Nick Clegg opens his question and answer session in the Wesley Memorial Chapel with disarming modesty: “I’m not a walking encyclopaedia” he insists, “I don’t necessarily have every single fact, every single statistic at the end of my fingertips”. He does a good line in expectation management, a skill that no doubt comes in handy as leader of the Liberal Democrats. It is easy to denigrate Britain’s ‘third party’, so near to power and yet so very far; a party that at once looks back to a distinguished Liberal past and forward to the bright new dawn that always seems to be just around the corner. However, Lib Dem-bashing is a sad sport that doesn’t seem to do British politics any good – at its worst it is a wilful denial of the possibility of progressive change in this country. As such, it is easy to see why Clegg works himself into a lather over the “rotten political system” that perpetuates the Lab-Con seesaw and switches off the average voter from political debate.

It is only a radical who could utter the words “Westminster is a clapped-out 19th century institution that desperately needs to be replaced”. There are few in either of the two main parties who could bring themselves to do so, and neither Cameron nor Brown have shown an appetite to “change the fundamental corruption in the British political system” as the Lib Dem leader says we must. Clegg’s words are tough, but is anyone listening?

On many points I find it – personally – very hard to disagree with Nick Clegg’s diagnosis of our political system: the influence of “big money” on party funding; the unrepresentative nature of our House of Commons; one of the only unelected second chambers in the world. To Clegg, all of these problems add up to voter disengagement. He repeats several times the statistical nugget that “more people didn’t vote in the last election than voted for the winning party”. He is convinced that our politics fails to prove its relevance to people and he’s convinced that Labour and the Conservatives “don’t want to change it”, unlike the “insurgent” Liberal Democrats. The problem is, such radicalism is easily dismissed as the preserve of the irresponsible, those not faced with the gravity of government can afford to offer pie in the sky. Take last week, when Clegg went on a media blitz to peddle the idea that the government scrap the Queen’s Speech and spend the last 70 sitting days of Parliament getting the House in order. Prima facie, it’s a great idea, but it was never going to happen, and would have been a constitutional and political headache for all involved. Instead of stoking a vital debate about the dismal pace of parliamentary reform and Labour’s timidity, he was given a rather condescending hearing by most commentators.

‘There is something seriously sick in the way we run politics.’

This gets to the crux of the Lib Dem problem: there is a time in any party’s political life when they have to decide whether they are happy with insurgency or whether they want to make a viable claim to become the Establishment. Labour had to do it in the early 20th century, and I would argue the Liberal Democrats have to have that conversation today. Early in his leadership, Nick Clegg declared “I want to be Prime Minister”, and this pointed in the right direction for a grown up party. But a Prime Minister, and more importantly a party of government, is judged by the breadth of its vision, by its pragmatism and by its sense of purpose. These are all traits which Clegg has tried to bring out in the Lib Dems, showing that they are hard-headed as well as idealistic. For instance, the Lib Dem conference row over the fate of their policy on tuition fees. Clegg wanted to show the public that he understood politics was about hard choices so he said they could not guarantee fees would be scrapped under a Lib Dem government; but at the same time he wanted to show they cared by reiterating his support for the principle of scrapping tuition fees. This kind of ‘have your cake and eat it’ subtlety is lost in a media spotlight which shines but briefly and intermittently upon the third party. It is hard to act the grown up when you are fighting for attention, and when throwing a tantrum is far more likely to deliver TV cameras and column inches than quiet competence.

Despite these enduring challenges for the Liberal Democrats, it is clear that Clegg thinks they have come a long way and deserve to be taken seriously. “There’s a much steelier quality to the Liberal Democrats today” he tells me, a legacy of the party having participated in devolved government in Cardiff and Edinburgh, run large metropolitan councils like Sheffield, Liverpool and Bristol, and holding the balance of power in the House of Lords. He is right that if you look beyond the petty squabble over who has the keys to Number 10, the Liberal Democrats loom a lot larger. They got 28 per cent of the vote in the local elections earlier this year, considerably more than Labour, and while they may only have one in ten of the seats in the House of Commons, this belies the fact that they got one in four of the votes nationwide at the last general election.

It is difficult not to agree with Clegg that the system which keeps the Liberal Democrats down also smothers genuine difference between the two main parties, who are forced to vie for a narrow section of the electorate in a few marginal seats in order to make a majority government. Clegg sees firm battle-lines drawn between his party and the others, especially on progressive issues.

“We’re the only insurgent party in British politics”

The Lib Dems, he says, offer “a commitment to far, far greater social justice and fairness than either the Conservatives believe in or Labour has been able to deliver” and will back this up with “the most radical tax switch this country’s seen in a generation”. Further, he is proud of their “staunch defence of civil liberties” against an “astonishingly authoritarian” Labour government, and their “staunch defence of our internationalist credentials” against an isolationist Tory party.

One-to-one, Nick Clegg makes an excellent case for his party, neatly drawing distinctions that show the weakness of ideas in the main parties. I ask him what the difference is between Lib Dem and Conservative brands of ‘localism’ and his answer is direct. “One word: money.” He insists that, “as long as the Treasury has its clammy hands on the purse strings of the way we run this country any number of warm-sounding speeches from David Cameron won’t make the faintest bit of difference.”

Nevertheless, if rhetoric from the Lib Dems is ever going to become the change we need, the party will have to start thinking more seriously about how it can get a hand on the reins of power. Then there will be some soul-searching about how to stop power corrupting their ideals, but that is a conversation only a grown up party ever gets round to having.

Who will be going to Copenhagen in December?

Delegates from 192 countries will meet to negotiate further development of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol. The Convention has near universal global membership, with only Somalia, Iraq, Andorra and the Vatican not belonging. The Kyoto Protocol has more than 180 member countries but, of course, is missing ratification from the United States, a major polluter in terms of carbon emissions. As well as 5,000 country delegates, there will also be another 5,000 or so representatives from civil society, business and research observing the official climate talks and holding their own meetings. This year, an alternative summit alongside the official one will also draw many climate activists who have lost faith in the official negotiations and are discussing alternate solutions to climate change.

What are the stated aims of the Summit?

The Copenhagen meeting is officially called the 15th Conference of Parties to the Convention and will deal with regular issues of clarification and further development of the treaty. This year is special, because the Kyoto Protocol stipulates that Parties need to make a decision on how the Kyoto Protocol will continue once its first commitment period runs out in 2012. The treaty does not come to an end then, but without new targets, it becomes meaningless. In order to get the US on board, countries are also working on an alternative or parallel treaty that the US could sign up to without losing face. Country delegates are therefore under a lot of pressure to set emission reduction targets for industrialised countries whether under the Kyoto Protocol or alternatively, under a new treaty which would include the US.

What are the prospects for an international agreement?

A new treaty, or even a second commitment period under Kyoto, seems very unlikely at this stage. However, countries can make emission reduction commitments under the Convention which are just as legally binding. This means that we may not get a spectacular ‘Copenhagen Protocol’, but we may well have legally binding decisions at the end of the Copenhagen summit that include emission reduction targets.

If no binding agreement emerges, will it be a failure?

It will be a failure in so far that the future of the Kyoto Protocol is left uncertain and, more importantly, that the world’s leaders have let yet another opportunity pass to take strong action on climate change. Having said that, no agreement is better than a weak treaty, because a weak agreement will lock technology into a high emission path which will make it much more difficult for the world to reduce emissions later in order to avert dangerous climate change. At the end of the day, what counts is whether we are reducing emissions drastically, as recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), not whether countries have good intentions.

What is Britain taking to the table? Is it enough?

Britain has been relatively progressive in terms of proposing greenhouse gas emission cuts and also in proposing funding to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to climate change. Having said that, the British government often does not follow up on these proposals and is lacking a clear strategy on how to attain its own targets. Unfortunately, we have seen many green policies being announced but never followed through. It is thus important to keep up the public pressure to reduce emissions even after the government announced planned emission reductions.

Glad confident morning should it be – to adapt Robert Browning – for a young woman studying at Oxford, or indeed any other university in the year 2009. And yet, for the first time in 30 years, I begin to wonder whether the clock is turning back and that far from being glad or confident, young women should start to worry.

I look back 30 years because it was then that I left Oxford, confident that even the last bastions of the male establishment were crumbling in the face of feminism. Well, maybe to those of us wearing dungarees who spent too much time in “consciousness raising” sessions, the decision by five Oxford colleges to admit women seemed more significant than it was. But at the time it appeared momentous – the first five colleges, surely, would soon be followed by all the rest, and Oxford would become a genuinely co-educational place.

And so it did, but as women entered further education as equals, and then politics and then the City – there was the inevitable backlash. Now instead of smashing through glass ceilings, today’s young students must be feeling the ceilings being lowered upon them.

There are signs of the post-feminist backlash everywhere: only recently, Jill Berry, President of the Girls School Association declared bluntly that “modern women can’t have it all” and seemed to suggest that any woman considering having children might as well give up any hope of an interesting career.

I’ll be the first to admit, as Berry claims, that it’s tough “keeping all the plates spinning” . But I certainly don’t agree that you can’t aim for the top as well as bringing up a family. The exceptions to her rule are simply too numerous to mention, including Helen Alexander, President of the CBI, Jana Bennett, Number 3 at the BBC, or Paula Radcliffe, world champion marathon runner.

And then even when they do reach the top, there will always be carping. So Baroness Ashton – recently appointed as Europe’s High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs has her reputation trashed immediately: she must have been the fourth choice; she only got the job because she is a woman and so on. Yet almost everyone who has worked with her either at Westminster or in Brussels has been extremely impressed with her understated yet well-briefed diligence.

Even more alarming is the reaction to David Cameron’s attempt to bring his party into the 21st century. Rightly ashamed of the Conservative’s poor record, Cameron has, from the start, sought to increase the number of women MPs. Under his leadership a lot more female candidates have been selected and depending on the size of his majority (assuming he wins), there could be up to 60 conservative women MPs in the next parliament.

Yet there’s a backlash here too, with the neatly named “Turnip Taleban” of local Tory activists trying to deselect Elizabeth Truss in Norfolk because she had failed to mention an affair. More turnips are popping up in other constituencies too, with activists in Central Suffolk and Beckenham also apparently reluctant to help Cameron change his party’s image.

The turnips have been given encouragement by the Tory MP Anne Widdecombe who predicts there will be a “whole tier of second class citizens” if David Cameron has his way. She somehow manages to ignore the large numbers of “second class” male MPs who have sat on the famous green benches for years, without achieving much at all except an honours degree in fiddling expenses.

Individual women must, of course, make their own decisions about the right balance between work and family. The Observer’s former political editor, Gaby Hinsliff, stepped down from her high profile job recently, saying she wasn’t seeing enough of her young son. That’s fine – but let’s not forget that she had many rewarding years at the top of her profession. And there’s no reason at all why she shouldn’t return to a top job as her family grows up.

Yes, juggling the plates is hard work. But then women have always been brilliant at multi-skilling. Just because there may be some years when the career is put on hold, that’s no reason for women not to aim high – glad, confident and ambitious.

Andrew Wilkinson, History, Wadham

“Scrooge probably loved Christmas as a child”

Christmas gets worse year after year. It’s been over thirty-five years since Slade released ‘Merry Christmas Everybody’, and we’re still waiting for somebody to make a better Christmas song. Better than Slade! A bunch of long-haired glam rockers from the Black Country. A sad indictment. What’s more, when you were younger, you didn’t realise that those happy singalongs about Christmastime were by Cliff Richard. You didn’t know the pain then. You do now.

Christmas morning as a child, you excitedly unwrap all of the shiny things, which are great just because they’re shiny and they’re there and it’s Christmas. Now, you unwrap your four presents, realise that your friend left the price tag on and discover that they love you half as much as you do them. Objectively.

Christmas Day for many now means gritting your teeth through your Grandad’s sexist jokes, avoiding the gaze of that aunt whose car you threw up in when you were six, and forcing conversation about how well university is going, trying to hide the more salacious, specific reasons that you’re enjoying it.

When you were younger, none of this mattered. You had shiny things! And you spent your day throwing up in your aunt’s car, carefree.

Christmas is everywhere, for a quarter of a year. From Halloween onwards, everything from chocolates to insurance brokers adopt an Americanised, faux-cheerful ‘Christmassy’ cheese in their branding. I don’t want you to pretend my chocolate is made from the tears of reindeer, or buy a ‘Festive Loan’ with Ho Ho Ho-rrific levels of interest. Everywhere you turn, you’re slapped in the face with other peoples’ forced cheer. They’re all just compensating for the fact that they’re enjoying Christmas less these days, clearly. And mulled wine is horrible.

And then there’s Santa. That lovely magic man who brought you presents and joy when you were younger now just seems like a pathetic symbol of the consumer society we live in. Santa, you now realise, is Nike’s delivery man. He probably had a horrendous target to meet on Christmas Eve. He’s probably unionised. As you age, you realise your presents came, not from Lapland Elves and Will Ferrell, but from Chinese factory workers on less-than minimum wage.

So as you update your Facebook status on Christmas morning to an inane recognition of the date, and then hate yourself for doing so, remember this: Christmas is for the kids. Scrooge probably loved Christmas as a child. So enjoy your younger relatives’ glee on Christmas Day; remember how it felt; and try to hide the envy as best you can. Maybe buy yourself a shiny treat of your own.

Tom Gilligan, Philosophy and Theology, Worcester

“Christmas is a state of mind”

The idea that Christmas would become less fun or exciting as you grow up is a total revelation to me. It seems to suggest that as you get older things in you life get generally worse. This is not true. Contrary to popular belief, time is something you need not be afraid of, least of all at Christmas. I eagerly await the day when I’m wizened old man, telling my grandchildren outrageous stories of my ill spent youth and acting without any regard for the rules that govern the majority of society. Snoring my way through the ‘Doctor Who’ special after a good feed I see as an achievement; not something to be feared. I’m not quite wizened yet but Christmas is still lots of fun. Firstly I’m a student, which means Christmas starts ridiculously early so that everybody can cram in as much festive fun as possible before the term ends. Some would have you believe that this involved purely imbibing a criminally insane amount of free alcohol and mince pies. True but not the whole story. It also means fairy lights,secret Santa, trees, silly hats, Oxmas dinner and making paper streamers

Even though the majority of us know that “you know who” might not exist, it doesn’t mean the spirit of Christmas is dead. I know that if I didn’t get some walnuts and a tangerine at the bottom of my stocking, it just wouldn’t be Christmas. I look forward to the stomach ache that inevitably follows my festive over-consumption. Inside of us all there is our younger selves and Christmas is the time for us to embrace this. Even if all year round you are a pillar of maturity, sensible behaviour and moderation, the moment the first rendition of “Rudolf the red nosed reindeer” is stammeringly gasped out by a reception class, something within you will stir. Witness the way that parents seemingly go insane at Christmas time. They might lead you to believe that this is to provide the perfect Christmas for their “bundles of Joy” but in actual fact it’s the realisation that they can once again enjoy the whole fantastic world of Christmas, without accusations of immaturity. I don’t believe that any dad in that special red and white suit is having any less fun than his children.

Christmas is a state of mind. For good or for ill it has transcended a religious festival and evolved into something more. It’s a time when cheap and nasty is not scorned but welcomed with open arms. Plastic dancing Santas and houses attempting to create twenty four hour daylight are all just part of the fun of the season. We see in them our own ridiculous obsession with the season and we love it. While at any other time such things would cause me to stare in abject horror, at Christmas they are somehow okay. This is because deep down we all love Christmas for exactly the same reasons we did as children. It’s about presents, food, bright lights, shiny paper, broken toys, looking for batteries and most of all waiting up for hoof beats. Perhaps those who think that Christmas is no longer fun should take a long a hard look at the tacky shop windows and learn to laugh rather than scorn. If you can’t find Christmas fun, its nobody’s fault but your own.