Does it matter if the new Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg doesn't believe in God, or if Morgan Stanley falls to China?

Clegg first. He said yesterday in reply to a question on Radio Five Live that he is an unbeliever. Later on he issued a statement in true Lib Dem style saying that he was at the agnostic end of the atheist spectrum and that he had "enormous respect" for those who do believe.

He could hardly have said he had no respect for people with faith, remarked one colleague. It would have been political suicide.

He also said that his children would be attending a Catholic school, prompting another colleague to quote Richard Dawkins, who said sending children to religious schools was a form of child abuse.

We were reminded from another corner of the room that Dawkins has since revised this view and now thinks exposure to such ideas will broaden the mind.

But the consensus was that Nick Clegg is probably the only modern politician to publicly admit to his non-believing views. Will it affect his standing? Probably not. Even the Blair/Campbell "we don't do God" was an admission that being too closely identified with a faith would be a likely handicap in the political stakes.

One colleague wondered, though, if there is any recent research that would confirm that view. A New York Times survey in the 1970s asked whether being Jewish, black, female, gay, or atheist would affect a presidential candidate's chances. All except atheist got a 90-odd percent rejection, while being a non-believer only influenced 40% of those interviewed. Would those figures stand up today?

The conversation then moved on to Morgan Stanley and the news that the state-owned China Investment Corp is investing $5bn in the cash-strapped bank in return for a stake of around 10%. It recently made another $3bn investment in a Wall Street private equity firm.

Apart from the ever-changing estimates of bank losses -- Morgan Stanley disclosed a credit crunch write-off of $3.7bn in October and this rose to $9.4bn yesterday -- will the Americans be worried about major institutions being eaten into by the Chinese?

There seems to be a profound difference between this acceptance of cash in times of trouble and the hoo-ha over the attempt by Dubai Ports to take over management of six US seaports in February last year.

One colleague thought that the injection of Chinese funds didn't matter a whit and argued that when any company goes public the shares are freely traded and will, in time change hands again. It's the logic of the system and if China hits recession then the shares will be sold off.

However, another colleague thought that a currency trade-off might be a consequence of this and other deals. The Chinese renminbi is seriously undervalued against the dollar and the Americans don't like that. Already the US treasury department is calling for a revaluation to rebalance the terms of trade between the two countries.