Comments on: Ming’s speech: what did you think?

By: Geoffrey Payne

Geoffrey Payne — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:30:44 +0000

For me the content of the speech is the most important consideration, and I was delighted with what he said. He had a good critique of both Labour and the Tories, plus a bold vision of what we stand for in contrast. Prior to his speech we were informed that his speech would contain some surprises, and I was worried he was going to suggest privatising something. Instead he suggested putting the environment in a Bill of Rights, which prima facie sounded like an excellent idea.
Add to that the fact that his delivery was exceptionally good compared to previous speeches, then I can report that I feel much happier after conference than I was before.
Incidently I was delighted about his reference to Hackney where I am currently based, we must get in touch with the Hackney Gazette…

By: Ian Ridley

Ian Ridley — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:29:22 +0000

You can catch Ming’s speech in the “highlights” of Lib Dem Conference on the BBC Parliament channel (freeview digital) for the next day or so.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:08:35 +0000

It was fantastic

By: Stuart

Stuart — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:30:23 +0000

Yes, Cheltenham Robin, there were some lovely little sections like the soap opera thing.

My colleague, a staunch Labour party member, even acknowledged that he liked that and he’s usually as “on message” as some of the Labourites commenting on here.

I don’t know who the speech-writer was, but (s)he deserves a slap on the back.

By: Cheltenham Robin

Cheltenham Robin — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:08:51 +0000

It was definately a great speech, and I have been a recent critic.

I thought the soap-opera tale was brilliant.

By: Rob Fenwick

Rob Fenwick — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:16:59 +0000

I’ve said more than once (but I hope not tooooo often!) that I think the great irony of this leadership is that it has some of the best staff possible working for it, but that the weakest link is the leader himself.

Great speech (going on a reading of the text only), would have preferred it if someone else delivered it.

By: Chris Paul

Chris Paul — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:08:33 +0000

Sadly missed seeing this as walking the dogs seemed more pleasant and more important. However the reference to Dave here in Ming’s own comment and over and over again in Simon Hughes’ hilarious Presidential turn yesterday leads me to think that the Lib Dems have triangulated and decided that taking votes off Tories or giving the impression that that is the game is more of a priority than off Labour.

So it is Dave wouldn’t do this, Dave wouldn’t do that, Dave could not say that etc.

I suppose this could work in Labour areas by keeping the tactical Tories on board, if losing some of the lefties, and it could work in Tory areas where it is a straight fight.

Clearly I should read or watch the whole speech as I know Ming has also asserted that only Lib Dems can sort out the economy.

On the face of it we only have to look at the hole in Liverpool’s finances to know that it ain’t so. But interesting to hear him trying to make the case.

By: Toby Philpott

Toby Philpott — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:43:17 +0000

Certainly flicked my switch. Good to see Ming’s passion coming through. If we see that more often in the public arena then some of the stories the press would like to write might go.

I suspect we shall see a modest “bounce” in the polls after this week.

By: Stuart

Stuart — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:24:43 +0000

I was watching it online from my desk at work rather than in the hall (working in public affairs has its advantages).

An excellent speech, with superbly written passages. Like you say, Stephen, good solid no-excuses defence of liberalism.

Wraps up a decent week for the party, methinks.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:21:32 +0000

you’re spot on Stephen. He was relaxed, gave a policy heavy speech with some humour (but didnt attempt to be someone he wasnt).

Clear indication that Lib Dems are ready for an election. Can’t see “Dave” doing that.