FibDems

Nick Harvey was quick off the mark to put a statement out when the latest tragedy occurred in Iraq.

After all with a relatively disappointing election result the issue of Iraq is one that they are strong on. Or are they?

According to their 2005 manifesto: "The Liberal Democrats took a principled stand before the Iraq war."

And their website says: "The Liberal Democrats strongly opposed the Government's decision to go to war in Iraq."

Invariably the word "consistent" is thrown about for good measure in the hope that voters believe this puff.

And Ming has been consistently statesmanlike when saying things like this: "The facts are undeniable. We were taken to war on a flawed prospectus. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There was no serious and current threat, no real and present danger that could justify a war of self defence under international law or the UN Charter. " - Observer, April 24, 2005

Hardly consistent with these remarks seven months earlier: "We can all agree...that Saddam Hussein...most certainly has chemical and biological weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have been willing to assume." - Hansard, September 24, 2004

And not even Charles Kennedy can claim consistency as the then leader. On September 15 2002, the Scottish Sunday Mail reported a survey of all Scottish MPs which asked the question: "Do you agree with US and British military intervention in Iraq with the current evidence available?"

He was one of only four MPs who refused to comment and give their opinion on the war.

As the Green Party have pointed out the LibDem's supposedly principled opposition to the Iraq war did not manifest itself until the last minute, when the Stop The War demonstrations were gathering support and, presumably, when they calculated there were votes to be won in being anti-war.