This post at Stumbling and Mumbling (a blog I highly recommend) provides a timely reminder of the risks of leader-worship. It's important to remember that a leader is dependent upon many other individuals and many situational factors go into determining his achievements.

This can be added to my reasons for not declaring in favour of a candidate just yet. Candidates should be evaluated on their performance, not some intrinsic 'gift' for leadership that can inspire a following out of thin air.

Both Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne's campaigns boast considerable rosters of declared supporters. Am I the only one who hasn't made his mind up yet?

The most recent YouGov poll suggests not - of Lib Dem members, just 16% are said to back Huhne with 14% choosing Clegg. This means that the overwhelming majority do not yet have a preference, although we might want to question just how effective YouGov is at polling on Lib Dem-related issues.

Such a high level of indecision is not a bad thing. There are good reasons for holding off from making a decision - at least a public decision - until much later on.

Both candidates have a lot to prove

In the last election, we had two candidates with long track records - Ming Campbell and Simon Hughes. Mark Oaten and Chris Huhne were, in relative terms, unknown quantities. Nobody knew how they would turn out when placed under the spotlight. Huhne emerged with his reputation enhanced; Oaten emerged with his in tatters. I would argue that Huhne is still relatively unknown, and that Clegg is in a similar position. Both are undoubtedly intelligent, sensible and have a good degree of presentational skills. But there must be a lot about both men which we don't yet know. Common sense dictates that we wait and see what they have to say for themselves before making a judgement.

Declaring support makes you a partisan

As much as we may try to avoid bias, there is a strong tendency for anyone who has publicly declared support for a candidate to continue to support that candidate even if that candidate performs poorly. It becomes easier to ignore a candidate's failings, and if the candidate's weaknesses become too apparent, there is a temptation to compensate for this by attacking the rival candidate. Many psychological studies have shown that we become biased in favour of our earlier stated opinions, even if we would no longer make the same choice in secret. It's very easy to say 'I will support candidate X'; it's very hard to say 'I have changed my mind'.

Candidates need criticism, not cheerleading

This is a truly pivotal moment for the Liberal Democrats. The usual caveats about wild opinion poll swings aside, the next election looks like being a very tough one. Whoever is leader, they are going to face a harsh environment; the media will be all too happy to ignore the Lib Dems entirely, and both Labour and Conservative leaders have made Lib Dem voters their target. The new leader is going to have to stand up to criticism and give a good account of why anyone should listen to him, let alone vote for the party. I'm confident that both Chris and Nick are capable of this, but I want to know who can do it best. To that end, we need to put both of them through a very tough process, almost a trial by ordeal, to see who emerges intact.

To do this, without descending into negative arguments, requires a degree of impartiality which might be at odds with public declarations of support for either candidate. I'd be very wary of leading bloggers and others who might be expected to play a role in scrutinising the candidates becoming cheerleaders for either side. Of course, there's nothing wrong with having a preference and explaining the reasons for that preference, but I think it's best to leave open the possiibility of a change of mind too.

So far, we know a few things about the Liberal Democrat leadership race:

It's a head-to-head

Unlike the last election, which featured four-ish candidates (depending on whether or not you count John Hemming, and whether or not you count Mark Oaten), this is a direct head-to-head. Much of the early coverage has stressed the similarity between the two men, and in public they are careful to highlight the fact that they both back most of what makes up current party policy. A four-way race would have given us a more diverse field of candidates, but it might have encouraged the early front-runner (presumably Nick Clegg) to have run a 'safe' campaign in the same style as Ming Campbell's successful campaign in 2006.

Additionally, a four-way race would have meant that some elements in the party would have largely favoured particular candidates from the beginning. People with a passion for a particular issue (or group of issues) would have known who 'their' man or woman was from the start, and would have had fewer reasons to engage with the other candidates. In a two-horse race, both candidates need to reach out to all parts of the party, and everyone's vote is up for grabs.

It's a close race

The early polling isn't giving much of a lead to either Clegg or Huhne. On the one hand, Clegg probably has more support amongst the MPs and the general party 'establishment'. On the other, Huhne has the advantage of his run in 2006, giving him a base of support and an experienced network of supporters. Neither candidate is going to be a walk-over, and neither looks likely to implode under the spotlight in the manner that Mark Oaten and, to a lesser extent, Simon Hughes did in the last race.

This reinforces the message of point #1. Both men really do need to do their utmost to convince Lib Dem members to back them. Last time around, Ming Campbell could point to a long record, experience and his excellent role in holding the government to account over the Iraq war. When he stood for the leadership, he had twenty years of Westminste parliamentary experience behind him, and a whole lot more. Neither Clegg nor Huhne can point to visible political achievements, having been in Westminster since only May 2005, though both had earlier roles in the European Parliament. This is not to disparage either man's experience or contribution to the party and political life in general, merely to point out that much of that work is not always visible to the membership at large.

Winning will require some risk-taking

A lot of the coverage of the 2006 election was dominated by negative issues. The race itself came about due to the very public exposure of the weaknesses of Charles Kennedy. During the leadership race itself, Mark Oaten was forced out by negative coverage of his private life, and Simon Hughes' campaign suffered greatly from the consistent questioning about his sexuality, linked to (in my view, entirely spurious) allegations of past homophobia. Even Chris Huhne was dogged by suggestions that he lacked experience and that his constituency majority was so slender that it posed a severe risk of the Liberal Democrats losing their leader's seat at the next general election. Ming Campbell was able to trade on his gravitas and respect to elude such scrutiny, but it could be argued that he won quite a few votes on the basis of being the 'least worst' candidate.

This time around, the only way to win is to be the best candidate. This requires some risk-taking, and both candidates will need to say some things that run the risk of losing some support in return for gaining larger amounts of support from other quarters. Both candidates will need to show what they are standing for, not what they're standing against. As a party, I think we're helped here by the fact that both men are, so far as I can tell, well-liked, affable and good-natured. Neither candidate is likely to attract a significant negative vote against them personally, which means that any votes cast will have to be positive votes, based on positive identification with the views and aims of the candidate.

So, with all of these things in mind, I think it's important that the candidates are held firmly to account on their views. Last time, the party failed - entirely understandably, given the traumatic situation and the truncated timetable - to properly explore and discuss the views of the candidates. Ming - and I say this as someone who voted for him and stands by that decision - won almost by default. Now, there cannot be a victory by default. Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne both have to tell us what they stand for and how they want to make it a reality. Like a lot of Lib Dems, I'm undecided about who to vote for; I'm waiting for a candidate to give me a reason to pick him.