Well of course Nick's a bit grumpy. He's probably suffering from a touch of 'Paul McCartney Syndrome'.

Imagine this. You're the best paid actor on US televison - despite the considerable handicap that you are British and play an American character. You are also one of the best selling novelists in France. An excellent sportsman, you were a Cambridge rowing blue. Last year, you played piano on Meatloaf's new album, this year you've launched your own blues guitar album, to wide critical aclaim. You are, by anyone's standards, a high achiever.

And yet, as you lie awake at night staring at the ceiling, you know back at home, everyone still thinks of you as the less talented half of Fry and Laurie. And that must hurt. And it makes you just a tad of a grump.

This is what a very talented planner called James Hillhouse once described to me as 'Paul McCartney syndrome'. Sure you wrote 'Yesterday' and 'the Long and Winding Road'; and of course you were part of the greatest band the world has ever seen. But you're still thought of as the slightly less talented half of that songwriting team and get the Frog Chorus hung round your neck at every turn. And despite the multiple nice houses and fast cars, and even though you know you're still one of the luckiest people alive - it still rankles.

Of course its even worse if - like Hugh Laurie and Paul McCartney, you have similar backgrounds and experience as your 'other half '. Which brings us on to Nick.

People keep saying Nick looks tired, that he's struggling with the pace, that's he's disenchanted with leadership. All of which I think is nonsense. But I do think he's a bit grumpy. Here's why.

Nick was elected Leader of our party in his early forties - and led us into government for the first time in 80 odd years. While there, in the first year, we've introduced the Pupil Premium, a Freedom Act and we're weeks away from a referendum on a major step change in the way our government is elected. Lib Dems litter the cabinet and every government department. By any standards, Nick Clegg has achieved an awful lot.

And yet. And yet..

Every day he must stare at David Cameron - a man elected to lead his party at the same age he was. A man in the top job, not the deputy top job. A man who's riding high in the opinion polls on his performance, while you get the blame for everything that goes wrong. And there's only one of you getting dog poo shoved though your letterbox.

Despite everything he's managed to achieve, that must be hard. And Nick wouldn't be human if it didn't hurt, nor if, try as he might, once in a while he let it show.

He's suffering from Paul McCartney syndrome.

Always good to see the other side getting a proper kicking

I think this interview with Baroness Warsi is going to be featuring on my 'mid week collection' for about the next 10 years. It's brilliant. If you're Yes to AV, click on the link , sit back and enjoy. Hats off to Liberal Conspiracy for blogging it and Adam Boulton for doing the interview!

People of Britain: Listen to me!!

Except they’re not listening to me. In fact they are not listening to any of us. That's why the AV turnout is going to be disturbingly low...

I’ve blogged previously about my frustrations at getting anyone to pay attention to the good things the Lib Dems are doing; it’s basically because so many people have lost their faith in us (thanks to both real and perceived u-turns) that while we may be doing an awful lot right, no-one is willing to engage.

I’m afraid much the same is true about the AV referendum.

My friend Peter – who is a very bright soul and an excellent historian – said to me the other week (and I’m paraphrasing here) that the AV Referendum was probably the most important constitutional (and therefore political) event in 100 years – and yet he was struggling to get excited about it.

Various of the great and the good have tried to explain why no one’s very interested in the AV campaign. This ranges from it generally being dull, mendacious (No campaign, I’m looking at you), confusing, and uninspiring all round.

I don’t think so.

I think it’s down to trust.

People haven’t lost interest in politics – look at the support people like 38 Degrees get for their campaigns or the attendance at the TUC March a few weeks about – people haven’t stopped caring.

But they have lost faith in national politics.

They lost faith in Labour and the Tories some time ago (the former more than the latter – as memories fade of past Tory misdemeanours)

Now they’ve seen us in power – and truth to tell, despite many of the great things we’ve done, an awful lot of people don’t trust us any more either.

Hence turn out will be lower. If people are feeling let down by the three big national parties, they are not going to hurry over deciding how a load of national politicians should be elected.

I suspect they would rather go on a march. Or indeed, eat a bag of soot.

The Purple Book makes me think about Quality Street, but still...

...May I recommend this TERRIFIC article from Charlotte at Virtually Naked Blog about Blairite rumblings in the labour party? It's rather excellent.

The Midweek Collection - AN AV REFERENDUM SPECIAL

5 things I’ve discovered written about the AV Referendum that have brightened my week. As always, they’re here because they are interesting, not because I agree with every word…

1. ‘Many Conservatives will be demented with rage if they are defeated in the referendum on electoral reform’ writes Andrew Rawnsley in the Guardian.

Surely that headline alone makes you want to read it…

2. ‘Never has a duller issue caused so many to sound insane with rage’ writes Jackie Ashley

Ms. Ashley stirs the Tory pot….

3. 'A very odd political campaign’ by Bagehot in The Economist.

Bagehot takes a very dim view of both sides campaigning.

4. 'The AV Referendum discredits Referendums’ writes Alex Massie in The Spectator.

Makes Bagehot sound almost positive. Also, surely referenda? I stand to be corrected…

5. 'Digging for Victory'

Help needed for the YES campaign. Go on, you know you want to.

Cheers

Richard

Can it be true that my blog is read by The Prime Minister AND Mark Pack? Surely not...

My last blog post before I disappeared away for a week was on the DISGRACEFUL lack of resource allocated to the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) in ensuring that Universities who are charging over £6000 in tuition fees improve their access performance to all sectors of society.

For those who can’t be bothered to read it, here’s an arresting fact: If each of the Oxford Colleges who take undergraduates (I understand that’s 35) are allocated an ‘equal’ share of the University of Oxfords’ allocation of time (each English university would get 150 minutes of examination on a pro rata basis), then I calculate the Chief Exec of OFFA will spend the sum total of 243 seconds ensuring each college has a ‘robust’ programme in place to guarantee free access for all. Oh yes, very robust. And no one's come back to me to tell me those figures are wrong...

Anyway David Cameron has done the decent thing and pointed out one area where access is not working - the appallingly low number of black students offered places at Oxford, and various parts of the media have followed up with the facts and pieces since (not all of them have credited David Lammy with the original excellent research in exposing all this).

One of the most interesting observations however is from Mark Pack’s blog, who points out :

“The actual number of black students accepted to Oxford and Cambridge is – at 50 – lower than the number it would be if those universities were accepting the same proportion of black students as there are amongst those who get 3As at A-level.

That gap – between 50 and 65 – is, however, dwarfed by the much larger gap when you look instead at the proportion of people taking GCSEs who are black. If Oxbridge acceptances had the same proportion of blacks as GCSE exam sitters, there would be 219 acceptances each year, not 50. “

Now Mark makes the point that there should be some finger pointing at a school system that leads to young black people under performing at school – and he’s got a point.

But I’d make a different observation.

The fastest way to solve this unfair social differentiation would be to weight A level performance of an individual student against the overall performance of a school, to give students who do well at poorly performing schools more of an edge.

A policy I have seen mooted by both Simon Hughes and David Willetts.

Let’s hope they do a bit more than mooting though.

And fast.

Hell's Teeth. Am I turning into Polly Toynbee?

Hmm.

No, I haven’t turned into a once fashionable left wing Guardianista commentator.

But having had a chance to consider my blog on my week off, I’m surprised to see how much easier I find it to write negative stuff than positive stuff.

How much easier it is to criticize rather than praise.

This is not to say I’m only writing negative stuff. I’m not – I think there are plenty of articles on my list when I’ve been positive. But there’s no doubt it’s easier to write copy attacking our political opponents, coalition partners or even (on occasion) our own side than it is to praise the good things I see we are doing.

And there is no doubt that bad news makes better copy than good news too.

So, best foot forward, I will attempt to maintain a balance going forward of both the positive and the negative.

Do let me know how you think I’m doing.