CHRIS FISHER, EDP Political Editor A coup against a party leader need not be damaging for the party concerned. The Tories' removal of Iain Duncan Smith proves that. Under Michael Howard their party showed a level of unity that had eluded them for years, and began a process of recovery.

CHRIS FISHER, EDP Political Editor

A coup against a party leader need not be damaging for the party concerned. The Tories' removal of Iain Duncan Smith proves that. Under Michael Howard their party showed a level of unity that had eluded them for years, and began a process of recovery.

The Liberal Democrats could follow that example. But on the evidence so far, some of their leading figures are determined instead to follow the model created by the removal of Margaret Thatcher in 1990.

There is much recrimination in the air. Party president Simon Hughes - who may well run in the leadership election - set a dangerous tone for the party in saying that he was "not proud" of some of the comments made by colleagues in recent weeks. This was generally taken to be an attack on supporters of Sir Menzies (Ming) Campbell. But that was accompanied by a remark - thought to be directed mainly at Mark Oaten - that it was "unacceptable and inexcusable" that at least one candidate had got his campaign running well before Charles Kennedy's resignation.

Mr Oaten has complained that Mr Kennedy was "hounded out" (by implication, by supporters of Sir Ming and elements in the media). And some of Sir Ming's backers - who are doomed, I suspect, to be known as Mingers - are pretty scathing about both Mr Oaten and Mr Hughes.

In the case of the former, the censure relates to his behaviour in recent weeks, and the criticism of the latter centres on policies and attitudes that polarise opinion in his party. Things could - repeat, could - get very nasty in 'the nice party'.

First, the whodunnit? Who killed Mr Kennedy? The main culprit in my opinion was Mr Kennedy himself. The man had long been in denial about a problem that British voters should have been allowed to know about and which undoubtedly did affect his performance. Eventually he was asked to pick up the pearl-handled revolver, but refused to do so until it was made clearer than clear that he would be bumped off if he didn't.

Who drove him to his resignation? In the main, supporters of Sir Ming. I don't see how anyone can seriously deny that. They concluded before Christmas that Mr Kennedy had to go, and found a way of securing what they wanted. Matters were brought to a head by Mr Kennedy's discovery, last Thursday, that ITV News were to run a story (by Daisy McAndrew, a former press aide to the ex-Lib Dem leader) about his drink problems. The Campbell camp certainly had advance knowledge of that story, and it is reasonable to infer that one or more of their number supplied the information.

I don't mention this in order to damn the Campbell people. They reached absolutely the right conclusion. And if they are to be criticised, it should be for not doing it sooner. Their sins are minor, moreover, compared with those of a tiny number of people in the Kennedy inner-circle who conspired over a long time to keep the terrible truth from the British public.

Let us not beat about the bush. This was a sustained deception, in which denials that Mr Kennedy was a drunk were reinforced by threats of both legal action and referrals to the Press Complaints Commission. After the Times had suggested that Mr Kennedy had missed a Budget debate in 2004 because he was the worse for drink, it was forced to write a formal apology. The truth is that aides were so concerned about his incapacity that they had locked him in his office.

This cover-up was perpetrated, moreover, by a party leadership which has spent much time in recent years claiming the moral high ground and impugning the integrity of the Prime Minister (and those backing him) on the Iraq war.

Sir Ming has been a high-profile figure in his party's opposition to the war. And although I fundamentally disagree with him on that issue, I think he is easily his party's best bet for the succession to Mr Kennedy.

He is 64, and he has had very little to say about the economy and domestic policy generally. But he does have gravitas, and does command respect.

Better he, surely, than Mr Hughes, who has done remarkably well to keep his Bermondsey seat for more than 20 years but is effortlessly sanctimonious and rather stuck in a mindset moulded by the political battles of inner-London.

As for Mr Oaten and his "tough Liberalism": many will need a lot more persuading that the latter is not a contradiction. Has he been batting mainly for Mr Kennedy, moreover, or himself? Maybe his time will come eventually. But the likeliest leader-after-next is Sheffield MP Nick Clegg.