The Labour Party won out because before it was founded, politics was seen as a competition between wealthy people for power. One lot was toffs but claimed this meant they were naturally better and would look after the people in a more paternalistic way, the other lot weren’t quite in that social bracket and had the message “work really hard, and you might just become types like us”.

The Labour Party came along and looked not like some superior class, but an organisation of ordinary people which said “Don’t just choose between those two sorts of governors, band together and let’s put a few people like ourselves into Parliament”.

That bit should go in foci.

Far too often initiatives like this are written off by the party establishment as being lead by extremist radicals. It certainly is the case that it has always been a core part of, for example Socialist Worker strategy, to get in with these groups. But one of the reasons a number of us were so keen to get the party participating in the anti-war demo in 2003 was that we recognised that the anti-war movement was far, far wider than that. Despite that, I don’t think Kennedy got it and I’ve yet to see Clegg make meaningful moves in that direction either.

Oh, you already have. Bother.

The targetting strategy remains worthwhile, but it goes with the depressing tactic of hoovering up protest votes. As we continue to grow as a political force we are going through the growing pains of developing an all-encompassing stance and becoming more coherent (as seen with Gavin Webb, whose defection to the fringe LPUK shows we have a more resolute and definable core), thereby becoming less dependent on targetting and showing ourselves to be a party more capable of governing (with a track record in major authorities to prove it).

This matches our ability to join up campaign thinking to show there IS a narrative behind our philosophy. Our critique during the economic crisis has turned into a growing attack on the market distortions caused by Labour’s unbalanced tax and spend policies and the false incentives vreated through city bonuses structures, while the expenses scandal showed our inherent distaste for corrupt and dishonest practices.

This recent desire for a more honest appraisal of situations traces its’ way back to the pure lies disseminated in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, and followed through with our somewhat heartless dumping of Kennedy, Oaten and Ming Campell from their positions in the party – we have thankfully started to judge ourselves by the standards we set ourselves.

But there is still much lacking. For example with Jo Swinsons’ ‘Real Women’ campaign – it is a good start, but what about the other half of the issue? Are we intending to start a ‘Real Men’ campaign?

Once we start linking together these issues we will give voice to an underlying ‘honesty’ narrative that is at the heart of what we stand for. Honesty means accepting all sides of the unpleasant truth and finding a balance between them to enable forward movement.

We want to be seen as honest brokers and we have made lots of tentative steps in this direction. We know it is the best way, but we need to be more realistic and say that in the long run it is the only way.

The choice which faces the country must be between those parties happy to play with the truth where it suits them to do so and a LibDem party which refuses to deny the truth even when it is uncomfortable.

This might be a difficult choice for many to make, but it is the real choice.

Hmm, I’m veering off into speechwriting mode. If I’d planned it it might’ve sounded really good…

Anyway I’ve not got a problem with equidistance, so long as it means equally distant from Labour and tories rather than slap bang between them and trying to play divide and conquer: we might be geeks and freaks but we can trade successfully on the fact we’re set apart from their slice ‘n’ dice consensualism.