The Lib Dems have decided who will be their third leader in three years, choosing between two virtually identical candidates. So close were they considered that the Lib Dem membership could barely decide which they wanted:

Nick Clegg: 20,988
Chris Huhne: 20,477

So only 511 more members preferred Clegg to Huhne - out of the 41,465 Lib Dem members who voted. Hardly a resounding victory, with [if my maths is correct] a less than 1% majority. Thus, Clegg will always have Huhne peering over his shoulder, and the perfect leader-in-waiting should Clegg falter even a step.

But the problem Clegg now faces is how to get himself and his party taken seriously. He will be viewed by many as Cameron-lite, especially considering his relatively similar looks. He will also have to produce results, since the Lib Dems will be expecting him to emulate Cameron's early successes - even if on a reduced scale.

"Calamity" Clegg's election by such a small margin is a bad result for the Lib Dems. He has been considered the front-runner for the position for so long that for him to end up only just winning must cast doubt over his long-term ability to perform. had Huhne won, however, the opposite would have have been true, and the Lib Dems would have been seen to be on the "up" since Huhne has performed so well.

But Clegg, even though he will never be Prime Minister, may yet be the most powerful man in politics should the outcome of the next general election produce a hung parliament and thus give Clegg the role of king-maker - even the execution of this role could as easily destroy as make him. The Conservatives have already started setting out their stall as the only possible coalition partner for the Lib Dems, should a hung parliament happen - a result which is boosted by Clegg's election.

Vince Cable has said that the Lib Dem leadership race is "very close" as it enters the last week of voting. Really? So what. Who cares? All that matters it the final result. There have been plenty of comments coming from both sides of the leadership battle and from the Lib Dems in general about how close run this race is between TweedleClegg and TweedleHuhne. But why do they keep saying this? I can't remember anything similar happening in the final stages of the last Conservative leadership race.

It seems to me that this is quite simply an attempt to maintain some of the marginal interest that has been paid to the Lib Dems during their leadership race now that the voting has started and as the campaigning ends. But all it does is make people bored of the subject. It seems that every few days recently either Clegg or Huhne have been claiming that they are either marginally ahead or not far behind as an attempt to galvanise the Lib Dem members who support them into casting their votes.

This "race" has been close the whole way through, primarily because the two candidates are basically identical in policies and appeal - it was actually quite a shock when they very slightly disagreed over something! Also, I can't seem to remember any real policy pledge - or even political ideal - that either of them have actually made. Maybe this says as much about me as them, but maybe not. But if I can't remember anything they've pledge, how likely is the man on the street to?

When it comes down to it, all of this reading between the lines of the current voting situation is just boring. We the people don't really care how close it is between the two men. All we care [very slightly] about is who the winner is. And that even Lib Dems are getting tired of this just goes to show that both candidates and all their hangers-on, campaign teams, supporters, and every other Lib Dem should just wait and see what the result is. Until then, it really doesn't make any difference who is in the lead, and after it, it makes no difference how close the result was - just who won.

Not only are they Tweedledum and Tweedledee, they're nasty towards each other at the same time. Releasing a press release that referred to Clegg as a "calamity" was an extremely stupid thing for Huhne's campaign team to do. It was never going to work in their favour, as it was nothing short of a direct personal attack. It has also made Clegg lodge an official complaint with the party.

What is has done is revealed the nastiness that hides underneath the Lib Dems thin veneer of warmth and fluffiness. Huhne has exposed the nasty, smearing, side of his party, one which they have generally managed to hide under mountains of fluff, aided by being so much less important in British politics than the other two parties, meaning that the media ignore the examples of Lib Dem fibbing and general nastiness.

What he has also done is exposed a personal gulf between them. Also notable is that even though they have both said that they would happily welcome their predecessors as leader - an alcoholic and a doddering old man - into their front bench team, as far as I am aware neither has said that he would welcome the other, or that they would work for the other if they lost the leadership battle...

UPDATE: Watch the argument here:

via PlayPolitical

I've just had the biggest shock of my day. TweedleHuhne and TweedleClegg actually disagree about something! If I was a Lib Dem, I might have spilt my fair trade organic green tea all over my sandals [worn with socks] or woolly jumper. It's lucky I'm not, really.

However, it is, as Dizzy points out, it's all rather complicated:

So now the Lib Dems have a problem. they actually have to make a choice between two people with actually [well, almost] differing views!

Chris Huhne seems to think so, anyway.

"People in charge"? Who the hell does he think has been running the Liberal Democrats? Little green men from Mars? Pod people? The Mighty Jagrafess of the Holy Hadrojassic Maxarodenfoe (aka Max)?

Well, at least this opens the door for an whole new line of speculation over why and how Ming was forced out. Did they discover his secret and threaten to spill the beans? Or does Ming just want to phone home?

And is he also trying to subtlety suggest that Nick Clegg is less than human? Maybe that was part of the deal - Ming will go quietly, but in return they can't openly out Clegg. Or maybe Huhne is just trying to lead us off the scent...

Idea pseudo-nicked from Guido.

After Ming Campbell has been evicted from the leadership, the BBC report that "as many as seven are considering running" to repalce him. But of them, not even Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne have yet announced. Apparently:

They'll both stand, and this 'period of reflection' is nothing more than an attempt to not be seen as the back-stabber. But both of them are. Along with Simon Hughes and Vince Cable. That Ming made the choice by himself to stand down is utter bollocks. As Iain Dale describes, they pushed him into going.

I'm not surprised that no-one has yet officially thrown their hats into the ring. But I bet they are many, many soundings being taken behind closed doors.

Ming had to go, sooner or later. In my last post I said "He'll be gone by the end of the week, then. Within a month at the latest." I just didn't think that he'd go quite this soon!

It is clear that Ming has failed as Lib Dem leader. Under his leadership, the Lib Dem polls have plummeted by about ten points from their 2005 high. He really did lead them down the loo.

But what will happen now? We know that Nick Clegg wants to stand, and it is inevitable that Chris Huhne will as well. And since Lembit Opik has recently resigned as leader of the Lib Dems in Wales, it seems likely that he may well want to stand as well. There is also the likelihood that Party President Simon Hughes will want to stand again as well - as might Vince Cable. And what about Charles Kennedy? He was ousted for being a drunk but claims to have beaten the addiction, and has significantly refused to rule out standing again. Iain Dale thinks that he is the man to rescue the Lib Dems. I don't think he has a chance of getting the job back.

But, really, whatever happens and whoever leads the Liberal Democrats, they don't really make much difference. They are little more than a protest party. Hence why it makes little difference who is their leader - it is the effectively the actions of the other parties who decide how much support they get. Whether Clegg, Huhne, Kennedy, or whoever else wins the leadership election, it won't matter much. They will get the traditional bounce in the polls - but then it'll be back to politics as normal.

Of course, all of this is reliant on them being able to remain united after Ming the Figurehead has fully left the stage. This is their chance to decide where they will go and what it means to be a Lib Dem.

Source: BBC

Why did Nick Clegg do it? But whatever the reason, he did. Whether it is a mistake or not will emerge in the future, but it can be seen as little other than the effective throwing down of the gauntlet to Chris Huhne.

It seems that the Lib Dems are fed up with the constant questions about Ming's leadership and the positioning of the potential leadership candidates - so much so that Simon Hughes delivered quite a smack-down to them in a speech just shown on Daily Politics.

Even though Clegg specifically said that "if you are asking me would I stand against Ming, the answer is no," that he also said "if there was a vacancy in the future then I probably would" will just keep the leadership questions coming - and we may well see a riposte from Chris Huhne soon.

UPDATE: Huhne has responded, saying that it is "premature" to talk of a leadership election. A bit of a slap-down for Clegg and a way for Huhne to seem like the more loyal of the two - and to keep his powder dry.

Sources: BBC, Times News Blog