But we shall have to draw the line at Norman Baker MP, minister of the Crown despite being one of life's natural backbenchers, among those LibDem ministers to make private comments which get pretty personal, about David Cameron and George Osborne in particular.
Thursday's Telegraph reports that Norman Baker felt the big political decision in May was whether to model himself on Nelson Mandela or Helen Suzman:
He said: “I always think in South African terms, should you be Nelson Mandela, outside the system, campaigning for it to be changed, or should you be Helen Suzman, who’s my … one of my political heroes actually.”
“Helen Suzman was in the apartheid regime when everybody was male and white and horrible actually … she got stuck in there in the South African parliament in the apartheid days as the only person there to oppose it … she stood up and championed that from inside.”
He added: “You do get your hands dirty by dealing with things you don’t want to do, and sometimes you get results which aren’t quite what you want. But the issue we have to make, the calculation in coalition, is we have to make as a coalition is do we get stuff that we do want which outweighs some of the stuff we don’t want, and that’s the reality of it.”
This is surely gratuitously offensive to the Prime Minister and his Conservative colleagues from any Parliamentarian, still less a serving minister.
Politial opponents can find many faults with this government's agenda - but it does not parallel the South African apartheid regime.
If Baker does think that this tasteless analogy is in any way valid, it is completely baffling that he would endorse LibDem participation in the Coalition, still less choose to serve as a Minister himself.
David Cameron has moved the Conservative party a long way on race - and that is something political opponents should be happy to recognise and welcome.
When he was a young Tory researcher, David Cameron may have been unfortunately somewhat unreflective on the issue of South Africa, going on a freebie trip there in 1989. But Margaret Thatcher's opposition to sanctions against South Africa is one of the few aspects of the Thatcher record he has publicly repudiated and apologised for.
Cameron's overall record on race - particularly in opening up the Tory party = has been creditable. (It also gives the currently all-white LibDem benches in the Commons something to catch up with).
Of course, Helen Suzman was a Parliamentary opponent of the apartheid regime: she didn't work and vote for it. As the sole principled parliamentary opponent of apartheid for well over a decade, to say that she was "in the apartheid regime" is inaccurate and offensive to her and the anti-apartheid movement too. (It is the equivalent of saying that "Michael Foot was in the Thatcher regime").
So Baker has provided by far the least coherent of all of the arguments for and against LibDem participation in the Coalition.
There are some interesting problems of collective responsibility arising from these candid comments.
The doctrine surely means that Ed Davey - if he can not get housing policy changed - must either stand on his head and say he no longer thinks the policy "completely without logic" - or resign.
A rather clearer case of hypocrisy can be laid at the door of LibDem minister and deputy leader of the House David Heath.
Mr Heath and Mr Baker also publicly admit that they oppose the rise in tuition fees, despite voting in favour of the policy in the recent crucial Commons vote. “I’m still wholly against,” Mr Heath said. “I’ll say it perfectly openly, I’m wholly against tuition fees.”
Mr Baker added: “Well, it is a big shock and it’s a big shock to me and I almost resigned over the matter, on that particular one because it was just pretty horrific.”
Again, collective ministerial responsibility surely demands an (insincere) recantation - or a resignation. In any event. the willingness to speak against a policy one is voting for is deeply corrosive of political trust.