We seem to be in danger of getting into a rut in which the media’s story at every Conference is “Ming vs the Party”. This really isn’t terribly helpful.

Last week I found myself sitting in a meeting which was discussing the details of a policy proposal which will come to party conference for approval this autumn. Various views on a particular point were expressed, and it was clear that opinion was quite divided.

But as everyone sat around having a very sensible and reasoned discussion about the best course of action, it struck me that whatever was decided, would be seen by the political world as Ming Campbell’s fixed position and a challenge to his party to support it. If someone else in the party were to put down an amendment to whatever position was finally agreed, arguing the other way, this would be seen by the media as “Ming’s leadership on the line” at the hands of conference representatives again, with everything that brings with it in terms of the leader’s authority over his party being questioned, party members determined to stake out their independence from the leader, and probably perceived threats that the party needed to back its leader or else.

In fact of course it would be nothing of the kind. I wasn’t actually even entirely clear which view Ming took on this particular issue - perhaps I wasn’t paying enough attention - but he most certainly wasn’t banging his fist on the table demanding a particular outcome on that issue, but participating in a sensible discussion about it.

And this episode brought home to me again how we do seem to have got ourselves into quite an unhelpful cycle in relation to the Leader and Conference. Basically, Ming has done the right thing, in taking decisions to conference, letting conference make the decision, and being prepared to argue his case for his own point of view. This is a leader who clearly puts a high value on taking his party with him, and doesn’t want to lead from the rear or be a chairman, but lead from the front.

Some may say that Ming is responsible for this - by bringing things to conference that some in the party are opposed to. I don’t agree - never saying anything that anybody else in the party opposes isn’t leadership, or helping us to stake out the distinctive position we need to. If nobody in the party is ever against anything, then as a party we are not for anything either. Leadership is about taking the lead on issues and being prepared to go out and argue for them.

But in our media context what this has meant is that the story for each of our last three conferences now has been “Will the party over-rule the Leader?”. Now the principle of conference being able to do this, if it really wants to, is very important to many in the party, including me. But even the most diehard devotee of the sovereignty of conference would surely agree that if this becomes our story at every single conference, dominating our opportunities to communicate any message other than “the Lib Dems are split” - even when we aren’t - then this isn’t really in the best interests of the party.

I don’t have a recipe for resolving this - I suppose at this stage I’m really just musing that it does seem to be becoming a bit of a problem. And while I as a party member might not like the press reporting a potential split between the party and its Leader, when it is actually what’s happening, it’s obviously fair for them to report that. But when it really isn’t what’s happening, but simply a discussion within the party about what our policy should be, about which there are legitimately different views, it also isn’t accurate for this always to be reported as some cavernous chasm opening up.

I certainly don’t think the answer is to make changes to prevent conference from taking the most important decisions about what our party thinks. That’s what it’s there for, and if anyone senior in the party thinks that the most important decisions about the party’s policy should be taken in a room in Westminster rather than at conference then they should be in a different party. (Though I have often argued in the past, and remain convinced, that Conference should spend a lot less time on approving the detail of policy in a vast range of areas of greater or lesser prominence or obscurity.).

But I do think that perhaps we need to think about how we handle this set up. A permanent - wrong - impression in the media at conference-time that the Leader and the party are at daggers drawn, is not really in any of our interests.