Although Gordon Brown has diminished both himself and his administration in the past couple of weeks, and proved those Blairites right who desired another candidate, it is not unsurprising to see that Menzies Campbell can sink even lower in his alleged area of expertise.

Menzies Campbell: Is it not time to acknowledge that the presence of British troops in Iraq no longer serves any realistic military or political purpose. Is it not time, too, to acknowledge that, after four and a half years, Britain has more than fulfilled any moral obligation to the people of Iraq and that our obligation now is to our young men and women in our armed forces? Is it not time to acknowledge that the deployment in Iraq, where little more can be done, is prejudicial to our efforts in Afghanistan, where success is still possible? Is it not time now to set a framework and a programme for the complete withdrawal of all our forces from Iraq?

Gordon Brown: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about our obligations to our armed forces—I am pleased that he said that both at the beginning and the end of his remarks—but we also have obligations to the international community, and I would have thought that the Liberal party, with its Gladstonian inheritance, would recognise the obligations that we have internationally, particularly in relation to UN resolutions that have been passed, calling on us to support the democracy of the Iraqi people.

When the final day for the UK withdrawal from Iraq arrives, one can imagine Menzies Campbell arguing for withdrawal at 3.00 pm, rather than 3.30 pm.

For balance, I feel it is only fair to link to this.

Newsnight, as part of their season on democracy, presented Richard Symons arguing for a law to make lying by politicians a criminal offence.

None of the politicians seemed very keen, but none seemed able to articulate the main reason that this law would not improve democracy.

Everyday people accuse politicians of lying. It is expected as part of the make-up of a politician. Many of the accusations are partisan in nature. Take the view that Blair lied about the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. It is surely beyond doubt that any poll of the public would show a majority felt Blair lied. It has become part of the narrative of the story of the war in Iraq. A given. There can be no doubt that such a lie was told. It is repeated as a truth, unchallenged, day in, day out. Yet there is no real evidence that he knowingly did so. A “lie” can be subject to great debate.

Indeed, even without a criminal offence for lying there have been attempts to impeach Blair over this issue. These attempts attracted cross-party support from the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives, the usual suspects, and the SNP. And it was the SNP in their pursuit of Lord Levy in the “cash for peerages” affair that showed the clearest example of how a criminal offence in the hands of political partisans could led to vexatious claims.

Such a law would paralyse politics. Instead of a battle of ideas, such as it is these days, we would have a battle between MPs, and others, attempting to catch a politician in a lie. Elected politicians would be investigated by unelected Police acting on the suspicions of other individuals with their own undisclosed motivations. The resultant climate would put politicians in a untenable position, and lead to the most anodyne of political cultures. A parallel can also be drawn with the disgraceful behaviour of the West Midlands Police, also covered in Newsnight, who attempted to “police” the journalists of Channel 4 after their documentary Undercover Mosque. Who wishes to place the two of the constituent parts of democracy, journalism and parliament, under such restrictions, wielded by unelected public servants subject to the whims of the loudest voices?

Those that argue for such a law, are arguing for the destruction of the very thing they are attempting to save.