Nick Clegg is a bumptious person at the best of times. But he has given the impression to a generation of voters – some new, and some who should know better – that he is different to other mass-produced politicians from the all too recognisable mould. With his approval rating now at a ridiculous 85%, he is (we are told) more popular than Churchill in 1944 – but still some way behind Hitler in 1937. His Party has enjoyed a surge to over 30% in the polls…….just as Iraq has enjoyed various surges since 2003. Based on ninety minutes of television – during which he said nothing either substantive or creative – Clegg is the new darling of media consumers.

The uncertainty that still remains, however, is whether the LibDem leader is Leona Lewis or Susan Boyle. I mean no silly insult in choosing female parallels by the way; my doubt is simply about whether Nick has real talent and maturity, or is just another barmpot with an enchanting voice. So once again, the Slog mantra applies: let’s look not at what Clegg says, but what he does.

I’m not doing a DailyMail here. The paper’s bigoted piece talking about Clegg’s eclectic genes today was awful, and further evidence that Paul Dacre is unhinged. Frankly, if a bearded lady produced by the coupling of a Nigerian princess and an Eskimo delinquent stood up and talked some sense tomorrow, I (and millions of Brits) would vote for her. But Nick doesn’t talk sense: he talks big – and for much of the time, his Party talks rubbish.

I’ll come to examples of both these tendencies in a minute, but first of all it’s important to expand on the title of this piece. The responsibility upon Nick’s epaulettes at the moment is this: he has given a ray of hope to the People. Nobody (myself included) thought this election campaign would be anything other than slippery with soundbites and liberal with lies – and above all, tedious. Clegg seems somehow (and I’m still not sure how) to have raised the game. Viewers are keen for more: and while this is good for Sky’s shareholders, it will be disastrous for our political system if he goes into the election as a hero – and emerges shortly thereafter as a zero.

This (and an increasingly obvious deal in the offing between the Liberal Democrats and New Labour) is the reason why since Wednesday last week I have been pestering every Tory I can get hold of with the need to put Nick Clegg and the Cleggorian Guard under the media microscope. The Conservatives will of course do this now, because they have no choice. Labour will also pitch in, but not with quite the same ice-pick of enthusiasm: for when Gordon Brown refers to the election as ‘wide open’, what he really means is that Clegg’s LibDems have thrown his lot a lifeline.

So here’s a starter for ten on the subject of Nick Clegg.

Look at the variability and inconsistency of his comments about cooperation with other Parties. In 2008, Nick said – without equivocation -that he would deal with any Party committed to introducing STV proportional representation immediately. At the time, I hailed this as the move of a bloke willing to give the British people a clear offer of real reform. Two years later, this firm pledge has vapourised.

In February this year, Nick told us he wouldn’t take Cabinet seats in the Government of another Party. That’s because he thought that other Party would probably be the Tories. Now he expects it to be Labour, this promise too has disappeared.

In March, Nick was reliably quoted by several sources (not just mine) as saying he was “not in the business of reviving the rotting corpse of New Labour”. But as the Tories have lost ground in the Polls, he’s changed his tune.

At the start of this month, Nick spent over a week being gratuitously rude about everyone….until some focus groups suggested that he sounded rather silly. At which point, he stopped doing it.

Last Monday night, Nick was asked about his deal-breakers for supporting a minority Government. Proportional representation wasn’t one of the four ‘principles’ he outlined. Last Wednesday, he launched the LibDem manifesto. The words ‘proportional representation’ (in that order) do not appear anywhere in it. The Slog maintains its obvious extrapolation from these facts: Nick Clegg is quite prepared to toss away the guiding light of his Party in return for power.

Do these seem like the actions of a different kind of politician? They do not.

Now, a brief critique of Nick’s Party and its policies.

The economics are a good £12 billion adrift of the reality that Britain is broke: a ‘first year’ of QE contains 0% explanation of where the money’s coming from. The £15 billion of Government savings have been ‘identified’, but not described, as such. Prison reform is defined as ‘involving fewer short sentences’….for a service already massively overwhelmed. Lending demands of the banking system take no account of holed balance sheets. Flexible working hours will be offered as a right to all employees. Are they kidding?

Saying there is responsibility upon Nick’s shoulders should not be confused with a plea for him to recognise that, and act accordingly: like all those who crave power above any other goal, Clegg is far too irresponsible to act in the general good.

No – the responsibility lies with the other two Parties. If the Clegg surge gets out of control, then Labour will weigh in too. But the Party most likely to clinically dissect Clegg the man and his camp-followers is the Conservative Party. We can only hope that – with Osborne sidelined as part of a policy tiff at the top – David Cameron can at last find the advisors with enough weight to enable this to happen.