Comments on: Opinion: Let’s talk about strengths

By: Denis

Denis — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:44:08 +0000

Stephen, your detailed assessment which kicked off this blog was as perceptive and fair-minded as any of us has a right to expect.
Fopr me it is not so much a matter of trying to nuance any of your comments but more a matter of deciding which of the sets of qualities displayed by these two excellent candidates is more likely to help us win as a party.
I come down on Chris’s side because his experience and knowledge esp. in economics can match Brown and confound Cameron and perhaps even more because the unflappability you describe so well will get him impressively through the very many hostile interviews he will face.
We cannot afford to miss on this one.

By: Joe Otten

Joe Otten — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:25:56 +0000

Matthew, read the instructions again.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:14:45 +0000

17. Voters dont read the small print.

By: Valerie

Valerie — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:16:46 +0000

I should add that I think both candidates are charming.

By: Matthew Huntbach

Matthew Huntbach — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:44:05 +0000

Valerie, we’re trying to be positive here, so let’s say – Clegg’s advantage is that he appeals to the sort of person who is easily taken in by the glib salesman who gets what he wants with personal charm but doesn’t let you see the smallprint.

By: MatGB

MatGB — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:43:23 +0000

Stephen @11 re Steve@9: Like you I’m undecided, but veering closer and closer to Huhne, and Steve’s Blair/Cameron persona is one of the things that puts me off Clegg—I like him, but he does come across as ‘another’ Blair clone, and I do think that sort of thing is past it’s sell-by date, especially with our potential voters.

Clegg is competent, capable and I’ll be happy with him as leader, but I do worry that we won’t do as well under him as we potentially could under Huhne, as has been said a few times already, the only issue our poll ratings have gone up for recently has been on the environment, and while that’s an issue low on my list of priorities, I know I’m atypical.

Clegg’s been good on crime, but it doesn’t seem to have registered as well with voters, despite it being a good line and a potentially good campaign—but then, the media haven’t been covering it well. Um, given that’s his supposed strength?

I remain undecided, and I look forward to tonights QT, where likely I’ll make up my mind (and thus join a campaign for one or t’other).

By: Valerie

Valerie — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:09:47 +0000

Matthew, read the instructions.

I think both candidates are pretty what-you-see-is-what-you-get.

6. Couldn’t agree more, Rob.

By: Matthew Huntbach

Matthew Huntbach — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:27:20 +0000

I have been surprised myself about how strong a reaction I have had to the two candidates when I started out feeling I didn’t particularly care for either of them. For myself, the slightly awkward intellectual nature of Chris appeals to me and comes across as “what you see is what you get”, while the smooth-talking salesman Nick who always seems to be on your side while never making any definite commitments arouses the sort of suspicion I always feel about that sort of personality type “what’s this guy trying to sell me, and where’s the catch?”.

I appreciate my reaction may be a minority one and may be to do with my own personality type. What I appreciate in Chris others may find cold and off-putting, what I dislike in Nick others may find warm and empathetic.

By: Paul Walter

Paul Walter — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:21:10 +0000

Stephen, I’ll go one better than your challenge and say something good about my non-preferred candidate. I agree with you that Nick comes across well and his stand on ID cards (see other blogs) was just the sort of eye-catching principled stand that we need.

By: Ed

Ed — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:42:29 +0000

Oh well, 8 out of the first 10 posts sticking to the theme of being positive about their chosen candidate rather than slagging off the other one is a reasonable result I suppose…

I hated the last leadership election. There was one candidate who I thought could do the job well and two who I was sure could not. Unfortunately, my guy lost and having spent a whole campaign absorbing negatives about Ming it was difficult to raise my morale and enthusiasm afterwards.

This time there are two excellent candidates who have different strengths. Either of them will be very good at the job. That’s why the bile-filled attacks from the ‘Negativista’ sections arent credible.

By: Stephen Tall

Stephen Tall — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:28:23 +0000

9 – Steve, you were doing so well being positive in your first paragraph, then you spoil it by going negative in your second.

Why do candidates’ supporters think that kind of attack will do anything to persuade undecideds like me?

By: tim leunig

tim leunig — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 00:49:00 +0000

I think that this is a very accurate summary of both candidates. Well said!

By: Steve Comer

Steve Comer — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 00:10:58 +0000

You undersetimate Chris Huhne in the empathy stakes. Before the Bristol hustings I was with him on visits to the Bristol Bangladesh Association, a Social Club, and a recycling enterprise.
He showed great empathy, and a grasp of a diverse range of issues.

At the hustings Nick spoke with passion, but irritated many by his failure to give a straight answers to questions. Nick does his ‘CameronBlair’ act well, but that may be past its sell-by date well before the next general election.

By: Laurence Boyce

Laurence Boyce — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:50:13 +0000

The way I see it, everyone in politics is ambitious, nobody in politics is normal, and everybody in politics ought to be intelligent. So factoring out these qualities, it looks like Chris Huhne wins 2-1.

By: Hywel Morgan

Hywel Morgan — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:51:52 +0000

“It took guts (or cojones, to quote Lynne Featherstone) for Chris to take on Ming Campbell in 2006 after just eight months as an MP”

I’m not convinced about this – it was tactically smart as it placed him ahead of the pack as “the next leader” but was fairly risk free as (1) if he wasn’t expected to perform that well and (2) would probably have outperformed expecatations as the media wouldn’t have factored in his SE profile as an ex-MEP. Smart move yes – a gutsy move requires a little more risk IMO.

By: Rob Blackie

Rob Blackie — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:10:36 +0000

Nick’s strength that I particularly like is that he’s willing to explore in public the dilemmas that are inevitable in politics – this isn’t always comfortable or easy but it is necessary – and most of all it is authentic.

By: Peter Welch

Peter Welch — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:39:32 +0000

Yes – well done.

I clam to be the originator of the empathy meme btw.

By: Charlotte Gore

Charlotte Gore — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:25:59 +0000

I think the thing with Nick’s communication style is that he’s mostly unpretentious and manages to come across quite naturally, often almost conversational. His speeches are quite odd because they really don’t feel like ‘speeches’ in the normal sense.

I think this makes him accessible and not off-putting or preachy. It’s something I personally quite like but whether or not the public even notice him, or Huhne, is anyone’s guess at this point.

By: Charlotte Gore

Charlotte Gore — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:19:51 +0000

Yes, I applaud this too and agree with the strengths you’ve listed.

I’m currently doing something very similar on my blog, inviting people today to give ‘one good reason’ for voting for Chris and tomorrow Nick, with a rule that states the reasons must be positive *for* the candidate.

Encouraging people to talk about the positives is a great idea in the long run.

By: Alix

Alix — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:19:25 +0000

You are absolutely bang-on with the empathy. I’ve been struggling to understand why I keep hearing Nick’s a great communicator and not quite agreeing, but at the same time seeing what people mean. You have it exactly.

Your comment on Nick’s whirring mind is interesting. I hear that much more when Chris talks – I remember being impressed with this very quality as a non-member at the last leadership contest. I’d also query your “steadiness” – can we have “hard-arse common sense”? Steadiness sounds boring.