Blog reactions to Ming's big speech

Ben Brogan: "His opener was angry: Britain under Brown, where hedge fund managers pay less tax than their cleaners and a Government leads the country into an illegal war, is not a liberal country (it's noticeable that Ming more often than not drops the word 'democrat'). He poked easy fun at the way Mr Brown and Mr Cameron are dancing around Lady Thatcher. And he tore into the "cosy consensus" being preached by the main parties as a cover for political stitch ups. His pitch is five freedoms - opportunity, good health, personal security, prosperity for all and a clean environment - backed by traditional liberalism."

James Forsyth: "The section on foreign policy was a crowd pleaser but does show that the Lib Dems are now, absurdly for a supposedly serious party, fully signed up to the idea that George W. Bush is more of a threat to the world  than Iran."

Lloyd Evans: "Ming’s problem isn’t that he looks like a walking mummy but that he’s so comfortable looking like a walking mummy. He has one of those kindly old-fashioned faces that gaze out at you from Victorian encyclopaedias. There’s an air of respectable munificence about him as if he spends most of his time founding orphanages. This isn’t modern. It isn’t relevant or sexy. But it’s thoroughly Liberal Democrat. Plenty of gravitas. No weight."

The Times' Sam Coates: "Politically it was also interesting, amounting to a rebalancing from last year where the centrepiece was a highly personal attack on David Cameron. This year there was no personal attacks, and the critique of Labour was much sharper. It amounted to a subtle shift further from Labour - providing some comfort to those who think he is too nice about Gordon Brown - and away from demonising the Tories to please left leaning activists."

Stephen Tall on LibDemVoice: "All in all, it felt to me like a relaxed (surprisingly so, given the media barrage of criticism he’s faced) and confident performance. The conference speech clearly isn’t a task Ming relishes, but he certainly didn’t shrink from it, either. It’s a thumbs-up from me."

Nick Robinson: "There was no plot this week to unseat Sir Menzies Campbell, but there were mutterings. This speech should stop them - for now."

Let's hope Nick Robinson is right.  The LibDems need Clegg to save a good number of their southern seats.

Comments

[Radical Tory]

''Let's hope Nick Robinson is right. The LibDems need Clegg to save a good number of their southern seats''.

Yep because that's all we've got - hope. A weak leader with damaging policies, no wonder people have resorted to hope.

[Dave Bartlett]

" The LibDems need Clegg to save a good number of their southern seats."

Given Mr Clegg's plan to grant illegal immigrants amnesty, he may be rather less of an asset. Always assuming he can get re-elected himself.

[ceidwadwyr]

Radical Tory - do you have anything constructive to say about our party or are you just a nulab/ukip troll?

I wonder.

[Comstock]

There has to be a limit to how many more times the LDs can bang the Iraq drum.

Good of him to raise the issue about high income tax avoiders though.....

[Radical Tory]

I feel it's my duty as a true Conservative to speak out and point out Cameron's failures. I believe Cameron must go. I am a member of the Conservatives and have stood as a tory in a local election. If you don't want to believe me then don't. I've noticed many Cameroons like to stick their head in the sand when they don't like what members are saying.

However let's get back to the issues not personal comments about other posters.

[Hudson]

I am a middle of the road Tory voter who wants Labour out - the negativity and disunity shown by those like 'Radical Tory' is a total turn off folks!!

[Shaun Bennett]

I have just watched Sir Ming's speech after returning home from work. It wasn't really all that impressive; he is still totally obsessed by Iraq to the exclusion of all else-a stance that will put the Lib Dems in a very difficult position now that the issue is quickly subsiding.

But the main part of the speech that certainly had me cheering was the Lib Dem's new committment to hold a full debate and a referendum on our membership of the EU. This is actually a very radical policy that could see the Lib Dems mop up the UKIP vote in the South West and put some Tory seats at risk.

My advice to David Cameron now is to quietly accept the Lib Dem policy and also offer a full referendum. Yes, me may risk Labour trying to claim that the Tories are obsessed with Europe. But now that the Lib Dem's have called for a referendum, how on earth can the pro-EU Tories complain if we commit ourselves to the same?

The pro-EU Tories will be free to campaign in favour of Europe and the rest of us can campaign against it without the risk of splitting the party. Then whatever the result, the question is over for another generation.

It seems to me that backing the Lib Dem policy opens up a clear opportunity for us to neutralise the issue. This may well be the beginning of a new all party consensus for a referendum (which Brown will of course resist). Let's see our party leadership grasp this nettle and announce it's support for a referendum on EU membership at our conference in October!

[Moral minority]

If Ming is ditched for Clegg or Huhne, the Tories will drop to well below 30%.

Conservative MPs with low majorities and posters here should be praising Ming in the hope that he stays on for the autumn election.

[Shaun Bennett]

Whilst I think that Moral Minority's suggestion that the Tories would drop "well below 30%" if Sir Ming were to be removed as Lib Dem leader is a little pessimistic. (we were well below 30% after the 1997 election but I am hugely sceptical about the accuracy of those polls and I don't think that that would ever actually happen in a real election).
Nevertheless, I totally agree with their main point in principle. Sir Ming is still the Tories main advantage against the Lib Dem's (whatever one poll says). We should be welcoming his promise to go on, and on, and on as Lib Dem leader.

[Radical Tory]

Hudson - I'm glad you value my opinion so much that my views have had some effect.

I'm very positive on the things which matter such as wanting lower taxes, school vouchers, leaving the EU, replacing the NHS and zero tolerance policing. I'm very much united with the true Conservatives out there. Shame Cameron seems to hate his own party as shown by his numerous attacks, such as calling us delusional. He sowed the seeds of discontent.

[gordon henderson]

Radical Tory; if that is what you really are (although I have my doubts) let me offer a challenge; if it is true that you are a member of the Conservative Party and if it is true that you have stood as a local council candidate, then at least have the balls to post comments under your real name as I do, so that we can check out your bone fides!

Although I am a parliamnetary cnadidate, nobody could ever accuse me of being a Party "yes man", indeed, I have often been accused of being too "right wing", but I am a Tory democrat who believes that having selected David Cameron as leader by an large majority, it is our duty to support him until after the next election.

If you are a true Conservative, then you should realise that our real enemy is Gordon Brown and his disreputable Labour Government. Unity wins elections, disunity guarantees endless opposition. That is a fact of life. I know which route I am taking and I urge you to follow suit!

[Radical Tory]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN.

RELENTLESS, HUMOURLESS NEGATIVITY IS VERY DULL, RADICAL TORY.

[Richard Carey]

If you are a true Conservative, then you should realise that our real enemy is Gordon Brown and his disreputable Labour Government.

Gordon, I was just contemplating a response to "Radical Tory"'s post - but you put it far better (and more kindly) than I was going to!

To just take up one of your points though, Radical Tory I do wonder who you are (as well as wondering who you are!) to define which of us are "true Conservatives". People join the Party and support our direction and policies fot all sorts of reasons. If we're serious about broadening the Party's appeal, you need to get more comfortable with defining people in to it, not defining people out as some used to do in the past.

I do remember Francis Maude at a recent Conference saying that people had criticised the Conservative Party for being too broad, and remarking that he'd never seen that happen before!

[Moral minority]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN.

AS WITH RADICAL TORY, RELENTLESS NEGATIVITY IS POINTLESS. IF YOU NEVER HAVE ANYTHING CONSTRUCTIVE TO SAY PLEASE BLOG ELSEWHERE.

[Simon Denis]

Much as I despise the smarmy, empty Mr Cameron, I don't think the liberals will revive in any event. Their succession of humiliating scandals; the spiteful, degrading treatment they meted out to Kennedy; their marriage to futile, punitive taxation; their deserved reputation for spite and cowardice - all this will see to it that they keep going down and down. Moreover, the great cause of their revival - an unrepeatable mix of Labour disillusion and left-conservative sentimentality - is history. Even lefty-tories are now worried by the rate of immigration and the lightness of their wallets. Labourites feel a new confidence in their party now that Brezhnev-Brown has taken charge. Result? All those extra liberals of the period 97-05 are going back home. Smarmy Dave may well owe his salvation to the coming destruction of the liberal vote. He will increase his parliamentary representation at their expense and not at Brown's.

[Radical Tory]

Mr Editor - many members arn't negative, we offer alternative ideas (as my past post makes clear).

Ae you tired of posters attacking others as trolls for simply giving different views as one of your past posts seemed to suggest? I sure am. It's just such a shame. Not very grown up i'm afraid.

If you don't wish to post this fine.

[Richard Carey]

Smarmy Dave may well owe his salvation to the coming destruction of the liberal vote. He will increase his parliamentary representation at their expense and not at Brown's.

While you're not helping with this by describing the leader of our (your? I'm sorry, I'm not aware whether or not you have any party political background in this) as "smarmy", electoral politics is in the final reality of the count a numbers game - if we can bring former LD voters over, in itself it can only be a positive thing.

[Andrew James]

We desperately need Ming to stay. Most election predictions would suggest that with the Lib Dems at 15-18%, they could lose around half of their seats. This would allow us to make significant headway across the south of England. However, Lib Dems continue to make progress in metropolitan boroughs in the North where we need to win. My concern is that the Conservative message is not being effectively communicated in the north, where the Lib Dems are capable of pulling off astonishing results - see Manchester Withington. We are in danger of being unable to break through here unless we can deliver a coherent and positive message which feels relevant to the electorate.

With awful policies such as granting illegal immigrants amnesty, and redistributive taxes, Lib Dems should not be winning anywhere. As Tories, we must be able to dismiss the Silly Party's policies and provide a viable alternative!

[Paul Oakley]

Hmmm. The Minger's conference speech brought to mind one of ours. Anyone remember the quiet man who was going to get louder? Wonder if the outcome will be the same.

[Miss Tooty]

I'm nobody important, just a voter who needs a party to back. As soon as Cameron goes, I will be backing this lot, or god forbid, be a no voter.

[Traditional Tory]

I do remember Francis Maude at a recent Conference saying that people had criticised the Conservative Party for being too broad, and remarking that he'd never seen that happen before!

I have always thought the party was too broad-based. Right-wingers have been saying that for decades. It is only since the accession of Cameron that the left have dared to turn the tables.

In theory, when a single party contains groups of people who are natural political enemies with virtually nothing in common other than the fact that they are 'middle class', it is a recipe for disaster.

In fact, for a very long time, the party survived by being, effectively, a non-ideological 'UK ltd' party which either bought off or sidelined those who threatened to rock the boat.

As long as the party was stuffed full of every type of businessman, for whom it was an important means to an end, the structure could be effectively maintained, but those days are long gone.

The anti-ideological party of business survived the long-spurned rebel Churchill, but it did not survive Thatcher, an effect as much as a cause of change. By the time she became leader it was already dying on its feet.

Today's so-called loyalists are not tied to the party because their businesses depend upon it. More likely it is their seats on the council - now in many cases a major source of personal income - which generate that 'loyalty'. For others it is the dream of a future ministerial salary.

Naturally I feel the pain of their current frustrations, but in the absence of any personal interest in the party, I am more inclined to cleave to my own long-held principles than to the stated aims of Mr Cameron, several of which go right against the grain as far as I am concerned.

[TomTom]

Ming Campbell gave a speech with soundbites from everyone else's speech - Thatcher, Reagan etc....it was limp and frankly, whatever faults Charles Kennedy may have he was way ahead of this dessicated Scottish advocate reading his lines

[ToMTom]

It is worth looking bak to the Trades Disputes Act 1927 to see how the Conservatives beached themselves.

Having banished the Liberals to the periphery after 1895 only to see them return with a landslide in 1906 the Conservatives lost their power base in the Lords in 1911....and returned to power only through coalition.....they created the General Strike through Churchill's disastrous time as Chancellor in 1925; and retaliated by implementing the Trades Disputes Act 1927.

Staying in power until 1940 gained a reputation for economic mismanagement, mass-unemployment, and appeasement followed by war which led to them being ousted in 1945.

Throughout the 1920s there were fears Conservatives would never be elected and Chamberlain even proposed a name change. The revival of the Conservatives postwar had much to do with ex-Servicemen in its ranks and being a social organisation appealing to the aspirant.

Now it is a political wonk and metropolitan advertising agency client....it has no local roots in much of the country but has become so obsessed with brand it has forgotten product.....or as a German satirist likes to exclaim..."They are firmly in the saddle but have no horse"

[James Maskell]

Did anyone else feel slightly awkward seeing Ming getting angry like that? Like pity, because an old man was ranting like that... I just cant help feeling sorry for him.

[Editor]

I did, James.

I thought the 'Tories don't know whether to hug Tories or hang them' line said much, much more about his temper than us.

[Traditional Tory]

Did anyone else feel slightly awkward seeing Ming getting angry like that?

Delia Smith seemed to vanish without trace after her buttock-clenchingly embarrassing hissy fit at Norwich City (same colour scheme as LDs!)

Will the same happen to Ming?

[Malcolm Dunn]

His speech was alright,it seemed to please the Lib Dems which was all that Ming could hope for.
I do think this conference has not been a success on any terms for the Lib Dems. The only policy announcements that have stuck in my mind are that famillies earning over £70,000 will be taxed more heavily and we should grant an amnesty for illegal immigrants.I know that's (slightly) unfair but I wonder how many other people were left with the same impression?

[James Maskell]

Thats about as much as I can remember Malcolm. Also Nick Clegg leaked out his leadership ambitions. Regarding Ming, I found it bizarre to see him shaking a large invisible object at the end of the speech. He did it last year as well, but this year he was really going for it!

[simon]

Well, i did watch the Minger's speech and as expected it was typically dull and meaningless Libbie stuff. When he attacked the 'cosy consensus' btwn Labour and Conservatives it just highlights the appalling hypocrisy of the Libbies. The cosy consensus is between Ming and Brown- and the Scottish LD elite and the Scottish Labour elite. Did the Libbies have a good conference? On the whole, yes- but it was a pointless exercise. What did it tell us about what we did not already know about the Libbies? Huhne and Clegg should live in harmony with Ashdown at Vain Cottage in deepest Somerset. Never has a house been more appropriately named!