See http://joeotten.blogspot.com/search/label/orange%20book

You’re probably right on the 50p rate, I don’t recall it myself. I remember Ming hinting that it should go in his Harrogate ‘06 speech, and Paul Holmes going on the radio afterwards to disagree.

I do think there is a difference between criticising on a policy which is already under review, and criticising one that has just been confirmed by conference. The latter would cost rather more capital.

But I hope both candidates address this question, and a few others. If they don’t, your guess why is as good as mine. But for the moment, I have pretty high expectations of them both.

I’ve always defended the right of leaders to take a lead on policy and provide conference with a steer, so long as they realise that it costs political capital and they may need elsewhere.

What you appear to be saying is that Clegg believes in moving the party outside of its comfort zone, but dare not for fear of, um, moving the party outside of its comfort zone. This is his opportunity to secure a mandate for change. If he doesn’t use it and gets elected, he’ll quickly learn that plans announced AFTER people get elected leader tend to go down like a bucket of cold sick.

Wouldn’t such a thing be interpreted by many as an attack on the democratic policy process?

FWIW I entirely agree with you on Council Tax/LIT.

Bottom line: moving outside of our comfort zone means dismantling at least some of our shibboleths. The one big shibboleth we have as a party, which happens to also contradict our long term policy goals and be economically irresponsible, is our policy to scrap council tax and replace it with local income tax. If Clegg were to call for this policy to be looked at again in those terms, I would look very favourably on him. But that would almost certainly cost him votes from the wider party. The question is, is it just words or does he really mean it?

There is a little content – the text of the speech – up at nickclegg.com now.

Well, you’re right. If Clegg’s plan is to encourage us to continue throwing out a random collection of ‘popular’ policies in order to court votes then this would be a total disaster.

In fact, if that’s how you interpret what Clegg’s said then this actually gives me a strong, compelling reason to think twice – or at least be more keen on the idea of another candidate standing!

People don’t vote in their self interest. They vote on values, trust and identity and our mistake at the last election was to abandon values and identity in favour of a random mish-mash of policies that were, even if you supported them, exceptionally low key and targeted at specific minority interests. There was nothing that was uniquely ‘lib dem’ – or at least, nothing I can recall off the top of my head despite actively campaigning in that election.

I’d like to see us to offer popular, mainstream policies that, together, make a mass movement of people think, “hey, wow, they think like me!”. That means the policies have to be connected and they have to serve our long term vision for the country. Nothing else can possibly deliver us into government – see the rise of Labour, Sinn Fein and the DUP and even the SNP as evidence.

But, you’re right. We need to know more about what Clegg might mean by “broadening the appeal.”

Really I’d like to see us taking on some of the bigger problems. We really have been concentrating on surface tweaks and minor changes with mostly everything else staying as it is. As Mark points out in the comment above, there are systemic problems with some very nasty consequences that need tackling.

Look British politics is in a crisis – people are really pissed off with it and politicians. They hate us ALL, they really do. The huge and growing gulf in our society between the haves and the have-nots is part of this. But the have nots have been persuaded more than the haves that politics is not for them – and so twisted into rejecting the sort of solutions which are needed – which must involve an active state. What a great trick from the right-wing – put the poor off politics, to make it safe for the right, then put more right-wing policies in which make society even more divided and the poor even more pissed off and less likely to vote.

I’m looking for a politician who can address this, who can turn people back into seeing that democratic politics is necessary and something for us ALL to get involved in to build a better world. That does mean tackling the big powers that dominate us – not just the state, big business as well.

And I don’t see Nick Clegg saying that. I’ve forgotten already what Nick Clegg said. It was BORING, standard nice-meaning but vacuous LibDem twaddle.

So I just have to ask WHAT THE HECK TO PEOPLE SEE IN NICK CLEGG?
Sorry, I just don’t get it, I just don’t see why he has been put forward by so many as our great hope, when he’s just another posh git in a suit that people will dimsiss as “nothing to do with us”.

Where the person to lead us who has real fire in his/her belly, who really wants’s to fight injustice, who has that real passion to fight the way those born poor tend to stay poor, those born rich have an easy path to the top? Where’s the politician who really can convince us that the environmental crisis is a big thing, that we are going to have to change our attitudes fundamentally to keep our planet viable? Where’s the politician who can see we’re running a rat race that is making us profoundnly unhappy, and has theh guts to challenge it? Not Nick Clegg, that’s for sure.