Former Lib Dem Leaders Will Vote Against Rise in Tuition Fees

Two former leaders of the Liberal Democrats have come out in opposition to the Browne Reports call to raise the cap on tuition fees and have said they will vote against it. Charles Kennedy Rector of Glasgow University and Sir Menzies Campbell chancellor of St. Andrews University.

"The Browne report is big and important and there is a lot in it that needs to be studied and still a lot to be discussed and debated.

"But as rector of Glasgow University, I will be standing by the NUS pledge I made on tuition fees before the general election."

The proposals could have a knock-on effect in Scotland because they could reduce finance from Westminster through the Scottish grant.

This would leave institutions north of the border facing competition from better-funded English ones and Scottish students would face the same fees regime if they followed a degree course south of the border.

Ming BBC Radio 4's World at One yesterday:

"Not only did I sign a pledge, I was photographed doing it.

"My credibility would be shot to pieces if I did anything other than stick to the promise I made.

"As for others, they must make their own judgment depending on their own circumstances."

Lord Browne’s review recommended abolishing the existing £3,290 cap on tuition fees. This would allow universities to charge as much as £14,000 a year.

The move should be accompanied with a real rate of interest on student loans, a higher threshold for loan repayments and a more generous system of grants, he said. Thus penalising twice with the extra per annum and higher repayment rates.

Telegraph Trying to Big Up a £119 Trouser Press

So the Telegraph have this morning got around to looking at Liberal Democrat MP's expenses saying that they "have made claims just as questionable as their Labour and Conservative counterparts". But as the BBC have said on BBC Breakfast none of it amounts to the kind of claims that have been seen from the other parties over recent days.

First off they make no mention of second homes outwith their constituency or Westminster base. There is no accusation of flipping for financial gain. There is no moat cleaning, stable charges, swimming pools or the like.

There is the dubious nature of the occupancy of Andrew George's flat. But claiming that the Sheffield based leader, who has a growing young family should not be allowed to claim a full second home's allowance without giving reasons (such as the above) why that hay have been the case this years. Also while they attack MPs ludicrous amounts for upgrading their house can they at the same time accuse an MP of more than 20 years from claiming significantly less for refurbishing his London flat? Indeed Menzies Campbell refurbishment is on a leased property not one that he has purchased so no personal gain then. As for £1000 for a King Size bed, if it has the most ergonomic mattress like the one I slept on during 2005 that is about right. As a 30 something ex-athlete it sure helped my aches and pains heaven knows what something like that may do for a 70 something ex-athlete.

So apart from George, Clegg and Campbell all claiming housing allowances it is then the level of 'abuses' that is far less that the other parties. We not talking the thousands of pounds that Conservatives have already promised to pay back in fact in many cases the headline price is not included probably because it isn't as exciting as the items. But £119 for a trouser press for Chris Huhne which when you are constantly living out of suitcases yet needing to be smart. Lembit Opik stupidly claiming a whole £40 for his summons for non-payment of council tax. Nick Clegg's mobile phone calls to family in Columbia and Vietnam £100.


The main worry is that the only leather rocking chair I can find find on Heal's website is in Lib Dem yellow which is fine for standing out in a crowd but surely not in Julia Goldsworthy's London flat. She should probably pay that back on the grounds of taste let alone the luxuriousness and unnessecariousness of it. Update: Although Julia has Tweeted "frustrated the papers didn't report that the furniture was bought ahead of moving into an unfurnished flat, & I didn't claim the full costs". If that is the case clearly the Telegraph are expected the MPs to live in monastic spendour in cells beneath Portcullis House. Though if that is the rocking chair in question my comments on taste still hold.

None of this, with the exception of dubious nature of the George flat and that rocking chair, is hardly as questionable as the other parties claims on numerous luxuries. However, the Lib Dems yesterday were also the first party yesterday to say that no MP would benefit financially from their expenses.

Government Start to Come Clean on Rendition

Almost three years ago Tony Blair's normally calm persona at PMQs took a serious knock when he fumbled out an answer that there was nothing new on rendition flights. Even Iain Dale was impressed with how Ming had got the then Prime Minister on the ropes.



Then the Prime Minister said there was nothing new to from the Council of Europe's report that Britain had colluded with the USA on extraordinary rendition flights.



To be fair to Tony Blair it now appears that collusion is indeed the wrong way to describe it. The Labour government appear to have actively handed over suspects to them to catch these flights. Far more than even Sir Menzies Campbell hinted at on that particular Wednesday when it was only assumed that our airspace or airfields were being used.

It's Official Ming and Tavish Backing Ros

Just announced on the I'm 4 Ros website is the news that the immediate past leader of the Lib Dems across the UK and current Scottish leader are backing Baroness Ross Scott for the post of Federal Party President.

Ming Campbell MP and Tavish Scott MSP back Ros
17 Oct 09:00

Sir Menzies Campbell MP and the newly elected Lib Dem leader, Tavish
Scott MSP have today both announced their support for Ros Scott for Federal
Party President.

Sir Menzies Campbell MP said:

"I urge every party member to look carefully at all the candidates and to
ask themselves what we want our Party President to do. I believe Ros Scott would
fulfil the role of President admirably. She has credibility, is well known in
the party, has senior political experience and is a person of good judgement."

Tavish Scott MSP said:

"This job may not feel particular relevant to members voting in Scotland -
but it is critically important who does this job for us. Ros has pledged to
listen and feedback- to ensure the Party in Westminster doesn't lose touch with
the party at large. I would like the reassurance of working with someone whose
instincts I trust, whose experience I value, and who I know is a good friend to
the Scottish Liberal Democrats."

Is Ming Attempting to Rough Shod Democracy?

We are the Scottish Liberal Democrats. Following May last year we took a lambasting from the Nats because the party with the largest mandate at Holyrood backed a referendum and we refused to enter talks with them about issues we may have agreed on simply, seemingly because they did.

Now it appears that Menzies Campbell is saying that no matter what the Scottish Conference of members may decide on the question of having a referendum, the 16 MSPs should no matter what not vote for a democratic referendum.

There are two issues that our conference needs to debate against the changing political landscape. The first is whether we should allow the people of Scotland to have a democratic say in the future of Scotland, the second is should we back independence. The second issue I'm pretty sure that my fellow Scottish Liberal Democrats will say a resounding, though not unanimous, no to. The first however, should really be a fundamental of our principles and despite some of the leadership being scared of facing the possibility when have we ever shirked from other tough calls in the past.

Now I'm a little worried with the way the party leadership appears to be trying to take the party over the last wee. First Nick Clegg mentioned scaling down the committee structure of the party and now his predecessor is advocating that the MSPs should ignore the democratic vote of the membership should it not go the way of the leadership.

Policy Committee doesn't always get it's own way at Scottish conference, not because it hasn't come up with policies, but because sometimes their policies have ignored some issue out there in the wider Scotland that the root and branch membership feel that the solution that has been come up with is wrong. In those situation often an amendment comes it to make the necessary correction or occasion replace the whole motion or the motion is rejected. This is not a bad thing indeed it is one of the things that drew me in and keeps me within our party. If the leadership don't agree with a certain proposal they have to muck and give firm reasons why and win the debate and hearts of the membership. If they then go and ride rough shod over democracy there is likely to me mutiny in the ranks.

Ross Finnie in the leadership elections has not ruled out the possibility of the party backing a referendum following a full debate, Mike Rumbles has promised that this debate would take place at next Spring's conference. Two very democratic and open minded views. We haven't had such a debate since the 1990s and the landscape has changed. No longer is it abstract but now somewhat more focused, it is high time the party reassessed its view on allowing a referendum on the question, even if we don't back the ultimate outcome desired by those who want to ask the question.

But in liberal democracy 16 should never be allowed to ignore the majority view of the 4,000 members who help put them and keep them in place in the seats they represent.

Hattip to Stephen Tall @ Lib Dem Voice

End of Conference

Well that is that for another year, the TV crews will move on to Manchester next week to cover Labour then on to the Conservatives. Another Federal Lib Dem conference has finished.

It was a solid conference making progress on a number of key issues. The press as usual got all pent up about the possibility that the rank and file members might o against the leadership, because ours is the only conference that offers such democracy. In the end some of the press have already started attacking us for not going against the leadership or misunderstood than certain failed ammendments were in addition not instead of policy that was eventually agreed.

Anyway, the hoardes will be winding their way back from Brighton after a good speech from Ming, I have to admit it was a stirring as the last leader's speech I heard from the hall, but then that was on the eve of the General Election. However, he started strong with the comment that an oak tree takes 50 years from planting to create fruit, Tory image makers didn't take note of that. At the current rate as Ming said later on it might be a miracle if we hear of any new Tory policy by the end of that time.

It is also ironic as Ming mentioned that the latest hurricane that is inflicting damage this side of the Atlantic is called Gordon. Did Tony ask George to get his meterologists to name it that in the hope that the 7th tropical storm of this season might end up battering the British Isles on the eve of his final conference?

I'm proud of what the Liberal Democrats have done at this conference. It is a good stepping stone onward to better and greater things, I'm sure as Charles Kennedy said on Tuesday 'the best is yet to come' but the strides taken this week are taking us there.

The Press on Lib Dem Tax Proposals

The broadsheet press were setting Sir Menzies Campbell up for a lambasting if he failed to get his tax proposals unamemnded at conference yesterday. This morning did they let Ming delight in the victory, not a change mainly they largely attempted to clutch a defeat story from the clutches of victory.

A quick scan of this mornings papers shows that the political editors obviously see the Liberal Democrat tax plans only on how they affect their own pockets. Most of them either ignored or buried the benfits that these radical redistributive taxes brought to the most needy in society.

The Times had a strapline in the side bar saying Lib Dems vote for higher tax plan, which is not true for the majority of people. And their article is headlined Plans to Squeeze the wealthy is victory for leadership. Heaven know what they would have written if the 50p tax rate had been retained as well. It takes a full 18 paragraphs of the article before they even start to mention the benefits of the tax proposals to the vast majority of the population.

The Torygraph leads with 'Green' Liberal Democrats target wealthy Start by mention the top 2 million being worse off and not the bottom 2 million being lifted out of income tax. Only the very last phrase mentions those who benefit from the policy 'his [Ming Campbell's] determination to redistribute wealth in favour of the disadvantaged in society.'

The Grauniad does give a blanced view in their article however, again the article starts mentioning potential tensions. However, they do have a list of key proposals at the end as a summary.

Only the Independent starts with the good news and stays upbeat throughout. But strangely the article has Labour quoted as attacking us by attacking the poorer end. Labour obviously want to ignore the fact that the poorest will benefit from tax cuts, increased threasholds and will not be affected as greatly by environmental taxes as they don't buy new cars and are not the greatest users of airlines.

Ming Versus Sir Humphrey

What is it with the press that they have the obsession with a fictional senior Civil Servant?

I was watching with trepidation as the Tax Debate unfolded in Brighton. There were people I would position myself alongside speaking against and for amendment 3 (the retention of the 50p upper tax rate). It was a typical civilised debate by a party that allows its members freedom of expression in policy decision making. You would have thought the media would have got the hang of that with us by now. But no they were still obsessing that accempting any ammendment would be a slur on the leadership. How can following a democratic agenda be a slur on the leader of party with the name Democrats taking up half the party name?

If I had been there and been called to speak I would have echoed one of the speakers who was an accounted by starting:

There is an old addage that where more than one economist in a room you will have their number plus one ideas in the room. Well today that is not true with this economist Vince.

While as someone did state if our Green Tax Switch Proposals do have the desired result they will reduce the revenue raised as a result of the change in lifestyle they encourage. That is a bridge that a trust a Liberal Democrat Chancellor of the Exchequer will be more than capable of meeting when he is present at No. 11 having implemented these proposals.

But in this mornings papers and immediately after the policy was passed without amendment I was flicking through both Sky News and BBC News 24, conveniently placed on freeview and they both saying that Sir Humphrey Appleby would be ridiculing these as radical. No doubt he would but he does not exist?

I'm sure that previous premanent secretaries have said to Liberal Minsters you can't abolish slavery, you can't introduce an old age pension etc to many of our radical proposals. I'm gald that the historically radical party is still thinking outside the box. For the good of the poor people that Labour have failed to help. For the good of the planet which both Labour and Tories are currently only failing with their stance of rhetoric alone.

As for the Civil Servants as a former one myself I know that many of them actually enjoy a challenge. Admittedly my personal experience was at the initial period of devolved government in Northern Ireland but my colleagues thrived on being the chance to try new things then. While the civil servants may point out what is not achieveable they also will give their all to succeed.

Sir Humphrey doesn't stand a chance against a fair, simple, green tax system that is bound to engage the populace at large.

Ming on the Middle East

Sir Menzies Campbell in today's Guardian offers a voice of reason to George W. Bush's posturing.

How can the leader of the free world say that OK you can carry on for a week but after that we'll need to look at it again, when he himself is weilding his might in Iraq, Afghanistan and threathening others with force? Looks like Syria is now on Bush's radar along with Iran and North Korea.

In added his voice to UN Calls for a ceasefire Ming is evenhanded in apportioning blame for the latest eruption of violence:

The indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israel by Hezbollah is wholly unacceptable, as is the targeted destruction of the infrastructure of Lebanon by the Israeli Government.

Yet while he recognises that Isreal has a right 'to live in peace within recognised and secure borders' he is saying that people in authority including the Foriegn Secretary are not doing enough to condone the disproportionate action being taken.

While Isreal has taken illegal military action, Hamas and Hezbollah equally are detailing Isrealis without authority. Ming also quite rightly points out that all this unrest in the region is liable only to strengthen the militants which in the long term will only make Isreal feel even more insecure.

Sadly neither Bush nor the UK Government seem prepared to point out to Isreal that if they are looking for peace they have to be actively seeking it rather than hoping for it to emmerge from the embers and rubble. Ming sums this up in his conclusion:

The priority must be to ensure an immediate ceasefire. It is only once a ceasefire has been delivered that we can look towards solutions. Long-term solutions should be delivered through a regional conference...that engages all the states in the region.

So Tony What is Changing?

Much as I'd like to think Sir Menzies Campbell read my blog this morning and aimed his question at PMQs today based on that, I doubt it. After all he did speak on the subject yesterday to a group of businessmen.

However, Ming added a new twist which must have made the fading shade of green Chameleon shirk in his seat across the ailse as he asked something that David William Donald Cameron wouldn't dare to test his party's green credibility. What Ming asked was what had changed since 2003 when an energy review criticised the option of new nuclear power stations on the grounds of cost and waste.

Mr Blair's response was that a balance of new sources of power was needed (is this a climb down from his over reliance on nucleur) and also that the technology of nuclear power was also changing. It may be changing Prime Minister but the issues of cost and waste have not yet been address. As the Prime Minster said 'also' this must mean that he acknowledges that other low-carbon energy production methods are also changing. They are becoming more economical, less wasteful of what is produced and more with greater efficiency.

At the moment Blair with his push for more nucleur no matter what the costs or effects is setting him up for an Arnie Vinnick type nightmare some time hence.

Ming Flying High

Ok the BBC, Rob Renwick and even Iain Dale all agree that Sir Menzies Campbell had a good PMQs today.

He asked the Prime Minster about rendition flights using the USA in light of the latest report from the Council of Europe which has claimed the UK has colluded in CIA rendition flights. Tony Blair was clearly flustered and gave an non-commital answer saying that the report added nothing new.

However, the report does conclude that there was a "spider's web" of flights criss-crossed Europe and mentions two new locations of secret jails Poland and Romania.

Mike Gapes, chairman of the Commons foreign affairs select committee, and Labour MP for Ilford South said the report contained little new information. So either the chair of the Foreign affairs select committee is right that there is some new information of the Labour member for Sedgefield is right that there is nothing new, when he answered the question earlier. Both cannot be right.

Scottish Hustings Pulls In The Crowds

The start of the Scottish Hustings in the Liberal Democrat leadership contest at Dynamic Earth, Edinburgh got off to a delayed start this afternoon. This was not due to any of the candidates turning up late all of them were present in the hall in plenty of time, no the reason was that approx 530 Scottish members turned up, out of a membership of 4200 what about 1/8th of all members. In deed an MEP, MP, MSPs and councillors were either left standing at the back of the hall of forced to retire to the hastily arranged overflow room elsewhere.

The contenders were drawn to speak in alphabetical order before having to whizz of to the secondary meeting to give the same opening remarks again. I forgot to take a pen so I am writing from memory.

Sir Menzies Campbell started with local Scottish anecdotes, tried to name check as many Scottish members as possible but laid out his stand on liberty, the environment (although through the afternoon he referred far too often to his Jag) and how he had to campaign hard to win NE Fife. He also reiterated the point that he does not want to set a deadline for troop withdrawal despite this not being his opinion this time last year. The fact that he has again stressed this point when I have heard him say otherwise in the flesh is something I don't like about his current quest for leadership. at this point he lost any chance I had of giving him my second preference.

Simon was next up and started by emphasising the importance that Scotland had led the way. Our strong general election result moving into second place in Scotland. That we had shown the way we can be trusted in power through what we had achieved through Holyrood and that we will be making another change with Proportional Representation for local government next May. He stressed his human rights and environmental background. The fact that he grew up in rural constituencies and chose to work in inner city ones. Stressing that unfairness existed in both. Land Value Taxation was supported in throwaway line which people not au fait with this policy could easily have missed.

Chris Huhne gave a very good, very sound speech but it was more like an economics lecture than a hustings stump. However, he started by mentioning Dunfermline, of course this raised the roof, at least where I was sitting in front of some of the newest members to acquire a Lib Dem MP. Fortunately Gordon Brown was not amongst them. He stressed his involvement in the bread and butter areas of policy he has helped to shape through the years. Chris earned a big round of applause when he made no apology for being a Europhile. However, as other bloggers had mentioned he did attempt to mention as much as possible his experience in business and journalism and Europe.

The time for questions was limited, due to the excessive turnout, and didn't really get into any potentially divisive issues. The only possible spilt was over the question of how to attract more young people into the party. Chris answering first referred to the fact the we had the youngest MPs, all women, in England, Wales and Scotland. Ming going next said that he would gratuitously mention that all three were backing him. While Simon picked up the youth cultural reference in the question and using it and other references in his answer. In other words I know the party attracts young people, young people are attracted to me and I can speak the language of te young people.

All in all if all I was going on was this afternoon's performance I would have no difficulty in picking any of them as a leader with ideas and vision. My problems with them were Ming had home field advantage, he did try and utilise this but it wasn't enough to convince me. As I've said earlier I'd heard the change in Mings stance on scheduling a withdrawal, now he appears to be in denial. Chris gave a very sound performance but then I'm a fellow economist. I'd heard him try and expound land valuation tax and it didn't connect at a normal level. Which leads to Simon, he gave the simplest explanation of LVT I have ever heard. I was sitting in a largely hostile section of the audience and he was getting fair comments from those around me. He conveyed more passion than the others. Although as he sometimes does extrapolated and extended the ending a little to long. I think I was ready to finally applaud his opening remarks on 4 separate occasions before another sub clause was thrown in.

Afterwards Ming left first and Simon and Chris were still talking to departing members for a while after he had left.

My first preference will be going to Simon with Chris second and Ming third.

Mind you the biggest and only standing ovation of the afternoon went to Willie Rennie MP, and yes us Scots are still smiling about having him at Westminster.

How Important is Your Leadership Vote?

Earlier today when Barrie Wood posted that our voters wanted Simon Hughes as leader it sparked the following response from Jock Coats that our voters don't get a vote in the leadership election. This is a valid point. However, that makes the decision of us political anoraks and insiders all the more important.

One thing we all agree on is that we want to see our party make real progress in future elections. To do that we need someone who is able to quickly convey our party ideology and emphasis in the short sound bite attention span of the modern media. Therefore while Chris Huhne is a brilliant mind he takes to long to wamr up in all the debates I've seen to get his message across. Anyway the people who get our message across in most depth are the actual candidates on the doorstep answering hte particular inquiries of the electors they meet.

Most of us activists actually miss the media converage of the election campaign because usually we are out in our constituencies getting hte message across the hard way to people on their doorsteps. However, there is very little discussion of policy on the television what there is is reduced to sound bite sized chunks and then a focus on where the leaders were for the day.

Therefore while Chris is excellent at coming up with ideas is he able to convey those in the short time that the media will allow him, if leader, at the next general election. I'm not sure.

Of the other two candiates who is able to give a piffy one liner that sums up our ethos on a event, news story or policy? As leader, and come to guy of the press core, this is what they will end up doing on a daily basis. Simon definitely has that skill in abundance.

Maybe some of us are thinking too intellectually about who can lead our policy forward and not looking at who can present it. After all it is the party as a whole that leads our policy forward. There is nothing wrong with Chris Huhne presenting a policy at conference when he'd have more time than the rest of us with our 4 or 3 minute allotment.

The leader is the public face of the party, the person they connect to. We have a lot of deep thinkers in the party machine I wouldn't want all of them to be our top target seat candidates as some of them lack the people skils to be a constituency working and listening MP, however I do love to hear some of these people contributions on conference debates. They can sometimes pour new light on something that seemed so straight forward before.

If I was to look at the three candidates objectively as someone outside the party machine; as someone who lends us they support come election time but no more, or even as someone who is thinking of voting for us for the first time. Who would I be most likely to vote if I only saw them on TV, only had a brief second of their time during a target seat walkabout? Undoubtedly my answer would be Simon Hughes as he would enthuse Liberal Democracy at me in that fleeting moment.

I've still to finalise where my second preference is to go. No doubt I will make up my mind after the Scottish Hustings on Sunday.

Who Are Last Years PPC's Backing?

So everyone knows who the Mps are backing what about the other candidates who stood shoulder to shoulder with those who got elected. After all if we are to move on as a party some of these people are going to be in Westminster next time around and will want to have a leader they can trust to firstly get them there and then work with in the Commons.

The three leadership websites list the opinions of 191 of our PPCs from May last year.

Sir Menzies Campbell has 72 backing him for 37.7%

Simon Hughes has 60 - 31.4%

Chris Huhne has 59 - 30.8%

So while Ming has a slight advantage is this group it would be all to play for in the race to reach the second round. However, from what I am picking up the majority of Hughes or Huhne voters are looking at not putting Ming as their second preference so it really is anybody's race on these stats.

A Leader Who Will Listen

The Liberal Democrats are a democratic political party. It is our party conference that decides policy and each member of the party has an equal say in the leader of our party. Therefore the views of the membership are not something to be taken lightly.

The members of the party want as much information about the leadership candidates as possible before making up their mind. Not every member attends conference and therefore has like me seen each of the candidates in action on a number of occasions up close. Not every member has worked in a target seat and two by-elections in recent history to see the attitudes of the candidates when the party is doing all it can to win seats.

Therefore hustings are an important way for many ordinary members of the party to gauge which leader is right for the party. Many hustings events are springing up all over the country but not all are gathering all three candidates to give the attendees a balanced view. Also not all members are able to reach one of the hustings events either due to distance or possibly due to prior engagements.

Simon Hughes has promised to attend as many of the hustings meetings as possible in the coming weeks and already shown that this is what he is going to do. He has also set up an e-hustings on his website where members can ask him questions. Simon is only candidate to use the Internet in this way, allowing the every day folk to get the answers to their questions.

I wrote earlier last month that the reason I finally realised that Charles Kennedy could no longer sustain his leadership was that while he had support in the country he had lost the support of his fellow MPs. Sir Menzies Campbell is starting to have the adverse situation, a lot of the young MPs have signed up to his campaign yet Ming is not attending far more of the hustings events than other candidates. The party needs someone that they know cares for them by not giving them a chance to see you without just cause they feel remote.

I've said all along that the number one reason I am backing Simon Hughes for leader is that he is best able to lead the party as a whole and be the greatest electoral asset at the next and subsequent elections or those standing. His attitude to the party and his willingness to engage with us shows that he really is the only choice that the party can make.

The Prime Ministerial Voice

Ok so I was watching The West Wing repeat, Freedonia, on More 4 last night and Amy Gardner was preparing Santos for debate and telling him he was lacking the Presidential voice.

In light of our four candidates’ performances on Saturday morning do any of them have a Prime Ministerial voice. The real test will undoubtedly be on the doorsteps in 3-4 years when our Parliamentary candidates, hopefully including myself, are standing on people’s doorsteps asking them to vote Liberal Democrat.

So what do the grass root activists and the general public expect in a Prime Ministerial voice? Surely it goes a lot further than merely the voice. The voice needs to demand authority, trust and respect, but at the same time this has to be backed up with actions. So it is not so much a Prime Ministerial voice but a whole persona we are looking for. Each of the four candidates has something of the Prime Minister about them, after all you don’t get elected to Parliament especially in a seat which the party did not hold if they didn’t. This applies to most of the candidates as only Chris Huhne has succeeded in a held Lib Dem seat.

So maybe we should all be looking three years down the line when we are once again out almost every night on doorsteps talking to the non-Liberal democrats we meet. Imagine you are trying to convince them that we are the real alternative, that we are going to form the next government. Who do you want to be heading up that message?

Of course as Josh Lyman later reminded us you have to be elected President (Prime Minster) to be able to use the Presidential (Prime Ministerial) voice. So lets go out then and look at ensuring we have a Lib Dem who will use the Prime Ministerial voice, persona and wear it well.