Sean O'Grady: Wilting in the shadow of Mr Howard

There's a lot of ground to cover before the next election, but the going has suddenly got tougher for Kennedy

When Charles Kennedy rose to make his thoughtful contribution during the debate on the Queen's Speech in the House of Commons last week, the chamber emptied, with the bulk of Labour and Tory MPs leaving after the speeches by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

Dissing the Liberal leader is, of course, a parliamentary ritual as traditional in its way as Black Rod knocking on the door of the Commons, and borne by Mr Kennedy with as much poise and dignity as can be mustered in the circumstances. It is, I imagine, like trying to have a conversation with someone when they just walk away, muttering something indistinct, but no doubt insulting, under their breath as they do so. Very bad manners on their part, and deeply off-putting for you, the speaker. Still, Liberal leaders get used to it.

What may, however, be genuinely novel for Mr Kennedy at the end of this week in politics is a crystallisation of something that has been growing ever since 29 October, exactly one month ago, when Iain Duncan Smith was ousted as leader of the Conservative Party and Michael Howard emerged as his successor. There is a discernible "Howard effect" benefiting the Tories, and the biggest losers are the Liberal Democrats, and, in particular, their leader. For the debate on the Queen's Speech brought into sharper focus what has clearly been happening at Prime Minister's Questions recently. These parliamentary jousts are now much more evenly matched affairs between Tony Blair, Mr Howard and Mr Kennedy than they ever were when the Quiet Man was around.

Whereas Mr Kennedy was clearly more than a match for IDS, Mr Howard is an obviously more formidable figure, with his Cabinet experience, lawyerly debating skills and clever wit. Mr Kennedy rather wilts in his shadow. For sure, the Liberal Democrat leader skilfully ridiculed Tory plans for a remote island on which to exile asylum-seekers. However, the days when Mr Kennedy could plausibly claim to have replaced the Conservatives as the "real" opposition have come to an abrupt end. The bounce in the polls enjoyed by the Liberal Democrats after the Brent East by-election victory and a successful conference has evaporated.

The latest YouGov poll bears out the trend since Mr Howard took over. In September the pollsters asked who would make the best prime minister. Mr Blair scored a disappointing 28 per cent, Mr Duncan Smith an awful 18 per cent and Mr Kennedy a respectable 21 per cent. Now Mr Blair has improved, marginally, to 31 per cent; Mr Howard stands not far behind, on 27 per cent, while Mr Kennedy's rating has declined to 10 per cent.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the position Mr Kennedy finds himself in. Many years ago I worked briefly as a press officer for the party, and I found it a very frustrating experience. In desperation I asked the then political editor of the Daily Mail what it would take to get some coverage for the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Paddy Ashdown. He told me that if Mr Ashdown streaked naked down Yeovil High Street singing "she'll be coming round the mountain when she comes" he might consider the story, but that otherwise he would continue to ignore studiously all the party's activities. His insight into the Mail's agenda was delivered with the unmistakable implication that I was a fool for even asking. Which, of course, I was.

When considering Mr Kennedy's position it is thus important to exclude any notion of some golden age when the third party leader was listened to attentively and respectfully by Commons and media alike. I shudder, for example, when I recall how, in the early 1990s, all those Tory and Labour MPs used to groan theatrically when Paddy asked John Major about the atrocities in Bosnia. Mr Ashdown tried to make a moral case for international intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign state to stop genocide. "Sanctimonious" they yelled at him, but who was right? Nowadays it is regarded in some quarters - 10 Downing Street, the White House - as the acme of statesmanship. Fat lot of good that is now, though.

The point is that third party leaders have always found it hard to make themselves heard, even when they are right. Especially when they are right. So many things - parliamentary conventions, broadcasting guidelines, hostile papers, the tradition of adversarial politics - are stacked against them. But you still have to try to punch through.

Lord (Chris) Rennard, the party's brilliant head of campaigns, told Liberal Democrat News last week that the leader factor is "hugely" important for the Lib Dems, judging that the 80 per cent of the media attention the party receives is focused on its leader. He is enthusiastic about Mr Kennedy's skills as a communicator on TV, and he is right to be. Mr Howard doesn't come across so well on the small screen. Having to bathe him in bright sunlight as the Tories did in their party political broadcast last week made him appear a little like the Virgin Mary in those pictures of the Immaculate Conception you see in Catholic churches, suggesting that the Tories are indeed worried about his "something of the night" image.

Maybe the more the public sees of Mr Howard the less it will like him. There is certainly a lot of ground to cover before the next election. But the going has suddenly got tougher for Mr Kennedy.

s.ogrady@independent.co.uk