Fair play to Michael Gove, though, for attending the event.

"Mr Gove said that many were criticising him for going too far and too fast in his reforms" On criticisms of "too fast", for my part it is borne of concern that mistakes will have been made in the rushed legislation that could serve to undermine the case and discredit the future historical account of free schools/academies ... or are we convinced that the DfE actually *is* the most competent, efficient department?

Dizzy's right. Generally speaking, though, this must be good news for Boris. Lots of history of Ken's last tenure at City Hall to remind people of, and then there's all those union sponsors of his. (http://wp.me/p3Y3w-sW)

Good work Peter and no, I wouldn't worry about the far-left Greens either - their blind hatred of the car crowds out whatever passes for common sense in their world!

The referendum is not likely to inspire most people as much as it does us political anoraks. A good few of those who do take part (particularly, I suspect, where it's alongside the various local elections) will use it as another chance to express their opinion of the coalition (not unreasonably, given that AV will give rise to more of such arrangements). By next May, that opinion probably won't be too positive ... so at least something good will come out of our expected unpopularity!

I wonder if, over a full political cycle (i.e. fifteen or twenty years), the incidence of defecting councillors is significantly different from the numbers of MPs crossing the floor (proportionately, that is)? It comes with the territory of party politics (and often has little to do with genuine changes of view or principles).

"because of all those jokers in charge of banks, the government is going to have to make some cuts". Economics fail. The bankers didn't spend more then they were getting in revenue since 2001 - that was one G Brown ... who also messed up banking regulation.

C'mon Steve, now stop beating about the bush and tell us what you really think of the Lib Dems.

H&F have indeed done well so far, and I hope will continue to improve. Who knows, Harry - maybe one day you'll be as good as Bromley ;-)

In the last few weeks two previously unsuccessful garden-grabbing / backland development planning apps have been revamped and resurrected in my ward. Gosh, it's almost as if they know something's in the pipeline!

Agreed. It's refreshing to have one not from the modern political careerist mould. As one who voted for him in the selection, and accompanied him on a number of forays into my own ward, I have been impressed by his performance.

I suspect there are just too many government appointments to be made. Time to axe a few (or many!)

We should get an idea this weekend from a survey LibDem Voice is running. (They've got their special conference on Sunday as well.) http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-lib-dem-conservative-coalition-government-agreement-new-ldv-members-survey-now-live-19489.html

McGuinness has wasted little time stirring things up already... "Tories warned over peace process" http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0513/breaking53.html

Given that there is typically one Conservative and three or four antis on those programmes, it might balance things up a bit.

I fear our dear Melanchthon has lost it. The deal - effectively with the right wing of the LibDems - reflects a steadily growing shift in our party: not away from 'the Right' so much as away from the authoritarian paternalistic Right. Of course, I would have preferred and supply and confidence deal, but what's done is done. Let's make it work for the country and for what we believe in - at least until it all falls apart and we're back at the polls.

The next full council elections in London (which could affect Tony and me) will be in 2014. The question then is: will there still be a LibDem party then? And what of the Mayoral elections in 2012? We could well be in day two of the long slow death of the Lib Dems as we know them. http://wp.me/p3Y3w-ji (Apologies for this London-centric comment!)

Co-operation not coalition is surely the only arrangement the party would accept? That doesn't mean putting LibDems round the cabinet table. Though I would rather he managed without it, Cameron could even conceivably concede a referendum on electoral reform but without a date - after all, it'll take a year to work out what the question will be, and that is an eternity in politics. http://wp.me/p3Y3w-j2

Brown keeps on with the line that tax cuts / non rises will "take £6bn out of the economy" - why isn't DC coming back at that? TAX takes money out of the economy!

Just something to bear in mind during today's budget coverage: the top rate of tax next year will not be 50% ... it'll be 76%! Blogged: http://wp.me/p3Y3w-h1

Privatise it. State-owned broadcasters are the toys of one party states and banana republics. Despite Labours best efforts I don’t think we’re quite in that league (yet), but there is a small matter of a public deficit that needs dealing with. (Blog plug: http://wp.me/p3Y3w-gC)

No problem with the idea - as far as it goes. The funny thing is, though, that we are always being told that the BBC licence fee is such great value for money already. So much so that they are terrified of losing it and actually testing the theory with a proper discretionary subscription, like so many digital channels do.

The trouble is that attacking Gordon Brown now is like bombing a ruined city - we've made our point, now it's time to move on. Blogged: http://wp.me/p3Y3w-gs

Short money is to deal with the imbalance that you describe, I accept. My issue is with the PDG, which is paid in addition to short money. Arguably opposition parties have more resources for policy development - at least in terms of time and "spare brains" - than the government.

I hadn't appreciated this before ... the Electoral Commission (i.e. the taxpayer) bungs £2m to political parties every year via the "Policy Development Grant". http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/party-finance/public_funding "Short Money" I can understand - funding the essential functions of parliamentary opposition - but isn't the PDG just state funding of political parties to act as political parties? Shouldn't we be opposed to this sort of thing? (I suppose someone will tell me that the parliamentary party voted for it!)