"And then he said..."

Ahem.

In recent days I have made it pretty clear that I don't want to see the election for the leader of the Liberal Democrats won by Chris Huhne. From this, readers may have drawn the conclusion that I want to him to lose.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, I'd like to see him victorious. I'd also like to see Simon victorious. It's just, I'd like them to be slightly less victorious than Ming. Races aren't generally won by everybody who takes part, but I'm hoping that this one will end with everyone looking like winners* because then the party wins too.

Consequently, I was a bit concerned when rumours surfaced this evening that Michael Crick planned to give Huhne a monstering on tonight's Newsnight. Not hugely concerned, because something about this one didn't smell very dangerous owing to the general lack of excitement in the rest of the media, but a bit concerned.

In fact, the resulting revelations turned out to have the seismic impact of a fart in bathwater. I'd even go so far as to say, a very small fart in very shallow bathwater.

There was the now-obligatory photo of him as a student, looking up at the camera as he and a band of long-haired colleagues stormed some university building or other, a photo that gives me the wiggins because in it he's the spitting image of a girl I slept with during my student days who woke up the next morning, took one look at me, and promptly decided she was a lesbian.

But I digress.

There was a slightly cringeworthy claim by the man himself that he didn't know whether or not he was a millionaire. There were a few interviews with former friends revealing the startling and dubious facts that he's an economist, and that he could afford to run a car as a student (could these items be linked, I wonder?). And then, after the ceremonial raking up of the past was concluded, came the hammer blow. Except it was more like a tap on the knee with a rubber mallet.

So the Eastleigh Lib Dems used European publicity money to part-fund some literature promoting him when he was still an MEP and Westminster hopeful, leading to a complaint from the Tories that was rejected at the time? And he produced a leaflet that those poor fragile flowers in the Labour Party thought was a bit harsh?

Big whoop.

A funding dodge that was on the right side of legality by a whisker, and a campaigning trick that hacks of all parties (including me) have used from time to time. It's not exactly disgusting practices and dead dogs by the wayside, is it?

More importantly, it's not cash for questions or dodgy donations from motor racing entrepreneurs, either.

In fact, it's such a stunning expose that - at the time of writing this, a good couple of hours after the item was broadcast - the BBC doesn't even have a story about it on its news site.

Crick, I thought, looked ridiculous on occasions - especially when he talked of hundreds of pounds of European money in the sort of accusatory tones most reporters reserve for wasted millions.

I'd have liked to have seen Huhne deal with him better, though. There was a glorious moment when the normally EU-enthusiastic Huhne was able to mock Crick for arguing that European law rather than British should apply, but it was a very lawyerly, PMQish point and it probably didn't help much with the wider viewing public, such as it would have been.

Huhne tackled him by nit-picking, when it would have been far preferable to have seen him take a more robust line of action - such as delivering a swift kick to his backside then dropping him head first into a pond, for example. Still, you can't have everything.

All in all, this did very little to damage Huhne's reputation - or to enhance Crick's.

* except the unfortunate Mr Oaten.

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Whole books have been written on the ideal qualities of a leader: the ability to inspire - coolness under fire - broad strategy combined with tactical nous - high principles tempered by low cunning - luck, as well as judgement. Fewer have been written about the failings that leaders must avoid - even though one failing can trump a whole hatful of qualities.

Anyone drawing up a shopping list of qualities for an ideal leader of the Liberal Democrats could amuse themselves for hours picking the distinguishing characteristics that he or she should have and then mapping them to the three candidates currently standing.

Recent history however shows that, whatever qualities are necessary, hardly any failings a Lib Dem leader might have really matter a damn. In the past 30 or so years we have had a leader embroiled in a lurid court case, another regularly lampooned as a puppet in a rival's pocket, a third who was revealed to be a philanderer and, most recently, another who was a drunk. Despite that, the party has for the most part advanced. Admittedly, the march forwards has at times been more of a stagger or a weave, but the general progress has been positive.

But there is one failing a leader of the third party cannot have - they cannot be dull.

There is no rule that says anyone has to take notice of a single thing the Liberal Democrats say, do or think - even with 62 63 MPs. It's down to the leader to make a connection with the public imagination and force the media to take notice. In their different ways Kennedy, Ashdown, Steel, Thorpe and - before them - Grimond all did it.

Sir Menzies Campbell is not dull. He may carry his age a trifle too heavy on his shoulders and he may forever have to look behind him for fear of what ill health may be creeping up on him, but he has already demonstrated that he can inspire the respect and interest necessary to forge that connection. The rest is detail. A Campbell party would be listened to, because Campbell is listened to.

Simon Hughes is not dull, either. Of erratic judgement possibly, disorganised frequently, but again this is detail. Simon has proved time and again that he can reach out to the public and communicate in a manner that resonates with them. A Hughes party would connect, because Hughes connects.

Chris Huhne, alas, is dull. Even his supporters admit that this is his Achilles heel, although they will not be so blunt in the way that they phrase it and they point out, rightly, that a lot can be learned to overcome this. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied. His literature proudly quotes a commentator who describes him as “Britain's most formidable one-man think-tank”. No small achievement, and the party is infinitely the stronger for having him in its ranks, but not a contradiction of his basic weakness - some might say it reinforces it, in fact. A Huhne party would be respected yes, admired yes, because Huhne is respected and admired. But that is where it would stop. A grey man in a grey suit will never - but never - prove the salvation of the third party.

Which is why I say this: if Chris Huhne is elected as leader of the Liberal Democrats we might as well pack up and go home now, because the only fate that awaits is to be the most formidable little think-tank on the opposition benches.

I was phone canvassed by the Campbell campaign yesterday and the combination of that and some conversations I've had with members in my local party suggest exactly why my favoured choice for leader isn't waltzing home unchallenged - why, in fact, he is quite likely to lose to Chris Huhne.

It's not his age, or his health, or his policies, or even his sodding Jaguar. It's his supporters.

The canvass conversation went, as best as I can remember, something like this:

Perky young female voice: Hi, I'm Sarah from Ming Campbell's campaign, and I'm calling to see if you'll be supporting him.

Me: I suppose I better had, since I was on his blog as a supporter.

Perky young female voice (confused): You're on the supporters' list?

Me: No, on the blog.

Perky young female voice: Oh. Would you like us to add you to the supporters' list?

Me: No, I thought about it, but then I remembered all those crocodiles behind him with knives in their hands covered with Charles Kennedy's blood and nearly decided not to vote for him after all.

Perky young female voice (disapprovingly, as if to a madman): Right, okay.

Pause

Perky young female voice: (cheerful again) Do you mind me asking who your second preference is going to?

Me: Simon, probably.

Perky young female voice: Thank you very much! Byeee!

And off she went. My first thought afterwards was to wonder why she wanted to know about my second preference - it will only come into play if Ming comes last so it's not as if they can do anything with the information. Far more use to find out the second preference of people who say they're not voting for him.

What strikes me now was how unable she was to deal with my hostility towards Ming's supporters. Of course, it may have been the way I expressed it, or uncertainty what to do now we were off the script. But it was symptomatic of a lack of understanding in Campbell Towers of how much latent hostility is still slopping around about the Kennedy assassination.

I dropped out of active politics some time in 2003, completely burned out after spending several years demonstrating to my own satisfaction that I didn't have what it takes to be the next Lynne Featherstone or Norman Lamb - ie, someone who takes a hopeless third place and turns it into a Lib Dem gain by hard work and sheer force of personality.

I have recently got involved again to help one of our councillors in his re-election campaign, but my disappearance meant there were quite a few friends who I hadn't spoken to for quite literally years and who I'm now catching up with. Inevitably, we've talked about the leadership.

It seems to me that most people look on voting for Simon Hughes in the same way they would look at eating a whole box of chocolate eclairs - they'd really, really like to do it (and some will) but they know it's bad for them so most will regretfully decide against it. And that has nothing to do with the furore about his sexuality - that was the way it was going anyway. Note: My Hughes-supporting Beloved Other Half takes very extreme exception to this paragraph and considers it to be utterly without foundation for a very long list of reasons. We are not the Darbyshires in this household, I'll tell you that…

It's also clear that the reason lots of members are taking a serious look at what Chris Huhne has to offer is because of lingering anger about the fall of Charles Kennedy. Partly that anger is directed at Ming himself, but I think a lot of people who are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt are seriously turned off by a number of his supporters.

Speaking personally, I'd be very happy if Campbell and Huhne could swap supporters - most of the people I respect, including the person I would have preferred to see as the next leader, are supporting him.

But although Ming obviously thinks his MP supporters are his great strength, they are actually his biggest weakness. There's a real dislike of Sarah Teather among almost everybody I've spoken to - she really hasn't won herself any friends at all. But it spreads further than just her. As others among Lib Dem bloggers have said, Ming's strategy of referring to himself as a “bridge to the future” is a bad one. It was the man himself who built, over years, a reputation as one of Parliament's most respected MPs - not the people who might or might not support him.

But I'm going to put it more bluntly than that. If Ming doesn't immediately put people like Nick Clegg in a box, nail down the lid, and start playing the “politics is too important to be left to schoolboys” card against David Cameron, he will lose the leadership to Chris Huhne.

And it will be his own fault.

So Mark Oaten has departed from the Lib Dem leadership race, his campaign having been met with a certain amount of derision and rather a lot of underwhelmed silence. While some people clearly have a lot of faith in him and others were out to get him from the start, most gave him a fair shot and were simply unimpressed.

From my own point of view, I've never been a fan - rather the opposite - but I'd come to realise over the last year or two that he wasn't the scary right-wing nasty man he'd initially seemed. As a result I was open to the possibility I might be convinced by his leadership credentials although I thought it was a very unlikely prospect indeed. Once the campaign started and I saw him in action, though, it seemed to me very obvious that he didn't have what it takes.

Quite apart from any other critera based on philosophy or ambition to take the party forward, he simply didn't look like a leader. No-one takes the slightest bit of notice of the leader of the Liberal Democrats unless that leader makes them take notice, or is such an exotic creature that he or she is rendered newsworthy by their mere existance, as Paddy Ashdown, Boris Johnson, Mo Mowlem and George Galloway all are or were (to ping-pong randomly around the political spectrum in search of examples). Oaten is not a politician in that mould. He is simply another man in a suit.

So who's left?

Chris Huhne is the man with the Big Mo - and I'm not referring to the late former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland this time. The momentum behind Huhne, and the A-list of supporters he's attracting, is very impressive. I'm not quite sure what's doing it, as his performance is sound and professional rather than sparkling and inspiring. Undoubtedly he is the candidate who is most engaged with policy and generating new ideas - but he reminds me a lot of people I used to see in the Green Party: their arguments are irrefutable, but their manner is unelectable. Under Huhne we would swiftly be ghettoised back in the loony fringe, however unfairly, with the inevitable electoral consequences.

Simon seems to have gone a bit quiet recently. I hope he's not ill. Ming seems to be cranking it up, by contrast, recovering with a far sounder PMQs performance this week. I'm almost at the point where I can come out an support him. But not quite - not yet.

Away from the turbulance of the Parliamentary scene, I am currently doing my first bit of campaigning since I retired from active politics in 2003, by helping out an old friend who is up for re-election to the local council in May and faces attacks from all sides. We went touring the ward with him to take photos for a leaflet we're designing for him and his running mates, ending up at a small community sports club. This club has been built up from almost nothing by one dedicated man, who has organised the renovation of a clubhouse, the fitting-out of three soccer pitches and the survival, revival or creation of numerous teams for players of both genders and all ages - he even runs that very rare thing, a disabled soccer team. Amazingly, the clubhouse and dug-outs have no graffiti - a clear sign that he's having an impact on the local youth too.

And you know what? He says none of it would have been possible without my friend the councillor, who championed him against the initial suspicions of residents fearing noise, vandalism and disruption and who helped him wade his way though bureaucracy and paperwork. It was a wonderful reminder of why good people - like my friend - get involved in politics, what they can achieve, and why it all matters.

Here's the second post on Saturday's Meeting the Challenge conference - this one's on the leadership candidates' speeches.

There were all four very different.

• Ming gave a leader's speech, not a candidate's speech. It was thin on detail but heavy on gravitas. He was visibly distracted by the way his microphone kept randomly failing, but he still sounded like a leader ought to. Of course, if you had unanswered questions about his policy proposals you were out of luck.
• Simon spoke with all his usual passion and none of his usual verbal incontinence. He challenged a central plank of party theory - that liberty is more important than equality - and he talked directly to party members. If you agree with him it was stunning - if you don't, there was nothing there for you.
• Chris Huhne was starting with a blank slate, as most people don't know him. An unexciting speaker, he chose to fill it with a strange emphasis on the global environment and, for half the speech, nothing else. By the end he'd said enough about other things to avoid sounding like a single-issue candidate - but only just.
• Mark Oaten strode on stage and for a while ignored the podium. Unfortunately, he doesn't quite have the physical presence to carry that off. He sounded brilliant until after a while you heard the phrase “21st century liberalism” one time too many and realised he was actually talking complete waffle.

I'm still not totally sure how I'm voting. I was able to rule out Oaten, as he was useless; Huhne, as he was too one-dimensional; and Hughes, as I didn't agree with him (although he pretty much totally repaired the damage that he'd done to his reputation in my eyes over the last few years - I'm a fan again, I just have a different view on freedom vs equality). I wasn't sure about Campbell, and I'm still not. I was able to talk to him for a while during one of the coffee breaks and he was very honest in answering some pretty blunt questions that I asked him about his conduct during the removal of Charles Kennedy. He's good - but I may still write in Kennedy's name.

As to the overall prospects, as I wrote earlier in a comment on Guido's blog, I think Oaten's dead in the water but doesn't know it yet, Huhne's going to have a respectable showing but not trouble the winners, and Ming's still the narrowest of favourites ahead of a very confident-looking Hughes.

Anyway, here are abridged versions of all the candidates' speeches (with dodgy photos of them in action). Any errors are down to my shorthand, for which I apologise. Do not treat anything in them as a direct word-for-word quote (although some bits are) as they are all heavily compressed.

The shorter Ming

Let us praise Charles Kennedy and let us have unity during this election - we must remember who the real enemy is. I have always been a liberal, inspired by Jo Grimond. I have learned how to win - winning is tough, you need experience, unity, and to use all the remarkable talents in our party. Win for Britain.

The days of mere Parliamentary survival are over, we have an opportunity and a responsibility. Dedication - passion - professionalism - a strong liberal voice. They say conformity, we say individuality and freedom.

Contrast other parties' policies - Iraq - we stood by our liberal principles. If trusted with the leadership I will never break international law. David Cameron - appalling - Michael Howard's conscience. I know Jack Kennedy liberals - Dave, you are no liberal. We are needed - liberalism at home and liberalism abroad.

To be a liberal is to be a moderniser - never compromise on principle, but make those principles modern and relevant. Ambition. Open minds are more important than open-necked shirts. New thinking, no discrimination, everyone can be like me. A radical democratic revolution.

These are dangerous times - energy competition, terrorism. International cooperation provides security, protects the environment, sustains a strong economy, and makes poverty history.

I believe in leading not following. I want to be trustee of a great party with much to be proud of already but with the best achievements still to come.

The even shorter Ming

I am all Mings to all men - trust me.

The shorter Simon

Thank you all. I'm not going to say my policy aims - the membership makes policy and I will be a consultative leader. We will keep the days of policy and principle alive, even if the other parties don't. So I'm not going to say “ninthly” - the leader's role is to present the party and explain where it stands.

This country is unfair and getting worse. Labour has failed, and it's failed the weakest more than the strong, the poorest more than the richest. We won't do that. What is needed is a fix for the stresses of being poor. People at the bottom of society don't feel engaged with it - can't tackle anti social behaviour or promote freedom without recognising this.

People need freedom and fairness, not one or the other - there is no freedom without equality, it's nothing without fairness. I will spend more where necessary, tax for a purpose. Our subscription to a civilised society. It must be done honestly and fairly.

I'm for workplace democracy, decentralisation of government, the environment, defence of civil liberties - you know my commitment and record. Fairness is global too - trade and aid and climate change. We are the party of fairness historically. Think of the great reforming Liberal governments - equality - what if they had listened to spin doctors? I want us to be that courageous.

I will work with you, my party of more than 30 years, to lead you, to inspire you, to motivate you to go further than we have ever gone before. But together we will inspire Britain, just as it was a century ago. That was “the Liberal hour” - I want the next century to be the Liberal Democrat hour.

The even shorter Simon

It's not about me - it's about you. And fairness, of course.

The shorter Chris Huhne

We face real threats and challenges, global ones, that the Liberal Democrats are uniquely placed to respond to. We face a political challenge too - Labour and the Tories want to copy us and steal our votes - we need to respond. Both are failing to meet the challenge on the big global environmental issues. But we are not focus group environmentalists. Policies for a modern society. We must set out our stall in detail, we must challenge David Cameron and come up with answers.

The only way to deal with emissions and global warming is eco-taxes. These can be problematic - mustn't punish pensioners for heating their homes in winter - but eco-taxes will raise revenue to deal with these problems.

Eco-taxes must be sugared with lower personal taxes aimed at helping people at the lower end. It's nonsense that we set a minimum wage and then tax it. An equality agenda must go hand in hand with an environmental one.

We can spend lots and not get world-class services if we don't give local accountability. Whitehall bureaucracy makes it impossible to reward success and remove failures. 94 per cent of taxation goes through Whitehall but how can central government know what's going on in my local hospital? It's about holding people to account - competition works in politics as well as economics. Again the Tories are pale imitations.

We must shape a modern Liberal Party for a modern Britain. Embarrassing lack of women and ethnic minorities - our next leap forward must be greatest where we are least representative now.

Pioneer a new style of politics - more talking, less shouting. Talk to others without losing our distinctive liberal voice. Unite around a policy program with all our wish lists on it - but made practical. Neither Washington nor Moscow right nor left but policies that work. Unite to win the argument and the electoral war.

The even shorter Chris Huhne

Doomed, we're all doomed! Unless we tax our way to safety.

The shorter Oaten

We've had a bad few weeks - we MPs are crap and we're sorry. But now it's time to look forward and set a liberal agenda for the future. Be positive and uniting. That's the least we can do for Charles.

We already defend liberty, internationally and at home, but that isn't enough. I'm proud we fought the 90 day limit and rejected populism on immigration. Ming was great on Iraq. Only we can do all that and we must continue - defeat the ID card bill. But to get into government we must move into new areas.

We must complete the liberal project and give the electorate something positive. Real equality and opportunity isn't just about removing restrictions, it's about trusting people to exercise their autonomy. Our party must be positive and optimistic.

No sterile debate on left or right - people are not interested in that - not centre either, we stand for passion in politics. People want ideas, inspiration, politicians saying what they believe in. Doing that changes people's minds eg over ID cards. Being a liberal is about being proud to take on these arguments and not being tempted by populism.

The future is liberal and this party must be too - we need 21st century liberalism if we are to realise our potential. We can't dictate behaviour, we must encourage it with positive optimistic (not negative) liberal solutions.

We must learn from Liberal Democrats in power around the country but I fear we're democratic in name only. Let's get our members more involved using new technology. We are the party of ideas but we don't have a monopoly on them. I want to take my message across the country (if Lembit doesn't kill me).

We can't afford to spend the next century on the sidelines while others steal our policies and mangle them. I don't want to be leader of a glorified think tank. Remember the David Steel quote - no, not that David Steel quote - I'm not interested in power without principles but nor am I interested in principles without power.

Let's come together and move our party into the 21st century.

The even shorter Oaten

The future is bright - the future is Oaten.

I'm working from home today - a real delight after a pretty grim journey on the Tube yesterday. But I can't believe how cold and gloomy it is. Midday and I've got the light on, even though I'm next to a window, and a fan heater blowing.

Tomorrow should be interesting - we're going to the Lib Dem “Meeting the Challenge” conference / workshop, which was supposed to be a big get-together to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of party policy and to re-examine whether we were going in the right direction. Of course, it will now become a beauty parade of the leadership contenders.

Four so far, and easily the most interesting is Chris Huhne. An ex-MEP and one of about half a dozen of the 2005 intake of new MPs talked about as a possible future leader, he obviously feared disappearing into obscurity if the party sailed serenely into a future where Ming Campbell became leader with Nick Clegg standing at his shoulder waiting for his turn next.

I won't say Huhne has got a chance, but all bets seem to be off following Ming's stumble at PMQs earlier this week. Right now the candidate I wouldn't want to be is Mark Oaten - the modernisers who make up his natural constituency are either rallying to Ming or standing themselves (will others like Clegg and Ed Davey break ranks and join Huhne as candidates?) Consequently Oaten may find himself making an abrupt transition from 'man of the future' to 'yesterday's man' without getting to experience the fun bit in the middle.

The Birmingham MP John Hemming is showing signs of cold feet in his slightly baffling bid to stand - but not because he's thinking better of it, merely because he's not sure the party still needs him to take on the onerous burden of leadership now that several candidates have come forward to share the responsibility of ensuring a contested election. His blog posts on his campaign prospects have been full of unintentional humour - but when all's said and done he is at least prepared to put his money where his mouth is.

In the middle of all this jockeying for position, Simon Hughes is busy being himself. Good old Simon - even if he does with each passing year increasingly resemble the sort of mad vicar you cross the road to avoid, you always know where you are with him. And where you are is usually either a) waiting for him to turn up an hour late or b) pinned in a corner at a party by him while he talks at length at you and possibly threatens to sing a song. But you've got to love him - the liberal conscience of the front bench and Parliament's most hard-working constituency MP. Also the bookie's favourite following the implosion of the Mingster.

As things stand, I'm still planning a write-in vote / spoiled paper for Kennedy. But I'll keep an open mind tomorrow, and if more new names join the candidate list then who knows?

EDIT: Hemming has decided not to stand. This time. It's a wise decision that means he gets the credit for being prepared to stop a coronation, without the derision that would have followed a crushing defeat. Astonishingly, he even manages to come out of it looking a bit statesmanlike.