Today's Guardian contains a very thought provoking article by Larry Elliott and Dan Atkinson, that argues, much like Will Hutton's The State We're In, that unaccountable elite stateless bankers are destroying the fabric of our society.

Elliott and Atkinson want to fight back, however, and this is their plan:

"None of this will be easy. Some of it may involve abrogating Britain's signature to various international agreements, not least the various European treaties. Nor does much of this New Populism appear to be immediately in prospect, despite the darkening clouds over the world economy. It could move rapidly on to the agenda should the crisis worsen markedly, but it is also possible that it will take time to piece together a Populist coalition.

We have touched already on some of the elements that might join such an alliance: small business people and farmers (if there are any left); independent professionals and shopkeepers. Then there are those filling the basic supervisory roles that ought to be the backbone of society: railway station managers and their equivalents in bus depots and motorway service stations, police sergeants, prison officers, high-street store managers, noncommissioned officers in the forces and similar. We would seek to add two significant blocks of members: manufacturing and export businesses and trade union members. Industry and those working in it have been the biggest losers from the Olympian experiment as productive capacity has been destroyed and millions of manufacturing jobs wiped out. Those owning, running and working in industry know better than anyone the virulence with which New Olympianism has blighted the economy. Both union members and managers have much to gain from a more sensible attitude to industry."

There are areas of their argument that touch on Liberal values, but the sort of coalition described above contains many elements that would never see themselves as Liberal in a million years. So good politics for us?

Less than a day into the job, Nick Clegg is doubtless receiving plenty of advice, but he's unlikely to receive much better than this from James Graham:

In particular, Clegg needs to hit the road, catch a dose of initiativitis and take steps to ensure that even if the national media choose to ignore what he has to say, he is using every tool at his disposal to ensure that it comes across anyway.

But, as if to underline the scale of the challenge, the comments in reply to the post show that Nick is going to have to overcome considerable scepticism, even cynicism:

So out of the two white, westminster public school educated, right wing candidates, it was bosses' man, pro-privatisation, anti-union Clegg that won. At least big business and the rich will be happy and feel safe. - Nihon

Who knows, with a hung parliament they could swing the vote one way or the other and make a real difference. But if they are NL in pale orange ties, who's going to bother voting for them? - WillDuff

Now we have right wing Tory, centre-right Lib Dem and NuLab, and half the country are disenfranchised. This is a bad day for representative democracy for vast swathes of the population are unrepresented. I don't know where to turn. - Howie

Now, as a Lib Dem I obviously disagree with the sentiment of these commenters - that there's nothing much different between the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Conservatives. But this is a truism; if I did believe that, I wouldn't be posting here. The interesting question is "why do other people believe it?".

Some people probably just are cynics. They're happiest lambasting all sides and no amount of persuasion is going to make a difference. But the majority of people are not like that, and therefore we must accept that their view of the Lib Dems as "just another political party" is genuinely held. Nick Clegg's challenge is to overcome this.

What I'd like to see from Nick is some of the radicalism that was talked about during the leadership campaign. Nick can learn from Chris Huhne's boldness, and if he can ally that with his natural instinct for framing issues in human terms, he will be in possession of genuine political dynamite. And nothing less than dynamite will unseat the two-party consensus that dominates Britain today. I can only speak for myself, but I think that the core message of liberty is a powerful one and a radical one in today's political environment. If Nick can make people see how this will affect them, he can win new converts to the party and its cause. Can we explain to people that liberty isn't just an abstract idea, but something that will give them new power in their own lives?

Above all, Nick needs to demonstrate that there is something real behind all of this. We already have genuinely radical policies which the other parties would never emulate, but we need to make people believe it, in their guts as much as their heads. And, perhaps, we might need more such policies. I hate to talk about policy so much, simply because 'policy' bores most people, even the politically aware. But policies are nothing other than principles given expression, and people can only make sense of our message when our policies and principles are aligned. Perhaps we have to be bolder in all areas if we are to make this connection clear.

One of the most frustrating things about reading criticism of the Lib Dems for being too timid or too similar to the other parties is that I know how many people in the party are here precisely because it's the only place that will give them the space to explore radical ideas. The intellectual life of the party remains vibrant; bloggers like Joe Otten and Jock Coats have been exploring the policies and principles of the liberal tradition for a long time now. Yet on forums like Comment is Free, people still regularly accuse the Lib Dems of lacking vision, radicalism and distinctiveness.

Nick Clegg isn't going to find it easy. There are plenty of people who don't want to give him a fair hearing. He needs to deliver the goods, in presentation, policy and principles. Anything less than this will be a failure. But he's got a chance, and, despite the narrowness of the result, he has a party behind him which believes in those principles and is impatient to see them play a larger role in British political life. It's a chance, and he's got the best opportunity to take it that any liberal leader has had for 80 years.

Some time in January 2006, the OKCupid Politics Test was temporarily popular in the Lib Dem blogosphere. I took the test then, and was given a rating of 78% 'Social Liberal' and 76% 'Economic Conservative', combining to form a designation of 'libertarian'.

Curious to see if my results had changed, I've just taken the test again, with the following result:

Your true political self:
You are a
Social Liberal
(80% permissive)
and an...
Economic Conservative
(73% permissive)
You are best described as a: Libertarian (73e/80s)
You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.

So, not much change - slightly more 'socially liberal', slightly less 'economically conservative', but probably well within the margin of error, whatever that is for a test like this.

I am obliged to note here that the use of the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' is consistent with the American usage, and not necessarily with the European and British. I don't argue with the use of the term 'social liberal', as here it represents a belief in personal freedom on issues such as religion, race, political belief and so on. But where this test says 'economic conservative', it means 'opposed to government regulation', with 'economic liberal' paradoxically meaning 'in favour of government regulation'. I cannot reiterate the point often enough: being opposed to excessive interference from government does not make one a 'conservative' in any circumstance. For anyone interested in the history of the confusion between conservatism and liberalism, this essay may prove illuminating.

Given that it has been nearly two years since the test did the rounds of the Lib Dem blogosphere and given the many interesting new additions since then, it might be fun to see how everyone else scores on the test, with the old Peter Snow caveat that it's "all just a bit of fun"!

Britain today is at a crossroads. The ideological foment of the 20th century has given way to an uneasy consensus, with no obvious way forward. Government does more than ever before, but provides less accountability for its actions and little thought seems to be given to the long-term consequences.

We now face a stark choice: do we want to continue with ever-greater encroachment on the lives of private citizens, ever more information being gathered on our movements, actions, words and thoughts? Or do we want to be a free country, promoting the values of fairness, tolerance and trust?

Under Blair, Britain has been governed as though it were a huge open prison. House arrest, DNA databases, ID cards, double the length of detention without charge - we liberals know the litany of illiberal legislation that has become the defining feature of New Labour. Thuggish illiberalism seems to have become almost a reflex for some within New Labour, applied apparently without consideration of anything more than keeping the tabloids at bay. But a law is for life, not just for tomorrow's headline and Tony Blair's legacy is to be a dangerous collection of legislation that has progressively accelerated the decline in trust between the electorate and politicians; accelerated the decline of voluntary civil society; fundamentally altered the relationship between citizen and state.

Gordon Brown has been at great pains to wrap himself in the flag and to talk up the notion of 'Britishness'; in his farewell speech Tony Blair described Britain as the 'greatest' country in the world. Both of these miss the point: greatness is not something you own, it's something you achieve. Do we really want our national achievement to be the record for the most CCTV cameras for the fewest people? Can we rightly feel proud of a government that seeks to belittle its citizens at every turn? If Blair and Brown really believed in the greatness of the British people, they would start by trusting them more.

This choice is of fundamental importance, and the path we take really does matter. Liberty is fragile, and will not withstand another ten years of constant erosion. Liberal Democrats must stand up for the positive virtues of a free Britain, where people are respected as free citizens, not potential suspects to be monitored; where imprisonment is reserved for those who have committed a crime, not those who happen to fit a 'profile' and where all citizens are free to carry on their lawful business without harassment.

There is much more to our vision of Britain than this, but the fundamental values of liberty are the foundation upon which everything else is built. We must defend these values, and be prepared to fight those who, whatever their intentions, seek to diminish them.

One of the most obvious things one can say about the present government is that they have increased public spending. From low (by 20th century standards) levels in 1997, public spending has increased substantially under Gordon Brown's Chancellorship. It was always obvious that taxes would have to rise in order to pay for this, and that was part of the implicit bargain New Labour made with the electorate. But has this actually led to a fairer society?

Chris Dillow has pointed out some evidence that it has not: look closely at the table on page 7 of this PDF and you will see that the poorest quintile of the population are paying 36.4% of their income in tax, whilst the richest pay only 35.5%. Let me reiterate: the poorest in Britain pay a higher proportion of their income in tax than the richest, according to the government's own statistics.

This is an outrageous situation for a supposedly progressive government to have created. And it's not as if Gordon Brown's latest Budget did anything to reverse the trend; the abolition of the 10p starting rate of income tax will hit the poorest most of all. Increasing focus on environmental taxation also hits the poor, which is why the Lib Dems advocated a substantial increase in the personal allowance as part of the 'Green Tax Switch' proposal. Green taxes raise more revenue for the government, and a responsible government should make sure that the poorest in society are properly protected from these taxes by equivalent cuts in taxes that they pay.

Of course, Gordon Brown would respond that the poor are helped by tax credits. But the tax credit scheme itself is descending into farce, the latest fiasco being the revelation that the total overpayments made by the scheme since its inception has reached £9bn. At heart, tax credits are actually a good idea, but their implementation bears all of the hallmarks of New Labour's greatest mistakes: an intrinsically good idea has been badly implemented due to over-complication and a reliance on the ability to process lots of complicated and variable information. Overpayments happen when a person claims tax credits when their income is low, then does not cancel their claim when their income rises. For the poor, whose income is very volatile, even from month to month, it is almost impossible to put in an accurate claim for tax credits. They are left with a choice between claiming and hoping that they get to keep what they receive, or not claiming at all; some 2 million potential tax credit claimants opt for the latter.

It has been common for commentators to give Gordon Brown a relatively easy ride over the last 10 years. The economy hasn't collapsed under his stewardship and there has long been a sense that we wouldn't see the best of Gordon Brown until Tony Blair has made way for him at Number 10. But the evidence is mounting that Brown has done very little to help those most in need in society and that, for all of the money spent, we have not seen the improvement in public services that we might expect. It is time for the Liberal Democrats to become much more robust in attacking Gordon Brown's mistakes, and exposing the genuinely outrageous aspects of the tax system we have today. The Conservatives seem to be embracing almost every aspect of the Blair-Brown project; it's up to us to provide the alternative.

Recently I have engaged in some email communication, as a result of a residents' survey, with a verywell-informed and thoughtful member of the electorate. This person has shared with my constituency party some innovative ideas for improving our locality that we hope to give wider publicity, especially if we increase our representation after the elections in May. She also set all politicians a challenge:

Sadly, I feel that politics has become an ego-boosting game when it comes to governing the country and it seems that only if is good for their Party are policies put into place. Fire fighting is the name of the game …

I wonder if I asked any member of the political parties whether they could immediately answer the following question: How do you want the United Kingdom to look in 10-20 years time?

My view is if they have not got a Clear Long Term Vision and plans on how to put that vision into place (everyone in the party from the cleaners to the top should know it and start implementing it in their daily life), how can they get somewhere? They will be wandering with the wind, pushed by other countries (US, EU). I have not voted for the President of the US , nor for any other countries’ leaders (or Tony Blair) but we have to sit and swallow what they give us and see this potentially great country go down the pan.

The reason why I am happy to share my ideas is that as there is a lack of general leadership with a clear vision, actions can only be taken from the grass roots, i.e. in the local community. If we can get a clear long term vision for our locality and a strategy that goes with it, suitable for the 21st and 22nd Century, we can become a model town, a place where people want to come and look and ask how we have done it. An example to follow!

What example can we follow now?

This struck a chord with me; especially as a couple of days earlier I had read Cicero's piece Liberals and anti-Liberals. The resemblance between the main points of his article, and the challenge of this letter is uncanny:

British politics is changing.

Traditional party politics is in long term decline.

Politicians have promised too much and delivered too little. Partly, this is because it is simply not possible for the political process to deliver the kind of outcomes that politicians and their voters expect. Disillusion and apathy are the order of the day- and political pragmatism has declined into the pursuit of power above any other interest. Many politicians will say- "of course it must be power above all else, otherwise how could we actually make any difference at all". The problem, though, is that power is concentrated in the hands of so few and is so jealously guarded that by the time that anyone gets close to the top they have forgotten what they wanted to change in the first place.

This concentration of power - economic as well as political - has reduced the power of the individual to impotence. Huge administrative bureaucracies, in almost every field, have acquired enormous powers to control. As people have lost control over their own lives they have given up on responsibility.

I wasn't sure of my correspondent's political views (I suspect she is non-aligned, but I thought she would be interested to read the thoughts of one of the most robust Liberals I know. Her response to me was telling:

I have read it and like you thought, I strongly agree. The frustrating bit is, that if this is truly what the Liberal Party stands for, it has not come through very well to either me or my husband (and possibly to other people too).

If I had any left, this would have me tearing my hair out. Especially given the recent coverage of Gordon's "5 Tests".

If anyone with any influence is reading - forget Gordon. We should be setting out our own 5 Liberal Principles, and proclaiming them loudly from the bottom to the top of the party, till even our lazy media begins to take notice.

Update: my colleague Peter's report of Paddy's article in the Yorkshire Post will do for starters:

In a nutshell, liberals believe in individual freedom, accountable government, the dispersion of political power, social justice, the rule of law, the free exchange of opinions and goods, and the protection of the natural environment.

Is David Cameron in trouble? Well, some might argue that with a poll position of 38% as reported in yesterday's You Gov, we'd be lucky to have his troubles. The difficulty for the Conservative leader is that his polling position, which has been largely stable now for many months, is not enough for him to win an absolute majority.

The contrast with the Lib Dems is that we are relaxed about such a position. But in the winner-takes-all Tory mentality, it isn't good enough. Especially when you consider the Horlicks that New Labour is making for itself in almost any direction you care to mention. Why, when there are so many apparent open goals, is the Tory leader firing blanks?

In yesterday's Telegraph, the lead article was titled Cameron must now move quickly. It is a call, made sotto voce compared to many of that paper's recent diatribes, but a call none the less, for Cameron to put some right-wing flesh on the bones of his touchy-feely proposals. As it says:

But the task is not yet complete, and we need Mr Cameron to move quickly to the next stage of his political development. Even if the Government's torpor continues indefinitely, the public will still demand reasons to vote for the Tories as well as against Labour. Mr Cameron should start to reveal more of his private political passions to a public crying out for trustworthy, energetic, and above all different, political leadership.

The comments below the piece are much more forthright, this from Vandiemen being typical:

I sense a note of desperation in this piece. Having firmly sided with Cameron even the DT has tuned into the rumblings of discontent. Is it not better to have the courage to say that you've got it wrong?
And to all those who believe that Dave is playing a canny game & keeping his powder dry, please explain what incentive he will have to take on board any of the concerns of the Tory core voters once he's in power. What you see is I suspect what you get.

Elsewhere, in the Guardian today, Max Hastings argues that Britain is now a Social Democratic country. As a result of this, Cameron is looking to copy Blair's Big Tent approach and also take on board the lessons of the 2005 election:

The Cameron camp's strategy is much influenced by polling during and after the last election. This showed that Michael Howard's articulation of specific policy points, some identified by Cameron himself in his earlier incarnation as Howard's adviser, made no impact whatever. Few voters could identify any expressed Tory position. Their ballot-box decisions were influenced entirely by perceptions of the party leaders.

Cameron and his people believe this is how the next election will be. Policy commitments offer hostages to Labour and the media for no electoral advantage. Yesterday he belatedly declared that he would support the government's gay adoption measure if no compromise could be contrived, because the alternative was to throw away the fruits of his sustained charm offensive towards gays and liberals. He would plainly have preferred, however, to stay on the fence where he sat last week.

Someone ought to tell Cameron that if you sit on the fence, you get shot at from both sides and splinters in your ar5e!

But the problem for Cameron is that his own party aren't like the Labour party which, in any case, took some ten years to effect its full transformation. They are far more ruthless, as Hastings acknowledges:

His refusal to attack the government on a wide range of issues - Iraq, the NHS, most recently gay adoption - rouse restlessness, indeed hostility. His perceived wetness - not in the Thatcherite use of the word to denote a leftist Tory, but in the schoolboy sense of lacking fire in the belly - is widely canvassed.

The danger is there for Cameron. Perhaps it is best to let another activist "Tory Boy" from todays thread on Political Betting have the last word:

What some “on the right of the party” would I’m sure come straight back at you with is that as they have spent their entire lives fighting against (as they see it)liberal leaning administrations that doesn’t say, think or act in accordance with their own views, beliefs and wishes, then why on earth should they vote for one now masquerading under n a pale blue banner.

I don’t see it that starkly and continue to hope against hope that some accomodation can be reached between the two points of view before things reach that critical breaking point.

With the management seemingly still determined to force a ‘Clause 4′ moment with the ‘right’ the chances don’t however look good.

The arrogance of some devotees to the NuCam project in expecting blind adherence from the entire membership to a foreign and unwelcome agenda remains breathtaking.

Until all concerned get it into their heads that we do have minds of our own and are not going to meekly be driven to where we don’t want to go, internally at least, things will remain tense.

If Conservative ratings in the polls begin to slide and the entire project is seen to have been for nothing, God help us all.

Returning from a couple of days abroad, I found a message pointing out that the relevant PMQ clip was available on YouTube.

It is well worth watching. For me, the passion of Ming's rejoinder to Blair's answer lifts it well above the ordinary. Great stuff

ConservativeHome are discussing the idea of a Lib Dem coalition. My two favourite quotes from the comments:

What's the fuss? I know the Lib Dems are a bit right wing compared to us these days, but it would still be a coalition of two largely like-minded left wing parties. Worth the sacrifices to keep out those right-wing sods in the Labour Party.

and the very perceptive

"LimpDum/Tory pact would be a disaster. Anyone who has done any campaigning at all must be aware of the libdem say one thing at this end of town, and say the other thing at that end of town"

I had a LibDem MP who was as helpful and hardworking as his Tory predecessor was lazy and supercilious. My personal experience of LibDem councillors has also been generally good.

Why should this be? I have a simple answer. Most LibDems do not anticipate the chance of becoming ministers quickly or peers slowly. In other words they don't join their party for reasons of out-and-out ambition. Some of them are actually motivated by notions of public service.

The other two parties, on the other hand, are peopled from top to bottom by the very worst type of careerist. They always have been. Can't blame that one on Dave.

During my many active years in the Tory Party I couldn't begin to count the number of wannabee candidates who started by saying "I'll fight the system and stand up for ordinary people" and who then, having joined the Tory group on the Council would change their tune to "We have to work with x and y . You can't fight them. You'd understand if you were on the council"

I might add that on their way down, the selfsame people would say to me "you were right all along"

It's not that LibDems are inherently better people than Tories and Socialists, but the nature of their party attracts fewer rotten careerist apples.

This is exactly the argument that I use every time we hear of the "Imminent Lib Dem MP defection" story - if our MPs were careerist they wouldn't have joined us in the first place!