of their flaws.
There are good reasons for picking Clegg. But I don't think you should pick them in the belief that he is going to change.
This picture is from the Chris Huhne campaign site. I can't decide whether it's another James Purnell style photo op...and neither can the Manchester Evening News.
 Fabulous note from Anna Werrin, Chris Huhne's campaign manager, seeking permission to put their attack on Nick Clegg in the public domain:
Chris believes that there is no place for personal criticism in a legitimate contest - but that showing a lack of clarity or inconsistency is permissible.
He'd better hope so, otherwise both candidates would be eliminated.
I missed the Liberal Democrat leadership debate on Question Time last night, as, I am sure, did you. But a good friend and acute political observer called me this morning and told me I should make good this omission.
So I have. And I understand why my friend called.
Two things come out of the programme.
The first is that it led me to question the assumption that Nick Clegg will easily defeat Chris Huhne.
The general idea is that Clegg will win because he is much better on television and a superior performer. Well maybe that's true, but I have to say it wasn't last night.
Clegg is an intelligent and charming man, which is why journalists generally like him, but he seemed lightweight and uncomfortable last night. He hadn't very good lines to take and his position on Trident (almost the only substantive thing he said) is incoherent.
Lib Dem members do tend to elect the favourite, but Huhne already has a base from the last contest. And he was much the better of the two last night - clearer, weightier and no less telegenic.
The second thing I question after last night is whether Clegg, if he does win, will be a success as leader. I've always assumed he would be, but I fear he did seem very callow and really not quite ready.
Watch it yourself and see if you agree.
The contest between Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne is being seen as a contest between leaning right and leaning left. Fair enough. But Clegg is actually a more complicated figure than that.
He is, at heart, a wonk with an addiction to complicated, very specific and often electorally potentially disastrous policy ideas.
During the year before Gordon Brown's accession I kept a rolling list of his ideas. It proved a valuable exercise because it revealed that there weren't really any shots in the locker.
Now I think I am going to do the same with Clegg. There will be a different focus, however. I want to identify his wonkish policy ideas. Not the routine ones, just the more eyebrow raising proposals that he might struggle with at an election.
If you spot any, do let me know.
Here's three to be getting on with:
1. A radical change in the funding of education which would appear to involve a huge and immediate increase in education spending: I want to create an education funding system where the money ‘follows the child’, but where significantly more money follows the most deprived children. I want to see funding for the poorest state school pupils rise to private school levels, not one day, but straight away.
2. A major change to the working families tax credit, reducing the income of many lower middle class families and sharpening the poverty trap but freeing up some tax money: We must take people on higher earnings off means tested benefits and use the money to help the poorest pupils in our school system.
3. An offer of citizenship and amnesty for illegal immigrants: One can't simply carry on as the government and the Conservatives are doing, sticking one's head in the sand and saying 'well, we'll deport them one day', because that's simply never going to happen.
The most interesting thing about Nick Clegg is not whether he is telegenic and youthful. It's his politics.
Just as with David Cameron, the press attention will be on his manner and charm when it is his agenda that is interesting. Clegg is not just a boyish figure, he is part of a small tightly knit group with a radical agenda to change the party and if he wins he will bring that agenda with him.
I think he might help change the centre of gravity of the political debate, providing much greater political cover for centre right ideas.
But while it's clear that he would like to shift the position of the Lib Dems quite a lot, I suspect he will have a tough time doing so. If he is elected there will be a fight for the soul of that party and Clegg could easily lose.
During the contest I am going to be posting on some of Clegg's positions, identifying the ways in which he is trying to change the Lib Dem profile.
Let's start with Europe.
During the original debate on the European constitution, Nick Clegg backed a referendum (not in itself an innovation, this was a standard Lib Dem position). And once it was defeated in other countries, he argued against its revival.
His reasons for both these positions gives an insight into the Clegg method. The leadership hopeful is pretty committed to the European cause (he berated Gordon Brown for resisting the Euro, for instance) but avoids default establishment rhetoric on the EU. He wants to change the view of the Libs as being simply Europhiles.
So he has a third way position on the EU. He argues against the centralisation of power and the lack of democratic institutions in the EU, trying to move above the current debates to discussion of a more democratic, but still strongly European, settlement.
Here's a summary of his argument in the famous Orange Book which shows how he will try and triangulate on the issue: Nick Clegg will alarm some readers by calling for powers over social and agricultural policy to be taken from European institutions and restored to national governments, but in reality his essay marks an advance in the party's thinking on Europe.
Throughout those long years when people made unkind jokes about telephone boxes and bar stools, the argument that Liberal members deployed to show that their party was still relevant was that it had been the first to advocate British membership of the Common Market. And in many ways we are still refighting the 1975 referendum campaign.
We are happier defending that membership than we are recognising that we have been "in Europe" for more than 30 years (and are going to remain there) and then moving on to examine our views about how the European project should be developing.
Clegg argues that EU powers have developed in a lopsided way. He asks why the EU possesses detailed legislation on the design of a buses, the use of seatbelts in cars and noise levels in the workplace yet "remains invisible as an entity in the UN, ineffective in promoting peace in the Middle East, toothless in tackling international crime and terrorism".
Being in favour of Europe is no longer enough: we have to decide what sort of Europe we want. Clegg's formulation is compelling: "the EU must only act if there is a clear cross-border issue at stake, or when collective EU action brings obvious benefits to all member states that they would not be able to secure on their own".
Iain Dale comments that Ming didn't jump, he was pushed.
And I am sure he is right.
But why should anyone think this a bad thing? Clearly he needed to be pushed. And everyone knew it.
Those who did it shouldn't be embarrassed. They have been brave and really helped their party.
We mustn't let all this talk of assassins and daggers and so forth make it seem as if getting rid of Ming was a dirty deed.
On the radio this morning Norman Smith of the BBC said that Nick Clegg was the last person Tories want to see winning the Lib Dem leadership.
And he's probably right. But are Tories correct to take this view? I don't think so.
Here are my four reasons.
First, the fate of the Conservative Party is in its own hands. If it is a moderate, reasonable attractive group ready for Government it will win votes and there is little that any Liberal leader will be able to do about it. So Tories shouldn't care who the Lib Dem leader is, being instead dedicated to making the identity of that leader irrelevant.
Second, the impact of a more attractive Liberal Party is unpredictable. It might, indeed, draw votes from the Conservatives, but it might also act as a place for disillusioned Labour voters to go if they are unwilling to go so far as supporting the Tories. Clegg is clearly the most attractive Lib Dem on offer, but this doesn't just impact on the Conservatives.
Third, the creation of a Lib Dem-Labour axis encouraged tactical voting against Tories. Clegg is against such an axis. He won't want to encourage tactical voting against Tories both because he is temperamentally disinclined to do so and because the atmosphere that creates inside his own party would make a coalition deal even more difficult.
Fourth, and most important, although Tories have very big disagreements with Clegg, he talks openly about the problems of big government, state interference and monopolies in health and education. His election would help to shift the centre of gravity in the political debate towards the freedom loving right. This would be a very big gain indeed.
Here is a Clegg speech delivered earlier this year on the future of politics. It is 25 minutes long, so you probably won't want to watch all of it, but watch the beginning to get a sense of his personal style and the way he frames his argument.
 A reader writes to say:
It is curious that early yesterday morning, Vince Cable announced that Ming would remain.
At 1pm, Cable started to cast doubt on Ming's leadership commenting that "it was certainly under discussion but that we must not panic".
Around 2.45pm but definitely before 3pm (as she was in a public meeting at 3pm), Councillor Denise Carr, a LibDem Councillor in Vince's constituency of Twickenham, was giving the BBC an interview at the Rugby Stadium regarding Ming's position. Her comments however, implied prior knowledge of Ming's resignation. It was certainly curious that a BBC crew conveniently happened to be in this location at that time on that day. Could they have been tipped off by Vince's local office? Surely not, as he claims to have known nothing about it till mid afternoon. Why interview a minor Lib Dem councillor (not even the leader of the council) about Ming's position, in Vince's borough, on that day?
Actually when I saw her interview she was calling for Ming to go rather than commenting on his departure, but I still think this raises a pretty interesting question.
While he watches the coverage of Ming Campbell resigning, a thought bubble should be coming out of Nick Clegg's head.
How do I get rid of my immigration amnesty?
Although Nick is smart, personable and seized of the need to win the support of Tories, he needs to be careful not to get hooked on eccentric Liberal positions on Europe and immigration. He is vulnerable on both.
He has only just announced the amnesty policy, so it will be hard getting off the hook. But he desperately needs a formula to prevent him repeating it even once as leader or leadership candidate.
 Do the polls mean that Ming is finished? The Spectator's excellent Coffee House Blog goes so far as to describe a Lib Dem leadership contest as "inevitable" and provides odds on the succession.
Ming, however, may be reading the polls differently.
I would say that the chances of Labour at the very least losing its majority at the next election have now gone up. And with it, therefore, the chance of Sir Menzies becoming Foreign Secretary. This will make him more reluctant to surrender the leadership.
But it also provides the party with a way out. How about if Nick Clegg goes to Ming and offers him the right to be in the Cabinet in any coalition deal? He can stand down now to prepare for government.
Or something.
 Caught on camera? Not likely.
New data compiled by the Liberal Democrats suggests no correlation between CCTV cameras and crime clear-up rates.
Yet there are more cameras in London than in the whole of America. The city has splurged some £200 million in the past decade on over 10,000 new monitors. That's roughly £20,000 a camera.
The money could be better spent elsewhere. Let's start with some swimming lessons for the police.
Alice Fishburn
These are ten of Ming Campbell's contemporaries. How do we think he's looking?
1) Dick Cheney: Vice President of the United States
2) Bob Dylan: Musician
3) Jackie Collins: Writer
4) Paddy Ashdown: Politician
5) Alex Ferguson: Manager of Manchester United
6) Martha Stewart: Homemaking Magnate
7) Kim Jong II: Leader of North Korea
8) Vivienne Westwood: Fashion Designer
9) Julie Christie: Actress
10) Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel: Musicians
 Will this Lib Dem conference be looked upon as the moment when Nick Clegg lost the leadership of his party?
This may seem an odd question. He is brilliantly plausible, very nice and has the right ideas for his party, generally. He should defeat Chris Huhne comfortably.
But he may not.
While there is a good deal of debate about Mr Clegg's rather overenthusiastic reply when asked if he might run for the leadership, that's not why I think he's in trouble.
It's because of his illegal immigration amnesty.
Now it's quite possible that we never hear of this policy again and that it changes nothing. The Tories may run scared of it (though I doubt Labour would).
But it is also very possible that this policy becomes a massive problem for the Lib Dems during an early election campaign.
It's one of the very few proposals they could have come up with that has the potential to cut-through. And if it does it would be a disaster for them in quite a number of seats.
What price then, Mr Clegg as leader?
The Liberal Democrat proposed amnesty for illegal immigrants raises similar moral hazard problems to those of the Bank's Northern Rock decision.
Offering the right to remain to those who manage to stay for ten years is an invitation to come here and then try to elude the authorities. It is an understandable position, motivated by a desire to normalise the lives of illegals, but in the end it will simply produce more illegals in the position the Liberals wish to eradicate.
The debate on an amnesty is in full swing in the United States.
And one important issue is this - how do you know that an illegal immigrant has been here for as long as ten years? They are hardly likely to be able to produce documentation.
 Sam Coates, one of this paper's rising stars, is blogging for The Times from the Liberal Democrat conference, an event I found myself sadly unable to attend.
There's plenty of fun to be had, but also some very acute analysis.
I was particularly struck by Sam's thinking on Liberal strategy - does a core vote approach make sense for a party with limited support? It's defensive but does at least ensure profile on a few issues.
The big step forward by the Liberals at the last two elections has been to become more than simply a protest party and less vulnerable to movements by the other two parties. Now they may be back in that bind again.
So I see the sense in stressing the issues that motivate their base. But frankly, unless they solve the Ming problem, I don't think strategy is going to help them much.
They've got no shame in Ealing. In the run up to the Ealing Southall by-election tomorrow, not only have the Tories been putting Tony Lit posters where no Tony Lit poster should go, but the Lib Dems have snapped them at it and gleefully posted the misdemeanour on the web.
Given that the offending billboard is “just round the corner from the Liberal Democrat by-election HQ”, it might even occur to a vilely suspicious mind that it was our yellow friends who called in Ealing Council crack team to remove it.
The Tory council, to their credit, swallowed Party pride and took it away. Given that it fell to the anti-graffiti group to do this, we hope they cleared up the graf, also pictured, while they were at it.
Alice Fordham
Who will the Liberal Democrats run as their mayoral candidate. Unless they choose a colourful and capabale candidate they stand a great chance of being squeezed very badly.
Reading the Liberal blogs, it is clear they haven't got a clue what to do.
The policeman Brian Paddick has been canvassed and said: As a serving policeman I cannot take any active part in politics and I have no plans to do so. In any case I haven't been invited to stand by the Lib-Dems or anyone else.
I could apply to retire in November, but my contract lasts another two years, I have no firm intentions but, even if I was asked, I'm not sure I'd take it up.
When David Cameron's offer to support Greg Dyke was turned down by Ming Campbell, it seemed as if egg was on Cameron's face.
Now it looks as if Campbell made a huge strategic blunder.
Again.
What Ashdown thought of Brown (according to the second volume of his diaries): There is only one person [to take over after Blair goes] - Brown. Will it be New Labour in the Blairite form? No it won't. It won't be old Labour either. Maybe it'll be somewhere in the middle - middle-aged Labour. But it certainly won't be New Labour. If Blair gives way to Brown, it will be Camelot converted into Gormenghast. Owls will hoot as you go up Downing Street, but maybe that's what we need after all the flim-flam and the gold and the glitter, a gloomy, faintly Gladstonian figure who goes around counting his ministers' postage stamps."
And what Brown thought of dealing with the Liberals (according to the BBC's Robin Oakley writing in 1999): The revelation in pages apparently stolen from Paddy Ashdown's diaries that Tony Blair had discussed with him and Lord Jenkins plans to drop two cabinet ministers and replace them with Lib Dems despite having won a huge majority has not exactly surprised the Westminster in-crowd.
Mr Blair's eagerness to forge a Labour/Lib Dem coalition which would exclude the Tories from power for a considerable period has long been apparent.
But what has never been explained is how he would push through such plans without provoking such a massive cabinet row that the whole thing would become unworkable.
Gordon Brown, John Prescott and Jack Straw would fight tooth and claw to prevent any such deal.
Oakley's list of dissidents later appeared in Ashdown's diaries.
Now. What to make of the Brown offer?
First, should Brown have made it? Certainly. One of his problems is being perceived as closed and boring. This helps tackle both problems. It is open-minded and surprising. Actually, more than that. Offering a post to Lord Ashdown is surprising, approaching Ming and effectively offering a coalition is astonishing.
I think Mr Brown might have regretted it if Ming had actually said yes. Tony Blair always thought the Lib Dems would help protect him against the left, whereas the truth is they would have acted as a left pressure group. This is much clearer now than it was a decade ago.
But I think the chances of Ming saying yes were not that great and Brown will have known that.
Second, should the Liberals have turned it down? A difficult call, but probably not. Having accepted the offer they would instantly have been in a strong position. For instance they would have been able, if they wanted, to turn Brown's early days into a shambles, demanding things and threatening things.
As it is they look outmanoeuvred and vulnerable.
 There will be time to provide a critique of Gordon Brown's offer to the Liberals later. But to begin with it's worth making this point - I don't think it's over.
Having abandoned negotiations with the Lib Dem leadership, Mr Brown has begun to approach individuals. It was ambitious to ask Lord Ashdown but unlikely that a former party leader would accept an offer without the current incumbent's permission.
Other Liberals may not feel under the same constraint.
I reckon he'll go direct to Baroness Neuberger and Lord Lester next, if he hasn't done so already. And who's to say that they will resist temptation. I wouldn't say that either of them was a central part of the Lib Dem establishment. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Julia, in particular, said yes.
Who else might have enough of a Lib Dem past to be useful combined with the independence to say yes and the status to count as a contributor to a Ministry of all the talents?
Lord Carlile perhaps?
Anyone got any other ideas?
I asked a senior Conservative why they weren't making more of last night's Liberal Democrat debacle.
He replied: Oh, that's quite deliberate. We've decided that we don't want to put pressure on Ming Campbell. We don't want him to go anywhere.
I think Mickey Kaus has stopped doing this now, but he used to set his readers assignments - providing questions he wanted his readers to answer. Good idea.
So here's a bit of Comment Central homework for someone. You perhaps?
How did the Lib Dems do by region?
I need a good piece of analysis, or more than one piece, that spells out how Ming’s lot did in different parts of the country. Can you help with this?
The reason I am asking this question is to try to gauge the impact of last night's poor Liberal performance on the overall political situation.
It may be that the Liberals struggled mainly in the South thus assisting the Tories with the gains they made there. Or did they do particularly badly against Labour in the North, thus making it more difficult for the Tories to make progress there.
Obviously the best analysis would be an even more sophisticated one. It would tell us how the liberals did against Tories and Labour in different sorts of seats - depending on who was second and third last time. But I don't want to set an impossible task.
What is a Mii and what would Ming Campbell be like if he was one?
Find out.
 This is regarded as a remarkable story about Lembit Opik.
I think it's a remarkable story about wotsername from the Cheeky Girls.
|
