IT IS ONE hundred years this month since the Liberal Party last won a majority of seats in the House of Commons. If the events of the past few weeks are any indication, it will be at least another century before that trick is repeated. To lose a leader once his secret battle with the bottle was exposed is bad enough. For another “rising star”, the able and amiable Mark Oaten, to come crashing to earth in such an absolute, brutal and humiliating fashion as he has this weekend is even worse. It leaves an element of farce rather than drama as the backdrop to the contest for the Liberal Democrat leadership.

That battle is essentially between only two men. To state that is not to malign the third contender, Chris Huhne. He may not be well known, but as the Conservative Party has consistently demonstrated in its contests anonymity at the outset of a campaign is no liability. Mr Huhne, however, is not an invisible figure inside Liberal Democrat circles. He is known to be astute, fresh, frank and economically literate. These are together too immense a handicap to allow him to secure the post to which he aspires. I suspect that, if he runs, he will win the plaudits of pundits but not many votes.

What we are left with instead might be described as The Muppet Show election. It pits Gonzo the Great against Sam the Eagle. It is a classic confrontation of political styles.

Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat president, is the personification of Gonzo. He is energetic, engaging and sincere. He is also perceived to be chaotic, idiosyncratic and unpredictable. In one Muppet episode, Gonzo shouts out towards the audience: “Ladies and gentlemen. This evening, I will perform a feat of lunatic daring.” There are too many Lib Dem MPs who fear that this would also be Mr Hughes’s approach if he were their leader.

Sir Menzies Campbell, by contrast, is a ringer for Sam the Eagle. He looks the part. He is austere, reliable and sage. His age in that context is an asset. He has had his faults as a foreign affairs spokesman; he is rather too keen on the EU, the UN and the Palestinian cause for my taste, but he has always exuded authority. Sam the Eagle told the rest of the Muppet troupe that: “You are all weirdos.” It is a sentiment that Sir Menzies might keep in mind if he addresses the next party conference as leader.

In different circumstances, there would be a decent case for picking Gonzo over Sam the Eagle. It has, after all, not only been part of the charm of the Liberal Democrats over the past few decades but their purpose to provide an alternative perspective on politics. Consensus politics is not only dull, it often achieves harmony at the expense of wisdom. If Mr Kennedy had fallen from power four years ago Mr Hughes might have been the man.

Not, though, in these conditions. It seems to me that there are three strong arguments for Sir Menzies that the Oaten debacle reinforces.

The first is the need for the Liberal Democrats to achieve (positive) media exposure. It is one of the ironies of Mr Kennedy’s demise that his colleagues felt that an individual nicknamed “Chatshow Charlie” was not seen enough on television screens. Leaders of third parties, alas, have no automatic right to a prominent place on the nation’s airwaves.

Paddy Ashdown punched above his weight in this respect because his past career meant that he was regarded as possessing an expertise on military matters. Sir Menzies’s established track record means that television producers will have few qualms about calling on him to comment on international developments. Mr Hughes does not have a similar valuable niche.

The second argument is the obligation on a leader of a third party to play himself off against his two larger rivals. Mr Kennedy could do that against Tony Blair and William Hague/Iain Duncan Smith/Michael Howard, yet did not seem such a convincing prospect competing with Gordon Brown and David Cameron in 2009-2010. In an ideal world, the Liberal Democrats might now select their equivalent to Mr Cameron in Nick Clegg, the young MP for Sheffield Hallam. He, rightly, senses that it is not his time. There is a logical case, therefore, in the Liberal Democrats opting for the “Not Mr Cameron” candidate. Mr Brown and Sir Menzies together might say to the electorate that the choice was one of “Men against Boys”.

The final factor concerns political arithmetic. The result of the last general election means that a hung Parliament is a realistic prospect next time. That was not so in 1997, 2001 or 2005. It means that the Liberal Democrats could and should be prepared to form a coalition. To fulfil that role, they have to be seen as capable of working with either Labour or the Conservatives — depending on the balance of seats after the election.

They have to appear responsible as well as radical, which demands that the plausible stance on tax and spending promoted by Vince Cable and David Laws (both of whom are in the Campbell camp) is adopted wholesale. The Liberal Democrat leader himself has to come across as the sort of chap who could carry a ministerial red box with conviction. That means Sam the Eagle.

It also means asking whether Liberal Democrats are truly interested in high office. For much of the past 100 years they have not been. Many activists would instinctively prefer the purity of principle to the problems of power. Are they a serious force or, like The Muppet Show, basically in business for entertainment? After a catastrophic period, party members are entitled to seek stability. One exchange between Sam the Eagle and Gonzo the Great captures the distinction before them.

Sam: “I don’t want to see any more of this kind of foolishness!”.

Gonzo: “Well, what kind of foolishness do you want to see?”

Times Recommends

• Fragility always gets my sympathy vote
• Double it and you get the real jobless total
• Has al-Megrahi paid his council tax?