You make a good point: the public doesn’t necessarily realise that Cameron has lost the environmental plot. So how is it a good idea to talk up his game in every single media interview?

In contrast on say immigration - on the Newsnight debate last night a good chunk of the debate was spent discussing Nick’s earned route to citizenship for irregular migrants. He has taken a distinctive (if not necessarily electorally massively popular) position which has helped shape the debate.

Do we want a leader he can help shape the debate on issues which are traditionally amongst our weakest - or one who loses the iniative in an area that was one of our strongest?

I agree and I’ve said so on numerous occasions (this comment possibly for the benefit of Joe Otten).

Agree entirely re the back-handed compliment to Cameron, but that apart, Nick does make one decent point on the environment here that Chris still isn’t making (somewhat to my dismay), and that’s the emphasis on motivating and inspiring people rather than hectoring them. There was an excellent fringe meeting back at conference about this. It rather fits in with your earlier comments on the environmental portion of Chris’ manifesto.

One of the main arguments of Team Clegg, which Nick himself is propagating, is that he is the great communicator while Chirs is ‘a bit dull’.

Yet the facts suggest that Chris has done a much better job of getting the party’s message across. Over the past year the party has gone UP 6% as the best party for the environment, and is well ahead of the Tories, while on crime we have gone DOWN 3%.

Could it possibly be that developing bold and distinctive policies and then putting them across with conviction and credibility is more effective than, to quote some of Nick’s publicity material ‘having a cheery disposition’.?