The consensus in the press seems to be that Clegg’s speech rectified some of the damage: purposeful and ambitious, they said. Yet I wouldn’t eulogise about the language. “Ferocity with a purpose”, and “progressive austerity”, both sound to me like the classic efforts of Clegg’s acolytes to say something imposing and impressive, but actually being confusing and eminently forgettable. And the overall message of the week was what exactly? That the Leadership is completely prepared to piss off it’s own party’s activists, but we’re not entirely sure why, or how much?

Seven months out from a general election which should be manna from heaven for politics’ perennial outsiders, and we’re flatlining. Commentators often wonder why our poll ratings have not risen despite Vince Cable’s rampant popularity; a more pertinent enquiry would be what level they would be at without it.

All this makes me wish for the halcyon days of chat-show Charlie. Seven months out in late 2004 it seemed we had principle, purpose and popularity; now it seems that we have now descended into a bland and confused Blairite managerialism which fails to inspire the public and hacks off most of our own activists.

I’m still prepared to be convinced by Clegg, but I’m not very close. Of course, the past 6-8 months have been better: there’s the Ghurkas and leading the charge against Speaker Martin on the plus side, but sadly the impressions which will likely last are the GQ interview and the Lisbon Treaty self-immolation. Being tricked by Piers Morgan was naive, but the result is that Clegg’s openness about his own sexual proclivities is the one fact which most of the public have committed to memory about him. The about-face on the European Constitution referendum was as bizarre as it was unbalanced, and it has given many voters who might otherwise have given us a fair hearing good reason to doubt our veracity.

For all the occasional non-appearances through – we imagine – being tired and emotional, the salad days of chatshow Charlie were happier and more optimistic times for us Lib Dem activists. Personally, I’d take one drunk and unreliable Charles Kennedy over a hundred blandly forgettable Cleggs every single day.

Chancellor Cable may be precisely what the country hankers for, but our failure to make a sufficient impact even with the wind behind us has made that outcome virtually impossible.

With the exception of the Conservatives, all parties face problems squaring off historical spending pledges versus current economic reality. The Ed Balls statement on reducing spending within schools this week was far more ridiculous than anything proposed at LD conference. The Conservatives, of course, don’t need to worry about historical pledges because Cameron promised a clean policy sheet when elected. In hind sight, it is a pity that Huhne and Clegg did not agree a similar LD pledge.

Clegg’s gamesmanship was probably the right thing to do if it encourages the different policy lobbies to focus on cost and returns. However, making notes for your retirement memoirs about how cleverly you acted is something that you record privately rather than in journalist company.