[insert title here] - 22 October

Dear Wokingham, do give this Tory a warm welcome...

I see that the former Campaigns Officer for Suffolk Coastal Conservatives has migrated to Wokingham in search of a challenge, one presumes. I have to admit that swapping one of the most conservative constituencies for another is hardly stretching, but as I have friends in Wokingham (who aren't Tories, I should note), I do feel that I should flag up his arrival, especially as he has already announced that he has a Liberal Democrat councillor 'in his sights'.

I don't know how effective Fraser McFarland is a campaign organiser, but you are warned that his manners are somewhat less than optimal...

Is Tim Farron up for this?

Canadian politicians. Dull, right? Apparently not, now that a man who, according to his Conservative opponents, brought nothing to the contest but nice hair, has become Prime Minister. Justin Trudeau, for it is he, is not your average politician...

And so, with Kav Kaushik particularly in mind, here he is, the guy in white. Check the moves... And yes, nice hair...

On this day... in 2006

I was inspired to cook. I watch relatively little television these days, but I was single then, and keen to do something 'improving'. It has to be said that I still cook meals for myself, especially given that Ros is in London for most weeknights. But I do still enjoy some time in the kitchen, even if it is to cook something basic or, when Ros is cooking, to lend a hand with some of the simpler stuff.

We have a new overlord, it seems. Well done Tim, and well done to Norman too...

So, the white smoke has come, and Tim Farron has won by a rather wider margin than his predecessor did eight years ago. I'm pleased that the margin is unquestionable, but also that Norman did as well as he did do. 43.5% is more than respectable, and it means that he has earned the right to be as serious a player in the future of the Party as he wishes to. Given his obvious ability, that can only be to the advantage of the liberal cause.

It is interesting to see the response below the line on the various websites. The irreconcilables are, still, irreconcilable but, frankly, the fact that they see fit to post how disinterested they are rather undermines that apparent stance. There are others who continue to take great delight in attacking the Party for supposedly enabling the Conservatives. I tend to think that the electorate have some responsibiity there too but wonder if these people were listening to the likes of Rachel Reeves on the subject of welfare. Probably not, as that might challenge them to question their own prejudices.

There are, astonishingly, those who consider that a new leader offers the best hope for social democracy in this country. I do hope not, as I'm a liberal.

And finally, there are those who believe that we should all just give up and go home. Bearing in mind that they aren't liberals and apparently have no interest in hearing an alternative voice, we can safely ignore them.

No, there are millions of people in this country who, if given a reason to vote Liberal Democrat, will do so happily. Will they agree with us on everything? Probably not, after all, even party members disagree amongst themselves - it's part of the liberal DNA. It's our job to make the case of liberal democracy, do it well and rebuild trust again.

So, Tim, good luck. From the snippets of your speech this evening that I've seen, you came across as suspiciously human, and that's a damned good thing. We will probably disagree from time to time, and that's healthy, but if you can inspire the sort of respect that has appeared in my Twitter feed this evening from a surprisingly wide range of people, you're not likely to go far wrong...

Time to endorse a candidate for Leader...

I've been involved in a lot of selection contests over the years - for Westminster and European Parliamentary seats - and even the odd internal party contest - the 2008 Party Presidential contest comes to mind for some reason. For the most part though, leadership contests have passed me by.

In 2006, as a Local Party Chair in South London, I was somewhat surprised to see how long it took any of the campaigns to contact me to seek my support - after all, I might have, theoretically, been influential in my own patch, or had the means to contact local members. And, having blogged my surprise, I was almost immediately contacted by the Huhne campaign team. I ended up supporting Chris, a decision made easier by such signs of competence.

In 2007, I was a bit busy with the early stages of Ros's campaign for the Party Presidency, but I did chair the first hustings (in Newbury), much to my own surprise. I attended more hustings meetings than most - I was in Derby and Leeds too - and was one, if not the first, amongst the blogosphere to question the Huhne campaign's attack strategy. It was, in the end, the decisive reason why I opted for Nick over Chris. I wasn't alone, and given the closeness of the margin of victory, that sense of unhappiness over negative campaigning may have been decisive.

And so, to 2015, Farron versus Lamb. I like both men, and would have no real objection if either of them became Leader. So, even if a second preference is meaningless, I'll cast one assuming the ballot paper allows it. But I am obliged to make a choice, and I should have some reasoning for doing so. So, here goes...

Tim Farron was, when I first ran into him, one of those 'annoying students' (you can tell that I was in the youth wing, can't you?). Almost always wearing that Blackburn Rovers shirt - and no, it wasn't an affectation - he was surprisingly much as he is now. He has almost mythic campaigning ability - just look at his majority. I have been sceptical about his leadership potential in the past, having even had a bit of a dig at him on Liberal Democrat Voice. Does he have gravitas? Compared to someone like Ming, no, not really. Do we share the same view of the world? Mostly, although I'm more cautious than he is (I'm a bureaucrat, remember). Do I think that his two terms as Party President were an unmitigated success? Well, he wasn't as good as his predecessor...

Norman Lamb is my more local candidate. A Norwich City supporter (which rather counts against him south of the Waveney), and a really good minister, he impressed me when I saw him speak at Saxmundham a few months ago. I used to run into him on the train to London, sitting in Standard class, working on constituency and ministerial papers, and he was always polite. In return, I would leave him alone. He has gravitas, he's an excellent campaigner - I've been on the doorstep with him in Mundesley and Potter Heigham - and he has tremendous energy.

They have both said what I believe to be the right things about our time in the Coalition, both been honest about the tuition fees debacle, both articulated a view as to the future of the Party and how it might be organised that resonates. They are both, I believe, gut reaction liberals.

Different times require different strategies. One thing that worries me is the risk that we try to recover by playing the political game in the same way as we have for more than a decade, i.e. just like the two Ugly Sisters. We're not like them, and if we want to be like them, frankly, they're better at it. We need to be positive, optimistic and live our principles.

I had been wavering over the past few weeks, leaning slightly one way, but not so that I felt committed. I wanted to be persuaded. And now, I have been. Here are my key criteria;

• boldness - we may well be fighting for our lives, and caution won't help
• integrity - the Leader must be seen to exhibit our values, not just in his words, but in his deeds and in those whom he surrounds himself with
• passion - ironic really, coming from a bureaucrat, but we do need some of that 'old fashioned religion', if you'll pardon the expression

There's not an awful lot in it, but Norman has been slightly more cautious, slightly less passionate and has been unfortunate in terms of the people surrounding him. And so, I have decided that I will be voting for Tim Farron. Well, unless he, or his campaign team, do something stupid enough to annoy me.

So, keep it clean, positive and upbeat, Tim. That's the best hope for our Party and for our country...

The President is dead, the President is dead, long live the President!

And so the Presidency has been handed over, and my term as First Husband/Presidential Consort is over. Hasn't it been an adventure? We have travelled thousands of miles, by train, car and aeroplane, eaten precisely no rubber chicken, made a bunch of new friends and discovered corners of the country that had hitherto been merely places on a map - a number of which we quite fancy returning to.

But this is far from the end for the Ros and Mark show. At midnight, we took up our new roles as members of the ELDR Council, and resumed past roles as Vice Chair and Secretary of our Regional Party. There's even a gig in the diary for later this month - we're going to Basildon - so we may yet be touring in the year ahead. You know where to find us if you want us...

And, of course, there is a District Council campaign to keep us occupied until May. Ros is determined that it will be done properly, and has designed a campaign plan that will keep me on the move until the election is won or lost. You can expect to hear more about that as Winter turns to Spring.

I've got my new column for Liberal Democrat Voice on internal Party matters (which reminds me, I really need to start thinking about my first column...), whilst Ros takes up her new post on the House of Lords Appointments Commission, and starts work as a member of the EU Sub-Committee G - Social Policies and Consumer Protection (it covers health, education, employment, consumer protection, equality, cultural issues and sport).

We'll also be in Sheffield for Spring Conference, for the symbols of office, the gavel and the copy of 'On Liberty' must be handed on to the new President.

Ah yes, a new President... I suppose that it's time to confess that I didn't vote for Tim. Not because I don't think that he'll be a very good President, but because, as I noted at the time, I was very conflicted as to what the Party needs at this time. There were moments when I thought that members needed a President to 'stir the blood', others when a quiet word might be more effective.

I clearly reflected opinion amongst the members, given how tight the result was, so I can be fairly relaxed about the outcome, and I have every confidence that Tim will go on to do us proud. And if he has any questions along the way, I'm sure that Ros will be only too happy to offer the benefits of wisdom she gleaned during two of the most turbulent years of the Party's history.

And so, may I end this post by wishing Tim the very best of luck in the two years ahead. The Presidency offers opportunities to get to the very heart of our Party, to make it a healthier, happier organisation and to be inspired by the efforts of people you might never have met otherwise. It also offers access to every corner of the Party, whether you want it or not, and a platform from which members and activists can be inspired.

There will be moments when he'll wonder why on Earth he took the job on. Far from home, on a cold, dark evening, on a railway platform waiting for a delayed train with the prospect of hours of discomfort before finding the sanctuary of a warm bed and a kind word, one's spirits can falter. But, all in all, our two years were an adventure, a privilege and a pleasure.

Time to move on though, for there are adventures enough ahead...

Tim Kramer vs Susan Farron - it's all too difficult...

Four o'clock came and went, and I really should have gone to check the final list of nominations. However, I had another of those "Ooh look, it's a bunny rabbit!" moments and was distracted by the need (or otherwise) for a roving microphone for the Presidential hustings. So, I obtained one from the venue staff, manning the lighting and sound systems, and found myself the Chair's aide as a result.

I've remarked in the past that this contest makes for a very difficult choice, and the hustings that followed makes my choice all the more marginal. Yes, I've already voted, but I can't help feeling that the hustings would only have made it less likely that I would vote at all. That isn't because they aren't both very good candidates, because they are. It isn't because I don't beleive that they can do the job of President, although I'll return to that point.

Under a hail of questions from the audience, they responded well, appealing to those who feel that the President is potentially their champion, although there were far too many questions about policy for my liking. Let's get this right, the President's view on policy issues should be a personal one, it should not colour their judgement as to what is good for the Party. Their role is to convey widely held concerns, fears or questions to the Leader and, now, our Ministers in Government, not to act as some maverick, firing ideas off in random directions in a chase for headlines.

They do offer two distinctive visions of the Presidency, I believe. Tim has a more high-profile vision for the Presidency, a vocal reminder to the leadership that the members need to be listened to. Susan's is more of a behind the scenes voice, operating beyond the media spotlight, more consensual. I'm not sure which is more reflective of the Party's needs, indeed, my stance varies from day to day. Given that I've had a unique view of the Presidency for two years now, that is perhaps an indication of the challenge that faces the winner of the contest.

Ironically, it may well prove to be the case that what works best with the Party's leadership is not what members opt for, a recipe for frustration, to say the least. And given that there are very few people who actually understand what the President is for, that is always a risk...

Party Presidency - there's a familiar look to some of these faces...

Gosh, haven't events moved quickly? From there not apparently being a vacancy a week ago, we now have four candidates emerging to contest for membership support. For obvious reasons, I'm not going to endorse any of them, especially as I have a lot of respect for all of them, but particularly because I promised one of the candidates that I wouldn't.

I know Tim Farron from my days in the Young Liberal Democrats. He was one of those annoying Student Liberal Democrats (in fairness, I thought that they were all annoying, bloody students...). Expert paper aeroplane manufacturer, Blackburn Rovers supporter (ah well, you can't please everybody...), and a successful campaigner.

Susan Kramer and I don't go back quite as far. I was on her Westminster assessment day panel, and had the great good fortune to have her as my PPC in Dulwich & West Norwood in 1997. We've remained friends ever since, and I was quite depressed to hear the result from Richmond Park this year. Susan knows how to run things, and is good at team building. I'm not so sure about her paper aeroplane skills though...

Jennie Rigg is someone I think of as a friend. She isn't a Parliamentarian, she's a grassroot, gloriously bohemian. You know what you're getting with Jennie,and you know that she won't hold back in expressing what she believes. Her campaign is already off the ground, and I'm expecting innovation, colour and a blog to die for.

I don't know Jason Zadrozny as well as the others. Ironically, I was on the panel for his Westminster approval day too, and was impressed by his commitment, dedication and knowledge. He will certainly know what it's like at the campaigning coalface, and his gallant campaign in Ashfield is an example to us all.

I certainly have no reason to vote against any of them, and would expect to cast all four preferences (I know that the last one has no electoral purpose, but it does indicate a positive endorsement) if this turns out to be the final field. All four of them have skills that fit with my perception of the Party Presidency, and I wish all of them the very best of luck with their campaigns.

I just wonder who ends up getting my job...