Nick: Just say no to the Tories on more welfare cuts

My stomach is churning already and the Tory Conference has barely started. It makes me feel sick to my core to hear the way that the Prime Minister of this country is scapegoating benefit claimants. The focus of the attack at the moment, according to the Daily Fail, is those out of work people who have large families and under 25s who claim housing benefit.

After all the furore over abortion this weekend, we have to remember that Work and Pensions secretary voted in favour of a reduction of the time limit for terminations to 12 weeks. I'm fairly sure if he could have voted to outlaw them altogether, he would. What, exactly, is he suggesting a woman on benefits who find themselves expecting another child should do? The best of contraception fails sometimes.

And as for the idea that Housing Benefit should be removed from the under 25s - many don't have families to support them, and they may have children themselves. All this will do would be to shift the cost on to dealing with homeless young people. And if you are homeless, you have even less chance of getting a job than if you have a permanent address. 

"Tories war on workshy" screams the headline in the Daily Fail today. I suggest that if you are tempted by the line that we are allowing these people to scrounge off us and live lives of luxury that you do three things before you open your gob:

1. Actually try and live on the amounts of benefits that you get. For a whole year. All the amounts you can get are here. £70 in Job Seekers' Allowance and Housing Benefit won't help you if your cooker breaks down. How do you feed your family and meet the costs of looking for jobs.

2. Look at the jobs that are available in your area and compare it to the number of people who are unemployed. And look at the type of jobs, too. There's no point in suggesting that a single parent takes any job that requires any work outside business hours. They just will not be able to get childcare. 

3. Imagine you are an employer, and you have jobs going, who are you going to pick? Someone with a long  employment record who's just been made redundant, or someone who hasn't worked in their entire life? Are you really going to take a chance on someone with no track record? See some of the barriers that these people face?

This is not the time to be putting the squeeze on people who are already poor. On people who have already been failed by the education system and who have been left languishing, trapped on benefits, for years. One way to guarantee that these people have opportunities for employment is for the state to actually to give them jobs and pay them a decent wage so they can get an employment record . That's way too radical for the current climate, though.

What troubles me is that there are many reports in today's press that the Liberal Democrats have agreed to further welfare cuts and there are no Liberal Democrats denying this. Let's be clear. The Tories' proposals on curbing benefits for large families and taking housing benefit for the under 25s are batshit crazy and should not be entertained by reasonable people for one instant.

Instead, we should be looking at seriously taxing the wealthy. That may not bring in an extra £10 billion, but it would be a start. Then we need to take bus passes and Winter Fuel Allowance off people like us who don't need them. 

The road the Tories suggest is cruel, inhumane and will lead to hungry children and homeless young people - which will cost society more in much more than financial terms in the long run. The very fact that this goes down with Daily Mail readers is something that Liberal Democrats should run from.

Nick has said that there will be no further cuts to the top rate of tax in this Parliament. He has also said. I was encouraged in June by reports that he was stopping the Tories' future plans for welfare cuts. I am now more concerned by reports like this in today's Guardian that suggest a deal has been done. However, the BBC reminds us that Nick told conference that these were "wild suggestions" just 2 weeks ago. 

I am hoping that the reason that the Tories are creating such a scapegoating stink at their conference is because they don't have our agreement and they are trying to build up public support for such moves. Cameron has been pandering to his right wing all Summer and they'll love this kind of stuff. It's all very unsavoury, though. It is important to remind ourselves that these Tory ideas are not new. They'd have brought them in, along with a few more even nastier things, in the last Welfare Reform Bill. Many Liberal Democrats thought that Act was a giant step too far. 

There is, frankly, no point in spending £2.5 billion on a pupil premium for disadvantaged kids if they are not going to be able to learn because they are hungry, or because they're under stress because their 24 year old mother has been evicted because she can't get housing benefit. I am sure that our Liberal Democrat ministers get that point entirely. I am sure that there are some interesting discussions being had in Government at the moment but I expect our lot to stand firm against these crazy, unfair proposals. 

What we can do as Liberal Democrat members is make our views on this clear. And I'm going to suggest that we fill newly re-elected President Tim Farron's inbox again. It's tim.farron@libdems.org.uk, or tweet him on @timfarron. I am sure he will pass on the general gist of messages he receives in his inimitable style. 

Having spent a week at a Conference that was a completely different world than the one written about in the press, I'm not going to assume that our lot have agreed to these welfare cuts just because it's written in the press. A senior government insider told me a few weeks ago that they never believe anything written in the newspapers because they no so much of it to be inaccurate. 

Some categorical assurance on welfare cuts from one of our ministers would not be unwelcome, though. Today wouldn't be too soon. 

Oi, media, were you asleep last year when Clegg effigies were being hanged?

There's a lot of fuss in the media about the entirely tasteless antics of St Andrew's university students in burning an effigy of Barack Obama. It's a crude ritual that really should not happen in a modern, liberal society.

No matter how much I disliked someone, carrying out some mock execution on their likeness is not something I'd consider doing.

I don't think these things should be banned, but I have no problem in calling out the perpetrators for being small minded, intolerant idiots.

I do wonder, though, where the media were last year when the lefties were hanging effigies of Nick Clegg during the student demos.

Where was the condemnation and the outrage at this equally unpleasant act?

Double standards, much.

Pickled priorities - fixing something that ain't broke while the poorest struggle

I haven't had much time for blogging these last few days, but rest assured that I have been frothing at the mouth over the announcement by Communities Secretary Eric Pickles that he's found £250 million to enable Councils in England to restore weekly bin collections.

That's a phrase I really don't like anyway. Every house has a bin emptied every week. That means that the bad bin, the landfill bin, gets emptied once a fortnight. And people complain about it like mad. Let's get it into perspective, though. The worst that can happen from the fortnightly landfill bin collections is that a household is mildly inconvenienced. Nobody dies. Nobody, despite predictions of everything from rats to bubonic plague in the right wing press, gets ill.  That inconvenience should in most cases act as a spur for people to think carefully about what they're throwing away.

I am not aware of complaints coming from people who make the effort to sort their recycling. We could do with a bigger recycling bin and we have trouble filling the landfill bin. But do we whinge? No, we take any excess to what my husband insists on referring to as the recycling centre and what most of the rest of us call the tip.

Pickles' announcement panders to the middle classes in the Tory shires but, of course, it doesn't affect Scotland, so what right to I have to complain? Well, of course it does. It's £250 million, a quarter of a billion bleedin' quid, being wasted, giving less money to things like the welfare budget, for example. Frankly, I'd rather ensure that the sick and disabled are properly supported if there's any money to play with. Nobody in this country in this day and age should not have enough food to eat - yet last week Fair Share reported that demand is rising for food from charities because people can't afford to buy it. And a Government we are part of is taking a measure that encourages people to throw food away?  I have no words to describe my fury.

I know that the Tories have to have things to announce at their conference but it really annoys me that they go on about reducing the deficit so as not to leave the next generation with debt, yet they're quite happy to compromise the environment for those same people.

I have never felt comfortable during a Tory Party conference but they take on an added, gut wrenching, feeling now we're in Government with them. Yes, we are taking the sting out of them in so many ways, but announcements like this show that as parties we are a zillion miles apart.

How the Lib Dems make the difference: Part 1: The Cleaner and the Millionaire Banker #sp11

Remember last year Nick Clegg used the example of the cleaner on the minimum wage who paid a higher marginal rate of tax than her millionaire banker boss to demonstrate the intrinsic unfairness of the tax system?

Well, come the start of the new tax year last week, the cleaner has had a tax cut, or may have even been taken out of tax completely, and the banker now has to pay 10% more on his capital gains.

It's not enough yet, but it's a bigger step in the right direction than I've seen in my lifetime from either Labour or Tory Governments.

And it wouldn't have happened without the Liberal Democrats.

There is, in Scotland, a very deep hatred, fear and distrust of the Tories. How do I know?

 I feel it too.

You see, that fear is entirely justified after what they did to Scotland during the 80s.
 My husband lost his job thanks to their pit closure programme in the 90s.  For at least the six months running up to the General Election last May, I never lost that feeling of background nausea at the fear of what a Tory Government would do. Tax cuts for millionaires while the rest of us suffered. Handing out cash just for being married.   You see, that fear is entirely justified after what they did to Scotland during the 80s. My husband lost his job thanks to their pit closure programme in the 90s.

The very mention of the word Tory is enough to provoke an adrenaline spiked fight or flight reaction in many people.  It's similar to some ways to how I feel about snow and ice. A fall 18 years ago on ice led to me not being able to walk or drive for months. I never want to go through that pain and isolation again.  Unfortunately that fear renders me virtually housebound whenever it snows. The last couple of Winters have been such a joy. My vote goes firmly into the flight camp.

I have, on my infernal wickedness of Sky Plus, a selection of speeches by David Cameron and George Osborne. If I ever feel I'm getting a bit too cosy about what the Government is doing, I watch them. And listening to them articulate their special brand of narrow minded knee jerk nonsense never fails to give me the dry boak - but it affirms to me how much the Liberal Democrats are making the difference in the coalition.

My gut reaction to the Tories is shared by most, if not all, Liberal Democrats. That's why we're Liberal Democrats. I'm glad though, that when faced with the choice of fight or flight last May, we chose to fight. I don't mean that in a combative, aggressive way. We knew it wasn't going to be easy, but we chose to get stuck in there and get some long standing Liberal Democrat policies and values implemented. Our ministers are doing everything they can to take the sting out of the Tories, and a lot of the time they succeed.

We're not going to win every fight, but we'll usually manage to get some sort of compromise that makes it a bit better. I've heard the word "compromise" being bandied about as if it were some sort of dirty word, some abandonment of principle. It's ironic that it most often comes from Labour, a party which abandoned its principles for electability some years ago. Funny thing is, every human being who interacts with any other human beings understands that compromise is a necessary and vital part of any sort of relationship.

Liberal Democrats don't feel comfortable working with Tories. We get on with it though because it was the only real choice after last year's election. Even if Labour had wanted to stay in power, the numbers would have meant that the resulting government was incredibly fragile. The choice was to step up in the hour of the country's need, or cower on the opposition benches and wait for another election to deliver a Tory overall majority.

We get a bit of criticism from the SNP about working with the Tories. This is a great irony given that despite what their rules say, Annabel Goldie's party has been Alex Salmond's first port of call over the years when he's needed support. He's got them to support his budgets, and vote with the  SNP Government a great deal, if not most, of the time, and it's looked like quite a cosy relationship.

Any UK Government elected last May would have had to have made cuts.Big cuts. Alistair Darling knew that when he suggested raising VAT. Liam Byrne knew that when he left a note saying that there was no money left. Cutting public services is horrible, but in the current circumstances inevitable. Being able to deliver tax cuts for the poorest and many other things despite those pressures has got to be a good thing.

There's no doubt that the Liberal Democrats are acting as a brake on the Tories. We've delayed some of the worst of their ideas and got rid of some others.  You'd be in a right mess if the brakes failed on your car - and so would we be if the Tories were in there on their own, with the influence of their right wing enhanced.

I may not like everything this Coalition Government does, but despite that, it's without doubt the best UK Government I've known. I know Thatcher and Blair didn't set the bar very high, but I believe my party's using its time in office well. Much of the time we do exactly as we said. And when we can't, we do our best to lessen the impact on the most vulnerable.

Telegraph gets it wrong on Liberal Democrat "rebrand"

Of all the silly stories that have been published about the Liberal Democrats recently, this from over the weekend has a higher bollocks per square inch (bsi) ratio than most.

Apparently, we are thinking about abandoning Libby, our "7 winged flying worm" as Ben Elton called it when  it was first introduced, and even re-naming the Party. Maybe adding in "social" to our title. Well, of course we are. That worked so well for us when we were the Social and Liberal Democrats, or"salads" and were coming within the margin of error of nothing in the polls. I'm proud to be a social liberal, but that name has bad memories for most of us who were around at the time. Not in a million years would I ever think the party would go back there. Liberal Democrats suits me fine.

They are even trying to stir up the notion of a challenge to Nick's leadership by Chris Huhne. That would be the same Chris Huhne who produced a minority report to Nick, when everyone else was saying we should go for no more than confidence and supply agreements in the event of a hung parliament, stating that we should go for full coalition with the Tories.  I'm as certain as I can be that Chris is not going to destabilise a government where so many Liberal Democrat policies are being put into practice.

The tiny grain of truth on which this story is based is that the party is appointing a Marketing Director at the moment. Up to a point that's a good thing, as long as they understand how to get across the good things we're doing in Government - which just isn't happening at the moment. Not entirely sure that's marketing, and have a small reservation that the money would be better spent on more press people, but that's beside the point. What the Telegraph seems to have done is germinated this tiny grain of truth with spin from the Tories - at the end a senior Conservative strategist is quoted as saying they're going to have to shore Nick up in the event of bad results in May.

I mean, what?

There is more likelihood of Alex Salmond saying the Act of Union was the best thing ever than the Tories ever lifting a finger to help the Liberal Democrats. We may be working in Government together and delivering some good things, but it's still in the Tories' interests to bash us out of existence.

This puts me in mind of a piece I wrote in January, about who really benefits from the stories of Lib Dem/Tory co-operation. I shall post the whole thing below partly so you can see what I mean and partly because I posted it on a Friday night and consequently not many of you read it. I reckon it's worth a second outing.

Today's Herald carries a report which states fairly categorically that a Conservative Cabinet Minister has confirmed that there will be some level of electoral pact between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives at the 2015 General Election.

What a load of complete and utter nonsense!

I suspect that every campaign in every seat, every by-election will be scrutinised in greater detail than ever before to see whether one party seems to be soft-pedalling. You would think by now that journalists would know that squeezing the vote of the party in third place is an essential part of winning any seat. The Party in third, particularly if they are a long way behind, are highly unlikely to throw the kitchen sink at their campaign. This is exactly why we need a fairer voting system, because most of our votes don't actually count. At least a yes vote in the Alternative Vote referendum in May this year would ensure that MPs had to secure the support of 50% of voters, and not be elected on barely a third of the votes cast, which is maybe only a fifth of the electorate as they are now.

If you subscribe to the notion that the Lib Dems and the Tories are heading for a bit of electoral footsie and flirtation, then you have to assume that the Tories have gone soft in the head. This is not a bunch of cuddly teddy bears we're dealing with. They will be going hell for leather to secure an overall majority in 2015, and will fight us, and we them, to the best of our abilities.

So why are Tory Cabinet ministers apparently briefing the press that there will be a pact? Well, it's quite mischievous, because it does us a lot more harm than it does them. By undermining our independence, they hope to scare off not just our voters, but our activists, leftie peace loving hippies like me. Just think about it. They want, they need to win some seats in the south west if they are going to secure a majority. They think that the AV referendum will be lost, so they'll be fighting under the current system. They want to put about the whiff of an electoral pact, and get it sort of accepted as fact, by 2015 to try to send some of our voters into the arms of Ed Miliband. A rising Labour vote in the South West under the current system will help nobody but......the Conservatives. And it's not going to do us much good where we are trying to gain seats from Labour either.

So, I think the Tories are just stirring it for their own electoral gain. You don't hear any of this sort of talk from Liberal Democrats and nor will you, for very good reason. The Tories know fine there will be no pact, but they think it's in their interests to inculcate the idea that there is into the national psyche.

Governing in the national interest with them for five years is one thing, but there won't be any turning the business arrangement into an office affair. We are likely to be offering very different ideas for the future in 2015 and each party will be trying to win as many seats as possible. The Herald might like to reflect on motive, rather than just excitedly print everything it's told as if it were Holy Writ

The Telegraph story seems to me to be more about advancing the Tory cause than a serious reporting of fact. There's a surprise.

Why would the Tories want to put about rumours of an electoral pact with the Lib Dems?

Today's Herald carries a report which states fairly categorically that a Conservative Cabinet Minister has confirmed that there will be some level of electoral pact between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives at the 2015 General Election.

What a load of complete and utter nonsense!

I suspect that every campaign in every seat, every by-election will be scrutinised in greater detail than ever before to see whether one party seems to be soft-pedalling. You would think by now that journalists would know that squeezing the vote of the party in third place is an essential part of winning any seat. The Party in third, particularly if they are a long way behind, are highly unlikely to throw the kitchen sink at their campaign. This is exactly why we need a fairer voting system, because most of our votes don't actually count. At least a yes vote in the Alternative Vote referendum in May this year would ensure that MPs had to secure the support of 50% of voters, and not be elected on barely a third of the votes cast, which is maybe only a fifth of the electorate as they are now.

If you subscribe to the notion that the Lib Dems and the Tories are heading for a bit of electoral footsie and flirtation, then you have to assume that the Tories have gone soft in the head. This is not a bunch of cuddly teddy bears we're dealing with. They will be going hell for leather to secure an overall majority in 2015, and will fight us, and we them, to the best of our abilities.

So why are Tory Cabinet ministers apparently briefing the press that there will be a pact? Well, it's quite mischievous, because it does us a lot more harm than it does them. By undermining our independence, they hope to scare off not just our voters, but our activists, leftie peace loving hippies like me. Just think about it. They want, they need to win some seats in the south west if they are going to secure a majority. They think that the AV referendum will be lost, so they'll be fighting under the current system. They want to put about the whiff of an electoral pact, and get it sort of accepted as fact, by 2015 to try to send some of our voters into the arms of Ed Miliband. A rising Labour vote in the South West under the current system will help nobody but......the Conservatives. And it's not going to do us much good where we are trying to gain seats from Labour either.

So, I think the Tories are just stirring it for their own electoral gain. You don't hear any of this sort of talk from Liberal Democrats and nor will you, for very good reason. The Tories know fine there will be no pact, but they think it's in their interests to inculcate the idea that there is into the national psyche.

Governing in the national interest with them for five years is one thing, but there won't be any turning the business arrangement into an office affair. We are likely to be offering very different ideas for the future in 2015 and each party will be trying to win as many seats as possible. The Herald might like to reflect on motive, rather than just excitedly print everything it's told as if it were Holy Writ.

Demos Home Front report trashes Tory Marriage Tax Plan

I would be very surprised if you could find one Liberal Democrat who thought the Tory plan for a tax break for married couples was a good idea - or even an adequate one, to be honest.

Last week when Nick Clegg launched the Government's flexible parental leave strategy, he did so quoting the recent Demos report, Home Front, which looks at all sorts of family and parenting issues.

What he didn't make an issue of, and in my view should do at some point in the future, is the fact that the Demos report totally trashes the Tory tax policy.

Point 14 of its Executive summary is quite clear on the subject:

14 Government should not introduce a married tax allowance

Evidence shows that it is the quality of relationships rather than relationship status which has the greater effect on parental confidence and effectiveness, and hence on children’s outcomes.

There is no evidence of a ‘marriage effect’, rather marriage is probably a proxy for more successful relationships. The government is right to support stable relationships in so far as they impact on children. However, many married couples do not have children, making this proposal both moralising and inefficient, as it draws resources away from some of the most at risk families. Tax allowances, if used to support families, should be aimed at families with children.

To me, that's stating the obvious. I can quite understand why he didn't mention this when he launched the report, concentrating instead on the parental leave proposals, because you can be the more ignorant sections of the press would have printed stuff suggesting he and Cameron were on a collision course. Oh, wait, the Fail already has, as you can see from that link.

The Fail and others need to realise that this is one of the areas where we have an opt out in the Coalition Agreement. Actually, I'm not so chuffed that we only have the right to abstain. If I were an MP, I'd be more inclined to vote against this than the tuition fees proposals, and I'd have rebelled on that. I bet Alistair Carmichael is so glad he doesn't have me to deal with. Seriously, though, I find the whole idea insulting and it uses up money that could be better directed to help kids and families who need it.

I think that we as Liberal Democrats should be contributing to the debate loudly and passionately. I think everybody from Nick down should be saying quite plainly that this idea is as ridiculous as it always was if it ever sees the light of day again. Thankfully it's been kicked into the medium length grass for the moment, but if it ever looks like it's going to come out, we need to do our best to try to lob it into the distance. The Demos report is a bit of evidence that people should know about.

Liberal Democrats smash expectations in Oldham East and Saddleworth

If you'd listened to the media in recent weeks, you'd have thought that the Liberal Democrats were in for a real routing in Oldham, barely reaching double figures. Conventional wisdom said that meltdown was inevitable, and our defeat would be followed by a challenge to Nick Clegg and ultimately the coalition would fall.

Well, what a load of nonsense those predictions turned out to be. The result last night had us with a slightly higher proportion of the vote than we had in May, but unfortunately that wasn't enough to see Elwyn Watkins elected MP.

The result in full was:

• Labour: 14,718 (42.1%)
• Lib Dems: 11,160 (31.9%)
• Conservatives: 4,481 (12.8%)
• UKIP: 2,029 (5.8%)
• BNP: 1,560 (4.5%)
• Green Party: 530 (1.5%)
• Monster Raving Loony Party: 145 (0.4%)
• English Democrats: 144 (0.4%)
• Pirate Party: 96 (0.2%)
• Bus Pass Elvis Party: 67 (0.1%)

Labour haven't got much to shout about - they held their own seat at a time when they're opposing a Government which is having to do some fairly harsh things, after all the tuition fees stuff and the VAT increase. Even then, their new MP was elected on less than half the vote, and less than the combined total of the Coalition parties. They will be very worried indeed at the extent of the tactical voting against them which took place where they were in a position of strength.

The Tories were always likely to get squeezed. It doesn't always happen to the third party - for example, the story of the night 5 years ago in Livingston was that our 3rd place vote pretty much held up for candidate Charles Dundas - but on this occasion, they were. I suspect they'll consider the result pretty much as expected.

The Liberal Democrat result confounded the pundits who had sagely warned of our demise. It seems that the picture is a lot less bleak than political journalists paint it. Who would have predicted that our share of the vote would have increased, albeit by a tiny amount, from May? I do feel really heartbroken for Elwyn and his energetic team who couldn't have put any more effort into it and I really wanted him to win, but they can be very proud of what they achieved against a narrative which said we were stuffed.  I do wonder, though, whether we were a bit too cautious in calling the election so quickly. If the result had been really bad, it could have been blamed on a brief campaign in the harshest of Winters. All the signs were that we were the ones with the momentum. I think in another week or two, we might have pulled it off. We'll never know - and you can't blame the powers that be for being risk averse - but in future, let's see them reach high rather than try to limit damage. The time for timidity is over.

The Oldham result tells us is that we can afford to be more ambitious, and more upbeat. All the reports I hear on the ground suggest that our vote is holding up well. There's probably nobody whose knocked on more doors in Scotland than Alex Cole-Hamilton, Liberal Democrat candidate in Edinburgh Central. He's been bold and upbeat right since his selection in July and it's paying dividends as his team recruits loads of enthusiastic activists.  He and his team have been out there in the most freezing of temperatures, no matter how much snow and ice has been around. They are finding that their intensive effort is paying dividends already. Hopefully in May, he'll be in Holyrood as MSP.

One final thing - I wish the BNP had come last. I'd much rather have seen the Bus Pass Elvis Party beat them. At least they hate filled racists lost their deposits in an election where there was a danger their vote could have increased. It just goes to show that a hard fought campaign, which properly engages with people, can push them down.

Live Blogging the Clegg and Cameron News Conference

I'm listening to the Clegg and Cameron news conference and have to nip out for the school run pretty much immediately afterwards so I thought I'd just type up a brief summary of what happened as it happened and hit publish. I probably won't get a great opportunity to spill chuck so if it looks a mess, I apologise in advance.

Cameron starts by talking about Nick and I working together.

This is the first coalition in 65 years united behind 3 principles of freedom, fairness and responsibility and one purpose of giving Britain the strong, stable government it needs.

I've been appointing the Cabinet and I will be chairing National Security Council with Nick Clegg as my side.

Liberal Democrats will be represented at every level of government - representative of depth of coalition and shared desire to work together for the national interest.

No Government in modern times have ever been left with such a terrible economic inheritance - today's unemployment figures are sign of the human cost of the mistakes of the past decade.

We are announcing a new politics where national interest takes precedence over party interest.

The agreement is for 5 years and we will act for long term.

We want to take power from politicians and give it to people. I'm delighted to be standing here with the new Deputy PM

Nick Clegg

We've just been through an election and now we have a coalition. We were rivals, and now we're colleagues. It says a lot about the scale of the politics. It's a radical and reforming government but it's also stable.

Public finances are in a mess, society scarred by poverty and inequality, our troops involved in conflict, the economy has not yet got to its feet. This is what we have come together to provide.

There will be bumps and scrapes but this Government will last despite these differences because we have a job we want to do together in the next five years.

We want to change the lives of people and families for the better. For me liberalism is about making sure that people can live the life they want to live. To have the opportunities you crave. Fairer taxes, better schools, cleaner politics. I want this to be a bold, reforming government that puts fairness back into Britain, a government which hands back liberties and privacy, where fine words on the environment translated into action.

I came into politics to change politics and change Britain for good.

Gary Gibbon:

We all thought coalition was accidental result of election - you sound like it's a mission. Could it last beyond this arrangement?

DC This is a 5 year arrangement for interests of country. We both had a choice - we looked at confidence and supply and had a meeting and thought this is so uninspiring but it's not going to do what we came into politics to achieve. We want to sort things out. We looked at each other and wanted to aim for something bigger and better.

NC People told us that nobody deserved an outright majority. But also need stability so we tried to underpin a common purpose to our working together.

Nick Robinson

On the morning after the night before did you not think I'm hooked up to somebody I barely know? Are you going to do everything together

DC This is so much better than the alternatives. We can do so much to sort out the country's problems. I felt inspired and excited.

This is not just 2 teams trying to work together. We are separate parties but we are trying to form 1 team and we will do things together.

Adam Boulton

What's going to happen with PMQs? What about press conferences? What about political reform

Nick will stand in as Deputy PM at PMQs. Haven't discussed press conferences.

The negotiating teams worked very well together - found good ways of resolving differences.

DC joked he's looking forward to a lot of foreign travel so Nick can handle PMQs

Jon Snow

Where will Nick Clegg function from?

DC

Nick is going to be responsible for political reform. He will work in Cabinet Office. This is not going to be a partnership where we have to book meetings. Doors will be permanently open to each other.

Tom Bradby

Left of Lib Dems and right of Tories can't hold together for very long.

DC

If we can demonstrate this is a good government and we're working well together, people will see that and respect it. What is politics? It's all about public service in the national interest.

NC

Always going to be sceptics and a million reasons not to try something new. We are both taking big risks. There was overwhelming support in my party for this cos we collectively recognised that this was the right thing to do for the country at this time

Andy Bell

When once asked what your favourite joke was, you replied Nick Clegg.

Nick pretends to walk off in the huff as Cameron sheepishly says, yes I did that.

German journalist

Asked about European Government

DC talked to Angela Merkel yesterday about European policy and coalitions.

He says we have resolved the issues which divide us.

Abolition of DTI would be largest act of deregulation - Vince said that in 2004

NC

Things have changed since then and we need to rebuild British economy on new sustainable foundations. He will create new ideas about new forms of growth and innovation. He will be able to map out a vision of a new kind of economy.

Observer

If this is such a fantastic agreemetn for new politics, what would you have against PR?

DC I've made my feelings clear about PR, but I have gone the extra mile to try to build the coalition. It's important to build the trust between the parties.

Times

On point of 5 year parliament - is that an aspiration or will it be fixed in early legislation.

Given the range your parties represent are you going to whip severely?

Thirsk and Malton by-election Will you be encouraging your candidates to campaign against each other

DC We expect our parties to put up candidates and campaign reasonably

Fixed term parliaments going to be very early legislation

We have a strong majority together in Commons and Lords - people will want to take a stand on an issue sometimes but we want people to stick to coalition agreement and our whips can maybe learn things from each other.

NC

This represents a significant change. It would not be a faintly radical thought in many countries that people can work together in Government but campaign separately.

Press Conference ends............

This is just a quick impression from me - I found it incredible to see David Cameron describe how they had been trying to get agreement for a Confidence and Supply arrangement and then he and Nick Clegg looked at each other and decided that just sounded uninspiring and difficult and they wanted to do better.

It sounds like they've set up a cycle of inspiration and idealism between them in which they egg each other on.

There wasn't much of substance to be honest in what they said, but what was interesting was the interaction between the two of them. In the time they've been holed up in negotiations, they seem to have discovered that they actually like each other and can work together. Well, that beats looking daggers at each other across a table. You don't have to like your colleagues but it helps.

The bit where Nick Clegg threatened to walk off in the huff when confronted with something nasty Cameron had said about him was absolutely hilarious - and interesting because you need to feel relatively comfortable with someone to joke like that in public, let alone in private. Joking aside, Nick is particularly good at that kind of disarming, jokey banter to diffuse a situation.

Right - off to do the school run, but I have a hot date with the coalition agreement later. See you then.

I'm not naive enough to think that this is enough to sustain a working relationship, but it does help if the chemistry is good.

Are we imminently going into coalition with the Tories?

The BBC is reporting that our negotiations with the Labour Party are on the road to nowhere.

It sounds therefore that some sort of deal, whether it's confidence and supply, or a full coalition, is likely with the Tories. Some might say that we're on the road to hell.

I know that if this actually happens, it's really going to upset a fair few party members. Good people whose feet still bear the battle blisters and who are still suffering the pain of defeat will feel betrayed. Membership cards will be ripped up. Folk will be angry. They will say that they'll never vote for us again and no doubt YouGov will do a poll in a couple of days which will show us tanking. There's no doubt about that. Whatever the outcome, to be honest, though, it would have been the same.

Whatever happens, I'll stick around. Believe me, the reason I know people are going to hurt is because I hurt. I come from Scotland where the Tories are about as welcome as the Bubonic Plague so dealing with them at Westminster is not without its risks to say the least. I lived through the 80s and 90s and I don't want my daughter to spend her formative years under a Tory Government. That said, I still have faith in our people who have been negotiating, though. They are good, principled men and they will have done all that they could to secure the principles on which we fought the election: fair taxes, cleaning up politics, building a green, sustainable economy and ensuring a fair start for every child.

Labour will go into hysterical overdrive, and I'm sure they'll conveniently forget in the process that they run a Council administration with the Tories in East Dunbartonshire. They can also reflect on the fact that by the sounds of it they were not prepared to offer anything other than their manifesto. You don't go into negotiations in that spirit. Their attitude has been all wrong from the start of this, expecting us to meekly fall into line behind them because they weren't the Tories, using the same bullying tactics on the SNP to dare them not to vote with the Conservatives. And don't take any nonsense from the SNP either - they've relied on Tory support more than once to get their measures through Holyrood.

The reason that the Tories were so vile in my teenage years is that they had unchecked power, stonking majorities in both Houses of Parliament. They could do what they wanted. Now, our challenge is to show that we can take the sting out of the Tories. If we can do that, then maybe politics can become healthier at Westminster level in Scotland and maybe people will realise that coalition government is actually a good thing. So, if we can't get STV by negotiation, maybe we can build the case for it by giving a good account of ourselves in Government.

It's important to note as well that we are a democratic party and the deal has to be approved by 75% of the MPs and 75% of the Federal Executive, who are accountable to the Federal Conference.

Of course the negotiations with the Tories could fall apart and no deal reached and we could do what I would prefer, make a deal with nobody and vote issue by issue in the Parliament but that's looking increasingly unlikely.

So, I have chocolate and red wine on standby to help with the pain, but I guess we have to focus on the fact that we may well be about to see the first Government with Liberal Democrats in it ever. Surely that alone is a reason for hope.

Hung Parliament - a Scottish Liberal Democrat's perspective

If you had asked me to name things I never wanted to see my party doing, watching our MPs walk into coalition negotiations with the Conservatives would have been pretty high, if not top, of the list. I can't pretend to you that seeing that process under way, with THEM, is anything other than deeply painful. What is keeping me going is my faith in the leader and the participants of that process. I trust them to stand up for the principles of fairness across government that we have held close not just for the election but which are hardwired into our political DNA. I am really proud of the way Nick Clegg, the Party and the MPs have conducted themselves with dignity since Friday.

As an aside, it does amuse me that with rolling 24 hour news coverage and a gazillion journalists on their tail, that Clegg, Cameron and Brown have managed to have secret meetings. A triumph for their respective teams.

I'm starting to think that some sort of deal with the Tories is now almost inevitable, even if it's just them getting a Queen's Speech and a Budget through. I would much rather, as I said the other day, that we let them govern as a minority. That would give us much more influence over them than we would as a junior partner in a coalition. I think us being protectors of fairness, sitting independently in the Parliament would be a better way of fulfilling Nick Clegg's personal guarantee to the electorate.

Whatever comes out of the negotiations, I think it's essential that we don't jump to hasty conclusions. We need to look at the details and we need to give it a chance. None of us knows what's going on but there's much speculation that we'll give up on electoral reform. We shouldn't. I think that we should be free to introduce legislation ourselves on a free vote. That is the way of satisfying honour on both sides. In the end of the day, though, if we were able to secure concessions from the Tories such as fairer taxes, which would really make a difference to people, would that be enough? Truth is we won't know until we see it not just on paper but in action.

It makes me cross that the future of this country is being decided by a handful of white, middle aged men in a room. It was very depressing to see the all-male negotiating teams filing in and out of the Cabinet Office. I am not in any way trying to suggest that our team isn't good. It ticks almost all the boxes - Danny Alexander is not just Nick Clegg's chief of staff, he was once Work and Pensions spokesman and his knowledge of the system should help him to stand in the way of agreeing to the nastier parts of Tory "reform" to it. Andrew Stunell understands the importance and autonomy of local government and I think would be quite robust on electoral reform. Chris Huhne is there to make sure that the civil liberties side is sorted and David Laws is there I presume because he can talk Tory even if he isn't one. I just wish that we'd made up our negotiating team the same way as we had for the Scottish Parliament in 2003 and 2007 by choosing people from the Scottish Executive. The negotiating teams were much more diverse than our Holyrood parliamentary party.

Scotland rightly has a deep fear and loathing of the Conservatives, as we saw last week and this whole process is fraught with danger for our party. My heart sinks whenever I think about it - but what are the alternatives?

The numbers for a deal with Labour just don't add up without the Nationalists. Every decision the Government took would be dependent on Alex Salmond not ordering Angus Robertson to have a hissy fit. Labour also has a significant attitude problem at the moment - Eric Joyce is just one voice who thinks that we should just meekly line up behind Gordon Brown and carry on as usual. If we actually had PR, their would be more options for government - we'd have 160 ish MPs and there would be a realistic prospect of a viable, stable coalition with either the Tories or Labour.

It has been quite amusing to watch Labour people on Twitter urging us not to sell out on PR. It's such a pity that they've only just discovered their enthusiasm for electoral reform. Silly us, they seem to be thinking, we just never got round to introducing fair votes ourselves in that short 13 year period when we were in power. We'll do it now. Who knew that Labour had such aspirations while they were passing the most authoritarian assault on our civil liberties in a long time? Would you trust them? Me neither.

While we're on the subject, the irony of the Take Back Parliament lot, or at least one of their constituent grouops urging its supporters to ring up Cowley Street to lobby for PR when there are two other parties who've blocked reform at every turn is not lost on me.

They'd certainly have a hard enough job getting PR by many of their Scottish MPs, who have seen Labour's influence on local government and the Holyrood parliament broken up by fairer votes in Scotland. Westminster provides the last bastion of Labour hegemony in Scotland. 41 of them fighting over seats under STV scares the living daylights out of them - and if they actually understood the system, it might scare the living daylights out of them even more. Tom Harris makes an impassioned defence of first past the post.. He certainly did get more than 50% of the vote on his patch, but almost 40% of people didn't even bother to vote. The thing is, under FPTP, Tom is likely to have his seat until such times as he chooses to give it up. Is it right that any elected representative should have such security?

While Labour screams "Don't do it Nick" across the blogosphere, secretly they see their revival in being able to point and protest at a Lib Dem/Tory Government so they're actually desperate for it to happen. In Scotland, where they have 41/59 MPs, they set their sights on kicking Alex Salmond out of Bute House next May and salivate at the prospect of governing alone.

The challenge for the Liberal Democrats is to balance the risks. If people feel that we've made a difference, that our presence has taken the sting out of the Tories at Westminster the same way we took the sting out of Labour in Holyrood, then Labour may be laughing on the other side of their faces.

I think back 11 years to the first Holyrood coalition negotiations which I observed from a distance as we were still living in England then. It made me feel a bit icky to be talking to the big red devil and I knew the risks were high that we'd get completely shafted.

When the agreement was issued, containing what seemed for all the world like a giant pot of fudge on tuition fees, it took a lot to calm the instinctive rage that rose within me. Actually, to be honest, I probably only survived cos of the mellow pregnancy hormones which were flooding my system. Seriously, though, I remember writing on a Lib Dem internet forum at the time that I thought we should give the deal a chance. Four years on, Scottish students did not pay upfront tuition fees, making a huge difference to so many people.

Whatever emerges from the discussions over the next few days, I think we have to give it the same chance, however bad it might make us feel.

Tory candidate Philippa Stroud prayed for gay people to be released from demons

First of all, if you are a gay Christian who is struggling to reconcile who you are with your faith, worry not. There are churches, like St Mary's Cathedral in Glasgow where you will be more than welcome. They have an LGBT group on a Monday night and the Provost there, my lovely friend Kelvin, writes this fabulous blog.

I wanted to say that first, because I know how awful it is for gay people to read reports like this. The Tory candidate for Sutton and Cheam apparently once established a Church in which a part of the so called ministry was to pray over gay people with the aim of releasing the "demons" which were possessing them. Make no mistake - I know people who have been driven to the brink of suicide because of the sort of attitudes Philippa Stroud embodies.

My own personal path to atheism was aided by attitudes like those shown by Philippa Stroud. At university I was appalled by the attitudes shown towards my gay friends who were basically told they couldn't join the Christian Union. The day I sat in a prayer meeting when somebody prayed for a person (who wasn't present) to be released from their homosexuality, I felt such massive chill in my spine. That was it for me. It was the last prayer meeting I ever attended.

The reason that the Tories are so dangerous in this election is that they are trying to portray themselves as these nice, fluffy, inclusive teddy bears, far removed from the offensiveness of things like Clause 28 of their last period in office. The truth, however, is somewhat different. There have been 4 major incidents in 4 weeks which give the lie to their claims of inclusiveness:

1. Chris Grayling's support for Christian b and b owners to have the right to turn away gay couples

2. Tory front bencher Julian Lewis saying age of consent for gay people should not have been lowered.

3. North Ayrshire and Arran Tory candidate Philip Lardner suspended over comments that homosexuality isn't normal as Andrew Reeves reported last week.

4. The Philippa Stroud revelations today.

Now, bear with me for a minute, but I have a theory about this. I wonder if the Tories are trying to play up to both sides here. While portraying a veneer of commitment to equality, they also aren't that bothered if stories of what they are really like get into the press, to try to reassure some of their core vote who might not like such things. Their actions might be seen to bear that out - I mean, how likely was Philip Lardner to win in North Ayrshire and Arran? Really? He's easily sacrificed, yet we have two frontbenchers making equally offensive comments and they stay in post.

If you are angry by what you've read, why not help Paul Burstow keep Philippa Stroud at bay? I am absolutely sure that he would welcome some help with leaflet delivery, canvassing, or, if you live too far away, money in these last few days of the campaign.

At a Glance Guide to what the main parties offer Scotland

As the last full week of the election campaign dawns, I thought I'd do a quick ready reckoner of what the four main political parties offer Scotland. Please don't expect this to be in any way objective, but it will be fair.

The Liberal Democrats:

If you vote Lib Dem, you get Nick Clegg. Yesterday on Andrew Marr he was brilliant, answering questions openly and honestly and sounding like he he could run the country. Go here and watch the whole interview.

Fair taxes: taking everyone earning less than £10,000 out of tax completely and giving everyone else £700 a year back. The situation where a city banker pays proportionally less tax than his cleaner on the minimum wage will end.

Clean up politics: a fair voting system for Westminster so we don't have the disgraceful situation where majority Governments can be returned on not much more than a fifth of the eligible vote, where some seats are guaranteed to stay in the same party's hands for generations.

A fair start in life for every child: meaning that the scandal of poorer children falling behind richer children at the age of 7, affecting their whole life chances, will end.

A sustainable,green economy: banks that dance to the government's tune, not the other way around, investment in renewable energy to make us carbon neutral in 40 years, jobs in sustainable industries,the Almighty Vince in charge.

Oh, and a Freedom Bill, already drafted and ready to go before Parliament which gets rid of the appalling erosions of civil liberties enacted by Labour, many of them with Conservative support.

AND taking the iniquitous Digital Economy Bill off the statute book and replacing it with something better.

An ambitions, positive programme, wouldn't you say?

Labour

Vote for us because we aren't the evil Tories and if you're lucky we might just get around to doing stuff we promised in 1997 like properly reforming the House of Lords. Oh, and we'll give you a referendum on electoral reform, but not on a system that actually gives you any more power. And we'll clean up politics by introducing measures we've already blocked.

The Conservatives

Vote for us because we aren't the evil Labour government and we don't want another 5 years of Gordon Brown, do we now?

Oh, and if you don't give us a clear majority to protect our rich friends and do nothing to help the poorest, well, the four horsemen of the apocalypse will be just around the corner.

But, Scotland, it doesn't really matter what you do, because we don't need your pesky votes anyway to get a majority. Mwahahahaha

The SNP

If you don't let us in the leaders debate, we'll take you to court. Because we think that standing candidates in less than 10% of UK seats means we should have a place, despite the fact that there have been three debates between Scottish leaders.

You see, we need you to vote for us in outrage at this perceived injustice because, let's face it, we can't really offer you anything else.

We will stick our heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge that there's less money available rather than actually looking carefully at how Government operates and how we could protect the vital frontline services on less money.

We have no serious detailed plans on how to deal with the tax and benefits and pensions systems

We support the Tories' plan to stop Labour's NI rise, which'll cost a fortune and we can't tell you how we'll pay for that but we will and there will be less cuts as well.

So there you have it - a brief smorgasbord of what's on offer to Scottish voters this election. Many votes will be cast today as ballot papers start landing on people's doormats. A vote for the Liberal Democrats, in any seat, will be a vote for real, positive, permanent change and even if you don't directly get a Liberal Democrat MP, you'll help to bring about that change. Without the Liberal Democrats, things will stay pretty much the same.

So the Tories were behind the smears on Nick Clegg

Well well, I've found something that's not #nickcleggsfault!

Yesterday, I suggested that one way of dealing with the smears on Nick Clegg, particularly the ridiculous one in the Torygraph which tried to depict his entirely correct receipt and registration of donations as something murkier, was to write to the advertisers in that publication to suggest that their brand was being damaged by being associated with such shenanigans.

Well, it seems that that argument has been reinforced by none other than Nick Robinson the BBC's political editor who confirmed last night that the Tories had had the political correspondents of the Tory papers in and fed them things they wanted published.

If that sort of thing makes you angry, take a few minutes to write to the likes of Waitrose, Nat West, Tesco, Thomson/First Choice and FlyBe. The links are to their contact details.

After that, go and help your nearest Liberal Democrat campaign. Find out how here.

More on Peter Lyburn: the Pledges v the Reality

Following my blog post last night on Perth and North Perthshire Conservative candidate Peter Lyburn's antics,a leaflet containing his election pledges has been brought to my attention.

You have to see this in the context of someone who submitted an open letter to various newspapers on the Tories' plans not to go ahead with Labour's NI rise next year which was alleged to have the support of a number of listed local business leaders. Some of those business people have subsequently told the Courier they neither knew of the letter nor consented to their name being on it.

Anyway, here are Mr Lyburn's pledges to the people of Perth....

Pledge 1 "To show by our actions that politics need not be a dirty game"

Pledge 2 "Not to mislead the public"

Pledge 5 "To fight a clean, honest and positive campaign."

With the Tories, between the idea and the action, there is usually a shadow - quite a long one in Mr Lyburn's case.

Subrosa has also written on this too. She shares my view that Lyburn should withdraw from the contest.

Happily, there's another Peter you can vote for if you live in Perth: Peter Barrett. I know him well and once he gets the bit between his teeth about something, believe me he doesn't let go - he would be a fantastic representative for the area and someone the people of Perth could trust to represent them on the national stage. I remember seeing an article in the Perthshire Advertiser describing him as the "saviour" of Tay Street after a long and successful campaign to preserve it. While I will admit to having teased him mercilessly at the time for being described in such a fashion, I know that he's creative, innovative, hard working and very genuine.

#LibDems reveal policies to help all families

Last night the Conservatives revealed their much vaunted tax break for married couples - basically £3 a week (which my husband said wasn't enough - cheek!). It's been rightly called "patronising drivel that belongs in the Edwardian age" by Nick Clegg. He's already outlined how a tax break for married couples in principle lets down those who are widowed, or whose spouse leaves them, perhaps to marry someone else and get another tax break. The Tory plans are basically cynical tokenistic claptrap designed to appeal to the Daily Mail mindset and it appalle me that they can even think of wasting scarce public money on such a scheme.

I rather liked Lib Dem campaigner Nick Barlow's tweet on the subject:

"I wonder how many Tory MPs would have stayed with their first wives if they'd got a tax break"

In complete contrast, Nick Clegg today unveiled the Lib Dems' manifesto for families which would help all families, not just a few. These are a practical series of measures that show again that the Lib Dems understand what real life is like and comes up with relevant and practical ideas. The highlights include:

Making the tax system fairer, putting £700 back into the pockets of basic rate taxpayers and taking anyone earning less than £10,000 out of tax altogether. While Labour takes 50,000 people to court over their botched tax credit system.

Treating couples like grown ups and letting them choose the maternity/paternity leave arrangement that suits them

Giving all families up to 20 hours a week of free childcare, when we can afford it, for all children between 18 months and 5 years old.

Giving carers a guarantee of respite care.

An independent commission to find a long term solution to funding for care for the elderly so that they and their families don't have to live in fear of an uncertain future.

Using empty properties to create more affordable housing for the 1.8 million people who desperately need it.

Election 2010: Where the Parties stand on Political Reform

Just in case you think you've stepped into somewhere unbiased and impartial, I should tell you that this blog does wear its Liberal Democrat heart on its sleeve. What you are about to read will be fair, but it's going to have more than a smattering of subjectivity.

That said, it doesn't take too much investigation to unravel where each of the main parties is coming from on political reform. These include issues like cleaning up party funding, so that parties aren't beholden to their paymasters. The Labour Party is bankrolled to the tune of millions by the Trade Unions, many of whose members pay a political levy. When I was a union member in the 1990s, I opted out of that because the second last thing I would ever want would be for my money to go into Labour's coffers. The last thing, of course, would be to see any of my money going to the Tories. I find it bizarre that a political party in a modern democracy is comfortable with allowing one of its major donors to hold high office within the party and to sit, unelected, in our Parliament when he is domiciled, along with his heart, in Belize for tax purposes. The Liberal Democrats in contrast are not beholden to any particular interest groups.

There have been some all party talks going on since 2007 to try to iron out a way forward on party funding, the Hayden Phillips talks. Recently published minutes show that neither Labour nor the Tories were willing to cut their ties to their respective paymasters.

Gordon Brown today announced what he called "the most comprehensive programme of constitutional reform for a century". A century ago, we were on the verge of the Parliament Act which directly came out of Tory Lords refusing to pass the Liberal Government's People's Budget of 1909 which started the process of introducing the Old Age Pension. The bland package announced by Brown today tinkers at the edges - fixed term parliaments, and, get this, a referendum on a mild change to the voting system and getting rid of hereditary peers. Labour seems to forget that it got a fairly whopping mandate in 1997 for an elected House of Lords - and didn't bother to do anything about it. And Brown was very wrong when he said this was the greatest reform in a century. I reckon women getting the vote was possibly a bit more of a game changer myself.

What I find interesting about Labour is that it's generally considered changes to the way Westminster runs as something to be held at arms length, at the end of a very long spoon which you only use when you go to sup with the Devil. Anything that gives away real power from the centre is regarded with great distrust. However, Gary Gibbon said on Channel 4 News tonight that the reason for Labour's interest in political reform is because they want to win back Liberal minded voters who left them for us over the Iraq war. That's right. It's a cynical, politically opportunist move generated by data from focus groups. End of.

Oh - I forgot to say that Labour also want to stop MPs lobbying. If you're wondering why, google "Stephen Byers cab".

As for the Tories, bless them, they've decided they want to give people the right to sack corrupt MPs. If they're so committed to that idea, why did they not vote for it when the Liberal Democrats proposed it in Parliament? They want a "mainly elected" second chamber. Oh, and they want to cut the number of MPs by 10%. That seems to be that. This is the party that had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept the devolution that Scotland and Wales desperately wanted. By their nature, they don't really want to change the old established power. Anything you hear from them on political reform is from a desire to be seen walking the walk and is only skin deep. They will reform as little as they can get away with.

As for the SNP, as far as I can see, they don't have a policy for reforming Westminster. Their 2005 manifesto (remember that snappy title If Scotland matters to you make it matter in May) is silent on these issues. I can't imagine this year's will be any different - if it's not independence they don't want to know. Yet another reason they are irrelevant in Westminster terms.

Finally, we Lib Dems are for fixed term Parliaments, real proper Single Transferable Vote which gives maximum power to voter, minimum power to party machine and will breathe new life into our political system, transparent and open party funding, giving people the right to sack corrupt MPs, a fully elected House of Lords. Thing is, when I first got involved in politics during the 1983 election, all but the sacking of corrupt MPs were our policies then. And they weren't new ideas 26 years ago. The principles of decentralisation, giving power to people, increasing the legitimacy of Parliament, stopping the Government manipulating constitutional matters to its advantage - all that is in our DNA as Liberal Democrats. Nick didn't make up these policies on the back of a fag packet after listening to a focus group - it's part of what the Liberal Democrats and predecessor parties have always stood for.

His speech today outlined these issues and again emphasised how the real choice in this election is between the Liberal Democrats and those pesky Labservatives.

He raised this issue at the last PMQs of the Parliament amidst a cacophany of catcalls, with the occasional crash of toys being thrown out of prams and the popping sound of dummies being spat out, on both Labour and Conservative benches in the Kindergarten of Commons. "You've failed. It's over. It's time to go." he said to Cameron as much as Brown. Amen to that.

The Murky World of Ashcroft, Tories, Taxes, and what about Lord Laidlaw?

I am not in the best of humours today. My mood can be best described as foul with a strong undercurrent of teary.

It does not cheer me in any way to have it confirmed that the billionaire who's given the Tories millions is, although he lives in the country, not domiciled here for tax purposes. This means that he doesn't pay UK tax on his earnings outside the UK. And while he doesn't pay tax on his earnings outside the UK, he quite happily sits in the UK Parliament and makes laws for the rest of us to follow.

I wonder if the Tories are arrogant and stupid enough to think that by Ashcroft announcing this today, the issue is just going to go away. He's only really confirmed what we all suspected anyway so I really can't see that happening. I mean, the Tories have been quite happy to shower political patronage and power on a man who doesn't pay tax on all of his income. He does this quite legally, but it's not exactly moral, is it? He's been in a position to influence matters that affect us all, yet he's not putting his fair share into the kitty.

I find Alan Johnson's reaction to Ashcroft's statement bizarre. I mean, he clearly has been a resident of Planet Earth for the past few decades, he's also been a high ranking member of the Labour Party who's been rattling Ashcroft's chain for some time. How then, can he tell the BBC that the news was "incredible" and "a bit of a bombshell." Sorry, but that sort of faux horror just doesn't wash. He then goes on to use the current political weapon of choice by describing him as "unpatriotic." What he thinks about fellow non doms, Labour donors Lord Paul and Sir Ronald Cohen is not clear. And this is a man who was being tipped to be Labour leader before he was put in the Cabinet graveyard job.

The chocolate loving Dr Pack pointed out on Twitter that

"All in all, Lord Laidlaw is getting off rather nicely in the #Ashcroft coverage. Remember his tax/donation issues

The former Irvine Laidlaw, who became a Tory peer in 2005 stopped donating to the Party which in 2008 faced questions over a convenanted loan of almost £3 million from him. Maybe someone can clarify if that's the same loan that appears here as having been converted to a donation?

Lord Laidlaw had until last year been a significant donor to the Scottish Conservative Party.

There aren't so many places in the world where residents are allowed to exempt themselves from tax on their foreign earnings. Americans will, I'm sure, laugh at us for such laxity. Barack Obama published tax returns in full for 6 years before running for President and had to undergo the indignity of been cast as a skinflint for not donating enough to charity.

Let's not forget that while the Tories have been content with the Ashcroft situation, Labour have been in power for 13 years and allowed it to continue. Again these two parties collude to maintain the status quo. They did it on any sort of meaningful expenses reform after the expenses scandal, even when Nick Clegg showed them how it could be done.

On Ashcroft, Nick said today:

"I think if you are seeking to influence the outcome of the next general election... then it is wholly wrong that you basically seek to pay taxes only partially in this country."

Chris Huhne went even further, castigating William Hague, Michael Howard and David Cameron for allowing the Tory Party to be "bought like a banana republic."

One thing that's clear today is that the Tories, and Labour for that matter, don't get why it's morally wrong to accept money in these circumstances. It all smacks of the "it was in the rules" excuses from the expenses scandal.

Our Fresh Start for Britain slogan is quite apt for the times!

The Tories and Gay Rights - by their deeds shall you know them...

Oh look, Nick Herbert, the Tory Shadow Environment Secretary is telling the Americans that the new fluffy, cuddly Tories are best friends forever with all lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people.

Gone are the days when they introduced the likes of Clause 28. Now they embrace equality in all its forms.

Aye right.

We know their record ain't that good in the dim and distant past. No point in going over that ground again. Let's just look at how much they've changed since David Cameron became leader. The best way to judge people, I find, is not on what they say, but what they do. When they've had a say in the law, for example. How have Cameron's Tory MPs who are standing again in the current election voted on gay rights, then?

One in three, including a third of their front bench spokespeople and 4 members of the Shadow Cabinet, voted against the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations in March 2007. That effectively means that a third of the front bench, who would make up a Cameron Government, and 4 members of a Cameron cabinet thinks it's just fine to turn down someone for a job, any job, simply because they're gay. The same number think it's fine not to enshrine protection from harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation into the law.

The Conservative Party opposed The Equality Bill 2008-09. Nineteen members of the Shadow Cabinet voted to block attempts at ensuring genuine equality across the board.

So, there have been two fairly recent opportunities to show the LGBT community how much they have changed and the Tories have been found wanting in every respect.

Given that the next Tory intake is likely to see a rise in the number of socially illiberal MPs, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that there could be a challenge to the gains made over the last decade or so. Sara posted the other day about how this new balance could affect the abortion laws, but hard won freedoms on gay rights could turn on the basis of a few Tory votes.

It's a very scary thought.

Cameron's Chilling Words show Tories' True Colours

It's a cold day, today, for sure. I kind of like these sunny end of January days - they kind of give you hope that the horrible dark Winter will end at some point. It always used to be around mid to end January that it would dawn on me when walking home from school in Wick that it wasn't dark anymore.

The price you pay for lovely, bright yellow sun and blue sky is that it's so, so cold. And as I write this, my husband tells there's a problem with the heating. We're in for a fun night, then.

Anyway, none of this has made me as chilled to the bone as the words that came from Conservative leader David Cameron this morning on the Politics Show.

The moment a burglar steps over your threshold......they leave their human rights outside

I mean, what cheap, populist rubbbish. If you take his words to their logical conclusion, they could be taken as an incitement to virtually anything.

Now, burglary is horrible. I have friends whose house has been done over twice in the last few years and I've seen how traumatised they were. I'm not suggesting it's soemthing that shoud go unpunished. Let's get that clear before I get any "you're soft on crime" thrown at me.

However if a burglar "leaves his human rights outside" what is Cameron giving licence to? Kicking them where it hurts? Bopping them over the head with a frying pan? Stabbing them? Calling your mates over to give them a good hiding?

I mean, if these people have no right to be treated as human beings, where do you stop?

I found it quite scary to hear such nonsense coming from somebody who thinks he's going to be Prime Minister in a few months.

It doesn't make me feel particularly safe to hear Cameron talk like this. I can only see an approach on his lines leading to more dead people, householders and burglars. I don't really think we need to change the law. The cases that have come to court have been really serious. To my mind, when Tony Martin shot a teenage burglar in the back, it was right that he should be tried for murder. The Munir Hussain case involved beating burglars up after they had left the property and nobody was in danger any longer. Yes the family went through a horrible ordeal, but the two men who beat up the burglars with a cricket bat were out of order.

I grant you that what happened to Myleene Klass was maybe a bit over the top. She was alone in the house with her baby. The intruders were outside and she waved it through the window. Like most opportunist burglars, they scarpered at the first thought of confrontation.

A handful of cases in a decade, when the only person who has been killed is a defenceless unarmed kid does not throw up for me any massive reason to change the law. As it stands, it seems to me to be sufficient in determining the rights and wrongs of the situation. Being a victim of a crime does not give you the right to do whatever you like to someone. I think that most reasonable people will see that.

I wonder, though, what's going on in Cameron's head. He knows that he's not making enough headway to secure victory for the Tories. He's tried to make himself out to compassionate and cuddly and it isn't working, so is he casting aside the sheep's clothing in the hope of getting out the core right wing vote?

THe reason the softer approach isn't working is because it isn't real and nobody buys it. We've been there before with Tony Blair. We recognise a charlatan at work when we see one.

One thing that has been mulling around in my head for a while is that the next Conservative Parliamentary Party is going to be much more Daniel Hannan than Ken Clarke. Cameron will struggle to keep that lot under control and will end up pandering to them to get legislation through.

Going back to the burglary issue, most of us will never confront a burglar in our homes. It's very rare. I know I sound a bit like Nick Ross at the end of Crimewatch, but still, he said it because it's true. We don't need a Notting Hill Branch of the NRA with David Cameron as its poster boy, airbrushed or not, thanks very much.