Nevertheless, these reports were on the basis that at least on economic policy, he was close to the Conservative Party, even if he differed on other issues. Some of us aren’t that keen on gung-ho free marketeering, and think that a rather major aspect of Toryism we don’t like. We rather feel that the old slogan “none shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity” is a riposte to those who suppose liberalism is mainly a matter of freedom for money.

Whether or not he likes it, Clegg HAS got that reputation. A few well-chosen words could have quashed it. He has chosen not to issue such words.

“That sort of spin” did happen during Ming’s tenure, during the Trident debate. Liberator did not criticise Ming for holding an opinion per se but for supporting a policy that we thought was wrong. We also reported in detail the various underhand tactics used by the leadership both before and during the conference (see Liberator 317 (April 2007), page 4, to read our report: http://www.liberator.org.uk/article.asp?id=107804014).

As for what the press has said about him, they don’t normally get much further or detailed than “he’s the Lib Dem’s messiah!”

Your argument makes no sense. You might just as well claim that he has a reputation as a rapist “which he’s done nothing to deny”. Personally speaking I try my best to keep my prejudices in check and I’d advise you do the same.

Simon - why is is that when Huhne speaks about policies, it’s “speaking to the activists”, but when Clegg gives pep-talks to the party it’s “speaking to the public”. It strikes me that if anything, it’s the other way round. The public aren’t interested in a LibDem saying “we LibDems shouldn’t be content to be in third place”, but they might be interested in a LibDem saying “we shouldn’t keep Trident”.

As to why no-one’s accusing Huhne and his supporters of being closet members of the Campaign Group, well I’m not aware of it ever being suggested that Huhne or his supporters endorse a socialist style economy with large scale nationalisations. One might accuse them of being social democrats as the term was understood in the 1980s - which now means well to the left of New Labour of course … After all, Huhne HAS obtained the support of the most of the SDP old-timers, and interestingly, of people like me who were resolutely against those people back in those days.

Matthew: I find it fascinating how while we are both Clegg-sceptic we come to startlingly different conclusions. You keep painting him as the enemy within; my own feeling is that he is the “safety” candidate who will spend far too much jumping every time he sees his own shadow to advance any sinister plot to turn the Lib Dems into a Tory party. If only he had the brass neck that you credit him with, he’d have won my vote weeks ago.

Derek: I hear what you say, and Huhne demonstrated that ability to resonate in our interview with him earlier this week (part 2 of which I’ll get posted tonight). But I do think Clegg is a much stronger communicator than you give him credit.

Simon: the Trident thing wasn’t populism (a policy has to be popular before it is populist!), but it was certainly a political miscalculation. It is reassuring to hear frustration from a Clegghead about the weaknesses of Team Clegg though.

By the way, why does Clarke and the angry members always accuse people of being Tories? I don’t think that anyone has accused Huhne or that wing of the party of being closet Campaign Group members, unless I have missed anything. It’s all so puerile.

For my part, I’ve long been a follower of the Daniel Goleman philosophy - the key attribute of a successful leader is the ability to resonate: to not only communicate ideas and persuade people of their merits, but to attract an attachment or following based on capturing and embodying a strong emotional feeling: anger, fear, hurt. This suggestion chimes strongly with the arguments made in the recent political libre de jour, The Political Brain.

It also explains the success of Margaret Thatcher - although many people disagreed with her rabid monetarism and Little Englanderism, she captured a prevailing mood of people being fed up with Britain being considered a backward country that couldn’t run a tombola without the unions crippling everything. She appealed to a latent desire. Blair did the same with New Labour - people were desperate for a moderate alternative to the tired, sleazy, navel-gazing Tories of the ’90s and TB gave people what they wanted, coupled with a generational change and a bit more glitz and glamour.

Nothing I’ve seen or heard from Nick so far has even hinted at an ability to resonate. He is sensible, doesn’t want to offend, is an easy conversationalist, and tells a very good joke about Clement Freud: but I don’t see how this amounts to an ability to reach out to new supporters (which is the main argument I’ve heard from the Clegg camp for their boy).

Chris, on the other hand, is making a fist of it. His ideas are strongly liberal (rather than purist), but he is trying to set out a stall which taps into a prevalent public state of disaffection - against public service targets from the centre, against perceived favouritism for friends of the Labour Party, against making personal freedom an easy target for the instinctive centralisers.

I’m a Chris supporter, although I recognise Nick’s strengths. I agree with James that this contest hasn’t seen a real policy debate yet, as it seems Chris is trying to kick-start one but Nick isn’t answering back (probably because he thinks he’s the front-runner and doesn’t want to rock the boat). It’s easy to say Chris is up to dirty tricks, but it’s just as easy to believe that Chris thinks the party deserves a debate of ideas, and is frustrated at the one-sided nature of things so far. In those circumstances, I would also be tempted to give Nick (in football terms) “a nudge in the back” to see what Clegg’s reaction is. If he’s so good at communication under fire from the Tories and Labour, shouldn’t he have a good response?

If you take away the hysterics those in favour of Clegg might argue that this is an excellent opportunity for the party to stake out new ground

which is as near as dammit to admitting that Clegg supporters want to engineer the departure from the party of those they disagree with.

John then goes on to talk about “purist” and clearly means it to be pejorative. But why is Huhne denounced as a “purist” and Clegg not? Is not Clegg equally proposing himself as the promoter of pure liberalism? Isn’t his strong stand on ID cards just as “purist” anything Huhne has said?

John then goes on to say, in a paragraph headed “the problem I have with Chris”

We won’t reach them by simply reasserting purist doctrine but by new ideas

Er, so what if the difference between a “purist” and a “new” idea? Looks like it might be it’s purist if Huhne says it, and new if Clegg says it.

Now here comes to my continuing problem with the Clegg campaign. It’s full of rhetoric on new ideas and “refashioning the agenda” and the like, but short of illustrating what it actually means by that. Huhne has given us policy ideas, like them or not, Clegg largely hasn’t. But Clegg’s rhetoric about challenge and comfort zones continues to give the suspicion that he has ideas in plenty he wishes to force on the party, just he won’t tell us what they are until he gets to be leader.

Clegg has been written up as a “Tory”, and his supporters have said that’s unfair, but he’s done nothing to allay the fears that at least on some issues he’s intending to take the party onto the grounds marked out by the Conservative Party since 1979 - it’s Tory economics, even if we can accept it’s liberalism on the classic Home Affairs stuff.

There have been influential voices in the media - by and large Conservative Party supporters - who want to engineer politics so that right-wing economics goes without question, and political debate is centred on the liberal v. conservative issues which aren’t economic. Since I’ve started looking at LibDem blogs, I can see there’s a groundswell of members in our party who also seem to think that way as well. They remind me rather of the Trots of old, simple minded people who are attracted to a simple-minded agenda which gives them all the solutions, and makes them look oh-so-clever - but which is really fighting the battles of a few decades ago and ignoring the pressing problems of the world today which are actually to a large extent caused by a milder version of the ideology they wish to impose on us.

Clegg needs to say enough to convince me he isn’t part of this. He hasn’t yet.

You are right about the anti-activist rhetoric that noises off indulge in all too often, but that’s a different matter. I’m not aware of that sort of spin happening during the Ming tenure (Chucky bum was a different matter). Yes, there were a few wallies banging on about Clause 4 moments, but for some people that is the political equivalent of Tourette’s. It wasn’t coming from Ming, but Liberator repeatedly took him to task for having an opinion on things all the same.