THE NEW LEADER SHOULD WEAR A DRESS MORE OFTEN

I voted for Nick Clegg in December, the first time I have ever backed a winner. I must confess to not following the campaign very closely as (i) it was rather lacklustre (ii) I had made my mind up before it began. Now since he’s been elected, the sense of expectation among what might perjoratively be called the ‘Westminster elite’ is almost palpable. Nick has been presented as a new, young face for our party extremely well and he has made the predictable bland speeches typical to any new party leader these days promising change.

Unfortunately for me, and possibly others, this ‘message‘ lacks a degree of credibility because it was made by someone outside of my - and most voters' - experience. Quite simply, there remains something missing in Nick’s public persona: there is an almost complete lack of any ‘hinterland’.

Now I am sure that he has done many interesting things. Becoming an MP in itself requires a strength of character which is unlikely to suit the bookish stamp collector (apologies to the inevitable such person who receives their salary from the Treasury...) and this work is likely to reflect earlier experiences in people’s lives. However, information about Nick’s youth is restricted to one cactus burning incident which is wearily dragged out every time someone needs something interesting about him.

Just for fun I tried to devise a silly quiz about Nick for colleagues at Christmas which was intended to include some of the stranger aspects of his life. I had no intention to be mean, just to amuse and to get to know him better myself. The internet is a wonderful source of such trivia but just try to find out something about Nick online. There is surprisingly little. In fact, there is none. I imagine that more information will come out in the months ahead but I find it surprising that a public figure has almost no persona outside of politics.

Too late for my quiz – which I made up entirely and which was consequently far more scandalous – I discovered that he had been on a road trip in the USA with Louis Theroux and that somewhere in the world there is a picture of him in drag. This is interesting, mildly amusing and it demonstrates that Nick Clegg the Media Performer can also be Nick Clegg the Human Being. A mere moment’s reflection brings one back to Charles Kennedy, who was famously complemented as being ‘a fully paid up member of the human race’. There is a lesson there…

Now, it is clearly not a good idea in a world in which the rotten, bile-drenched Daily Mail is allowed to exist for politicians to wear drag, smoke drugs or do anything else which might offend the mythical ‘Middle England’ of the editor’s vacant dreams but there must be more to Nick than just the fact that he went to Europe (gasp!), worked for Leon Brittan (cripes!), married someone who is not British (shock, horror!) and was spoken of favourably by St Paddy of Ashdown (contented sighs).

This invective needs a point and this is it: we should embrace our new leader, support him 100% in his efforts to move us into the mainstream as the Tories falter and Labour disintegrates. However, we - and I particuarly refer to those guiding the Great Man in his first steps in the limelight – must also demonstrate that he is a human being, not a celebrity. In his first speech, he made a commitment to leave the Westminster bubble every single week and I will be watching to see if that commitment is honoured particularly closely.

[I really have b***ered any prospects of advancement, haven't I...]

WE DON'T WANT A COALITION SO WHY DON'T WE SAY THAT?

The most telling comment on Newsnight came when balding Tory Danny Finkelstein agreed with the bland, nameless Labour frontman (Hyman?) that Clegg should start 'flirting' with the other two parties to show who he'd support in the event of a hung parliament.

Yeah, sure guys, that'd be a great move, wouldn't it?! And it might just serve the agendas of both the old parties. How laughable to hear them both coming out with the same idea and almost salivating as they said it. No agenda there, then...

Another suggestion might be for Nick to ignore the two jokers either side and do what he was elected to do, which is to promote us shamelessly and to ignore any overtures from Tory or Labour. Any LD leader even thinking about coalition loses my support at that moment.

One thing Nick hasn't done unequivocally is to rule out a coalition. Why not? We don't want a coalition and we will fight the next election to try to win. Won't we?

If after the results are in we have to start talking to the two old parties, fair enough but tht will be a completely new reality. Our leader needs to say clearly, simply and concisely that we don't want a coalition with eithr party. Can someone high up please say this categorically and soon?

BLIMEY, I BACKED A WINNER...

The news of Nick Clegg's victory came to me while out for dinner with some colleagues, which is surely the best way of hearing anything important, as it allows you to digest the information before the media completely ruins it. This is the first time in my life that I have backed the winner so I'm quite pleased about that as well as the hope that we now have a long term leader who is going to rock the Tories' boat in particular.

I watched Newsnight to see how Paxman dealt with the news - Paxman seems always to resent positive stories - and I was pleased to see Nick giving as good as he got, arguing with the BBC's best paid arse every step of the way. One big issue for Nick is that he seems almost shy of his 'hinterland'. Thanks for telling us about your interesting family history again but please, please tell us something more in tune with us normal folks. He'll have a job matching the Mighty Vince's sensational soft shoe shuffle but he needs to try. We need to believe he's a human being who farts in bed, watches Corrie three times a week and eats cereal in the morning in his dressing gown.

Still, I remain convinced that he's a great choice and I am bizarrely positive about our prospects - even here in moribund Witney. Dave's done well and he has received a huge boost from the sheer ineptitude of the Brown cabaret currently running in London's Whitehall but I hope against all hope that the sheer weight of policies we have will be the clincher to propel Nick into the limelight. He is, after all, meant to be the great communicator we have prayed for.

Let's aim all our guns on the Tories. That's the weak flank of the cosy consensus between the two main parties and we should not waste too much time on Labour. After all, Gordon Brown is destroying them from within.

The news came on a perfect day for my own dear old Witney constituency - Dave's home ground - where the local Tory party had to defend itelf against accusations of having taking £7000 from donors who were not on the electoral register. A nice touch.

'VARIETY' DAVE DOES IT AGAIN

Reading Dave's latst burblings, this time about the LDs and Greens 'joining' the Tories in a 'progressive consensus' to force the government to decentralise, it is hard to form clear thought. However, one must try.

The first response is a great sadness that I don't speak more languages, since it would be nice to set out 'no' and 'not on your life' in as many ways possible so that the notoriously dim Tory activists could be in no doubt about the response to this latest cynical overture.

The second response must be a nostalgic harking back to those halcyon days of Tory misrule in the 1980s when Margaret Thatcher centralised EVERYTHING and set up more QUANGOs than there are gaps in current Tory policies.

The third response is clearly relief that Charles Kennedy and the Mighty Vince have already told Dave exactly what the party's response is to this nonsense.

Finally, a thought for the Greens. If ever there was a party which had talked itself out of a progresive anything it is our verdant adveraries. With the kind of loony policies to make even David Sutch recoil in horror, it is difficult to conceive of the party which can't even decide on a single leader doing anything positive, never mind progressive. This is, after all, the party which wants a 'citizens' income' for everyone, with people only working if they are inclined - a sure recipe for economic success. The Green party also envisages a kind of internal passport to minimise polluting travel. Hey, it worked so well in the Soviet Union, so why not here?!

My ultimate response to Dave would be to suggest that he doesn't know what party he is nominally at the head of if he believes that they could be at the heart of a progressive, decentralising mission. It may strike fear into our hearts but Dave seems more of a Liberal to me. If he believes all the nonsense he is currently spouting, that is.

If.

CHILDREN’S PLAN – GOVERNMENT DOES SOMETHING SENSIBLE SHOCK!

The new Children’s Plan, announced by the grandly titled Secretary of State for Children, Schools, Families, Hockey Sticks, Jolly Japes and Ginger Beer, Ed Balls, seems quite a good collection of proposals, assuming the money will be available to deliver it, which is always the problem with anything Tarnished Labour announces.

The plans are good and generally common sense, from allowing children born in the summer to start school later, to improving sex education, which is so laughable that it could form the basis for a sitcom in most European countries.

The government also plans to introduce more ‘resorative justice’, confronting children with the consequences of their anti-social behaviour, perhaps with the aim of reducing the number of new mega-prisons the government plans to single figures…There will also be 3,500 new play areas, more ‘adventure play’ areas and an end to the 'ban ball games' culture. All good stuff.

On the issue of play areas, you can just see the Daily Himmler (Mail) scouring the country to find the new plan scheme which gets vandalised and decrying the government for actually trying to do something. How reassuring to have the Daily Himmler to hate.

The best bit as far as I’m concerned is that the proposals include a plan to throw bad teachers out of work. The report accepts that most teachers are very good and my experience of my son’s teachers at his local school fully backs this up. They are all intelligent, hard-working and dedicated to their charges.

However, I can never forget my experience of school which included many excellent teachers but also some complete buffoons who were nevertheless given power over my life for six hours a day, five days a week. The pasage of time stops me from naming names but I marvel at some of the idiots who pretended they knew what they were doing when I was in my formative years. There was the ‘Bellower’, whose idea of education was to shout at me and my contemporaries and to get us to copy out of text books all day. Then there was the ‘pervert’ who didn’t quite break the law but he did take an unhealthy interest in girls reaching the age of consent. And the ‘idiot’, whose knowledge of his chosen subject was so limited that it was embarrassing even for a bunch of ill-educated 14 year olds.

I hope the plans are introduced sensibly and properly, with enough money to allow them to work as planned. Am I a dreamer?

THE PM IS A DEVIOUS COWARD ON EUROPE

Gordon Brown will be the only European leader who won’t be at the official signing ceremony for the new European treaty tomorrow. His office blames a diary clash and says he is relieved that he can still fly over to sign it but won’t hang around for the official photo and glad-handing.

This is sheer, utter cowardice by another of our Prime Ministers faced with the Europe question and he should be ashamed of himself and of the impression this gives of our country yet again. The PM’s office denies it but it is so obviously to avoid any adverse publicity that it beggars belief that the spin machine continues to lie about it.

If ever there was a moment when LD policy on something was perfect it is now. If Labour and Tory Prime Ministers continue to weasel their way around the Europe issue without making a clear commitment to the most successful international association there has ever been, then we clearly do need an referendum on whether we should be part of it or whether we should slink off to mid-Atlantic impotence under the suzerainty of the USA.

What would Scotland and Wales do in that situation. The answer seems clear to me. Still, at least we would lose this latest cowardly Prime Minister, hopefully to be replaced with someone who had the courage to be honest about their view on Europe. If they're against, let them say so; if they're for, let them be wholeheartedly for and try to bring the country along with them.

A Prime Minister can't just hide from a problem, Gordon.

(Not that I get angry about this issue or anything…)

CONSERVATIVE PARTY AT PRAYER?

It's always alarming to find oneself agreeing with a Tory MP but Mark Pritchard’s call for Christianity’s role in our culture to be recognised is apt – and, apparently, not being phrased in the usual loony Tory way. Whether you like it or not, Christianity has played a major part in shaping what this country is and who its citizens are, including those from other religions and cultures.

There is a current argument that it was the Protestant work ethic which lay at the heart of the rise of Britain to prominence in the 19th century. The influence of Christianity can certainly be seen in so many of our systems, structures and institutions, from the House of Commons, which is modelled on the King’s private chapel where MPs first met to debate, to that much neglected feature of almost every community in the country, the church on the corner which everyone walks past and which tends to be so sadly underused as a local community space. Even many of the founders of modern Liberalism seem to have imbibed a healthy dose of the faith to inform their philosophy.

Christianity should be recognised and celebrated in terms of its cultural contribution to England as it has proved to be durable, (largely) positive and – crucially – has encouraged a more inclusive view of the world than might have developed here - admittedly through centuries of strife and atrocities often committed in the name of God but the end of all that pain and strife has been a perhaps uniquely acommodating society.

Luckily Mr Pritchard’s useful contribution did include some welcome ‘Tory’ views on the world which can be challenged.

His call for Christians to get ‘full minority rights’ is a joke, surely. The Church of England is already established. What further rights does it need, exactly? (yes, Liberals have argued for decades over disestablishment but this is not the place for that discussion).

The other great point he makes is that ‘Christ is at the heart of Christmas’. Er, no he isn’t. That tree? Pagan. The fella in the red coat? Pagan. The unbelievable consumer frenzy? Can’t remember a passage in the Bible about that.

As any fule kno, the early Christians adopted the pagan midwinter festival and made it their own. They added a few bits and translated some existing customs and called it Christmas. So, take Christ out of Christmas and you have, er, Saturnalia, Yule, Diwali, Hannukah, any number of different midwinter celebrations to keep the cold out and remind people that things will shortly get a little warmer.

As a continually practising but very poor Christian, I have no problem at all with the apparent clash of all these traditions. To me that signifies the value of our own brand of Christianity. Crucially, an acceptance of the importance of Christianity to our culture does not imply a need on anyone’s part to agree with or practice the religion.

My faith is based on two key tenets: first, that the church is at the heart of my community, a small rural village, and that all villagers are welcome, not just those who attend church regularly; second, that the teachings of Christianity - put aside the gobbledegook the major churches preach - set out a very positive view of the world. That is pretty much a cultural approach to Christianity, rather than a blind, happy clappy devotion to magic.

That's the best thing about this debate: it seeks to drag Christianity away from the nutters and fundamentalists. That is reason enough to welcome Mr Pritchard's comments.

THOUGHTS FROM A BYGONE AGE – TIME TO DUST OFF KEYNES?

If you were a government economist sitting in your office in the 1930s, say, and you were reading up on problems with the economy, including poor retail sales, problems with housing supply, difficulties with banks, not to mention an international financial crisis caused by over speculation in the US economy, you might reach for the work of one John Maynard Keynes, whose most famous theory involved a government putting a little more money into an economy to encourage people to start moving it around. His illustration of this was that governments should pay people to bury jars of cash for others to dig up and spend, giving more people an income to spend on other goods or services, thus enriching others progressively.

The theory has gone out of fashion now as the world became obsessed with a mad genius called Milton Friedman who rehashed a failed idea which was as old as the hills to control the money supply, thus heralding the rise of that, er, great visionary leader Margaret Thatcher.

Of course in this day and age, when there is a dramatic slowdown in the housing market, despite there being a shortage of homes, when there is a credit crunch caused by external factors originating in the USA, when the retail sector is in free fall and when those wonderful ‘experts’ being wheeled out in various media outlets willy-nilly are declaring tht we are all going to have a terrible time, it would seem outlandish for a government now to consider any such investment in the economy, such as, say, putting more money into house building, thus addressing two problems head on.

When I say more money, of course, I mean cheques being written today, not promised today for sending out in three years time when the institution to whom the money is promsied has been encouraged to sign up to an unbelievably unfair credit deal with a private financial institution, thus simply adding to the credit crunch but delaying it for some 25 or so years.

But then Keynes has been completely discredited and any attempt to introduce his ideas nowadays would be silly.

Wouldn’t it?

FORGET FUNDING FARRAGOS: WHY PEOPLE HAVE NO FAITH IN POLITICIANS

Here’s a controversial view on this issue which obsesses any politician on TV or the radio. People are apparently alienated by politicians because they don’t trust them/think they lie/think they’re all the same. Pick one or all, add more of your own, it doesn’t really matter, the discussion is the same.

I would suggest that there is a simpler issue at play here, which is the way politicians deal with each other. The current ‘scandal’ over funding for Labour is a classic case in point. It is absolutely clear that the Labour Party is up to its ears in the clarts and that what it did was wrong. The donations from the dodgiest businessman in the North East were illegal and the police and the Electoral Commission are considering it. Labour need to be chastened over the incident and to co-operate fully. The Tories need to be damned sure they have no skeletons (fat chance!). That’s pretty much the end of the story until the various investigations are completed.

That should be it but the whole issue goes off the rails as opposition politician after opposition politician jumps up to damn Labour for all the evils of the world and calls for resignations, sackings, the erection of a guillotine in Parliament Square etc etc ad nauseum.

As a politico, I genuinely don’t give a damn whether Gordon Brown knew, whether he paid the money in himself at the local branch of Nat West, whether he played golf with David Abrahams or gave him a puppy for his birthday.

I would guess that more than 95% of people in this country couldn’t give two hoots either about £5000 going through the wrong channels, despite the feeding frenzy in the press. Most people do care about politics and most will cast their vote sensibly at an election for the party whose policies or philosophy they support but I think its true to say that most will also not be interested in the minutiaie of party funding rows and spats between politicians desperate for a few column inches or a chance to cosy up to Mad Jerry Paxman.

We have a good story to tell, we should be telling it, not trying to put the boot in to Labour on this issue. I hope the Mighty Vince will not raise this issue on Wednesday, instead sticking to things people care about, just as he did so brilliantly last week with his jibe about Gordon Bean and about problems with military financing.