My, the Telegraph is really sticking the knife in these days. Sir Menzies is the first target (Ming's problem isn't age: it's Ming himself):

"Sir Menzies Campbell does not lie about his age, but I suspect that he would if he could. At a reluctant 65, he comes across like a headmaster at the school disco, ever ready to jackknife his knees and start doing the twist, just to show everyone how square he ain't."

But, we are assured, Ming is still the best man for the job, in a superbly backhanded compliment, he is:

"surely a better bet for the Lib Dems than some of the ragbag at Harrogate last week; troubled folk with a range of issues that include alcoholism and that difficult matter of homosexuality within heterosexual marriage."

But it didn't stop there. In a splendidly titled article, Why Conservatives must stand up for the deserving rich, Simon Heffer lambasts Vince Cable's most recent tax proposal:

"In his capacity as the Lib Dems' Treasury spokesman, Dr Cable gave the lie to the notion that there is no scope to tax the British people further. He advocated a one per cent tax, levied annually, on what he called "obscenely large" property investments... in the happy little world of the Lib Dems, the sort of "obscenely large" property investment that will attract this annual one per cent tax starts not at £84 million, nor even at £35 million, but at £1 million. This means that, should your house be worth £1 million, you will pay the Exchequer an annual sum of £10,000 a year out of your already significantly taxed income. This is what, for want of a less accurate name, we call a wealth tax."

Like Mr Heffer, my first reaction to this announcement was one of disappointment. I've always admired Cable as an economist and a policymaker, and the Lib Dem's tax policy is one of its most commendable. Nevertheless, this latest proposal for, effectively, a wealth tax has given me cause for doubt. The Lib Dems have always stood for economic equality - a progressive tax system to benefit the worst off in society. However, a wealth tax, or a property tax, goes against this principal. Ignoring, for the moment, the distortionary effects such a tax would have on the property market, we should consider the "asset-rich, income-poor".  A minority of householders, to be sure, but a £10,000 annual levy on one's property is significant to those with even median incomes. At first glance, this feels like a snap attempt to redress any redistributive tendencies lost by the abandonment of the 50% top rate of income tax.

However, first impressions can be misleading. Digging a little deeper, Cable's motives are a little more laudable. The proceeds, an estimated £1 billion, would be used to cut inheritance tax and stamp duty. Inheritance tax has always been a bit of an anomaly - intended to redress the perceived inequity of large bequeathments, it actually has a surprisingly regressive impact. Those it attempts to tax, the very rich, are those wealthy enough to afford expert advice, and thus avoid paying the tax. It is those on middle incomes who are most affected.

Despite these admirable motives, I am inclined to stick with my first impression. A wealth tax, whatever its intentions, is inequitable, unjustified, and deeply unpopular. I am, however, happy to be converted.

• Trident: 100 Labour MPs to revolt (Independent); the rest want answers (Guardian)
• Home Office to implement tough new immigration enforcement measures, including texting (Guardian)