Simon Hughes, in a Guardian interview
earlier this week. Photograph: Martin Argles
Ming is a man of his word. Last week on Sky News he was asked whether his Jaguar would have to go in the interests of the environment. He agreed that personal sacrifices would have to be made, writes Jody Dunn.
Last night on Any Questions it emerged that, true to his word, the Jaguar has indeed been sacrificed and has now found a new home with his step-son in East Lothian.
The question of what type of vehicle Ming is now driving remained unanswered, although such a statesmanlike figure in a Smart car is a little hard to imagine.
Questions were, however, answered by all three candidates on the right to privacy, the threat of Brown and Cameron and their views on coalitions, global warming, the environment and taxation.
All three candidates spoke fluently and demonstrated a strong grasp of both party policy and their personal aspirations for the future.
Chris Huhne described Cameron as a man not to be feared as his "rhetoric was OK, but his proposals flimsy".
His view (as an ex-journalist) on a privacy law was that it would have a "chilling effect on investigations", and on taxation he stated that while he was committed to the principal of redistribution of wealth, he would wait to hear from the tax commission before outlining concrete policies.
He also stated that it was time for the party to "bite the bullet" and increase duties on petrol, aviation fuel and energy bills.
Ming Campbell, when asked about his personal qualities, admitted to being embarrassed about self-promotion, but came back strongly when a member of the audience suggested that if elected he would lose votes by leading the party to the right.
He affirmed that his politics were left of centre and challenged anyone to name just one issue where his stance had been anything other than centre left. No one could.
Ming talked passionately about the necessary "crusade to do everything in our power to eliminate poverty."
When asked about British troops abroad Ming answered authoritatively, drawing a clear distinction between the existence of UN authority in Afghanistan and Kosovo, and the lack of any such authority in Iraq. He ruled out further investment in nuclear power "absolutely and unequivocally".
Simon Hughes talked of our "fundamentally unjust society, which after eight years of Labour is more unjust".
He advocated the redistribution of wealth - "all of my policies would be about a fairer sharing of the wealth of Britain. All of them."
He was unequivocal on the issue of a coalition. "There will be no coalition if I am the leader unless there is a fair election first."
Simon also hoped that Mark Oaten would be allowed to remain as an MP, and agreed that the current level of press intrusion would certainly deter many capable people of entering into politics at all. His priority in terms of addressing environmental issues was to make the airline industry pay more fairly.
My own self-imposed remit in listening to the programme was to remain as objective as possible. While I know all three candidates, I am, like many other party members, still undecided as to whom to vote for.
Had I been making that decision based on this debate alone, (and this is purely personal) I would probably have given my vote to Simon. I felt that of the three candidates, he spoke with the most clarity and conviction, and gave unequivocal answers to direct questions.
The debate succeeded in highlighting important policy differences between the candidates, but on one issue there was complete agreement.
The Liberal Democrats need a leader who can unite the party, especially after the turbulent month we have just had. I have little doubt that it is the candidate who is the most convincing on that sole issue who will ultimately win this election.
* Jody Dunn was the Liberal Democrat candidate for Hartlepool at last year's general election.
