Personal attacks on party leaders

I am not a great believer in "great man" theory. (Clearly this should always have been "great person" theory, since there had already been outstanding female figures by the time it was formulated.) It follows that one man or woman does not embody the character of a political party or even dictate all its policy.  The Liberal Democrats paid the price for the confusion between leader and led, when Nick Clegg became the face of the Liberal Democrats. The party as a whole took the blame for decisions made by Nick when in coalition, even when our back-bench MPs resisted them.

Liberal Democrats - and to a lesser extent, Labour - form policy democratically. It is not handed down from the top by a great man, though the leadership of the party has always put the finishing touches to election manifestos. Nick brought ideas to the table, in particular the pupil premium which is, under another name, still Welsh government policy if not in Westminster. Most of our programme for government, of which we were surprised to see much adopted by Cameron and company, had been thrashed out by party experts and approved by conference. The best bits, like the triple lock on pensions and raising of the tax threshold on the less well-off, are claimed by the Conservatives, of course.

So it is incorrect to confuse the party with the man. Doing so can also lead to dangers. Attacks can go beyond political beliefs and philosophy to personal characteristics, such as gender, race, religion or relationships.

But one must make an exception in the case of the present prime minister. Boris Johnson has surrounded himself with a clique of like-minded (and with like morality) individuals. Before parliament rose, he purged the parliamentary party of any who disagreed with him, mostly traditional and one-nation Conservatives. He has largely ensured, assisted by Farage's Brexit organisation, that candidates standing under the Conservative brand in the current general election are dedicated followers. His morals, his propensity for lying and his disloyalty to friends and partners, colour his political actions.

Therefore, it is perfectly justifiable in my opinion to make an exception and go for the man, as my party's election strategists have decided to do. Since he has remade the Conservative party in his own image, the man and the brand are one and the same.

The case of Corbyn is different. When he protests that he is not anti-Semitic or racist generally, one must believe him. His upbringing may well have tended to prejudice him, but he is clearly a rational man and would see that such beliefs belong to the dark ages. He has an instinctive sympathy for underdogs which has led him to support uncritically some insurgent groups whose methods he would condemn if employed by ruling powers and whose own attitudes to race may not be above reproach. He has also lent support to some dictators, like Venezuela's Maduro, simply because they espouse socialism.

However, Labour is not Corbyn. The party has shown that is not at one with him over Brexit and some other policy matters. (He did not pursue the same ruthless parliamentary expulsion policy as Johnson, though.) On the darker side, there is a clearly a cadre of Labour activists which sees electoral advantage in allowing anti-Semites to flourish in the party. So, while Corbyn may be free of criticism as a person, he cannot resist the charge that as a party leader he has only paid lip service to eliminating anti-Semitism from Labour.

Jo Swinson's personality divides people. In my personal and family circle, I find that women take to her more than the men. They clearly appreciate her assertivness, her abilility to get things done. That can be seen as bossy by some insecure men. Others may find her Scottishness a turn-off. But I think this unpopularity has been exaggerated by the London-based media, who - apart from our commitment to a future in the EU - can find little to criticise in our manifesto, so turn to attacking the leader instead.

It is Jo's determination that I trust will prevent the party swithering in the face of adverse opinion as reported by the media and will maintain our policy of seeing the UK's future in the EU and of social progress in a sound economy.