I must admit, I'm glad that I didn't declare support for a candidate in the current Lib Dem leadership election. I'm still undecided and have, until now, found it quite hard to get worked up about what either side has been saying.

The Question Time debate between Clegg and Huhne was only mildly interesting, and I suspect that even that interest was sustained only because I'm a lot more interested in the issues than the average man on the street. I gave my comments on the debate in the Lib Dem Voice open thread on the subject.

My comment at the time:

I’m not sure that the programme is a good one to base judgements on. Nick came across badly, but Dimbleby gave him far tougher questions to deal with. Twice he brought out obviously pre-prepared ambush questions, one right at the start of the programme, and both were directed at Nick. In contrast, Chris escaped relatively unscathed, although I do get the sense that his unflappability meant that he simply couldn’t be ambushed.

I did wonder quite how and why it was that Nick was caught off-guard by David Dimbleby, and why that negative line of questioning seemed to be directed more at Nick than Chris. It seemed somewhat unfair that, only minutes into the crucial head-to-head debate, Nick was forced into defending or disowning alleged comments he had made about Chris in the past. I do think that he fluffed his response quite badly, but it was a surprisingly hostile question. Why did Dimbleby do it? As the assumed front-runner, I supposed that it was only fair that Nick had to field tougher questioning than Chris. However, after both men appeared today on the BBC's Politics Show, another theory has presented itself. In this show, the roles were reversed; it was Huhne's turn to be ambushed, and he was ambushed by the appearance of a document entitled 'Calamity Clegg', which had come from the office of Huhne's campaign. Huhne's denial of knowledge of the document was somewhat undermined by the fact that he repeated several points from the document in his criticism of Clegg; he might not have seen the title, but he was certainly aware of the opinions expressed. Given that Huhne's campaign has been distributing a dossier of criticisms of Clegg, it seems feasible enough to assume that his campaign was also behind the material used by Dimbleby in the Question Time debate.

I'm not sure what to make of it. The Cleggites are up in arms; Linda Jack is incensed, Charlotte Gore regards Huhne's approach as 'sad'. More damaging for Huhne is that even his own supporters aren't impressed; Bernard Salmon thinks that Chris should 'cut it out'. The general analysis seems to be that this is a big mistake for Huhne: Jeremy Hargreaves and David Rundle both argue that Clegg is looking stronger and Huhne weaker and that Huhne's negative attacks are the last roll of the dice for an underdog candidate who needs to make some impact.

As I said, I'm not convinced either way. I still haven't decided on a candidate (I'll be attending the Manchester hustings on Saturday and will make my decision after that), so I don't feel a need to support either man. It's obviously not good to see the candidates engaging in negative campaigning, but it's worth examining that sentence closely. It's not good to see it happen. I'm actually quite happy to know that Chris Huhne is determined to win and is determined to ensure that, if Nick Clegg does beat him, it will not be without a fight and a very tough challenge. Allowing negative briefing documents into the public domain, on the other hand, is a mistake that will haunt Chris's campaign. The Lib Dem leader does need to be someone who can make an impact and ruthlessly deal with opponents. Against Gordon Brown or David Cameron, such an ability to focus on their weaknesses would be invaluable. Even the deployment of such tactics in an internal leadership election is something that grown up men and women in politics should expect; the problem for Huhne is that he has been caught red-handed doing it.

Part of the problem here is that Nick hasn't done much else to build up his own standing. Whilst his billing as the 'great communicator' has unfortunately created the unrealistic expectation of a cross between JFK, Bill Clinton and the early Tony Blair, he has thus far failed to present much of a reason for following him. He's a nice guy and passes the 'would like to go for a pint with' test comfortably; he's obviously not short of passion or commitment, and he seems to understand the importance of relating liberal principles to people's daily lives. But he has an infuriating air of confusion around him, one which might be a good thing if it prevents him from getting bogged down in side issues, but in the absence of any 'big ideas' makes him look rather shallow. Jock Coats wrote an excellent post today extolling a vision of economic change in a liberal Britain; I'm sure that Clegg has the skills to sell this kind of vision if he chooses to do so. Clegg does have the potential to illuminate genuinely big ideas in terms that people can understand, and if he can do this then he will leave Chris Huhne's tactical differences over Trident or school vouchers looking like minor details in a far bigger picture. But, right now, he hasn't done this, and as a result Chris has been setting the agenda, to Nick's detriment.

I'm a little bit concerned at how much this scenario reminds me of the last leadership election. Huhne then ran an effective, organised and ambitious campaign, but lost out to Ming because, despite Ming's inferior campaign, there was a sense in the party that Ming would do better once safely installed in the job. The opposite turned out to be the case. Now, as then, Huhne seems to be running the more effective campaign, but also seems poised to lose to a man who, we are assured, has greater talents than we have witnessed in the campaign itself. This is why I did not declare in favour of Nick right at the start. Everything I've heard about him suggests that he should by my first choice, but what I've seen and heard myself isn't as convincing. If nothing changes, I'm going to be faced with an agonising choice between Nick's greater potential, and Chris's greater impact in the here and now. And, given that Nick is 13 years younger and could feasibly still lead the party a decade from now, it might make more sense to go with the more effective candidate now.

All in all, I'm not sure and I am giving myself another week to make my mind up. This is one vote that is still up for grabs!