Leadership is in the air. The Liberal Democrats (about whom I am naturally biased!) have with enviable speed completed their leadership election with a keen but good-natured contest resulting in victory for Tim Farron.
Labour on the other hand are only part way through a divisive leadership election not due to be completed until September.
Both Tim Farron and whoever emerges from the Labour leadership election have got a job on their hands. Disappointing results in the General Election require both parties to take stock and begin the laborious process of rebuilding.
Often new leaders begin at a critical time for their parties. In the case of the Liberal Democrats, Paddy Ashdown became leader after the chaos of the merger between the Liberal Party and the SDP.
I myself became leader in the wake of Charles Kennedy’s resignation on account of his admitted battle with alcoholism.
And now Tim Farron succeeds Nick Clegg as a direct consequence of the Liberal Democrats’ performance in May.
The pattern has been similar for Labour. Neil Kinnock succeeded Michael Foot following the unfortunate performance of the party in the 1983 election which was based on a manifesto once described as the longest suicide note in history.
Kinnock himself had to go in 1992 after Labour’s failure to triumph in an election everyone expected the party to win. Tony Blair came after the sudden and demoralising death of John Smith in 1994.
What does that tell you? It is that the first task of any new leader is to steady the ship, to bind up the wounds, and to revive hope.
Dramatic policy changes must take second place to restoring stability and rekindling enthusiasm.
Sometimes the very existence of a party depends upon the first few months and as ever luck can play an important part. But you cannot rely on luck alone.
It is necessary for the party to accept the outcome of the leadership campaign and to put aside the inevitable disappointment of defeated candidates and their supporters.
The party needs to give the new leader confidence that he or she leads a party with a common purpose.
Here I confess to partisanship. Tim Farron’s job is not an easy one. The five years of coalition have left their marks (although I for one do not regret that the Liberal Democrats put country before party) and he has to rebuild the local base of members, activists and councillors in order to create a platform for parliamentary success.
It will be a long hard slog, perhaps as long as 10 years.
But in liberalism he has a clear political creed and direction of travel.
Human rights, personal freedom, devolution of power, internationalism, welfare for those who need it, and opportunity for those who can use it.
These are the principles upon which a revival can be built and against which party decisions must be measured.
Labour fell further and have further to climb.
Harriet Harman, as interim leader, is undermined by rebellion and there is more than a hint of the days of Denis Healey against Tony Benn.
Tony Blair’s success, which is inevitably diminished by Iraq, in winning three consecutive elections is conveniently forgotten by some of those who bask in the reflected glory of his historic achievement.
This disarray is not because of electoral failure but because of apparently irreconcilable principles. Labour has a long and distinguished political history in the United Kingdom.
Can it really be the case that the future survival of this party is at risk?
On the face of it Farron has the bigger task but put your money on him rather than on any Labour hopeful.