Ming got the Arctic Monkey test wrong at Brighton last week. He said that they had sold more records than the Beatles when he should have said that they had released the fastest selling album of all time. But Ming's point was that he wasn't claiming to be a fan.

The politician who loves the Arctic Monkeys is Gordon Brown, who told Woman magazine (according to the Telegraph)

Gordon Brown would have preferred to be a football manager if he had not become a politician. His wife Sarah thinks George Clooney should play him in a film, while his dream woman, apart from his wife, is the Burmese pro-democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.

He gets coy when asked if he wears boxer shorts or briefs - "whatever comes to hand. But they are all M&S".

Nor will he reveal what he wears in bed - "That's between me and the bed sheets" - but says the Arctic Monkeys on his iPod "really wakes you up in the morning".

So it is a pity that Gordon Brown can't name any of their songs

Chancellor Gordon Brown has admitted that he cannot name any of the songs from the debut album of award-winning band the Arctic Monkeys.
Mr Brown has previously said he was a fan of the group, but failed to identify any of their songs when questioned about them.

Stephen Tall has a poll on who had the best conference. It is a bit hard to answer this - no one saw all of it. But here are a few winners and losers.

First of all the three C's: Campbell, Clegg, and Cable all came out looking in very good shape.

Cable has persuaded the party that the party is over for extra public spending. for the rest of this parliament we are going to have to identify a saving or an efficiency gain for every extra penny we spend. Making the shortlist for the bloggers award meant I spent some time in the press room: I was struck by the respect for Cable there.

Clegg surprised us. Apparently his podium speech was great - but I missed it. He came up with a great idea in the Repeal Act and may just have won us back the Hunt vote. I did hear Nick speak in a couple of fringe meetings, and thought he was good but not earth shattering. It is a pity he sounds so posh though.

Campbell had most riding on this conference - and so in my view probably had the biggest win. His conference speech was very well-judged - actually a clever speech. He might have gone further in terms of challenging the party (and I guess he will have to), but for this conference the balance was right. His best line was "I have enjoyed this conference - especially since Tuesday lunchtime" but his "Cameron should apologise for supporting the Iraq war" got a lot of airplay, and is a very effective barb.

The other parliamentarian to have done very well was David Heath. His speech in the UK human rights debate was one of the best of the conference. I continue to think that we should make a lot more use of David.

On the flip side, Sarah Teather's speech on education was poorly received by conference and press. Simon Carr is too cruel here but you can appreciate the point he is making:

When they were looking for speech writers in Whitehall they advertised a test. Use the following words to write a ministerial speech, they said, and there followed 20 linguistic units we have come to know well. Choice. Contestability. Markets. Personalised services. Dignity. Social exclusion. Dependency culture. Local autonomy. Devolved responsibility ... on and on they went. It is the administrative language of the political class. It may be the most powerful reason why ordinary people are not connected with the political process.

Sarah Teather talks like that. Most of them do. Her speech on education was a mix-and-match speech that could be delivered by any political party. It was Whitehall wind. She says she's against it, but exemplifies it. She seems to have opinions on education. She demanded a system that served the individual not the state, and empowered people to be independent and free, with no more one-size-fits-all. There was lots of no-more-one-size-services. She wanted to trust people instead. And she put in what focus groups say they want: "passion". "[ENTER NAME]: You have failed our children!"

(I should admit that I have a policy grouse about the Teather prescription. One of here suggestions is taht we need our education to be more open to vocational education. Perhaps it should be. But there is also a view taht it is already too ready to embrace vocational education. If you are middle class there is no way short of extreme imbecility that you are going to allow your child to go down the vocational route. Vocational education is strictly for OPCs* and we should think about why this is so before we demand more of it.)

Outside the ranks of the parliamentarians, Stephen Tall had one of the best conferences one can imagine. Well done to him.

* OPCs = Other People's Children

Matthew Harris has been in touch to publicise a meeting here this evening.

Anyone at Conference is warmly invited to attend tonight's fringe
meeting on the Euston Manifesto: "The Euston Manifesto - a challenge to
Liberal Democrats?", with speakers Oliver Kamm (Times columnist and
blogger) and Dr Jon Pike (academic, blogger and Guardian writer), from
20.00-21.15, tonight (Wednesday) in The Library, Hilton Metropole Brighton
(Conference Hotel). It promises to be a very stimulating debate and all
are welcome. Further info from Matthew Harris on 07779 986 978.

This event is not in the Conference Directory - apparently it will take place just the same.

Peter Riddell in the Times sees conference like this:

THE Liberal Democrat leader can start to relax. Yesterday Sir Menzies Campbell both established his authority as leader and went a long way towards defining the identity of his party.
Imagine if the leadership had lost the vote on retaining the top 50p rate of income tax and Charles Kennedy had delivered a barnstorming speech prompting calls for his early return to the front bench. Sir Menzies’ authority would then have suffered a serious setback and there would be rumblings over his leadership before his big speech tomorrow.

But neither of these threats materialised. After a vigorous and amicable two-hour debate, probably better than anything we will hear over the next fortnight, the advocates of the 50p rate were beaten by well over two to one. This was a bigger-than-expected margin, and Sir Menzies looked relieved.

Then, three hours later, Mr Kennedy delivered a fluent, but over-long and self-indulgent speech. There was no apology for, or even admission of, his alcoholism.

Mr Kennedy still has remarkable political talents, but he does not yet look ready to return. He received the expected standing ovation, as a mark of genuine respect and thanks. But the conference was affectionate rather than enthusiastic, in marked contrast to the ecstatic reception that Margaret Thatcher was given by the Conservative Party conference in October 1991, the first after her downfall the previous November.

Compare and contrast with this report

David Cameron’s leadership of the Conservative Party suffered a setback after it emerged that membership has dropped by more than 6,000 since he took over.

A ballot on a new mission statement, called Built to Last, suggested that there were 247,394 party activists eligible to vote — 6,295 fewer than when Mr Cameron took over in December. He had claimed to have boosted membership.

Martin Kettle is tough on Kennedy in the Guardian:

if anyone was expecting a speech of unusual candour, or the posing of tough questions that the party should face, then they were disappointed. When Paddy Ashdown (who was also in Brighton today but in a non-speaking role) made his first speech as ex-leader in 1999, there were tough questions a-plenty. When Tony Blair finally quits the stage, we can be confident that his farewell address will not pull its punches either. But Kennedy is essentially a lazy politician. He preferred to caress the party than to challenge it. One wondered in the end what the point of it all was.

Most of Michael Brown's article on conference is behind the Independent fire wall. But it is a good read:

Yesterday's vote on the party's proposal to reduce the standard rate of tax by 2 per cent, increase thresholds and abolish the long-standing commitment to raise the top rate of tax to 50p on incomes in excess of £100,000 moves the party closer to providing an answer. The commitment to a higher rate of tax was largely totemic, but it was claimed by the new leadership to have hindered the electoral prospects at the 2005 general election. It is not so much the tax plans in themselves that will put a spring in the step of Sir Ming Campbell when he gives his leader's speech tomorrow but the fact that, at a stroke, the mutterings about his hitherto lacklustre performance will be stilled. Sir Ming's authority has been significantly strengthened and his credibility has received a much-needed boost.

Dave, Dave, Dave ... you need to take a few lessons from the expert.

I'm afraid to say you've only scored D-minus with your Built to Lose referendum. Any proper referendum would have scored 99% in favour, not a desul-tory 92.7%. And as to a frankly pathetic 26.7% turnout, that leaves far too much speculatory room about the apathy of the party "faithful" ....

Let's face it - if you want to be a proper Dear Leader, you've a long way to go.

Greg Hurst has been making shocking allegations about the Liberal Democrats:

WAS this the moment the Liberal Democrats finally grew up?

The significance of the conference vote on tax policy goes beyond the fact that Lib Dem delegates managed to curb their perpetual instinct to lob grenades at the party's leadership. Sir Menzies Campbell would, of course, have suffered a blow to his authority had the tax plans he so clearly backed been tinkered with in the way the left-wing MP Evan Harris proposed. A beaming - and clearly relieved - Lady Elspeth Campbell left the conference floor telling companions: "I can't stop grinning."

The real point is that Evan Harris and his supporters wanted the radical and redistributive elements of the tax package on offer and a symbolic top rate of tax to squeeze the rich. They wanted the substance and the symbolism; to have their cake and eat it.

But the conference decided instead that it must choose, that it couldn't have both. It was this judgement that was the real test of maturity.

Feels pretty good...

Martin Kettle takes a similar line:

if the Liberal Democrats are to regain economic credibility while simultaneously inspiring their radical supporters with their green idealism, then today's debate was the party's first key test- and it went far better than either friend or enemy could have expected.

Writing this, I am struck at the contrast between the fractious conference in Blackpool last year, and the united party here in Brighton.

As you would expect, the hall was packed. Better still, Kennedy looked fit and well.

There is certainly little problem with his stanima - he spoke for a good 45 minutes, and received generous applause.

What was the dominat impression? Loyalty, perhaps. Pride in his own achievements as leadership. Pleasure at being among friends.

It wasn't his best speech to conference but it was probably the speech he is most pleased to have behind him.

It wasn't a great debate, but it was a great result.

Vince Cable made the speech of the day, in that familiar low-key, reassuring style. Steve Webb and Paul Holmes contributed greatly to the result, and Malcolm Bruce once more persuaded me that we should be making much more use of his talents. On the 50p side of the debate, Evan Harris stood out.

The scale of support for the Tax commission proposals surprised me. Virtually no one voted for the Cantebury amendments, the Harris amendment got the support of about 15~% of the hall as far as I could see. So this was a triumph for the leaderswhip and a big step forward for Lib Dem economic policy.

As you would expect, Stephen Tall has already identified the relevant quote.

Sam Brittan wrote last week that:

While [the Liberal Democrat] party’s main attraction still lies in its greater commitment to personal freedom and due process than the Labour or Conservative megaliths, there is now at least a chance one might be able to vote for the party because of, rather than despite, its economic policies.

And that is how it feels to me. We haven't reached nirvana yet, but we are united and moving in the appropriate direction.

The big event for me was the interview with Vince. I thought he was very impressive and I hope the tax package, and certainly scrapping the 50p proposals goes through with a big majority. Speaking to journalists around the conference it is obvious that Cable has a lot of credibility. We need to back him up.

What else went on yesterday? Michael Moore's speech struck me as a little too strident. Actually it made me think of Gladstone for whom international relations seemed a field for moral eneavour. The following debate on children and Families was such a motherhood and apple pie exercise that I decided to go and find something naughty to do instead.

Lunchtime (for me) meant the Times/Populus fringe event with Vince Cable, Steve Webb and Tim Hames. They all spoke well - and Hames (who was amusing) had some serious messages for the Party. Webb and Cable seemed to agree that common ground for the parliamentary party was suspicion of the way PFI was working in the NHS.

Ming's Question and Answer session (standing room only) went very well. The best received answer was to the question "what are you going to do to sex up your image?". Ming said "I am what I am" - perhaps he has been reading Liberal England. (Actually that might not have been the best received answer - so many people turned up that it took ages to get through security.)

The evening began with Independent fringe meeting - and big crownd gathered to hear Nick Clegg ( who had wowed conference with the Great Repeal Act proposal, Chris Huhne, Chris Rennard, and Simon Hughes. My view was that Rennard made the best speech, but everyone else seemed to pick Clegg.

The feeling around conference is pretty good. We haven't had a great year, to put it mildly and yet we are still north of 20% in the polls. The rising generation in the parliamentary party is very impressive. If we unite around the income tax cut, who knows how far we can go.

Congratulations to Stephen Tall for winning the inaugural Lib Dem blogger of the year competition. It was well deserved - as the blurb says, Stephen's articles "consistently combine good writing with interesting content and new technology." I believe his webcasts are particularly popular with Italian politics students :o)

Apollo is particularly proud to have been close to such august company, especially when it has to suffer contributions from an itinerant dilettante like me.