Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Where are the Lib-Dems? Now we know, putting office before principles when their principles are their strongest card, with Ming desperate to be Minister of Defence if today's Guardian report is accurate. Their problem goes back at least to the 2005 election. It was a defeat for all three parties: for the Conservatives most obviously; for Labour most dramatically (the first time more people abstained than voted for the ‘winning’ party); and for the Lib-Dems most deeply. It should have been their perfect storm. The Tories under Howard were hopelessly lost. Blair was widely despised for Iraq. Ming stood out against the war. Under him, they might even have become the main opposition party, overtaking the Conservatives. Instead, rather than trying to achieve this they had Charles Kennedy. It was not his drinking that was the problem so much as the kind of drunkenness it led to; instead of making him angry and forceful he became nostalgic and helpless. Rather than having a will to power he desired to float into office. His colleagues in parliament knew he was a feeble orange glow of what was needed. They lacked the sinews to force him out - even though this was essential to take advantage of their historic opportunity. Now, well too late, Ming seems unable to stop yearning for opportunity he lost. Even on their own core issues of constitutional reform it is Brown who is making the agenda, while they seem incapable of any will to shape it. What, of any originality have they said on the subject? Twenty years ago there was a remarkable roll-call of Lib-Dem advocates across the whole range of constitutional strategy (see Lord Holme's post below). Where are their successors when they are needed?
Moderator: This morning Edward Davey, Menzies Campbell's Chief-of-Staff, said: "For the record, there is no prospect of any Liberal Democrat joining the Brown Government" at the Lib Dem Voice. Later Menzies himself repeated this denial in a BBC News interview.
