Alix Mortimer has written an excellent post calling for both 'sides' in the leadership debate to show a bit more respect for each other's opinions. I generally agree with her argument and recommend that everyone involved reads it and listens to what is being said.

This is important because politics can be a very tricky subject; in fact, as one of my favourite blogs argues, Politics is the mind-killer:

People go funny in the head when talking about politics. The evolutionary reasons for this are so obvious as to be worth belaboring: In the ancestral environment, politics was a matter of life and death. And sex, and wealth, and allies, and reputation... When, today, you get into an argument about whether "we" ought to raise the minimum wage, you're executing adaptations for an ancestral environment where being on the wrong side of the argument could get you killed. Being on the right side of the argument could let you kill your hated rival!

Quite simply, arguments about politics cause us to cease being rational (or, at least, as rational as we ever can be). Once we've nailed our colours to the mast, our brain's internal programming takes over and we start seeing things, if not in black and white, then at least in much sharper shades of grey. This, to me, explains much of why Nick Clegg's supporters are quite so engraged at Chris Huhne's apparent opinion of him. Chris's negative briefing about Nick might have been a bit aggressive, but these are grown men who we expect to send out into the world to do battle on behalf of our political cause; if either of them are incapable of handling this kind of situation then they have no business in standing for the leadership. Clegg's wounded and 'saddened' (to use his own phrase) demeanour at the apparent attacks on his candidacy is just as much a part of the tactical calculation as Huhne's original attack. And who was it who gave the 'Calamity Clegg' document to the BBC? Could it have been - dare we speculate - a Clegg supporter? Did Nick know that this was about to go public? If he's half the politician some people seem to think he is, he certainly should have done!

The point is that getting outraged about the other side's behaviour is actually quite pointless. As an official neutral in the race, I'm almost more turned off by the cries of unfairness coming from some Clegg supporters than I am by Huhne's attacks. Why? Because that kind of emotional, gut response isn't the way to make an important long-term decision about the future of the party leadership. It is not wrong for someone to point out what they think are Nick Clegg's flaws, even in robust language. I might still vote for Nick, but I have absolutely no desire to see him shielded from the strongest possible criticism, because I need to know whether he deserves my vote a lot more than I need to see a false 'unity' between the two candidates. There will be plenty of time for everyone to rally around the flag once the contest is over, but in the meantime we need to hold both candidates to very high standards of scrutiny. Getting offended when people criticise you is not a sign of strength.

The final word on this goes to the post from Overcoming Bias which I quoted at the beginning:

Politics is an extension of war by other means. Arguments are soldiers. Once you know which side you're on, you must support all arguments of that side, and attack all arguments that appear to favor the enemy side; otherwise it's like stabbing your soldiers in the back - providing aid and comfort to the enemy. People who would be level-headed about evenhandedly weighing all sides of an issue in their professional life as scientists, can suddenly turn into slogan-chanting zombies when there's a Blue or Green position on an issue.