“Guy – good to speak?” The salutation says it all. Nick Clegg is a man on a mission, with no time for niceties. Or maybe it is his deep suspicion of journalists, which surfaces as I continue talking to him, which drives this efficient manner. He terms the relationship between the media and politicians “highly destructive,” and admits that there are “heavy leavers of patronage”  imposed on the press to perform in favour of the incumbent party. 

The media is characterised by a “constant tone of aggression” which leads to an ever increasing loss of confidence in public life.  What worries Clegg most of all is the selectiveness and self-appointed superiority of the media.  “Come election day, the BBC Political Correspondent is far more important than any politician.  What he or she thinks is what the public hear, not what the politicians actually say.”  There is, as such, a “deathly embrace” between politics and press – a destructive reliance, which is a constantly tightening vicious circle. “Many people don’t even read the newspapers these days. I bet if you asked Varsity readers, you’d find that most are very selective about their news, and get most of it off the internet.” I am not sure that he has done his research on this note; as far as I have noticed, most Varsity and Cherwell readers also have a copy of The Sun under their arm, disproving his point entirely.

Brown is currently appealing for the legalisation of the use of intercept evidence in criminal proceedings. Nick Clegg couldn’t be more in favour of the initiative: “this represents a move to more precise judicial process, deployed to the fullest possible extent. Up to now, this evidence has been used covertly.” I mention that Shami Chakrabarti, Director of the human rights organisation Liberty, expressed concern that the use of this intercept evidence might act against the interests of the defendant. He might not know what evidence would be used against him in the proceedings. “Nonsense,” says Clegg. “Shami is a great supporter of the legislation.”

“No, hitherto, government strategy has been to circumvent due process.  With this new initiative, we will be able to use the intercept evidence in full daylight.  We need to move faster;  there can be no time wasted.  I am all in favour of extending questioning without charge, but, to be honest, if we didn’t delay as we do at the moment, there would be no need for any further extensions on the 28 day limit. Most jurisdictions sanction such a process.  And we need to allow further scope within the Threshold Test, which “requires Crown Prosecutors to decide whether there is at least a reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed an offence, and if there is, whether it is in the public interest to charge that suspect (CPS website).”

And then there is a phone call, which confirms to me that the Leader of the Liberal Democrats is a real man, too.  Busy he might be, but there is always time to delay any business to coo down the “other line” to his wife, discussing the children’s tears this morning with paternal concern. And all partly in Spanish. “Libertad” was mentioned.  Are they plotting the next government coup?!

Well yes; Nick Clegg is, in effect, plotting the next coup. He terms the Lib Dems an “anti-establishment party” in the face of the homogenous opposition, united by their faith in “overcentralisation.” I mention that there is a general consensus concern of the loss of adversarial politics in today’s parliament, and that this is widely acknowledge to be due to the over-population of the centre of the spectrum. “Don’t agree with the premise. In terms of civil liberties and environment, yes, but otherwise, there is a lot between us. And to add to that, I don’t think that the ’40s/’50s style of debate we saw in parliament, with true opposition, is lost.  Then the differences were between capitalism and communism.  Now it’s between authoritarianism and liberalism.”

“The ‘command and control’ concept, thank God, has left the Labour Party now, but the Party has no soul any longer.” The Lib Dems, however, “have always had their fair share of eccentrics and characters”- which will surely mitigate against any ‘loss of soul.’   Clegg has great faith in constituency politics. The constituency is the “bedrock guarantee” that makes the Westminster system so unique. MPs have to be fully accountable for their actions, and they have to win over their constituents.  He mentions David Howarth in Cambridge. “He is, in my opinion, the most intelligent MP in parliament, but that didn’t get him his seat.  He knows Cambridge inside out, he knows all the local issues. Ok, maybe in the rural south-of-England seat, the Conservatives will always win, and the same in some industrial north-of-England seat for the Labour Party. But that doesn’t mean MPs can be complacent. People get bored, they start getting fed up.”

No discussion with an MP is complete without a quick turn to Iraq. I ask if, in retrospect, the war could be legitimised by being a viable force against terrorism. “A war is only legitimate if it makes the place safer.”  “So how are we going to destroy this terrorist training ground in Iraq?” I ask.  A Humphrys-style cat-and-mouse ensues.  I keep chasing, he keeps running away.  Clegg has no answer.  We just need to “win over the hearts and minds of the people involved” – with liberalism, presumably. A better example of the politician’s stereotypical cop-out there could not be.