This recess period is a good chance for Liberal Democrat members, those in other parties and the general public to view the presentations and speeches made recently by all three party leaders, back to back.
BBC Parliament are showing Brown, Cameron and Campbell back-to-back as part of their rolling programme during the recess. This represents a good opportunity for us to take a deep breath and a step back, and to “see it as others do” – or might – not least as it rolls around at different times, on average three times every two days.
The coverage of Ming is not drawn from our finest hour. It was the post early-joining-the-Brown-Government-or-at-least-some-of them-thought-they-were moment ; the frustrated agony following the apparent shock approach to Ashdown; and Brown’s coronation and (actually fairly quiet) unveiling of a fairly astonishing Tory convert (they’re welcome to him.)
It’s fair to say that Brown’s Leadership acceptance speech, and Cameron’s imagery, will have been more pro-actively planned than our “need for a speech.”
But this was an initiative the Party decided on ; was televised ; was media organised ; and as such may be indicative of the kind of thing we might expect to see in the day-to-day business of an election campaign. As such, it was deeply disappointing.
Now don’t get me wrong. The speech, as carried in Lib Dem news, was principled and right. The values were laid out clearly – if you read them, as Lib Dem bloggers do. The approach, saying why we could never join a Government based on the current policies or motivations, was correct.
But it needs more than that to get a message across – both from Ming, but just as importantly from the team around him.
My impression of our operation was that it was poor on both counts. A bizarre camera angle, as Ming appeared from a corridor beneath staff, made our tall leader look somewhat dwarflike – not a good place to start organisationally, but that was how it was set up.
Ming spoke with a sense of passion, and at some speed, yes, but did convey a sense of being under siege as if it had been a battering week, and could again not hide his shakiness. Ed Davey, to the left of the lecturn, looked not just thoughtful but concerned that he might have to jump in lest the Leader fell over.
Doctor Who followers may be reminded of the shrivelled, wizened, frail Doctor of (new) Series 3, having been aged to the max by a regnerated Master. Now of course the Doctor had a plan, and knew what he was doing, and bounced back and won. And, of course, returned to looking about thirty-something with the help of a young woman called Martha Jones.
But this is the real world – and the fact is that putting these three leaders and their performances back to back brings home starkly why we are not helping ourselves with the problems we have.
Some may think I view this as an age issue. I don’t – there are plenty of sprightly elderly people about – but either we, or Ming, or both, need to be much more professional about using rare set piece communications opportunities that are few and far between.
I do not think presentation is everything. I joined and remain in this party because of the values we hold dear and in which I firmly believe. If I wanted to be part of a meaningless marketing exercise, I’d be with Blair or Cameron. In fact, some of Dave’s abrupt handling of some of his questions, following the “smoothy-shine, mop brow, await applause after every question from Central Office team” speech, showed a nastiness beneath the thin veneer that is more frequently slipping through and giving him away when he becomes rattled. I am not arguing for any of that.
But appearance, presentation and the ability to deliver the message you believe in, counts for a lot in this day and age. Moreover, and it needs to be said, Ming did not look like someone who would easily survive a General Election campaign – let alone be a “strong” Prime Minister.
Others here may berate this, or misrepresent it, or say : heard it before. Some will see the footage and disagree, or have a different response.
That’s fine – I am OK with disagreement. But I will ask those commenting to WATCH IT first if you hadn’t already – preferably after the other Leaders’ speeches – and be honest. I am not being as cruel as you think, in order to be kind. There is plenty of opportunity for you to see what I mean by tuning in over the next few weeks. There will be more, on more mainstream channels, if we do not either get our communications sorted, or ask our MPs to do something more fundamental about the problem.
Martin Pantling is a Lib Dem councillor in Luton.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
Matt (Bristol)
John Grout
44 Comments
I’ve only seen Sir Ming’s Cowley Street speech. It was dreadful. He committed a capital crime in my book, namely to read out a prepared text off a sheet of paper with neither conviction nor coherence. His lame attempts to inject a little passion into the proceedings served only to underline his inadequacy. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who is incapable of speaking directly from a few notes scribbled on the back of an envelope, has no business being in public life at all, never mind leading a political party. I cannot believe that no-one has had the courage to hand him the revolver over the summer. He’s just embarrassing.
Yawn. You think this whining will convince anyone? Leave it until after the election. In the meantime all you will achieve is a little spinning for the enemy.
I’m happy with the job Ming is doing as Leader.
But Martin is right that there were some real problems with the presentation of this speech, but I don’t think they were all Ming’s fault.
The angle from which the film was recorded was not the best and the women behind Ming should have had the common sense to look inspired rather than camera shy.
Ladies and gentlemen, your bets please on how long until Iain Dale hails Martin as a ‘leading Lib Dem blogger’ in yet another yakked up post about a threat to Ming’s leadership.
I see that John Leech MP is sitting in a prominent position on the front benches.
The leadership must think highly of him to place him in such a position and give him a spokesmanship.
I do not know if this happening to another MP on his first term in parliament.
They must think highly of how he got to this position
Ms Zalazala:- There are many other first term MPs on the front bench.
Danny Alexander.
Lynne Featherstone.
Tim Farron.
Julia Goldsworthy.
David Howarth.
all come to mind and there may be more.
There were some real problems with the presentation of this speech, but I don’t think they were all Ming’s fault.
So who exactly is in charge then? I thought it was Sir Ming.
The women behind Ming should have had the common sense to look inspired rather than camera shy.
What a pity they couldn’t just be inspired, instead of having to make the effort to look inspired.
Thanks Lib Dem Member. This is useful information.
On the same topic, I do find it unkind to comment on people’s age.
I am not a fan of Ming Campbell anymore but I do find attacks on people because of their age distasteful.
Ming Campbell has done much to rectify organisational faults in the Party, and also steered policies in the right direction. Compare this with Dave Cameron who seems to be all wind and waffle.
Winning a battle with cancer may have made Ming look older than he is, but at least we have a serious politician leading the party.
Sorry but Ming Campbell has not done enough to rectify organisational faults in the party.
I think Gordon Brown and Dave Cameron are serious politicians.
Ming HAD the opportunity to be serious heavy weight politician when he first got elected and was making proclamations about ‘a more professional party’.
But he has had it. Sad really given his eminence as Queens Counsel.
Compare this with Dave Cameron who seems to be all wind and waffle.
No, don’t compare anything with David Cameron. Ignore David Cameron, and concentrate on projecting our positive image. The recent post by-election analysis in which we were virtually claiming a “victory” for having beaten the Conservative party into third place, is really indicative of everything we are doing wrong. Anyone would think that the Conservatives were actually in government at present, given the extent to which we dignify them with criticism.
If the effort some Liberals or Liberal Democrats have made in criticising the Leader of the Party – whether Ming Campbell, Charles Kennedy, Paddy Ashdown, David Steel or Jo Grimond – was instead directed into working hard for the Party we would probably have been in Government by now.
6 – Chris Huhne, Steve Williams, Martin Horwood and Nick Clegg too!
12 – It’s certainly true that criticism of our leaders is a consistent sport, with their admission to the pantheon of Great Leaders We Wish We Had These Days But Don’t secure the second they step down from office.
I remain of the opinion that Ming should stay. I suspect there would have been just as many ‘Charles should go’ pieces on Lib Dem Voice if this site had existed during his leadership!
I suspect there would have been just as many ‘Charles should go’ pieces on Lib Dem Voice if this site had existed during his leadership!
You bet there would have been. As well as being a pisshead, Kennedy was one of the most overrated political leaders of modern times.
“As well as being a pisshead, Kennedy was one of the most overrated political leaders of modern times.”
Sad, but probably true.
I met CK in person on only one occasion. It was the 1985 Torquay SDP Conference, and let’s just say Kennedy was in no position to hold the simplest of conversations.
It wasn’t just his addiction to cigarettes and alcohol that rendered Charles unfit to be leader, please note. He had neither the intellect nor the self-discipline. I cringed every time he said “in terms of”. And recall the way he derailed our 2005 GE campaign with his tongue-tied incoherence when asked to explain local income tax. Those who criticise Ming’s performances should remember that.
Ming is in some ways comparable to Roy Jenkins. Both are towering statesmen, but both are regarded by many as disappointing leaders. Yet in each case when we analyse their alleged default, we discover that actually there was none.
Many SDP members felt the 26% achieved in 1983 (with Roy as “Prime Minister Designate”) was a poor result. But it has never been matched – not by Owen, not by Steel, not by Ashdown, not by Kennedy.
What Jenkins lacked is the killer instinct; when it came to it, he simply didn’t have to stomach to fight Owen for the leadership a second time. Ming, by contrast, is wholly functioning in that department. If a malcontented MP tilts at him, Ming will throw him off the parapet.
Well I met CK on several occasions both before and after he became leader. He was never drunk and I always found him intelligent and witty. In fact a pretty decent human being. As leader I though he made some spot on judgement calls.
That being said he had to go once the alcohol problem was public. The way in which he went and the subsequent election was an utter shambles and seriously damaged the party.
I didn’t vote for Ming and still consider his election a mistake but its a mistake we have to live with at least until after the next electon. For all his weaknesses he does have some distinctive advantages and the fact that he is very different from the other two should be one of them.
So whilst I have some sympathy for what Martin and Laurence have been saying I would say there is no alternative. This is it. All we can do get on with it and trust in the leadership which we elected.
“And recall the way he derailed our 2005 GE campaign with his tongue-tied incoherence when asked to explain local income tax. ”
It really annoyed me the way the media treated that and the way people mention it now. (Baby or no baby), He fluffed one bloody sentence for chrissakes.
He was incapable of explaining our tax policy on national television, when it mattered. That certainly didn’t help in places like Newbury and Guildford. Whatever derision is flung at Ming, I think we can rely him to articulate our policies when necessary.
Well I can’t find the incident on YouTube – I didn’t think it was that bad – he fluffed a sentence and the baby sympathy thing meant it was probably a net vote winner. As for Ming not fluffing his lines…well…I Know that stuff is on Youtube.
That Kennedy incident, I often wondered. I do not think that it was the baby sleepness nights that was the reason.
Kennedy has a sense of humour and if he did not know the anwser to the question, he could have easily got out of it by referring the question to a colleague and making a lighthearted comment such as ‘I have been busy with the birth of the baby so I hope you will understand if the details of the LIT are not clear in my head. So I will ask so and so to answer this question.
I think he was simply drunk.
In response to Timberwolf –
“If the effort some Liberals or Liberal Democrats have made in criticising the Leader of the Party – whether Ming Campbell, Charles Kennedy, Paddy Ashdown, David Steel or Jo Grimond – was instead directed into working hard for the Party we would probably have been in Government by now.”
Actually its the many of the people doing all the campaigning work in the party who are disillusioned. I’ve worked on all of the last three by-elections whilst ming has beenin charge, however i worked for the party, not the current leadership.
Ming is not as bad as some critics say, he is knowledgeable and has gravitas when talking on foriegn affairs, but he simply does not have what it takes to be a really successful leader. His own leadership campaign touted him as the choice for stability and a ‘safe pair of hands’. Who wants to be ‘stable’ in 3rd place in the polls! It was absurd for people to vote on such a basis.
Its a pity because he was a excellent in the shadow foreign affairs brief, but his poor delivery of speeches as leader has continued. It is not good enough if we are to move forward as a party.
The activists chose chris huhne, as any straw poll at the conferences will prove. I only hope we get the chance to vote for him again and soon.
Oh and on claims he has professionalised the party, he may have had some involvement, but we only have one person to really thank for tht = Chris Rennard
In response to anonymouse 23
‘Oh and on claims he has professionalised the party, he may have had some involvement, but we only have one person to really thank for tht = Chris Rennard’
Beam me up Scottie
“he fluffed a sentence and the baby sympathy thing meant it was probably a net vote winner.”
No 20:
Have you any basis for saying this? Or is this just wishful thinking of the kind that leads paper candidates to believe they will win Merthyr Tydfil?
I think any observer with the slightest objectivity is forced to conclude that Kennedy’s behaviour at that press conference was nothing short of disastrous for the GE campaign.
And Paul Walter is quite right with the inference he draws. Ming Campbell would not have done it. Firstly, Ming is more intelligent than CK. Secondly, he has greater self-discipline than CK. Thirdly, he hasn’t damaged his brain with alcohol.
A party that aspires to government needs to behave like one!
“Kennedy’s behaviour at that press conference was nothing short of disastrous for the GE campaign.”
I’m not sure about that
1) After Kennedy’s explaination the next day a (Labour) MP said that he thought it was quite a fair reason and that the matter should drop
2) Kennedy’s performance at the rest of the press conference wouldn’t seem to support the suggestion he was drunk (in any case I think if he had been drunk at our manifesto launch press conference it would have come out later)
3) There wasn’t that I’m aware of any notable effect on our opinion poll ratings
4) most crucially in my book, speaking to target seat candidates who lost in the 2-3 weeks afterwards no-one mentioned this as a factor. They mentioned lots of other things as reasons why we’d lost votes some of which I thought were rubbish but no-one mentioned this. Such people were on the front line and usually at that point are at their most bitter, reflective and honest and keen to apportion blame so I think it’s a pretty good indicator.
“Ming, I think we can rely him to articulate our policies when necessary.”
You mean like repeated references to us “being taken to war on a flawed prospectus” 🙂
“3) There wasn’t that I’m aware of any notable effect on our opinion poll ratings”
Really? Our opinion poll ratings remained static, if I remember rightly – just at the point when they should have been rising, given the history of previous campaigns.
Our ratings rose through the course of the 1974, 1979, 1983, 1992, 1997 and 2001 campaigns, but dropped during 1987. That, you will recall, was the campaign marred by the “Two Davids” fiasco and three dreadful PPBs made by Owen without any kind of consultation with Cowley Street or LPO.
I maintain, therefore, that our ratings would have taken an upward trajectory if Kennedy hadn’t thrown away any lingering perception that he was a credible PM in waiting.
It is always disastrous when a candidate is clean-bowled by a question. Does anyone remember Tony Cooke at Darlington in 1982?
I hope I didn’t suggest that Kennedy was drunk at the Manifesto Launch. Yasmin Zalzala did, I didn’t. In fact, I don’t think even Kennedy would be crazy enough to be drunk on such a crucial occasion. The point I was making was that if one pumps poison through one’s brain, day in, day out, year after year, lasting damage will result.
Yasmin … John Leech IS NOT really on the front bench. Virtually all of the parliamentary Lib Dem party have “jobs” as shadow mimicsters and shadow junior mimicsters. John was No 3 of three in transport when there were three in the team. Now there are just two of them he is still No 3 but there is a vacancy at No 2. He is on the transport ctte in Manchester Town Hall but because he has two jobs he has to miss around half the meetings up here. They all get jobs. They all blag them out of proportion on their Focus Newsletters and in their press releases. And around half the new ones get culled by the public at their first defence.
“They all get jobs.”
Not the ones rubber-stamping officers’ decisions, I hope.
Matthew Parris said it all really.
27 et al.
Yes CK was pissed at the manifesto launch and yes it had a significant effect on our poll ratings which were static for around 10 days afterwards.
It was wholly uneccessary too – he could and should have taken at least a week off after the birth of his son and left Ming, Vince and Ed to handle the launch.
No 29:
By the way, this is NOT a criticism of the excellent Lib Dems on Manchester City Council.
It is a snide dig at the lame Labour excuse for Manchester City Council dishing out favours to developers who contribute to Labour’s coffers.
If you wish to revisit the infamous 2005 manifesto launch, then it’s available here. Sarah Teather doesn’t say much. Ming plays a straight bat on Iraq which is where he should have stayed. But Charles Kennedy is simply dreadful. The “muff” is far from being the worst part of it all. He’s dull and meandering, and Matthew Taylor has to rescue him repeatedly. Matthew gives a very crisp and coherent performance. What a shame we’re losing him.
By the way, I notice that Rob Fenwick was in the audience that day. Perhaps he might be willing to share his memories of the occasion. Or maybe he’d rather not descend to the level of our slag-fest!
Mr Morgan:- a quote from Gerg Hurst’s biography of Charles Kennedy covering the manifesto launch:-
“During subsequent exchanges..the broadcasting crews noticed something that struck several Lib Dems whom [Kennedy] spoke to earlier: he smelled powerfully of alcohol. There had been some premonitions that Kennedy had resumed drinking in the run-up to the election, including a fraught visit to Rchmond, south London days before the campaign started. His alchoholism had reappeared at the worst moment.”
Mr Paul:- you wrote “And around half the new ones get culled by the public at their first defence.”
My recollection of the 2005, 2001, 1997 and 1992 general elections is that your half figure is not correct.
Would you share your evidence and numbers for the claim? Thank you.
When Gordon Brown made a statement about the Glasgow Airport bombings he was broadcast walking out of one room, walking along a corridor and entering the press room, and then walking to the podium to make a statement. The background was the doorway and corridor he had just come through. This statement was presumably broadcast around the world. The procedure, which was then reversed, struck me as very amateurish and should of been a head and shoulders shot from start to finish. But then why criticise our enemies when we can criticise our friends.
Anonymous (22)
It is not just Ming, but all their Leaders that Liberals/Liberal Democrats spend their time criticising. Even Jo Grimond, who I believe was the best Leader in the last 60 years.
Can’t remember Jo Grimond. Paddy Ashdown was a great leader, if a touch self-important. Otherwise it’s been dreck.
It doesn’t matter who the leader is: come the next election we’re stuffed, screwed, buggered! Particularly in the south-east. It will indeed be a miracle if we lose less than 10 seats…
Well, at least Mark Oaten will be happy.
We can berate and bemoan our Lib/SDP/LibDem leaders all we want for not grasping the blade which would slice through the jungle of politics and into government in a single stroke, but wouldn’t this have been slightly more likely had we demonstrated slightly more of our conviction and unity of purpose (irrespective of the identity of any nominal individual nominated as the head of our party)?
Leadership is a cruel existence, for sure, but the level of strictures is a measure of the importance of the post and we should never be so satisfied that we lapse into complacent hero-worship.
The impatience with our own leadership is partly reflective of the urgency with which we feel we need to defend our concerns as they are being run roughshod over
The number of attacks on Ming do show a disfavour towards him, but not only that, they also show how seriously we LibDems are taken – far better we are criticised than discounted altogether – as well as how seriously we take ourselves: we are players and we are nudging into contention – it is easy to forget that the final step is the hardest.
The number of attacks on Ming do show a disfavour towards him, but not only that, they also show how seriously we Lib Dems are taken.
This seems to be a very popular delusion, but I fear that the only people taking us seriously at present are hard-core Liberal Democrats.
Laurence Boyce (39)
Get some in !
(Oh dear, in view of your apparent youth, I’ll have to explain that comment. It was usually made by National Service men who had served a greater part of their time (2 years) to National Service men with longer to go.)