Just about the first people I ran into on leaving the leadership hustings yesterday were Stephen Tall and Rob Fenwick (moving spirits of Lib Dem Voice past and present). They asked if I felt inspired.
“Not really,” I said. “We have heard most of it already”.
But this morning (rising early to catch a flight) I found that I did feel inspired after all.

I won’t try to report on the proceedings in detail. Rob Knight has already done this for Manchester (scroll down the page). The three of us spent the rest of the evening in a pub that was heaving with Liberal Democrat bloggers and many of them seem to have reported what went on with quite impressive consensus. Alix, David, Tom and Rob all seem to agree that Clegg was better on the speech. On the question and answer section there wasn’t a clear winner but Andy Strange summed up my feelings on the session:

On a number of occasions Huhne was able to give a response that seemed to push the buttons of the activist dominated audience. He may have just shaded it on the clapometer. However, Clegg was from time to time able to deploy a rather neat turn of phrase.

Why did I feel inspired this morning? Three reasons really.

First I thought further about the Clegg speech – initially by wondering about the structure. It is essentially a list of five items: fear, powerlessness, social stagnation, globalisation, and the environment. I work with a lot of people influenced by ENA presentation styles, and they would never use a list of five (a division into two or three every time for the ENA/Grandes Ecoles people). So I notice things like this.

You could easily turn Clegg’s speech into a list of three if you wanted. Fear, powerlessness, and globalisation could be turned into one. But think about it: as a party we are big on logic and moral principles: if a mix of logic and moral principles were the way to victory, we would have won every election since 1979. But they aren't - not on their own. And here is a potential leader who frames the debate in terms of people’s emotions (three of his five headings). It isn't what we are used to, but I suspect it is what we need.

Second was the question and answer session. The questions (as David Boyle has pointed out) were a touch dull, and just a little quirky. Chris Huhne answered in best hustings style, trying to appeal to the tribe. Nick answered as if he were already leader (avoiding the charge of party arrogance), thinking through the ways we are going to have to adapt to move forward. One example of this was the reply to the question about what we had to do attract the youth vote. Nick didn’t try to go into detail, or hang a gimmicky policy onto the question. Instead he said (and I paraphrase) that there were a huge number of things we had to do, too many to discuss in detail, but that a lot of it had to do with having a more positive message.

I was never in much doubt that I was going to vote for Clegg. But I am now one hundred per cent convinced that we have a potential leader who understands that the way we communicate is going to have to be qualitatively different. I have had my James Graham moment":
I trust his instincts and am enthused by his questing nature; he is concerned that as a party we don't merely adopt the right policies but ensure that they resonate with the public.
I understand now that his talk about how the party needs to move outside of its comfort zone is more than empty rhetoric but carries behind it a well thought out programme for how the party must communicate its message more effectively.

Jetzt bin ich auch ein Cleggkopf!

I will be controversial now: I had a third reason for feeling upbeat as I walked through the chilly morning air to catch my flight. It seemed to me that Chris Huhne had effectively conceded that he wasn’t going to win the leadership contest. I had to replay the evening in my head to identify the moment – and let’s be clear, I am not suggesting that Huhne said he won’t win, or has even admitted it to himself. But the moment came when Huhne ended one of his own replies to a question by a quite detailed (and acknowledged) paraphrase of a section of Clegg’s speech. It struck me as an unusual thing to do, and the body language - at least from up on the balcony - clinched it for me.

I probably wouldn't have mentioned this if it weren't for the interesting piece that Antony Hook posted on a psychologist's take on the proceedings.

Of course the actual result may be different. But after the London hustings, for all the good qualities Chris displayed (and he is a better candidate this time around and clearly someone who can play a big role within the party), my personal view is that we would be making a big mistake if we didn’t go for Nick.

Near the beginning of this campaign, before I had made up my mind, an MP told me that we had a once in lifetime opportunity to pick Nick and realise our potential. At the time, this struck me as hyperbole. Now I think it was spot on.

But I don’t think it means that we just elect Nick and expect magic. Whoever wins this election, there is a lot of hard work ahead. The opportunities, though, are very great indeed.