Alex Massie

Who would have thought, even a year ago, that the future of the Liberal Democrats would arouse such interest? Perhaps I was too harsh on Nick Clegg's speech to the party's conference; certainly Fraser was more impressed by it and the gang at Liberal Vision also seem pleased. Perhaps I was wrong to hope that Clegg would disavow the social democrats in his party in this speech. One should always be wary of criticising politicians simply because they decline to do what you would have them do. Equally, one should not assume that doing what one would want them to do is the path to either political or policy success. Clearly there needs to be a "nevertheless" here.

As rallying cries go, "Stick with us" lacks a certain something. But that's how the Liberal Democrats roll and so it was that Nick Clegg was forced - or believed himself forced - to deliver a disappointingly defensive speech to the party's annual conference this afternoon. Perhaps that's what he needed to do. This was Operation Reassure Sensitive, Confused, Liberals. This being so it wasn't quite the valiant proclamation of Orange Book liberalism I'd have wanted to see*. Nevertheless, there were times when Clegg was unecessarily defensive, even about being in government. Rather than challenge his party, Clegg played nice. Perhaps this too was necessary but it left one noting the difference between Clegg's boldness in government and a certain timidity in Liverpool today.

Pete mentions Tim Montgomerie's suggestion that a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition at Holyrood could be the most likely result at next year's Holyrood elections. As Tim puts it: One thing I've worried about for sometime is the implications for the Coalition of bad results for the LibDems in next year's Scottish elections but it is perfectly possible that Labour - like in 1999 and 2003 - will go into another Holyrood coalition with the LibDems. This double coalition deal could be an important tool for Clegg to keep his Left happy and for the new Labour leader to open the door to a future LibLab deal at Westminster. Well, anything is possible but I'm not sure how probable this is.

I've suggested that the current crop of opinion polls are meaningless. That's not true. As a friend pointed out, they measure public opinion and that can't be considered wholly meaningless. So let me put it another way: the "meaning" of the opinion polls is, at present, greatly over-valued by the Westminster Village. Happily, uber-expert Philip Cowley is on hand to act as an expert witness in this case: Several of my Labour-supporting friends have a spring in their step – level in the polls at last, as revealed by yesterday’s Reuters/Ipsos-MORI poll. How rubbish this new coalition government must be. It took New Labour years to lose its poll lead after 1997. At the risk of being a party pooper, the trouble is that the experience after 1997 is atypical.

More on Christine O'Donnell's stunning victory in the Delaware GOP Senate primary in due course but it's worth pointing out that such a triumph almost certainly could not happen in Britain. Not even in our new primary-friendly Tory party. Because most of the contests called primaries in Britain are really forms of caucus, not proper primaries and even the so-called "open primaries" that have been held by postal ballot are actually only semi-open. In each case voters are offered a choice of candidates who have been approved by Tory HQ. It is not, in other words a truly open process and consequently it's exceedingly difficult for a grass-roots rebellion to take place. This is one reason why there is no British Tea Party.