Who said the following...?

MYSTERY PERSON 1

• "[We must] embrace the choice agenda, so crucial to the reform of public services.”
• “Britain’s centralised state is not well designed to mirror the private sector’s ability to innovate.”

MYSTERY PERSON 2

• “It must be accepted that the primary source of meaningful political legitimacy in the EU remains the nation state.”
• “There is a powerful argument for a prolonged pause in the institutional development of the EU.”
• “There is a compelling case to curtail the EU in its responsibility in the social policy sphere.”

MYSTERY PERSON 3

• “Private prisons are in many cases delivering better value for money and can deliver better outcomes too.”
• “Prison…is notably successful in protecting law-abiding citizens from criminal acts while offenders are in prison.”
• “There is no obvious reason why much of social legislation needs to be coordinated on an EU basis.”
• “The NHS remains an organisation beset by failure."
• “Choice, competition and consumer power can deliver a better deal for all our citizens.”

MYSTERY PERSON 4

• “All regulations and regulatory bodies should have a modest fixed life after which any continued mandate has to be legislated from scratch.”

If noone correctly identifies the individuals by 3pm I'll unmask the four individuals then...

3.15pm update

Mystery person 1 is Ed Davey MP, 2 is Nick Clegg MP, 3 is David Laws MP and 4 is Vince Cable MP.

And the moral of this exercise...?

Is it (a) the words of politicians are meaningless or is it (b) that the Orange Book LibDems could be suitable issue-by-issue partners for the Conservative Party?

Related link: Tory members reject LibDem policies

Comments

[Ed]

I reckon Mystery Person no.4 could well be Eric Forth. There's also something about no.1 that makes me think it's either Blair or Brown (probably Brown, talking through his hat).

[JT]

Blair, Brown, Cameron and Osborne (in that or some other order?

[G-MaN Wild]

Mystery Person 3 must be Gordon Brown trying to sound lke a British Prime Minsiter?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Are they all Gordon Brown?

[malcolm]

Brown,Blair,Blunkett& Straw?

[Simon Chapman]

Milburn, Blair, Reid, Mandelson.

I guess, Tim, that your point will be about the gap between rhetoric & reality - & the need for opposition to ficus on deeds not words...?

[malcolm]

Sadly I think the answer is (a).I really can't see where ANY of these statements tally with official Lib Dem party policy except perhaps person 4 and I'm not even sure about that.

[Mark Fulford]

The moral of the exercise is (c) these MPs are in the wrong party. They would not be out of place on the left of the Tory party, and there they would have a far better prospect of turning their thoughts into reality. While they are Lib-Dems they should be without hope.

[Yet Another Anon]

Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson, David Blunkett and John Redwood?

[Yet Another Anon]

Mystery person 1 is Ed Davey MP, 2 is Nick Clegg MP, 3 is David Laws MP and 4 is Vince Cable MP.
I'd missed reading that bit!

[Zhukov]

It's a shame they haven't got smaller majorities. In each of their constituencies we are 2nd, but about 20% behind.

A by-election where the Libs get hammered by us would be perfect to focus their minds on defecting.

[The Daily Pundit]

Is it (a) the words of politicians are meaningless or is it (b) that the Orange Book LibDems could be suitable issue-by-issue partners for the Conservative Party?

Or is it (c) the scavengers of British politics are only good at one thing: scavenging. Don't give them an inch.

[James]

This proves a bit of 'a' and a bit of 'b' - statements like 'the NHS is beset by faliure' may be a refreshing change from Blameronism, and certainly indicates there are Lib Dems who we could work with. But things like: “Prison…is notably successful in protecting law-abiding citizens from criminal acts while offenders are in prison”, seems an excellent example of stating the blindingly obvious - though as far as your average Lib Dem party member is concerned, this probably does seem a radical concept.

[Chris Palmer]

The thing is though, why do we need the Orange Bookers. We don't when at the next election or after we can succesfully win power without their wet socialism.

If people think that the likes of Ken Clarke are bad enough (over Europe for example,) can you imagine what Nick 'clothears' Clegg and Vince Cable will be like.

[Mark Fulford]

The thing is though, why do we need the Orange Bookers.

Because their defection would seriously weaken Lib Dems.

[Chris Palmer]

"Because their defection would seriously weaken Lib Dems." - Mark Fulford

You really think so? Why?

[Mark Fulford]

Headlines!

[Tim Aker]

It would also shift the balance to the Left in the Lib Dems, with the Northern Lib Dems and their more social-democratic politics taking over and holding a majority in parliament.

[kingbongo]

They may have said these things but being LimpDums they've almost certainly said the exact opposite within the previous three months.

Out of all of them the only one who might just about make it as a tory backbencher is Vince Cable, the others really are typical LibDem nonentities; vastly overrated because unlike the other losers in this sad sect of oppositional Januses they are almost capable of having a good idea.

I'd rather share power with New labour Ultras any day than these deluded wasters. If they've joined the wrong party then it's not too late to change - they can see the light and be welcomed into the left of the tory party, I'd even let them apply for the A list.

At this point they obviously cease being deluded wasters and transmogrify instantly into enlightened forward thinking small-staters. Until this happens though there should be no hint of working with this bunch.

[Valerie]

"I'd rather share power with New labour Ultras"

So I take it you don't agree with their views on decentralisation, the NHS or Labour over-regulation...tells me all I need to know about the New Tories.

[Tim Aker]

Technically Valerie, Cameron doesn't agree on decentralisaion on the NHS or education, seeing as he's gone out of his way to court the public sector and provide a tax philosophy that will probably keep spending [and waste] levels as they are. So, in some ways Kingbongo is right in saying Cameron would be better off with the New Labourites.

[Valerie]

Indeed he would be.

[kingbongo]

But Valerie all your posts wherever they may be are driven by a desire to see Lib Dems in power at any cost for no apparent reason - the first chance you get to support Conservative flavoured policies you take it but profess to be part of a progressive left wing party.

A few years ago you and your ilk were preparing for power with Blair and in the past have always been much more interested in propping up socailist governments than Conservative ones . The LDs were and are a bunch of drippy thinking lightweights. The strange thing is LD politicians could achieve power by becoming members of a proper political party but choose not to, thus showing they are 'chokers' who want to tell everyone how much better they could do the job but knowing that if it came down to it they'd flop.

if you are a Gladstonian Liberal you should either accept you're actually a left wing tory or join the real Liberals; Orange book supporters in the LDs really are in the wrong party.

My preference for New Labour Ultras should have been prefaced by the usual health warning I give on that statement, that I would rather gnaw off my own arm before I would want to do such a thing.

Both the Labour party and the Lib Dems are basically driven by a desire to see the state do more. Ming makes grandiose pronouncements on taxing less and regulating less swiftly followed by his spokespeople putting out press releases on what new ways the state can spend other people's money.

If the Orange Book LimpDums are basically telling their membership the LDs are no longer a left wing party of dogmatic redistribution and state control (albeit decentralised) they can kiss goodbye to all the activists who thought they were a kindler gentler form of socialism where no-one gets hurt and people with beards aren't laughed at.

When the Conservatives are in a position to form a government if LD MPs want to support government policy then they can and I would welcome it. It doesn't need any arrangement or formal agreement.

[Valerie]

A few years ago I was voting Conservative, KB. The reason I like the Lib Dems is precisely because they're not 'drippy thinking' but have a consistent and sensible approach to the main issues. And because the Conservatives are away with the fairies on Europe.

'Lightweight' is a word I'd use to describe someone who bikes around with a car following behind with his shoes. 'At any cost' seems to fit him pretty well too. There's no way I'd be happy in the Tories with a spiv like that at the helm, and the whole party becoming increasingly plastic.

[Mark Fulford]

'Lightweight' is a word I'd use to describe someone who bikes around with a car following behind with his shoes.

Yes, and he cycles to remain lightweight.

[St Ella of Artois]

"All these ideas are brilliant unless ... um ... a Lib Dem says them, because we jolly well hate the Lib Dems for having the temerity to challenge our divine right to rule!"

[Serf]

And because the Conservatives are away with the fairies on Europe.

From a member of the party that wants to give our country away, lock stock and barrel.

[Penultimate Guy]

I'm rather perplexed by the frequency at which the "Will Orange Book Lib Dems defect?" question gets raised here. Have any of these four MPs ever given any sign whatsoever of defecting? I don't think so.

[kingbongo]

The reason I like the Lib Dems is precisely because they're not 'drippy thinking' but have a consistent and sensible approach to the main issues

Valerie, this is beyond parody - you are a UKIP troll and I claim my prize, a fruitcake in the shape of Nigel farage's head.

[Valerie]

Lib Dem policy - in the 2004 manifesto - is to maintain a veto on fundamental constitutional issues, defence, overall EU spending, tax rates and social security.

It's also policy to ensure that nothing is done at EU level that's more effectively done at local level, and that UK MPs should be able to scrutinise all EU law properly to ensure it complies with these subsidiarity requirements.

Where does 'lock, stock and barrel' come into that?

"Have any of these four MPs ever given any sign whatsoever of defecting?"

Exactly.