Going back, I don’t think Chris’s tactics were juvenile: there were legitimate doubts about Clegg’s apparent Toryism when speaking to Tory audiences, like the Times and the Telegraph. The post-election public services speech was a clear example: the Tory papers were spun a line that this was us calling for the State to get out of the business of running public services. Being all things to all people is a constant criticism of us, but that’s no reason for us to go out of our way to prove the critics right.

Chris’s tactics may have been counter-productive for him, but they at least showed me (and others) how Clegg would respond to the pressure of an attack, which he hadn’t really faced much of before. I wasn’t fabulously impressed. As you wrote yourself on this blog during the campaign, what Ming taught us was that Leaders tend to behave as they have as leadership candidates. I accept that, and if, like me, you think that the Clegg campaign was uninspiring, cautious, complacent, disappointing and at times confusing, this does not provoke unbridled optimism for the future under his stewardship. But as I wrote before, this water has all flowed well under the bridge now, and the consequences will come whether we like it or not.

“the smart thing to do is to make the argument on TV and radio while the Tories and Labour are debating the “wrong referendum” in the Commons”.

Does anyone seriously believe that once the “wrong referendum” slugfest got going our position would get any kind of profile in the media (let alone be noticed by the general public)?

(That’s over and above any “LibDems split”, “LibDems just adjunct to important parties” unhelpful sub-plots, of course)

Yesterday’s “stunt” has at least hacked open a little space to assert an independent line in the media.

I envy your ability to reduce the problems the party has about strategy down to a factional split between the “Orange Bookers” and the “Huhnites”. Huhne wouldn’t do anything “so juvenile”? Let’s not forget that it was his childish attacks on Clegg over public services that cost him my, and a lot of other people’s votes. I’m also not clear how you can claim he is out in the political wilderness given that he has one of the Big Three jobs.

The walkout may superficially seem to be closer to the Huhne line than not, but it misses out a crucial component: good judgement. I’d like to think that Huhne would not have done something so juvenile, but I may be wrong about that. I tend to think, though, that Chris is smart enough to know that not every stunt under the sun helps toward your overall objective of improving the party’s public standing and electoral success.

To a degree, this is pretty academic now that Clegg has won. Unless he falls under the proverbial bus, or is discovered in bed with a goat, it is hard to conceive of a political disaster large enough which would remove him, particularly since most MPs appeared to agree with the tactics he and Davey adopted. This is the central point - yesterday’s drama was asinine and unbecoming of a serious political party, yet seems to have been adopted as a deliberate strategy by Clegg and his top team (which is what I meant by the Orange Book reference - not a political philosophy as such, but the Team Clegg clique now running the upper echelons of the Party, which includes Davey and Laws, but doesn’t include Huhne).

In the House of Commons, the phrase “I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition” is so commonplace that it is tantamount to “Good Morning”. The Tories were always going to offer an amendment about a referendum on the Treaty alone, and it was always going to be accepted instead of our one. This is not rocket science, it’s Politics 101: the House of Commons still operates on the principle that there is a Government and an alternative Government, the Official Opposition, and then there are a bunch of inconvenient also-rans. This isn’t going to change unless and until one of the two bigger parties decide by themselves that it should - which is unlikely - or are forced into it by political circumstances, such as a hung parliament. The Parliamentary Party must have known this. In the circumstances, the smart thing to do is to make the argument on TV and radio while the Tories and Labour are debating the “wrong referendum” in the Commons. However, Davey’s antics smack of frustration that we haven’t been able to convince anyone - including the Speaker - that what we call “the real debate” is in fact anything like that.

I think Huhne would have been more likely to realise that it isn’t the medium which is the problem, it’s the message itself. My evidence for this is largely based on his experience in the environment brief - he was instrumental in devising a new policy, the Green Tax Switch, and the packaging of it which made us noticed, and believed, and actually forced the other parties to tag along behind.

While I still have plenty of bones to pick with Clegg et al, he isn’t going anywhere soon. Based on yesterday’s events, that is a conclusion of some concern to us all, unless the strategy changes.

And, if only narrow nationalistic arguments are allowed, what would be the result for Great Britain’s standing and interests in Europe?

A ‘no’ vote by the UK Parliament or in a British referendum on the Lisbon Treaty would, it seems, sabotage the EU reform process for the other 26 potential ratifying member states and 430 million EU citizens.

What would be the fallout of that?

If, having ratified the Treaty of Lisbon, the UK decided on the virtues of a referendum on membership, the wisdom of this choice, as well as the results, would lie squarely with Britain.

The government’s option seems to be to ratify the Lisbon Treaty and to let the infected domestic debate continue, while carrying on as an obstructionist member of the EU.

Are there any more constructive alternatives, if ratification and continued membership are chosen?

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com